Alabama Representative Mo Brooks of Huntsville is facing rare political problems: he may become the first member of the Alabama Congress to be censored.
The rarities also put Brooks in some disturbing company: if his censorship passed the House of Representatives, the Huntsville Republican would become the first congressman to face disciplinary action for inciting an insurrection since the Civil War, over 160 years ago.
“In the modern era, in the past 100 years, the only censorship in the House has been for scandals, whether financial or sexual,” said Allan Lichtman, professor of history at American University in Washington, DC “If Brooks were censored for inciting insurrection, that would it would be unprecedented in the modern era for the United States. “
He added: “You have to go back to the Civil War, when some were censored for supporting the Confederacy. It would be a profound statement of reprimand against the representative being censored for such an unpatriotic act. “
Brooks on Tuesday issued an extensive press release defending himself against the censorship resolution tabled by Democratic representatives Tom Malinowski of New Jersey and Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida. In the statement, Brooks denied prior knowledge of the January 6 uprising in the Capitol building, after a fiery speech in which he pleaded with American “patriots” to begin “cancel names and kick asses”.
Brooks, defending himself from a “square” that has never smoked tobacco and never had a problem with the law, said he is not associated with or communicated with anti-government groups that violated the Capitol and ransacked the historic building while Congress was in session. Brooks said he was in the building at the time it was flooded by violent Trump supporters, and that his comments at the rally were taken out of context by Democrats and the media.
But Malinowski, during a CNN appearance on Monday, said he felt confident he had enough votes to censor Brooks. He said he hoped Republicans would support his resolution. It is not clear when the resolution could be put to a vote or whether it will be voted on before taking office next week, or whether it will be postponed to a later date.
A shame
A censorship vote also requires only a simple majority vote in the House of Representatives.
Thomas Shaw, associate professor of political science at the University of South Alabama, said this is likely to happen considering statements by Republican Representative Liz Cheney of Wyoming that accountability is necessary to tackle the Capitol violence that has resulted in five deaths , including Capitol Policeman Brian Sicknick, who was reportedly hit in the head by a fire extinguisher by protesters.
“It won’t be extensive, but there will be some bipartisan support for that,” said Shaw. “It is very likely to happen. It was a turning point in the history of the United States that the Capitol was attacked in what is described as an act of terrorism. “
Shaw said the censorship against Brooks will be a “blemish on his record”, but it will not be “horrible” as it does not mean that the congressman will be expelled from his typical parliamentary duties.
The resolution requires Brooks to “report to the House of Representatives well” for the censorship pronouncement.
“Throughout his career, he has had no ethical violations,” said Shaw. “But the Republicans, being a minority in the Chamber, would not have presidencies that could be removed from him. Otherwise, he maintains his powers, voting capacity and office. “
Shaw added: “It is a kind of public shame. The question is ‘how bad is it?’ Aside from the shameful aspects, it doesn’t mean much. “
Constitutional applications
If the House votes for Brooks’ censorship, it will be the first time that the same disciplinary procedure allowed by the U.S. Constitution has been used since 2010, when US Democratic deputy Charles Rangel of New York was censored for his role in financial crimes.
Lichtman said that Brooks has no other recourse to fight censorship than in the Democratic-controlled House. The Constitution prescribes that censorship resolutions focus on members of their respective homes.
There were only eight cases of censorship in the Senate, with the most notable occurring in 1954 against Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, who made unsubstantiated claims that several Soviet spies and sympathizers had infiltrated the federal government, universities and elsewhere.
Members of Congress may also face reprimand, which is seen as less severe punishment, but has been used more frequently since the 1970s. A dozen lawmakers have been reprimanded in the House, including former House Speaker Newt Gingrich in 1997, for providing false information to the Chamber’s Supervisory Committee. A reprimand does not require the legislator to appear before the Chamber and have the resolution read to them.
Expulsion is the most serious punishment against a member of Congress and requires a two-thirds vote of most members of the legislature. Only five members of the Chamber were expelled, and three of them were related to support for the Confederate rebellion in 1861.
Four elected deputies were expelled before taking office, but the most recent instance was challenged in the Federal Court. In 1967, former New York representative Adam Clayton Powell – involved in a financial scandal at the time – was denied an oath by then Mayor John William McCormick. Powell, who was re-elected to his seat in Congress in 1966, sued McCormick and several others arguing that his failure to take the oath represented an exclusion that would require two-thirds of the House’s vote. The Supreme Court ruled that Powell was unfairly expelled from his seat.
Allen Linken, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Alabama, said the Powell case illustrates the “finite” considerations of being a member of the House of Representatives – the Constitution requires its members to be at least 25 years old, a citizen American for seven years and lives in the same state he represents.
“It doesn’t matter what ethical considerations or issues you face outside the (legislative) body,” said Linken. “You are sitting.”
He said that a constitutional issue that could be interesting in the Brooks case is whether Article 1, Section 6 of the Constitution could be applied if the congressman faces a criminal charge for inciting a riot. The District Attorney General of Columbia is considering prosecuting Brooks and others for inciting violence on Capitol Hill.
The Constitution states that in all cases – excluding treason, crime and breach of peace – a member of Congress has “the privilege of being arrested during his participation” at a Congressional session on the Capitol floor. But the Constitution also states that the privilege is extended to members of Congress “in coming and going from it”.
“What a member usually says on the floor of the Chamber is privileged,” said Linken. “Going back and forth from the scene, I think there is a decent discussion to be had as to whether Representative Brooks was going to a joint session of Congress or not (when he spoke during the Trump rally).”
But Linken notes that the constitutional clause does not apply to the censorship resolution.
“A Chamber action is not a prison,” he said. “It is a consequence of your employer, and not a criminal charge.”
Historical comparisons
Brooks’ censorship, if it occurs, is something Alabama has never experienced before with one of its members of Congress.
Steve Flowers, an Alabama political commentator who served with Brooks in the Alabama Legislature in the early 1980s, said the state has had “very learned senators and congressmen” since the 1960s Civil Rights era, highlighted by Senators John Sparkman and Lister Hill who were both “respected”. He said there has been no action in the past in recent history that would lead to disciplinary action against a member of Congress in Alabama.
“In other southern states like South Carolina and Mississippi, their senators were considered more racist than they would demagogate the racial issue (during the civil rights era) and our senators would never do that,” said Flowers. “They would vote for segregation because they were obliged. But nobody was as controversial as Brooks. It was only in the last decade or so that the Mo Brooks of this world, the reactionary bomb-throwers who are truly ideologues, were elected. “
Brooks’ censorship also stands out because other controversial moments involving Alabama congressmen have not resulted in a similar rebuke from colleagues.
Former Alabama congressman Tom “Cotton” Heflin. ((The Birmingham News / Alabama Media Group / AL.com)
The most terrible moment involving a member of the Alabama Congressional delegation occurred about 113 years ago and involved Democratic Rep. Thomas “Cotton” Heflin, who served in the United States House from 1904 to 1920. During that time, Heflin – a prohibitionist and racist – saw a black man sitting on a tram in Washington, DC, drinking whiskey with a white woman, according to a historical account. During the confrontation, Heflin threw the man off the tram and shot him in the leg. The bullet also hit a white viewer. Heflin was arrested, but the black man did not appear at the trial and the charges were dropped. Heflin paid a portion of the passerby’s medical bills and then bragged about the incident while campaigning for the United States Senate. Heflin served in the 1920-1931 Senate.
Other members of Congress had questionable backgrounds before they were elected. Democratic Senator Hugo Black, before being elected to the Senate in 1927, resigned as a member of the Ku Klux Klan in 1925.
“The Tom Heflin incident was the most egregious event,” said Wayne Flynt, Alabama’s political historian and emeritus professor at Auburn University. “The only others that may have led to censorship are one of those retrospective ways that some judge history, applying the standards of one generation to the previous. By that standard, Alabama senators before the civil war owned slaves, and the state’s most liberal senator, Hugo Black, was briefly a member of the KKK during the 1920s, as were almost all of Alabama’s ambitious politicians. “
Related Content: Huntsville Mayor Doesn’t Support Mo Brooks: ‘Words Have Meaning’