Congress is an institution bound by rules and procedures. The Constitution is the beacon which, in theory, these rules and procedures aspire to follow. They have rules for everything from when a member may speak, to how long they may speak, and sometimes to whom. These rules and procedures are intended to ensure that governance is fair and efficient. Some rules are in place to promote civility and decorum within the Chambers of Congress. Others purport to protect the minority members against the mob rule of the majority. It is one such rule that recently caused a rumble of discontent among Democratic lawmakers. The offending rule was the Motion to Recommit.
Motion to Recommit is a procedural rule with the intended purpose of allowing the minority body one final opportunity to debate or amend a bill prior to it’s passing. Most often, it’s use is unsuccessful because it requires a certain level of bipartisan support to succeed, and the majority leadership typically “discourages” such displays that could potentially place a bill in jeopardy.
The current Congress, however, has already seen three successful Motions to Recommitt, mainly because there are a number of House Democrats who’s seats are not as solidified as they would like. House moderates are faced with the difficult reality that towing the Party line can cost them dearly at the polls.
The most recent Motion to Recommitt was made in relation to the hotly contested bill to mandate Universal Background Checks. The bill, which passed through the House, faces a tough uphill battle in the Senate, and a promised veto by President Trump, should the Democrats somehow manage to get it through the Senate. This is an important contextual fact, in that the bill will almost certainly be killed long before it becomes law. There’s not a lot of meat on this political bone.
The house Republicans motioned for Recommitt to attach an amendment mandating that if an illegal immigrant is found to be attempting to purchase a firearm, that ICE be notified to possibly deport the offender. This amendment was successfully attached due to support from 26 moderate Democrats who need to keep their moderate voter base happy if they wish to be re-elected.
This bipartisan display, even though it stemmed from a sense of self preservation, drew the ire of fellow Democrats. Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi lectured the Democratic Caucus about the need to oppose the GOP procedurals en masse, and to do otherwise was not being a “team player”.
Media Darling and Champagne Socialist Alexandria Ocassio Cortez expressed her anger even more boldly, threatening to place Democrats who reach across the aisle on a “list” she would forward to her army of progressive activists. She indicated that she considered voting against the long sought after gun control bill in opposition to the amendment. ICE has long been the target for progressives like AOC who would seek to abolish the agency and allow open borders.
This brings up a very interesting truth that nobody as yet is discussing. The NICS system for background checks provides for a 10 year imprisonment/$250,000 fine for knowingly attempting to Illegally purchase a firearm.. This penalty is what every citizen attempting to legally purchase a gun must sign and acknowledge.
If, as Democrats have claimed for years, they want “common sense gun legislation and control”, then how could they possibly be opposed to a person who is here Illegally and seeking to illegally buy a gun, to be remanded to ICE for deportation?
The answer is simple, really. They have, with their reaction to one amendment to a meaningless bill that’s almost certain to die in committee, proven to the American people that Democrats like Pelosi and Cortez care more about illegals than they do American citizens.
The truth about their values has finally been revealed.