Texas Rep. proposes challenge to stop DSA members from taking oath
A congressional rule allows members to question if colleagues will uphold the Constitution, a move Republicans are weighing for the incoming class.
By Matthew Qureshi ·
Rep. Keith Self of Texas said he may invoke a little-known rule to stop Democratic Socialists of America members from being sworn into the House next year. The maneuver would allow any member-elect to challenge a colleague's right to take the oath of office. If successful, the House would vote on whether the challenger has the right to join the chamber.
Self told Fox News Digital that the oath is a belief, not just a ceremony. He argued that members cannot support the Constitution while working to destroy it. The DSA platform calls for scrapping the current U.S. Constitution and drafting a new one. Self said the House has a duty to ensure the oath is taken in good faith without mental reservation.
The proposal relies on an analysis by the Center for Renewing America. The group stated that an objecting member should present a documentary record to the House. The chamber would then debate whether that evidence shows the member-elect is committed to destroying the constitutional order. A subsequent vote on a resolution could block the member from taking their seat.
Rep. Tim Burchett of Tennessee also plans to use this method. He intends to challenge Darializa Avila Chevalier, a Democrat from a deep-blue district in New York. Burchett cited a 2019 post by Chevalier where she boasted about wiping her hands on the American flag. Chevalier unseated a senior House Democrat in her primary and is expected to win her general election next week.
The outcome depends on who becomes the next speaker. If House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York is elected, he could dismiss the challenge. Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana could also choose to ignore it if Republicans keep their majority. Johnson called the idea of refusing to seat elected Democrats a nonsense narrative during an event in Iowa this month.
Legal experts note the move conflicts with Supreme Court precedent. The 1969 case Powell v. McCormack ruled that the House cannot exclude a candidate who meets the constitutional requirements of age, residency, and citizenship. In that case, the House barred Adam Clayton Powell Jr. from taking his seat after he won re-election in 1966. The Supreme Court overturned that decision.
Powell Jr. had been embroiled in financial scandals at the time. The House adopted a resolution barring him from his seat, but the court ruled he should have been allowed to serve. The current proposal by Republicans to revisit this maneuver remains under consideration as the new Congress prepares to convene.
