Bye, George, Santos expulsion raising questions, eyebrows

And then there were 434.

In a precedent-setting move, the United States House of Representatives removed one of their own — New York Representative George Santos — after a House Ethics Committee report alleged wrongdoing on multiple fronts.

Santos is just the sixth House member to be expelled, but the first in modern times to be booted without being convicted of a crime.

To be clear, Congress acted within its powers. But I think it was unfair and dangerous, for now the bar has been lowered to where a duly elected representative can be removed because colleagues don’t approve of that member’s alleged behavior, with due process seemingly an afterthought.

It’s bad enough that the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” has increasingly come under attack in this country, but when it is shrugged off by the very people responsible for making our laws, respect for the American “rule of law” takes a hit.

This is not a defense of Santos, but of his rights.

Clearly, the former congressman faces a difficult road since, in addition to the ethics report, he faces a 23-count federal indictment.

But here are the two most important aspects of that situation: He has pled not guilty, and he does not go to trial until

September.

Oh, and Santos announced that he would not seek re-election.

So let’s get this straight: A sitting congressman, who isn’t on the ballot next November, was expelled from that hallowed body because some of his colleagues — on the basis of yet-unproven allegations — decided he was unfit for office.

If that isn’t usurping power from the people because “Big Brother knows best,” what is?

The removal of Santos smacks of government overreach, with Congress swooping in to save the people from themselves. If I were a Santos constituent, I’d be insulted.

Leaders should realize that the American people are fully capable of making their own decisions, thank you very much, and don’t need a paternalistic government looking over their shoulders and pulling rank whenever it doesn’t approve of something.

With a proud tradition of free and fair elections going back two and half centuries, Americans have earned the right to make their own choices and not have those decisions obviated by anyone.

So why expel now, with only 11 months until the 2024 election?

Was it because Santos couldn’t fulfill his duties, and therefore was removed to ensure his constituents were effectively represented?

I don’t think so, since how being under indictment negatively impacts a congressman’s ability to do his day-to-day job remains unclear to me.

Can he not propose legislation? Pull a voting lever? Advocate issues and co-sponsor legislation? Of course he can.

Did Democrats vote for removal so that they could improve their position in the chamber, since the GOP was already working with a razor-thin majority often at odds with itself?

And did Republicans jettison Mr. Santos to distance themselves, and their party, from the negative headlines engulfing their colleague?

Is expulsion being used as a political tool, in much the same way that some on both sides now invoke calls for impeachment for seemingly political reasons?

Let’s hope not, for what goes around, comes around. And that kind of karma is the last thing Congress needs.

Yesterday, congressional expulsions followed convictions. Today, it is done on accusations. What will it be tomorrow? An unpopular opinion?

Using legislative maneuvers to tie up Congress? Missing votes? Unfavorable constituent ratings?

Don’t laugh. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia faced an expulsion effort in 2021, despite no criminal charges.

Unproven allegations should not rise to the level of demanding a politician resign, or advocating expulsion.

The Founding Fathers came up with an ingenuous mechanism for removing officials from office: elections, where voters decide whether leaders have earned a return ticket.

On that note, kudos to the Republican leadership for not advocating expulsion and, by extension, not whipping votes to that end. It was a principled stand.

On a different front, here’s a question: How can Republicans vote to oust a charged-butnot-convicted George Santos — a clear message that he was unfit for elected office — but then turn around and not just defend, but wholeheartedly support, the multiply-charged-butnot-convicted Donald Trump for the highest office in the land?

Should Trump be penalized electorally because he faces four criminal indictments (both state and federal)? Should he be kept off the ballot, as some advocate?

In the strongest possible terms, I believe the answer to both is a resounding “no.”

And for the most basic of reasons: He pled not guilty, he has not been convicted, and criminal convictions do not prevent one from becoming president.

Sure, there are differences in the Trump and Santos situations, but the point remains that the rights of American voters should not be infringed, since we the people are uniquely empowered to elect our leaders.

But if the government usurps that duty, then the Great Experiment

will stand on the brink of failure.

To recap, I don’t believe politicians should call on elected officials to resign or expel them without due process, for it is not their place.

Sure, what they perceive as political baggage may hurt their party, but politics should be irrelevant.

An un-convicted lawmaker should be accountable to only one entity: the electorate.

And it is they, not political leaders, who should decide whether an elected official is fit for office. Allegations and bad judgment, while not desirable, never should rise to the level of expulsion.

The single greatest threat to a unified America is double standards, or, as George Orwell aptly stated in “Animal Farm”: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

Due process should not be selective, and innocent until proven guilty should never be open to interpretation.

They are rights that should be applied equally, without prejudice, to everyone.

For the sake of all Americans, here’s hoping that future Congresses will expel the notion of removing members before they have their day in court.