THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 16. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 1. OFFICIAL OATH OF OFFICE. (a) All elected and appointed officers, before they enter upon the duties of their offices, shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:
"I, _______________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will faithfully execute the duties of the office of ___________________ of the State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this State, so help me God."
(b) All elected or appointed officers, before taking the Oath or Affirmation of office prescribed by this section and entering upon the duties of office, shall subscribe to the following statement:
"I, _______________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have not directly or indirectly paid, offered, promised to pay, contributed, or promised to contribute any money or thing of value, or promised any public office or employment for the giving or withholding of a vote at the election at which I was elected or as a reward to secure my appointment or confirmation, whichever the case may be, so help me God."
Does violating this oath amount to treason?
In both cases (it seems to me) the leaving was to block legislation by artifice rather than by voting, which is what legislators are elected to do; to vote.
The Oregon oath of office is similar to Texas':
The Actual Oath of Office Public Servants in Oregon are Required to Take
Article IV, Legislative Section 31. Oath of members.
I do solemnly swear (or affirm as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Oregon, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of Senator (or Representative as the case may be) according to the best of my Ability, And such oath may be administered by the Govenor (sic), Secretary of State, or a judge of the Supreme Court.
So I would say the Oregon republicans were (or are) in about the same legal position as those Texas dems.
Basically legislators aren't above the law and they don't make laws unless by voting.
However, a major question would be the question of fraud in the electing of the various legislators. That's for another time.
It's definitely a similar position. The bill the Oregon republicans were protesting against was a climate change law that would add carbon credits and pretty much destroy business in the state. They didn't have enough votes to go up against the Dem majority, so they fled the state.
The main reason I bring this up, is i've seen a lot of comments condemning the Dems on this, but there are cases in which this tactic can be used if the legislators feel strongly enough about the stance they're taking to become fugitives to avoid a law being put in place.
I think the details behind each case provide some contrast as well. In the case of Oregon, the legislators simply drove out of the city, and went to live with family in different part of the country. And in phone interviews seemed to express a certain deal of regret to the situation.
They didn't rent a private plane, and all fly away to DC smiling to spend tons of money of fancy hotels. If they had driven to seek refuge with family in NY or something, then the two situations would be very similar. How ever, since they did rent a plane, yeah, they're total commy scum bags.
Well was the dem law constitutional?