We have a quite the serious Constitutional quagmire here. 20th Amendment states that:
and the terms of Senators and Representatives [shall end] at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin [...]
Riddle me this....
How are purported House members-elect lawfully participating in House business (election of a Speaker), if they are not actually members of the House until they are sworn in, which according to House rules, cannot happen until the election of a Speaker?
Sounds like the Constitution is long overdue for an amendment to clarify this glaring oversight by the Framers.
Furthermore, if our House has been functioning in such a disfunctional, arguably unconstitutional manner, seemingly since the beginning, have we ever truly had a legitimate Congress?
Time for a new Convention of the States to settle some of these big issues.
Their terms start at noon on January 3. Swearing into office is a formality. Their own rules dictate how their business is conducted, and it seems that most of their business is contingent upon the election of a Speaker.
Wrong. It's a requirement of the Constitution before legally being allowed to hold the office.
Correct, but their rules must follow the Constitution.
The election of the Speaker is House business, conducted by members of the House, to which one cannot be a member unless they've taken the oath required by the Constitution.
Legal procedures matter.
The election of the Speaker is carried out by the previous members of the House, with the members-elect casting the ballots.
Aren't members. Members are members. Just like POTUS-elect isn't POTUS, until he takes the oath and is inaugurated POTUS. Imagine if a POTUS-elect tried to make treaties, issue pardons, or order the military into combat in December, before lawfully being seated to the actual office...