this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2023
123 points (93.0% liked)
United States | News & Politics
7154 readers
304 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Considering that the interim speaker’s only job is to hold votes on the election of a new house speaker, and that no other house business can continue until a new speaker is chosen, this is clearly a petty, political move.
Good point.
That's just false. We're not where we were last January, and the Speaker Pro Tempore can preside over business which isn't electing the new Speaker. That's why we're not currently panicking about the shutdown returning - if you were right, there would be no time to vote on funding the government, and the shutdown would be inevitable.
That's true, all members are sworn in and committees are still in place
I don't think that part is true. Every time someone quotes House rules on this, that says that the temporary Speaker can run the chamber, they leave out the bits where the temporary powers are "pending the election of a Speaker". And in this case, "pending" means "in anticipation", and implies that the only thing this temporary Speaker can do is call to elect a permanent one.
The House is the final authority of it's own rules. If they say the Speaker Pro Tempore can conduct house business, then he can. End of discussion.
Not quite. The Constitution says that there must be a Speaker, chosen by its members. The Speaker Pro Tem was picked by a single member, the outgoing speaker, based on a list he provided prior to exiting. He does not meet the Constitutional requirement to fill the chair, and will not unless the entire body chooses him.
He is Speaker for the present. Constitutionally he fulfills the position of speaker of the house. At this point the house can decide how they want to proceed.
No, he does not.
That implies a vote among the whole membership, not some list some guy made.
The house has chosen the new speaker. He is an interim because of the agreement of the house to hold another vote at some point. But he is for all intents and purposes the new speaker. The house members voted to replace the former speaker with a temporary one, that is how they chose. Additionally the voting system can be anything the house wants it to be. If the house says that the current speaker gets to choose the new speaker, that would fulfill the requirement. There is not specific method the house has to use to choose the new speaker.
They could have foot race, and the winner of that foot race is the new speaker. Totally constitutionally legal. They can also choose a new speaker in any manner they wish.
As far as how the current speaker of the house was chosen. From the public timeline of the The House (reverse chronological order):
04:46:55 PM The House received a message from the Acting Clerk. The Acting Clerk notified the House that the Honorable Patrick T. McHenry is the first name on the letter he received pursuant to clause 8(b)(3)(B) of rule I.
04:46:33 PM The Chair announced that the Office of the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives is hereby declared vacant.
04:45:30 PM H. Res. 757 On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 216 - 210 (Roll no. 519).
https://ethics.house.gov/sites/ethics.house.gov/files/documents/117-House-Rules-Clerk.pdf clause 8(b)(3)(B) of rule I
"(A) In the case of a vacancy in the Office of Speaker, the next Member on the list described in subdivision (B) shall act as Speaker pro tempore until the election of a Speaker or a Speaker pro tempore. Pending such election the Member acting as Speaker pro tempore may exercise such authorities of the Office of Speaker as may be necessary and appropriate to that end. (B) As soon as practicable after the election of the Speaker and whenever appropriate thereafter, the Speaker shall deliver to the Clerk a list of Members in the order in which each shall act as Speaker pro tempore under subdivision"
So to translate. According to the rules of the current session of congress (117th) that was ratified by the house of representatives after they were seated in January 2022. If the Speaker has been declared vacant by the majority of representatives, then Rule 1 Section 8 will be invoked. So that list that "some guy" made, is the actual and constitutional next speaker of the house. End of story. There is nothing magic about it. It was just the agreed upon rules of this congress from 10 months ago.
This is so, so wrong. The motion was to "vacate the chair", not to play musical chairs. The chair is still vacant. There is no constitutionally empowered Speaker, just a guy the House agrees can help it choose the next one, once he gets around to it.
Is that PowerCrazy guy still arguing about it? I blocked his nonsense so I can only assume that’s what’s happening here.
edit: tbf, it could be someone or something else
Can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink. I hope you don't vote.
Honestly, we don't know.
This is the first time that the Speaker Pro Tempore position has actually been filled, and it was originally intended to have Congress function after an attack while also providing for a line of succession to the President.
It is expected that the House is going to need to elect a new Speaker, as that election is going to impact how the House runs itself.
They can just give the Speaker Pro Tempore more powers like that?
Why bother with electing a new Speaker then?
A new speaker is constitutionally required, however the Speaker Pro Tempore fulfills that constitutional requirement. Once that requirement has been filled, the house is free to run itself in whatever manner it chooses including rearranging the office furniture while the country is on fire.
I'm asking why not just keep the Speaker Pro Tempore? Why have a vote at all?
Because that would allow an ongoing process of just appointing a new Speaker pro tempore by the current Speaker (or current pro tempore), then voting to remove the current Speaker and let the new tempore take over, etc, so the Speaker is never voted in by a majority by both sides. It’s an intentional limit to make sure the current party cannot just keep passing the ball without input from the other side except to remove whoever is currently in the position.
The house can if they want. But presumably some plurality of the house would prefer a different speaker, so that vote will probably happen at some point in the future. It doesn't have to though.