US House TVIV: Watch me (Whip/nay nay)

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > US House TVIV: Watch me (Whip/nay nay)

OddObserver: Apr 3, 2009

I imagine they could in theory pass a rules package that makes the Speaker about as important as Senate President pro-Tempore, and operates totally different from now, but that seems less likely than GOP deciding to vote for Hillary Clinton as speaker in practice

# ¿ Jan 4, 2023 04:00

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 14:59

OddObserver: Apr 3, 2009

AtraMorS posted:

I'm not a lawyer but you got me curious. If I'm wrong about any of this, I'd be delighted to learn more.

I believe you are right that the Constitution does not require the House to choose a Speaker as its first order of business (it only establishes the position of Speaker and charges the House with selecting one). However, the requirement to take care of the Speaker's chair first doesn't come from House rules either. It's part of US law and alteration would require the whole legislative process, which cannot happen right now because of that law. The relevant section states:

Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/2/25

The quoted section is only marginally different from the wording in the first piece of legislation passed by the US Congress, way back in 1789: An Act to regulate the Time and Manner of administering certain Oaths. The text of the original 1789 act can (hopefully) be found here: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Statutes_at_Large/Volume_1/1st_Congress/1st_Session/Chapter_1

I am confused at to how that is constitutional, given that "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings", and this seems to give the Senate and the President veto on the House of Representatives' rules .

# ¿ Jan 4, 2023 13:45

OddObserver: Apr 3, 2009

cr0y posted:

The Democrats should just turn this into a giant loving circus, wear silly costumes, eat pizza with their feet kicked up on the chairs, do bong rips, play beer pong in the aisles, have a karaoke station.

Any Republican that votes for Jeffries gets a ticket to the ice cream bar.

I would do it differently, and instead have them sit around with draft bills discussing them --- look serious to GOP's clowns.

# ¿ Jan 4, 2023 22:21

OddObserver: Apr 3, 2009

Randalor posted:

So that would be 212 votes for Jeffries, followed by 212 votes for "Deez Nutz", then 201 votes for McCarthy? I'm fine with that.

I feel bad that I thought of Scalise for the second choice there...

# ¿ Jan 5, 2023 15:13

OddObserver: Apr 3, 2009

Barrel Cactaur posted:

we cut out about the monstrous tumor of slavery but kept in basically all the stupid.

The system literally cant handle not having a majority. Its paralyzed until someone blinks or 2 years when they all loose. Imagine what a genuine 3rd party would do to this monster if you had more regional factionalism (like east coast, west coast and midlands) or some other three way split. a binary of national level coalitions is the only stable pattern.

While you are right the system has tons of problems, I don't think it ultimately is the important factor (beyond the workings of elections). Just about every system is workable if people at least somewhat act in good faith, and it's also very hard for any democratic system to do anything useful if the voters select a majority of the chamber that's uninterested in anything resembling constructive governing. (Though admittedly the split government does mean that the GOP would be limited to negotiations on budget priorities and investigations of Hunter Biden's penis, which limits the scope of engagement; of course it also reduces the chance of them Liz Trussing the country).

For the House in particular, nothing legal is preventing a set of rules compatible with a coalition, perhaps with the speaker being largely unimportant.

# ¿ Jan 6, 2023 05:02

OddObserver: Apr 3, 2009

The Lone Badger posted:

Isn't a nonfunctioning House way more strategically valuable to the dems than any level of 'moderation' in the choice of speaker?

No, since the Democrats want a budget to be passed every year.

# ¿ Jan 6, 2023 06:06

OddObserver: Apr 3, 2009

Judgy Fucker posted:

Why would the Dems negotiate with McCarthy or anyone else in the Republican caucus? The last decade, if not generation, has shown them to behave in bad faith as their default modus operandi. Any deals/concessions would have to be viewed with extreme suspicion. Just look at the supposed concessions McCarthy has offered to the holdouts!

Flip side I think is that it's extremely unlikely to end up worse for the country than whatever GOP would end up with on their own, though you are absolutely right that it's hard to trust they will honor the deal (and it's unclear the GOP leadership can even guarantee that even if acting in best faith possible).

# ¿ Jan 6, 2023 16:55

OddObserver: Apr 3, 2009

Narcissus1916 posted:

Since when do they have a stiffy for term limits?

At least 1994?

# ¿ Jan 7, 2023 00:04

OddObserver: Apr 3, 2009

Raenir Salazar posted:

Essentially term limits would make it easier for lobbyists to further sink their teeth into people.

e: Mandatory retirement ages might be alright through.

In either case, if one doesn't want the lobbyist power, the limit has to be bootstrapped in a way that doesn't affect a very large portion of chamber at once, which is a little tricky, but maybe it can apply to oldest 10% each term for people who were in power when elected or something?

# ¿ Jan 7, 2023 00:32

OddObserver: Apr 3, 2009

Mecca-Benghazi posted:

No speaker means no rules means no geometry

A Non-Euclidean Legislature sounds like a Leslie Lamport paper.

# ¿ Jan 7, 2023 01:34

OddObserver: Apr 3, 2009

Gyges posted:

So, if we have a Speaker but no rules, do we at least have a House of Representatives playing Calvinball?

Not yet, people need to be sworn in at least.

# ¿ Jan 7, 2023 02:36

OddObserver: Apr 3, 2009

A GIANT PARSNIP posted:

The people ultimately have the right to elect a nonagenarian vegetable.

The people ultimately also have a right to elect a 34 year old that immigrated to the US as a one week old baby to the office of the President, too, but the Constitution disagrees; amending it to exclude nonagenarian vegetables would not be that far out the field.

# ¿ Jan 7, 2023 02:54

OddObserver: Apr 3, 2009

A GIANT PARSNIP posted:

Seems like more of a reason to remove the natural born citizen clause, especially since we�re not so worried about The King sneaking his Royal Blood into the office anymore.

Also my preferred interpretation of this clause is that anyone born via c section is not eligible to be president.

Ah, the MacDuff clause? Wonder if Madison got a warning from some Witches.

# ¿ Jan 7, 2023 03:12

OddObserver: Apr 3, 2009

Youth Decay posted:

The poo poo's coming out the other end now

https://twitter.com/mkraju/status/1611552098474426368

I hate to sympathize with GOP congresspeople but "midnightish on Friday" really isn't a good time to be going through important and technical legal stuff. Probably way later than that considering they also have to swear people in.

# ¿ Jan 7, 2023 03:55

OddObserver: Apr 3, 2009

Old James posted:

What bills/votes McCarthy agreed to allow is not part of the rules vote.

It's also not very important, given the control of Senate and Presidency.

# ¿ Jan 7, 2023 06:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 10, 2024 14:59

OddObserver: Apr 3, 2009

koolkal posted:

There is a close to 0% chance Santos gets removed.

The extradition request from Brazil will be pretty awkward; I wish I understood the kinda-immunity stuff in the Constitution.

OddObserver fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Jan 8, 2023

# ¿ Jan 8, 2023 00:42

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > US House TVIV: Watch me (Whip/nay nay)