Vacate Watch - Speaker Mike Johnson (R - LA)

[Dribble]

The House makes the rules of the House. If they change the rules via the current House rules, then there is no Constitutional issue.

So...you support a non-elected acting pro tempore...can be given power by a simple majority vote. Well we know where you stand

 

[ll74]

Well...maybe. Gaetz is a moron and doesn't know what he is talking about...but there is a potential Constitutional issue

Yes, the House can change the Rules by a 50%+1 majority. But the problem...or potential problem...arises in that McHenry was not voted on...he got the position as a result of a "secret" list. If McHenry was voted on by the House as a whole...no issues. The House can freely change his duties. By changing his duties now...the order is reversed...making a potential Constitutional issue.

I think this is a bad idea...but I would like the Supreme Court to weigh in on this first...and then have a list of accepted agenda. For example, an extension of the continuing resolution of the budget as approved under McCarthy...funding for Ukraine, Israel...and humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people...and that's all.

This is a dangerous precedent

Also worth mentioning - precedent was fucked when Gaetz vacated the Speaker chair

 

[Dribble]

not to mention it was a house rule that a serving speaker has to have a "secret list" of names to potentially take an interim place if the speaker's incapacitated/deposed

And that's the whole crux to this...and where the Constitutionality comes into play. It was acceptable for an acting position...they have no power

 

[Dribble]

Also worth mentioning - precedent was fucked when Gaetz vacated the Speaker chair

Along with the Democrats. But that was the Rules accepted...by a vote. I have no issue with that. It was a stupid rule...but it followed Constitutional protocol

 

[ll74]

Along with the Democrats. But that was the Rules accepted...by a vote. I have no issue with that. It was a stupid rule...but it followed Constitutional protocol

Constitutional protocol are that the House makes the rules for the house.

 

[butters]

the rule that makes a speaker have the list in the first place is a little suspect, though it may be those names HAVE to consist of current house members...this i am not sure about but thought that's what was stated...it is more of a courtesy list to provide a smooth transition of power from one speaker to the next, with the interim person merely facilitating that. The reason any of this has to be dealt with now is because the republican house is a shitshow that is incapable (apparently) of doing business as usual in the People's House.

 

[Dribble]

the rule that makes a speaker have the list in the first place is a little suspect, though it may be those names HAVE to consist of current house members...this i am not sure about but thought that's what was stated...it is more of a courtesy list to provide a smooth transition of power from one speaker to the next, with the interim person merely facilitating that. The reason any of this has to be dealt with now is because the republican house is a shitshow that is incapable (apparently) of doing business as usual in the People's House.

Well...it is suspect if it anyone on that list is given power. But it does make sense in the case of death protocols are followed. As long as the position keeps the acting designation....secret doesn't bother me.

 

[Dribble]

Constitutional protocol are that the House makes the rules for the house.

Read the Rules and the Constitution. There is doubt here. If the "acting" speaker had been voted on...you are correct. But he wasn't. Therefore...he has not been given power to bring up a rule change to the floor.

 

[butters]

Senate 'filling the void', bi-partisanship (even if it meals doing a deal with the devil you know): politicians working for America

As his last act before getting ousted, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) made the Senate swallow a spending bill without Ukraine aid that his conservative members opposed. But with a Nov. 17 shutdown deadline less than a month away and Ohio GOP Rep. Jim Jordan’s speaker bid sputtering, the next confrontation over federal funding is looking very different.

That’s in large part because McConnell, after enduring public scrutiny of his health all summer, is embracing a generous aid package for Ukraine and Israel and is in harmony with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer on the framework of that legislation. The Senate minority leader faces real internal opposition of his own, but at the moment his anti-shutdown, pro-Ukraine position at least gives Democratic leaders a Republican they can talk to.

“The House is frankly usually pretty independent and wants to do their own thing. But if they don't have a thing to do, then that creates a situation where the Senate passes something — and then they'll have no choice but to take it or leave it,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a top McConnell deputy. “Colloquially known as 'being jammed'.”

The Senate also has its own problems: A stalled spending measure that they'd wanted to tackle with bipartisan buy-in, the indictment of Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and an unprecedented backlog of military promotions. But the upper chamber looks positively well-oiled compared to the leaderless House.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...31&cvid=487e751f8d074802bcf509c5d1db4ebd&ei=9

 

[Dribble]

I wouldn’t want our corrupt Supreme Court weighing in on anything.

I understand this. But that is their job. As is...there is doubt this is Constitutional. Two days ago...I was against it...but was OK if it happened. As I learned more about the process and why...I now have severe doubts. This is not a "House rule" change because the acting speaker does not have the authority to oversee that.

 

[RoryN]

House GOP meeting is going on 3 hours without clear path yet for McHenry resolution​

The House GOP Conference meeting is now going on three hours and has grown increasingly heated, with no clear path forward on a resolution to temporarily empower interim Speaker Patrick McHenry.

Lawmakers in the room are debating the resolution — which has received fierce pushback from conservatives and others in the conference, despite the fact that Speaker designee Jim Jordan has gotten behind the idea. Others have argued that such a move is the only viable option to re-open the House given that no speaker candidate seems to be able to get 217 votes.

But some lawmakers say the prospects for the resolution look grim right now.

Florida Rep. Vern Buchanan, who voted against Jordan's speakership bid in the second round of voting Wednesday, said the measure appears “dead.”

Source: CNN
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/house-speaker-vote-10-19-23/index.html

 

[butters]

House GOP meeting is going on 3 hours without clear path yet for McHenry resolution​

The House GOP Conference meeting is now going on three hours and has grown increasingly heated, with no clear path forward on a resolution to temporarily empower interim Speaker Patrick McHenry.

Lawmakers in the room are debating the resolution — which has received fierce pushback from conservatives and others in the conference, despite the fact that Speaker designee Jim Jordan has gotten behind the idea. Others have argued that such a move is the only viable option to re-open the House given that no speaker candidate seems to be able to get 217 votes.

But some lawmakers say the prospects for the resolution look grim right now.

Florida Rep. Vern Buchanan, who voted against Jordan's speakership bid in the second round of voting Wednesday, said the measure appears “dead.”

Source: CNN
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/house-speaker-vote-10-19-23/index.html

especially if bow-tie boy absolutely refuses to drink from the poisoned chalice

 

[ll74]

Read the Rules and the Constitution. There is doubt here. If the "acting" speaker had been voted on...you are correct. But he wasn't. Therefore...he has not been given power to bring up a rule change to the floor.

McHenry is Speaker pro tempore per the rules of the house. If they change the rules so that the pro tempore has additional responsibility, then those rules are changed.

If you see something specific in the Constitution that opposes them changing rules, please cite it.

 

[butters]

CBS correspondent Scott McFarlane confirmed the report.

"Multiple House Republicans are telling us the resolution to temporarily empower Speaker Pro-Tem Patrick McHenry 'is dead.' Won't come to the floor for a vote," the reporter revealed. "Rep Jim Jordan (R-OH) will plow ahead and try to change the minds of the 22 (so far) defectors."

"They're nowhere," he added.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...1&cvid=fd251c6e497e4ff986dbdc5875d91c2c&ei=15

 

[Dribble]

He has 28 days...then the Country defaults. But from what I have heard...Jordan is barking up a tree. Which a couple days ago was not the case.

The only path out is McCarthy...and convincing 4 Republicans to vote for him. There is zero chance the Republicans will ever work on a bipartisan basis again...so the solution must come from them.

I believe in bipartisan legislation. That loss is what the Democrats chose.

 

[zipman]

He has 28 days...then the Country defaults. But from what I have heard...Jordan is barking up a tree. Which a couple days ago was not the case.

The only path out is McCarthy...and convincing 4 Republicans to vote for him. There is zero chance the Republicans will ever work on a bipartisan basis again...so the solution must come from them.

I believe in bipartisan legislation. That loss is what the Democrats chose.

They weren't working on a bipartisan manner before this either.

Maybe you're the one who needs to "watch and learn."

 

[ll74]

I believe in bipartisan legislation. That loss is what the Democrats chose.

Incorrect no matter how many times you say it. Democrats offered bipartisanship and Republicans didn't want it.

Voting with the other party isn't the same thing as bipartisanship.

 

[jaF0]

If you see something specific in the Constitution that opposes them changing rules, please cite it.

Apparently house rules say he doesn't have the power to call a vote to change house rules.

 

[ll74]

Apparently house rules say he doesn't have the power to call a vote to change house rules.

He has all the powers of speaker that are needed. Precedent has limited those powers...nothing prevents him from calling a vote to redefine those powers.

It doesnt sound like Republicans agree on doing that, at the moment.

 

[Dribble]

He has all the powers of speaker that are needed. Precedent has limited those powers...nothing prevents him from calling a vote to redefine those powers.

It doesnt sound like Republicans agree on doing that, at the moment.

Wrong. Again. Read the Rules as written. He has the power to open and close...he has the power to accept nominations for Speaker...he has the power to oversee any VOTES ON SPEAKER. He has not been given power to oversee any votes on anything beyond this. Here are the important key words:

The Acting Speaker Pro Tempore serves "for the sole purpose of electing a new Speaker ".

When you grow up...come back to the adult table. Until then...stop pretending you know anything.

 

[ll74]

Wrong. Again. Read the Rules as written. He has the power to open and close...he has the power to accept nominations for Speaker...he has the power to oversee any VOTES ON SPEAKER. He has not been given power to oversee any votes on anything beyond this. Here are the important key words:

Specifically the rules don't say that. They say he has all the power that is needed to have.

The Member acting as Speaker pro tempore under this provision may exercise such authorities of the Office of Speaker as may be necessary and appropriate pending the election of a Speaker or Speaker pro tempore

Via Rules of the House of Representatives https://cha.house.gov/_cache/files/...45C9E7B67F147DCF176D95.118-rules-01102023.pdf - chapter 34

The Acting Speaker Pro Tempore serves "for the sole purpose of electing a new Speaker ".

When you grow up...come back to the adult table. Until then...stop pretending you know anything.

And you are quoting what, specifically?

The House has currently decided not to go that route, but there is nothing in the Constitution that says that they can't.

 

[CenSore]

House GOP meeting is going on 3 hours without clear path yet for McHenry resolution​

The House GOP Conference meeting is now going on three hours and has grown increasingly heated, with no clear path forward on a resolution to temporarily empower interim Speaker Patrick McHenry.

Lawmakers in the room are debating the resolution — which has received fierce pushback from conservatives and others in the conference, despite the fact that Speaker designee Jim Jordan has gotten behind the idea. Others have argued that such a move is the only viable option to re-open the House given that no speaker candidate seems to be able to get 217 votes.

But some lawmakers say the prospects for the resolution look grim right now.

Florida Rep. Vern Buchanan, who voted against Jordan's speakership bid in the second round of voting Wednesday, said the measure appears “dead.”

Source: CNN
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/house-speaker-vote-10-19-23/index.html

We all have internet

We all know this

You add no value

Hope this helps

 

[butters]

'as may be necessary' is the pertinent phrase but try telling the willingly illiterate gopers that

and it is 'pending the' not 'pertaining to the', which meanshe can be granted the exercise of such 'necessary' powers

words have meanings

 

[butters]

In a closed-door meeting Thursday, Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., told GOP colleagues he might resign as speaker pro tempore if Republicans push him to try to move legislation on the floor without an explicit vote to expand his powers, according to multiple lawmakers in the room.

“If you guys try to do that, you’ll figure out who the next person on Kevin’s list is,” McHenry told the room, three sources said, referring to former Speaker Kevin McCarthy's secret list of GOP lawmakers who would serve as temporary speaker in the event of a vacancy.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...31&cvid=4c7b865276ae4e7af2970ec8e781d0f4&ei=5

 

[Bn2f]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...31&cvid=4c7b865276ae4e7af2970ec8e781d0f4&ei=5

You go, sir!
Carpe diem, Patrick McHenry!