Does the majority rule? nope.

[thebullet]

Here is an ariticle from the Washington Post. The Speaker of the House of Representitives has decided that unless a majority of the Republicans support legislation, it will not come up for vote. That means if the number of Republicans and Democrats combined in favor of a bill would be enough to pass that bill, but the majority of Republicans are opposed to the bill, the bill will be blocked before reaching the floor.

If, for example, the Dems followed this logic while they were in control during the Clinton administration, NAFTA would not have passed, since the majority of Democrats opposed it.

Is this a great democracy or what?

Sat Nov 27, 3:58 AM ET Top Stories -
washingtonpost.com


By Charles Babington, Washington Post Staff Writer

In scuttling major intelligence legislation that he,
the president and most lawmakers supported, Speaker J.
Dennis Hastert last week enunciated a policy in which
Congress will pass bills only if most House
Republicans back them, regardless of how many
Democrats favor them.

Hastert's position, which is drawing fire from
Democrats and some outside groups, is the latest step
in a decade-long process of limiting Democrats'
influence and running the House virtually as a
one-party institution. Republicans earlier barred
House Democrats from helping to draft major bills such
as the 2003 Medicare revision and this year's
intelligence package. Hastert (R-Ill.) now says such
bills will reach the House floor, after negotiations
with the Senate, only if "the majority of the
majority" supports them.


Senators from both parties, leaders of the Sept. 11
commission and others have sharply criticized the
policy. The long-debated intelligence bill would now
be law, they say, if Hastert and his lieutenants had
been humble enough to let a high-profile measure pass
with most votes coming from the minority party.


That is what Democrats did in 1993, when most House
Democrats opposed the North American Free Trade
Agreement. President Bill Clinton (news - web sites)
backed NAFTA, and leaders of the Democratic-controlled
House allowed it to come to a vote. The trade pact
passed because of heavy GOP support, with 102
Democrats voting for it and 156 voting against. Newt
Gingrich of Georgia, the House GOP leader at the time,
declared: "This is a vote for history, larger than
politics . . . larger than personal ego."


Such bipartisan spirit in the Capitol now seems a
faint echo. Citing the increased marginalization of
Democrats as House bills are drafted and brought to
the floor, Rep. David E. Price (news, bio, voting
record) (D-N.C.) said, "It's a set of rules and
practices which the Republicans have taken to new
extremes."


Price, a former Duke University political scientist
and the author of "The Congressional Experience,"
acknowledged that past congressional leaders,
including Democrats, had sometimes scuttled measures
opposed by most of their party's colleagues. But he
said the practice should not apply to far-reaching,
high-stakes legislation such as NAFTA and the
intelligence package, which were backed by the White
House and most of Congress's 535 members.


Other House Democrats agree. Republicans "like to talk
about bipartisanship," said Minority Leader Nancy
Pelosi (D-Calif.). "But when the opportunity came to
pass a truly bipartisan bill -- one that would have
passed both the House and Senate overwhelmingly and
would have made the American people safer -- they
failed to do it."


Rep. Rahm Emanuel (news, bio, voting record) (D-Ill.),
a White House aide when NAFTA passed, said this week,
"What is more comforting to the terrorists around the
world: the failure to pass the 9/11 legislation
because we lacked 'a majority of the majority,' or
putting aside partisan politics to enact tough new
legislation with America's security foremost in mind?"


Some scholars say Hastert's decision should not come
as a surprise. In a little-noticed speech in the
Capitol a year ago, Hastert said one of his principles
as speaker is "to please the majority of the
majority."


"On occasion, a particular issue might excite a
majority made up mostly of the minority," he
continued. "Campaign finance is a particularly good
example of this phenomenon. The job of speaker is not
to expedite legislation that runs counter to the
wishes of the majority of his majority."


Hastert put his principle into practice one week ago
today. In a closed meeting in the Capitol basement, he
urged his GOP colleagues to back the intelligence bill
that had emerged from long House-Senate negotiations
and had President Bush (news - web sites)'s support.
When a surprising number refused, Hastert elected to
keep it from reaching a vote, even though his aides
said it could have passed with a minority of GOP
members and strong support from the chamber's 206
Democrats.


Hastert spokesman John Feehery defended the decision
in a recent interview. "He wants to pass bills with
his majority," Feehery said. "That's the hallmark of
this [Republican] majority. . . . If you pass major
bills without the majority of the majority, then you
tend not to be a long-term speaker. . . . I think he
was prudent to listen to his members."


Some congressional scholars say Hastert is emphasizing
one element of his job to the detriment of another. As
speaker, said Norman Ornstein of the American
Enterprise Institute, "you are the party leader, but
you are ratified by the whole House. You are a
constitutional officer," in line for the presidency
after the vice president. At crucial times, he said, a
speaker must put the House ahead of his party.


If Congress eventually enacted an intelligence bill
similar to the one rejected last Saturday, Ornstein
said, "then it would be unfair to rip Hastert to
shreds. But if this either kills the bill or turns it
from what would have been" a measure with considerable bipartisan support, he said, "then I think he should be condemned roundly."


Some groups representing families of victims of the
Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks are already
criticizing Hastert. "The failure in leadership of the
speaker to bring the bill to the House floor for a
vote is particularly troubling because we believe the
bill would have passed by a wide majority in the
House," the Family Steering Committee said.


In the new Congress that convenes in January,
Hastert's strategy may prove sufficient for GOP
victories on issues that sharply divide the two
parties, such as tax cuts, several analysts said. But
on trade issues and other matters that are more
divisive within the parties -- and thus require
bipartisan coalitions to pass -- he could face serious problems.


Hastert's "majority of the majority" maxim, Ornstein
said, "is a disastrous recipe for tackling domestic
issues such as entitlement programs, the deficit and
things like that."

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I'm not one generally inclined towards paranoia, but I'm fairly certain that this and the "house cleaning" of the CIA are quite big steps towards an autocracy.

Oh well, at least the national school spirit drones won't have to worry about what to wear anymore and the statues will be far more impressive.

 

[cantdog]

I am inclined to paranoia, if that's what you wanna call it. We had a pretty damn imperial presidency under Nixon, dude, and it's a lot more autocratic now. These modern prexies can bypass Congress entirely, and usually do. That's why they get to play these fuckin games on the Hill. What they do is largely symbolic, and they can feel it.

cantdog

 

[Liar]

Um... how can he even do that?

Aren't there rules that has to be followed? Or does a sitting regime, whichever side it is, change the procedure of representative democracy as they see fit?

If the speaker of our parlament thried a stunt like that, everyone, and I mean everyone, would say "shut up and follow the code". And then he'd be fired. His job is to stand above politics and maintain at all costs the procedure. A member of the legislation might file a motion to change the procedure, which would then have to be passed with a large majority (2/3, I think).

If the speaker of the house can do that, isn't it in the same vein as if the sitting president in his second term would suddenly decide that the "two terms only" rule was not for him?

Just asking.

#L

 

[thebullet]

Liar said:
His job is to stand above politics and maintain at all costs the procedure.

The neocons consider nothing to be above politics. You are either with them or you are a traitor. This is fact. Everything, foreign policy, education, health care, you name it, is primarily political.

The Speaker of the House of Representitives, who is in line for the presidency of the United States, logically should be above politics in most matters. But in the First American Reich, the primary consideration is always political and philosophical purity.

 

[Liar]

The neocons consider nothing to be above politics. You are either with them or you are a traitor. This is fact. Everything, foreign policy, education, health care, you name it, is primarily political.

Yes I can see that. What I don't understand is why he even can, I mean even technically, change the parliamental procedure. Why does he decide what bills to put on vote? That is not an instrument to put in the hands of someone who has a political bias.

It sucks that this guy stoops to petty politicking. But it sucks equally that he is legaly able to in that position.

#L

 

[thebullet]

Before any bill reaches the floor it must pass through the committee that deals with that particular bill. Each committee has a Republican chairman and a Republican majority. No bill will reach the floor that is not first approved by the committee in question, regardless of the feelings of the majority of representitives. The Speaker will know in advance who supports each bill and will inform the committee chairmen which bill will be allowed to be brought to the floor of the House. It is all perfectly legal in a very perverse and anti-democratic way.

 

[scheherazade_79]

I'm too tired to read through the whole thread, so apologies in advance! But... the majority definitely doesn't rule, and not just in politics. It's a standing joke where I come from that your best chance of getting a job is if you become a one-legged black Jewish lesbian with a squint.