Speaker of the House

[mrjurrs]

Is it possible for the House majority to elect a Speaker that is not a member of the HoR?


Article One, Section Two, Clause Five is a bit vague.

The Speaker is third in line of succession, I think a popular election must be required to be eligible for the position.

 

[Rexedgar]

The Speaker is third in line of succession, I think a popular election must be required to be eligible for the position.

I can’t find any language that bears this out.

 

[NWRatCon]

The Speaker is third in line of succession, I think a popular election must be required to be eligible for the position.

I can’t find any language that bears this out.

As a notion of normality, I agree. As a Constitutional requirement, I have noted that that is not the view of any noted commentators.

 

[Rexedgar]

As a notion of normality, I agree. As a Constitutional requirement, I have noted that that is not the view of any noted commentators.

That doesn’t give the warm and fuzzies.

What is your meaning of, “as a Constitutional requirement?”

 

[NWRatCon]

That doesn’t give the warm and fuzzies.

What is your meaning of, “as a Constitutional requirement?”

That there is no explicit constitutional requirement that the Speaker of the House be a Member.

 

[mrjurrs]

I can’t find any language that bears this out.

I agree. Must be in either House rules or some type of legal precedent.

 

[mrjurrs]

As a notion of normality, I agree. As a Constitutional requirement, I have noted that that is not the view of any noted commentators.

I agree. I would add however that noted commentators have the same impact as you or I do...zero.

 

[Glitch]

Is it possible for the House majority to elect a Speaker that is not a member of the HoR?


Article One, Section Two, Clause Five is a bit vague.

No.

There reason is because of Article I, Section 5, Clause 1 of the US Constitution.

Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.

Since Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 states "[t]he House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers..." (emphasis added) they must be a qualified member of the House of Representatives. They do not necessarily need to be a voting member of the House (as in the case of non-voting House Representatives from US terroritories), but the Speaker and other officers of the House must be members of the House.

Furthermore, the House Speaker cannot be a member of the Senate or hold any other civil office according to Article I, Section 6, Clause 2 of the US Constitution.

No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time: and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.

 

[Rexedgar]

No.

There reason is because of Article I, Section 5, Clause 1 of the US Constitution.


Since Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 states "[t]he House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers..." (emphasis added) they must be a qualified member of the House of Representatives. They do not necessarily need to be a voting member of the House (as in the case of non-voting House Representatives from US terroritories), but the Speaker and other officers of the House must be members of the House.

Furthermore, the House Speaker cannot be a member of the Senate or hold any other civil office according to Article I, Section 6, Clause 2 of the US Constitution.

I make your post to be your interpretation, not what is stated in the clause.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

No.

There reason is because of Article I, Section 5, Clause 1 of the US Constitution.


Since Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 states "[t]he House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers..." (emphasis added) they must be a qualified member of the House of Representatives. They do not necessarily need to be a voting member of the House (as in the case of non-voting House Representatives from US terroritories), but the Speaker and other officers of the House must be members of the House.

Furthermore, the House Speaker cannot be a member of the Senate or hold any other civil office according to Article I, Section 6, Clause 2 of the US Constitution.

No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time: and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.

That is why many times, senators will run for president in their own midterm. That way, if their bid for president fails they simply go back to being a senator. Governors do the same thing running for U.S. senate while in the middle of their governor term. If they lose, they still get to be governor.

Personally, I think that is total BS. I think if you run for another elected office during your term, you should be required to resign your current position. What employer would tolerate an employee using company time to look for a new job?

 

[Rexedgar]

That is why many times, senators will run for president in their own midterm. That way, if their bid for president fails they simply go back to being a senator. Governors do the same thing running for U.S. senate while in the middle of their governor term. If they lose, they still get to be governor.

Personally, I think that is total BS. I think if you run for another elected office during your term, you should be required to resign your current position. What employer would tolerate an employee using company time to look for a new job?

 

[Glitch]

If the Speaker were not already an elected member, it would probably be a temporary position at best. Members vie for that position. They lobby their fellow majority members for votes at the beginning of each session. I can't envision a scenario wherein the majority party would reject one of their own to bring in an outsider, especially considering they are second only to the VP in the presidential line of succession.

As far as the presidential line of succession, here is an interesting factoid: Gerald R. Ford is the only person who has ascended to the presidency who was never elected into the line of succession. He was an obscure Michigan congressman who was nominated by Richard Nixon to replace VP Spiro Agnew when Agnew resigned amid a criminal scandal. Ford became president when Nixon resigned. When Ford ran for president as the incumbent, the electorate rejected him in favor of democrat Jimmy Carter. Many political analysts believe Ford's surprise blanket pardon of Nixon for "any crimes he may have committed" cost him the election. Ford never sought public office after his brief stint as president.

There have been several Presidents who were never elected, including John Tyler, Millard Fillmore, Andrew Johnson, and Chester A. Arthur.

Ford has the distinction of being the first VP appointed using the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Rockefeller would be the second VP appointed using the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Rockefeller was Ford's first choice. His other two choices for VP were Rumsfeld, and Bush Sr.

 

[Glitch]

That is why many times, senators will run for president in their own midterm. That way, if their bid for president fails they simply go back to being a senator. Governors do the same thing running for U.S. senate while in the middle of their governor term. If they lose, they still get to be governor.

Personally, I think that is total BS. I think if you run for another elected office during your term, you should be required to resign your current position. What employer would tolerate an employee using company time to look for a new job?

Very true, and should they win, like in Obama's case, then they are required to give up their position as members of Congress.

If they can run for reelection while holding their elected position, why can't they run for a completely different office while holding their elected position? If we are going to prohibit elected officials spending their time trying to get elected to another position, then we need to also prohibit elected officials spending their time trying to get reelected. It would be hypocritical to prohibit one and not the other.

 

[reflechissez]

Very true, and should they win, like in Obama's case, then they are required to give up their position as members of Congress.

If they can run for reelection while holding their elected position, why can't they run for a completely different office while holding their elected position? If we are going to prohibit elected officials spending their time trying to get elected to another position, then we need to also prohibit elected officials spending their time trying to get reelected. It would be hypocritical to prohibit one and not the other.

why? so every elected official only serves one term?

 

[NWRatCon]

Yes, it would have to straight to the Speakership for him.

I just read that it was proposed to him. ARE THESE PEOPLE FREAKIN NUTS. Never give a megalomaniac a loaded weapon.

 

[gbg3]

Oddly, just before seeing this thread, I happened across this article today.

Trump Suggests He May Run for House in 2022 to Become Speaker

Steve Bannon first touted the idea during an event for Boston Republicans back in February.

www.newsweek.com

 

[gbg3]

Here is another source - the same story but with short audio of Trump's reaction to the suggestion.

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[Glitch]

why? so every elected official only serves one term?

No, so that we are consistent in the application of the law.

If you prohibit an elected official from campaigning for another political office while still in office, then you have to also prohibit elected officials from campaigning for reelection while still in office. Otherwise it is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment since it would be discriminatory to prohibit one and not the other.

 

[reflechissez]

No, so that we are consistent in the application of the law.

If you prohibit an elected official from campaigning for another political office while still in office, then you have to also prohibit elected officials from campaigning for reelection while still in office. Otherwise it is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment since it would be discriminatory to prohibit one and not the other.

That doesn't answer my question. If a person can't run for the office they currently occupy, then they can only serve one term -- by definition.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

If the Vice President is being impeached, do they still retain a vote in the Senate in the event of a tie?

Since the requirement to convict in the Senate is two-thirds and not a majority, there cannot be a tie.

 

[Glitch]

That doesn't answer my question. If a person can't run for the office they currently occupy, then they can only serve one term -- by definition.

Incorrect. There is nothing stopping anyone from running for reelection after completing their term. If a law were to be passed that prohibited anyone from running for reelection or another elected office while serving in an elected position, then they just need to complete their term and then run for reelection or run for another office.

Reelections do not need to be consecutive. Grover Cleveland, for example, was reelected to a second non-consecutive term as President.

Personally, I do not have a problem with elected official using their time to run for reelection or running for a completely different elected position. I think both should be allowed. We are talking about politicians after all. It isn't as if they do anything important or worthy of merit.

 

[Glitch]

If the Vice President is being impeached, do they still retain a vote in the Senate in the event of a tie?

In cases of impeachment, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, as the presiding officer, casts the tie-breaking vote if one should ever arise, not the VP. That is specifically why the founders made the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court the presiding officer when writing the US Constitution. They knew that the VP, as President of the Senate, would have the ability to cast tie-breaking votes, which would be inappropriate if the VP was the one being impeached.

See also: https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/01/the-role-of-the-chief-justice-in-an-impeachment-trial/

 

[AliHajiSheik]

That’s kinda where i was going with this line of thought.

Gaetz leaves, voluntarily or other, DeSantis appoints Trump, the GOP takes the House in 2022....................was another scenario.

At least in Florida, the Governor has no role in filling vacant House seats.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

In cases of impeachment, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, as the presiding officer, casts the tie-breaking vote if one should ever arise, not the VP. That is specifically why the founders made the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court the presiding officer when writing the US Constitution. They knew that the VP, as President of the Senate, would have the ability to cast tie-breaking votes, which would be inappropriate if the VP was the one being impeached.

See also: https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/01/the-role-of-the-chief-justice-in-an-impeachment-trial/

The Chief Justice has no such role in the Impeachment trial of a Vice President. While there could be arcane Senate rules addressing the proceedings of a Vice Presidential impeachment and that persons role in tie-breaking procedural votes, the Constitution is silent on that issue.

 

[j brown's body]

I believe that all the representatives vote for Speaker. Thus if Trump was, one way or another, nominated for the position, his support would have to be greater than the votes of all the Democrats and of those Republicans, and there are more than a few, who oppose him.