Speaker of the House

[Rich2018]

Where are they outlined?

"The Constitution does not spell out the political role of the speaker...however, despite having the right to vote, the speaker usually does not participate in debate.

The speaker is responsible for ensuring that the House passes legislation supported by the majority party. In pursuing this goal, the speaker may use their power to determine when each bill reaches the floor. They also chair the majority party's steering committee in the House."

The speaker is responsible for ensuring that the House passes legislation supported by the majority party. In pursuing this goal, the speaker may use their power to determine when each bill reaches the floor. They also chair the majority party's steering committee in the House."

Speaker of the United States House of Representatives - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So if the Speaker has a right to vote, they really need to be members of the House don't they ?

 

[reflechissez]

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.

I didn't realize I had to spell it out. Of course, they can run AGAIN at a later date. So, if someone wants to run for congress, they can run every two years. Sounds efficient.

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.

Than why did you say just the opposite in an earlier thread?

 

[Stealers Wheel]

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.

As I said, Ford holds the distinction of being the only person who ascended to the presidency AND was never elected to the line of succession. All those you cited were vice presidents, elected on their party's ticket, and ascended to the presidency upon the death of their predecessor, as is provided for in the Constitution. Ford was appointed VP, not elected.

It is noted that Gerald Ford was never appointed to any of the offices listed, and he was never elected vice president.

U.S. Presidential line of succession - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

simple.wikipedia.org

 

[Stealers Wheel]

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.

No, when the people elect someone to do a job, like governor, they should be reasonably assured that that person will be governor for the term. However, when the duly elected governor basically says "I don't want to be governor, I want to be a U.S. senator, so I'm going spend my days and try to get that job. If I fail, I'll just continue to do the job I don't want."

Running for re-election is a very different thing. That's someone saying "I like my job, and I want to continue doing it. Please let me."

 

[coco]

Click on a poster's avatar/screen name and a box will pop up then click the start a conversation button.

I have seen that start a conversation on this web page. But now I don't remember where. And I thought that meant start a thread. Because that's what I want to do.

 

[coco]

Click on a poster's avatar/screen name and a box will pop up then click the start a conversation button.

Is starting a conversation starting a thread?

 

[JMR]

can you please tell me how to start a conversation.

Go to "Home" on far right is the option "Post a Thread" Easy to follow from there.

 

[azgreg]

Is starting a conversation starting a thread?

Nope.

 

[Rich2018]

I am struggling to think of a better Speaker of the House than Nancy Pelosi. I don't think we've had a better one in living memory.

 

[coco]

Go to "Home" on far right is the option "Post a Thread" Easy to follow from there.

Wow. That was the easiest thing I have ever learnt in my life. Thanks for your help JMR.

 

[Rich2018]

Wow. That was the easiest thing I have ever learnt in my life. Thanks for your help JMR.

You learn something every day.

 

[Perotista]

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.

Yes, it is possible. Also, one doesn't have to be a lawyer to sit on the SCOTUS.

 

[mrjurrs]

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/

That's not correct. The CJ only sits in Presidential impeachment trials.

 

[Cordelier]

"The Constitution does not spell out the political role of the speaker...however, despite having the right to vote, the speaker usually does not participate in debate.

The speaker is responsible for ensuring that the House passes legislation supported by the majority party. In pursuing this goal, the speaker may use their power to determine when each bill reaches the floor. They also chair the majority party's steering committee in the House."

The speaker is responsible for ensuring that the House passes legislation supported by the majority party. In pursuing this goal, the speaker may use their power to determine when each bill reaches the floor. They also chair the majority party's steering committee in the House."

Speaker of the United States House of Representatives - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So if the Speaker has a right to vote, they really need to be members of the House don't they ?

A Speaker has a right to vote as a duly elected Representative, though. An individual elected Speaker without being a Representative would not possess that right.

 

[Cordelier]

I am struggling to think of a better Speaker of the House than Nancy Pelosi. I don't think we've had a better one in living memory.

I'd go with Tip O'Neill.... not by much, though.

 

[Glitch]

A Speaker has a right to vote as a duly elected Representative, though. An individual elected Speaker without being a Representative would not possess that right.

The Speaker must be a member of the House, but it does not necessarily need to be a voting member. Each of the US territories, for example, have non-voting House of Representative members who, in theory, could be elected Speaker by the majority of the voting members of the House. Unlikely, but possible.

 

[Cordelier]

The Speaker must be a member of the House, but it does not necessarily need to be a voting member. Each of the US territories, for example, have non-voting House of Representative members who, in theory, could be elected Speaker by the majority of the voting members of the House. Unlikely, but possible.

There's nothing in the rules stating the Speaker must be a member of the House.

 

[Glitch]

I'd go with Tip O'Neill.... not by much, though.

It was the agreement between Tip O'Neill and Reagan that added $3 trillion to the National Debt. Reagan promised Tip that he would not veto any of his social spending appropriations if he got the increases in defense spending that he wanted. They both kept to their word, and social spending increased by 400% between 1981 and 1989, with defense spending increasing by 250% over the 1968-1969 peak Vietnam levels of spending.

It took us from 1789 until 1980 to reach a National Debt of $1 trillion. Between 1981 and 1989 the bargain between Reagan and Tip O'Neill added another $3 trillion to the National Debt.

The best Speaker of the House was only Speaker for 3 years. Newt Gingrich was Speaker from 1995 until 1998, and managed to not just balance the budget, but also provide the very first surplus since 1968. President Clinton was on record saying that the budget would take 12 years to balance. Speaker Gingrich, and Rep. Kasich as Chairman of the House Budget Committee, managed to balance the budget in just 3 years.

 

[Cordelier]

It was the agreement between Tip O'Neill and Reagan that added $3 trillion to the National Debt. Reagan promised Tip that he would not veto any of his social spending appropriations if he got the increases in defense spending that he wanted. They both kept to their word, and social spending increased by 400% between 1981 and 1989, with defense spending increasing by 250% over the 1968-1969 peak Vietnam levels of spending.

It took us from 1789 until 1980 to reach a National Debt of $1 trillion. Between 1981 and 1989 the bargain between Reagan and Tip O'Neill added another $3 trillion to the National Debt.

The best Speaker of the House was only Speaker for 3 years. Newt Gingrich was Speaker from 1995 until 1998, and managed to not just balance the budget, but also provide the very first surplus since 1968. President Clinton was on record saying that the budget would take 12 years to balance. Speaker Gingrich, and Rep. Kasich as Chairman of the House Budget Committee, managed to balance the budget in just 3 years.

I don't know what to tell you... maybe you should have voted for Jimmy Carter? He actually pushed the House Democrats to be more fiscally austere then they were inclined to be.

Newt Gingrich was a disaster as Speaker. I think you should probably look at the details of how the Budget was balanced. Ie, what percentage was due to Clinton tax increases and post-Cold War defense cutbacks? Not exactly a Republican platform, is it?

 

[Glitch]

I don't know what to tell you... maybe you should have voted for Jimmy Carter? He actually pushed the House Democrats to be more fiscally austere then they were inclined to be.

Newt Gingrich was a disaster as Speaker. I think you should probably look at the details of how the Budget was balanced. Ie, what percentage was due to Clinton tax increases and post-Cold War defense cutbacks? Not exactly a Republican platform, is it?

It was Carter that utterly destroyed the military, and the reason why Reagan had to build it back up again.

Newt was an excellent Speaker, forcing Clinton to accept a much leaner federal government in 1995. Then enacting the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 which effectively undid all the excesses of the 1980s.

FYI, it was the Democrat-controlled Congress that enacted one of the largest, and most certainly illegal, retroactive tax increases in US history in 1993, not Clinton. Presidents do not raise or lower taxes, Congress does.

It was the illegal massive tax increase in 1993 and the illegal Assault Weapon Ban Act of 1994 that cost the Democrats Congress. In 1995 the GOP were in control of both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years. All because of Democrats blatant disregard for the US Constitution. Democrats continue to show that very same contempt for the US Constitution to this day.

 

[Luce]

It was Carter that utterly destroyed the military, and the reason why Reagan had to build it back up again.

So Vietnam had nothing to do with it?

 

[NolanVoyd]

Impeach Biden and Harris. Trump elevates to the presidency, runs again in 2024 because he only served part of a term, and voila - pretty much "president for life."

Impeach Biden and Harris and Nancy Pelosi is president.

Trump is no where in the line succession.

 

[Rich2018]

A Speaker has a right to vote as a duly elected Representative, though. An individual elected Speaker without being a Representative would not possess that right.

So you can't sit as a member of the House if you can't vote
QED: The Speaker MUST be a member of the House.

 

[Rexedgar]

So you can't sit as a member of the House if you can't vote
QED: The Speaker MUST be a member of the House.

That is an opinion.

 

[Cordelier]

It was Carter that utterly destroyed the military, and the reason why Reagan had to build it back up again.
, but frto
Newt was an excellent Speaker, forcing Clinton to accept a much leaner federal government in 1995. Then enacting the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 which effectively undid all the excesses of the 1980s.

FYI, it was the Democrat-controlled Congress that enacted one of the largest, and most certainly illegal, retroactive tax increases in US history in 1993, not Clinton. Presidents do not raise or lower taxes, Congress does.

It was the illegal massive tax increase in 1993 and the illegal Assault Weapon Ban Act of 1994 that cost the Democrats Congress. In 1995 the GOP were in control of both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years. All because of Democrats blatant disregard for the US Constitution. Democrats continue to show that very same contempt for the US Constitution to this day.

Defense spending had been steadily declining since the end of the Vietnam war - if you want to blame anyone, it ought to be Kissinger and détente. Truth in point, it was Carter who reversed that trend in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

I don't have the actual numbers in front of me at present (I can get to them tomorrow), but from memory, Clinton's budget policies accounted for about 70% of the deficit elimination and the Republican initiatives accounted for about 20% (more Dole than Gingrich), with the remaining 10% resulting from reduced interest payments.