The House GOP's Little Rule Change That Guaranteed A Shutdown

[Unitedwestand13]

Actually the rule keeps it the People's House and not the Senate's House.

how can you claim it to be the people's house if only the leader of the majority party decides what motions make it to the floor?

 

[AlabamaPaul]

this rule change give Eric cantor the power to decide what motions make it to the floor for a vote, it silences the house minority and denies it any ability of having a voice.

it's kind of like how people accuse harry reid for not allowing house bills to come to the floor for a vote. in my oppinion this is far worse because it denies the house minority from having a say in governing.

the founding fathers did not believe that the majority in the house can silence the minority from having a ability to make a motion in case the senate and house are deadlocked.

This is the type of shenanigans Pelosi used all the time to silence the minority. Thank her for your consternation...

 

[Beaudreaux]

this rule change give Eric cantor the power to decide what motions make it to the floor for a vote, it silences the house minority and denies it any ability of having a voice.

it's kind of like how people accuse harry reid for not allowing house bills to come to the floor for a vote. in my oppinion this is far worse because it denies the house minority from having a say in governing.

the founding fathers did not believe that the majority in the house can silence the minority from having a ability to make a motion in case the senate and house are deadlocked.

Have you looked at the rules for the Senate???

Nothing, and I mean nothing, can come to the floor for the Senate for a vote unless the Majority Leader allows it.

Not a bill, not even and especially an amendment can come to the floor for a vote without the approval of the Senate Majority Leader.

Have you ever heard the term "filling the tree?" It refers to the Senate Majority Leader (Harry Reid, Democrat from Nevada, just in case you may have forgotten) stopping all amendments, or limiting amendments to those offered by his own party.

Dude, maybe before you get so hateful and outraged at the House Republicans, you should look in your own back yard...

 

[clownboy]

how can you claim it to be the people's house if only the leader of the majority party decides what motions make it to the floor?

Works that way in the senate, has forever. Why aren't you objecting to that?

The
majority leader enjoys priority in being recognized to speak, and only the majority leader (or a
Senator acting at his behest) is able to successfully propose what bills and resolutions the Senate
should consider.

Source

 

[Unitedwestand13]

This is the type of shenanigans Pelosi used all the time to silence the minority. Thank her for your consternation...

she never used this particular rule, which gives more power to the leadership then it does to individual members of the house.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

she never used this particular rule, which gives more power to the leadership then it does to individual members of the house.

She didn't need to; there was a Dem Senate, but do you doubt for a minute she wouldn't have if there was a Repub Senate?

 

[head of joaquin]

Elections have consequences.

Oh the irony of you saying this while fulminating about ACA!

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Works that way in the senate, has forever. Why aren't you objecting to that?

because being house majority leader is not the same thing as being speaker of the house. and because being majority leader in the house is not the same as being the senate majority leader

Boehner is supposed to represent the house as a whole, that means representing both democrats and republicans. this rule change did not give power to Boehner it gave it to Eric cantor.

and why insist on this rule change now? especially when the shutdown could have been averted if members of the house were allowed to make any motion to end the deadlock between the senate and the house.

 

[jmotivator]

So how many House budget bills has Harry Reid allowed to be voted on in the Senate? The house passes a budget every year and every year Reid refuses to bring it to a vote in the Senate.

 

[Beaudreaux]

how can you claim it to be the people's house if only the leader of the majority party decides what motions make it to the floor?

Let me suggest that you do something that I have done myself... it was a great education.

Attend a House Rules Committee meeting. I went because a friend of mine was on the Rules Committee both as Minority member and as a Majority member.

When I went the first time, the Democrats had the Majority. Not one, not a single one of the amendments or rule proposals brought up by Republicans were agreed upon, and died right there in that TINY room which is where the House Rules Committee meets.

The second time I went, was when the Republicans were the Majority, and guess what happened... the same dang thing but reversed.

That's the way it works. The Majority sets the rules.

As the Democrats LOVE to say about what Obama is doing, "Elections Have Consequences!!!"

 

[Beaudreaux]

Works that way in the senate, has forever. Why aren't you objecting to that?

Looks like we posted the same thing at the same time. Thanks for adding the reference link though.

 

[clownboy]

because being house majority leader is not the same thing as being speaker of the house. and because being majority leader in the house is not the same as being the senate majority leader

Boehner is supposed to represent the house as a whole, that means representing both democrats and republicans. this rule change did not give power to Boehner it gave it to Eric cantor.

and why insist on this rule change now? especially when the shutdown could have been averted if members of the house were allowed to make any motion to end the deadlock between the senate and the house.

You keep asking the same question and expecting a different answer. The answer is simple, to prevent the senate where there is a dem majority from walking all over the house where there is a repub majority.

 

[clownboy]

Looks like we posted the same thing at the same time. Thanks for adding the reference link though.

Great minds and all that. Cheers! :mrgreen:

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Let me suggest that you do something that I have done myself... it was a great education.

Attend a House Rules Committee meeting. I went because a friend of mine was on the Rules Committee both as Minority member and as a Majority member.

When I went the first time, the Democrats had the Majority. Not one, not a single one of the amendments or rule proposals brought up by Republicans were agreed upon, and died right there in that TINY room which is where the House Rules Committee meets.

The second time I went, was when the Republicans were the Majority, and guess what happened... the same dang thing but reversed.

That's the way it works. The Majority sets the rules.

As the Democrats LOVE to say about what Obama is doing, "Elections Have Consequences!!!"

this the rule in question

When the stage of disagreement has been reached on a bill or resolution with House or Senate amendments, a motion to dispose of any amendment shall be privileged.

now why make a change to that rule that only the house majority leader can make this kind of motion? and why change the rule in the middle of deadlock between the senate and house on the eve of a government shutdown?

 

[jmotivator]

Also the move didn't "guarantee" a shutdown unless your default position was that Democrats would not budge... but then is it really all on the Republicans at that point?

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Also the move didn't "guarantee" a shutdown unless your default position was that Democrats would not budge... but then is it really all on the Republicans at that point?

Depends on which side for which one is rooting...

 

[Beaudreaux]

because being house majority leader is not the same thing as being speaker of the house. and because being majority leader in the house is not the same as being the senate majority leader

Boehner is supposed to represent the house as a whole, that means representing both democrats and republicans. this rule change did not give power to Boehner it gave it to Eric cantor.

and why insist on this rule change now? especially when the shutdown could have been averted if members of the house were allowed to make any motion to end the deadlock between the senate and the house.

Majority Leader of the Senate is the same as Majority Leader of the House.

Ever heard of President Pro Tempore of the Senate (Speaker of the House equivalent in rank). Check the 25th Amendment if you doubt the ranking.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

You keep asking the same question and expecting a different answer. The answer is simple, to prevent the senate where there is a dem majority from walking all over the house where there is a repub majority.

and what about the democratic minority in the house, are they irellevent? do they don't matter?

the republican minority in the senate have the fillibuster and used it frequently, so why can't member's of the democratic minority in the house be allowed to make a motion to resolve a impasse between the house and senate?

 

[AlabamaPaul]

and what about the democratic minority in the house, are they irellevent? do they don't matter?

the republican minority in the senate have the fillibuster and used it frequently, so why can't member's of the democratic minority in the house be allowed to make a motion to resolve a impasse between the house and senate?

Did you worry about any of this from 2007-2010?

 

[Unitedwestand13]

Majority Leader of the Senate is the same as Majority Leader of the House.

Ever heard of President Pro Tempore of the Senate (Speaker of the House equivalent in rank). Check the 25th Amendment if you doubt the ranking.

if you are trying to equate the duties of the senate pro tempore to that of the speaker of the house i find that hard to believe.

everyone recognizes john Boehner as the speaker of the house, which make's him defacto leader of the house republicans, but the senate majority leader is the true leader in the senates hierarchy.

 

[Hard Truth]

There are many such rules, and an ability to make more, that benefit the majority party. They also reduce the power of third party members. IMO there should be no official recognition of political parties in legislatures, and legislatures should not be empowered to make rules designed to benefit one group over another. Perhaps we need another regulatory process, body or court charged with making sure that all legislative rules and practices are fair and do not benefit one group over another. That could end much of the corruption, partisan bickering and impasses that harm the whole nation.

 

[clownboy]

and what about the democratic minority in the house, are they irellevent? do they don't matter?

the republican minority in the senate have the fillibuster and used it frequently, so why can't member's of the democratic minority in the house be allowed to make a motion to resolve a impasse between the house and senate?

If you would just take a little time to educate yourself on the process the answer would be clear. Like it or not the majority in each make the rules. If the house majority decides that they wish to add filibuster to their rules and can get agreement in their rules committee, they would have a filibuster. The senate only has a filibuster because the majority at the time decided it was okay and allowed/continued to allow it.

Oh and btw:

In the United States House of Representatives, the filibuster (the right to unlimited debate) was used until 1842, when a permanent rule limiting the duration of debate was created. The disappearing quorum was a tactic used by the minority until Speaker Thomas Brackett Reed eliminated it in 1890. As the membership of the House grew much larger than the Senate, the House has acted earlier to control floor debate and the delay and blocking of floor votes.

Source

 

[jmotivator]

Depends on which side for which one is rooting...

Only if you are a pure partisan. In the end both had a hardline they were unwilling to cross that resulted in the shutdown. It just happens that the Democrats hardline in this case was their first demand which was "Give us everything we want".

 

[Beaudreaux]

this the rule in question

I read it earlier.

now why make a change to that rule that only the house majority leader can make this kind of motion? and why change the rule in the middle of deadlock between the senate and house on the eve of a government shutdown?

You ask a good question. But its been answered a number a times already.

The same reason that the Senate Majority Leader was given the same power when the Senate changed their rules to the exact same thing many years ago... to ensure that the Majority party of the lower house could not overrule the will of the Majority party of the upper house.

In this instance, it has a reverse affect. The Majority party of the upper house could have overridden the will of the Majority party of the lower house without this rule.

There's nothing nefarious in this rule. Its been that way in the Senate for decades.

 

[Deuce]

Only if you are a pure partisan. In the end both had a hardline they were unwilling to cross that resulted in the shutdown. It just happens that the Democrats hardline in this case was their first demand which was "Give us everything we want".

A goal they did a great job of accomplishing when they agreed to the exact spending levels the GOP demanded.