Go back
As the wars rage on-

As the wars rage on-

Debates

1 edit

@mott-the-hoople said
did you get lockjaw mchill?
The powers of a speaker Pro Tem are limited. They are not allowed to fulfill all the duties of a duly elected speaker.

Your attempt to sidestep this GOP embarrassment is duly noted. 😏


@mchill said
The powers of a speaker Pro Tem are limited. They are not allowed to fulfill all the duties of a duly elected speaker.

Your attempt to sidestep this GOP embarrassment is duly noted. 😏
have you read the law?


@mott-the-hoople said
have you read the law?
A Speaker Pro Tem has whatever powers the House wants to grant him (within the limits of the Constitution of course):

"“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,”

US Constitution, Article I, Section 5

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/house-members-discuss-lifting-limits-on-speaker-pro-tem-power/ar-AA1i7pWr

1 edit

@no1marauder said
A Speaker Pro Tem has whatever powers the House wants to grant him (within the limits of the Constitution of course):

"“Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,”

US Constitution, Article I, Section 5

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/house-members-discuss-lifting-limits-on-speaker-pro-tem-power/ar-AA1i7pWr
“ A Speaker Pro Tem has whatever powers the House wants to grant him ”

the LAW doesnt state that


what “limits” were on the speaker pro tem?


@mott-the-hoople said
“ A Speaker Pro Tem has whatever powers the House wants to grant him ”

the LAW doesnt state that


what “limits” were on the speaker pro tem?
What "law"?

It doesn't exist; the Constitution clearly gives each House of the Legislative Branch the power to make their own rules. They could select the Speaker by eeny meeny miny moe if the majority chose to.

2 edits

@no1marauder said
What "law"?

It doesn't exist; the Constitution clearly gives each House of the Legislative Branch the power to make their own rules. They could select the Speaker by eeny meeny miny moe if the majority chose to.
Surley you have heard of parliamentary law, what with you being a lawyer and all.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/[WORD TOO LONG]




(3)(A) In the case of a vacancy in the office of speaker, the next member on the list described in subdivision (B) shall act as speaker pro tempore until the election of a Speaker or a Speaker Pro tempore. Pending such election the member acting as Speaker Pro tempore may exercise such authorities of the office of Speaker as may be necessary and appropriate to that end.

https://rules.house.gov/sites/republicans.rules118.house.gov/files/documents/Rules%20and%20Resources/118-House-Rules-Clerk.pdf

Democrats are angry the speaker pro tempore kicked pelosi and hoyer out of their party offices and are trying to limit the power of the speaker pro tempore, that is all.

and you are right, the house can make their own rules/laws (semantics)...and they did.

1 edit

Big picture, is it important to have an elected Speaker of the House? You know, for normal government functions?

Is it important to pass a budget? Congress doesn't even try to do that.

Is it important to get immigration crises under control? Congress doesn't try.

Is it important for Congress to pass any laws, or do anything to respond to numerous ongoing crises?

Do we just pretend it's OK that Congress doesn't do anything Mott? You seem to blame Demon-rats for this, even though Republicans are supposed to be in charge. You're an apologist.


@wildgrass said
Big picture, is it important to have an elected Speaker of the House? You know, for normal government functions?

Is it important to pass a budget? Congress doesn't even try to do that.

Is it important to get immigration crises under control? Congress doesn't try.

Is it important for Congress to pass any laws, or do anything to respond to numerous ongoing crises?
...[text shortened]... lame Demon-rats for this, even though Republicans are supposed to be in charge. You're an apologist.
“You know, for normal government functions?”

read the law dumbass

this law was created for continuity of gov in case something happens to the speaker. The pro Tem has the full power of a speaker, nothing in the law specifies the he doesnt. Actually it would defeat the purpose of the law if the speakers powers were limited.


@mott-the-hoople said
“You know, for normal government functions?”

read the law dumbass

this law was created for continuity of gov in case something happens to the speaker. The pro Tem has the full power of a speaker, nothing in the law specifies the he doesnt. Actually it would defeat the purpose of the law if the speakers powers were limited.
Why aren't they doing their jobs?

1 edit

Consider the top pick for speaker of the house has been in Congress for 16 years, collecting $2.5 million in government paychecks. In that time, he has not written any legislation. None of his cosponsored bills have passed.

Energy, immigration, crime, homelessness. Nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing.

He does tweet a lot, and complain a lot. But Jim Jordan has not done a single consequential thing in 16 years.

Great work. Let's reward laziness with a promotion.


@wildgrass said
Why aren't they doing their jobs?
their job is to write law (among other duties), it is biden that must enforce those laws, and he isnt doing it.


@mott-the-hoople said
their job is to write law (among other duties), it is biden that must enforce those laws, and he isnt doing it.
That's BS. You pretend the executive branch has unchecked power. Immigration laws written by Congress are sometimes hundreds of years old, in obvious need for revision based on the current crisis. Congress is mute, hamstrung by ineptitude and indifference. It seems from your comments that the voters don't care if they do their job or not.


@mott-the-hoople said
Surley you have heard of parliamentary law, what with you being a lawyer and all.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/[WORD TOO LONG]




[b](3)(A) In the case of a vacancy in the office of speake ...[text shortened]... at is all.

and you are right, the house can make their own rules/laws (semantics)...and they did.
LMAO! That's not a "law", you dumbass. Read the very top of the first page:

"Rules of the House of Representatives".


@no1marauder said
LMAO! That's not a "law", you dumbass. Read the very top of the first page:

"Rules of the House of Representatives".
you really should broaden your vocabulary


Law;
a
(1)
: a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed (see PRESCRIBE sense 1a) or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority
(2)
: the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/law


@mott-the-hoople said
you really should broaden your vocabulary


Law;
a
(1)
: a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed (see PRESCRIBE sense 1a) or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority
(2)
: the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/law
I don't use imprecise language even if Merriam-Webster wants to dumb it down for people like you.

The Constitution distinguishes between "laws" passed by both Houses of Congress and "rules" made by each House binding only on itself.