The debt limit is not a matter of the constitution. Congress can eliminate it at will.
I think the issue is whether the debt limit is itself constitutional - the argument goes that the executive is obliged to spend the money appropriated by congress so the debt ceiling violates the 14th amendment by calling into question debt which has already been authorised by law. The problem is that this has never been tested, hence constitutional crisis.
You would think it is time to discuss procedure/constitutional reforms to prevent these sorts of crises.
Of course it is. The problem is getting the congress critters to actually do it--because the only time they face up to it is when we're under the gun with a shutdown looming, and the rest of the time they handwave it as something that "we have more important things to do just now." So annoying. (Feel free to substitute stronger language.)
I am uncertain as to whether it might be easier to push a bill through Congress to eliminate the debt ceiling or to conjure up a suitable legal case to have it declared unconstitutional.
I am uncertain as to whether it might be easier to push a bill through Congress to eliminate the debt ceiling or to conjure up a suitable legal case to have it declared unconstitutional.
The problem you have is that the current supreme court would likely vote 6-3 that taxes are unconstitutional, given the opportunity. I wouldn’t want to be the president who ordered spending to continue defying the debt ceiling and have to persuade this SCOTUS. From what I’ve seen there’s every chance they’d claim the 14th amendment only applies to civil war debt or some other such sophistry.
No other nation goes through these cliff hangers. Maybe that is because the opposing parties can hold onto one branch and the other party holds onto the other branch. I do not recall, though, when the Democrats held up funding of the government even when there has been sharp policy disagreements.
Gov. Newsom has named Laphonza Butler, the president of EMILY's List, to be the next senator from California. She has been a union organizer, a regent of the University of California and an advisor on Kamala Harris' presidential campaign. She will be the first out person of color in the US Senate.
The debt limit is not a matter of the constitution. Congress can eliminate it at will.
Government shutdowns aren’t related to the debt limit; they’re the result not having a budget, and therefore not having authorized spending. Shutdowns could be avoided by a statute that says if Congress fails to enact budget bills by the time the previous budget expires, spending continues at levels authorized by the previous budget.
The House is currently considering the motion from Rep. Matt Gaetz to remove Kevin McCarthy from the Speakership. You can watch the livestream here for those who are interested in legislative cannibalism.
The big problem here is that if we work from the assumption that House Democrats have no interest in either saving McCarthy's speakership (because he betrayed them on the budget deal he made this past summer) or in supporting another Republican for Speaker of the House (something they demonstrated fifteen times this past January) I'm not sure I see a clear way for Republicans to choose a new Speaker.
Assuming all or most Democrats vote against retaining McCarthy it only requires a handful of Republicans to eject him from the Speaker's chair. On the other hand, if all or most Democrats vote for Hakeem Jeffries for Speaker (as they did back in January) it would require near-unanimity from Republicans to choose a replacement Speaker.
It seems to me that the problem McCarthy has if he wants to rely on Democrats to save his job is that he’d have to make some kind of promises in return for their support, and he’s already shown them he doesn’t keep promises.
Watching the voting now; at least 7 Republicans have already voted to remove McCarthy, and Democrats aren’t coming to his aid.
Patrick McHenry is Speaker Pro Tem, named by McCarthy - the NY Times says a law was passed in the wake of Sept 11 to say what happens if the speakership is vacant.
As a matter of trivia, McCarthy's 269 day Speakership is actually only the fourth shortest on record.
In third place is Michael C. Kerr, who served 257 days from December 6, 1875 until his death by consumption on August 19, 1876.
The number two spot is held by John W. Taylor, who was elected to the post after Henry Clay resigned, serving 109 days from November 15, 1820 until the end of the 16th Congress on March 4, 1821. He later served a full session as Speaker in the 19th Congress.
And the shortest tenure of any Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives on record was held by Theodore M. Pomeroy, who was elected to the post on March 3, 1869 when Schuyler Colfax resigned to take up his duties as vice president and served until March 4, 1869, when the new session of Congress elected a new speaker. His term lasted 1 day, a record that seems likely to endure.
Wot just happened? What are the implications of this please US Shipmates? What would the Democrats like to happen here? What would the Republicans like to happen here?
Wot just happened? What are the implications of this please US Shipmates? What would the Democrats like to happen here? What would the Republicans like to happen here?
The Republicans have no idea. Sort of like a dog actually catching a car.
The Democrats are holding to Napoleon's adage: "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
If there is no Speaker, there is no functioning House of Representatives, ergo, no US government. At least that's what I've heard pundits say in the NYTimes and Wash Post.
There is a speaker, even if temporary. Even though McCarthy is now out, he may well be back soon. We will now have a frustrating and amusing period in which contenders will vie for votes.
Of course, if they had any sense, they would get Pelosi back, perhaps the most effective Speaker in history.
If there is no Speaker, there is no functioning House of Representatives, ergo, no US government. At least that's what I've heard pundits say in the NYTimes and Wash Post.
That makes no sense to me. Congress is the legislature, not the executive! Can't the executive branch carry on regardless?
If there is no Speaker, there is no functioning House of Representatives, ergo, no US government. At least that's what I've heard pundits say in the NYTimes and Wash Post.
That makes no sense to me. Congress is the legislature, not the executive! Can't the executive branch carry on regardless?
The executive branch can certainly carry on with executive actions. But the executive can’t do things like pass the budget bills we don’t have.
If there is no Speaker, there is no functioning House of Representatives, ergo, no US government. At least that's what I've heard pundits say in the NYTimes and Wash Post.
That makes no sense to me. Congress is the legislature, not the executive! Can't the executive branch carry on regardless?
The Speaker brings bills up for votes, sets the agenda... so no leader = no operating House. No operating House then no Legislative branch. And, IIRC, the three branches have to act in unison. If one isn't functioning then whole critter stops. At least that's my recall of civics class, which I admit may be faulty.
Plus you really don't want the Executive to be able to "carry on" independently. The right wingers would LOVE to set that precedent.
If there is no Speaker, there is no functioning House of Representatives, ergo, no US government. At least that's what I've heard pundits say in the NYTimes and Wash Post.
That makes no sense to me. Congress is the legislature, not the executive! Can't the executive branch carry on regardless?
The executive branch can certainly carry on with executive actions. But the executive can’t do things like pass the budget bills we don’t have.
Well then isn't it maybe a mistake for the Democrats to have allied with the rebel Republicans to eject McCarthy if the upshot is that there's no funding?
If there is no Speaker, there is no functioning House of Representatives, ergo, no US government. At least that's what I've heard pundits say in the NYTimes and Wash Post.
That makes no sense to me. Congress is the legislature, not the executive! Can't the executive branch carry on regardless?
The executive branch can certainly carry on with executive actions. But the executive can’t do things like pass the budget bills we don’t have.
Well then isn't it maybe a mistake for the Democrats to have allied with the rebel Republicans to eject McCarthy if the upshot is that there's no funding?
That it was a mistake could certainly be argued. But I’d say @Kyzyl has cited Napoleon’s rule aptly. McCarthy hadn’t been able to lead Republicans to get their act together to pass budget bills, so my guess is Democrats saw little upside to helping him out—especially when he’s demonstrated a willingness to renege on deals he’s made. Better to let everyone see just how incapable of governing the House Republicans are.
There's funding for the next 45 days or so, and a lot can happen in that time. There's no reason for Democrats to save McCarthy's ass when they wouldn't get anything from him for their efforts. If the Democrats are going to make a deal with a Republican for the speakership, it should be with someone who will make concessions to the Democrats' agenda.
If the Democrats are going to make a deal with a Republican for the speakership, it should be with someone who will make concessions to the Democrats' agenda.
And someone who will actually honor those concessions.
If there is no Speaker, there is no functioning House of Representatives, ergo, no US government. At least that's what I've heard pundits say in the NYTimes and Wash Post.
That makes no sense to me. Congress is the legislature, not the executive! Can't the executive branch carry on regardless?
The executive branch can certainly carry on with executive actions. But the executive can’t do things like pass the budget bills we don’t have.
Well then isn't it maybe a mistake for the Democrats to have allied with the rebel Republicans to eject McCarthy if the upshot is that there's no funding?
Nope. McCarthy cannot be trusted, there's no way he'd keep any promises made to the Dems for support. This, again IMO only, is like lancing a boil. Better to get it out and drained. Messy, gross, but maybe the only way to heal.
Gotta go for the evening, I'll hop back on in the US AM.
If the Democrats are going to make a deal with a Republican for the speakership, it should be with someone who will make concessions to the Democrats' agenda.
And someone who will actually honor those concessions.
Exactly. McCarthy isn't trustworthy.
And if the so-called moderate Republicans gave a shit about the country, they'd put forward a reasonable person and make a deal with Democrats to get enough votes for that person.
If the Democrats are going to make a deal with a Republican for the speakership, it should be with someone who will make concessions to the Democrats' agenda.
And someone who will actually honor those concessions.
Exactly. McCarthy isn't trustworthy.
And if the so-called moderate Republicans gave a shit about the country, they'd put forward a reasonable person and make a deal with Democrats to get enough votes for that person.
Or some of those so-called moderate Republicans from districts that generally lean Democratic and that voted for Biden would decide that maybe it’s in their interest to vote for Hakeem Jeffries for Speaker.
I wouldn't want to be on the reality-acknowledging wing of the GOP just now. They're stuck between abandoning the long-held GOP view that you should be able to govern solely with GOP votes, and putting up with the optics (and inevitable primary challenges) of working with Democrats to pass things, and going all in with the reality-denying wing of the party and getting drowned by a blue wave in 2024. I wonder if we'll see any defections, in an attempt to save their own skins?
If there is no Speaker, there is no functioning House of Representatives, ergo, no US government. At least that's what I've heard pundits say in the NYTimes and Wash Post.
Patrick McHenry (R-NC10) is serving as Speaker pro tempore of the House, a position I was unaware existed until yesterday. It was apparently invented during the post-9/11 paranoia as a continuity of government measure in the event the Speaker of the House suddenly dies or is incapacitated. The Speaker pro tempore is selected in secret by the Speaker and only revealed if/when necessary. The idea seems to be to have someone able to perform the Speaker's duties until the House can select a replacement. There is no limit on how long a Speaker pro tempore can serve, which makes sense for something designed as an emergency measure.
But my understanding is that, at least on the House floor, the only thing the Speaker pro tem can do is preside over the vote to elect a Speaker. The House can conduct no other business.
But my understanding is that, at least on the House floor, the only thing the Speaker pro tem can do is preside over the vote to elect a Speaker. The House can conduct no other business.
I'm not sure that's the case. The Speaker can also designate a pro tempore replacement in the event of his expected absence. Marjorie Taylor Greene filled this role for a day back in May as one example. I don't think there's distinction between a Speaker pro tempore who serves on an expected, short-term basis due to the Speaker's planned absence and one selected because of a vacancy in the Speakership.
Technically, there is no rule requiring the Speaker be a member of Congress. Reports are some people would like to see Trump holding the gavel. On the other hand, I heard Dolly Parton's name also mentioned.
Jim Jordan's detractors say his involvement with a sex abuse scandal at Ohio State should disqualify the Congressman from holding GOP leadership positions. His supporters say he could be a fine Speaker in the mold of Dennis Hastert.
It's only funny if you know the backgrounds of the men named, but I laughed.
But my understanding is that, at least on the House floor, the only thing the Speaker pro tem can do is preside over the vote to elect a Speaker. The House can conduct no other business.
I'm not sure that's the case. The Speaker can also designate a pro tempore replacement in the event of his expected absence. Marjorie Taylor Greene filled this role for a day back in May as one example. I don't think there's distinction between a Speaker pro tempore who serves on an expected, short-term basis due to the Speaker's planned absence and one selected because of a vacancy in the Speakership.
An elected speaker pro tem could do more, but an appointed speaker pro tem can't do much.
"The Office of Speaker may be declared vacant by resolution, which may be offered as a matter of privilege. Manual Sec. 315; 6 Cannon Sec. 35. Under rule I clause 8(b)(3), adopted in the 108th Congress, the Speaker is required to deliver to the Clerk a list of Members in
the order in which each shall act as Speaker pro tempore in the case of a vacancy in the Office of Speaker. The Member acting as Speaker pro tempore under this provision may exercise such authorities of the Office of Speaker as may be necessary and appropriate pending the election of a Speaker or Speaker pro tempore. A vacancy in the Office
may exist by reason of the physical inability of the Speaker to discharge the duties of the Office."
The phrase "necessary and appropriate" sounds a bit like a sieve.
"The Office of Speaker may be declared vacant by resolution, which may be offered as a matter of privilege. Manual Sec. 315; 6 Cannon Sec. 35. Under rule I clause 8(b)(3), adopted in the 108th Congress, the Speaker is required to deliver to the Clerk a list of Members in the order in which each shall act as Speaker pro tempore in the case of a vacancy in the Office of Speaker. The Member acting as Speaker pro tempore under this provision may exercise such authorities of the Office of Speaker as may be necessary and appropriate pending the election of a Speaker or Speaker pro tempore. A vacancy in the Office may exist by reason of the physical inability of the Speaker to discharge the duties of the Office."
The phrase "necessary and appropriate" sounds a bit like a sieve.
It's a bit like the "necessary and proper" clause of the U.S. Constitution. The rule was drafted as an emergency measure so those who drafted it probably didn't want to put too many restrictions on what could be done in the face of a situation the drafters by definition didn't know any details about.
I am beginning to think of Santos as a performance art parody of the Republican led congress.
Question is, where did he get his money?
Hey, remember Anthony Devolder George Santos? It looks like we now have an answer to the question @Gramps49 and others asked back in January.
It was never quite clear how Santos went from making $55,000 to having a vast personal fortune in the span of a matter of months.
But on Thursday, as Nancy Marks, Santos’ campaign treasurer pleaded guilty to a fraud conspiracy charge related to her work on his team, we got an answer. Federal prosecutors said Santos’ fortune never existed at all.
The criminal information filed by prosecutors on Thursday accused Marks of working with Santos on a “scheme” to qualify for “financial and logistical support” from a program run by an unnamed party committee by inflating the amount of money his campaign had taken in. The court filing alleged that Santos’ supposed loans were crucial to furthering the plan. And not only did he not make a $500,000 loan which he claimed to, but he “did not have the funds necessary to make such loans at the time,” the filing said.
Prosecutors did not identify the “National Party Committee” that ran the program, which Santos ultimately qualified for. However, details appear to point to the National Republican Congressional Committee, which leads efforts to elect GOP House candidates. The NRCC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
According to prosecutors, the committee program was based, in part, on a campaign’s fundraising efforts and required candidates to bring in at least $250,000. Prosecutors accused Santos and Marks of falsely filing documents that showed their family members made donations to the campaign that were not actually received.
Santos and Marks allegedly conducted much of the scheme over text and email, messaging each other the names and amounts that relatives would be marked as contributing, with Santos complaining at one point to Marks that he was “lost and desperate.” His anxiety apparently turned to relief once he was accepted for the program.
“I GOT [THE PROGRAM]!” he purportedly texted Marks on Feb. 23, 2022.
So "George Santos'" sudden windfall allegedly never actually existed. "Santos" was claiming a campaign war chest that didn't exist as a way to (allegedly) scam money out of the NRCC. I admit I never expected that, in part because I naïvely thought someone (the FEC? the NRCC?) was actually verifying these kinds of monetary claims.
You'd expect his fellow House Republicans might be a bit upset with him about this, but I guess they're not willing to give up even one seat in their current circumstances. Plus game recognizes game.
And then adjourned. Because Scalise won a majority of Republican votes behind closed doors but not so many that he would win a majority of the full House.
Comments
I think the issue is whether the debt limit is itself constitutional - the argument goes that the executive is obliged to spend the money appropriated by congress so the debt ceiling violates the 14th amendment by calling into question debt which has already been authorised by law. The problem is that this has never been tested, hence constitutional crisis.
Of course it is. The problem is getting the congress critters to actually do it--because the only time they face up to it is when we're under the gun with a shutdown looming, and the rest of the time they handwave it as something that "we have more important things to do just now." So annoying. (Feel free to substitute stronger language.)
The problem you have is that the current supreme court would likely vote 6-3 that taxes are unconstitutional, given the opportunity. I wouldn’t want to be the president who ordered spending to continue defying the debt ceiling and have to persuade this SCOTUS. From what I’ve seen there’s every chance they’d claim the 14th amendment only applies to civil war debt or some other such sophistry.
The big problem here is that if we work from the assumption that House Democrats have no interest in either saving McCarthy's speakership (because he betrayed them on the budget deal he made this past summer) or in supporting another Republican for Speaker of the House (something they demonstrated fifteen times this past January) I'm not sure I see a clear way for Republicans to choose a new Speaker.
Assuming all or most Democrats vote against retaining McCarthy it only requires a handful of Republicans to eject him from the Speaker's chair. On the other hand, if all or most Democrats vote for Hakeem Jeffries for Speaker (as they did back in January) it would require near-unanimity from Republicans to choose a replacement Speaker.
Watching the voting now; at least 7 Republicans have already voted to remove McCarthy, and Democrats aren’t coming to his aid.
In third place is Michael C. Kerr, who served 257 days from December 6, 1875 until his death by consumption on August 19, 1876.
The number two spot is held by John W. Taylor, who was elected to the post after Henry Clay resigned, serving 109 days from November 15, 1820 until the end of the 16th Congress on March 4, 1821. He later served a full session as Speaker in the 19th Congress.
And the shortest tenure of any Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives on record was held by Theodore M. Pomeroy, who was elected to the post on March 3, 1869 when Schuyler Colfax resigned to take up his duties as vice president and served until March 4, 1869, when the new session of Congress elected a new speaker. His term lasted 1 day, a record that seems likely to endure.
The Republicans have no idea. Sort of like a dog actually catching a car.
The Democrats are holding to Napoleon's adage: "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."
If there is no Speaker, there is no functioning House of Representatives, ergo, no US government. At least that's what I've heard pundits say in the NYTimes and Wash Post.
Of course, if they had any sense, they would get Pelosi back, perhaps the most effective Speaker in history.
That makes no sense to me. Congress is the legislature, not the executive! Can't the executive branch carry on regardless?
The Speaker brings bills up for votes, sets the agenda... so no leader = no operating House. No operating House then no Legislative branch. And, IIRC, the three branches have to act in unison. If one isn't functioning then whole critter stops. At least that's my recall of civics class, which I admit may be faulty.
Plus you really don't want the Executive to be able to "carry on" independently. The right wingers would LOVE to set that precedent.
Well then isn't it maybe a mistake for the Democrats to have allied with the rebel Republicans to eject McCarthy if the upshot is that there's no funding?
Nope. McCarthy cannot be trusted, there's no way he'd keep any promises made to the Dems for support. This, again IMO only, is like lancing a boil. Better to get it out and drained. Messy, gross, but maybe the only way to heal.
Gotta go for the evening, I'll hop back on in the US AM.
Exactly. McCarthy isn't trustworthy.
And if the so-called moderate Republicans gave a shit about the country, they'd put forward a reasonable person and make a deal with Democrats to get enough votes for that person.
McCarthy has said he will not seek the Speakership again.
Patrick McHenry (R-NC10) is serving as Speaker pro tempore of the House, a position I was unaware existed until yesterday. It was apparently invented during the post-9/11 paranoia as a continuity of government measure in the event the Speaker of the House suddenly dies or is incapacitated. The Speaker pro tempore is selected in secret by the Speaker and only revealed if/when necessary. The idea seems to be to have someone able to perform the Speaker's duties until the House can select a replacement. There is no limit on how long a Speaker pro tempore can serve, which makes sense for something designed as an emergency measure.
I'm not sure that's the case. The Speaker can also designate a pro tempore replacement in the event of his expected absence. Marjorie Taylor Greene filled this role for a day back in May as one example. I don't think there's distinction between a Speaker pro tempore who serves on an expected, short-term basis due to the Speaker's planned absence and one selected because of a vacancy in the Speakership.
@Crœsos, I’m just going by what the press has been reporting—that the House cannot conduct any business until a Speaker is elected.
It's only funny if you know the backgrounds of the men named, but I laughed.
I am sure, though, one rule will be dropped. No one person can move to oust the new Speaker.
The previous rule was half of the majority party had to move to dismiss the Speaker.
An elected speaker pro tem could do more, but an appointed speaker pro tem can't do much.
"The Office of Speaker may be declared vacant by resolution, which may be offered as a matter of privilege. Manual Sec. 315; 6 Cannon Sec. 35. Under rule I clause 8(b)(3), adopted in the 108th Congress, the Speaker is required to deliver to the Clerk a list of Members in
the order in which each shall act as Speaker pro tempore in the case of a vacancy in the Office of Speaker. The Member acting as Speaker pro tempore under this provision may exercise such authorities of the Office of Speaker as may be necessary and appropriate pending the election of a Speaker or Speaker pro tempore. A vacancy in the Office
may exist by reason of the physical inability of the Speaker to discharge the duties of the Office."
The phrase "necessary and appropriate" sounds a bit like a sieve.
It's a bit like the "necessary and proper" clause of the U.S. Constitution. The rule was drafted as an emergency measure so those who drafted it probably didn't want to put too many restrictions on what could be done in the face of a situation the drafters by definition didn't know any details about.
Hey, remember Anthony Devolder George Santos? It looks like we now have an answer to the question @Gramps49 and others asked back in January.
So "George Santos'" sudden windfall allegedly never actually existed. "Santos" was claiming a campaign war chest that didn't exist as a way to (allegedly) scam money out of the NRCC. I admit I never expected that, in part because I naïvely thought someone (the FEC? the NRCC?) was actually verifying these kinds of monetary claims.
You'd expect his fellow House Republicans might be a bit upset with him about this, but I guess they're not willing to give up even one seat in their current circumstances. Plus game recognizes game.