Democrat unveils bill to allow only House members to serve as Speaker

[GeorgiaModerate]

(snip)

The Presidential Succession Act could be amended to remove the Speaker of the House from the line of succession, but I doubt there's much support for that. They would also have to remove the President pro tempore of the Senate, just in case. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires such an individual to be a Senator. Amending that act in that way almost certainly has very low support in either House of Congress.

Amending the act to remove both the Speaker and President pro tem is the best solution for political stability, in order to prevent the Presidency from changing parties suddenly due to death or removal of the President and VP.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

It's very clear why some Republicans want to make Trump Speaker. He pressured election officials to change votes, so if he'd do that it's pretty obvious he would do anything to become President again if he was put into the line of succession. The President and Vice President would not be safe with that maniac as Speaker of the House.

He won't be Speaker, because President of the Senate certified the Election results and that's Harris, he told Pence to not sign the certification and send it back to states and that can make the difference

He would just be a distraction in the House and he won't be able to campaign for Prez, McCarthy is obviously Speaker, but Cheney said that she won't vote for him as Speaker, what happens in a Neutral Environment, 51/49 Senate, it's a 217 tie and Cheney cast the tie breaker to Jeffries which is possible

[Badger]

They're running scared now, so much so of the possibility that they now have to try to somehow enact legislation to keep him away LOL..

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=C8x19LyhHxc

[brucejoel99]

They're running scared now, so much so of the possibility that they now have to try to somehow enact legislation to keep him away LOL..

They're scared because of the very real threat that a Trump House Speakership would pose to the lives and safety of President Biden and VP Harris. But sure, lol it up.

Ever heard of this thing called the Secret Service?

...

You realize that you just implied that, but for the Secret Service's presence, you'd support attempts to threaten the life & safety of the literal incumbent President & Vice President of these United States, right? Because holy jesus, Woodbury, don't even bother just leaving the forum for 1 solid year at this point, given that your kinda talk is liable to result in you involuntarily leaving society for 5 solid years, followed by 3 solid years of supervision thereafter, plus a solid $250,100 fine.

Don't play stupid, just make like a tree & leave.

[StateBoiler]

I don't think this would be constitutional through legislation. It would almost certainly require a constitutional amendment.

While, yes, a constitutional amendment would be ideal, the House is allowed to be responsible for setting the rules for governing itself internally, so this would be part of its duty carrying that out. It's why this is a house resolution instead of a house bill - the Senate and President Biden have no say in how the House conducts its internal affairs.

The Presidential Succession Act could be amended to remove the Speaker of the House from the line of succession, but I doubt there's much support for that. They would also have to remove the President pro tempore of the Senate, just in case. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires such an individual to be a Senator. Amending that act in that way almost certainly has very low support in either House of Congress.

The legislators should be removed from the Presidential Succession Act for the simple reason the best case you can find for them being in there is it is constitutionally questionable to almost every constitutional scholar and a lot of them think it does not stand up to muster if challenged. When you throw on top of it if we ever got to the point we'd need the Speaker or President Pro Tempore it'd be a time of great political instability for our country, we'd hardly need the constitutional crisis.

[politicallefty]

Amending the act to remove both the Speaker and President pro tem is the best solution for political stability, in order to prevent the Presidency from changing parties suddenly due to death or removal of the President and VP.

I wouldn't really support that unless we're doing a complete rewrite of the Presidential Succession Act. I've always been able to see how the Speaker of the House has a rightful claim to the Presidency under that scenario. Considering how the President pro temore is chosen, that position should chosen differently or removed from the line. I feel the Cabinet has even less right and less qualifications. I think we would have to reimagine a completely new act.

While, yes, a constitutional amendment would be ideal, the House is allowed to be responsible for setting the rules for governing itself internally, so this would be part of its duty carrying that out. It's why this is a house resolution instead of a house bill - the Senate and President Biden have no say in how the House conducts its internal affairs.

This proposal would be an actual Act of Congress, something proposed to take effect as law. Both Houses do indeed establish their own rules, but no previous Congress can bind its successors short of a constitutional amendment. If the House were to adopt a rule this week that said only Members of the House of Representatives can be Speaker, that rule would cease to exist on January 3rd, 2023 unless adopted by the new House on that day.

The legislators should be removed from the Presidential Succession Act for the simple reason the best case you can find for them being in there is it is constitutionally questionable to almost every constitutional scholar and a lot of them think it does not stand up to muster if challenged. When you throw on top of it if we ever got to the point we'd need the Speaker or President Pro Tempore it'd be a time of great political instability for our country, we'd hardly need the constitutional crisis.

There is considerable debate about that issue. I think the general consensus is that the Presidential Succession Act is constitutional. There may be some that take a different view, but I think they are a clear minority. There have been numerous times when the first in line to the Presidency has been someone other than the Vice President, as the Vice Presidency has been vacant 18 times. It's also worth noting that the first succession act, the Presidential Succession Act of 1792, called for a special election for President and Vice President in the event that both offices became vacant.

[YE]

Picking on Woodbury for not leaving the forum for a year has gotten really old, guys.

[beaver2.0]

I think anyone that has the support of the house should be allowed to be speaker.

[It’s so Joever]

Picking on Woodbury for not leaving the forum for a year has gotten really old, guys.

Maybe we should just do it for one year.

[StateBoiler]

While, yes, a constitutional amendment would be ideal, the House is allowed to be responsible for setting the rules for governing itself internally, so this would be part of its duty carrying that out. It's why this is a house resolution instead of a house bill - the Senate and President Biden have no say in how the House conducts its internal affairs.

This proposal would be an actual Act of Congress, something proposed to take effect as law. Both Houses do indeed establish their own rules, but no previous Congress can bind its successors short of a constitutional amendment. If the House were to adopt a rule this week that said only Members of the House of Representatives can be Speaker, that rule would cease to exist on January 3rd, 2023 unless adopted by the new House on that day.

It's a good point, you are correct.

The legislators should be removed from the Presidential Succession Act for the simple reason the best case you can find for them being in there is it is constitutionally questionable to almost every constitutional scholar and a lot of them think it does not stand up to muster if challenged. When you throw on top of it if we ever got to the point we'd need the Speaker or President Pro Tempore it'd be a time of great political instability for our country, we'd hardly need the constitutional crisis.

There is considerable debate about that issue. I think the general consensus is that the Presidential Succession Act is constitutional. There may be some that take a different view, but I think they are a clear minority.

That is not what I've read on it at all. The post-9/11 Continuity of Government Commission specifically cited this problem questioning whether legislators are even eligible to be President as one of the many issues that currently exists with presidential succession as it exists in law.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Trump won't serve as Speaker anyways this is Gaetz want to be, Trump won't be able to campaign for Prez or influence the outve of Election Harris certifies the Election not Speaker

[Chips]

This is actually good.

[politicallefty]

That is not what I've read on it at all. The post-9/11 Continuity of Government Commission specifically cited this problem questioning whether legislators are even eligible to be President as one of the many issues that currently exists with presidential succession as it exists in law.

Indeed, I'm aware of the constitutional arguments against the current law, but I don't find them persuasive at all (at least in terms of the actual line of succession). I would argue that since Article I notes various Officers chosen by each the House and the Senate that they are eligible to be Officers worthy of presidential succession under Article II, Section 1, Clause 6. The 1792 Act put the President pro tempore as 2nd in line and the Speaker of the House at 3rd. It went no further because it called for a special election for President and Vice President that would serve for a full four-year term. That law was enacted by the 2nd United States Congress and was in effect until the 1886 Act which removed those two and put the Cabinet in the line of succession. The 1947 Act restored the 1792 succession in reverse order and in front of the Cabinet. Even if you think it's bad policy to have those two in the line of succession, it's fairly ingrained now the Speaker is next in line after the VP. On the other hand, the President pro tempore should be someone other than the longest-serving member of the majority party. Strom Thurmond was 3rd in line for the Presidency for most of the Reagan Administration, most of the Clinton Administration, and part of the Bush Administration. He was very briefly 2nd in line in early 1987 due to the end of the old and start of the new Congress.

I think the part that's probably unconstitutional is the "bumping" part, where a higher officer in the line of succession can bump a lower one. Let's say, for example, that the Presidency, Vice Presidency, and Speakership are all vacant. The President pro tempore then becomes Acting President. The House goes into session and elects a new Speaker. The bumping provision would make the new Speaker the new Acting President. There's one theory that an Acting President that nominates a new Vice President would bump themself out of the Acting Presidency upon confirmation. I don't buy that theory, but the whole idea of bumping individuals would be incredibly unstable and I also find it constitutionally suspect.

(To be honest, I only just very recently became aware of the special election provision in the Presidential Succession Act of 1792. I do wonder whether that was constitutional back then or whether it would be constitutional now. Part of me thinks the 25th Amendment assumes against such an idea.)

[StateBoiler]

That is not what I've read on it at all. The post-9/11 Continuity of Government Commission specifically cited this problem questioning whether legislators are even eligible to be President as one of the many issues that currently exists with presidential succession as it exists in law.

Indeed, I'm aware of the constitutional arguments against the current law, but I don't find them persuasive at all (at least in terms of the actual line of succession). I would argue that since Article I notes various Officers chosen by each the House and the Senate that they are eligible to be Officers worthy of presidential succession under Article II, Section 1, Clause 6. The 1792 Act put the President pro tempore as 2nd in line and the Speaker of the House at 3rd. It went no further because it called for a special election for President and Vice President that would serve for a full four-year term. That law was enacted by the 2nd United States Congress and was in effect until the 1886 Act which removed those two and put the Cabinet in the line of succession. The 1947 Act restored the 1792 succession in reverse order and in front of the Cabinet. Even if you think it's bad policy to have those two in the line of succession, it's fairly ingrained now the Speaker is next in line after the VP. On the other hand, the President pro tempore should be someone other than the longest-serving member of the majority party. Strom Thurmond was 3rd in line for the Presidency for most of the Reagan Administration, most of the Clinton Administration, and part of the Bush Administration. He was very briefly 2nd in line in early 1987 due to the end of the old and start of the new Congress.

I think the part that's probably unconstitutional is the "bumping" part, where a higher officer in the line of succession can bump a lower one. Let's say, for example, that the Presidency, Vice Presidency, and Speakership are all vacant. The President pro tempore then becomes Acting President. The House goes into session and elects a new Speaker. The bumping provision would make the new Speaker the new Acting President. There's one theory that an Acting President that nominates a new Vice President would bump themself out of the Acting Presidency upon confirmation. I don't buy that theory, but the whole idea of bumping individuals would be incredibly unstable and I also find it constitutionally suspect.

(To be honest, I only just very recently became aware of the special election provision in the Presidential Succession Act of 1792. I do wonder whether that was constitutional back then or whether it would be constitutional now. Part of me thinks the 25th Amendment assumes against such an idea.)

You need to look at it through the viewpoint of stability which is the most important thing if we have a president and vice president vacant because the most likely cause is they both died at the same time, which is most likely an assassination plot. There's 2 problems if the Speaker o Senate Pro Tempore ever takes office.

1. Potential party switch in leadership. We've had 2 such instances in our nation's history. 1841 when the Whigs did a terrible job vetting their vice presidential choice in John Tyler. And 1865 where the Republican Party in the 1864 election made a horrific choice in deciding to unify with "War Democrats" to give the appearance of a united front and gave Andrew Johnson the vice presidential nod. Tyler completely changed the presidency away from the prevailing view of the majority party at the time that was a majority in Congress and had won the presidency that the president was to only veto congressional bills on matters of constitutionality instead of personal opinion on policy. With Johnson, it led to him being impeached on trumped-up charges that was one vote away from succeeding. That was 1868. The executive branch of our government is exponentially larger nowadays than it was in 1868 and the legislative branch has shrunk in importance, so a party switch now is going to create significant turmoil in the bureaucracy that runs the state.

2. The Republicans or Democrats in such a scenario will say this is unconstitutional for the legislator to take power if it serves their interests, because it has been demonstrated the past 20+ years that both parties in D.C. serve themselves and their interests instead of the country (see Supreme Court nominations from Robert Bork to present). Game this for a second and think how it looks to have a person assume the job of president of this country and it's challenged for constitutionality and this would be the case for a few months as it goes through federal courts, gets appealed a few times, until the Supreme Court rules decisively. That's ridiculous and is not serving of a democratic republic at all. The Supreme Court however can't rule on this until the scenario occurs because they don't do hypothetical cases. You can pre-resolve this problem by constitutional amendment stating that the Speaker of the House and Senate Pro Tempore are Officers of the country. It's been 18 years since the recommendations of the Continuity of Government Commission pointing out the problems in presidential succession (as well as issues with the legislature and judicial branch), where's the constitutional amendment or acts of Congress solving these problems? Congress has proven itself incapable by years of inaction.

You also have the problem of whether the Senate Pro Tempore being included is even that bright an idea, considering how shrunken in power the modern office of Senate Pro Tempore has become.

The Secretary of State in my opinion is a clearly better #3 for the above reasons. I know the criticism is this person is unelected. The population in this country did not elect the Speaker of the House outside of his or her 1 district out of 435, and also did not elect the Senate Pro Tempore outside of his or her 1 state out of 50. Carl Albert himself when the Nixon and Agnew stuff was going on said he did not think he should be President because Americans clearly voted for a Republican to be President.

[politicallefty]

You need to look at it through the viewpoint of stability which is the most important thing if we have a president and vice president vacant because the most likely cause is they both died at the same time, which is most likely an assassination plot. There's 2 problems if the Speaker o Senate Pro Tempore ever takes office.

1. Potential party switch in leadership. We've had 2 such instances in our nation's history. 1841 when the Whigs did a terrible job vetting their vice presidential choice in John Tyler. And 1865 where the Republican Party in the 1864 election made a horrific choice in deciding to unify with "War Democrats" to give the appearance of a united front and gave Andrew Johnson the vice presidential nod. Tyler completely changed the presidency away from the prevailing view of the majority party at the time that was a majority in Congress and had won the presidency that the president was to only veto congressional bills on matters of constitutionality instead of personal opinion on policy. With Johnson, it led to him being impeached on trumped-up charges that was one vote away from succeeding. That was 1868. The executive branch of our government is exponentially larger nowadays than it was in 1868 and the legislative branch has shrunk in importance, so a party switch now is going to create significant turmoil in the bureaucracy that runs the state.

2. The Republicans or Democrats in such a scenario will say this is unconstitutional for the legislator to take power if it serves their interests, because it has been demonstrated the past 20+ years that both parties in D.C. serve themselves and their interests instead of the country (see Supreme Court nominations from Robert Bork to present). Game this for a second and think how it looks to have a person assume the job of president of this country and it's challenged for constitutionality and this would be the case for a few months as it goes through federal courts, gets appealed a few times, until the Supreme Court rules decisively. That's ridiculous and is not serving of a democratic republic at all. The Supreme Court however can't rule on this until the scenario occurs because they don't do hypothetical cases. You can pre-resolve this problem by constitutional amendment stating that the Speaker of the House and Senate Pro Tempore are Officers of the country. It's been 18 years since the recommendations of the Continuity of Government Commission pointing out the problems in presidential succession (as well as issues with the legislature and judicial branch), where's the constitutional amendment or acts of Congress solving these problems? Congress has proven itself incapable by years of inaction.

You also have the problem of whether the Senate Pro Tempore being included is even that bright an idea, considering how shrunken in power the modern office of Senate Pro Tempore has become.

The Secretary of State in my opinion is a clearly better #3 for the above reasons. I know the criticism is this person is unelected. The population in this country did not elect the Speaker of the House outside of his or her 1 district out of 435, and also did not elect the Senate Pro Tempore outside of his or her 1 state out of 50. Carl Albert himself when the Nixon and Agnew stuff was going on said he did not think he should be President because Americans clearly voted for a Republican to be President.

I don't think the possibility of a party switch is relevant. You note disastrous switches between President and Vice President. There is nothing in the Constitution or the Presidential Succession Act forbidding that from happening again. Indeed, there have been a number of proposed national unity tickets throughout our history. In terms of the Johnson Impeachment, he was impeached for violating the law. I think it's only a shame he wasn't removed from office. He should have been and it would have established a firm legislative supremacy in this country.

I agree that we need a new constitutional amendment. However, we need one governing not just presidential succession, but Congressional succession as well.

I do not agree that the Secretary of State should be second in line. We've had very prominent people in that position that have been constitutionally ineligible. The Speaker of the House does come from one district. However, he or she is elected by a body that represents the entire United States, an authority that is refreshed every two years. It is a higher authority except that of the election of the President and Vice President. I would prefer removing the President pro tempore from the line of succession so long as the Senate chooses that individual in that manner. If the Dean of the House (at least of the majority party) was automatically Speaker of the House, I would think the same. It's almost surprising that the Senate Majority Leader hasn't subsumed the constitutional title of President pro tempore.

[Flyersfan232]

trump lives rent free in there heads

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

trump lives rent free in there heads

their*

[DrScholl]

trump lives rent free in there heads

It's Republicans who have proposed making him Speaker, so who really is thinking about him too much?

[brucejoel99]

I think the part that's probably unconstitutional is the "bumping" part, where a higher officer in the line of succession can bump a lower one. Let's say, for example, that the Presidency, Vice Presidency, and Speakership are all vacant. The President pro tempore then becomes Acting President. The House goes into session and elects a new Speaker. The bumping provision would make the new Speaker the new Acting President.

Not entirely how the bumping provision works: basically, it only has an effect insofar as a Secretary/AG acting as President can be bumped by the Speaker/PPT. In the event that there's a Secretary acting as President, it's a race against the clock between the House & the Senate as to which chamber will get to determine who will get to be the "final" Acting President.

There's one theory that an Acting President that nominates a new Vice President would bump themself out of the Acting Presidency upon confirmation. I don't buy that theory, but the whole idea of bumping individuals would be incredibly unstable and I also find it constitutionally suspect.

That theory is actually separate from the Presidential Succession Act of 1947's bumping provisions, & instead exists as a consequence of the 25th Amendment's wording: basically, the confirmation of a Vice President nominated by an Acting President would prompt the Acting President's automatic removal from the acting presidency as a result of the wording of Article II's Presidential Succession Clause, the 25th Amendment, & the combined interaction thereof, in that an Acting President only acts as President 'til somebody is available to serve in the office itself, whereas a fully-fledged VP is constitutionally empowered to immediately succeed to the full-fledged presidency in the event of a vacancy therein, so it's logically dictated by the aforementioned that a fully-fledged VP nominated by an Acting President automatically supplants said Acting President & succeeds to the full-fledged presidency upon being sworn-in as VP (at which point, they'd then presumably have to immediately take yet another oath-of-office, just to be sworn-in as President on the 2nd time around).

(To be honest, I only just very recently became aware of the special election provision in the Presidential Succession Act of 1792. I do wonder whether that was constitutional back then or whether it would be constitutional now. Part of me thinks the 25th Amendment assumes against such an idea.)

I don't see how it'd be unconstitutional, be it back when it was first put on the books back in 1792 or in the event that it were to once again be put back on the books in the present day: Article II still authorizes the Congress to provide by law for cases in which neither the President nor Vice President can serve, & although an Acting President could nominate a fully-fledged VP who - as mentioned earlier - would supplant them & succeed to the full-fledged presidency, it's not guaranteed to happen (say, in the event that there's a self-interested Acting President who wishes to serve out the remainder of that presidential term at all costs), so Congress could still provide for a special election if it so chose (especially if it had the necessary 2/3rds-majority to override a self-interested Acting President's presumed veto thereof).

[Torrain]

Seems like common sense legislation to me. Precedents only have power when legislators have principles and respect for the process - which is no longer a certainty.

I don't exactly fear a Speaker Trump - the Speaker is always hugely unpopular, and someone as politically indelicate as Trump would make more problems than he would solve.

I truly believe Speaker Trump would be a millstone around the GOP's neck, but the damage he could do to Congress as an institution, and the threat to Biden/Harris, outweigh any political benefit the Dems could possible gain from having a public enemy no.1 to fight.

I really don't want 2023 to be a year of months-long government shutdowns, debt ceiling chaos and assassination attempts.

[SWE]

They're running scared now, so much so of the possibility that they now have to try to somehow enact legislation to keep him away LOL..

They're scared because of the very real threat that a Trump House Speakership would pose to the lives and safety of President Biden and VP Harris. But sure, lol it up.

Ever heard of this thing called the Secret Service?

...

You realize that you just implied that, but for the Secret Service's presence, you'd support attempts to threaten the life & safety of the literal incumbent President & Vice President of these United States, right? Because holy jesus, Woodbury, don't even bother just leaving the forum for 1 solid year at this point, given that your kinda talk is liable to result in you involuntarily leaving society for 5 solid years, followed by 3 solid years of supervision thereafter, plus a solid $250,100 fine.

SirWoodbury is a moron but if you think "killing the president is impossible" implies "but I wish it wasn't" then you're going to throw out your back reaching that hard