An independent in congress

[Vepres]

Let's say an independent was elected to congress, and they didn't want to caucus with either party, how would they get on committees, if at all. What if they became prominent and ran for speaker, how would that work? Just curious.

[Хahar 🤔]

The last such member I can think of was Dean Barkley, who I don't believe was on any committee.

[Verily]

As Xahar said, Dean Barkley (in the Senate 2002-2003, as Jesse Ventura's appointee to replace Paul Wellstone), did not serve on any committees. Of course, as Barkley was a do-nothing who barely showed up in Washington, he might not be the best example.

[Vepres]

I guess if they won over a leader of one of the parties they would get an appointment. But they aren't entitled to membership on a committee, correct?

[Meeker]

Each chamber gets to set its own rules, so if the majority caucus doesn't want to give that member any committee assignments or speaking time during controlled debate they don't have to.

Theoretically the majority caucus could also deprive the main minority caucus of these things as well, but there would be enormous public outcry and the majority caucus would get screwed right back once they eventually fell into the minority.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Each chamber gets to set its own rules, so if the majority caucus doesn't want to give that member any committee assignments or speaking time during controlled debate they don't have to.

Theoretically the majority caucus could also deprive the main minority caucus of these things as well, but there would be enormous public outcry and the majority caucus would get screwed right back once they eventually fell into the minority.

You mean that, for example, Reid and the Democratic leadership (or before Frist and GOP leadership) can remove minority from the committees and allow only majority Senators to serve there?

[Meeker]

Each chamber gets to set its own rules, so if the majority caucus doesn't want to give that member any committee assignments or speaking time during controlled debate they don't have to.

Theoretically the majority caucus could also deprive the main minority caucus of these things as well, but there would be enormous public outcry and the majority caucus would get screwed right back once they eventually fell into the minority.

You mean that, for example, Reid and the Democratic leadership (or before Frist and GOP leadership) can remove minority from the committees and allow only majority Senators to serve there?

If they got their caucus to support them in doing it, yes. They would never do it though because of the backlash.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Each chamber gets to set its own rules, so if the majority caucus doesn't want to give that member any committee assignments or speaking time during controlled debate they don't have to.

Theoretically the majority caucus could also deprive the main minority caucus of these things as well, but there would be enormous public outcry and the majority caucus would get screwed right back once they eventually fell into the minority.

You mean that, for example, Reid and the Democratic leadership (or before Frist and GOP leadership) can remove minority from the committees and allow only majority Senators to serve there?

If they got their caucus to support them in doing it, yes. They would never do it though because of the backlash.

Reid wouldn't do it anyways unless he could get like 6 Republican votes for removing the minority party from committees..

[Purple State]

Each chamber gets to set its own rules, so if the majority caucus doesn't want to give that member any committee assignments or speaking time during controlled debate they don't have to.

Theoretically the majority caucus could also deprive the main minority caucus of these things as well, but there would be enormous public outcry and the majority caucus would get screwed right back once they eventually fell into the minority.

You mean that, for example, Reid and the Democratic leadership (or before Frist and GOP leadership) can remove minority from the committees and allow only majority Senators to serve there?

Sure, if you have the votes to change the rules, you can do anything. You would have to get your caucus to agree with you to get it done, but it's do-able.

About running for Speaker, isn't that up to the House at-large? So a prominent unaffiliated independent could announce their candidacy for Speaker and try to get a majority to vote for them.

[Person Man]

How many congressmen would you need to be a full "Caucus" for committee purposes in any house?

I mean maybe like 5 senators...but not 5 congressmen...maybe a dozen..

[Meeker]

Each chamber gets to set its own rules, so if the majority caucus doesn't want to give that member any committee assignments or speaking time during controlled debate they don't have to.

Theoretically the majority caucus could also deprive the main minority caucus of these things as well, but there would be enormous public outcry and the majority caucus would get screwed right back once they eventually fell into the minority.

You mean that, for example, Reid and the Democratic leadership (or before Frist and GOP leadership) can remove minority from the committees and allow only majority Senators to serve there?

If they got their caucus to support them in doing it, yes. They would never do it though because of the backlash.

Reid wouldn't do it anyways unless he could get like 6 Republican votes for removing the minority party from committees..

Uhh... Reid would never do it. It would be suicide.

How many congressmen would you need to be a full "Caucus" for committee purposes in any house?

I mean maybe like 5 senators...but not 5 congressmen...maybe a dozen..

It's not clear. There are no set rules of the House or Senate that automatically carry over to the next Congress (except the very few that are in the Constitution itself), so if there is hypothetically a small, minority third caucus then their role would be whatever the majority caucus decided it to be when they write the organizing resolution at the start of the Congress.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Reid won't do anything without Republican backing. That's what I'm saying.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I remember Traficant has been stripped from his seniority and committee assingments by Democrats and as Republicans did not assign him anywhere, he was left behing totally.

[Meeker]

Reid won't do anything without Republican backing. That's what I'm saying.

Why would the Republicans backing removing themselves from all committee assignments? Your argument is contrived and redundant.

[Хahar 🤔]

Reid won't do anything without Republican backing. That's what I'm saying.

Why would the Republicans backing removing themselves from all committee assignments? Your argument is contrived and redundant.

He's saying that even if Reid were to try it, he would still need six Republicans because he's such an ineffective leader.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Reid won't do anything without Republican backing. That's what I'm saying.

Why would the Republicans backing removing themselves from all committee assignments? Your argument is contrived and redundant.

REID IS A PUSSSSSYYYYY

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

REID IS A PUSSSSSYYYYY

I have to agree

[Hash]

Harry Reid.

Not a leader. Not worth the risk.

A message from the Conservative Party of Canada