Is John Boehner's majority of the majority rule an abuse of power?
If you are a Republican, consider the possibility of a Democratic Speaker of the House imposing the same rule.
In the recent government shutdown, Boehner’s big concession was simply to permit a vote on what had sufficient bipartisan votes to pass.
In the most extreme case, where one party had just over a majority, the majority of the majority rule would allow just over a quarter of the House to prevent a vote on a bill favored by the remaining three quarters. This does not seem right.
The problem is that there is no simple solution. We need someone to prioritize what gets voted on. Otherwise, votes on trivial matters could prevent votes on things that are more urgent.
Does the Senate majority leader have the same authority?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
8 Answers
The Nationalist socialist party in 1935 or so all walked out of the parliament in Germany the proceeding and their was not enough representatives to make a quorum so the government collapsed. In an emergency one man was given all authority until an election was held. Guess who was on the top of the list? Right it was the leader of the nationalist socialist party. Adolf Hitler became the temporary ruler of all Germany. Sort of like in Star Wars the Clone Wars, with emperor Palpatine . I guess he forgot to hold an election, right away, But he did make a law forbidding all other party’s save his. Then he held and election an wo and behold he won a majority 100% of the votes, and then world war two went one more step closer to becoming a reality.
I’m no historian but the same bullshit can happen in the US if the Americans let it happen.
^ If you want to see an abuse of power read my quip above.
From a legal point of view, there is no law preventing Boehner from doing what he does, The constitution pretty much lets him do what he wishes as the House Speaker.
From a leadership point of view, again, he can do what he wants. He is the Speaker of the House (not Speaker of the Republicans in the House) so one argument is that he is not really leading the Congress – only half of it. Again, that’s a political choice he makes, and it reflects his political position. If he were leading the House (not just the Republicans) things would be much different.
The bottom line is that everything he is doing is legally OK, but that as the nominal leader of the H of R, he is doing things that are not representative and do not (in my opinion) serve the citizens well.
But these are his decisions and choices to make.
Nancy Pelosi used to say that she was speaker of the entire House, not just the democrats.
Boehner is trying to give the Tea Baggers a majority vote, even though they don’t have the votes.
It’s not an abuse of power, it is a lack of governance. The Hastert rule, as it is called, has been used by Republicans to hold on to power. It will keep getting used until it backfires some day.
Consider that continued guidance by this might cost Boehner the Speakership. If enough Dems and fed up Reps band together, there could be an alternative Speaker soon enough.
In California, Willie Brown, a Democrat, maintained the Speakership of the State assembly despite a Republican majority, by putting together a coalition of Dems and Reps. And it worked to cobble together a good moderate legislature that got stuff done.
It’s disrespectful and authoritarian, but not technically an abuse of power. Each house of Congress has a right to make its own rules.
The Speaker of the House has to power to follow the Hastert rule, but since Republicans would have lost the House in 2012 had it not been for all their gerrymandered districts, what it amounts to is handing power to a minority of the minority. It’s a severe abuse of Democracy. And, as @filmfann notes, Republicans would go ballistic if a Democrat ruled the House in such a highhanded manner.
@ETpro – which, of course, they will after the 2014 elections.
Answer this question 
Composing members:
0
