Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-10-2020, 06:46 PM
bizerta is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: wilmington, ma
Posts: 979

Nancy withholding the Articles of Impeachment


What gives Nancy Pelosi the authority to withhold the Articles of Impeachment from the Senate? Doesn't that give the Speaker a veto power over the whole process? Suppose that the President did something so heinous that 85% of the house voted to impeach but the Speaker didn't want to impeach.
  #2  
Old 01-10-2020, 06:56 PM
Exapno Mapcase is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NY but not NYC
Posts: 31,949
Since you're writing this after Pelosi has announced she will be sending the articles over next week, I assume the question is moot.
  #3  
Old 01-10-2020, 07:48 PM
DinoR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 3,795
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exapno Mapcase View Post
I assume the question is moot.
IMO it is really not moot since without House rules or the Constitution changing the question can come up again. The OP even specifies a hypothetical that is not the current situation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bizerta View Post
Suppose that the President did something so heinous that 85% of the house voted to impeach but the Speaker didn't want to impeach.
Fortunately, that hypothetical is not really the major problem you assume it is. The House elects the Speaker. They can also vote to remove any given Speaker. If there is overwhelming bipartisan support for an impeachement there is very likely overwhelming bipartisan support for a motion to vacate the Speakership. That is a privileged motion that the Speaker can't block from coming to a vote.

The Speaker's "veto" only holds as long as the house deigns to allow them to be Speaker.

Last edited by DinoR; 01-10-2020 at 07:50 PM.
  #4  
Old 01-10-2020, 07:58 PM
Flyer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 3,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizerta View Post
What gives Nancy Pelosi the authority to withhold the Articles of Impeachment from the Senate? Doesn't that give the Speaker a veto power over the whole process?
The U.S Constitution does. Each House is the sole arbiter of its own rules and proceedings. See Article I, Section 5.

If enough Representatives feel that the Speaker is not doing a proper job, it's a trivial matter to either change the rules or get a new Speaker. Until then, it's assumed that the Speaker legitimately acts for the whole House.
  #5  
Old 01-11-2020, 03:33 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,089
Quote:
Originally Posted by DinoR View Post
Fortunately, that hypothetical is not really the major problem you assume it is. The House elects the Speaker. They can also vote to remove any given Speaker. If there is overwhelming bipartisan support for an impeachement there is very likely overwhelming bipartisan support for a motion to vacate the Speakership. That is a privileged motion that the Speaker can't block from coming to a vote.

The Speaker's "veto" only holds as long as the house deigns to allow them to be Speaker.
And further so long as the House doesn't have the gumption to buck the Speaker.

When people say that Pelosi won't allow X in the House or that McConnell won't allow Y in the Senate, that is just shorthand for the longer version that convention, tradition, and practicality allows these individuals control over the business of their respective Houses.

If they become unacceptable to a majority in whole, they can be removed. If they are unacceptable to a majority on a particular issue, then it is up to each member to determine if bucking the leader is worth the shitstorm for them that will follow, and presumably, the majority wouldn't allow such retribution.

But convention only goes so far. If one of those individuals bucks the clear will of their respective House, then there are several parliamentary maneuvers which allow the vote to be held despite the leaders' opposition. In the day to day of things, this doesn't happen and members fall into line. But that (other) nuclear option keeps leaders in tune with their caucuses.
  #6  
Old 01-11-2020, 06:36 PM
RioRico is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Location: beyond cell service
Posts: 1,377
I'll bring this up again. I've predicted that this POTUS, not wishing to die in prison, would pull a vicious diversion if he feared explosive evidence against him was about to emerge. BANG! in Iran signals the first step there. Speaker Pelosi could withhold the Articles of Impeachment as long as she wished, even into another session of Congress, but she may present those next week. I doubt she'd do that unless she'd been handed such explosive evidence. I fear we're entering the most dangerous week in US history. I sure hope I'm wrong.
  #7  
Old 01-11-2020, 07:11 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,347
Maybe she's just letting it all marinate. Let a couple, three polls get done, see how America is rallying around the War President.

Which we always do. Until lately.

If she really has The Shit, McConnell's only play is the pre-emptive dismissal. An outright refusal to even pretend to impartial consideration and evidence. So Republican Senators have to think about selling that to the folks back home.

Remember: if they exonerate him now, whatever comes out later is on them. So, yeah, they are thinking about that, and she's fine with giving them time to think some more.

Last edited by elucidator; 01-11-2020 at 07:11 PM.
  #8  
Old 01-12-2020, 01:07 AM
Superdude's Avatar
Superdude is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 10,797
Plus, why allow Trump and McConnell the opportunity to claim total victory and exoneration before the next SotU address? If she can delay until after that, then the Republicans can't use it as a chance to scream "witch hunt," and it can potentially keep Trump and company twisting in the wind a bit.
__________________
I can't help being a gorgeous fiend. It's just the card I drew.
  #9  
Old 01-12-2020, 02:55 AM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
She can do whatever she wants: her district "San Francisco" has no choice but to vote Democrat.
  #10  
Old 01-12-2020, 09:23 AM
Vinyl Turnip is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 20,489
It's terrible the way they force all residents to vote Democratic at gunpoint. Someone should do something.
  #11  
Old 01-12-2020, 10:16 AM
Superdude's Avatar
Superdude is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 10,797
They have to have a few who don't, just as an example of what would happen.
__________________
I can't help being a gorgeous fiend. It's just the card I drew.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:04 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017