How binding are the concessions McCarthy has agreed to with the “Never Kevins”?
What is/are the likely result(s) if he reneges on any/all of them if he takes office?
Well one of the concession allows a single house member to force a vacating vote on the Speaker, and that would be part of the official House rules. So they could easily vote him out if they wanted to.
But are any of these concessions automatically legally binding if McCarthy becomes Speaker?
After they vote for speaker, then they have to vote on the rules for the house. So if he renegs on the rules, they just won’t vote for them.
Since the vast majority were willing to vote for him without the concessions, Maybe a side deal with that majority to ignore the “Never Kevin” concessions to put them in their place would be palatable to that majority?
What law would make a political promise binding?
None that I know of, but I am not as knowledgeable as others here when it comes to political science -that is the reason I asked the question.
Besides this, alienating between six and twenty GOP Congressmen with a “Gotcha!” would guarantee that McCarthy never manages to pass a single party-line bill out of the House and has to negotiate with the Democrats to get a majority on anything. Those tweaked GOP members would vote “No” on each bill out of spite and to keep McCarthy from having any accomplishments.
McCarthy’s gotta work with these holdouts for the next two years to maintain the slim GOP margins.
There’s not even a concept in U.S. law that political promises are somehow binding. No politician in history has kept all of their promises.
What I don’t get is some of these House members who are voting, like George Santos, have not yet been sworn in. So how is it that they’re able to vote?
None of them of have been sworn in. They’re ALL representatives-elect.
Right. The only things they can vote on are electing a Speaker or adjourning. Technically we have no actual Members of Congress in office currently.
We have Senators, right? Not asked as a pedantic gotcha, I’m literally wondering if there’s some rule preventing the senators from being sworn in until we have a Speaker in the House.
(Edit: It occurs to me that, unlike the House, the senators have a staggered term so 2/3s of them are previously sworn in and still serving existing terms anyway)
It’s weird that electing a Speaker comes before swearing in the new House members. I would think swearing them in would be the first thing done.
The Speaker is the one who swears them in.
Yeah, it’s a way the US House is different from many state Houses. In those, the Clerk functions as Speaker Pro Tem and swears in everyone then the members elect their officers. Here basically you first have a Meeting Of The Elected to select a Speaker before constituting themselves.
Senators were sworn in on January 3.
In 1923 the agreement between the majority and the insurgents was read into the house record before the final vote for Speaker. Also recorded was the majority leader (who wasn’t the candidate for Speaker) accepting the agreement. Back then the Speaker was supposed to be non-partisan, or at least appear so. Thank Newt for changing that.
The 1923 insurgents were a cohesive bloc who wanted the House rules to put limits on the power of the Speaker. What they got was an agreement that the 2021 rules would remain in place for 30 days, during which time a new set of rules would be negotiated in good faith.
ETA: Relevant page from the 1923 Congressional Record:
https://www.congress.gov/bound-congressional-record/1923/12/05/house-section
McCarthy’s promises aren’t binding, but anything that gets written into the House rules is, at least until a majority votes to change the rules (and lots of luck getting a majority of this House to agree on anything).
The House needs to approve the rules (I think it is the second thing after selecting a Speaker and the first thing after swearing in). Here’s an article about the adoption of rules for the last Congress:
So yes if McCarthy reneges on his promises the gang of 5 or 7 or 20 or whatever can vote against them and we’re back to a shit show, although enough Dems could theoretically vote in favor of the rules in order to neuter the wackus maximus contingent.