# Could the House of Representatives be disbanded for refusing to perform their duties? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 7, 2013, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-house-of-representatives-be-disbanded-for-refusing-to-perform-their-duties/670569 "2013-10-07T05:53:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2013, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-house-of-representatives-be-disbanded-for-refusing-to-perform-their-duties/670569/61 "2013-10-07T22:06:01Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > Tinpot dictatorship!:mad: Just about every democracy in the world has mechanisms to either replace the executive branch, or hold new elections to replace the legislative branch (or either, or both) if the two are deadlocked, and it happens quite frequently. It makes things more democratic, not less, and less dictatorial, not more. The United States may be unique in having such an over-rigid constitution as to make this legally impossible (as I assume it is). Those guys back in the 18th century who drew up the US Constitution just never anticipated such a situation. They thought that the country would continue to be run by reasonable men like themselves. They were wrong. Mind though that two years was a _very short_ period of time in the 1700s because there wasn’t instant communications, so things didn’t need to happen as quickly nor did they. In our technologically advanced world two years is a really long time for the Federal government not to do anything. I imagine the reason the Framers didn’t have any sort of Congressional dissolution/recall put in is in part they thought two years to be such a short term that they could just fix stuff at the next election. What if Adams had a House that wouldn’t pass a budget? Well, so what? Congress was absent from the capital for very long periods in that age anyway due to travel concerns, and the Federal government was about 10% of what it is today. By and large the impact of it shutting down for the rest of that Congress would have been minimal. Even from a national defense perspective, the standing Army was extremely small. [At one point it was like 80 people.] Defense was going to be handled by ad hoc call ups of militia in any case. Probably the biggest problem in that time of the Federal government shutting down would have been the customs officials not being able to process anything coming in, but I imagine they’d have solved that by just importing stuff anyway and not paying a tax. They would not have shut down ports just because the tax man wasn’t there, and if some Federal agents tried, it’d go very badly for them in the rough and tumble 1700s/early 1800s and I wouldn’t want to be that Federal agent versus 1000x my number in stevedores and other types. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2013, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-house-of-representatives-be-disbanded-for-refusing-to-perform-their-duties/670569/62 "2013-10-07T22:56:25Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > How do Biden and the Cabinet get the power to remove the President? I can easily see how that sort of misconduct is a “high crime or misdemeanour” warranting impeachment and removal, but how is the President “… unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office”, which is what triggers the Veep’s powers under Amendment XXV, s. 4? It’s clearly a misuse of the powers of the office, but how can it be twisted into being an inability? It would cause a Constitutional Crisis (obviously), but if President Obama ordered the arrest of the legislature because they didn’t do what he wanted, the Vice President and Cabinet would, in all likelihood, call that some sort of mental incapacity. Sort of a “The President’s gone crazy.” sort of thing ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2013, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-house-of-representatives-be-disbanded-for-refusing-to-perform-their-duties/670569/63 "2013-10-07T23:05:05Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Arrest them under what charges? Does “indefinite detention without trial” ring any bells? Not that I think Obama would be stupid enough to try it here, but his administration _did_ successfully fight to defend the power to lock up whoever he wants, as long as he wants. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2013, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-house-of-representatives-be-disbanded-for-refusing-to-perform-their-duties/670569/64 "2013-10-07T23:57:32Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > Does “indefinite detention without trial” ring any bells? Not that I think Obama would be stupid enough to try it here, but his administration _did_ successfully fight to defend the power to lock up whoever he wants, as long as he wants. An inaccurate view of both the administration’s argument and the various rulings of the Supreme Court. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2013, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-house-of-representatives-be-disbanded-for-refusing-to-perform-their-duties/670569/65 "2013-10-08T00:05:56Z")
If they were “disbanded” how would that be different from how it is now? ---
**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2013, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-house-of-representatives-be-disbanded-for-refusing-to-perform-their-duties/670569/66 "2013-10-08T00:08:25Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > How do Biden and the Cabinet get the power to remove the President? I can easily see how that sort of misconduct is a “high crime or misdemeanour” warranting impeachment and removal, but how is the President “… unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office”, which is what triggers the Veep’s powers under Amendment XXV, s. 4? It’s clearly a misuse of the powers of the office, but how can it be twisted into being an inability? The president’s inability isn’t what triggers the VP’s powers. The declaration of his inability is. Nothing says it has to be correct. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2013, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-house-of-representatives-be-disbanded-for-refusing-to-perform-their-duties/670569/67 "2013-10-08T00:56:59Z")
> [@Habeed](#): > > Frankly, if the House of Representatives, as a whole, refuses to even make a decision on what to spend money on, could they be removed from office for failing to perform their duties? It is set out in Article V of the US Constitution. Two thirds of the states would have to petition Congress for a new constitutional convention. Congress has no power to block it, although it probably could delay the start. It is hard to see how a democracy could legally require new elections for the legislature while the executive remains in power. What you propose is more characteristic of an absolute monarchy. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2013, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-house-of-representatives-be-disbanded-for-refusing-to-perform-their-duties/670569/68 "2013-10-08T01:48:29Z")
> [@Lord\_Feldon](#): > > The president’s inability isn’t what triggers the VP’s powers. The declaration of his inability is. Nothing says it has to be correct. Ding ding ding! The President doesn’t actually have to be incapable of performing the office…it just takes the right vote of the cabinet. > [@](#): > > 25th Amendment, Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2013, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-house-of-representatives-be-disbanded-for-refusing-to-perform-their-duties/670569/69 "2013-10-08T02:25:21Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > I think this thread started off with some fundamentally flawed understandings of basic facts (like the fact that the House has actually passed several CR’s). That being what it is, I have an idea that hasn’t come up yet: > > The States (presumably at Obama’s urging) could propose a Constitutional Convention and then ratify one or more amendments which lead to the resolution of the current crisis. Dangit, that was gonna be my suggestion! I’ve kind of been wondering whether Congress ought to have some military-style restriction-of-freedom thing going on. As in, joining Congress means serving your country, and for the duration of your service, you accept some limits on your freedom. No limits on speech, of course. But when it’s budget season, Congresscritters would get locked in the Capitol with tofu, oatmeal, and instant coffee until there’s a budget. ---
**Author:** ![usedtobe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ec9cab/32.png) [@usedtobe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/usedtobe)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2013, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-house-of-representatives-be-disbanded-for-refusing-to-perform-their-duties/670569/70 "2013-10-08T05:25:39Z")
Declare the House’s continuing refusal to originate anything approaching reasonable appropriation bills to be unconstitutional. Those members (including the Speaker, should he refuse to bring up a clean budget) are guilty of obstruction of the Government, and are seized and prevented from ever holding office again. Give the States a month to send a replacement. This time, the House does NOT rubber-stamp membership - each new member is voted on by the remaining (Constitutionally compliant) members. In the meantime, all departments are authorized to fulfill the country’s obligations - financial, military, diplomatic, and law enforcement as they see fit (or at least all Cabinet-level Departments). Anything here that a determined President and a (preferably) agreeable SCOTUS could not accomplish by Executive Order? Remember, that last time somebody tried to tear the country apart in such a credible manner, the President suspended Habeas Corpses, and, IIRC, told the Supremes to stuff it. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2013, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-house-of-representatives-be-disbanded-for-refusing-to-perform-their-duties/670569/71 "2013-10-08T06:50:37Z")
Suspended corpses? I’m not sure I like where this is going. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2013, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-house-of-representatives-be-disbanded-for-refusing-to-perform-their-duties/670569/72 "2013-10-08T14:06:07Z")
> [@usedtobe](#): > > Declare the House’s continuing refusal to originate anything approaching reasonable appropriation bills to be unconstitutional. Those members (including the Speaker, should he refuse to bring up a clean budget) are guilty of obstruction of the Government, and are seized and prevented from ever holding office again. > > Give the States a month to send a replacement. > > This time, the House does NOT rubber-stamp membership - each new member is voted on by the remaining (Constitutionally compliant) members. > > In the meantime, all departments are authorized to fulfill the country’s obligations - financial, military, diplomatic, and law enforcement as they see fit (or at least all Cabinet-level Departments). > > Anything here that a determined President and a (preferably) agreeable SCOTUS could not accomplish by Executive Order? In the sense that the President commands the guys with the guns, but only in that sense. To get SCOTUS to go along with this charade would probably require placing them under armed guard, and the military agreeing to orders to abandon the Constitution for rule-by-dictate. Not bloody likely. [QUOTE=usedtobe] Remember, that last time somebody tried to tear the country apart in such a credible manner, the President suspended Habeas Corpses, and, IIRC, told the Supremes to stuff it. [/QUOTE] It never reached SCOTUS. Lincoln’s administration did ignore a Circuit Court ruling, but released prisoners in 1862 before further court challenges were heard. This was followed by the [Habeas Corpus Suspension Act 1863](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_Corpus_Suspension_Act_1863). So, Lincoln’s unilateral suspension of Habeus Corpus was of a short duration, and was not ruled upon by SCOTUS. ETA: 9 states seceding from the Union and firing on a Federal fort is a much more credible threat than a budget squabble. ---
**Author:** ![jonesj2205](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ecc23a/32.png) [@jonesj2205](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jonesj2205)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2013, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-house-of-representatives-be-disbanded-for-refusing-to-perform-their-duties/670569/73 "2013-10-08T14:22:36Z")
> [@usedtobe](#): > > Declare the House’s continuing refusal to originate anything approaching reasonable appropriation bills to be unconstitutional. Those members (including the Speaker, should he refuse to bring up a clean budget) are guilty of obstruction of the Government, and are seized and prevented from ever holding office again. > Anything here that a determined President and a (preferably) agreeable SCOTUS could not accomplish by Executive Order? Well let’s see, there’s the fact that the definition of “reasonable appropriation bill” is a political and not constitutional assessment. Even if SCOTUS didn’t routinely refuse to consider political questions it’d be hard to call defunding only something that originally passed the House 219-212 as being clearly unreasonable appropriation bills. And other than the usedtobe doesn’t like them clause, where in the Constitution do you see the ability to prevent people from holding office based on their vote? ---
**Author:** ![dba\_Fred](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c37758/32.png) [@dba\_Fred](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dba_Fred)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2013, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-house-of-representatives-be-disbanded-for-refusing-to-perform-their-duties/670569/74 "2013-10-08T14:57:06Z")
The answer the OP is looking for is to have Obama appoint Marley23 as the Congressional Administrator™ to ban them all 😃 ---
**Author:** ![runningdude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e9c0ed/32.png) [@runningdude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/runningdude)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2013, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-house-of-representatives-be-disbanded-for-refusing-to-perform-their-duties/670569/75 "2013-10-08T16:27:19Z")
> [@Habeed](#): > > More than likely, the D:R ratio would be about the same, however, the new politicians would probably be more respectful of their job duties. There would be a nationwide game of “nosies”, and the one people who would walk back into such a constitutional mess would be those not smart enough to stay the heck away. The situation would completely fall apart, and the United States would certainly loose its AAA/AAA- credit rating altogether by unprecedentedly “dissolving” the House of Representatives. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2013, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-house-of-representatives-be-disbanded-for-refusing-to-perform-their-duties/670569/76 "2013-10-08T17:39:09Z")
> [@usedtobe](#): > > Declare the House’s continuing refusal to originate anything approaching reasonable appropriation bills to be unconstitutional. Those members (including the Speaker, should he refuse to bring up a clean budget) are guilty of obstruction of the Government, and are seized and prevented from ever holding office again. > > Give the States a month to send a replacement. > > This time, the House does NOT rubber-stamp membership - each new member is voted on by the remaining (Constitutionally compliant) members. > > In the meantime, all departments are authorized to fulfill the country’s obligations - financial, military, diplomatic, and law enforcement as they see fit (or at least all Cabinet-level Departments). > > Anything here that a determined President and a (preferably) agreeable SCOTUS could not accomplish by Executive Order? > > Remember, that last time somebody tried to tear the country apart in such a credible manner, the President suspended Habeas Corpses, and, IIRC, told the Supremes to stuff it. Ummm … most of it? [ol] [li]Which section of the federal code contains the crime “obstruction of government”?[/li][li]You use the words “unconstitutional” and “constitutional” in pretty much the opposite ways of how I understand their meanings. Passing a CR with some conditions _is_ “constitutional”. In your fantasy, the remaining members of Congress may be compliant, but (given that they’re participating in a sham and a farce) I’d consider them much closer to “_un_constitutional” than the word you use.[/li][li]Who exactly would have “authorized” the departments to continue to function without an appropriations bill? The President? That’s not who is supposed to do it according to our Constitution.[/li][/ol] And +1 to everything Human Action had to say about it. ---
**Author:** ![usedtobe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ec9cab/32.png) [@usedtobe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/usedtobe)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2013, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-house-of-representatives-be-disbanded-for-refusing-to-perform-their-duties/670569/77 "2013-10-08T22:00:52Z")
Passing the same thing 43 times is not rational or reasonable. Call it Dereliction of Duty - I don’t think it is a stretch to infer that the Constitutional duty to origin spending bills means originating ones which have a chance of being acceptable to the Senate and President. After 43 iterations of the same bill, rational would be to do what is necessary to contine the Govt. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2013, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-house-of-representatives-be-disbanded-for-refusing-to-perform-their-duties/670569/78 "2013-10-08T22:13:58Z")
> [@usedtobe](#): > > I don’t think it is a stretch to infer that the Constitutional duty to origin spending bills means originating ones which have a chance of being acceptable to the Senate and President. It is absolutely a stretch. You don’t seem to have your pulse on what politics is all about. You’re basically saying the Constitution means whatever you want it to mean. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2013, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-house-of-representatives-be-disbanded-for-refusing-to-perform-their-duties/670569/79 "2013-10-09T00:01:26Z")
> [@usedtobe](#): > > After 43 iterations of the same bill, rational would be to do what is necessary to contine the Govt. What you proposed isn’t ‘continuing the Govt.’, it’s taking over in a dictatorial coup. It’s forming a _new, improved, President-for-Life banana republic_ government. “We don’t need your stinking Constitution!” ---
**Author:** ![usedtobe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ec9cab/32.png) [@usedtobe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/usedtobe)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2013, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-house-of-representatives-be-disbanded-for-refusing-to-perform-their-duties/670569/80 "2013-10-09T00:27:58Z")
Yep, destroying the country because you lost A bill (much of which written by the GOP to begin with) A Supreme Court ruling A general election is certainly within purview of the Constitution. “Let’s design a country which will grow and prosper beyond our imaginations UNTIL a group of extremists wrest control of the lower house, in which case, they can destroy the country via economic sabotage”. Yeah, I’m sure that that’s in there someplace, right? Or did they assume that the good of the country would always be placed ahead of lunatic politics. Hard to say, isn’t it? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-house-of-representatives-be-disbanded-for-refusing-to-perform-their-duties/670569.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-the-house-of-representatives-be-disbanded-for-refusing-to-perform-their-duties/670569.md?page=5)