Is this a whoosh?
That’s a Speaker of Parliament. We’re talking about Speaker of the US House of Representantives.
To add to what everyone else is saying, you’re right about 1 element but missing another.
Even ignoring the changes in government that are mentioned above, you have to keep in mind that we aren’t just talking about “a Senator” or “a Representative”–we’re talking about a Senator & Representative who, at least in theory, are voted in by their constituents (their state & their district, respectively) and then given a higher office by the other Senators & Representatives who are (in theory) voting on behalf of their constituents.
Representatives, having less ground to cover with their smaller districts, are (in theory) going to be closer to the people they represent than Senators, who have to represent the entire (likely much more diverse) region of the state. The Representative, therefore, is going to be the one more likely representing your views.
Speaking personally, I’ve met all of my Representatives in person except the most recent, but only one of my Senators. The Representatives, are, in my experience, much more accessible (again, because they have such a small footprint to cover). Once gerrymandering enters into it, also, diversity in districts drops as they’re made to lack as much diversity as possible.
Perhaps more significantly, both were largely honorary positions at first, but the speaker had become a powerful job in its own right by the time the succession was amended back in 1949.
The first Speaker (Frederick Muhlenberg) tended to abstain from debate and even from voting, making the post similar to a parliamentary speaker. Henry Clay was the first Speaker to use the position as a sort of bully pulpit beginning in the 1820s, and certainly by the time of the Civil War the job was the most important one in the House.
I don’t recall any argument by Democrats at the time that the VP confirmation was unconstitutional. I suspect it was looked at closely by actual experts on the constitution. Since all the arguments were about whether to confirm or not, I suspect the random guys on YouTube are wrong.
Are they saying what should have been done instead? Or what we should do now that they’ve pointed out the error of our ways?
I can’t even.
From the OP and what limited sample I’ve been able to search, the YT commenters make the claim in a “so there” fashion, affecting a bit of weariness as if they feel they’ve already gone over that before. Which they may have in their own bubbles but helps the rest of the world little. ISTM to come down to a belief that anything that ended up with Nixon being pardoned and a Warren Commission member as POTUS must have involved shenanigans from the start.
As far as relative importance, most people here could name the Speaker of the House. Far fewer could name the current President Pro Tempore.
Orrin Hatch
If you talk about running the Senate, you talk about Mitch McConnell, who is majority leader,not President Pro Tem. The office goes to the senior senator of the majority party, and the job is merely running the debates, not making decisions on what should be debated.
I quit trying to press the issue after it got to “You’re misrepresenting and ignoring the Constitution” with no further specifics provided, as I figured that they would’ve given specifics if they had any.
That said, we’re talking about YouTube here (I’m surprised nobody has posted this yet), so I didn’t really expect them to actually be right, given that Ford actually got confirmed & took office, but on the off-chance they actually had an argument worth listening to, I like learning new things.
It is worth remembering that they actually serve merely as a day-to-day stand-in for the VP, who, presumably, has better things to do.
Way off topic, but as a slight reply to the above, does the Pro Tem have the right to break a tie? If so, what conditions can they do so under? If not, what happens to Senate ties during times without a VP?
No, the PPT can’t break a tie. If it ever happened when there wasn’t a VP, then the vote failed to carry. The 25th Amendment means that periods of no VP these days are going to be very short, unlike 1841-1845.
Regarding the SotH digression: The Speaker does not have to be a Representative!
So someone picked off the street, not even voted in by one district, can be chosen by the majority of Reps. and made Speaker. Then with the death/removal/whatever of the PotUS and VPotUS could become President.
(No non-Rep. has ever been chosen, however.)
I remember talk in recent years of people wanting to see that put to the test (but obviously nothing ever came of it).
I don’t blame you. Was just curious what they though the Constitution required. Maybe leave the VP slot open or have a quick election or something.
From what I remember of the confirmation, it helped that Nixon picked someone completely out of his cohort and who was considered a boring but diligent guy. He didn’t annoy anyone.