House speaker position if the Dems lose their majority

[Northern_Piper]

You’ve cited part of the Constitution relating to the conduct of the Senate, but not all of it. In addition to the provision making the Vice-President the President of the Senate and providing for the president pro tem (Article I, s. 3, clauses 4 & 5), there is also the provision that the Senate sets its own rules of procedure (Article 1, s. 5, clause 2):

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

Thus, the President of the Senate is not a dictator and doesn’t get to set the rules of procedure. It’s the Senate as a whole which sets the rules. It has done so, and sets out the process for points of order, in Rule XX of the Senate Rules:

XX QUESTIONS OF ORDER

1. A question of order may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, except when the Senate is voting or ascertaining the presence of a quorum, and, unless submitted to the Senate, shall be decided by the Presiding Officer without debate, subject to an appeal to the Senate. When an appeal is taken, any subsequent question of order which may arise before the decision of such appeal shall be decided by the Presiding Officer without debate; and every appeal therefrom shall be decided at once, and without debate; and any appeal may be laid on the table without prejudice to the pending proposition, and thereupon shall be held as affirming the decision of the Presiding Officer.

A paper from the Congressional Research Office explains in more detail how the appeal process works: Points of Order, Rulings, and Appeals in the Senate.

Appeals
In most cases, rulings made by the presiding officer in response to points of order are subject to appeal.10 When the presiding officer rules on a question of order, any Senator who disagrees with the ruling may challenge it. That Senator rises and states, “Mr. President, I appeal from the decision of the Chair.” Such an appeal typically is debatable, though the Senate may end the debate and dispose of the appeal by agreeing to a motion to table (or kill) it, which would uphold the ruling of the chair. Absent a successful motion to table, debate on the appeal usually is subject to extended consideration under the regular rules of the Senate.11 When the Senate is operating under cloture, however, appeals are to be decided without debate, pursuant to Rule XXII (paragraph 2).12 In addition, debate on an appeal may also be limited in certain situations when provisions of a unanimous consent agreement limit consideration of the underlying matter, and debate of appeals made during consideration of certain budgetary measures is limited by caps on consideration of the measure (pursuant to provisions of the Budget Act).13

After any debate on the appeal, the Senate votes on whether “the decision of the Chair will stand as the judgment of the Senate.” Senators who support the ruling vote “aye”; those who oppose it vote “no.” Appeals usually are decided by simple majority vote. A three-fifths vote of the entire Senate—60 if no vacancies—is needed to overturn rulings by the presiding officer on most budget process points of order.14

Thus, the Presiding Officer is a relatively weak one, as any ruling made by the Presiding Officer can be appealed immediately to the Senate as a whole, and the Senate can overrule the ruling of the Presiding Officer.

The relative weakness of the Presiding Officer is a point made in the article which you cited. The Senate has chosen to make the officer a weak position, unlike the Speaker of the House, because the Vice-President can at any time assume the chair. Given the close connection between the President and the Vice-President, there is the concern that giving the Presiding Officer a strong role would indirectly give the President the power to direct the debates and legislative agenda in the Senate, exactly as you are suggesting.

The article you cite also explains the origin of the rule that the Presiding Officer always first recognises the Majority Leader:

The leader was first granted priority of recognition in 1937 pursuant to a ruling made by Vice President John (“Cactus Jack”) Nance Garner while presiding over the Senate. But the 1937 ruling is not irreversible. Any Vice President presiding over the Senate in the future could just as easily break with past practice and recognize another senator in lieu of the Majority Leader.

The article is correct that this practice is not set out in the Rules of the Senate, but is rather a practice established by the President of the Senate in 1937. Yes, a new Vice President could try to change that rule - but it is the Senate, not the Vice President, who has the final say.

If the Vice President failed to recognise the Majority Leader, any Senator could rise on a Question of Order and contest the failure of the Vice President to follow the practice established in 1937. There would be debate, and the Senate as a whole would then vote whether to uphold the Question of Order raised by the Senator and whether to overrule the Presiding Officer. The Vice-President would not have a vote on that matter, unless the Senate is tied.

If the Senate allows the appeal, the Presiding Officer is overruled and must recognise the Majority Leader according to the 1937 practice.

If the Republicans hold the majority in the Senate, can you see any chance where they would reject the appeal, uphold the ruling from Vice-President Harris, and effectively cede control of the Senate to the Vice-President?

(And, apologies to @UltraVires - I see that he was the one who made the point that there could be an appeal to the Senate on a question of order, not D’Anconia. Late night posting sometimes leads to errors. )