I should know this, but it seems I don’t. How do they already know it will be Boehner?
Elected by his peers, I believe.
So, how do they know it will be him? The new congress hasn’t convened yet.
The assumption is that the Republicans, as the majority party, will put their own leader in a speaker. Boehner is currently the minority leader, i.e. the leader the Republicans as the current minority party have chosen for themselves. The further assumption is that the Republicans will not decide to change their leader at this point. History suggests that both of these assumptions are reasonably safe.
Got it. Thanks!
UDS is right. When the majority changes, the former minority leader usually gets the job, assuming they’re still on office. That’s how Pelosi got the job as well.
Officially, the Speaker is elected by a majority vote in the House, but that’s generally a formality. The majority party will make its choice clear far ahead of time.
So is it required that the Speaker come from the majority party? What if in the future thier were a greater mix of not just democrats and republicians, but significant amounts of independants and perhaps a tea party and bull moose party as well. Could they in this bizarro house choose to keep Pelosi on as Speaker?
The Speaker has to be elected by a majority of the House. In the unlikely event of a coalition majority, then there would have to be a lot of negotiating about who it’s going to be. Probably, the biggest party in the coalition would get to pick the speaker in exchange for promising positions like majority whip and lesser committee chairmanships to other members of the coalition.
But that’s extremely unlikely given the way the current electoral system works.
I think the speaker has always been in the party with the majority in the past. In general, if there’s any opposition to the party leader becoming speaker, it takes place before the formal election of a speaker. The party makes a decision, and then votes together on the choice.
In theory, some disgruntled member can vote against the choice, but since the Speaker has a ton of power (over things like committee assignments), retaliation is swift. Often Speakers do this to those who challenge them (say, by running against them as party leader). If you challenge the speaker, you have to win – it’s all or nothing.
If there were parties in Congress (extremely unlikely, as friedo points out), there would be a lot of horse trading. It would be possible for the second largest party to get the speakership if it can promise the right things to the third largest party.
The House of Representatives of the 34th Congress
The only time that the US has had a coalition government (at least in one house).
The last occasion on which the House required more than one ballot to elect a Speaker was in 1923, when a small number of Farmer-Laborites and Progressives prevented either major party nominee from having a majority. Republican Frederick Gillett won on the ninth ballot, in return for giving a Progressive a committee chair.
In the Nineteenth Century, deadlocks were common. The last Congress before the Civil War required two months to elect a Speaker in 1859, and the election grew so heated it almost brought on a mini-Civil War on the floor of the House.
Some people argue that there is no constitutional requirement that the Speaker even be a member of the house. Theoretically, the Republicans could elect Sarah Palin to the position.
Theoretically, the Democrats could elect her as well.
Non-members received votes as recently as 1997, when a handful of Republicans defected from their caucus and refused to support Newt Gingrich for reelection. The votes (for former members Michel and Walker) were accepted and tallied, but Gingrich still won a narrow majority
Interesting stuff. Are the Speaker’s powers enumerated in the Constitution or is that just modern custom? I thought the role was originally intended just to moderate the proceedings: call the house to order, recognize members who wished to speak, etc.
Most importantly, the Speaker is in the line of succession to become President. Although never called into play. The most important power the Speaker actually uses is the power over various committee appointments.
Again, is that an enumerated power or just the custom nowadays? I don’t recall reading anything about committees in the Constitution.
All the Constitution says is that the House must “chuse” its Speaker. All of the powers accrue to the office either by law (such as succession to the presidency), by the rules of the House, or by custom and tradition.
The 25th amendment lays out the succession of the President.
The Rules Committee was established by the House of Representatives themselves in 1789. It’s powers and procedures have been modified throughout history. They are not laid out in the Constitution
No, the 25 amendment just clarifies some stuff about the VP - allows selecting a new one, declares that he really is the President if he takes over, not just “Acting President”, what to do about a temporarily or permanently incapacitated President.
Section 1.6 gives Congress the power to declare a line of succession if both the President and VP die, but the succession isn’t spelled out in the Constitution itself. Congress could make up whatever succession rules they want - give it to the governor of the largest state, or the runner up in the previous Presidential election, or the Washington D.C. dogcatcher.