« Zarganar, Hold on, We Know You Are Alive: Comedian of Burma Jailed for 45 Years
The Gamble in Gaza — Interview With Aaron David Miller (Guest Voice) »
House Rules Changes: Be Careful What You Wish For
We shall file this one under the already crowded, “Careful what you wish for” category. CQ Politics reports that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is pondering some rule changes designed to make it harder for the Republican minority to slow down the Democratic majority’s efforts to push through new legislation.
An early partisan skirmish is likely in the House next week, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi is expected to move a rules package that would curb the GOP’s ability to derail legislation through a parliamentary maneuver it has used over the past two years.
Democratic leaders are taking a hard look at preventing the minority party from scoring easy political points with motions to recommit a bill to committee with instructions to make contentious language changes and then report it back to the House “promptly.” In the outgoing Congress, “promptly’’ has meant an indefinite hold, because committees were not willing to adopt poison-pill amendments sponsored by the minority.
Most motions to recommit require instead that an amended bill be returned to the floor “forthwith,” which means within minutes.
The arcane rules of order in Congress are ripe with tools and pitfalls, many of which have been used in ways which the original authors never intended. But most of them are also there for a reason. Be that as it may, there is a larger issue at hand. As we discussed yesterday, there is an inherent danger when the majority seeks to limit the options and power of the minority, that being the fact that you will, eventually, find yourself on the other end of the gun.
During the first half of this decade, I was one of many voices urging caution on the Republicans when they discussed implementing the “nuclear option” to stop Senate Democrats from holding up proceedings with the threat of a filibuster or blocking cloture. Similarly, many of us warned President Bush against his habitual use of signing statements to thwart legislation designed to limit his actions. When you successfully grab for such power, you also cede it to your opponents (who will eventually regain control). Clearly Speaker Pelosi has failed to learn from these lessons, if one of her first moves in the new Congress would be to push forward rules changes designed to do just that.
Forecasts for the nation’s economic future are looking shaky at best. The natives are restless and our citizens seem to revel in an attitude of “throw the bums out” when they perceive the nation to be experiencing hard times. In two or four years, you may suddenly find the Republicans back in charge on the Hill and, when that happens, they will be holding the shiny new gun you’re considering taking for yourselves. Let’s see if you can learn from history this time.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
10 Responses to “House Rules Changes: Be Careful What You Wish For”
[...] Jazz Shaw takes a Moderate stance, and has some good points Queen Nancy should consider. Sphere: Related [...]
[...] Jazz Shaw takes a Moderate stance, and has some good points Queen Nancy should [...]
The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Democrats know that they have demographic changes on their side. Why should the Democratic care for one second about the Republicans when the Democrats know that no conservative party can survive in a country where half the children in kindergarten are non-whites.
Did you watch the video of Huckabee and Stewart that Joe Windish posted? Huckabee has an excellent chance of being the next GOP President. He's conservative, but manages to put across a warmth that crosses generation, if not, he wouldn't be a repeat guest on shows like Stewart's, with a younger demographic. And the “non-white” demographic you mention, Superdestoyer, is not knee-jerk liberal. If anything, it's just the opposite, but this was successfully masked in the 2008 election because of economic concerns.
Huckabee is a fool who has zero chance of being president. He would combine the worst parts of social conservatism with big spending, nanny government.
If blacks were knee-jerk liberals, they would be more moderate than they are now. There are almost no programs outside of Defense and criminal justice that blacks do not support and since most blacks support race based reparations, they are much more extreme than the average knee jerk liberal.
I'm not a fan of rule changes that would limit the powers of the minority, afterall, what goes around comes around. That said, I believe the democrat minority in congress for the first 6 years of this century often created thier own limits – something I don't expect the republicans to emulate. One other comment: After the arrogant and miserable performance by the republicans during their rule, it's quite amusing to see them worry about the possiblity of liberals wielding too much power.
I've been under the impression that in the House (unlike the Senate, where 40% of the members can filibuster anything they don't like into oblivion), the majority vote carries the day.
Do you have any examples of some pieces of legislation stopped by the difference between “promptly” and “forthwith”?
Big difference between the nukular option in the Senate and streamlining rules in the House. Nobody doubts the majority in the House has total control. What the GOP did in the last Congress was reveal Pelosi's ineffectiveness at using her majority status. She's learned her lesson.
The Senate is a different animal. Frankly, Reid should make GOP filibusters a lot harder than they are right now. The last Senate filibustered more than any other Senate in history. The filibuster is supposed to be for special legislation, not routine laws.
In reality the filibuster has been used for just about everything. The complaint from the republicans was that the democratic minority refused to give a vote to judicial appointments, instead they fiibusted. The nuclear option that some republicans discussed was only to prevent the use of the filibuster to prevent votes on judicial appointments. Any other restriction of the filibuster is far beyond anything the republicans discussed, and didn't try ti implement. The use of the filibuster should not be limited.
In regards to the house, party affiliation should be eliminated. The job of a Representative is to voice the will of his/her constituency. My Congressman is a Republican and voted 100% with the Republican majority. No one can tell me the people of my Congressional district support all Republican measure 100% of the time.
Additionally the job is to REPRESENT THE MAJORITY WILL of the People. That is why House representation is based on population.
It is called the House of Representatives not the HOUSE OF NANNIES for a reason.
The Senate has the job of acting in the best interest of the State.
I realize these are idealistic goals. But aren't goals a good to aspire to, right?