GOP House 2023 Superthread

[Bludogdem]

From my understanding, the only ones not getting paid will be those in the House and those who work for the House.

The first checks don’t get cut until mid February. It’ll be fixed by then.

[Number6]

The first checks don’t get cut until mid February. It’ll be fixed by then.

They have until January 13th to elect a Speaker before to prevent staff from not getting paid.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/2 ... n-00075801

[gounion]

They have until January 13th to elect a Speaker before to prevent staff from not getting paid.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/2 ... n-00075801

If it’s not for greengrass, he doesn’t give a shit if anyone else gets paid.

[Motor City]

A speaker has not been elected

[Bludogdem]

They have until January 13th to elect a Speaker before to prevent staff from not getting paid.

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/2 ... n-00075801

That starts the first pay period. First checks get cut mid February. And there’s nothing stopping the house from voting for the rules package. And regardless everyone will get paid.

[gounion]

That starts the first pay period. First checks get cut mid February. And there’s nothing stopping the house from voting for the rules package. And regardless everyone will get paid.

Actually, that's wrong. The House can't do SHIT until a Speaker is chosen. They can't vote on ANYTHING else. They can't even give anyone the oath of office.

[Number6]

Actually, that's wrong. The House can't do SHIT until a Speaker is chosen. They can't vote on ANYTHING else. They can't even give anyone the oath of office.

The House can't do anything except vote for a Speaker and until a Speaker is elected they can't even process the House employee's payroll.

[gounion]

Looks like they may make it tonight. I think they went back to the way conservatives usually do things - bribery. LOTS of money.

[Number6]

Looks like they may make it tonight. I think they went back to the way conservatives usually do things - bribery. LOTS of money.

He may finally get it after giving up practically everything making him an impotent Speaker because at any time any one member can stop the business of the house and call for him to vacate being Speaker. The 20 members who kept holding out represents less than 10% of their membership and are holding McCarthy hostage. McCarthy is paying them whatever they want so he can be Speaker but I think, if he does become Speaker, his tenure will be marked with chaos caused by his party members, mainly by the 20 radicals, so little or nothing will get done which is what republican want so they can say government doesn't work.

[bradman]

Well ain't that interesting..............[bold]

https://news.yahoo.com/house-members-bl ... 29890.html
House members blocking McCarthy speaker bid meet at offices of ex-Trump chief Mark Meadows

Several Republican House members fighting to stop Rep. Kevin McCarthy from becoming speaker met Friday morning at the offices of the Conservative Partnership Institute, an organization run by Mark Meadows and Jim DeMint.

Meadows, a former Republican congressman from North Carolina, was chief of staff to former President Donald Trump and played a central role in efforts to overturn the 2020 election. He joined CPI as senior partner in January 2021, a few weeks after Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6.

DeMint, a former Republican senator from South Carolina, launched CPI in 2017. Since Trump left office in 2021, it has become a connective hub for a host of former Trump advisers, including Meadows, budget chief Russ Vought and adviser Stephen Miller.

A little before 8:30 a.m. on Friday, Yahoo News observed several House Republicans who are leading the effort to block McCarthy, a California Republican, walking into the CPI offices a few blocks from the Capitol.

Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., a leader of the anti-McCarthy drive who was also deeply involved in the Trump 2020 effort, did not answer questions from Yahoo News on why he was going to the CPI offices as he walked in the front door.

Other Republican members observed walking into CPI included Byron Donalds of Florida, Paul Gosar of Arizona, Ralph Norman of South Carolina, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and Matt Gaetz of Florida. Chip Roy of Texas was seen in the passenger seat of a car sitting outside the CPI offices and appeared ready to go in.

A CPI spokesman did not comment when asked why the anti-McCarthy members were meeting at the organization’s offices.

And get this...........

On Wednesday, DeMint was one of several Republican figures to sign a letter calling on other House Republicans to join the anti-McCarthy effort.

Vought, who is a close ally of Meadows, also signed the letter, as did Cleta Mitchell and Ginni Thomas. Mitchell is an attorney who was deeply involved in Trump’s attempts to stay in power, and who now works at CPI as a senior legal fellow. Thomas, who corresponded with Meadows about efforts to overturn the 2020 election in the days leading up to the Jan. 6 riot, is the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

[Bludogdem]

Actually, that's wrong. The House can't do SHIT until a Speaker is chosen. They can't vote on ANYTHING else. They can't even give anyone the oath of office.

Show me where in the constitution it say that the house can’t do anything until a speaker is chosen. And the the constitution doesn’t require an oath of office for members of congress. If they can change the rule from a majority vote for speaker to a plurality vote for speaker They can do anything they want that doesn’t violate the constitution. They can completely rewrite the house rules if they desired.

[Bludogdem]

The House can't do anything except vote for a Speaker and until a Speaker is elected they can't even process the House employee's payroll.

Show where the constitution says that.

[Number6]

Show where the constitution says that.

Article 1, Section 5, Paragraph 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.

The Constitution gives the House the power to set the rules on how it operates and it's those rules, under the Constitution, that says that.

Here's an article for you to read https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/04/us/p ... tives.html that helps explain it.

[gounion]

greengrass didn't learn SHIT in law school.

[Bludogdem]

Article 1, Section 5, Paragraph 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.

The Constitution gives the House the power to set the rules on how it operates and it's those rules, under the Constitution, that says that.

Here's an article for you to read https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/04/us/p ... tives.html that helps explain it.

Yeah, and they can change those rules whenever they want. Regardless of the election of the speaker. The house rules require a majority to elect the speaker. In 1849 and 1856 when they couldn’t reach a majority after 100’s of votes they voted to change the rule to accept a plurality of the vote. They did that without a speaker. So the absence of a speaker does not stop congress from taking action. They are free to legislate. They can vote to pay staff.

[gounion]

Yeah, and they can change those rules whenever they want. Regardless of the election of the speaker. The house rules require a majority to elect the speaker. In 1849 and 1856 when they couldn’t reach a majority after 100’s of votes they voted to change the rule to accept a plurality of the vote. They did that without a speaker. So the absence of a speaker does not stop congress from taking action. They are free to legislate. They can vote to pay staff.

NO they could not. You, as always, don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. That’s why no one was given their oath of office.

Or maybe you believed George Santos when he said Tuesday that he was given the oath of office.

[Bludogdem]

NO they could not. You, as always, don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. That’s why no one was given their oath of office.

Or maybe you believed George Santos when he said Tuesday that he was given the oath of office.

If they can vote to change the rules in 1849 and 1856 they can vote to change them now - without a swearing in. As I pointed out there is no constitutional requirement for a swearing in and there is no constitutional requirement for the election of a speaker before congress can proceed. They can make it up as they go.

[gounion]

If they can vote to change the rules in 1849 and 1856 they can vote to change them now - without a swearing in. As I pointed out there is no constitutional requirement for a swearing in and there is no constitutional requirement for the election of a speaker before congress can proceed. They can make it up as they go.

No, they can’t. That’s why no business could be done before there was a Speaker. But you just make shit up.

[Bludogdem]

No, they can’t. That’s why no business could be done before there was a Speaker. But you just make shit up.

Show where they are prohibited from taking action. If there were a prohibition they would would not have been able to change the vote rules in 1849 and 1857 in the absence of a speaker and oath of office. Where in the constitution does it say they can’t do business without a speaker. Where in the constitution does it say they can’t do business without an oath of office.

[gounion]

Show where they are prohibited from taking action. If there were a prohibition they would would not have been able to change the vote rules in 1849 and 1857 in the absence of a speaker and oath of office. Where in the constitution does it say they can’t do business without a speaker. Where in the constitution does it say they can’t do business without an oath of office.

If they weren’t prohibited, then why didn’t they give everyone the oath of office? Why didn’t they put together the Committees? Because they couldn’t. Simple.

[Bludogdem]

If they weren’t prohibited, then why didn’t they give everyone the oath of office? Why didn’t they put together the Committees? Because they couldn’t. Simple.

So you can’t find anything, and you never will, that prohibits action by congress without a speaker or oath but I have provided proof of two instances where they did just that.

[gounion]

So you can’t find anything, and you never will, that prohibits action by congress without a speaker or oath but I have provided proof of two instances where they did just that.

Six proved it, and you have nothing. But then, you never did.

If the GOP could have done it differently they would have.

[Bludogdem]

Six proved it, and you have nothing. But then, you never did.

If the GOP could have done it differently they would have.

Six didn’t prove anything other than the house has the power to change their rules at anytime they choose. The actions of congress in 1849 and 1856 prove the house can change their rules any time they choose and without a speaker and oath of office.

Again, nowhere will you find a constitutionally binding restriction on the house to have a speaker before they act. History shows they can act and change house rules without a speaker.

[Glennfs]

If they weren’t prohibited, then why didn’t they give everyone the oath of office? Why didn’t they put together the Committees? Because they couldn’t. Simple.

Because they knew the GOP would sort things out in a day or two. So there was no need to break protocol

[bird]

Yeah, and they can change those rules whenever they want. Regardless of the election of the speaker. The house rules require a majority to elect the speaker. In 1849 and 1856 when they couldn’t reach a majority after 100’s of votes they voted to change the rule to accept a plurality of the vote. They did that without a speaker. So the absence of a speaker does not stop congress from taking action. They are free to legislate. They can vote to pay staff.

Nope. The clerk was running the show. Tell us the procedure for changing the rules.