Do Individual Congressmen of Either Party have an Obligation to Vote in a Speaker even if it Causes them to Lose the Next Election?

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Impeachment is not going to happen, and if it did, it will never go to a Senate trial.

 

[Care4all]

You love to invent things I said instead of responding to what I said.

But since you asked, I think plenty of Americans would rather have no speaker at all than one like Kevin McCarthy, for example, who took Republican Party funding to run for Congress, made speeches about holding the line on spending against Dems to get Republican votes, and then - in order to avoid negative media stories - joined with Dems to pass a CR that not only continued the Pelosi budget, but added to it.

So . . . having failed in your attempt to change the subject, the question again is:

Do Individual Congressmen of Either Party have an Obligation to Vote in a Speaker even if it Causes them to Lose the Next Election?​

LoL, nope!

When has that ever worked in the history of ever?

You think a fifty-one percent Democrat majority in any district says to itself, "Well, sure . . . I voted for Quanique X Washington because xe is a Democrat. But, by Mother Earth, xe better represent the Republican voters also, I won't be voting for xem again, you betcha!"

I think they have a sworn obligation to do what is right. The Constitution dictates they have a Speaker of the House.

And yes, they should always do what they believe is the right thing to do for America, it's what they were hired to do.... even if they lose their job by being voted out.

Liz Cheney did this, Adam Kissinger did this.... It takes Profiles in Courage, as JFK would describe...

 

[Seymour Flops]

Impeachment is not going to happen, and if it did, it will never go to a Senate trial.

If an impeachment happens, it has to go to a Senate trial.

Unless the Democrats in the Senate would completely disregard the United States Consti . . . oh, wait . . .

 

[Seymour Flops]

I think they have a sworn obligation to do what is right. The Constitution dictates they have a Speaker of the House.

And yes, they should always do what they believe is the right thing to do for America, it's what they were hired to do.... even if they lose their job by being voted out.

Liz Cheney did this, Adam Kissinger did this.... It takes Profiles in Courage, as JFK would describe...

Then why didn't the Democrats vote for a speaker when they just had two chances? Two different Republicans with the majority of Republicans voting for them. All the Dems had to do was vote in a block to make one of them Speaker.

You know . . . since the Constitution dictates they have a Speaker of the House?

For what it's worth, "Profiles in Courage" was ghostwritten for JFK.

I notice that your two examples of people with courage are Republicans who go against fellow Republicans. Any examples of courageous Democrats going against fellow Democrats?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

If an impeachment happens, it has to go to a Senate trial.

Unless the Democrats in the Senate would completely disregard the United States Consti . . . oh, wait . . .

No, they don't. They will ignore the House.

 

[Care4all]

Then why didn't the Democrats vote for a speaker when they just had two chances? Two different Republicans with the majority of Republicans voting for them. All the Dems had to do was vote in a block to make one of them Speaker.

You know . . . since the Constitution dictates they have a Speaker of the house

All the democrats did vote for a speaker, unanimously for Jeffries.

Jeffries got more votes than Scalise and more votes than Jordan, two times. All Jeffries needs is 5 Repubs to vote for Jeffries and he's Speaker of the House!

Jordan is NOT QUALIFIED to be Speaker. (He's also a traitor to the Constitution for his 1/6 actions and ignoring a legal subpoena imo) Voting for Jordan WOULD NOT be in our Nation's best interest or the right thing to do, for America....the 22 Rs voting against Jordan, have it right!

 

[Seymour Flops]

All the democrats did vote for a speaker, unanimously for Jeffries.

Jeffries got more votes than Scalise and more votes than Jordan, two times. All Jeffries needs is 5 Repubs to vote for Jeffries and he's Speaker of the House!

Jordan is NOT QUALIFIED to be Speaker. (He's also a traitor to the Constitution for his 1/6 actions and ignoring a legal subpoena imo) Voting for Jordan WOULD NOT be in our Nation's best interest or the right thing to do, for America....the 22 Rs voting against Jordan, have it right!

The Democrats threw away their votes on Jeffries, instead of voting for Scalise, who would have won.

Not saying they should have. Just proving its a lie when Democrats say there's a constitutional duty to elect a speaker. They refused to.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The Democrats threw away their votes on Jeffries, instead of voting for Scalise, who would have won.

Not saying they should have. Just proving its a lie when Democrats say there's a constitutional duty to elect a speaker. They refused to.

They were not constitutionally required to vote for Scalise, bubba.

 

[Dragonlady]

Are two on the wrong thread?

The question for this thread is this:

Do Individual Congressmen of Either Party have an Obligation to Vote in a Speaker even if it Causes them to Lose the Next Election?​

If so, which congressmen in particular should do that? Which one should stand up and say, "I'm going against the will of my voters, because voters be damned, we MUST have a Speaker!"

By refusing to vote for speaker, and do the work they were elected to do, they ARE going against the will of the voters.

They also represent the will of the voters who didn’t vote for them, and you don’t support their policies as well. Their oath is to the constitution not the party.

 

[Dragonlady]

The Democrats threw away their votes on Jeffries, instead of voting for Scalise, who would have won.

Not saying they should have. Just proving its a lie when Democrats say there's a constitutional duty to elect a speaker. They refused to.

Scalise is another election denier. No one should vote for an election denier for any position of responsibility in government.

 

[Seymour Flops]

By refusing to vote for speaker, and do the work they were elected to do, they ARE going against the will of the voters.

Bullcorn.

No one votes for a congressman thinking, 'The most important thing is that he elect a speaker. Any speaker, no matter how horrible the policies that speaker will support.'

They also represent the will of the voters who didn’t vote for them, and you don’t support their policies as well. Their oath is to the constitution not the party.

When has it ever worked that way?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Scalise is another election denier. No one should vote for an election denier for any position of responsibility in government.

Then stop crying about not having a speaker, if you insist that said speaker confirm to all of your political beliefs, even though your party is out of power.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I think they have a sworn obligation to do what is right. The Constitution dictates they have a Speaker of the House.

Then the Democrats had an obligation to vote for one of the three speakers who would have the gavel now if Democrats had voted for them.

And yes, they should always do what they believe is the right thing to do for America, it's what they were hired to do.... even if they lose their job by being voted out.

Thank you for answering the question. You were the first, AFAIK.

Liz Cheney did this, Adam Kissinger did this.... It takes Profiles in Courage, as JFK would describe...

It wasn't JFK who described it. That book was ghost written by someone JFK's gangster father hired.

 

[Seymour Flops]

They were not constitutionally required to vote for Scalise, bubba.

No, but they sound foolish complaining about no speaker when they blew three chances so far to elect one.

 

[SavannahMann]

If so, which congressmen in particular should do that? Which one should stand up and say, "I'm going against the will of my voters, because voters be damned, we MUST have a Speaker!"

The problem is the Speaker isn’t just a parliamentary post. It is also the next one up if something happens to the President and Vice President. Unlikely to be called upon, but not impossible.

Are you saying such a position is perfect for an inept thug who can’t even figure out how to compromise with his own party much less lead the nation?

So on a Parliamentary level the Speaker sets the tone. The tone realistically needs to be bipartisan to do anything. Democrats in the Senate have already adapted this. They understood the narrow majority didn’t give them absolute power. With a Democrat as President. You must learn to compromise.

The so called Freedom Caucus, which in reality is the Obstruction Caucus wants victory or death.

That sort of absolute all in gamble is idiotic in the Political Landscape. And there were more than enough Republicans to block them.

 

[Dragonlady]

Then stop crying about not having a speaker, if you insist that said speaker confirm to all of your political beliefs, even though your party is out of power.

Who's crying. Every time Republicans pull this shit, it proves that they are incapable of running anything. Only destroying it.

 

[Richard-H]

If so, which congressmen in particular should do that? Which one should stand up and say, "I'm going against the will of my voters, because voters be damned, we MUST have a Speaker!"

As has been pointed out over and over again by conservatives on this messageboard.

The U.S. is a republic, not a Democracy.

Congressional Representatives are supposed to vote their conscience - even if that contradicts the popular will of their constituents.

 

[Richard-H]

Republicans control the house. It's their responsibility to choose a speaker. If they can't, Hakeem Jeffries is perfectly capable of manning the post.

All it would take is for 9 GOP Congress people to be not present at a vote, and Jeffries will win.

Or it would take 5 GOP congress people to defect and vote for Jeffries.

Or some combination of the above.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

How long after that happened would it take for them to elect a speaker?

knowing today's GOP it might still take weeks and weeks

 

[Seymour Flops]

As has been pointed out over and over again by conservatives on this messageboard.

The U.S. is a republic, not a Democracy.

Congressional Representatives are supposed to vote their conscience - even if that contradicts the popular will of their constituents.

Fair enough.

So, not a single Democrat in Congress has a guilty conscience over not electing a Speaker?