Talk:Speaker of the United States House of Representatives

Inaccuracies

Not just anyone can be speaker of the house!!! 2601:547:CC81:13B0:F1F2:908:6762:E94F (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually, yes, you can. The Constitution simply says that the House shall "chuse their Speaker". U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl. 5. It says nothing about who the Speaker should be nor that they should be a member. Now, if you ask me, I think that's an awful prerequisite for the office, but my thoughts are immaterial when it comes to what the Constitution says. ItsABlackHole (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

No. The constitution explicitly forbids this.

Section 1: Congress

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Legislative powers are only held by members of the Senate and House of Representatives. The speaker clearly has legislative powers, and thus must be a member of congress. 129.7.0.40 (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Mostly correct, which is way, were a non-house member, or even a non-voting delegate I suppose, to become speaker, he or she would have no vote or right to speak on legislation during debates. Drdpw (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

This reasoning is at odds with Article 1 section 2:

Article 1 section 2:

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

The Speaker is an officer of the House of Representatives. In what way is the Speaker an officer over the house members, if he has no power to do so? If the choice of speaker was truly unbounded, it would raise all sorts of obvious issues. Why not appoint a dog as the Speaker of the House? 129.7.0.40 (talk) 06:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

The sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives is an officer of the House with protocol, and administrative responsibilities over Members, but they are not a member of the legislative body. Just because the Speaker is a House officer doesn't mean they have to be a member of the body (although historically that has always been the case).
Regarding the dog strawman, I'd quote from this recent Washington Post article: "The rules of the 118th Congress, for example, mandate that the speaker “shall put a question in this form: ‘Those in favor (of the question), say, “Aye.”’; and after the affirmative voice is expressed, ‘Those opposed, say “No.”’” No matter how talented the dog, its ability to formulate spoken English phrases would be limited." —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Speaker pro tempore

I don't think that the seat being occupied by the Pro Tempore speaker counts as an "incumbent speaker" or should be reflected as the holder of the seat. Its not an acting position and has fundamentally different powers and responsibilities-the election of an actual speaker. I don't want to outright revert without a discussion on this. Andrewdonshik (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems user:Neutrality beat me to it. Andrewdonshik (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. This should be returned to when the specifics of what exactly the speaker pro-tempore actually *is*. Theoretically he could have basically the same powers and position? Otherwise, I support it saying vacant until the new guy is elected Amshpee (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Should we be creating a page, or at least a section, for the Speaker pro tempore, as well as add them to the list on List of Speakers of the United States House of Representatives? GardenCosmos (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it certainly deserves a page given it doesn't have one right now. Amshpee (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't know that it needs a full page and definitely they shouldn't be included on List of Speakers of the United States House of Representatives. This is a position that exists in the rules to stand in when the Speaker isn't available. The case of vacancy in the office is unique, but it doesn't elevate the status of the Speaker pro tempore. ——Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I would agree. Per the Rules of the 118th Congress, the Speaker pro tempore "may exercise such authorities of the Office of Speaker as may be necessary and appropriate pending the election of a Speaker or Speaker pro tempore," but is otherwise limited in their reach and can only serve for three days (up to 10 if named due to illness of the Speaker). ——Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I think based on the wording of (3)(A) in that section on Speaker pro tempore, it suggests they will go down the list of pro tempore McCarthy named, each for 3 days. Idk what happens when they reach the end. GardenCosmos (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Rule I(8)(3)(A) clearly states that, in case of a vacancy, the speaker pro tem shall act until the election of a speaker. So the 3 (10) day rule doesn't apply. I think it's fair to acknowledge him as speaker pro tempore in the info box. Mhapperger (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Pro tempore is a placeholder. They don't officially hold the seat for speaker. Cwater1 (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I added a section on speakers pro tem: their selection, etc. The section could use more content on their duties, details, etc. It seems clear that, although the speaker pro tem does exercise the powers and duties of the speaker, the pro tem is not the speaker, and shouldn't be listed as the incumbent with the photo, etc. Neutrality^talk 21:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Two things I think we should consider: creating an actual article for the Speaker pro tem (like the President pro tem of the Senate, which is an actual article) and listing the Speaker as the incumbent with the incumbent text switched from "Incumbent" to "Pro tempore" since October 3, 2023. ItsABlackHole (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Patrick McHenry

Should Patrick McHenry be listed as Acting (pro tempore) under the Speaker's post? I was going to make the edit myself but the page is templocked. ItsABlackHole (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

He is not "Acting speaker"; he should be listed as "Speaker pro-tempore" (Remember, he is a "temp"). Drdpw (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

He's not acting, he is the Pro Tempore, who has the power of a Speaker while the office is vacant. "Acting" is when a person takes the role when the incumbent is not available in a temporary situation but will return later. --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Except, Speaker pro tempore is also the title for the presiding officer when the incumbent is temporarily indisposed. We shouldn't overplay what the position is in general vs. this specific (and previously unknown) situation. In this case, the Speaker pro tempore is invested with the office of the speaker "as may be necessary and appropriate" to manage the election of a speaker or speaker pro tempore. The President pro tempore of the Senate is a different sort of position under each body's rules. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 01:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Just to underscore that the speaker pro tempore's role, in most instances, is pretty straightforward, a search of the Congressional Record finds 135,005 instances of the term, 2,474 instances during the 118th Congress alone. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2023

Change,

"Under the current Rules of the House, the speaker is required to create a secret ordered list of members to temporarily serve as speaker of the House if the speakership became vacant,[20] and to provide the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives this list upon taking office.[21]"

To,

"Under the current Rules of the House, the speaker is required to create an ordered list of members to temporarily serve as speaker of the House if the speakership became vacant,[20] and to provide the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives this list upon taking office.[21] This list is traditionally kept secret from the public."

Add source from that states, regarding vacancy,

"The Office of Speaker may be declared vacant by resolution, which may be offered as a matter of privilege. Manual Sec. 315; 6 Cannon Sec. 35. Under rule I clause 8(b)(3), adopted in the 108th Congress, the Speaker is required to deliver to the Clerk a list of Members in the order in which each shall act as Speaker pro tempore in the case of a vacancy in the Office of Speaker. The Member acting as Speaker pro tempore under this provision may exercise such authorities of the Office of Speaker as may be necessary and appropriate pending the election of a Speaker or Speaker pro tempore. A vacancy in the Office may exist by reason of the physical inability of the Speaker to discharge the duties of the Office."

This source is the House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House and does not mention any requirement of secrecy for the pro tempore list. Slifer754 (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

References

House Practice isn't updated for each Congress, but the House Rules are. That source can inform past practices, but for the current House, the Rules of the 118th Congress is the controlling document. ——Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 01:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh awesome, that's good to know thank you. It's cool that they have a separate rules document for each Congress. However, I didn't see any mention of the pro tem list needing to be secret. From Rule 1.8.(3)(B),

"As soon as practicable after the election of the Speaker and whenever appropriate thereafter, the Speaker shall deliver to the Clerk a list of Members in the order in which each shall act as Speaker pro tempore under subdivision."

I could have definitely missed something though so please let me know if I did! Slifer754 (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done – I am, however, going to remove the word "secret" from the sentence noted above, as there appears to be no such mandate for keeping the list secret.

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2023

Update the 21st century section to include the following at the end: "In 2023, the Speaker position was successfully vacated for the first time by a motion to vacate, making the role of Speaker Pro Tem a real position, rather that one purely theoretical." 136.160.90.41 (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Against – The statement is just filler and not properly sourced. --WashuOtaku (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done The position has never been "purely theoretical;" there have been 50 instances during the 118th Congress alone where a speaker pro tempore was designated. The speaker's office being vacant is what's making people at the moment more aware of the position. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Eligibility to House

The Speaker is not the only constitutional office where a possible nonmember can not bound by oath. There is also president pro tempore of the senate. Remove the last sentence of eligibility of non members.[1] 207.96.32.81 (talk) 03:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done I have replaced the statement. Drdpw (talk) 03:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Eligibility of non-members

@Drdpw: The phrasing here was more precise and detailed than the current revision and not overly so, and rephrasing the first sentence to note that "non-members have received votes in speaker elections in recent decades" is fundamentally inconsistent with the remainder of the section. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:55, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

I see that you have restored your edit. Why throw out my carefully worded edit because you do not like a detail you think is misplaced in the paragraph? It sounds like you are saying "my edit is better than yours". You could have simply refined my edit. Drdpw (talk) 02:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Why throw out my carefully worded edit because you do not like a detail you think is misplaced in the paragraph? What detail do you think I believe is misplaced? As far as I can tell, your edit is less detailed and rephrased the content to be less specific.

• Your edit: "Every speaker of the House since 1789, has been a sitting House member. Article I, Section II, Clause 5, of the U.S. Constitution, concerning the choosing of a speaker, does not, however, explicitly state House membership as a requirement; and non-members have received votes in speaker elections in recent decades."
• My most recent edit: "The Congressional Research Service has noted that while membership in the House is not an explicit requirement to be constitutionally eligible to be Speaker under the House Officers and Impeachment Clause of Article I, Section II, no Speaker has ever been a non-member and no non-member received a single vote in an election for Speaker until 1997."

Your edit's wording does not reflect that non-members have received votes in Speaker elections ONLY in recent decades and suggests that this may have occurred in the past when the CRS reports cited clearly state that it did not. My edit's wording makes this unambiguous. It is also better to identify the source of factual assertions being made in the text where it would not be overly detailed than to not do so because many readers may not bother looking at the footnotes and references. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Drdpw: You have provided no reason as to why your edit's less precise and less detailed wording is preferable. I am not saying "my edit is better than yours". -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:48, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@Drdpw: I'd add that your most recent reversion of the Eligibility of non-members section still does not reflect that no non-members received votes prior to 1997 per the CRS reports, just that they have occurred since. As I noted before, your preferred wording is less precise than mine is. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

A new idea: There may be a better place to make that point. Add a brief paragraph to the 'Selection' section noting that: Since 1997, the practice of voting for the party's official nominee has been weakened somewhat. Votes for candidates other than the party nominee have even gone to non-members, something unheard of prior to 1997. Drdpw (talk) 19:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Add a brief paragraph to the 'Selection' section noting that: Since 1997, the practice of voting for the party's official nominee has been weakened somewhat. Votes for candidates other than the party nominee have even gone to non-members, something unheard of prior to 1997. That's not warranted by the sources and a false an inaccurate characterization of the history. As the CRS reports note, members are not required to vote for the nominee of their caucus, and the "Selection" section is about the general procedure for electing the Speaker rather than the question of whether non-members are eligible to be elected and serve as Speaker (the latter of which is the subject of the "Eligibility of non-members" subsection).

As the Speaker elections article notes, House members have voted for other candidates in their caucus rather than the caucus nominee (or voted present) many times before 1997 and sometimes in considerable numbers, but never for a non-member. As the CRS reports and the Speaker elections article note, votes for non-members beginning in 1997 has only been a scattering of votes. If anything, the Speaker elections history only justifies restoring the wording of my edit to the Eligibility of non-members subsection with a qualification noting that votes for non-members have only included such scatterings, since that is more related to the question of whether non-members are eligible to be elected and serve as Speaker rather than the general procedure of electing the Speaker. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@Drdpw: Just for clarification: the "scatterings" have always been 4 votes or fewer. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

@Drdpw: Per WP:BRD, at present it is unclear to me what your concerns are at this point since I have responded to your concerns here on the talk page and have clearly articulated why I do not believe that your reversion or proposal is warranted based on the sources cited. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 18:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

It is unclear to me what your concern is regarding the current first sentence, which is simply a rephrasing , in order to create two sentences where you had one. The current second sentence, "As noted by the Congressional Research Service, non-members have, on multiple occasions since 1997, received votes in speaker elections." is supported by the CRS documents cited. I cannot find where either CRS document draws the conclusion that "no non-member received a single vote in an election for Speaker until 1997." The subject isn't even touched upon in either report, except as footnotes, and those footnotes simply demonstrate that non-members have received votes in speaker elections on multiple occasions since 1997. Drdpw (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

RfC on inclusion of Patrick McHenry in timeline graph

Should Patrick McHenry be included in the timeline graph at the bottom of the page, explicitly noting that he is the pro tempore speaker? 21:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. This has already been done for China with Dong Biwu and Soong Ching-ling. If there is instead consensus for non-inclusion, I would propose adding a footnote to the graph that indicates that he is the pro tempore speaker. Rowing007 (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
• No. We wouldn't list all the other people who are routinely named speaker pro tempore during a session of Congress. There's no reason to treat McHenry differently. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
• No. As he is not a Speaker of the House he does not belong in the TL. Also, the PRC examples mean nothing as, "other articles do it this way" is irrelevant, and as, McHenry is not "Acting Speaker of the House", but the speaker pro-tempore (he is a "temp") who has the authority of a speaker while the office is vacant. The only thing that could appropriately be put between McCarthy and the next Speaker of the House would be a gray bar labeled Vacant, and with no mention of McHenry. Drdpw (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

  Just to clarify, McHenry is limited in his authority as Speaker pro tempore to those powers "as may be necessary and appropriate pending the election of a Speaker or Speaker pro tempore." (Which is another reason that he should not be listed.) I agree that "vacant" would be a more appropriate to include here than McHenry. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 02:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• No. SPT position is not "acting" or "interim", it is an extremely limited temporary role. Would support a "vacant" line, with an efn note with a brief explanation, link to article (there's going to be an event article), and link to the SPT.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 12:48, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
• No The nay argument seems conclusive: McHenry is a temp without even the title Acting. His role is little different from the MANY times a pro tem has been named while the Speaker was out of the District and a ceremonial functionary was required. If McHenry counts, then so would every other pro tem. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 16:20, 11 October 2023 (UTC)