The Hastert rule... Is this even Constitutional?

Q

QuickSilver

SF VIP
Location
Midwest
From wiki

The Hastert Rule, also known as the "majority of the majority" rule, is an informal governing principle used byRepublican[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP] Speakers of the House of Representatives since the mid-1990s to maintain their speakerships[SUP][4][/SUP] and limit the power of the minority party to bring bills up for a vote on the floor of the House.[SUP][5][/SUP] Under the doctrine, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives will not allow a floor vote on a bill unless a majority of the majority party supports the bill.[SUP][6][/SUP]
Click to expand...
Under the rules of the House, the Speaker schedules floor votes on pending legislation. The Hastert Rule says that the Speaker will not schedule a floor vote on any bill that does not have majority support within his/her party — even if the majority of the members of the House would vote to pass it. The rule keeps the minority party from passing bills with the assistance of a small number of majority party members. 218 votes are needed to pass a bill in the House; if the Democrats are the minority and the Republicans are the majority, the Hastert Rule would not allow 170 Democrats and 50 Republicans together to pass a bill, because 50 Republicans votes is far short of a majority of the majority party, so the Speaker would not allow a vote to take place.[SUP][7][/SUP] However, the Hastert Rule is an informal rule and the Speaker is not bound by it; he/she may break it at their discretion. Speakers have at times broken the Hastert Rule and allowed votes to be scheduled on legislation that lacked majority support
Click to expand...


I always thought that the beauty of the two party system is the passing of bipartisan legislation after a good debate and compromise... BUT... sinse Boehner has been Speaker of the house.. legislation... even bipartisan legislation passed by the Senate will not even be brought to the House for a vote. How is this even Constitutional?.. People voted for members of the Democratic party to represent THEM.... but now with this, we are not even getting representational government. It is destroying debate and is destroying our country.. Because of 52 hard Right Teaparty congressmen who HATE government... and HATE President Obama even more.. we are locked in a standstill.. We can't even get or DHS funded in a time when Terrorism is at a fevered pitch.. This is a travesty.. BUT unless Boehner starts using Democrats to help pass legislation we will be ruled by 52 people.. 52 out of 300 million is hardly democracy..
Remember.... this is an INFORMAL rule ONLY.. IT's not really a legitimate RULE... It's a tactic..
 

Bills are presented to our parliament by the government or by a private member who can be from any party or an independent. Private members bills are rarely passed but they are debated and they are voted on. Sometimes a private member will propose legislation that is very controversial and the various parties may allow their members a conscience vote which mean that they are not bound by party solidarity/loyalties. Examples would be euthanasia or same sex marriage. Sometimes only one party allows the conscience vote.

Any legislation that is passed by either house will be put on the notice paper for the other house. I suppose they could be deferred indefinitely but I can only think of one occasion when this was done and it did result in a constitutional crisis. No-one has tried it since.
 
I've seen that before, don't really know much about it. http://www.politicususa.com/2013/11...oys-imaginary-rule-house-minority-silent.html


"Speaker Boehner didn’t even bother to announce a rule change or change the rules formally as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did. He just started excusing his failure to bring anything up for a vote that wasn’t supported by the majority by taking refuge in the Hastert Rule. Magically invoked rule that allows Republicans to usurp democracy? CHECK.

It’s time for Speaker Boehner to stop taking refuge in a non-existent rule.

Even Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) knows there is no such thing as the Hastert Rule — “The Hastert Rule never really existed. It’s a non-entity as far as I’m concerned.”
 

Josiah09 said:
Unfortunately the US Constitution permits both the Senate and the House to create their own rules. So it may not seem very democratic but it's not unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


I always thought that undemocratic WAS unconstitutional.. You can be that if it were the Democrats virtually denying representation to the Republican electorate, that issue would be fought tooth and nail.. I understand each congress has the right to rules... but one would think they would follow the tennants of democracy
 
Conventions and protocols are there to stop majority groups from riding roughshod over everyone else.
Before departing from, or rewriting, them the majority would be wise to think about what will the experience be like when they inevitably become the minority.
 
SeaBreeze said:
I've seen that before, don't really know much about it. http://www.politicususa.com/2013/11...oys-imaginary-rule-house-minority-silent.html


"Speaker Boehner didn’t even bother to announce a rule change or change the rules formally as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did. He just started excusing his failure to bring anything up for a vote that wasn’t supported by the majority by taking refuge in the Hastert Rule. Magically invoked rule that allows Republicans to usurp democracy? CHECK.

It’s time for Speaker Boehner to stop taking refuge in a non-existent rule.

Even Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) knows there is no such thing as the Hastert Rule — “The Hastert Rule never really existed. It’s a non-entity as far as I’m concerned.”
Click to expand...

This pretty well says it all....Boehner uses this for an excuse to do nothing.
 
Dame Warrigal said:
Conventions and protocols are there to stop majority groups from riding roughshod over everyone else.
Before departing from, or rewriting, them the majority would be wise to think about what will the experience be like when they inevitably become the minority.
Click to expand...

The Hastert rule is unconstitutional by clear definition of the Majority rule outlined in our Constitution.. With 435 members in the House, a bill should pass by a majority of 218 Yes votes.. The Hastert rule mandates that ALL 218 votes be from Republican Representatives.. not a mixture of Republican and Democrat votes.. ALL Republican. This renders all Democratic Congressmen unable to vote FOR a bill... only against it. Speaker Boehner decides which bill is brought up for a vote. If he does not have 218 Republican votes, he does not bring the bill up for a vote or for debate. So exactly how is this Constitutional? Only when Boehner's back is up against the wall will be BEG Nancy Pelosi the help of Democrat votes.. This puts WAY to much power in the hands of one person IMO.
 
The United States is not a democracy. It is a republic. That is defined by the Constitution and reiterated in the Pledge of Allegience. "In the strictest sense of the word, the system of government established by the Constitution was never intended to be a "democracy." This is evident not only in the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance but in the Constitution itself which declares that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" (Article IV, Section 4). Moreover, the scheme of representation and the various mechanisms for selecting representatives established by the Constitution were clearly intended to produce a republic, not a democracy."

We elect representatives to do the business of the Nation. To have every registered voter in the Land vote on each and every legislative issue would be impossible. Hence, we hand that responsibility to govern to representatives the electorate chooses. It is assumed the representatives will uphold the wishes of their specific constituency. Today, any constituency is so severly divided that it becomes difficult to satisfy the political desires of everyone you represent.

As a checks and balances, the Constitution does give us the Supreme Court as an overseer of the legislation passed through Congress. If our elected officials even in complete and total authorization by their constituency hand down laws that are unconstitutional, the Court can step in and over-rule. Brown vs. Board of Ed, etc. have been cases which saw SCOTUS decisions unpopular with the electorate.
 
Grumpy Ol' Man said:
The United States is not a democracy. It is a republic. That is defined by the Constitution and reiterated in the Pledge of Allegience. "In the strictest sense of the word, the system of government established by the Constitution was never intended to be a "democracy." This is evident not only in the wording of the Pledge of Allegiance but in the Constitution itself which declares that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government" (Article IV, Section 4). Moreover, the scheme of representation and the various mechanisms for selecting representatives established by the Constitution were clearly intended to produce a republic, not a democracy."

We elect representatives to do the business of the Nation. To have every registered voter in the Land vote on each and every legislative issue would be impossible. Hence, we hand that responsibility to govern to representatives the electorate chooses. It is assumed the representatives will uphold the wishes of their specific constituency. Today, any constituency is so severly divided that it becomes difficult to satisfy the political desires of everyone you represent.

As a checks and balances, the Constitution does give us the Supreme Court as an overseer of the legislation passed through Congress. If our elected officials even in complete and total authorization by their constituency hand down laws that are unconstitutional, the Court can step in and over-rule. Brown vs. Board of Ed, etc. have been cases which saw SCOTUS decisions unpopular with the electorate.
Click to expand...

Yes... AND it is also assumed that our representatives will be given a chance to VOTE.. Under the Hastert rule, the Democratic representatives are not, because the only Bills Boehner brings to the floor are the ones in which he knows will pass with 218 Republican votes. So any NO vote cast by a Democrat is moot. That's kind of rigging the game insn't it? How can that be Constitutional is my original question.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top