I may be completely wrong here, but I have a question. Given the lack of precedent since the Speaker Pro Tempore rule was updated in 2001, doesn’t the SPT have whatever powers the majority says he has. An example: McHenry calls up a resolution on Israel this week. A Democrat makes a parliamentary point of order that he cannot do that. Who rules on the point of order? McHenry right? So let’s say he denies the point of order. The Democrat then objects to the ruling of the Chair, which is a simple majority vote. Let’s say a majority votes against the appeal. Haven’t we now just added a new power to the SPT? In other words, as long as a majority sustains the ruling of the Chair, doesn’t the Speaker have whatever powers an elected Speaker has? I might be missing something obvious here.
You are correct, with a few limits. First, you are not allowed to make a point of order in the House about something that isn't a discretionary decision; this isn't the Senate where you can just rewrite entire rules in plainly backwards ways simply by asserting a point of order and winning a majority. Second, it's not clear *how* you challenge certain decision---like McHenry using the Rule I, Clause 3 authority to reshuffle capitol office space, or the decision to *not* refer bills. The House would probably need to agree to a resolution outlining the answers to those things, rather than make points of order.
But yes, a majority in the House can do what it wants with the rules, one way or another. The problem right now, as I see it, is that both parties want a weak SPT, and have adopted a mindset where that has not been a choice, but some sort of constitutional dictate, which it emphatically is not.
I may be completely wrong here, but I have a question. Given the lack of precedent since the Speaker Pro Tempore rule was updated in 2001, doesn’t the SPT have whatever powers the majority says he has. An example: McHenry calls up a resolution on Israel this week. A Democrat makes a parliamentary point of order that he cannot do that. Who rules on the point of order? McHenry right? So let’s say he denies the point of order. The Democrat then objects to the ruling of the Chair, which is a simple majority vote. Let’s say a majority votes against the appeal. Haven’t we now just added a new power to the SPT? In other words, as long as a majority sustains the ruling of the Chair, doesn’t the Speaker have whatever powers an elected Speaker has? I might be missing something obvious here.
You are correct, with a few limits. First, you are not allowed to make a point of order in the House about something that isn't a discretionary decision; this isn't the Senate where you can just rewrite entire rules in plainly backwards ways simply by asserting a point of order and winning a majority. Second, it's not clear *how* you challenge certain decision---like McHenry using the Rule I, Clause 3 authority to reshuffle capitol office space, or the decision to *not* refer bills. The House would probably need to agree to a resolution outlining the answers to those things, rather than make points of order.
But yes, a majority in the House can do what it wants with the rules, one way or another. The problem right now, as I see it, is that both parties want a weak SPT, and have adopted a mindset where that has not been a choice, but some sort of constitutional dictate, which it emphatically is not.