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.
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.