Datasets:

---

innovation-hacking2

/

shitposting_dataset3

like 0

[ "just out of curiosity; what's the price range to get something like this done to a barebones board?", ">\n\nIf you have to ask, you can't afford it /s\nSeriously though, same Q!", ">\n\nif anyone cares to follow/support what we love to do here a link", ">\n\nLink is broken" ]

[ "just out of curiosity; what's the price range to get something like this done to a barebones board?", ">\n\nIf you have to ask, you can't afford it /s\nSeriously though, same Q!", ">\n\nif anyone cares to follow/support what we love to do here a link", ">\n\nLink is broken", ">\n\nThat is one beautiful board" ]

[]

[ "Board: Aozora in Sakura colourway w/ alu plate and badge \nSwitches: Hand-lubed Gateron Black Inks\nStabs: Durock V2 Smoky \nKeycaps + Cable: Osume Sakura R2 w/ 0.15mm TX films\nDeskmat: GMK Patisserie" ]

[ "Board: Aozora in Sakura colourway w/ alu plate and badge \nSwitches: Hand-lubed Gateron Black Inks\nStabs: Durock V2 Smoky \nKeycaps + Cable: Osume Sakura R2 w/ 0.15mm TX films\nDeskmat: GMK Patisserie", ">\n\nLooks great! Osume Sakura is very pretty indeed :)" ]

[ "Board: Aozora in Sakura colourway w/ alu plate and badge \nSwitches: Hand-lubed Gateron Black Inks\nStabs: Durock V2 Smoky \nKeycaps + Cable: Osume Sakura R2 w/ 0.15mm TX films\nDeskmat: GMK Patisserie", ">\n\nLooks great! Osume Sakura is very pretty indeed :)", ">\n\nfinally i have come across an aozora build post on this sub. mine came in the other day and it's been great so far" ]

[]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\"." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs" ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group" ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?" ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?" ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?" ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules" ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation" ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?" ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!" ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?" ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit.", ">\n\nCould have withheld their vote and got their own backroom deal. I'm not sure why everyone wasn't doing this." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit.", ">\n\nCould have withheld their vote and got their own backroom deal. I'm not sure why everyone wasn't doing this.", ">\n\n\"Well let's not all do the 'withholding their vote to get a backroom deal' thing.\"" ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit.", ">\n\nCould have withheld their vote and got their own backroom deal. I'm not sure why everyone wasn't doing this.", ">\n\n\"Well let's not all do the 'withholding their vote to get a backroom deal' thing.\"", ">\n\nThey don't know what they gave up, yet they voted for it along with McCarthy and the assistant Speaker Matt Gaetz.\nThey're all part of the same conspiracy now. They're all complicit, even those like Nancy Mace who complain about it." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit.", ">\n\nCould have withheld their vote and got their own backroom deal. I'm not sure why everyone wasn't doing this.", ">\n\n\"Well let's not all do the 'withholding their vote to get a backroom deal' thing.\"", ">\n\nThey don't know what they gave up, yet they voted for it along with McCarthy and the assistant Speaker Matt Gaetz.\nThey're all part of the same conspiracy now. They're all complicit, even those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.", ">\n\n\neven those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.\n\nThis isn't coming from a sense of morality or House decorum, she's just envious of those that got something out of it when she just rode the (R) train like a dope." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit.", ">\n\nCould have withheld their vote and got their own backroom deal. I'm not sure why everyone wasn't doing this.", ">\n\n\"Well let's not all do the 'withholding their vote to get a backroom deal' thing.\"", ">\n\nThey don't know what they gave up, yet they voted for it along with McCarthy and the assistant Speaker Matt Gaetz.\nThey're all part of the same conspiracy now. They're all complicit, even those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.", ">\n\n\neven those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.\n\nThis isn't coming from a sense of morality or House decorum, she's just envious of those that got something out of it when she just rode the (R) train like a dope.", ">\n\nKevin McCarthy is the Speaker in title only, all of the power of the Speaker is held in the hands of the members of the Chaos Caucus." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit.", ">\n\nCould have withheld their vote and got their own backroom deal. I'm not sure why everyone wasn't doing this.", ">\n\n\"Well let's not all do the 'withholding their vote to get a backroom deal' thing.\"", ">\n\nThey don't know what they gave up, yet they voted for it along with McCarthy and the assistant Speaker Matt Gaetz.\nThey're all part of the same conspiracy now. They're all complicit, even those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.", ">\n\n\neven those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.\n\nThis isn't coming from a sense of morality or House decorum, she's just envious of those that got something out of it when she just rode the (R) train like a dope.", ">\n\nKevin McCarthy is the Speaker in title only, all of the power of the Speaker is held in the hands of the members of the Chaos Caucus.", ">\n\n\nmembers of the Chaos Caucus.\n\nFascist Caucus. Call it what it is." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit.", ">\n\nCould have withheld their vote and got their own backroom deal. I'm not sure why everyone wasn't doing this.", ">\n\n\"Well let's not all do the 'withholding their vote to get a backroom deal' thing.\"", ">\n\nThey don't know what they gave up, yet they voted for it along with McCarthy and the assistant Speaker Matt Gaetz.\nThey're all part of the same conspiracy now. They're all complicit, even those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.", ">\n\n\neven those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.\n\nThis isn't coming from a sense of morality or House decorum, she's just envious of those that got something out of it when she just rode the (R) train like a dope.", ">\n\nKevin McCarthy is the Speaker in title only, all of the power of the Speaker is held in the hands of the members of the Chaos Caucus.", ">\n\n\nmembers of the Chaos Caucus.\n\nFascist Caucus. Call it what it is.", ">\n\nSedition Caucus" ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit.", ">\n\nCould have withheld their vote and got their own backroom deal. I'm not sure why everyone wasn't doing this.", ">\n\n\"Well let's not all do the 'withholding their vote to get a backroom deal' thing.\"", ">\n\nThey don't know what they gave up, yet they voted for it along with McCarthy and the assistant Speaker Matt Gaetz.\nThey're all part of the same conspiracy now. They're all complicit, even those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.", ">\n\n\neven those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.\n\nThis isn't coming from a sense of morality or House decorum, she's just envious of those that got something out of it when she just rode the (R) train like a dope.", ">\n\nKevin McCarthy is the Speaker in title only, all of the power of the Speaker is held in the hands of the members of the Chaos Caucus.", ">\n\n\nmembers of the Chaos Caucus.\n\nFascist Caucus. Call it what it is.", ">\n\nSedition Caucus", ">\n\nSure but euphemisms aren’t helping people understand the gravity of what’s happening. And if it can happen in the US, it can happen in any other democracy, no matter how healthy it is." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit.", ">\n\nCould have withheld their vote and got their own backroom deal. I'm not sure why everyone wasn't doing this.", ">\n\n\"Well let's not all do the 'withholding their vote to get a backroom deal' thing.\"", ">\n\nThey don't know what they gave up, yet they voted for it along with McCarthy and the assistant Speaker Matt Gaetz.\nThey're all part of the same conspiracy now. They're all complicit, even those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.", ">\n\n\neven those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.\n\nThis isn't coming from a sense of morality or House decorum, she's just envious of those that got something out of it when she just rode the (R) train like a dope.", ">\n\nKevin McCarthy is the Speaker in title only, all of the power of the Speaker is held in the hands of the members of the Chaos Caucus.", ">\n\n\nmembers of the Chaos Caucus.\n\nFascist Caucus. Call it what it is.", ">\n\nSedition Caucus", ">\n\nSure but euphemisms aren’t helping people understand the gravity of what’s happening. And if it can happen in the US, it can happen in any other democracy, no matter how healthy it is.", ">\n\nMcCarthy is such a slimy, shameless piece of shit. Anyone with any self-respect would have given a fat middle finger to Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert and cut a deal with moderate Democrats to ensure not a single one of those losers ever sits on a committee or receives any fundraising whatsoever. They publicly eviscerated him on a personal level far above and beyond what any Democrat has done." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit.", ">\n\nCould have withheld their vote and got their own backroom deal. I'm not sure why everyone wasn't doing this.", ">\n\n\"Well let's not all do the 'withholding their vote to get a backroom deal' thing.\"", ">\n\nThey don't know what they gave up, yet they voted for it along with McCarthy and the assistant Speaker Matt Gaetz.\nThey're all part of the same conspiracy now. They're all complicit, even those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.", ">\n\n\neven those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.\n\nThis isn't coming from a sense of morality or House decorum, she's just envious of those that got something out of it when she just rode the (R) train like a dope.", ">\n\nKevin McCarthy is the Speaker in title only, all of the power of the Speaker is held in the hands of the members of the Chaos Caucus.", ">\n\n\nmembers of the Chaos Caucus.\n\nFascist Caucus. Call it what it is.", ">\n\nSedition Caucus", ">\n\nSure but euphemisms aren’t helping people understand the gravity of what’s happening. And if it can happen in the US, it can happen in any other democracy, no matter how healthy it is.", ">\n\nMcCarthy is such a slimy, shameless piece of shit. Anyone with any self-respect would have given a fat middle finger to Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert and cut a deal with moderate Democrats to ensure not a single one of those losers ever sits on a committee or receives any fundraising whatsoever. They publicly eviscerated him on a personal level far above and beyond what any Democrat has done.", ">\n\nBut no one was in the room when it happened, the room when it happened" ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit.", ">\n\nCould have withheld their vote and got their own backroom deal. I'm not sure why everyone wasn't doing this.", ">\n\n\"Well let's not all do the 'withholding their vote to get a backroom deal' thing.\"", ">\n\nThey don't know what they gave up, yet they voted for it along with McCarthy and the assistant Speaker Matt Gaetz.\nThey're all part of the same conspiracy now. They're all complicit, even those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.", ">\n\n\neven those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.\n\nThis isn't coming from a sense of morality or House decorum, she's just envious of those that got something out of it when she just rode the (R) train like a dope.", ">\n\nKevin McCarthy is the Speaker in title only, all of the power of the Speaker is held in the hands of the members of the Chaos Caucus.", ">\n\n\nmembers of the Chaos Caucus.\n\nFascist Caucus. Call it what it is.", ">\n\nSedition Caucus", ">\n\nSure but euphemisms aren’t helping people understand the gravity of what’s happening. And if it can happen in the US, it can happen in any other democracy, no matter how healthy it is.", ">\n\nMcCarthy is such a slimy, shameless piece of shit. Anyone with any self-respect would have given a fat middle finger to Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert and cut a deal with moderate Democrats to ensure not a single one of those losers ever sits on a committee or receives any fundraising whatsoever. They publicly eviscerated him on a personal level far above and beyond what any Democrat has done.", ">\n\nBut no one was in the room when it happened, the room when it happened", ">\n\nI read on the /r/worldnews Ukraine war megathread that McCarthy pledged to cut aid to Ukraine in order to gain votes. The Republican party works for Russia. McCarthy will do whatever Putin wants, or Putin's servants in Congress will end McCarthy's speakership." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit.", ">\n\nCould have withheld their vote and got their own backroom deal. I'm not sure why everyone wasn't doing this.", ">\n\n\"Well let's not all do the 'withholding their vote to get a backroom deal' thing.\"", ">\n\nThey don't know what they gave up, yet they voted for it along with McCarthy and the assistant Speaker Matt Gaetz.\nThey're all part of the same conspiracy now. They're all complicit, even those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.", ">\n\n\neven those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.\n\nThis isn't coming from a sense of morality or House decorum, she's just envious of those that got something out of it when she just rode the (R) train like a dope.", ">\n\nKevin McCarthy is the Speaker in title only, all of the power of the Speaker is held in the hands of the members of the Chaos Caucus.", ">\n\n\nmembers of the Chaos Caucus.\n\nFascist Caucus. Call it what it is.", ">\n\nSedition Caucus", ">\n\nSure but euphemisms aren’t helping people understand the gravity of what’s happening. And if it can happen in the US, it can happen in any other democracy, no matter how healthy it is.", ">\n\nMcCarthy is such a slimy, shameless piece of shit. Anyone with any self-respect would have given a fat middle finger to Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert and cut a deal with moderate Democrats to ensure not a single one of those losers ever sits on a committee or receives any fundraising whatsoever. They publicly eviscerated him on a personal level far above and beyond what any Democrat has done.", ">\n\nBut no one was in the room when it happened, the room when it happened", ">\n\nI read on the /r/worldnews Ukraine war megathread that McCarthy pledged to cut aid to Ukraine in order to gain votes. The Republican party works for Russia. McCarthy will do whatever Putin wants, or Putin's servants in Congress will end McCarthy's speakership.", ">\n\nI feel like he can't do that with the narrow Republican margin. There are still Republicans who support aid to Ukraine, luckily." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit.", ">\n\nCould have withheld their vote and got their own backroom deal. I'm not sure why everyone wasn't doing this.", ">\n\n\"Well let's not all do the 'withholding their vote to get a backroom deal' thing.\"", ">\n\nThey don't know what they gave up, yet they voted for it along with McCarthy and the assistant Speaker Matt Gaetz.\nThey're all part of the same conspiracy now. They're all complicit, even those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.", ">\n\n\neven those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.\n\nThis isn't coming from a sense of morality or House decorum, she's just envious of those that got something out of it when she just rode the (R) train like a dope.", ">\n\nKevin McCarthy is the Speaker in title only, all of the power of the Speaker is held in the hands of the members of the Chaos Caucus.", ">\n\n\nmembers of the Chaos Caucus.\n\nFascist Caucus. Call it what it is.", ">\n\nSedition Caucus", ">\n\nSure but euphemisms aren’t helping people understand the gravity of what’s happening. And if it can happen in the US, it can happen in any other democracy, no matter how healthy it is.", ">\n\nMcCarthy is such a slimy, shameless piece of shit. Anyone with any self-respect would have given a fat middle finger to Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert and cut a deal with moderate Democrats to ensure not a single one of those losers ever sits on a committee or receives any fundraising whatsoever. They publicly eviscerated him on a personal level far above and beyond what any Democrat has done.", ">\n\nBut no one was in the room when it happened, the room when it happened", ">\n\nI read on the /r/worldnews Ukraine war megathread that McCarthy pledged to cut aid to Ukraine in order to gain votes. The Republican party works for Russia. McCarthy will do whatever Putin wants, or Putin's servants in Congress will end McCarthy's speakership.", ">\n\nI feel like he can't do that with the narrow Republican margin. There are still Republicans who support aid to Ukraine, luckily.", ">\n\nI'm not sure if they'll be able to get bills to support Ukraine out of committee and onto the floor for a vote. The fascists demanded many important committee seats which would give them a lot of power to decide what gets voted on." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit.", ">\n\nCould have withheld their vote and got their own backroom deal. I'm not sure why everyone wasn't doing this.", ">\n\n\"Well let's not all do the 'withholding their vote to get a backroom deal' thing.\"", ">\n\nThey don't know what they gave up, yet they voted for it along with McCarthy and the assistant Speaker Matt Gaetz.\nThey're all part of the same conspiracy now. They're all complicit, even those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.", ">\n\n\neven those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.\n\nThis isn't coming from a sense of morality or House decorum, she's just envious of those that got something out of it when she just rode the (R) train like a dope.", ">\n\nKevin McCarthy is the Speaker in title only, all of the power of the Speaker is held in the hands of the members of the Chaos Caucus.", ">\n\n\nmembers of the Chaos Caucus.\n\nFascist Caucus. Call it what it is.", ">\n\nSedition Caucus", ">\n\nSure but euphemisms aren’t helping people understand the gravity of what’s happening. And if it can happen in the US, it can happen in any other democracy, no matter how healthy it is.", ">\n\nMcCarthy is such a slimy, shameless piece of shit. Anyone with any self-respect would have given a fat middle finger to Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert and cut a deal with moderate Democrats to ensure not a single one of those losers ever sits on a committee or receives any fundraising whatsoever. They publicly eviscerated him on a personal level far above and beyond what any Democrat has done.", ">\n\nBut no one was in the room when it happened, the room when it happened", ">\n\nI read on the /r/worldnews Ukraine war megathread that McCarthy pledged to cut aid to Ukraine in order to gain votes. The Republican party works for Russia. McCarthy will do whatever Putin wants, or Putin's servants in Congress will end McCarthy's speakership.", ">\n\nI feel like he can't do that with the narrow Republican margin. There are still Republicans who support aid to Ukraine, luckily.", ">\n\nI'm not sure if they'll be able to get bills to support Ukraine out of committee and onto the floor for a vote. The fascists demanded many important committee seats which would give them a lot of power to decide what gets voted on.", ">\n\nThey may be able to move to bring the bill out of committee, so that the MAGA types' opinions on those bills don't even matter.\nOr, they could use one of the new rules to fire McCarthy and convince 7 Republicans to vote for Rep. Jeffries." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit.", ">\n\nCould have withheld their vote and got their own backroom deal. I'm not sure why everyone wasn't doing this.", ">\n\n\"Well let's not all do the 'withholding their vote to get a backroom deal' thing.\"", ">\n\nThey don't know what they gave up, yet they voted for it along with McCarthy and the assistant Speaker Matt Gaetz.\nThey're all part of the same conspiracy now. They're all complicit, even those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.", ">\n\n\neven those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.\n\nThis isn't coming from a sense of morality or House decorum, she's just envious of those that got something out of it when she just rode the (R) train like a dope.", ">\n\nKevin McCarthy is the Speaker in title only, all of the power of the Speaker is held in the hands of the members of the Chaos Caucus.", ">\n\n\nmembers of the Chaos Caucus.\n\nFascist Caucus. Call it what it is.", ">\n\nSedition Caucus", ">\n\nSure but euphemisms aren’t helping people understand the gravity of what’s happening. And if it can happen in the US, it can happen in any other democracy, no matter how healthy it is.", ">\n\nMcCarthy is such a slimy, shameless piece of shit. Anyone with any self-respect would have given a fat middle finger to Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert and cut a deal with moderate Democrats to ensure not a single one of those losers ever sits on a committee or receives any fundraising whatsoever. They publicly eviscerated him on a personal level far above and beyond what any Democrat has done.", ">\n\nBut no one was in the room when it happened, the room when it happened", ">\n\nI read on the /r/worldnews Ukraine war megathread that McCarthy pledged to cut aid to Ukraine in order to gain votes. The Republican party works for Russia. McCarthy will do whatever Putin wants, or Putin's servants in Congress will end McCarthy's speakership.", ">\n\nI feel like he can't do that with the narrow Republican margin. There are still Republicans who support aid to Ukraine, luckily.", ">\n\nI'm not sure if they'll be able to get bills to support Ukraine out of committee and onto the floor for a vote. The fascists demanded many important committee seats which would give them a lot of power to decide what gets voted on.", ">\n\nThey may be able to move to bring the bill out of committee, so that the MAGA types' opinions on those bills don't even matter.\nOr, they could use one of the new rules to fire McCarthy and convince 7 Republicans to vote for Rep. Jeffries.", ">\n\nThe MAGAs could threaten to remove McCarthy as speaker if any of the bills they oppose get a vote. I have no doubt McCarthy would side with the fascists rather than let a Democrat become Speaker. He always bows down to the fascists. He's a fucking wimp." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit.", ">\n\nCould have withheld their vote and got their own backroom deal. I'm not sure why everyone wasn't doing this.", ">\n\n\"Well let's not all do the 'withholding their vote to get a backroom deal' thing.\"", ">\n\nThey don't know what they gave up, yet they voted for it along with McCarthy and the assistant Speaker Matt Gaetz.\nThey're all part of the same conspiracy now. They're all complicit, even those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.", ">\n\n\neven those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.\n\nThis isn't coming from a sense of morality or House decorum, she's just envious of those that got something out of it when she just rode the (R) train like a dope.", ">\n\nKevin McCarthy is the Speaker in title only, all of the power of the Speaker is held in the hands of the members of the Chaos Caucus.", ">\n\n\nmembers of the Chaos Caucus.\n\nFascist Caucus. Call it what it is.", ">\n\nSedition Caucus", ">\n\nSure but euphemisms aren’t helping people understand the gravity of what’s happening. And if it can happen in the US, it can happen in any other democracy, no matter how healthy it is.", ">\n\nMcCarthy is such a slimy, shameless piece of shit. Anyone with any self-respect would have given a fat middle finger to Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert and cut a deal with moderate Democrats to ensure not a single one of those losers ever sits on a committee or receives any fundraising whatsoever. They publicly eviscerated him on a personal level far above and beyond what any Democrat has done.", ">\n\nBut no one was in the room when it happened, the room when it happened", ">\n\nI read on the /r/worldnews Ukraine war megathread that McCarthy pledged to cut aid to Ukraine in order to gain votes. The Republican party works for Russia. McCarthy will do whatever Putin wants, or Putin's servants in Congress will end McCarthy's speakership.", ">\n\nI feel like he can't do that with the narrow Republican margin. There are still Republicans who support aid to Ukraine, luckily.", ">\n\nI'm not sure if they'll be able to get bills to support Ukraine out of committee and onto the floor for a vote. The fascists demanded many important committee seats which would give them a lot of power to decide what gets voted on.", ">\n\nThey may be able to move to bring the bill out of committee, so that the MAGA types' opinions on those bills don't even matter.\nOr, they could use one of the new rules to fire McCarthy and convince 7 Republicans to vote for Rep. Jeffries.", ">\n\nThe MAGAs could threaten to remove McCarthy as speaker if any of the bills they oppose get a vote. I have no doubt McCarthy would side with the fascists rather than let a Democrat become Speaker. He always bows down to the fascists. He's a fucking wimp.", ">\n\nMost of the moderate ones lost their primaries this time. Cheney, for example." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit.", ">\n\nCould have withheld their vote and got their own backroom deal. I'm not sure why everyone wasn't doing this.", ">\n\n\"Well let's not all do the 'withholding their vote to get a backroom deal' thing.\"", ">\n\nThey don't know what they gave up, yet they voted for it along with McCarthy and the assistant Speaker Matt Gaetz.\nThey're all part of the same conspiracy now. They're all complicit, even those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.", ">\n\n\neven those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.\n\nThis isn't coming from a sense of morality or House decorum, she's just envious of those that got something out of it when she just rode the (R) train like a dope.", ">\n\nKevin McCarthy is the Speaker in title only, all of the power of the Speaker is held in the hands of the members of the Chaos Caucus.", ">\n\n\nmembers of the Chaos Caucus.\n\nFascist Caucus. Call it what it is.", ">\n\nSedition Caucus", ">\n\nSure but euphemisms aren’t helping people understand the gravity of what’s happening. And if it can happen in the US, it can happen in any other democracy, no matter how healthy it is.", ">\n\nMcCarthy is such a slimy, shameless piece of shit. Anyone with any self-respect would have given a fat middle finger to Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert and cut a deal with moderate Democrats to ensure not a single one of those losers ever sits on a committee or receives any fundraising whatsoever. They publicly eviscerated him on a personal level far above and beyond what any Democrat has done.", ">\n\nBut no one was in the room when it happened, the room when it happened", ">\n\nI read on the /r/worldnews Ukraine war megathread that McCarthy pledged to cut aid to Ukraine in order to gain votes. The Republican party works for Russia. McCarthy will do whatever Putin wants, or Putin's servants in Congress will end McCarthy's speakership.", ">\n\nI feel like he can't do that with the narrow Republican margin. There are still Republicans who support aid to Ukraine, luckily.", ">\n\nI'm not sure if they'll be able to get bills to support Ukraine out of committee and onto the floor for a vote. The fascists demanded many important committee seats which would give them a lot of power to decide what gets voted on.", ">\n\nThey may be able to move to bring the bill out of committee, so that the MAGA types' opinions on those bills don't even matter.\nOr, they could use one of the new rules to fire McCarthy and convince 7 Republicans to vote for Rep. Jeffries.", ">\n\nThe MAGAs could threaten to remove McCarthy as speaker if any of the bills they oppose get a vote. I have no doubt McCarthy would side with the fascists rather than let a Democrat become Speaker. He always bows down to the fascists. He's a fucking wimp.", ">\n\nMost of the moderate ones lost their primaries this time. Cheney, for example.", ">\n\nIt's crazy" ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit.", ">\n\nCould have withheld their vote and got their own backroom deal. I'm not sure why everyone wasn't doing this.", ">\n\n\"Well let's not all do the 'withholding their vote to get a backroom deal' thing.\"", ">\n\nThey don't know what they gave up, yet they voted for it along with McCarthy and the assistant Speaker Matt Gaetz.\nThey're all part of the same conspiracy now. They're all complicit, even those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.", ">\n\n\neven those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.\n\nThis isn't coming from a sense of morality or House decorum, she's just envious of those that got something out of it when she just rode the (R) train like a dope.", ">\n\nKevin McCarthy is the Speaker in title only, all of the power of the Speaker is held in the hands of the members of the Chaos Caucus.", ">\n\n\nmembers of the Chaos Caucus.\n\nFascist Caucus. Call it what it is.", ">\n\nSedition Caucus", ">\n\nSure but euphemisms aren’t helping people understand the gravity of what’s happening. And if it can happen in the US, it can happen in any other democracy, no matter how healthy it is.", ">\n\nMcCarthy is such a slimy, shameless piece of shit. Anyone with any self-respect would have given a fat middle finger to Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert and cut a deal with moderate Democrats to ensure not a single one of those losers ever sits on a committee or receives any fundraising whatsoever. They publicly eviscerated him on a personal level far above and beyond what any Democrat has done.", ">\n\nBut no one was in the room when it happened, the room when it happened", ">\n\nI read on the /r/worldnews Ukraine war megathread that McCarthy pledged to cut aid to Ukraine in order to gain votes. The Republican party works for Russia. McCarthy will do whatever Putin wants, or Putin's servants in Congress will end McCarthy's speakership.", ">\n\nI feel like he can't do that with the narrow Republican margin. There are still Republicans who support aid to Ukraine, luckily.", ">\n\nI'm not sure if they'll be able to get bills to support Ukraine out of committee and onto the floor for a vote. The fascists demanded many important committee seats which would give them a lot of power to decide what gets voted on.", ">\n\nThey may be able to move to bring the bill out of committee, so that the MAGA types' opinions on those bills don't even matter.\nOr, they could use one of the new rules to fire McCarthy and convince 7 Republicans to vote for Rep. Jeffries.", ">\n\nThe MAGAs could threaten to remove McCarthy as speaker if any of the bills they oppose get a vote. I have no doubt McCarthy would side with the fascists rather than let a Democrat become Speaker. He always bows down to the fascists. He's a fucking wimp.", ">\n\nMost of the moderate ones lost their primaries this time. Cheney, for example.", ">\n\nIt's crazy", ">\n\nThis is just more lip smacking from the so called \"moderates\" of the GOP. They'll express concern and outrage all day while doing the opposite ie a Susan Collins move." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit.", ">\n\nCould have withheld their vote and got their own backroom deal. I'm not sure why everyone wasn't doing this.", ">\n\n\"Well let's not all do the 'withholding their vote to get a backroom deal' thing.\"", ">\n\nThey don't know what they gave up, yet they voted for it along with McCarthy and the assistant Speaker Matt Gaetz.\nThey're all part of the same conspiracy now. They're all complicit, even those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.", ">\n\n\neven those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.\n\nThis isn't coming from a sense of morality or House decorum, she's just envious of those that got something out of it when she just rode the (R) train like a dope.", ">\n\nKevin McCarthy is the Speaker in title only, all of the power of the Speaker is held in the hands of the members of the Chaos Caucus.", ">\n\n\nmembers of the Chaos Caucus.\n\nFascist Caucus. Call it what it is.", ">\n\nSedition Caucus", ">\n\nSure but euphemisms aren’t helping people understand the gravity of what’s happening. And if it can happen in the US, it can happen in any other democracy, no matter how healthy it is.", ">\n\nMcCarthy is such a slimy, shameless piece of shit. Anyone with any self-respect would have given a fat middle finger to Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert and cut a deal with moderate Democrats to ensure not a single one of those losers ever sits on a committee or receives any fundraising whatsoever. They publicly eviscerated him on a personal level far above and beyond what any Democrat has done.", ">\n\nBut no one was in the room when it happened, the room when it happened", ">\n\nI read on the /r/worldnews Ukraine war megathread that McCarthy pledged to cut aid to Ukraine in order to gain votes. The Republican party works for Russia. McCarthy will do whatever Putin wants, or Putin's servants in Congress will end McCarthy's speakership.", ">\n\nI feel like he can't do that with the narrow Republican margin. There are still Republicans who support aid to Ukraine, luckily.", ">\n\nI'm not sure if they'll be able to get bills to support Ukraine out of committee and onto the floor for a vote. The fascists demanded many important committee seats which would give them a lot of power to decide what gets voted on.", ">\n\nThey may be able to move to bring the bill out of committee, so that the MAGA types' opinions on those bills don't even matter.\nOr, they could use one of the new rules to fire McCarthy and convince 7 Republicans to vote for Rep. Jeffries.", ">\n\nThe MAGAs could threaten to remove McCarthy as speaker if any of the bills they oppose get a vote. I have no doubt McCarthy would side with the fascists rather than let a Democrat become Speaker. He always bows down to the fascists. He's a fucking wimp.", ">\n\nMost of the moderate ones lost their primaries this time. Cheney, for example.", ">\n\nIt's crazy", ">\n\nThis is just more lip smacking from the so called \"moderates\" of the GOP. They'll express concern and outrage all day while doing the opposite ie a Susan Collins move.", ">\n\nKevin gave lavish gifts to the bomb throwers, snubbed his nose at the loyal Republicans. Wonder how that will work out." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit.", ">\n\nCould have withheld their vote and got their own backroom deal. I'm not sure why everyone wasn't doing this.", ">\n\n\"Well let's not all do the 'withholding their vote to get a backroom deal' thing.\"", ">\n\nThey don't know what they gave up, yet they voted for it along with McCarthy and the assistant Speaker Matt Gaetz.\nThey're all part of the same conspiracy now. They're all complicit, even those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.", ">\n\n\neven those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.\n\nThis isn't coming from a sense of morality or House decorum, she's just envious of those that got something out of it when she just rode the (R) train like a dope.", ">\n\nKevin McCarthy is the Speaker in title only, all of the power of the Speaker is held in the hands of the members of the Chaos Caucus.", ">\n\n\nmembers of the Chaos Caucus.\n\nFascist Caucus. Call it what it is.", ">\n\nSedition Caucus", ">\n\nSure but euphemisms aren’t helping people understand the gravity of what’s happening. And if it can happen in the US, it can happen in any other democracy, no matter how healthy it is.", ">\n\nMcCarthy is such a slimy, shameless piece of shit. Anyone with any self-respect would have given a fat middle finger to Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert and cut a deal with moderate Democrats to ensure not a single one of those losers ever sits on a committee or receives any fundraising whatsoever. They publicly eviscerated him on a personal level far above and beyond what any Democrat has done.", ">\n\nBut no one was in the room when it happened, the room when it happened", ">\n\nI read on the /r/worldnews Ukraine war megathread that McCarthy pledged to cut aid to Ukraine in order to gain votes. The Republican party works for Russia. McCarthy will do whatever Putin wants, or Putin's servants in Congress will end McCarthy's speakership.", ">\n\nI feel like he can't do that with the narrow Republican margin. There are still Republicans who support aid to Ukraine, luckily.", ">\n\nI'm not sure if they'll be able to get bills to support Ukraine out of committee and onto the floor for a vote. The fascists demanded many important committee seats which would give them a lot of power to decide what gets voted on.", ">\n\nThey may be able to move to bring the bill out of committee, so that the MAGA types' opinions on those bills don't even matter.\nOr, they could use one of the new rules to fire McCarthy and convince 7 Republicans to vote for Rep. Jeffries.", ">\n\nThe MAGAs could threaten to remove McCarthy as speaker if any of the bills they oppose get a vote. I have no doubt McCarthy would side with the fascists rather than let a Democrat become Speaker. He always bows down to the fascists. He's a fucking wimp.", ">\n\nMost of the moderate ones lost their primaries this time. Cheney, for example.", ">\n\nIt's crazy", ">\n\nThis is just more lip smacking from the so called \"moderates\" of the GOP. They'll express concern and outrage all day while doing the opposite ie a Susan Collins move.", ">\n\nKevin gave lavish gifts to the bomb throwers, snubbed his nose at the loyal Republicans. Wonder how that will work out.", ">\n\nHowever, Mace will still vote in support of the treasonous policies and rules that will be spawned by the MAGA hoard." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit.", ">\n\nCould have withheld their vote and got their own backroom deal. I'm not sure why everyone wasn't doing this.", ">\n\n\"Well let's not all do the 'withholding their vote to get a backroom deal' thing.\"", ">\n\nThey don't know what they gave up, yet they voted for it along with McCarthy and the assistant Speaker Matt Gaetz.\nThey're all part of the same conspiracy now. They're all complicit, even those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.", ">\n\n\neven those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.\n\nThis isn't coming from a sense of morality or House decorum, she's just envious of those that got something out of it when she just rode the (R) train like a dope.", ">\n\nKevin McCarthy is the Speaker in title only, all of the power of the Speaker is held in the hands of the members of the Chaos Caucus.", ">\n\n\nmembers of the Chaos Caucus.\n\nFascist Caucus. Call it what it is.", ">\n\nSedition Caucus", ">\n\nSure but euphemisms aren’t helping people understand the gravity of what’s happening. And if it can happen in the US, it can happen in any other democracy, no matter how healthy it is.", ">\n\nMcCarthy is such a slimy, shameless piece of shit. Anyone with any self-respect would have given a fat middle finger to Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert and cut a deal with moderate Democrats to ensure not a single one of those losers ever sits on a committee or receives any fundraising whatsoever. They publicly eviscerated him on a personal level far above and beyond what any Democrat has done.", ">\n\nBut no one was in the room when it happened, the room when it happened", ">\n\nI read on the /r/worldnews Ukraine war megathread that McCarthy pledged to cut aid to Ukraine in order to gain votes. The Republican party works for Russia. McCarthy will do whatever Putin wants, or Putin's servants in Congress will end McCarthy's speakership.", ">\n\nI feel like he can't do that with the narrow Republican margin. There are still Republicans who support aid to Ukraine, luckily.", ">\n\nI'm not sure if they'll be able to get bills to support Ukraine out of committee and onto the floor for a vote. The fascists demanded many important committee seats which would give them a lot of power to decide what gets voted on.", ">\n\nThey may be able to move to bring the bill out of committee, so that the MAGA types' opinions on those bills don't even matter.\nOr, they could use one of the new rules to fire McCarthy and convince 7 Republicans to vote for Rep. Jeffries.", ">\n\nThe MAGAs could threaten to remove McCarthy as speaker if any of the bills they oppose get a vote. I have no doubt McCarthy would side with the fascists rather than let a Democrat become Speaker. He always bows down to the fascists. He's a fucking wimp.", ">\n\nMost of the moderate ones lost their primaries this time. Cheney, for example.", ">\n\nIt's crazy", ">\n\nThis is just more lip smacking from the so called \"moderates\" of the GOP. They'll express concern and outrage all day while doing the opposite ie a Susan Collins move.", ">\n\nKevin gave lavish gifts to the bomb throwers, snubbed his nose at the loyal Republicans. Wonder how that will work out.", ">\n\nHowever, Mace will still vote in support of the treasonous policies and rules that will be spawned by the MAGA hoard.", ">\n\nWouldn't the best time to worry about what shady deals McCarthy had to make to get elected as Speaker have been before you voted to elect him as Speaker?" ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit.", ">\n\nCould have withheld their vote and got their own backroom deal. I'm not sure why everyone wasn't doing this.", ">\n\n\"Well let's not all do the 'withholding their vote to get a backroom deal' thing.\"", ">\n\nThey don't know what they gave up, yet they voted for it along with McCarthy and the assistant Speaker Matt Gaetz.\nThey're all part of the same conspiracy now. They're all complicit, even those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.", ">\n\n\neven those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.\n\nThis isn't coming from a sense of morality or House decorum, she's just envious of those that got something out of it when she just rode the (R) train like a dope.", ">\n\nKevin McCarthy is the Speaker in title only, all of the power of the Speaker is held in the hands of the members of the Chaos Caucus.", ">\n\n\nmembers of the Chaos Caucus.\n\nFascist Caucus. Call it what it is.", ">\n\nSedition Caucus", ">\n\nSure but euphemisms aren’t helping people understand the gravity of what’s happening. And if it can happen in the US, it can happen in any other democracy, no matter how healthy it is.", ">\n\nMcCarthy is such a slimy, shameless piece of shit. Anyone with any self-respect would have given a fat middle finger to Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert and cut a deal with moderate Democrats to ensure not a single one of those losers ever sits on a committee or receives any fundraising whatsoever. They publicly eviscerated him on a personal level far above and beyond what any Democrat has done.", ">\n\nBut no one was in the room when it happened, the room when it happened", ">\n\nI read on the /r/worldnews Ukraine war megathread that McCarthy pledged to cut aid to Ukraine in order to gain votes. The Republican party works for Russia. McCarthy will do whatever Putin wants, or Putin's servants in Congress will end McCarthy's speakership.", ">\n\nI feel like he can't do that with the narrow Republican margin. There are still Republicans who support aid to Ukraine, luckily.", ">\n\nI'm not sure if they'll be able to get bills to support Ukraine out of committee and onto the floor for a vote. The fascists demanded many important committee seats which would give them a lot of power to decide what gets voted on.", ">\n\nThey may be able to move to bring the bill out of committee, so that the MAGA types' opinions on those bills don't even matter.\nOr, they could use one of the new rules to fire McCarthy and convince 7 Republicans to vote for Rep. Jeffries.", ">\n\nThe MAGAs could threaten to remove McCarthy as speaker if any of the bills they oppose get a vote. I have no doubt McCarthy would side with the fascists rather than let a Democrat become Speaker. He always bows down to the fascists. He's a fucking wimp.", ">\n\nMost of the moderate ones lost their primaries this time. Cheney, for example.", ">\n\nIt's crazy", ">\n\nThis is just more lip smacking from the so called \"moderates\" of the GOP. They'll express concern and outrage all day while doing the opposite ie a Susan Collins move.", ">\n\nKevin gave lavish gifts to the bomb throwers, snubbed his nose at the loyal Republicans. Wonder how that will work out.", ">\n\nHowever, Mace will still vote in support of the treasonous policies and rules that will be spawned by the MAGA hoard.", ">\n\nWouldn't the best time to worry about what shady deals McCarthy had to make to get elected as Speaker have been before you voted to elect him as Speaker?", ">\n\nMccarthy era?" ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit.", ">\n\nCould have withheld their vote and got their own backroom deal. I'm not sure why everyone wasn't doing this.", ">\n\n\"Well let's not all do the 'withholding their vote to get a backroom deal' thing.\"", ">\n\nThey don't know what they gave up, yet they voted for it along with McCarthy and the assistant Speaker Matt Gaetz.\nThey're all part of the same conspiracy now. They're all complicit, even those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.", ">\n\n\neven those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.\n\nThis isn't coming from a sense of morality or House decorum, she's just envious of those that got something out of it when she just rode the (R) train like a dope.", ">\n\nKevin McCarthy is the Speaker in title only, all of the power of the Speaker is held in the hands of the members of the Chaos Caucus.", ">\n\n\nmembers of the Chaos Caucus.\n\nFascist Caucus. Call it what it is.", ">\n\nSedition Caucus", ">\n\nSure but euphemisms aren’t helping people understand the gravity of what’s happening. And if it can happen in the US, it can happen in any other democracy, no matter how healthy it is.", ">\n\nMcCarthy is such a slimy, shameless piece of shit. Anyone with any self-respect would have given a fat middle finger to Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert and cut a deal with moderate Democrats to ensure not a single one of those losers ever sits on a committee or receives any fundraising whatsoever. They publicly eviscerated him on a personal level far above and beyond what any Democrat has done.", ">\n\nBut no one was in the room when it happened, the room when it happened", ">\n\nI read on the /r/worldnews Ukraine war megathread that McCarthy pledged to cut aid to Ukraine in order to gain votes. The Republican party works for Russia. McCarthy will do whatever Putin wants, or Putin's servants in Congress will end McCarthy's speakership.", ">\n\nI feel like he can't do that with the narrow Republican margin. There are still Republicans who support aid to Ukraine, luckily.", ">\n\nI'm not sure if they'll be able to get bills to support Ukraine out of committee and onto the floor for a vote. The fascists demanded many important committee seats which would give them a lot of power to decide what gets voted on.", ">\n\nThey may be able to move to bring the bill out of committee, so that the MAGA types' opinions on those bills don't even matter.\nOr, they could use one of the new rules to fire McCarthy and convince 7 Republicans to vote for Rep. Jeffries.", ">\n\nThe MAGAs could threaten to remove McCarthy as speaker if any of the bills they oppose get a vote. I have no doubt McCarthy would side with the fascists rather than let a Democrat become Speaker. He always bows down to the fascists. He's a fucking wimp.", ">\n\nMost of the moderate ones lost their primaries this time. Cheney, for example.", ">\n\nIt's crazy", ">\n\nThis is just more lip smacking from the so called \"moderates\" of the GOP. They'll express concern and outrage all day while doing the opposite ie a Susan Collins move.", ">\n\nKevin gave lavish gifts to the bomb throwers, snubbed his nose at the loyal Republicans. Wonder how that will work out.", ">\n\nHowever, Mace will still vote in support of the treasonous policies and rules that will be spawned by the MAGA hoard.", ">\n\nWouldn't the best time to worry about what shady deals McCarthy had to make to get elected as Speaker have been before you voted to elect him as Speaker?", ">\n\nMccarthy era?", ">\n\nWhy was this not a concern when they voted for him?" ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit.", ">\n\nCould have withheld their vote and got their own backroom deal. I'm not sure why everyone wasn't doing this.", ">\n\n\"Well let's not all do the 'withholding their vote to get a backroom deal' thing.\"", ">\n\nThey don't know what they gave up, yet they voted for it along with McCarthy and the assistant Speaker Matt Gaetz.\nThey're all part of the same conspiracy now. They're all complicit, even those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.", ">\n\n\neven those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.\n\nThis isn't coming from a sense of morality or House decorum, she's just envious of those that got something out of it when she just rode the (R) train like a dope.", ">\n\nKevin McCarthy is the Speaker in title only, all of the power of the Speaker is held in the hands of the members of the Chaos Caucus.", ">\n\n\nmembers of the Chaos Caucus.\n\nFascist Caucus. Call it what it is.", ">\n\nSedition Caucus", ">\n\nSure but euphemisms aren’t helping people understand the gravity of what’s happening. And if it can happen in the US, it can happen in any other democracy, no matter how healthy it is.", ">\n\nMcCarthy is such a slimy, shameless piece of shit. Anyone with any self-respect would have given a fat middle finger to Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert and cut a deal with moderate Democrats to ensure not a single one of those losers ever sits on a committee or receives any fundraising whatsoever. They publicly eviscerated him on a personal level far above and beyond what any Democrat has done.", ">\n\nBut no one was in the room when it happened, the room when it happened", ">\n\nI read on the /r/worldnews Ukraine war megathread that McCarthy pledged to cut aid to Ukraine in order to gain votes. The Republican party works for Russia. McCarthy will do whatever Putin wants, or Putin's servants in Congress will end McCarthy's speakership.", ">\n\nI feel like he can't do that with the narrow Republican margin. There are still Republicans who support aid to Ukraine, luckily.", ">\n\nI'm not sure if they'll be able to get bills to support Ukraine out of committee and onto the floor for a vote. The fascists demanded many important committee seats which would give them a lot of power to decide what gets voted on.", ">\n\nThey may be able to move to bring the bill out of committee, so that the MAGA types' opinions on those bills don't even matter.\nOr, they could use one of the new rules to fire McCarthy and convince 7 Republicans to vote for Rep. Jeffries.", ">\n\nThe MAGAs could threaten to remove McCarthy as speaker if any of the bills they oppose get a vote. I have no doubt McCarthy would side with the fascists rather than let a Democrat become Speaker. He always bows down to the fascists. He's a fucking wimp.", ">\n\nMost of the moderate ones lost their primaries this time. Cheney, for example.", ">\n\nIt's crazy", ">\n\nThis is just more lip smacking from the so called \"moderates\" of the GOP. They'll express concern and outrage all day while doing the opposite ie a Susan Collins move.", ">\n\nKevin gave lavish gifts to the bomb throwers, snubbed his nose at the loyal Republicans. Wonder how that will work out.", ">\n\nHowever, Mace will still vote in support of the treasonous policies and rules that will be spawned by the MAGA hoard.", ">\n\nWouldn't the best time to worry about what shady deals McCarthy had to make to get elected as Speaker have been before you voted to elect him as Speaker?", ">\n\nMccarthy era?", ">\n\nWhy was this not a concern when they voted for him?", ">\n\nA house republican who fought tooth and nail to get him in a Speaker? I mean... your time to raise concerns was last week, dude... WTH?" ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit.", ">\n\nCould have withheld their vote and got their own backroom deal. I'm not sure why everyone wasn't doing this.", ">\n\n\"Well let's not all do the 'withholding their vote to get a backroom deal' thing.\"", ">\n\nThey don't know what they gave up, yet they voted for it along with McCarthy and the assistant Speaker Matt Gaetz.\nThey're all part of the same conspiracy now. They're all complicit, even those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.", ">\n\n\neven those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.\n\nThis isn't coming from a sense of morality or House decorum, she's just envious of those that got something out of it when she just rode the (R) train like a dope.", ">\n\nKevin McCarthy is the Speaker in title only, all of the power of the Speaker is held in the hands of the members of the Chaos Caucus.", ">\n\n\nmembers of the Chaos Caucus.\n\nFascist Caucus. Call it what it is.", ">\n\nSedition Caucus", ">\n\nSure but euphemisms aren’t helping people understand the gravity of what’s happening. And if it can happen in the US, it can happen in any other democracy, no matter how healthy it is.", ">\n\nMcCarthy is such a slimy, shameless piece of shit. Anyone with any self-respect would have given a fat middle finger to Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert and cut a deal with moderate Democrats to ensure not a single one of those losers ever sits on a committee or receives any fundraising whatsoever. They publicly eviscerated him on a personal level far above and beyond what any Democrat has done.", ">\n\nBut no one was in the room when it happened, the room when it happened", ">\n\nI read on the /r/worldnews Ukraine war megathread that McCarthy pledged to cut aid to Ukraine in order to gain votes. The Republican party works for Russia. McCarthy will do whatever Putin wants, or Putin's servants in Congress will end McCarthy's speakership.", ">\n\nI feel like he can't do that with the narrow Republican margin. There are still Republicans who support aid to Ukraine, luckily.", ">\n\nI'm not sure if they'll be able to get bills to support Ukraine out of committee and onto the floor for a vote. The fascists demanded many important committee seats which would give them a lot of power to decide what gets voted on.", ">\n\nThey may be able to move to bring the bill out of committee, so that the MAGA types' opinions on those bills don't even matter.\nOr, they could use one of the new rules to fire McCarthy and convince 7 Republicans to vote for Rep. Jeffries.", ">\n\nThe MAGAs could threaten to remove McCarthy as speaker if any of the bills they oppose get a vote. I have no doubt McCarthy would side with the fascists rather than let a Democrat become Speaker. He always bows down to the fascists. He's a fucking wimp.", ">\n\nMost of the moderate ones lost their primaries this time. Cheney, for example.", ">\n\nIt's crazy", ">\n\nThis is just more lip smacking from the so called \"moderates\" of the GOP. They'll express concern and outrage all day while doing the opposite ie a Susan Collins move.", ">\n\nKevin gave lavish gifts to the bomb throwers, snubbed his nose at the loyal Republicans. Wonder how that will work out.", ">\n\nHowever, Mace will still vote in support of the treasonous policies and rules that will be spawned by the MAGA hoard.", ">\n\nWouldn't the best time to worry about what shady deals McCarthy had to make to get elected as Speaker have been before you voted to elect him as Speaker?", ">\n\nMccarthy era?", ">\n\nWhy was this not a concern when they voted for him?", ">\n\nA house republican who fought tooth and nail to get him in a Speaker? I mean... your time to raise concerns was last week, dude... WTH?", ">\n\nI keep thinking about Hamilton:\n\nNo one else was in the room where it happened \nThe room where it happened \nThe room where it happened \nNo one really knows how the game is played \nThe art of the trade \nHow the sausage gets made \nWe just assume that it happens \nBut no one else is in the room where it happens" ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit.", ">\n\nCould have withheld their vote and got their own backroom deal. I'm not sure why everyone wasn't doing this.", ">\n\n\"Well let's not all do the 'withholding their vote to get a backroom deal' thing.\"", ">\n\nThey don't know what they gave up, yet they voted for it along with McCarthy and the assistant Speaker Matt Gaetz.\nThey're all part of the same conspiracy now. They're all complicit, even those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.", ">\n\n\neven those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.\n\nThis isn't coming from a sense of morality or House decorum, she's just envious of those that got something out of it when she just rode the (R) train like a dope.", ">\n\nKevin McCarthy is the Speaker in title only, all of the power of the Speaker is held in the hands of the members of the Chaos Caucus.", ">\n\n\nmembers of the Chaos Caucus.\n\nFascist Caucus. Call it what it is.", ">\n\nSedition Caucus", ">\n\nSure but euphemisms aren’t helping people understand the gravity of what’s happening. And if it can happen in the US, it can happen in any other democracy, no matter how healthy it is.", ">\n\nMcCarthy is such a slimy, shameless piece of shit. Anyone with any self-respect would have given a fat middle finger to Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert and cut a deal with moderate Democrats to ensure not a single one of those losers ever sits on a committee or receives any fundraising whatsoever. They publicly eviscerated him on a personal level far above and beyond what any Democrat has done.", ">\n\nBut no one was in the room when it happened, the room when it happened", ">\n\nI read on the /r/worldnews Ukraine war megathread that McCarthy pledged to cut aid to Ukraine in order to gain votes. The Republican party works for Russia. McCarthy will do whatever Putin wants, or Putin's servants in Congress will end McCarthy's speakership.", ">\n\nI feel like he can't do that with the narrow Republican margin. There are still Republicans who support aid to Ukraine, luckily.", ">\n\nI'm not sure if they'll be able to get bills to support Ukraine out of committee and onto the floor for a vote. The fascists demanded many important committee seats which would give them a lot of power to decide what gets voted on.", ">\n\nThey may be able to move to bring the bill out of committee, so that the MAGA types' opinions on those bills don't even matter.\nOr, they could use one of the new rules to fire McCarthy and convince 7 Republicans to vote for Rep. Jeffries.", ">\n\nThe MAGAs could threaten to remove McCarthy as speaker if any of the bills they oppose get a vote. I have no doubt McCarthy would side with the fascists rather than let a Democrat become Speaker. He always bows down to the fascists. He's a fucking wimp.", ">\n\nMost of the moderate ones lost their primaries this time. Cheney, for example.", ">\n\nIt's crazy", ">\n\nThis is just more lip smacking from the so called \"moderates\" of the GOP. They'll express concern and outrage all day while doing the opposite ie a Susan Collins move.", ">\n\nKevin gave lavish gifts to the bomb throwers, snubbed his nose at the loyal Republicans. Wonder how that will work out.", ">\n\nHowever, Mace will still vote in support of the treasonous policies and rules that will be spawned by the MAGA hoard.", ">\n\nWouldn't the best time to worry about what shady deals McCarthy had to make to get elected as Speaker have been before you voted to elect him as Speaker?", ">\n\nMccarthy era?", ">\n\nWhy was this not a concern when they voted for him?", ">\n\nA house republican who fought tooth and nail to get him in a Speaker? I mean... your time to raise concerns was last week, dude... WTH?", ">\n\nI keep thinking about Hamilton:\n\nNo one else was in the room where it happened \nThe room where it happened \nThe room where it happened \nNo one really knows how the game is played \nThe art of the trade \nHow the sausage gets made \nWe just assume that it happens \nBut no one else is in the room where it happens", ">\n\nApparently the joke in DC everyone is saying to McCarthy is “Where’s your dialysis machine?”, (suggesting that he gave away everything even including his kidneys)." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit.", ">\n\nCould have withheld their vote and got their own backroom deal. I'm not sure why everyone wasn't doing this.", ">\n\n\"Well let's not all do the 'withholding their vote to get a backroom deal' thing.\"", ">\n\nThey don't know what they gave up, yet they voted for it along with McCarthy and the assistant Speaker Matt Gaetz.\nThey're all part of the same conspiracy now. They're all complicit, even those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.", ">\n\n\neven those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.\n\nThis isn't coming from a sense of morality or House decorum, she's just envious of those that got something out of it when she just rode the (R) train like a dope.", ">\n\nKevin McCarthy is the Speaker in title only, all of the power of the Speaker is held in the hands of the members of the Chaos Caucus.", ">\n\n\nmembers of the Chaos Caucus.\n\nFascist Caucus. Call it what it is.", ">\n\nSedition Caucus", ">\n\nSure but euphemisms aren’t helping people understand the gravity of what’s happening. And if it can happen in the US, it can happen in any other democracy, no matter how healthy it is.", ">\n\nMcCarthy is such a slimy, shameless piece of shit. Anyone with any self-respect would have given a fat middle finger to Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert and cut a deal with moderate Democrats to ensure not a single one of those losers ever sits on a committee or receives any fundraising whatsoever. They publicly eviscerated him on a personal level far above and beyond what any Democrat has done.", ">\n\nBut no one was in the room when it happened, the room when it happened", ">\n\nI read on the /r/worldnews Ukraine war megathread that McCarthy pledged to cut aid to Ukraine in order to gain votes. The Republican party works for Russia. McCarthy will do whatever Putin wants, or Putin's servants in Congress will end McCarthy's speakership.", ">\n\nI feel like he can't do that with the narrow Republican margin. There are still Republicans who support aid to Ukraine, luckily.", ">\n\nI'm not sure if they'll be able to get bills to support Ukraine out of committee and onto the floor for a vote. The fascists demanded many important committee seats which would give them a lot of power to decide what gets voted on.", ">\n\nThey may be able to move to bring the bill out of committee, so that the MAGA types' opinions on those bills don't even matter.\nOr, they could use one of the new rules to fire McCarthy and convince 7 Republicans to vote for Rep. Jeffries.", ">\n\nThe MAGAs could threaten to remove McCarthy as speaker if any of the bills they oppose get a vote. I have no doubt McCarthy would side with the fascists rather than let a Democrat become Speaker. He always bows down to the fascists. He's a fucking wimp.", ">\n\nMost of the moderate ones lost their primaries this time. Cheney, for example.", ">\n\nIt's crazy", ">\n\nThis is just more lip smacking from the so called \"moderates\" of the GOP. They'll express concern and outrage all day while doing the opposite ie a Susan Collins move.", ">\n\nKevin gave lavish gifts to the bomb throwers, snubbed his nose at the loyal Republicans. Wonder how that will work out.", ">\n\nHowever, Mace will still vote in support of the treasonous policies and rules that will be spawned by the MAGA hoard.", ">\n\nWouldn't the best time to worry about what shady deals McCarthy had to make to get elected as Speaker have been before you voted to elect him as Speaker?", ">\n\nMccarthy era?", ">\n\nWhy was this not a concern when they voted for him?", ">\n\nA house republican who fought tooth and nail to get him in a Speaker? I mean... your time to raise concerns was last week, dude... WTH?", ">\n\nI keep thinking about Hamilton:\n\nNo one else was in the room where it happened \nThe room where it happened \nThe room where it happened \nNo one really knows how the game is played \nThe art of the trade \nHow the sausage gets made \nWe just assume that it happens \nBut no one else is in the room where it happens", ">\n\nApparently the joke in DC everyone is saying to McCarthy is “Where’s your dialysis machine?”, (suggesting that he gave away everything even including his kidneys).", ">\n\nCan we bring McCarthyism as a term back to describe the garbage the GOP keeps pushing?" ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit.", ">\n\nCould have withheld their vote and got their own backroom deal. I'm not sure why everyone wasn't doing this.", ">\n\n\"Well let's not all do the 'withholding their vote to get a backroom deal' thing.\"", ">\n\nThey don't know what they gave up, yet they voted for it along with McCarthy and the assistant Speaker Matt Gaetz.\nThey're all part of the same conspiracy now. They're all complicit, even those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.", ">\n\n\neven those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.\n\nThis isn't coming from a sense of morality or House decorum, she's just envious of those that got something out of it when she just rode the (R) train like a dope.", ">\n\nKevin McCarthy is the Speaker in title only, all of the power of the Speaker is held in the hands of the members of the Chaos Caucus.", ">\n\n\nmembers of the Chaos Caucus.\n\nFascist Caucus. Call it what it is.", ">\n\nSedition Caucus", ">\n\nSure but euphemisms aren’t helping people understand the gravity of what’s happening. And if it can happen in the US, it can happen in any other democracy, no matter how healthy it is.", ">\n\nMcCarthy is such a slimy, shameless piece of shit. Anyone with any self-respect would have given a fat middle finger to Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert and cut a deal with moderate Democrats to ensure not a single one of those losers ever sits on a committee or receives any fundraising whatsoever. They publicly eviscerated him on a personal level far above and beyond what any Democrat has done.", ">\n\nBut no one was in the room when it happened, the room when it happened", ">\n\nI read on the /r/worldnews Ukraine war megathread that McCarthy pledged to cut aid to Ukraine in order to gain votes. The Republican party works for Russia. McCarthy will do whatever Putin wants, or Putin's servants in Congress will end McCarthy's speakership.", ">\n\nI feel like he can't do that with the narrow Republican margin. There are still Republicans who support aid to Ukraine, luckily.", ">\n\nI'm not sure if they'll be able to get bills to support Ukraine out of committee and onto the floor for a vote. The fascists demanded many important committee seats which would give them a lot of power to decide what gets voted on.", ">\n\nThey may be able to move to bring the bill out of committee, so that the MAGA types' opinions on those bills don't even matter.\nOr, they could use one of the new rules to fire McCarthy and convince 7 Republicans to vote for Rep. Jeffries.", ">\n\nThe MAGAs could threaten to remove McCarthy as speaker if any of the bills they oppose get a vote. I have no doubt McCarthy would side with the fascists rather than let a Democrat become Speaker. He always bows down to the fascists. He's a fucking wimp.", ">\n\nMost of the moderate ones lost their primaries this time. Cheney, for example.", ">\n\nIt's crazy", ">\n\nThis is just more lip smacking from the so called \"moderates\" of the GOP. They'll express concern and outrage all day while doing the opposite ie a Susan Collins move.", ">\n\nKevin gave lavish gifts to the bomb throwers, snubbed his nose at the loyal Republicans. Wonder how that will work out.", ">\n\nHowever, Mace will still vote in support of the treasonous policies and rules that will be spawned by the MAGA hoard.", ">\n\nWouldn't the best time to worry about what shady deals McCarthy had to make to get elected as Speaker have been before you voted to elect him as Speaker?", ">\n\nMccarthy era?", ">\n\nWhy was this not a concern when they voted for him?", ">\n\nA house republican who fought tooth and nail to get him in a Speaker? I mean... your time to raise concerns was last week, dude... WTH?", ">\n\nI keep thinking about Hamilton:\n\nNo one else was in the room where it happened \nThe room where it happened \nThe room where it happened \nNo one really knows how the game is played \nThe art of the trade \nHow the sausage gets made \nWe just assume that it happens \nBut no one else is in the room where it happens", ">\n\nApparently the joke in DC everyone is saying to McCarthy is “Where’s your dialysis machine?”, (suggesting that he gave away everything even including his kidneys).", ">\n\nCan we bring McCarthyism as a term back to describe the garbage the GOP keeps pushing?", ">\n\nIf theyre questioning it now, why tf did they vote for him in the first place? Its not like its a secret he was making deals to get the votes he needed or who he was making deals with" ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit.", ">\n\nCould have withheld their vote and got their own backroom deal. I'm not sure why everyone wasn't doing this.", ">\n\n\"Well let's not all do the 'withholding their vote to get a backroom deal' thing.\"", ">\n\nThey don't know what they gave up, yet they voted for it along with McCarthy and the assistant Speaker Matt Gaetz.\nThey're all part of the same conspiracy now. They're all complicit, even those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.", ">\n\n\neven those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.\n\nThis isn't coming from a sense of morality or House decorum, she's just envious of those that got something out of it when she just rode the (R) train like a dope.", ">\n\nKevin McCarthy is the Speaker in title only, all of the power of the Speaker is held in the hands of the members of the Chaos Caucus.", ">\n\n\nmembers of the Chaos Caucus.\n\nFascist Caucus. Call it what it is.", ">\n\nSedition Caucus", ">\n\nSure but euphemisms aren’t helping people understand the gravity of what’s happening. And if it can happen in the US, it can happen in any other democracy, no matter how healthy it is.", ">\n\nMcCarthy is such a slimy, shameless piece of shit. Anyone with any self-respect would have given a fat middle finger to Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert and cut a deal with moderate Democrats to ensure not a single one of those losers ever sits on a committee or receives any fundraising whatsoever. They publicly eviscerated him on a personal level far above and beyond what any Democrat has done.", ">\n\nBut no one was in the room when it happened, the room when it happened", ">\n\nI read on the /r/worldnews Ukraine war megathread that McCarthy pledged to cut aid to Ukraine in order to gain votes. The Republican party works for Russia. McCarthy will do whatever Putin wants, or Putin's servants in Congress will end McCarthy's speakership.", ">\n\nI feel like he can't do that with the narrow Republican margin. There are still Republicans who support aid to Ukraine, luckily.", ">\n\nI'm not sure if they'll be able to get bills to support Ukraine out of committee and onto the floor for a vote. The fascists demanded many important committee seats which would give them a lot of power to decide what gets voted on.", ">\n\nThey may be able to move to bring the bill out of committee, so that the MAGA types' opinions on those bills don't even matter.\nOr, they could use one of the new rules to fire McCarthy and convince 7 Republicans to vote for Rep. Jeffries.", ">\n\nThe MAGAs could threaten to remove McCarthy as speaker if any of the bills they oppose get a vote. I have no doubt McCarthy would side with the fascists rather than let a Democrat become Speaker. He always bows down to the fascists. He's a fucking wimp.", ">\n\nMost of the moderate ones lost their primaries this time. Cheney, for example.", ">\n\nIt's crazy", ">\n\nThis is just more lip smacking from the so called \"moderates\" of the GOP. They'll express concern and outrage all day while doing the opposite ie a Susan Collins move.", ">\n\nKevin gave lavish gifts to the bomb throwers, snubbed his nose at the loyal Republicans. Wonder how that will work out.", ">\n\nHowever, Mace will still vote in support of the treasonous policies and rules that will be spawned by the MAGA hoard.", ">\n\nWouldn't the best time to worry about what shady deals McCarthy had to make to get elected as Speaker have been before you voted to elect him as Speaker?", ">\n\nMccarthy era?", ">\n\nWhy was this not a concern when they voted for him?", ">\n\nA house republican who fought tooth and nail to get him in a Speaker? I mean... your time to raise concerns was last week, dude... WTH?", ">\n\nI keep thinking about Hamilton:\n\nNo one else was in the room where it happened \nThe room where it happened \nThe room where it happened \nNo one really knows how the game is played \nThe art of the trade \nHow the sausage gets made \nWe just assume that it happens \nBut no one else is in the room where it happens", ">\n\nApparently the joke in DC everyone is saying to McCarthy is “Where’s your dialysis machine?”, (suggesting that he gave away everything even including his kidneys).", ">\n\nCan we bring McCarthyism as a term back to describe the garbage the GOP keeps pushing?", ">\n\nIf theyre questioning it now, why tf did they vote for him in the first place? Its not like its a secret he was making deals to get the votes he needed or who he was making deals with", ">\n\nSound the alarm? If they’re so concerned about it then why did they keep voting for McCarthy 15 fucking times? The house GOP is so full of shit." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit.", ">\n\nCould have withheld their vote and got their own backroom deal. I'm not sure why everyone wasn't doing this.", ">\n\n\"Well let's not all do the 'withholding their vote to get a backroom deal' thing.\"", ">\n\nThey don't know what they gave up, yet they voted for it along with McCarthy and the assistant Speaker Matt Gaetz.\nThey're all part of the same conspiracy now. They're all complicit, even those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.", ">\n\n\neven those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.\n\nThis isn't coming from a sense of morality or House decorum, she's just envious of those that got something out of it when she just rode the (R) train like a dope.", ">\n\nKevin McCarthy is the Speaker in title only, all of the power of the Speaker is held in the hands of the members of the Chaos Caucus.", ">\n\n\nmembers of the Chaos Caucus.\n\nFascist Caucus. Call it what it is.", ">\n\nSedition Caucus", ">\n\nSure but euphemisms aren’t helping people understand the gravity of what’s happening. And if it can happen in the US, it can happen in any other democracy, no matter how healthy it is.", ">\n\nMcCarthy is such a slimy, shameless piece of shit. Anyone with any self-respect would have given a fat middle finger to Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert and cut a deal with moderate Democrats to ensure not a single one of those losers ever sits on a committee or receives any fundraising whatsoever. They publicly eviscerated him on a personal level far above and beyond what any Democrat has done.", ">\n\nBut no one was in the room when it happened, the room when it happened", ">\n\nI read on the /r/worldnews Ukraine war megathread that McCarthy pledged to cut aid to Ukraine in order to gain votes. The Republican party works for Russia. McCarthy will do whatever Putin wants, or Putin's servants in Congress will end McCarthy's speakership.", ">\n\nI feel like he can't do that with the narrow Republican margin. There are still Republicans who support aid to Ukraine, luckily.", ">\n\nI'm not sure if they'll be able to get bills to support Ukraine out of committee and onto the floor for a vote. The fascists demanded many important committee seats which would give them a lot of power to decide what gets voted on.", ">\n\nThey may be able to move to bring the bill out of committee, so that the MAGA types' opinions on those bills don't even matter.\nOr, they could use one of the new rules to fire McCarthy and convince 7 Republicans to vote for Rep. Jeffries.", ">\n\nThe MAGAs could threaten to remove McCarthy as speaker if any of the bills they oppose get a vote. I have no doubt McCarthy would side with the fascists rather than let a Democrat become Speaker. He always bows down to the fascists. He's a fucking wimp.", ">\n\nMost of the moderate ones lost their primaries this time. Cheney, for example.", ">\n\nIt's crazy", ">\n\nThis is just more lip smacking from the so called \"moderates\" of the GOP. They'll express concern and outrage all day while doing the opposite ie a Susan Collins move.", ">\n\nKevin gave lavish gifts to the bomb throwers, snubbed his nose at the loyal Republicans. Wonder how that will work out.", ">\n\nHowever, Mace will still vote in support of the treasonous policies and rules that will be spawned by the MAGA hoard.", ">\n\nWouldn't the best time to worry about what shady deals McCarthy had to make to get elected as Speaker have been before you voted to elect him as Speaker?", ">\n\nMccarthy era?", ">\n\nWhy was this not a concern when they voted for him?", ">\n\nA house republican who fought tooth and nail to get him in a Speaker? I mean... your time to raise concerns was last week, dude... WTH?", ">\n\nI keep thinking about Hamilton:\n\nNo one else was in the room where it happened \nThe room where it happened \nThe room where it happened \nNo one really knows how the game is played \nThe art of the trade \nHow the sausage gets made \nWe just assume that it happens \nBut no one else is in the room where it happens", ">\n\nApparently the joke in DC everyone is saying to McCarthy is “Where’s your dialysis machine?”, (suggesting that he gave away everything even including his kidneys).", ">\n\nCan we bring McCarthyism as a term back to describe the garbage the GOP keeps pushing?", ">\n\nIf theyre questioning it now, why tf did they vote for him in the first place? Its not like its a secret he was making deals to get the votes he needed or who he was making deals with", ">\n\nSound the alarm? If they’re so concerned about it then why did they keep voting for McCarthy 15 fucking times? The house GOP is so full of shit.", ">\n\nAll it would take is a handful of republicans to vote down the rules package." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit.", ">\n\nCould have withheld their vote and got their own backroom deal. I'm not sure why everyone wasn't doing this.", ">\n\n\"Well let's not all do the 'withholding their vote to get a backroom deal' thing.\"", ">\n\nThey don't know what they gave up, yet they voted for it along with McCarthy and the assistant Speaker Matt Gaetz.\nThey're all part of the same conspiracy now. They're all complicit, even those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.", ">\n\n\neven those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.\n\nThis isn't coming from a sense of morality or House decorum, she's just envious of those that got something out of it when she just rode the (R) train like a dope.", ">\n\nKevin McCarthy is the Speaker in title only, all of the power of the Speaker is held in the hands of the members of the Chaos Caucus.", ">\n\n\nmembers of the Chaos Caucus.\n\nFascist Caucus. Call it what it is.", ">\n\nSedition Caucus", ">\n\nSure but euphemisms aren’t helping people understand the gravity of what’s happening. And if it can happen in the US, it can happen in any other democracy, no matter how healthy it is.", ">\n\nMcCarthy is such a slimy, shameless piece of shit. Anyone with any self-respect would have given a fat middle finger to Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert and cut a deal with moderate Democrats to ensure not a single one of those losers ever sits on a committee or receives any fundraising whatsoever. They publicly eviscerated him on a personal level far above and beyond what any Democrat has done.", ">\n\nBut no one was in the room when it happened, the room when it happened", ">\n\nI read on the /r/worldnews Ukraine war megathread that McCarthy pledged to cut aid to Ukraine in order to gain votes. The Republican party works for Russia. McCarthy will do whatever Putin wants, or Putin's servants in Congress will end McCarthy's speakership.", ">\n\nI feel like he can't do that with the narrow Republican margin. There are still Republicans who support aid to Ukraine, luckily.", ">\n\nI'm not sure if they'll be able to get bills to support Ukraine out of committee and onto the floor for a vote. The fascists demanded many important committee seats which would give them a lot of power to decide what gets voted on.", ">\n\nThey may be able to move to bring the bill out of committee, so that the MAGA types' opinions on those bills don't even matter.\nOr, they could use one of the new rules to fire McCarthy and convince 7 Republicans to vote for Rep. Jeffries.", ">\n\nThe MAGAs could threaten to remove McCarthy as speaker if any of the bills they oppose get a vote. I have no doubt McCarthy would side with the fascists rather than let a Democrat become Speaker. He always bows down to the fascists. He's a fucking wimp.", ">\n\nMost of the moderate ones lost their primaries this time. Cheney, for example.", ">\n\nIt's crazy", ">\n\nThis is just more lip smacking from the so called \"moderates\" of the GOP. They'll express concern and outrage all day while doing the opposite ie a Susan Collins move.", ">\n\nKevin gave lavish gifts to the bomb throwers, snubbed his nose at the loyal Republicans. Wonder how that will work out.", ">\n\nHowever, Mace will still vote in support of the treasonous policies and rules that will be spawned by the MAGA hoard.", ">\n\nWouldn't the best time to worry about what shady deals McCarthy had to make to get elected as Speaker have been before you voted to elect him as Speaker?", ">\n\nMccarthy era?", ">\n\nWhy was this not a concern when they voted for him?", ">\n\nA house republican who fought tooth and nail to get him in a Speaker? I mean... your time to raise concerns was last week, dude... WTH?", ">\n\nI keep thinking about Hamilton:\n\nNo one else was in the room where it happened \nThe room where it happened \nThe room where it happened \nNo one really knows how the game is played \nThe art of the trade \nHow the sausage gets made \nWe just assume that it happens \nBut no one else is in the room where it happens", ">\n\nApparently the joke in DC everyone is saying to McCarthy is “Where’s your dialysis machine?”, (suggesting that he gave away everything even including his kidneys).", ">\n\nCan we bring McCarthyism as a term back to describe the garbage the GOP keeps pushing?", ">\n\nIf theyre questioning it now, why tf did they vote for him in the first place? Its not like its a secret he was making deals to get the votes he needed or who he was making deals with", ">\n\nSound the alarm? If they’re so concerned about it then why did they keep voting for McCarthy 15 fucking times? The house GOP is so full of shit.", ">\n\nAll it would take is a handful of republicans to vote down the rules package.", ">\n\nModerates in swing districts will have to align with dems or they will lose their next term. My prediction is Santos and MTG are gong to face legal problems" ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit.", ">\n\nCould have withheld their vote and got their own backroom deal. I'm not sure why everyone wasn't doing this.", ">\n\n\"Well let's not all do the 'withholding their vote to get a backroom deal' thing.\"", ">\n\nThey don't know what they gave up, yet they voted for it along with McCarthy and the assistant Speaker Matt Gaetz.\nThey're all part of the same conspiracy now. They're all complicit, even those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.", ">\n\n\neven those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.\n\nThis isn't coming from a sense of morality or House decorum, she's just envious of those that got something out of it when she just rode the (R) train like a dope.", ">\n\nKevin McCarthy is the Speaker in title only, all of the power of the Speaker is held in the hands of the members of the Chaos Caucus.", ">\n\n\nmembers of the Chaos Caucus.\n\nFascist Caucus. Call it what it is.", ">\n\nSedition Caucus", ">\n\nSure but euphemisms aren’t helping people understand the gravity of what’s happening. And if it can happen in the US, it can happen in any other democracy, no matter how healthy it is.", ">\n\nMcCarthy is such a slimy, shameless piece of shit. Anyone with any self-respect would have given a fat middle finger to Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert and cut a deal with moderate Democrats to ensure not a single one of those losers ever sits on a committee or receives any fundraising whatsoever. They publicly eviscerated him on a personal level far above and beyond what any Democrat has done.", ">\n\nBut no one was in the room when it happened, the room when it happened", ">\n\nI read on the /r/worldnews Ukraine war megathread that McCarthy pledged to cut aid to Ukraine in order to gain votes. The Republican party works for Russia. McCarthy will do whatever Putin wants, or Putin's servants in Congress will end McCarthy's speakership.", ">\n\nI feel like he can't do that with the narrow Republican margin. There are still Republicans who support aid to Ukraine, luckily.", ">\n\nI'm not sure if they'll be able to get bills to support Ukraine out of committee and onto the floor for a vote. The fascists demanded many important committee seats which would give them a lot of power to decide what gets voted on.", ">\n\nThey may be able to move to bring the bill out of committee, so that the MAGA types' opinions on those bills don't even matter.\nOr, they could use one of the new rules to fire McCarthy and convince 7 Republicans to vote for Rep. Jeffries.", ">\n\nThe MAGAs could threaten to remove McCarthy as speaker if any of the bills they oppose get a vote. I have no doubt McCarthy would side with the fascists rather than let a Democrat become Speaker. He always bows down to the fascists. He's a fucking wimp.", ">\n\nMost of the moderate ones lost their primaries this time. Cheney, for example.", ">\n\nIt's crazy", ">\n\nThis is just more lip smacking from the so called \"moderates\" of the GOP. They'll express concern and outrage all day while doing the opposite ie a Susan Collins move.", ">\n\nKevin gave lavish gifts to the bomb throwers, snubbed his nose at the loyal Republicans. Wonder how that will work out.", ">\n\nHowever, Mace will still vote in support of the treasonous policies and rules that will be spawned by the MAGA hoard.", ">\n\nWouldn't the best time to worry about what shady deals McCarthy had to make to get elected as Speaker have been before you voted to elect him as Speaker?", ">\n\nMccarthy era?", ">\n\nWhy was this not a concern when they voted for him?", ">\n\nA house republican who fought tooth and nail to get him in a Speaker? I mean... your time to raise concerns was last week, dude... WTH?", ">\n\nI keep thinking about Hamilton:\n\nNo one else was in the room where it happened \nThe room where it happened \nThe room where it happened \nNo one really knows how the game is played \nThe art of the trade \nHow the sausage gets made \nWe just assume that it happens \nBut no one else is in the room where it happens", ">\n\nApparently the joke in DC everyone is saying to McCarthy is “Where’s your dialysis machine?”, (suggesting that he gave away everything even including his kidneys).", ">\n\nCan we bring McCarthyism as a term back to describe the garbage the GOP keeps pushing?", ">\n\nIf theyre questioning it now, why tf did they vote for him in the first place? Its not like its a secret he was making deals to get the votes he needed or who he was making deals with", ">\n\nSound the alarm? If they’re so concerned about it then why did they keep voting for McCarthy 15 fucking times? The house GOP is so full of shit.", ">\n\nAll it would take is a handful of republicans to vote down the rules package.", ">\n\nModerates in swing districts will have to align with dems or they will lose their next term. My prediction is Santos and MTG are gong to face legal problems", ">\n\nHe literally agreed to give MTG his foreskin" ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit.", ">\n\nCould have withheld their vote and got their own backroom deal. I'm not sure why everyone wasn't doing this.", ">\n\n\"Well let's not all do the 'withholding their vote to get a backroom deal' thing.\"", ">\n\nThey don't know what they gave up, yet they voted for it along with McCarthy and the assistant Speaker Matt Gaetz.\nThey're all part of the same conspiracy now. They're all complicit, even those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.", ">\n\n\neven those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.\n\nThis isn't coming from a sense of morality or House decorum, she's just envious of those that got something out of it when she just rode the (R) train like a dope.", ">\n\nKevin McCarthy is the Speaker in title only, all of the power of the Speaker is held in the hands of the members of the Chaos Caucus.", ">\n\n\nmembers of the Chaos Caucus.\n\nFascist Caucus. Call it what it is.", ">\n\nSedition Caucus", ">\n\nSure but euphemisms aren’t helping people understand the gravity of what’s happening. And if it can happen in the US, it can happen in any other democracy, no matter how healthy it is.", ">\n\nMcCarthy is such a slimy, shameless piece of shit. Anyone with any self-respect would have given a fat middle finger to Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert and cut a deal with moderate Democrats to ensure not a single one of those losers ever sits on a committee or receives any fundraising whatsoever. They publicly eviscerated him on a personal level far above and beyond what any Democrat has done.", ">\n\nBut no one was in the room when it happened, the room when it happened", ">\n\nI read on the /r/worldnews Ukraine war megathread that McCarthy pledged to cut aid to Ukraine in order to gain votes. The Republican party works for Russia. McCarthy will do whatever Putin wants, or Putin's servants in Congress will end McCarthy's speakership.", ">\n\nI feel like he can't do that with the narrow Republican margin. There are still Republicans who support aid to Ukraine, luckily.", ">\n\nI'm not sure if they'll be able to get bills to support Ukraine out of committee and onto the floor for a vote. The fascists demanded many important committee seats which would give them a lot of power to decide what gets voted on.", ">\n\nThey may be able to move to bring the bill out of committee, so that the MAGA types' opinions on those bills don't even matter.\nOr, they could use one of the new rules to fire McCarthy and convince 7 Republicans to vote for Rep. Jeffries.", ">\n\nThe MAGAs could threaten to remove McCarthy as speaker if any of the bills they oppose get a vote. I have no doubt McCarthy would side with the fascists rather than let a Democrat become Speaker. He always bows down to the fascists. He's a fucking wimp.", ">\n\nMost of the moderate ones lost their primaries this time. Cheney, for example.", ">\n\nIt's crazy", ">\n\nThis is just more lip smacking from the so called \"moderates\" of the GOP. They'll express concern and outrage all day while doing the opposite ie a Susan Collins move.", ">\n\nKevin gave lavish gifts to the bomb throwers, snubbed his nose at the loyal Republicans. Wonder how that will work out.", ">\n\nHowever, Mace will still vote in support of the treasonous policies and rules that will be spawned by the MAGA hoard.", ">\n\nWouldn't the best time to worry about what shady deals McCarthy had to make to get elected as Speaker have been before you voted to elect him as Speaker?", ">\n\nMccarthy era?", ">\n\nWhy was this not a concern when they voted for him?", ">\n\nA house republican who fought tooth and nail to get him in a Speaker? I mean... your time to raise concerns was last week, dude... WTH?", ">\n\nI keep thinking about Hamilton:\n\nNo one else was in the room where it happened \nThe room where it happened \nThe room where it happened \nNo one really knows how the game is played \nThe art of the trade \nHow the sausage gets made \nWe just assume that it happens \nBut no one else is in the room where it happens", ">\n\nApparently the joke in DC everyone is saying to McCarthy is “Where’s your dialysis machine?”, (suggesting that he gave away everything even including his kidneys).", ">\n\nCan we bring McCarthyism as a term back to describe the garbage the GOP keeps pushing?", ">\n\nIf theyre questioning it now, why tf did they vote for him in the first place? Its not like its a secret he was making deals to get the votes he needed or who he was making deals with", ">\n\nSound the alarm? If they’re so concerned about it then why did they keep voting for McCarthy 15 fucking times? The house GOP is so full of shit.", ">\n\nAll it would take is a handful of republicans to vote down the rules package.", ">\n\nModerates in swing districts will have to align with dems or they will lose their next term. My prediction is Santos and MTG are gong to face legal problems", ">\n\nHe literally agreed to give MTG his foreskin", ">\n\nIf they’re that worried, they should have elected a legislator as Speaker, not a clown." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit.", ">\n\nCould have withheld their vote and got their own backroom deal. I'm not sure why everyone wasn't doing this.", ">\n\n\"Well let's not all do the 'withholding their vote to get a backroom deal' thing.\"", ">\n\nThey don't know what they gave up, yet they voted for it along with McCarthy and the assistant Speaker Matt Gaetz.\nThey're all part of the same conspiracy now. They're all complicit, even those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.", ">\n\n\neven those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.\n\nThis isn't coming from a sense of morality or House decorum, she's just envious of those that got something out of it when she just rode the (R) train like a dope.", ">\n\nKevin McCarthy is the Speaker in title only, all of the power of the Speaker is held in the hands of the members of the Chaos Caucus.", ">\n\n\nmembers of the Chaos Caucus.\n\nFascist Caucus. Call it what it is.", ">\n\nSedition Caucus", ">\n\nSure but euphemisms aren’t helping people understand the gravity of what’s happening. And if it can happen in the US, it can happen in any other democracy, no matter how healthy it is.", ">\n\nMcCarthy is such a slimy, shameless piece of shit. Anyone with any self-respect would have given a fat middle finger to Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert and cut a deal with moderate Democrats to ensure not a single one of those losers ever sits on a committee or receives any fundraising whatsoever. They publicly eviscerated him on a personal level far above and beyond what any Democrat has done.", ">\n\nBut no one was in the room when it happened, the room when it happened", ">\n\nI read on the /r/worldnews Ukraine war megathread that McCarthy pledged to cut aid to Ukraine in order to gain votes. The Republican party works for Russia. McCarthy will do whatever Putin wants, or Putin's servants in Congress will end McCarthy's speakership.", ">\n\nI feel like he can't do that with the narrow Republican margin. There are still Republicans who support aid to Ukraine, luckily.", ">\n\nI'm not sure if they'll be able to get bills to support Ukraine out of committee and onto the floor for a vote. The fascists demanded many important committee seats which would give them a lot of power to decide what gets voted on.", ">\n\nThey may be able to move to bring the bill out of committee, so that the MAGA types' opinions on those bills don't even matter.\nOr, they could use one of the new rules to fire McCarthy and convince 7 Republicans to vote for Rep. Jeffries.", ">\n\nThe MAGAs could threaten to remove McCarthy as speaker if any of the bills they oppose get a vote. I have no doubt McCarthy would side with the fascists rather than let a Democrat become Speaker. He always bows down to the fascists. He's a fucking wimp.", ">\n\nMost of the moderate ones lost their primaries this time. Cheney, for example.", ">\n\nIt's crazy", ">\n\nThis is just more lip smacking from the so called \"moderates\" of the GOP. They'll express concern and outrage all day while doing the opposite ie a Susan Collins move.", ">\n\nKevin gave lavish gifts to the bomb throwers, snubbed his nose at the loyal Republicans. Wonder how that will work out.", ">\n\nHowever, Mace will still vote in support of the treasonous policies and rules that will be spawned by the MAGA hoard.", ">\n\nWouldn't the best time to worry about what shady deals McCarthy had to make to get elected as Speaker have been before you voted to elect him as Speaker?", ">\n\nMccarthy era?", ">\n\nWhy was this not a concern when they voted for him?", ">\n\nA house republican who fought tooth and nail to get him in a Speaker? I mean... your time to raise concerns was last week, dude... WTH?", ">\n\nI keep thinking about Hamilton:\n\nNo one else was in the room where it happened \nThe room where it happened \nThe room where it happened \nNo one really knows how the game is played \nThe art of the trade \nHow the sausage gets made \nWe just assume that it happens \nBut no one else is in the room where it happens", ">\n\nApparently the joke in DC everyone is saying to McCarthy is “Where’s your dialysis machine?”, (suggesting that he gave away everything even including his kidneys).", ">\n\nCan we bring McCarthyism as a term back to describe the garbage the GOP keeps pushing?", ">\n\nIf theyre questioning it now, why tf did they vote for him in the first place? Its not like its a secret he was making deals to get the votes he needed or who he was making deals with", ">\n\nSound the alarm? If they’re so concerned about it then why did they keep voting for McCarthy 15 fucking times? The house GOP is so full of shit.", ">\n\nAll it would take is a handful of republicans to vote down the rules package.", ">\n\nModerates in swing districts will have to align with dems or they will lose their next term. My prediction is Santos and MTG are gong to face legal problems", ">\n\nHe literally agreed to give MTG his foreskin", ">\n\nIf they’re that worried, they should have elected a legislator as Speaker, not a clown.", ">\n\nIgnorant sorta question here, but I'm not American and I'm not sure how this will work. But what if now that he's sworn in, he just doesn't do jack shit for the idiots he promised to?" ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit.", ">\n\nCould have withheld their vote and got their own backroom deal. I'm not sure why everyone wasn't doing this.", ">\n\n\"Well let's not all do the 'withholding their vote to get a backroom deal' thing.\"", ">\n\nThey don't know what they gave up, yet they voted for it along with McCarthy and the assistant Speaker Matt Gaetz.\nThey're all part of the same conspiracy now. They're all complicit, even those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.", ">\n\n\neven those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.\n\nThis isn't coming from a sense of morality or House decorum, she's just envious of those that got something out of it when she just rode the (R) train like a dope.", ">\n\nKevin McCarthy is the Speaker in title only, all of the power of the Speaker is held in the hands of the members of the Chaos Caucus.", ">\n\n\nmembers of the Chaos Caucus.\n\nFascist Caucus. Call it what it is.", ">\n\nSedition Caucus", ">\n\nSure but euphemisms aren’t helping people understand the gravity of what’s happening. And if it can happen in the US, it can happen in any other democracy, no matter how healthy it is.", ">\n\nMcCarthy is such a slimy, shameless piece of shit. Anyone with any self-respect would have given a fat middle finger to Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert and cut a deal with moderate Democrats to ensure not a single one of those losers ever sits on a committee or receives any fundraising whatsoever. They publicly eviscerated him on a personal level far above and beyond what any Democrat has done.", ">\n\nBut no one was in the room when it happened, the room when it happened", ">\n\nI read on the /r/worldnews Ukraine war megathread that McCarthy pledged to cut aid to Ukraine in order to gain votes. The Republican party works for Russia. McCarthy will do whatever Putin wants, or Putin's servants in Congress will end McCarthy's speakership.", ">\n\nI feel like he can't do that with the narrow Republican margin. There are still Republicans who support aid to Ukraine, luckily.", ">\n\nI'm not sure if they'll be able to get bills to support Ukraine out of committee and onto the floor for a vote. The fascists demanded many important committee seats which would give them a lot of power to decide what gets voted on.", ">\n\nThey may be able to move to bring the bill out of committee, so that the MAGA types' opinions on those bills don't even matter.\nOr, they could use one of the new rules to fire McCarthy and convince 7 Republicans to vote for Rep. Jeffries.", ">\n\nThe MAGAs could threaten to remove McCarthy as speaker if any of the bills they oppose get a vote. I have no doubt McCarthy would side with the fascists rather than let a Democrat become Speaker. He always bows down to the fascists. He's a fucking wimp.", ">\n\nMost of the moderate ones lost their primaries this time. Cheney, for example.", ">\n\nIt's crazy", ">\n\nThis is just more lip smacking from the so called \"moderates\" of the GOP. They'll express concern and outrage all day while doing the opposite ie a Susan Collins move.", ">\n\nKevin gave lavish gifts to the bomb throwers, snubbed his nose at the loyal Republicans. Wonder how that will work out.", ">\n\nHowever, Mace will still vote in support of the treasonous policies and rules that will be spawned by the MAGA hoard.", ">\n\nWouldn't the best time to worry about what shady deals McCarthy had to make to get elected as Speaker have been before you voted to elect him as Speaker?", ">\n\nMccarthy era?", ">\n\nWhy was this not a concern when they voted for him?", ">\n\nA house republican who fought tooth and nail to get him in a Speaker? I mean... your time to raise concerns was last week, dude... WTH?", ">\n\nI keep thinking about Hamilton:\n\nNo one else was in the room where it happened \nThe room where it happened \nThe room where it happened \nNo one really knows how the game is played \nThe art of the trade \nHow the sausage gets made \nWe just assume that it happens \nBut no one else is in the room where it happens", ">\n\nApparently the joke in DC everyone is saying to McCarthy is “Where’s your dialysis machine?”, (suggesting that he gave away everything even including his kidneys).", ">\n\nCan we bring McCarthyism as a term back to describe the garbage the GOP keeps pushing?", ">\n\nIf theyre questioning it now, why tf did they vote for him in the first place? Its not like its a secret he was making deals to get the votes he needed or who he was making deals with", ">\n\nSound the alarm? If they’re so concerned about it then why did they keep voting for McCarthy 15 fucking times? The house GOP is so full of shit.", ">\n\nAll it would take is a handful of republicans to vote down the rules package.", ">\n\nModerates in swing districts will have to align with dems or they will lose their next term. My prediction is Santos and MTG are gong to face legal problems", ">\n\nHe literally agreed to give MTG his foreskin", ">\n\nIf they’re that worried, they should have elected a legislator as Speaker, not a clown.", ">\n\nIgnorant sorta question here, but I'm not American and I'm not sure how this will work. But what if now that he's sworn in, he just doesn't do jack shit for the idiots he promised to?", ">\n\nThat is one of the new rules that was voted in. The question is why didn't he just not include those ridiculous rules. I.e. lie to the freedom caucus to gain their votes while not really giving them any of the concessions they asked for. Remember that rules are voted on after the speaker is decided. \nI mean the dems aren't going to vote against a reasonable package of rules just to fk with McCarthy, are they? I'd imagine that neutering the freedom caucus is much more important than giving the figurative finger to McCartney, especially if he's being reasonable as far as the rules go." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit.", ">\n\nCould have withheld their vote and got their own backroom deal. I'm not sure why everyone wasn't doing this.", ">\n\n\"Well let's not all do the 'withholding their vote to get a backroom deal' thing.\"", ">\n\nThey don't know what they gave up, yet they voted for it along with McCarthy and the assistant Speaker Matt Gaetz.\nThey're all part of the same conspiracy now. They're all complicit, even those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.", ">\n\n\neven those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.\n\nThis isn't coming from a sense of morality or House decorum, she's just envious of those that got something out of it when she just rode the (R) train like a dope.", ">\n\nKevin McCarthy is the Speaker in title only, all of the power of the Speaker is held in the hands of the members of the Chaos Caucus.", ">\n\n\nmembers of the Chaos Caucus.\n\nFascist Caucus. Call it what it is.", ">\n\nSedition Caucus", ">\n\nSure but euphemisms aren’t helping people understand the gravity of what’s happening. And if it can happen in the US, it can happen in any other democracy, no matter how healthy it is.", ">\n\nMcCarthy is such a slimy, shameless piece of shit. Anyone with any self-respect would have given a fat middle finger to Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert and cut a deal with moderate Democrats to ensure not a single one of those losers ever sits on a committee or receives any fundraising whatsoever. They publicly eviscerated him on a personal level far above and beyond what any Democrat has done.", ">\n\nBut no one was in the room when it happened, the room when it happened", ">\n\nI read on the /r/worldnews Ukraine war megathread that McCarthy pledged to cut aid to Ukraine in order to gain votes. The Republican party works for Russia. McCarthy will do whatever Putin wants, or Putin's servants in Congress will end McCarthy's speakership.", ">\n\nI feel like he can't do that with the narrow Republican margin. There are still Republicans who support aid to Ukraine, luckily.", ">\n\nI'm not sure if they'll be able to get bills to support Ukraine out of committee and onto the floor for a vote. The fascists demanded many important committee seats which would give them a lot of power to decide what gets voted on.", ">\n\nThey may be able to move to bring the bill out of committee, so that the MAGA types' opinions on those bills don't even matter.\nOr, they could use one of the new rules to fire McCarthy and convince 7 Republicans to vote for Rep. Jeffries.", ">\n\nThe MAGAs could threaten to remove McCarthy as speaker if any of the bills they oppose get a vote. I have no doubt McCarthy would side with the fascists rather than let a Democrat become Speaker. He always bows down to the fascists. He's a fucking wimp.", ">\n\nMost of the moderate ones lost their primaries this time. Cheney, for example.", ">\n\nIt's crazy", ">\n\nThis is just more lip smacking from the so called \"moderates\" of the GOP. They'll express concern and outrage all day while doing the opposite ie a Susan Collins move.", ">\n\nKevin gave lavish gifts to the bomb throwers, snubbed his nose at the loyal Republicans. Wonder how that will work out.", ">\n\nHowever, Mace will still vote in support of the treasonous policies and rules that will be spawned by the MAGA hoard.", ">\n\nWouldn't the best time to worry about what shady deals McCarthy had to make to get elected as Speaker have been before you voted to elect him as Speaker?", ">\n\nMccarthy era?", ">\n\nWhy was this not a concern when they voted for him?", ">\n\nA house republican who fought tooth and nail to get him in a Speaker? I mean... your time to raise concerns was last week, dude... WTH?", ">\n\nI keep thinking about Hamilton:\n\nNo one else was in the room where it happened \nThe room where it happened \nThe room where it happened \nNo one really knows how the game is played \nThe art of the trade \nHow the sausage gets made \nWe just assume that it happens \nBut no one else is in the room where it happens", ">\n\nApparently the joke in DC everyone is saying to McCarthy is “Where’s your dialysis machine?”, (suggesting that he gave away everything even including his kidneys).", ">\n\nCan we bring McCarthyism as a term back to describe the garbage the GOP keeps pushing?", ">\n\nIf theyre questioning it now, why tf did they vote for him in the first place? Its not like its a secret he was making deals to get the votes he needed or who he was making deals with", ">\n\nSound the alarm? If they’re so concerned about it then why did they keep voting for McCarthy 15 fucking times? The house GOP is so full of shit.", ">\n\nAll it would take is a handful of republicans to vote down the rules package.", ">\n\nModerates in swing districts will have to align with dems or they will lose their next term. My prediction is Santos and MTG are gong to face legal problems", ">\n\nHe literally agreed to give MTG his foreskin", ">\n\nIf they’re that worried, they should have elected a legislator as Speaker, not a clown.", ">\n\nIgnorant sorta question here, but I'm not American and I'm not sure how this will work. But what if now that he's sworn in, he just doesn't do jack shit for the idiots he promised to?", ">\n\nThat is one of the new rules that was voted in. The question is why didn't he just not include those ridiculous rules. I.e. lie to the freedom caucus to gain their votes while not really giving them any of the concessions they asked for. Remember that rules are voted on after the speaker is decided. \nI mean the dems aren't going to vote against a reasonable package of rules just to fk with McCarthy, are they? I'd imagine that neutering the freedom caucus is much more important than giving the figurative finger to McCartney, especially if he's being reasonable as far as the rules go.", ">\n\nIt’s more important for McCarthy to be seen as not working w the Democrats given his constituent base id think" ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit.", ">\n\nCould have withheld their vote and got their own backroom deal. I'm not sure why everyone wasn't doing this.", ">\n\n\"Well let's not all do the 'withholding their vote to get a backroom deal' thing.\"", ">\n\nThey don't know what they gave up, yet they voted for it along with McCarthy and the assistant Speaker Matt Gaetz.\nThey're all part of the same conspiracy now. They're all complicit, even those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.", ">\n\n\neven those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.\n\nThis isn't coming from a sense of morality or House decorum, she's just envious of those that got something out of it when she just rode the (R) train like a dope.", ">\n\nKevin McCarthy is the Speaker in title only, all of the power of the Speaker is held in the hands of the members of the Chaos Caucus.", ">\n\n\nmembers of the Chaos Caucus.\n\nFascist Caucus. Call it what it is.", ">\n\nSedition Caucus", ">\n\nSure but euphemisms aren’t helping people understand the gravity of what’s happening. And if it can happen in the US, it can happen in any other democracy, no matter how healthy it is.", ">\n\nMcCarthy is such a slimy, shameless piece of shit. Anyone with any self-respect would have given a fat middle finger to Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert and cut a deal with moderate Democrats to ensure not a single one of those losers ever sits on a committee or receives any fundraising whatsoever. They publicly eviscerated him on a personal level far above and beyond what any Democrat has done.", ">\n\nBut no one was in the room when it happened, the room when it happened", ">\n\nI read on the /r/worldnews Ukraine war megathread that McCarthy pledged to cut aid to Ukraine in order to gain votes. The Republican party works for Russia. McCarthy will do whatever Putin wants, or Putin's servants in Congress will end McCarthy's speakership.", ">\n\nI feel like he can't do that with the narrow Republican margin. There are still Republicans who support aid to Ukraine, luckily.", ">\n\nI'm not sure if they'll be able to get bills to support Ukraine out of committee and onto the floor for a vote. The fascists demanded many important committee seats which would give them a lot of power to decide what gets voted on.", ">\n\nThey may be able to move to bring the bill out of committee, so that the MAGA types' opinions on those bills don't even matter.\nOr, they could use one of the new rules to fire McCarthy and convince 7 Republicans to vote for Rep. Jeffries.", ">\n\nThe MAGAs could threaten to remove McCarthy as speaker if any of the bills they oppose get a vote. I have no doubt McCarthy would side with the fascists rather than let a Democrat become Speaker. He always bows down to the fascists. He's a fucking wimp.", ">\n\nMost of the moderate ones lost their primaries this time. Cheney, for example.", ">\n\nIt's crazy", ">\n\nThis is just more lip smacking from the so called \"moderates\" of the GOP. They'll express concern and outrage all day while doing the opposite ie a Susan Collins move.", ">\n\nKevin gave lavish gifts to the bomb throwers, snubbed his nose at the loyal Republicans. Wonder how that will work out.", ">\n\nHowever, Mace will still vote in support of the treasonous policies and rules that will be spawned by the MAGA hoard.", ">\n\nWouldn't the best time to worry about what shady deals McCarthy had to make to get elected as Speaker have been before you voted to elect him as Speaker?", ">\n\nMccarthy era?", ">\n\nWhy was this not a concern when they voted for him?", ">\n\nA house republican who fought tooth and nail to get him in a Speaker? I mean... your time to raise concerns was last week, dude... WTH?", ">\n\nI keep thinking about Hamilton:\n\nNo one else was in the room where it happened \nThe room where it happened \nThe room where it happened \nNo one really knows how the game is played \nThe art of the trade \nHow the sausage gets made \nWe just assume that it happens \nBut no one else is in the room where it happens", ">\n\nApparently the joke in DC everyone is saying to McCarthy is “Where’s your dialysis machine?”, (suggesting that he gave away everything even including his kidneys).", ">\n\nCan we bring McCarthyism as a term back to describe the garbage the GOP keeps pushing?", ">\n\nIf theyre questioning it now, why tf did they vote for him in the first place? Its not like its a secret he was making deals to get the votes he needed or who he was making deals with", ">\n\nSound the alarm? If they’re so concerned about it then why did they keep voting for McCarthy 15 fucking times? The house GOP is so full of shit.", ">\n\nAll it would take is a handful of republicans to vote down the rules package.", ">\n\nModerates in swing districts will have to align with dems or they will lose their next term. My prediction is Santos and MTG are gong to face legal problems", ">\n\nHe literally agreed to give MTG his foreskin", ">\n\nIf they’re that worried, they should have elected a legislator as Speaker, not a clown.", ">\n\nIgnorant sorta question here, but I'm not American and I'm not sure how this will work. But what if now that he's sworn in, he just doesn't do jack shit for the idiots he promised to?", ">\n\nThat is one of the new rules that was voted in. The question is why didn't he just not include those ridiculous rules. I.e. lie to the freedom caucus to gain their votes while not really giving them any of the concessions they asked for. Remember that rules are voted on after the speaker is decided. \nI mean the dems aren't going to vote against a reasonable package of rules just to fk with McCarthy, are they? I'd imagine that neutering the freedom caucus is much more important than giving the figurative finger to McCartney, especially if he's being reasonable as far as the rules go.", ">\n\nIt’s more important for McCarthy to be seen as not working w the Democrats given his constituent base id think", ">\n\nHe's the one setting the rules, it would seem like the dems working with him, not him working with the dems, wouldn't it?" ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit.", ">\n\nCould have withheld their vote and got their own backroom deal. I'm not sure why everyone wasn't doing this.", ">\n\n\"Well let's not all do the 'withholding their vote to get a backroom deal' thing.\"", ">\n\nThey don't know what they gave up, yet they voted for it along with McCarthy and the assistant Speaker Matt Gaetz.\nThey're all part of the same conspiracy now. They're all complicit, even those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.", ">\n\n\neven those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.\n\nThis isn't coming from a sense of morality or House decorum, she's just envious of those that got something out of it when she just rode the (R) train like a dope.", ">\n\nKevin McCarthy is the Speaker in title only, all of the power of the Speaker is held in the hands of the members of the Chaos Caucus.", ">\n\n\nmembers of the Chaos Caucus.\n\nFascist Caucus. Call it what it is.", ">\n\nSedition Caucus", ">\n\nSure but euphemisms aren’t helping people understand the gravity of what’s happening. And if it can happen in the US, it can happen in any other democracy, no matter how healthy it is.", ">\n\nMcCarthy is such a slimy, shameless piece of shit. Anyone with any self-respect would have given a fat middle finger to Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert and cut a deal with moderate Democrats to ensure not a single one of those losers ever sits on a committee or receives any fundraising whatsoever. They publicly eviscerated him on a personal level far above and beyond what any Democrat has done.", ">\n\nBut no one was in the room when it happened, the room when it happened", ">\n\nI read on the /r/worldnews Ukraine war megathread that McCarthy pledged to cut aid to Ukraine in order to gain votes. The Republican party works for Russia. McCarthy will do whatever Putin wants, or Putin's servants in Congress will end McCarthy's speakership.", ">\n\nI feel like he can't do that with the narrow Republican margin. There are still Republicans who support aid to Ukraine, luckily.", ">\n\nI'm not sure if they'll be able to get bills to support Ukraine out of committee and onto the floor for a vote. The fascists demanded many important committee seats which would give them a lot of power to decide what gets voted on.", ">\n\nThey may be able to move to bring the bill out of committee, so that the MAGA types' opinions on those bills don't even matter.\nOr, they could use one of the new rules to fire McCarthy and convince 7 Republicans to vote for Rep. Jeffries.", ">\n\nThe MAGAs could threaten to remove McCarthy as speaker if any of the bills they oppose get a vote. I have no doubt McCarthy would side with the fascists rather than let a Democrat become Speaker. He always bows down to the fascists. He's a fucking wimp.", ">\n\nMost of the moderate ones lost their primaries this time. Cheney, for example.", ">\n\nIt's crazy", ">\n\nThis is just more lip smacking from the so called \"moderates\" of the GOP. They'll express concern and outrage all day while doing the opposite ie a Susan Collins move.", ">\n\nKevin gave lavish gifts to the bomb throwers, snubbed his nose at the loyal Republicans. Wonder how that will work out.", ">\n\nHowever, Mace will still vote in support of the treasonous policies and rules that will be spawned by the MAGA hoard.", ">\n\nWouldn't the best time to worry about what shady deals McCarthy had to make to get elected as Speaker have been before you voted to elect him as Speaker?", ">\n\nMccarthy era?", ">\n\nWhy was this not a concern when they voted for him?", ">\n\nA house republican who fought tooth and nail to get him in a Speaker? I mean... your time to raise concerns was last week, dude... WTH?", ">\n\nI keep thinking about Hamilton:\n\nNo one else was in the room where it happened \nThe room where it happened \nThe room where it happened \nNo one really knows how the game is played \nThe art of the trade \nHow the sausage gets made \nWe just assume that it happens \nBut no one else is in the room where it happens", ">\n\nApparently the joke in DC everyone is saying to McCarthy is “Where’s your dialysis machine?”, (suggesting that he gave away everything even including his kidneys).", ">\n\nCan we bring McCarthyism as a term back to describe the garbage the GOP keeps pushing?", ">\n\nIf theyre questioning it now, why tf did they vote for him in the first place? Its not like its a secret he was making deals to get the votes he needed or who he was making deals with", ">\n\nSound the alarm? If they’re so concerned about it then why did they keep voting for McCarthy 15 fucking times? The house GOP is so full of shit.", ">\n\nAll it would take is a handful of republicans to vote down the rules package.", ">\n\nModerates in swing districts will have to align with dems or they will lose their next term. My prediction is Santos and MTG are gong to face legal problems", ">\n\nHe literally agreed to give MTG his foreskin", ">\n\nIf they’re that worried, they should have elected a legislator as Speaker, not a clown.", ">\n\nIgnorant sorta question here, but I'm not American and I'm not sure how this will work. But what if now that he's sworn in, he just doesn't do jack shit for the idiots he promised to?", ">\n\nThat is one of the new rules that was voted in. The question is why didn't he just not include those ridiculous rules. I.e. lie to the freedom caucus to gain their votes while not really giving them any of the concessions they asked for. Remember that rules are voted on after the speaker is decided. \nI mean the dems aren't going to vote against a reasonable package of rules just to fk with McCarthy, are they? I'd imagine that neutering the freedom caucus is much more important than giving the figurative finger to McCartney, especially if he's being reasonable as far as the rules go.", ">\n\nIt’s more important for McCarthy to be seen as not working w the Democrats given his constituent base id think", ">\n\nHe's the one setting the rules, it would seem like the dems working with him, not him working with the dems, wouldn't it?", ">\n\nI thought the point was for republicans to never be seen “colluding” with the enemy?" ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit.", ">\n\nCould have withheld their vote and got their own backroom deal. I'm not sure why everyone wasn't doing this.", ">\n\n\"Well let's not all do the 'withholding their vote to get a backroom deal' thing.\"", ">\n\nThey don't know what they gave up, yet they voted for it along with McCarthy and the assistant Speaker Matt Gaetz.\nThey're all part of the same conspiracy now. They're all complicit, even those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.", ">\n\n\neven those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.\n\nThis isn't coming from a sense of morality or House decorum, she's just envious of those that got something out of it when she just rode the (R) train like a dope.", ">\n\nKevin McCarthy is the Speaker in title only, all of the power of the Speaker is held in the hands of the members of the Chaos Caucus.", ">\n\n\nmembers of the Chaos Caucus.\n\nFascist Caucus. Call it what it is.", ">\n\nSedition Caucus", ">\n\nSure but euphemisms aren’t helping people understand the gravity of what’s happening. And if it can happen in the US, it can happen in any other democracy, no matter how healthy it is.", ">\n\nMcCarthy is such a slimy, shameless piece of shit. Anyone with any self-respect would have given a fat middle finger to Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert and cut a deal with moderate Democrats to ensure not a single one of those losers ever sits on a committee or receives any fundraising whatsoever. They publicly eviscerated him on a personal level far above and beyond what any Democrat has done.", ">\n\nBut no one was in the room when it happened, the room when it happened", ">\n\nI read on the /r/worldnews Ukraine war megathread that McCarthy pledged to cut aid to Ukraine in order to gain votes. The Republican party works for Russia. McCarthy will do whatever Putin wants, or Putin's servants in Congress will end McCarthy's speakership.", ">\n\nI feel like he can't do that with the narrow Republican margin. There are still Republicans who support aid to Ukraine, luckily.", ">\n\nI'm not sure if they'll be able to get bills to support Ukraine out of committee and onto the floor for a vote. The fascists demanded many important committee seats which would give them a lot of power to decide what gets voted on.", ">\n\nThey may be able to move to bring the bill out of committee, so that the MAGA types' opinions on those bills don't even matter.\nOr, they could use one of the new rules to fire McCarthy and convince 7 Republicans to vote for Rep. Jeffries.", ">\n\nThe MAGAs could threaten to remove McCarthy as speaker if any of the bills they oppose get a vote. I have no doubt McCarthy would side with the fascists rather than let a Democrat become Speaker. He always bows down to the fascists. He's a fucking wimp.", ">\n\nMost of the moderate ones lost their primaries this time. Cheney, for example.", ">\n\nIt's crazy", ">\n\nThis is just more lip smacking from the so called \"moderates\" of the GOP. They'll express concern and outrage all day while doing the opposite ie a Susan Collins move.", ">\n\nKevin gave lavish gifts to the bomb throwers, snubbed his nose at the loyal Republicans. Wonder how that will work out.", ">\n\nHowever, Mace will still vote in support of the treasonous policies and rules that will be spawned by the MAGA hoard.", ">\n\nWouldn't the best time to worry about what shady deals McCarthy had to make to get elected as Speaker have been before you voted to elect him as Speaker?", ">\n\nMccarthy era?", ">\n\nWhy was this not a concern when they voted for him?", ">\n\nA house republican who fought tooth and nail to get him in a Speaker? I mean... your time to raise concerns was last week, dude... WTH?", ">\n\nI keep thinking about Hamilton:\n\nNo one else was in the room where it happened \nThe room where it happened \nThe room where it happened \nNo one really knows how the game is played \nThe art of the trade \nHow the sausage gets made \nWe just assume that it happens \nBut no one else is in the room where it happens", ">\n\nApparently the joke in DC everyone is saying to McCarthy is “Where’s your dialysis machine?”, (suggesting that he gave away everything even including his kidneys).", ">\n\nCan we bring McCarthyism as a term back to describe the garbage the GOP keeps pushing?", ">\n\nIf theyre questioning it now, why tf did they vote for him in the first place? Its not like its a secret he was making deals to get the votes he needed or who he was making deals with", ">\n\nSound the alarm? If they’re so concerned about it then why did they keep voting for McCarthy 15 fucking times? The house GOP is so full of shit.", ">\n\nAll it would take is a handful of republicans to vote down the rules package.", ">\n\nModerates in swing districts will have to align with dems or they will lose their next term. My prediction is Santos and MTG are gong to face legal problems", ">\n\nHe literally agreed to give MTG his foreskin", ">\n\nIf they’re that worried, they should have elected a legislator as Speaker, not a clown.", ">\n\nIgnorant sorta question here, but I'm not American and I'm not sure how this will work. But what if now that he's sworn in, he just doesn't do jack shit for the idiots he promised to?", ">\n\nThat is one of the new rules that was voted in. The question is why didn't he just not include those ridiculous rules. I.e. lie to the freedom caucus to gain their votes while not really giving them any of the concessions they asked for. Remember that rules are voted on after the speaker is decided. \nI mean the dems aren't going to vote against a reasonable package of rules just to fk with McCarthy, are they? I'd imagine that neutering the freedom caucus is much more important than giving the figurative finger to McCartney, especially if he's being reasonable as far as the rules go.", ">\n\nIt’s more important for McCarthy to be seen as not working w the Democrats given his constituent base id think", ">\n\nHe's the one setting the rules, it would seem like the dems working with him, not him working with the dems, wouldn't it?", ">\n\nI thought the point was for republicans to never be seen “colluding” with the enemy?", ">\n\n\nMace called Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., one of the leading McCarthy foes, a \"fraud\" for using the stunt to fundraise \n\nUsing the Trump playbook." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit.", ">\n\nCould have withheld their vote and got their own backroom deal. I'm not sure why everyone wasn't doing this.", ">\n\n\"Well let's not all do the 'withholding their vote to get a backroom deal' thing.\"", ">\n\nThey don't know what they gave up, yet they voted for it along with McCarthy and the assistant Speaker Matt Gaetz.\nThey're all part of the same conspiracy now. They're all complicit, even those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.", ">\n\n\neven those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.\n\nThis isn't coming from a sense of morality or House decorum, she's just envious of those that got something out of it when she just rode the (R) train like a dope.", ">\n\nKevin McCarthy is the Speaker in title only, all of the power of the Speaker is held in the hands of the members of the Chaos Caucus.", ">\n\n\nmembers of the Chaos Caucus.\n\nFascist Caucus. Call it what it is.", ">\n\nSedition Caucus", ">\n\nSure but euphemisms aren’t helping people understand the gravity of what’s happening. And if it can happen in the US, it can happen in any other democracy, no matter how healthy it is.", ">\n\nMcCarthy is such a slimy, shameless piece of shit. Anyone with any self-respect would have given a fat middle finger to Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert and cut a deal with moderate Democrats to ensure not a single one of those losers ever sits on a committee or receives any fundraising whatsoever. They publicly eviscerated him on a personal level far above and beyond what any Democrat has done.", ">\n\nBut no one was in the room when it happened, the room when it happened", ">\n\nI read on the /r/worldnews Ukraine war megathread that McCarthy pledged to cut aid to Ukraine in order to gain votes. The Republican party works for Russia. McCarthy will do whatever Putin wants, or Putin's servants in Congress will end McCarthy's speakership.", ">\n\nI feel like he can't do that with the narrow Republican margin. There are still Republicans who support aid to Ukraine, luckily.", ">\n\nI'm not sure if they'll be able to get bills to support Ukraine out of committee and onto the floor for a vote. The fascists demanded many important committee seats which would give them a lot of power to decide what gets voted on.", ">\n\nThey may be able to move to bring the bill out of committee, so that the MAGA types' opinions on those bills don't even matter.\nOr, they could use one of the new rules to fire McCarthy and convince 7 Republicans to vote for Rep. Jeffries.", ">\n\nThe MAGAs could threaten to remove McCarthy as speaker if any of the bills they oppose get a vote. I have no doubt McCarthy would side with the fascists rather than let a Democrat become Speaker. He always bows down to the fascists. He's a fucking wimp.", ">\n\nMost of the moderate ones lost their primaries this time. Cheney, for example.", ">\n\nIt's crazy", ">\n\nThis is just more lip smacking from the so called \"moderates\" of the GOP. They'll express concern and outrage all day while doing the opposite ie a Susan Collins move.", ">\n\nKevin gave lavish gifts to the bomb throwers, snubbed his nose at the loyal Republicans. Wonder how that will work out.", ">\n\nHowever, Mace will still vote in support of the treasonous policies and rules that will be spawned by the MAGA hoard.", ">\n\nWouldn't the best time to worry about what shady deals McCarthy had to make to get elected as Speaker have been before you voted to elect him as Speaker?", ">\n\nMccarthy era?", ">\n\nWhy was this not a concern when they voted for him?", ">\n\nA house republican who fought tooth and nail to get him in a Speaker? I mean... your time to raise concerns was last week, dude... WTH?", ">\n\nI keep thinking about Hamilton:\n\nNo one else was in the room where it happened \nThe room where it happened \nThe room where it happened \nNo one really knows how the game is played \nThe art of the trade \nHow the sausage gets made \nWe just assume that it happens \nBut no one else is in the room where it happens", ">\n\nApparently the joke in DC everyone is saying to McCarthy is “Where’s your dialysis machine?”, (suggesting that he gave away everything even including his kidneys).", ">\n\nCan we bring McCarthyism as a term back to describe the garbage the GOP keeps pushing?", ">\n\nIf theyre questioning it now, why tf did they vote for him in the first place? Its not like its a secret he was making deals to get the votes he needed or who he was making deals with", ">\n\nSound the alarm? If they’re so concerned about it then why did they keep voting for McCarthy 15 fucking times? The house GOP is so full of shit.", ">\n\nAll it would take is a handful of republicans to vote down the rules package.", ">\n\nModerates in swing districts will have to align with dems or they will lose their next term. My prediction is Santos and MTG are gong to face legal problems", ">\n\nHe literally agreed to give MTG his foreskin", ">\n\nIf they’re that worried, they should have elected a legislator as Speaker, not a clown.", ">\n\nIgnorant sorta question here, but I'm not American and I'm not sure how this will work. But what if now that he's sworn in, he just doesn't do jack shit for the idiots he promised to?", ">\n\nThat is one of the new rules that was voted in. The question is why didn't he just not include those ridiculous rules. I.e. lie to the freedom caucus to gain their votes while not really giving them any of the concessions they asked for. Remember that rules are voted on after the speaker is decided. \nI mean the dems aren't going to vote against a reasonable package of rules just to fk with McCarthy, are they? I'd imagine that neutering the freedom caucus is much more important than giving the figurative finger to McCartney, especially if he's being reasonable as far as the rules go.", ">\n\nIt’s more important for McCarthy to be seen as not working w the Democrats given his constituent base id think", ">\n\nHe's the one setting the rules, it would seem like the dems working with him, not him working with the dems, wouldn't it?", ">\n\nI thought the point was for republicans to never be seen “colluding” with the enemy?", ">\n\n\nMace called Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., one of the leading McCarthy foes, a \"fraud\" for using the stunt to fundraise \n\nUsing the Trump playbook.", ">\n\n“I wanna be in the room where it happened, the room where it happened…”" ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit.", ">\n\nCould have withheld their vote and got their own backroom deal. I'm not sure why everyone wasn't doing this.", ">\n\n\"Well let's not all do the 'withholding their vote to get a backroom deal' thing.\"", ">\n\nThey don't know what they gave up, yet they voted for it along with McCarthy and the assistant Speaker Matt Gaetz.\nThey're all part of the same conspiracy now. They're all complicit, even those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.", ">\n\n\neven those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.\n\nThis isn't coming from a sense of morality or House decorum, she's just envious of those that got something out of it when she just rode the (R) train like a dope.", ">\n\nKevin McCarthy is the Speaker in title only, all of the power of the Speaker is held in the hands of the members of the Chaos Caucus.", ">\n\n\nmembers of the Chaos Caucus.\n\nFascist Caucus. Call it what it is.", ">\n\nSedition Caucus", ">\n\nSure but euphemisms aren’t helping people understand the gravity of what’s happening. And if it can happen in the US, it can happen in any other democracy, no matter how healthy it is.", ">\n\nMcCarthy is such a slimy, shameless piece of shit. Anyone with any self-respect would have given a fat middle finger to Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert and cut a deal with moderate Democrats to ensure not a single one of those losers ever sits on a committee or receives any fundraising whatsoever. They publicly eviscerated him on a personal level far above and beyond what any Democrat has done.", ">\n\nBut no one was in the room when it happened, the room when it happened", ">\n\nI read on the /r/worldnews Ukraine war megathread that McCarthy pledged to cut aid to Ukraine in order to gain votes. The Republican party works for Russia. McCarthy will do whatever Putin wants, or Putin's servants in Congress will end McCarthy's speakership.", ">\n\nI feel like he can't do that with the narrow Republican margin. There are still Republicans who support aid to Ukraine, luckily.", ">\n\nI'm not sure if they'll be able to get bills to support Ukraine out of committee and onto the floor for a vote. The fascists demanded many important committee seats which would give them a lot of power to decide what gets voted on.", ">\n\nThey may be able to move to bring the bill out of committee, so that the MAGA types' opinions on those bills don't even matter.\nOr, they could use one of the new rules to fire McCarthy and convince 7 Republicans to vote for Rep. Jeffries.", ">\n\nThe MAGAs could threaten to remove McCarthy as speaker if any of the bills they oppose get a vote. I have no doubt McCarthy would side with the fascists rather than let a Democrat become Speaker. He always bows down to the fascists. He's a fucking wimp.", ">\n\nMost of the moderate ones lost their primaries this time. Cheney, for example.", ">\n\nIt's crazy", ">\n\nThis is just more lip smacking from the so called \"moderates\" of the GOP. They'll express concern and outrage all day while doing the opposite ie a Susan Collins move.", ">\n\nKevin gave lavish gifts to the bomb throwers, snubbed his nose at the loyal Republicans. Wonder how that will work out.", ">\n\nHowever, Mace will still vote in support of the treasonous policies and rules that will be spawned by the MAGA hoard.", ">\n\nWouldn't the best time to worry about what shady deals McCarthy had to make to get elected as Speaker have been before you voted to elect him as Speaker?", ">\n\nMccarthy era?", ">\n\nWhy was this not a concern when they voted for him?", ">\n\nA house republican who fought tooth and nail to get him in a Speaker? I mean... your time to raise concerns was last week, dude... WTH?", ">\n\nI keep thinking about Hamilton:\n\nNo one else was in the room where it happened \nThe room where it happened \nThe room where it happened \nNo one really knows how the game is played \nThe art of the trade \nHow the sausage gets made \nWe just assume that it happens \nBut no one else is in the room where it happens", ">\n\nApparently the joke in DC everyone is saying to McCarthy is “Where’s your dialysis machine?”, (suggesting that he gave away everything even including his kidneys).", ">\n\nCan we bring McCarthyism as a term back to describe the garbage the GOP keeps pushing?", ">\n\nIf theyre questioning it now, why tf did they vote for him in the first place? Its not like its a secret he was making deals to get the votes he needed or who he was making deals with", ">\n\nSound the alarm? If they’re so concerned about it then why did they keep voting for McCarthy 15 fucking times? The house GOP is so full of shit.", ">\n\nAll it would take is a handful of republicans to vote down the rules package.", ">\n\nModerates in swing districts will have to align with dems or they will lose their next term. My prediction is Santos and MTG are gong to face legal problems", ">\n\nHe literally agreed to give MTG his foreskin", ">\n\nIf they’re that worried, they should have elected a legislator as Speaker, not a clown.", ">\n\nIgnorant sorta question here, but I'm not American and I'm not sure how this will work. But what if now that he's sworn in, he just doesn't do jack shit for the idiots he promised to?", ">\n\nThat is one of the new rules that was voted in. The question is why didn't he just not include those ridiculous rules. I.e. lie to the freedom caucus to gain their votes while not really giving them any of the concessions they asked for. Remember that rules are voted on after the speaker is decided. \nI mean the dems aren't going to vote against a reasonable package of rules just to fk with McCarthy, are they? I'd imagine that neutering the freedom caucus is much more important than giving the figurative finger to McCartney, especially if he's being reasonable as far as the rules go.", ">\n\nIt’s more important for McCarthy to be seen as not working w the Democrats given his constituent base id think", ">\n\nHe's the one setting the rules, it would seem like the dems working with him, not him working with the dems, wouldn't it?", ">\n\nI thought the point was for republicans to never be seen “colluding” with the enemy?", ">\n\n\nMace called Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., one of the leading McCarthy foes, a \"fraud\" for using the stunt to fundraise \n\nUsing the Trump playbook.", ">\n\n“I wanna be in the room where it happened, the room where it happened…”", ">\n\n“Sound the alarm”. Motherfuckers didn’t have to vote for him. Could have left or voted present in any of the pre13th ballot." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit.", ">\n\nCould have withheld their vote and got their own backroom deal. I'm not sure why everyone wasn't doing this.", ">\n\n\"Well let's not all do the 'withholding their vote to get a backroom deal' thing.\"", ">\n\nThey don't know what they gave up, yet they voted for it along with McCarthy and the assistant Speaker Matt Gaetz.\nThey're all part of the same conspiracy now. They're all complicit, even those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.", ">\n\n\neven those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.\n\nThis isn't coming from a sense of morality or House decorum, she's just envious of those that got something out of it when she just rode the (R) train like a dope.", ">\n\nKevin McCarthy is the Speaker in title only, all of the power of the Speaker is held in the hands of the members of the Chaos Caucus.", ">\n\n\nmembers of the Chaos Caucus.\n\nFascist Caucus. Call it what it is.", ">\n\nSedition Caucus", ">\n\nSure but euphemisms aren’t helping people understand the gravity of what’s happening. And if it can happen in the US, it can happen in any other democracy, no matter how healthy it is.", ">\n\nMcCarthy is such a slimy, shameless piece of shit. Anyone with any self-respect would have given a fat middle finger to Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert and cut a deal with moderate Democrats to ensure not a single one of those losers ever sits on a committee or receives any fundraising whatsoever. They publicly eviscerated him on a personal level far above and beyond what any Democrat has done.", ">\n\nBut no one was in the room when it happened, the room when it happened", ">\n\nI read on the /r/worldnews Ukraine war megathread that McCarthy pledged to cut aid to Ukraine in order to gain votes. The Republican party works for Russia. McCarthy will do whatever Putin wants, or Putin's servants in Congress will end McCarthy's speakership.", ">\n\nI feel like he can't do that with the narrow Republican margin. There are still Republicans who support aid to Ukraine, luckily.", ">\n\nI'm not sure if they'll be able to get bills to support Ukraine out of committee and onto the floor for a vote. The fascists demanded many important committee seats which would give them a lot of power to decide what gets voted on.", ">\n\nThey may be able to move to bring the bill out of committee, so that the MAGA types' opinions on those bills don't even matter.\nOr, they could use one of the new rules to fire McCarthy and convince 7 Republicans to vote for Rep. Jeffries.", ">\n\nThe MAGAs could threaten to remove McCarthy as speaker if any of the bills they oppose get a vote. I have no doubt McCarthy would side with the fascists rather than let a Democrat become Speaker. He always bows down to the fascists. He's a fucking wimp.", ">\n\nMost of the moderate ones lost their primaries this time. Cheney, for example.", ">\n\nIt's crazy", ">\n\nThis is just more lip smacking from the so called \"moderates\" of the GOP. They'll express concern and outrage all day while doing the opposite ie a Susan Collins move.", ">\n\nKevin gave lavish gifts to the bomb throwers, snubbed his nose at the loyal Republicans. Wonder how that will work out.", ">\n\nHowever, Mace will still vote in support of the treasonous policies and rules that will be spawned by the MAGA hoard.", ">\n\nWouldn't the best time to worry about what shady deals McCarthy had to make to get elected as Speaker have been before you voted to elect him as Speaker?", ">\n\nMccarthy era?", ">\n\nWhy was this not a concern when they voted for him?", ">\n\nA house republican who fought tooth and nail to get him in a Speaker? I mean... your time to raise concerns was last week, dude... WTH?", ">\n\nI keep thinking about Hamilton:\n\nNo one else was in the room where it happened \nThe room where it happened \nThe room where it happened \nNo one really knows how the game is played \nThe art of the trade \nHow the sausage gets made \nWe just assume that it happens \nBut no one else is in the room where it happens", ">\n\nApparently the joke in DC everyone is saying to McCarthy is “Where’s your dialysis machine?”, (suggesting that he gave away everything even including his kidneys).", ">\n\nCan we bring McCarthyism as a term back to describe the garbage the GOP keeps pushing?", ">\n\nIf theyre questioning it now, why tf did they vote for him in the first place? Its not like its a secret he was making deals to get the votes he needed or who he was making deals with", ">\n\nSound the alarm? If they’re so concerned about it then why did they keep voting for McCarthy 15 fucking times? The house GOP is so full of shit.", ">\n\nAll it would take is a handful of republicans to vote down the rules package.", ">\n\nModerates in swing districts will have to align with dems or they will lose their next term. My prediction is Santos and MTG are gong to face legal problems", ">\n\nHe literally agreed to give MTG his foreskin", ">\n\nIf they’re that worried, they should have elected a legislator as Speaker, not a clown.", ">\n\nIgnorant sorta question here, but I'm not American and I'm not sure how this will work. But what if now that he's sworn in, he just doesn't do jack shit for the idiots he promised to?", ">\n\nThat is one of the new rules that was voted in. The question is why didn't he just not include those ridiculous rules. I.e. lie to the freedom caucus to gain their votes while not really giving them any of the concessions they asked for. Remember that rules are voted on after the speaker is decided. \nI mean the dems aren't going to vote against a reasonable package of rules just to fk with McCarthy, are they? I'd imagine that neutering the freedom caucus is much more important than giving the figurative finger to McCartney, especially if he's being reasonable as far as the rules go.", ">\n\nIt’s more important for McCarthy to be seen as not working w the Democrats given his constituent base id think", ">\n\nHe's the one setting the rules, it would seem like the dems working with him, not him working with the dems, wouldn't it?", ">\n\nI thought the point was for republicans to never be seen “colluding” with the enemy?", ">\n\n\nMace called Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., one of the leading McCarthy foes, a \"fraud\" for using the stunt to fundraise \n\nUsing the Trump playbook.", ">\n\n“I wanna be in the room where it happened, the room where it happened…”", ">\n\n“Sound the alarm”. Motherfuckers didn’t have to vote for him. Could have left or voted present in any of the pre13th ballot.", ">\n\nFucking disingenuous little maggots.\nIf 6, only 6, of you spineless little parasites were willing to put country and democracy ahead of party, this would have been avoided.\nBackroom deals? You could have fucking stopped them." ]

[ "Seriously? McCarthy is full MAGA. They just handed him everything, including the idiot \"sounding the alarm\".", ">\n\nYeah, it’s fucking pathetic. They could have chosen literally anyone else if they were this concerned. They had 15 votes to do it ffs", ">\n\nYup. And could have just voted present if they really didn’t want him.", ">\n\nVoting ‘present’ merely lowers the threshold for votes need to secure the Speaker role.", ">\n\nWhich, prior to the last few rounds, would have brought Jeffries closer.", ">\n\n1) Not to request the National Guard during the next insurrection.\n2) To punish C=Span for their camera work last week\n3) To cut the ethics group", ">\n\nWhy would they cut the ethics committee when they can instead corrupt the fuck out of it and make it do the exact opposite of its intent?", ">\n\nYou mean as it currently stands lol. Both house and senate ethics committees are known to be places complaints go to die. When you let the foxes run their own henhouse don't expect anything less. We need checks on corruption self-correcting is never going to happen. These people need oversight outside the other 2 branches.\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today and how it aides corruption making it all but impossible to root out. With \"news channels\" pumping propaganda that should have been outlawed after ww2 they (people in power) know exactly what they are doing and how to keep their brand of government reigning supreme.", ">\n\n\nThe founders didn't forsee how technology would be today\n\nThe founders never intended the Constitution to be an inflexible, unmodifiable document.\nOnly an idiot would suggest a framework that doesn't ever evolve.", ">\n\nI mean, they literally amended it before they ratified it. The principle that the constitution can and should be changed was literally a precedent before the constitution was law.", ">\n\nWhat I always wonder is, do Constitutional Originalists want to do away with the amendments? So no freedom of speech or right to bear arms? After all, neither are in the original Constitution.", ">\n\nNo, you're misinterpreting what \"originalism\" means in this context. It's about \"what did this originally mean when it was written\". \nIn principle I agree with it 100% - what did the people who wrote X word mean when they wrote it should be what matters. \nIn practice I don't agree with it, because (as was noted earlier in the thread) the document wasn't intended to be locked in. The best practice would be \"we think it should cover Y, but the author did not consider it to covery Y, so we should change it to cover Y\" - but, it's too rigidly difficult to change it for that to work so we *have* to allow updatd understandings of terms and words or the whole thing falls apart due to not being flexible.", ">\n\nIt's literally built into the constitution.\n\nArticle V:\nThe Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.", ">\n\nRight. The problem is that the way in which it is built in is far too difficult to actually achieve.", ">\n\nI suspect that aspect of it was at least somewhat intentional. I can't find any concrete evidence for it at the moment, but I'm quite sure one of the intentions of Article V was that it would be used approximately every 20 years or so. Obviously we haven't been doing that. The fact that we haven't seems to fly in the face of \"originalism\". That aside, could you imagine if the states held a constitutional convention in the present political climate? It would be a circus of epic proportions.", ">\n\nIf the backroom deals really bothered them then they should have voted for Jeffries.", ">\n\nIt's all Kabuki Theater...smoke and mirrors.", ">\n\nKayfabe. Trump was a Heal, Obamma was a face, we're the marks.", ">\n\nSo close until you did the \"both sides\". Good faith governance is not pro wrestling.", ">\n\nWhat is good faith governance ? All I see is a transfer of wealth upwards. Marks, all of us.", ">\n\nOne side wants to take your wealth \nThe other side wants to take your wealth while dragging gays and trans people from their pickups \nAre either of them good? No. \nAre they the same? No.", ">\n\nIt's fittingly darkly appropriate that the group of people who are steadfastly demanding 72 hours to review a bill before it could be voted on, want to spring the new rules on the themselves moment before having to vote on it.", ">\n\nWell, they wouldn't want there to be time for the implications of various rules revisions to sink in, before they were adopted, now would they?", ">\n\nAnd just think, if she doesn’t like anything at all, she can demand a new speaker vote and they have to do it all over again!!! And any of them can any time they feel like it. McCarthy is s national joke.", ">\n\nCan any house member call for a new vote, or just someone from his party?", ">\n\nI've heard both Republicans only and anyone from different sources, but reading the proposed rules package it only mentions members, no mention of affiliation.", ">\n\nThat would be unconstitutional to only allow one party to do something by way of congressional rules", ">\n\nThe constitution says that the Congress can do pretty much whatever the fuck they want.", ">\n\nThere is a difference between the political question doctrine and barring a legal remedy based solely on viewpoint/political affiliation", ">\n\nAnd house rules aren't a legal remedy. The house can make whatever rules it wants to govern itself.", ">\n\nThat would allow rules to say something lie “only Arkansas can propose laws.” There’s no way it is that broad.", ">\n\nIf the representatives from Arkansas could get the majority of the house to agree in an up or down vote that should be the rule, then that's the rule. What oversight mechanism do you think exists to override the House's authority over itself?\nAnd for the record, I'm not in favor of any of this, but on a strictly constitutional level, the rules are set solely by the full body. The remedy envisioned was a political one. Surely if the Arkansas reps tried to impose such a rule, it would fail and they would be diminished in future legislation as non-serious actors.", ">\n\nYou could have refused to vote for him until details were made public. But that would take a spine.", ">\n\nIt doesn't matter what deals were cut. Republicans have no policy agenda. Only an agenda for fund raising and media attention. No bills we come out of the House and make it into law.", ">\n\nWhat policy agenda could they have? They cant pass any legislation. Anything Democrats push is not going to align with Republican interests, the only thing Republicans can do is obstruct the Democratic party and use their time to investigate Democrats.\nThis article is ridiculous, no one in the House gives a shit about any negotiations for committee assignments other than the individuals who feel they were cut out.", ">\n\nI bet Democrats would go for a border security bill, transportation and infrastructure, energy bills especially with the Russian invasion, more Chips revolving bills, something even almost touching on gun reform, and some restrictions for congressmen.\nThere’s a lot they can do, but I doubt we’ll see anything but pointless investigations and bills they no will go nowhere.", ">\n\nNo they can't. The Republicans have voted against these things time and time again. They also don't want to give Biden the \"win.\" They would never allow Congress to be productive under a Democrat. Do you know how I know this? Because they've been telling us exactly this for over a decade now.", ">\n\nSince Reagan.", ">\n\nRemember when conservatives would’ve thought colluding with Russia was a bad thing back during the Regan era?", ">\n\nI member.", ">\n\nOk you can sound the alarm, but you could have just not voted for him too. I mean you could have gotten 6 others who were “alarmed” to vote for Jeffries and you wouldn’t have had to worry about what back room MAGA deals were made. This just screams I don’t want to go down with this ship so I’m gonna voice my “alarm” now in case my vote comes back to bite me in the ass.", ">\n\nCYA at its best!", ">\n\ngee, maybe you could have said something about it when they were cutting deals.", ">\n\nNothing to help the average American.", ">\n\nThat’s not the purpose of Republicans. It’s to hurt everyone except the wealthy.", ">\n\nNot the purpose of the democrats either, just one big shit show, designed to make people think their votes matter.", ">\n\nHow about student debt relief? I know SCOTUS torpedoed it, but how is that not the dems attempting to do something to help people?", ">\n\nBecause they new it would never pass the court system. Both political parties in the US are not for the middle or lower income people, but they do stuff to appear like they do.", ">\n\nOk bro, sure.", ">\n\nYou voted for him, you know exactly what you were doing. Crying wolf after you let it into the herd is bull shit.", ">\n\nCould have withheld their vote and got their own backroom deal. I'm not sure why everyone wasn't doing this.", ">\n\n\"Well let's not all do the 'withholding their vote to get a backroom deal' thing.\"", ">\n\nThey don't know what they gave up, yet they voted for it along with McCarthy and the assistant Speaker Matt Gaetz.\nThey're all part of the same conspiracy now. They're all complicit, even those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.", ">\n\n\neven those like Nancy Mace who complain about it.\n\nThis isn't coming from a sense of morality or House decorum, she's just envious of those that got something out of it when she just rode the (R) train like a dope.", ">\n\nKevin McCarthy is the Speaker in title only, all of the power of the Speaker is held in the hands of the members of the Chaos Caucus.", ">\n\n\nmembers of the Chaos Caucus.\n\nFascist Caucus. Call it what it is.", ">\n\nSedition Caucus", ">\n\nSure but euphemisms aren’t helping people understand the gravity of what’s happening. And if it can happen in the US, it can happen in any other democracy, no matter how healthy it is.", ">\n\nMcCarthy is such a slimy, shameless piece of shit. Anyone with any self-respect would have given a fat middle finger to Matt Gaetz and Lauren Boebert and cut a deal with moderate Democrats to ensure not a single one of those losers ever sits on a committee or receives any fundraising whatsoever. They publicly eviscerated him on a personal level far above and beyond what any Democrat has done.", ">\n\nBut no one was in the room when it happened, the room when it happened", ">\n\nI read on the /r/worldnews Ukraine war megathread that McCarthy pledged to cut aid to Ukraine in order to gain votes. The Republican party works for Russia. McCarthy will do whatever Putin wants, or Putin's servants in Congress will end McCarthy's speakership.", ">\n\nI feel like he can't do that with the narrow Republican margin. There are still Republicans who support aid to Ukraine, luckily.", ">\n\nI'm not sure if they'll be able to get bills to support Ukraine out of committee and onto the floor for a vote. The fascists demanded many important committee seats which would give them a lot of power to decide what gets voted on.", ">\n\nThey may be able to move to bring the bill out of committee, so that the MAGA types' opinions on those bills don't even matter.\nOr, they could use one of the new rules to fire McCarthy and convince 7 Republicans to vote for Rep. Jeffries.", ">\n\nThe MAGAs could threaten to remove McCarthy as speaker if any of the bills they oppose get a vote. I have no doubt McCarthy would side with the fascists rather than let a Democrat become Speaker. He always bows down to the fascists. He's a fucking wimp.", ">\n\nMost of the moderate ones lost their primaries this time. Cheney, for example.", ">\n\nIt's crazy", ">\n\nThis is just more lip smacking from the so called \"moderates\" of the GOP. They'll express concern and outrage all day while doing the opposite ie a Susan Collins move.", ">\n\nKevin gave lavish gifts to the bomb throwers, snubbed his nose at the loyal Republicans. Wonder how that will work out.", ">\n\nHowever, Mace will still vote in support of the treasonous policies and rules that will be spawned by the MAGA hoard.", ">\n\nWouldn't the best time to worry about what shady deals McCarthy had to make to get elected as Speaker have been before you voted to elect him as Speaker?", ">\n\nMccarthy era?", ">\n\nWhy was this not a concern when they voted for him?", ">\n\nA house republican who fought tooth and nail to get him in a Speaker? I mean... your time to raise concerns was last week, dude... WTH?", ">\n\nI keep thinking about Hamilton:\n\nNo one else was in the room where it happened \nThe room where it happened \nThe room where it happened \nNo one really knows how the game is played \nThe art of the trade \nHow the sausage gets made \nWe just assume that it happens \nBut no one else is in the room where it happens", ">\n\nApparently the joke in DC everyone is saying to McCarthy is “Where’s your dialysis machine?”, (suggesting that he gave away everything even including his kidneys).", ">\n\nCan we bring McCarthyism as a term back to describe the garbage the GOP keeps pushing?", ">\n\nIf theyre questioning it now, why tf did they vote for him in the first place? Its not like its a secret he was making deals to get the votes he needed or who he was making deals with", ">\n\nSound the alarm? If they’re so concerned about it then why did they keep voting for McCarthy 15 fucking times? The house GOP is so full of shit.", ">\n\nAll it would take is a handful of republicans to vote down the rules package.", ">\n\nModerates in swing districts will have to align with dems or they will lose their next term. My prediction is Santos and MTG are gong to face legal problems", ">\n\nHe literally agreed to give MTG his foreskin", ">\n\nIf they’re that worried, they should have elected a legislator as Speaker, not a clown.", ">\n\nIgnorant sorta question here, but I'm not American and I'm not sure how this will work. But what if now that he's sworn in, he just doesn't do jack shit for the idiots he promised to?", ">\n\nThat is one of the new rules that was voted in. The question is why didn't he just not include those ridiculous rules. I.e. lie to the freedom caucus to gain their votes while not really giving them any of the concessions they asked for. Remember that rules are voted on after the speaker is decided. \nI mean the dems aren't going to vote against a reasonable package of rules just to fk with McCarthy, are they? I'd imagine that neutering the freedom caucus is much more important than giving the figurative finger to McCartney, especially if he's being reasonable as far as the rules go.", ">\n\nIt’s more important for McCarthy to be seen as not working w the Democrats given his constituent base id think", ">\n\nHe's the one setting the rules, it would seem like the dems working with him, not him working with the dems, wouldn't it?", ">\n\nI thought the point was for republicans to never be seen “colluding” with the enemy?", ">\n\n\nMace called Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., one of the leading McCarthy foes, a \"fraud\" for using the stunt to fundraise \n\nUsing the Trump playbook.", ">\n\n“I wanna be in the room where it happened, the room where it happened…”", ">\n\n“Sound the alarm”. Motherfuckers didn’t have to vote for him. Could have left or voted present in any of the pre13th ballot.", ">\n\nFucking disingenuous little maggots.\nIf 6, only 6, of you spineless little parasites were willing to put country and democracy ahead of party, this would have been avoided.\nBackroom deals? You could have fucking stopped them.", ">\n\nMaybe y'all should've thought of that and chosen someone else from your 220-member strong coalition instead of, you know, voting for him FIFTEEN times in a row. \nI have zero empathy for the GOP with the shitstorm they're bringing down on their heads after this debacle of an selection process. And if not for the fact that the country as a whole would suffer, I'd wish the Democrats would just step back and let the clown show commence." ]