The Speaker of the House. A Crucial Role or a Stepping Stone?

In a tradition that goes back to the time of King Charles I and Oliver Cromwell, a newly appointed Speaker to the British House of Commons is dragged theatrically from his seat to the Speaker’s Chair. 400 years ago, the Speaker was a marked man. I doubt that Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin will be yanked from his seat in DC’s House of Representatives to take up his role as Speaker of the House. After all, he campaigned hard to be elected by his Republican colleagues.

Why does Ryan want the job? In a word, power. No one, except a right wing Republican would have blamed the outgoing Speaker, John Boehner, from yelling and screaming as he was deposed. After a few years in the job, his power evaporated, almost in days as the right wing of his Party wanted a harder stance. Boehner should be congratulated for standing down with dignity. I for one would have been fascinated by what went on behind closed doors as the Speakership passed. Boehner had upset too many House Republicans by seeking an accommodation with Congressional colleagues in order to stop or slow down Washington gridlock. In other words, he had tried to legislate for American voters, not just follow the agenda of the right-wing, bible-thumping, gun-toting, Tea-Partying House Republican members.

Boehner has relinquished a powerful and important role. The Speaker of the House in America has several roles. He represents his constituents as a member of Congress. He acts as administrative head of the House. He serves as leader of the majority political party in the House. And, importantly, he is second in the U.S. presidential line of succession after the vice president. It is worth mentioning that, save for two episodes of The West Wing, no Speaker has ever acted as president, though it could happen.

Oddly, the US Constitution does not require the Speaker to be a member of Congress, although all Speakers have been members. The Constitution authorizes the House to choose its Speaker, selected by roll call vote on the first day of every new Congress. Therefore, Mr. Ryan will retain the Speakership until the end of the lame duck Congress session in January, 2017. He will stand again, I am sure, and if his Party retains a majority in the House, he is likely to be re-elected.

Administratively, the Speaker’s duties as presiding officer of the House include swearing in Members, calling the House to order and preserving order and decorum within the House chamber and galleries.

The real power of the Speaker comes through recognizing members to speak on the House floor, making rulings about House procedures, and appointing members and chairpersons on the committee spectrum: special, select committees, standing or conference. He designates the majority of members on the House Rules Committee. Taken altogether, the Speaker secures an important power base because House members become obligated to him for their House jobs.

Speaker power also manifests itself through the right of the Speaker to determine which legislation is assigned to each House committee and which legislation reaches the House floor for a vote. The Speaker determines the House legislative agenda, although in consultation with party leaders and others.

When the House is in session, the Speaker presides over the floor debate. Here, the Speaker can flex his muscles: he gets to decide who speaks, in what order, and which motions from the floor are relevant. He also gets to set the rule for debate, through the Rules Committee. This means the Speaker can decide how long a given bill will be discussed, and under what restrictions. An open rule, for example, means members can argue about a bill all day and night, if they feel like it, and can amend the bill from the floor. A closed rule, on the other hand, has set time limits and forbids amendments from the floor. With the Speaker’s decision, a bill can be argued to death or moved to a swift vote.

Every bill that is introduced in the House must first go to a committee for debate, hearings, discussion, and 'marking up' (the process of changing or editing the legislation). The Speaker controls which bills go to which committees. Since the committees are all chaired by members of the Speaker's party, he not only controls who gets the bill, but also that bill's fate (because if the Speaker doesn't want a bill to come to a vote, he can send it to a committee where it's certain to die). And, even more importantly, the Speaker gets to pick who chairs the committees, as well as nine of the thirteen members of - that's right - the Rules Committee.

It is a sign of influence that the House of Representatives’ office buildings in Washington D.C. are named for three Speakers: Cannon, Longworth, and Rayburn. Of all recent Speakers, Newt Gingrich showed how powerful the Speaker can be. Upon his election in 1995, he published the “Contract with America,” a statement of policies America should adopt. He guided both the document - a comprehensive plan of action needed for 21^st century America - and several bills through the House’s legislative process. His work was facilitated because for the first time in 40 years the voters had elected a Republican House and Senate. Interestingly, the House passed the Contract intact while a far more moderate Senate rewrote, rejected or delayed action on most of the bills. Gingrich himself became a busted flush when he positioned himself in the media as more important than the President. Bill Clinton must have enjoyed seeing the Speaker quickly fall from grace.

It is doubtful that Ryan will seek to imitate Newt Gingrich but Ryan’s current political support is from the right wing of his Party. He is influenced by Rand Paul. Ryan will have a tightrope to walk with the more centrist House members almost as soon as he takes office. Will Congress agree a new US debt limit, if so on what terms, and will Ryan preside over another American government shut-down? The Senate wants to get the deal done. Will Congress follow? We will know more in a few days.

The Speaker of the House of Representatives is one of the more important figures in the U.S. political system. His influence over the legislative process through his ability to move bills to specific committees, to control the manner and method of floor debate, and to steer the legislative agenda of the Congress is greater than almost every other legislator. If Ryan succeeds in his role, it would be a useful stepping stone for a run for the presidency in 2020 or 2024. 

The Game’s the Thing.

Last weekend in the Rugby Union World Cup, Japan beat America. Both teams then exited the tournament, in the company of the hosts, England, who had lost to Australia and Wales in previous weeks. For the past few days, the British newspapers had used up a substantial Brazilian rain forest reporting critically on England’s loss and poor performances. One might have thought the team and its management had been guilty of a capital crime. Fortunately for us enthusiasts – my wife says addicts – England is competing in international football and cricket tournaments as I write. The British appetite for such sporting challenges is never sated.

At the same time, I doubt that the American newspapers carried reports of the progress of the US rugby team. Therefore, as a change to Washington politics, I decided to write about the US rugby team in particular and American sports in general.

In an episode of Friends, Ross’s British girlfriend, Emily, encourages him to play a game of rugby in Central Park. Ross emerges bruised, bloody and bowed but loving the experience. I suspect more Americans have gained their knowledge of the game from that program than from watching the sport. And even though America put out a team for the World Cup, its efforts have been largely ignored. There are a number of possible reasons for this.

First, Americans love winners. They invented the expression, “who cares who comes second.” In rugby terms, America is an emerging nation with no chance of qualifying for the knock-out stage of the tournament, let alone winning it. Therefore I suspect neither the American television networks nor newspapers are interested in giving the efforts of the team much air time or print space.

Second, it is unusual for America to put out an all-American team. As I understand it, the expression “all American” does not refer to a team but to great performances by individuals in their college sports. American football and baseball have All-Star conference teams who play each other but there is no USA football team which plays against other countries. That is because so few countries play American football. Even the rosters of Canadian football teams are filled mostly by Americans. Interestingly, there is talk of an American football franchise in London. Quite how this will work remains to be seen.

Baseball is played professionally in Japan and some Central and South American countries but there is no world cup for the sport, hence no reason for America to put out a team. Baseball has been an Olympic sport from time to time but I don’t recall the Americans winning except in Sydney in 2000. Baseball was dropped as an Olympic sport in 2012. Basketball, too, is an Olympic sport. Here, America has a tremendous record for winning gold. However, there is no American national side that competes against other nations regularly.

Once every two years, the American and European golfers compete for the Ryder Cup. For many years after the end of World War II America won the competition with ease but of late, America has fared badly. Indeed it has lost on the past three occasions. And what is worse, America does not play like a team but as a group of individuals, flying in on private jets, whereas the European team is a tight unit. It calls into question whether American golfers, when playing for their country, don’t recognise the team patriotism involved.

What I find interesting is that American sports do well on the silver screen. I cannot think of one good cricket movie, except for an Indian film, Lagaan, which was more about the Raj than sport or a soccer movie. As for rugby, Invictus told the story of South Africa winning the Rugby World Cup, with the influence of Nelson Mandela but the script turned the characters into caricatures and was more about politics.

In contrast, there have been some great movies on American sports. Sea Biscuit was a sentimental but effective view of both horse racing and life in the Great Depression. Boxing has given us movies like Raging Bull and the Rocky Graziano story, Somebody Up There Likes Me, as well as Million Dollar Baby. There are great basketball movies, like Coach Carter and Space Jam. I’m not so keen on the football movies because they are either very sentimental, as in Remember the Titans, or the violence is accentuated. Just watch Any Given Sunday and you’ll know what I mean.

For me, baseball offers a plethora of great movies: Pride of the Yankees, The Natural, Bull Durham, Moneyball, and A League of Their Own. My three favourites are The Rookie, Trouble with the Curve and the wonderful Field of Dreams.

Why do American sports lend themselves into making great movies? They are bankrolled by Hollywood. The latter would not be interested in English sports. The best sports films have characters played by great actors, the stories are not over-sentimental and although their outcomes can be anticipated, the films are gripping nevertheless.

I am out of my comfort zone writing about sport and the Arts but I confess I have enjoyed a holiday away from politics. Pity it has to end.

The Supremes are Back in Town

The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court sit for their official photograph on October 8

The American media concentrates mainly on the stresses and strains of the executive and legislative branches of the US government, often seen as a contest where the President and Congress knock heads. However, the influence of the Supreme Court should never be ignored. The Court is as much a political body as the other branches. Justices are nominated by the President and their appointment is approved by the Senate. To assume the Court is the weakest branch would be foolhardy, yet the Court is often referred to as “the least dangerous branch.”

The Court begins its new term next week. This is an election year so its decisions will be carefully scrutinised, especially as the docket seems designed to remind Americans about the importance of the country’s highest court during a presidential contest. The nine justices seem ready to confront issues that enliven the political agenda: the legality of racial preferences to encourage diversity; how far government should go to accommodate religious liberty whilst restricting a woman’s right to abortion, and a reconsideration of the death penalty.

This term, the affirmative-action remedies employed by the University of Texas to increase diversity at the flagship campus in Austin has been returned to the Court for review.  The University’s admission policy has been challenged because race was a factor in college admissions. Evidently, such action may be inconsistent with another Court ruling where it was ruled that race should have an appropriate but limited role in admissions.    

Obamacare is before the Court yet again. The Republicans are like dogs with a bone. This time, they are challenging the contraceptives coverage mandate of the Affordable Care Act. In the 2014 ruling in Burwell v Hobby Lobby, the Court told the government that the mandate impinged on the religious freedoms of some employers. And, because the court long ago decided that states may impose some restrictions on abortion, the question in the case will be how far may the states can go before it becomes an “undue burden” on a woman’s right? The court has provided little guidance on what that term means.

The death penalty is shaping up to be a big issue. There are six capital-punishment cases on the docket. The Court is set to hear arguments over the constitutionality of capital sentences in Florida, Georgia, Kansas and Pennsylvania. The focus on execution issues follows a 5-4 ruling last term involving a sedative used for lethal injections. The split exposed a growing rift among the Justices over the death penalty. There seem to be at least two Justices who believe executions violate the Constitution.

Until 2012, the Court was thought to have a conservative bias but decisions by the Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy have caused observers to reconsider. The last court term ended in June, 2015, on a high note for liberals, with a landmark decision finding a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry. The term saw other closely contested and important decisions where the liberal minority on the Court attracted one conservative justice or another. Liberal causes often prevailed. It will be fascinating to discover whether the trend will continue

Irv Gornstein, head of the Supreme Court Institute at Georgetown Law Centre, is reported to have said: “I would expect a return to the norm, in which the right side of the Court [i.e. the conservative wing] wins a majority, but by no means all, of the big cases. The question for this term is, how big will the big wins be?”

The pivotal justice will probably be Justice Kennedy. Kennedy is a conservative but he does not always share the zeal for change that his colleagues on the right pursue. “I have the greatest respect for him, but I long ago gave up trying to predict him,” conservative U.S. Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III said recently. “The best thing you can do is issue one of those weather forecasts that says sunny with considerable clouds and a chance of rain.”

The position of Chief Justice Roberts is never predictable. In 2012, he wrote the opinion turning down a constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act. In June, 2015, Justices Roberts and Kennedy were part of a 6-to-3 decision that rejected a reading of the law that would have drastically cut back the number of Americans who could take advantage of Obamacare. However, Roberts has voted to restrict abortion rights, overturn campaign finance restrictions, recognize a Second Amendment right for individual gun ownership, and severely cut back the reach of the Voting Rights Act.  Incidentally, he is a consistent supporter of the death penalty.

The Court currently has five justices nominated by Republican presidents. The others were nominated by Democratic presidents. Three members of the Court are nearing the end of their terms of office. Justices Ginsburg, Scalia and Kennedy will soon be 80.  Also, Justice Breyer is in his late 70s. Many predict that the President elected next year will have the chance to nominate as many as four new justices.

I cannot predict or even guess what the Court will do this term but two things are certain. In arguably the most political city on the planet, the Supreme Court is not above politics and its influence on important election issues will be felt. Furthermore, whichever political party wins the White House and the Senate next year will influence the Court for a generation.

The United States Mass Killings Continue

Teddy Roosevelt in the "Bully Pulpit"
"I have no idea what the American people think. I only know what they should think."

Presidents are human beings. Like the rest of us, they experience pleasure and pain. Sometimes their emotion shows in public. FDR was angry when he spoke to Congress in December, 1941, describing the attack on Pearl Harbour as a day of infamy. George W. Bush showed fury when he referred to ‘the axis of evil’ in his second State of the Union speech. Usually, though, Presidents show their feelings only in private. During the Vietnam War, LBJ reportedly told an aide, “the only fucking power I have is nuclear but I can’t use it.” The Watergate tapes recorded Nixon, a man who in public was always proper, saying of the Italian currency, “I don’t give a shit about the Lira.”

This week, President Obama had his heart on his sleeve when he spoke about the deaths at Umpqua Community College in Roseburg, Oregon. Here are extracts from his speech:

“There has been another mass shooting, this time in a community college in Oregon. That means there are more American families whose lives have been changed forever. But as I said just a few months ago, and I said a few months before that, and I said each time we see one of these mass shootings, our thoughts and prayers are not enough. It's not enough. It does not capture the heartache and grief and anger that we should feel. And it does nothing to prevent this carnage from being inflicted someplace else in America next week, or a couple of months from now.

“We are the only advanced country on Earth that sees these kinds of mass shootings every few months. We talked about this after Columbine and Blacksburg, after Tucson, after Newtown, after Aurora, after Charleston. It cannot be this easy for somebody who wants to inflict harm on other people to get his or her hands on a gun. And what's become routine, of course, is the response of those who oppose any kind of common-sense gun legislation. Right now, I can imagine the press releases being cranked out: We need more guns, they'll argue. Fewer gun safety laws.

“We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours, Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.

“We spend over a trillion dollars, and pass countless laws, and devote entire agencies to preventing terrorist attacks on our soil, and rightfully so. And yet, we have a Congress that explicitly blocks us from even collecting data on how we could potentially reduce gun deaths. This is a political choice that we make to allow this to happen every few months in America. We collectively are answerable to those families who lose their loved ones because of our inaction. When Americans are killed in mine disasters, we work to make mines safer. When Americans are killed in floods and hurricanes, we make communities safer. When roads are unsafe, we fix them to reduce auto fatalities. We have seatbelt laws because we know it saves lives.

“So the notion that gun violence is somehow different, that our freedom and our Constitution prohibits any modest regulation of how we use a deadly weapon, when there are law-abiding gun owners all across the country who could hunt and protect their families and do everything they do under such regulations doesn't make sense.

“I would particularly ask America's gun owners, who are using those guns properly, safely, to hunt, for sport, for protecting their families, to think about whether your views are properly being represented by the organization that suggests it's speaking for you.

“And each time this happens I'm going to bring this up. Each time this happens I am going to say that we can actually do something about it, but we're going to have to change our laws. And this is not something I can do by myself. I've got to have a Congress and I've got to have state legislatures and governors who are willing to work with me on this.”

This week, The Washington Post stated there were more than 30,000 gun killings in the United States in 2013. In most countries, this would be regarded as an epidemic. Were a disease to take so many American lives, the public would demand research, public expenditure and appropriate programs to stem the tide but ask Congress to approve the smallest change to gun laws? Heaven forbid.

The British media has given space to the latest outrage in Oregon because Mercer, the perpetrator, was supposedly born in UK. I don’t care where he was born, I don’t care that he may have had a mental illness and I will offer no remorse because he is dead. The reason the killings happened is simplicity itself. Pretty well anyone in the States can get their hands on a gun and ammunition.

I am weary of writing about this subject. If Americans really believe that the right to bear arms for everyone in any circumstances is a demonstration of freedom, I want no part of it.

As for Mr. Obama, please stop wringing your hands. Your speech said many admirable things but, in the words of Walter Mondale, ‘where’s the beef?’ Where are detailed proposals which can be championed by Congressmen? I am aware that earlier this year, you had Congress look at proposals tightening gun background checks but the effort failed. So try again to get the laws changed.

Mr Obama, you have thirteen months left in The White House before the election. May I recommend you visit every state, every big city and dust off Teddy Roosevelt’s bully pulpit to take your case to the American people? Use social media to support you. If you are really serious about stemming the tide of mass gun killings, persuade voters the length and breadth of America to shame their members of Congress into producing some meaningful gun laws. If you fail, nobody can accuse you of not trying. But if you don’t get out of the Oval Office to take your case to the country, how do you expect to be taken seriously on gun law change?