Motion to vacate? The rule complicating Kevin McCarthy's campaign for speaker

by Virginia Aabram, Congressional Reporter

December 30, 2022 05:53 PM

A parliamentary rule in the House of Representatives called the "motion to vacate the chair" is playing a major role in Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy's (R-CA) bid to become speaker of the House.

A motion to vacate is a parliamentary procedure similar to a vote of no confidence in which members of the body can submit a request for the presiding officer to step down. McCarthy reportedly told his conservative naysayers this week that he would lower the number of members needed to bring forth a motion to vacate and force a vote on the House floor.

As the rule currently stands, half of the House GOP would have to vote to bring forward a motion to remove a leader. McCarthy has apparently agreed to lower that number to "less than five," according to CNN. This may not be enough to appease his most ardent critics, who reportedly want just one member to be able to force a vote on the speaker's suitability. However, the centrist wing of the GOP has suggested they don't want to lower the threshold to less than 50.

Before the 116th Congress that began in 2019, any member could, in theory, bring forward the motion at any time and force a vote on it. This changed to requiring the approval of the majority of the party bringing forward the motion. Though the option was available, it was only used twice — once in 1910 against Speaker Joseph Cannon (R-IL) and in 2015 when then-Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) tried to use it against Speaker John Boehner (R-OH). Neither of the previous motions was successful in ousting the speaker but did weaken their political power.

In Cannon's case, he brought it against himself to end a 26-hour filibuster to block any legislative business until he stepped aside. The motion failed because Republicans wouldn't risk a Democratic speaker, but his near-autocratic rule over the House was greatly lessened. When Meadows tried it against Boehner, his motion was referred to the rules committee and did not trigger a vote, but it contributed to the storm of criticism from within the GOP that led to Boehner's resignation from Congress later that year.

McCarthy previously said he wouldn't concede anything on the motion to vacate, and his change in direction could unlock the votes of members that currently appear poised to sink his speakership bid. He needs the support of half the present and voting members in the election on Jan. 3, and the slim Republican majority means he can only afford to lose a handful of votes. Five conservatives — former House Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Biggs (R-AZ) and Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Bob Good (R-VA), Ralph Norman (R-SC), and Matt Rosendale (R-MT) — voiced that they would not support McCarthy on the floor and would continue to vote as a bloc in the weeks leading up to the start of the new Congress.

The leadership election will be on Tuesday, Jan. 3, the first day of the 118th Congress.

(Nandhee got rid of this due to progressives. Kevin has promised to agree to this but Gaetz says he never honors his promises)

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/house/what-is-motion-to-vacate-kevin-mccarthy

Matt Gaetz Disproves All The Pro-McCarthy Arguments, Demands Honest, Hard-Working SpeakerSteve Cortez caved today to support McCarthy, Matt challenges his reasons.

Bannons War Room

December 30, 2022

Rogan O’Handley Argues For ‘ABM’ For Speaker Of The House: Anyone But McCarthy. Talks about the minority report on J6 just released last week

Bannons War Room

December 30, 2022

2,826 Views

SUBS

It came out in the house minority report on J6, that Pelosi staffers were purposely lowering security at J6, through text messages.The Minority report includes this, it gets no press.

Listen to the whole video. House & Senate Sargent in arms were fired as the fall guys on Jan 7, “one if them I would have liked to interrogate but unfortunately he “passed away” before he could testify”.

I think that was Strenger. I think the day before or a few days him and Sund said it was a domestic terrorist plot to cause havoc on J6, he died of a heart attack shortly thereafter.

Another Loy Brunson interview. I learn more each time I hear a video. If you can convince the SC you have to say its a National Security issue and you can go direct to the SC

Loy Brunson | MASSIVE Supreme Court Case| Could Members of Congress Be Banned Permanently. His case is still alive along with Ralans is with the SC

The Amber May Show

December 19, 2022

4,358 Views

SUBSCRIBE

>>18043785

When the US attorneys on November 23 were supposed to respond, they found out the US Solicitor General. Prelogar took over the case and she signed the waiver to oppose this conference and case. He said he thought Prelogar knew the law and oath of office and would not challenge this to challenge it because it would violate the lawyers and justices oath of office He think it was taken away from the US Attorneys because none of them wanted to be involved in a case of violating their oath, this is why the US attorney waived. He said in another interview she’s brilliant and no dummy, that would challenge this case.

“I solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States, . . .”

As officers of the courts, lawyers are sworn to support the Constitution not just of the state in which they seek to practice, but above all, to support the Constitution of the United States. This promise is included first in every state’s attorney oath, and it is the most important promise that a new attorney will make. It commands an attorney to take action to ensure the supreme law of the land is followed and upheld. This promise is a burden on all lawyers—every lawyer must defend the US Constitution, in all ways, at all times.

Current events have caused us to look closer at this promise. Are we obligated to defend the Constitution if a client is paying us to do the opposite? Are we required to support the Constitution when our desired outcome justifies its subversion? Without question or qualification, the answer is “yes.” A prerequisite of your license is your inviolable promise that you will always support and defend the Constitution in all situations. Lawyers may not take actions, advocate for positions, or demand relief that would cause them to do otherwise; this is, above all, our most sacred promise.

“. . . that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of attorney, . . .”

Next, new attorneys are asked to “faithfully discharge the duties of the office of attorney.” Every state has its own code of professional conduct, many based on the ABA’s own Model Rules of Professional Conduct. These rules define the nature of an attorney’s professional and personal life, prescribing exactly what an attorney must do inside and outside of the courtroom or in practice. We are required to take these rules seriously, to work and live by the rules defining the duties of our office. They require us to maintain our client’s confidence, execute our professional functions competently and diligently, conform to the law’s requirements in our business and personal affairs, uphold the legal process, and seek improvement in the law and access to legal systems. Herein is another burden imposed by our oaths: even when we think no one is watching, even when our client’s position would cause us to advocate for the opposite, even when we are engaging in business outside the practice of law, our oaths require us to remain honest and diligent and to uphold the rule of law even when it is difficult or adverse to our personal or professional objectives.

“. . . and that I will conduct myself at all times with integrity and civility.”

This last promise is not explicitly requested of attorneys in every state. However, integrity and civility are written into the codes of professional conduct in each state, and maintaining those qualities is a component of faithfully discharging the duties of our office.

That said, many states explicitly call out the need for attorneys to maintain integrity, civility, honesty, dignity, and courteousness. Turn on the news, and you will find that attorney dishonesty, incivility, and lack of integrity are omnipresent in our society. In our adversarial system, it has become so common to attack opposing parties rather than to work with them. Vitriol and stubbornness prevail more often than not. This final promise in our oaths reminds us that we have a duty to comport ourselves oppositely. We have a duty to be civil, personify the values of honesty and integrity, and build up the reputation of the profession. This promise requires us to work together to achieve a fairer system—a system that represents the needs of our clients first and foremost, not the wants of their attorneys. In that sense, we see what the Oath of Attorney is about—it’s about devoting ourselves to the betterment of the profession and our communities, to ensuring that the rule of law is upheld, to advocating honestly and with integrity, and to making the system a fairer,

>>18043785

Supreme Court justices on writ of cretiori(sp?), the justices can adjudicate and decide without a hearing. They can decide on their own with the writ and under national security. Even though the conference is set for J6 they can decide and activate the judgement before that day comes even though they put it in conference. the have the FULL power to do this, they don’t have to wait.

Anons what date would be the best for them to be activated if they choose to do this before J6? Clockfags or anyone?