Talk:Speaker of the United States House of Representatives/Archive 1

Republicans before 1850?
Correct me if I am wrong, but the modern United States Republican Party did not exist until the 1850s. However, this article states that there were speakers of the House were Republicans before the 1850s. &mdash; Braaropolis | Talk 06:17, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * The confusion is that those people are actually Democratic-Republicans; today's Democrats evolved out of this party. You're right, modern Republicans didn't come about until, I believe, 1854.  I'll go in and change it now.  Thanks for spotting that! Best wishes, Meelar 06:20, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

http://www.clubterapatrick.net/tera-patrick/savanna/

What is more important, the Congressional Research Service says that Henry Clay was the first Speaker to represent a party - the Democratic-Republicans. ALL SEVEN Speakers before him were NOT representing a Party. - SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 03:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Succession tables
The following discussion has been copied here from my talk page at the suggestion of Mark Adler.

What's your source that a speakership expires and is not immediately renewed? --Mark Adler 02:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm.... I'll try to come up with an explicit source as soon as I can, but consider two facts:


 * First, the first substantive action of the House in any Congress is to elect a Speaker. (For instance, see the House for the current Congress.)  If the Speakership did not expire at the end of a Congressional term, there would be no need to have the Clerk call the roll and the Speaker be re-elected; rather, the old Speaker could simply take the chair.


 * Second, consider the Journal of the House of Representatives for the 26th Congress: there was a deadlock caused because the House could not be organized until a Speaker was elected, a Speaker couldn't be elected until a dispute over which delegation from New Jersey could be accepted, and which delegation was valid couldn't be determined until the House was organized.  The dispute was resolved by appointing a temporary chair (John Quincy Adams as it turned out) until the membership issue could be resolved, and then a Speaker could be elected.  If the Speakership were still in existence, they could simply summon the old Speaker (James K. Polk, as it happens) to act as chair instead of going through the business of appointing a temporary chair.


 * — DLJessup (talk) 04:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Aha! Found it!

From A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House at the GPO:

The Speaker's term of office begins on his taking of his oath of office, which immediately follows his election and opening remarks. The term ends on the expiration of the Congress in which he was elected, unless he has resigned, died, or been removed from office.

— DLJessup (talk) 05:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Very interesting. I'm not sure what to make of it.  I suppose you're right.


 * I think is is seriously a very interesting point you've brought up here, and worthy of mention in an article or at least a discussion page of an article.


 * Then again, my real concern here is the succession boxes used in the various speakers' articles. For the most part, Dennis Hastert has been the Speaker of the House even though the term has ended.  For the sake of succession boxes, should we include in Hastert's box that the position was vacant for a few days in 2003 and 2005?  And what about List of Speakers of the United States House of Representatives?  Should we also include all the inter-term vacancies?  And what about Template:SpeakerUSHouse?  I'm not at all suggesting a slippery slope here, it's just that for the sake of clarity, Newt Gingrich, e.g., was Speaker from January 4, 1995 to January 3, 1999.


 * Finally, I'm confused about the literal technical point here. If you read the rule regarding vacancies (which, I think, is the second paragraph of the same section as terms), it's not all that clear that between Congresses there is actually a vacancy.   Furthermore, don't all 435 representatives get sworn in at the beginning of each Congress?  Should we say that each representative's seat is vacant?  Maybe technically no or yes or I don't know.


 * --Mark Adler 10:46, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

You raise several issues, so let's see if I can tackle them all:


 * As far as the succession tables go, it would be perfectly acceptable to have, frex., Gingrich's entry read "January 4, 1995 – January 3, 1999" and footnote the vacancy were it not for 19th Century Speakers such as Henry Clay, where the gap gets as large as nine months. Or, perhaps the (extremely ugly) option of a separate row for each 2-year Speakership, with Gingrich succeeding himself….


 * Yes, we should note all of the interterm vacancies on List of Speakers of the United States House of Representatives. Maybe a solution to the clarity issue would be to switch the resolution level of the succession boxes for the Speakerships from days to years:  there's a lot less of an issue with switching "1995–1997;1997–1999" to "1995–1999" than there is with switching "January 4, 1995 – January 3, 1997; January 7, 1997 – January 3, 1999" to just "January 4, 1995 – January 3, 1999".


 * I have no idea what you're asking about with Template:SpeakerUSHouse, unless you're wondering if there should be, frex., "Gingrich | Gingrich". I believe that both of our answers would be "no" in that case, just as both of us don't think there should be separate rows for consecutive Speakerships in the succession tables.


 * As far as the terms of representatives versus speakers, there's actually two ways of looking at this:
 * One view is that a person doesn't enter into an office of the U.S. government until they have taken their oath because they are barred from carrying out their duties until they take the oath. Under this definition, George Washington became President on April 30, 1789 and Zachary Taylor became President on March 5, 1849.  Under this definition, you'd be correct, every representative would have small gaps in their term as representative at the beginning of each Congressional term.
 * The other view is that a person enters into the office at the moment the responsibility of office falls to them. Just as the President is President before he takes the oath of office, but cannot perform any of his duties until he takes the oath, so too a representative is a representative from noon on January 3, but he can't perform any of his duties until he takes the oath.  The difference between a representative and the Speaker under this definition is that a representative is elected prior to the start of Congress, while the Speaker is necessarily not elected until after the start of the congressional term.  Thus, Gingrich was a Representative from Georgia on January 4, 1997, but he was not yet Speaker because the election for the Speakership would not be held until the next session of Congress opened on January 7.


 * The section about "Vacancy" in A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House that you mention is about how and when to declare that a vacancy exists in the Speakership. This is the first step in replacing the Speaker if he should fall ill or die.  This only applies to an organized House, whereas the vacancy at the beginning of a Congressional term appears precisely because the House is unorganized until a Speaker is elected and the Rules of the House are adopted.

— DLJessup (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, DLJessup, you've made some good arguments, many if not all of them are factually acurate. However, I think you're missing the point and the bigger picture here.


 * These are all good points, although I can't vouch for their accuracy. But accuracy is beside the point here, even in an encyclopedia. Because my concern here is about elegance.  It's extremely ungainly to list multiple successive terms for someone when there's really no significant purpose.  At most, I'd argue for a footnote stating that maybe some people might argue that Hastert wasn't Speaker for a few hours or a couple of days merely because he hadn't been formally re-elected.  His lack of re-election may be true but it's irrelevant.  He was the Speaker of the House staight through.


 * Even though perhaps the House Rules allow for a gap, in the mind of the historian (and the wikipedian), the gap is an interesting triviality at best and a biographical clutter at worst. It's not really a problem, it's just unnecessary and terribly confusing.  If there were a gap that had some significance, that would be a different sitution:  If, e.g. the gap were filled by a different Speaker, that would make sense.  Or if the gap were caused because the position had been eliminated, but later restored, that would also follow.  But saying that Hastert wasn't speaker sometime on January 3-4 2005 is just plain… foolish.  (Sorry about the harsh language!)


 * As an example of another insignificant distinction &rarr; Maybe some officials can't do their jobs until they've officially sworn in (something I'll concede although I know nothing about it). But that's like saying Bush isn't President when he's sleeping, because a sleeping person can't do his job.  Sure, you can wake him up, but then he becomes President again.  OK, I know you're saying that the oath-of-office distinction is different, but I'm just using that as an example of an insignificant distinction.


 * In the end, it's really unnecessary to change all of these articles merely to state that there was a gap in the term of Speakers. I believe that these micro-defined distinctions don't benefit the wikipedia researcher best.


 * What do you think? --Mark Adler 02:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Wow. I agree that elegance is very important; I try for elegance as much as possible. But it's even more important that the article not state something that is factually untrue. You seem to regard the gap as a mere technicality. It's not. For example, suppose that Bill Clinton and Al Gore had both died on either January 2, 1997 or January 8, 1997. In that case, according to the Presidential Succession Act, Gingrich would have become President. However, if they had both died on January 4, 1997, we have President Strom Thurmond. (OK, that's just a bit frightening….)

— DLJessup (talk) 13:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You're right but you've missed my point. The fact remains: there is nothing truly inaccurate in saying that Dennis Hastert has been Speaker since 1999.  Yes, I know: there was a three-day gap between Congresses.  But this basic fact remains: Nobody else was speaker during that gap.  There was no vacancy during that gap.  I'm not arguing about the presidential line of succession.  At any time during the gap, the Congress could have reconvened and they would have elected him Speaker for that time.


 * My main point is this: The purpose of wikipedia's succession boxes is to show who came after whom. If there's a de minimus gap between a person's term and that person's next term, it shouldn't clutter up the succession boxes.  The succession boxes: that's what I'm talking about.  I'm not arguing about the law.  I understand that there is a chance that something else could happen.  But for the sake of the succession boxes, you're being too picky.


 * After all, before the 20th amendment, the President's term didn't end at midnight. It ended at midnight Eastern Time.  But I would hardly expect anyone to go through all those Presidential and Vice Presidential articles that have already been corrected and add "Eastern Standard Time" even though it would be technically correct and there could have been some hypothetical situation wherein a newly-elected President died in Washington DC at 1:00am ET, one hour into his new term and the incoming Vice President was in California where it was still 10pm PT the night before.  Who would be prez?  The old VP, in DC at 1am or the new VP in CA at 10pm.?


 * --Mark Adler 12:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

And the discussion on this talk page begins here. — DLJessup (talk) 13:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I have not missed your point; I merely think that you're wrong that there's nothing truly inaccurate about it.

Look, here are two options:


 * Option 1 : Do your single range, but footnote it for Speakers after the passage of the Lame Duck Amendment; leave the range as is for prior Speakerships where the gap was commonly the better part of a year.


 * Option 2: If you went to the resolution of a year or even of months, there would be no issue with eliminating the gaps because the gaps fall below the level of resolution. If you write, "January 4, 1995 – January 3, 1999," for Gingrich's term of office, that implies that Gingrich was Speaker for each day within that range; "January 1995 – January 1999" merely indicates that Gingrich was Speaker for each month in that range.  Of course, the gaps would still exist for the likes of Henry Clay or Andrew Stevenson.

The term of the old Congress ends at midnight on the Second of January. When the New congress convenes, as any C-Span Junkie knows, there IS NO Speaker. The Clerk of the House presides, and the members-elect elect the new Speaker. The Clerk swears in the New Speaker and then he swears in the entire rest of the House. So there isn't a Speaker for a few hours. It's a technical thing. But if there is a change in control, the old Speaker's term ends on the 2nd not the third.

Also, didn't Gingrich resign from both his Speakership and his Seat in Congress immediately after the 1998 elections?

Merge from List of Speakers of the United States House of Representatives
Support. Most other articles about Congressional officers have their lists included in the articles. I think, just for the sake of consistency, that they should be merged for the Speaker, too. The only reason for keeping them separate that I can imagine is if we had multiples lists like we do for POTUS (for example: by age, by time served, by state, etc). &mdash;Mark Adler (markles)  15:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I would consider the length of the list too. There have been much more Speakers than Presidents and the list already spans multiple pages when printed out. I don't think it would help this article to add that much tabular data. Just my $0.02 sebmol 04:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I made some changes to the list and then merged it into the article. If you'd like to unmerge it, be sure not just to revert, but to move the changed list from this article back into List of Speakers of the United States House of Representatives.&mdash;Markles 21:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

intro to article
in the beggining paragraph of the article it is noted that the Speaker of the house is next in the presidential line of succession after the vice president, however he is put down as the president of the senate which may confuse some people as to whether it is the Vice President or The President Pro tempore of the senate (whom is next in line following the speaker of the house) being reffered to.

Pat 19:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Table "List of Speakers"
I am somewhat confused by the entries for James G. Blaine. The beginning date of his third term as Speaker is listed as December 1, 1869, which predates the end of this second term and falls in the middle of his first term. Should this be corrected or clarified in some way? Mspowell 19:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Secret Service?
Speaker is one of the most important political leader in the U.S. and the second person in the presidential line of succession. Has he Secret Service protection? I know John W. McCormack has a S.S. protection when he was first in line (from Kennedy assasination until V.P. Humphrey was sworn in). Carl Albert was first in line twice (after resignation of V.P. Spiro Agnew and Pres. Richard Nixon, before Ford's nommine for V.P. - Rockefeller - was confirmed. But what about security of other speakers? 83.24.246.106 21:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * At least while the Speaker is on Capitol Hill, security is provided by the Capitol Police Force. (I see that's coming up a redlink, but I don't know enough about it for an article - anyone?) Newyorkbrad 22:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * See United States Capitol Police. john k 13:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Darn, I tried about 5 different versions of the name, but not that one. I should have found it. Newyorkbrad 14:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Male LANGUAGE Bias
Places in the article refer to congresspeople or the abstract person in the position of Speaker of the House as HE. For example: Under the section titled 'Partisan Role' it states 'HE is responsible for ensuring that the House passes legislation supported by the majority party.' And in section 'Presiding Officer': 'Before any member may speak, HE must seek the presiding officer's recognition. The presiding officer may call on members as HE pleases, and may therefore control the flow of debate. The presiding officer also rules on all points of order, but HIS rulings may be appealed to the whole House. HE is responsible for...' Please, do edit this article for gender bias.
 * The reason it has the aspect you call "male bias" is because, to this point, every Speaker has been male. This will change in January once Nancy Pelosi takes over the post. At that point, we should change that which you call "male bias".&lt;&lt;Coburn_Pharr&gt;&gt; 19:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's true that up until now, every Speaker has been male, but some of the pronouns refer to any Representative in the Chair (whether or not the elected Speaker) or to any Representative at all. I'll try to do some copy-editing with this issue in mind - although the anonymous poster of the complaint could, have course, have done the same. Newyorkbrad 20:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * FWIW, though a woman has never been a Speaker, I'm fairly sure that women have served as the presiding officer of the House on occasion. -Will Beback 00:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This has certainly occurred quite frequently. As indicated in the article, when the House is sitting as the House, the designation "Madam Speaker" is used. When the House has resolved into the Committee of the Whole, the designation "Madam Chairman" is used. During the 1970's, Representative Elizabeth Holtzman asked to be addressed as "Madam Chairwoman" when she was presiding over the Committee of the Whole, but other female Representatives selected to preside have not followed this usage. As for gender bias in the article, I have done a pass and tried to correct any that I located, but of course there may be more work to do. Newyorkbrad 00:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Who presides when the Speaker doesn't?
I was looking for the answer to this question in the article, but I couldn't find an answer. Johnleemk | Talk 17:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This was briefly discussed under the heading "Presiding Officer," but I've expanded the discussion. I hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 17:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding this issue and the presidential succession, here's an article which describes a new practice. "A Secret in the Line of Succession" Apparently Hastert has secretly designated Speakers Pro tem who would succeed him in the event of his death or retirement, and so take his place in the presidential succession. That would prevent the Senate President Pro Tem, nominally 4th in line, from ever succeeding. I think it is constitutionally dubious, though I'm not sure that the reporter has accurately described Hastert's intent. -Will Beback 22:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, that such a designee would fall within the line of succession isn't clear at all. House Rule I.8(b) (see here) provides that the person named on the Speaker's list shall "act as Speaker pro tempore until the election of a Speaker or a Speaker pro tempore. Pending such election the Member acting as Speaker pro tempore may exercise such authorities of the Office of Speaker as may be necessary and appropriate to that end." Succeeding to the Presidency doesn't seem "necessary and appropriate" to the end of getting a new Speaker elected, and in any event, the presidential succession statute (3 U.S.C. sec 19) provides for succession only of "the Speaker of the House of Representatives," not a Speaker pro tempore. Newyorkbrad 22:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Pelosi
I see the hidden note on the article asking that Pelosi not be added until she is actually elected, which makes sense in a certain regard. However, if we're going to honor the remote possibility of an unforseeable change - which, in all fairness, happened with Livingston in 1998 - then shouldn't we remove the completion date from Haster's term? After all, the odds of Pelosi not becoming Speaker are almost as absurdly miniscule as the odds of 25 Democrats feeling ostracized from their party and pulling Jim Jeffords-style moves...

I don't actually think there is a snow ball's chance in hell of Hastert holding on. But I also don't think there is a chance of Pelosi not ascending -- she is already meeting with POTUS as the incoming speaker!

Perhaps it is time we put substance above form? Editor Emeritus 05:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hastert's term expires at the end of this Congress. He could be re-elected, or not, but either way his term ends. -Will Beback 08:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * He might, however, die tomorrow in a freak accident. We shouldn't try to predict the future, in general. john k 13:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's reasonable to say that Speaker Hastert's term will expire on January 3, 2007. It's true that he might die or resign earlier than that, so I wouldn't write that Hastert "will serve" until January 3, 2007, but I think that "term will expire" is safe enough. The alternative is "his term is scheduled to expire on January 3, 2007," which is the unquestionably true version, but I think that just adds words. After all, when (say) President Harding died, Coolidge served as President for the balance of the term for which Harding had been elected - but typically we would say "Coolidge served out the balance of Harding's term" rather than "Harding's term ended early." Yes, no, perhaps? As for Rep. Pelosi, "is expected to become" is probably the best wording. Newyorkbrad 21:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Saying that his term expires on January 2 (and isn't it midnight, January 2?) is fine. Saying that he will be speaker until January 2 is not. We possibly do not disagree. john k 23:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's midnight on January 2nd. At no time during January 3rd, will there be a speaker of the house. At 12:01 AM on January 3,2007, Hastert will NOT be Speaker of the House. For 36 Hours Condi Rice will be third in line for the presidency. Ericl (talk • 18:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need the same photo of Pelosi twice? 89.13.129.96 18:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Pelosi added
I added her on November 16, the date she was selected to be the Speaker of the House for the 110th Congress. Please don't delete her although the line says "as of 2006". Thanks. 71.146.177.125 03:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Pelosi has not been selected as Speaker of the House for the 110th Congress. She was chosen by the Democratic Caucus to be their candidate. She will only be elected speaker on the day the 110th congress convenes. Hoyer and Clyburn, perhaps, have been elected to their positions (although in either case an unexpected death or resignation remains a possibility), but Pelosi has not, in fact, been elected speaker yet. john k 06:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hastert is NOT going to be Speaker an extra couple of days next week. therefore, his term ends on January 2nd, not the 4th. I changed everything since the effect of the lame duck amendment to conform with that. Also notice that there was a gap at the end of 1961, when Sam Rayburn died. Ericl 03:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

109th Lasts an "Extra Day" aka 110th Starts a "Day Late"
I had read about this earlier and just confirmed using Thomas that the 110th Congress actually starts a day late. The 20th Amendment sets the date for a new Congress to convene as January 3, "unless they shall by Law appoint a different day."

Congress did just that with House Joint Resolution 101, which was passed by the House on November 15, passed by the Senate on December 9, and signed by the President on December 19, becoming Public Law No. 109-447.

Thus, the 110th Congress will convene at noon on January 4, 2007.

I will adjust the dates that I can see but I wanted to provide notice to everyone about why the date would be changing. JasonCNJ 19:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Upon review of the 20th Amdt., changed this to reflect that the 110th starts late, not that the 109th is extended. JasonCNJ 20:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hermaphodite
It says in the article that Pelosi is the first hermaphodite. I'm pretty sure that's patently false... I went to the edit page but it says woman not hermaphodite and i don't regularly use wikipedia so i thought i'd put it out there for someone with more experience. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.184.63.214 (talk) 11:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Yeah I saw that as well. Currently, she's the first lesbian. That seems to be vandalism as well.--217.227.113.114 10:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Where is the Series?
I am trying to find the "series" that is called "Politics and Government of the United States" which is on the side box of this article, which is part of the WikiProject United States of America, which I joined. But I can't find any organizing page for the "series on Politics and Govt of the US". Is that because it isn't created yet? Or did I miss a turn somewhere? Richiar 05:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE LIST
December 7,1829 June 2, 1834 December 7, 1925 March 3, 1931 June 6, 1989 January 3, 1995
 * Table 1. Speakers of the House of Representatives, 1789-2004
 * Speaker	Party/State	Congress	Dates
 * Frederick A.C. Muhlenberg	N/A–PA	1st	April 1, 1789 March 3, 1791
 * Jonathan Trumbull	N/A–CT	2nd	October 24,1791-March 3, 1793
 * Frederick A.C. Muhlenberg	N/A–PA	3rd	December 2,1793 March 3, 1795
 * Jonathan Dayton	N/A–NJ	4th-5th	December 7,1795 March 3, 1799
 * Theodore Sedgwick	N/A–MA	6th	December 2,1799 March 3, 1801
 * Nathaniel Macon	N/A–NC	7th-9th	December 7,1801-March 3, 1807
 * Joseph B. Varnum	N/A–MA	10th-11th	October 26, 1807 March 3, 1811
 * Henry Clay	R(DR)–KY*	12th-13th	November 4,1811 January 19, 1814a
 * Langdon Cheeves	R(DR)–SC*	13th	January 19, 1814 March 3, 1815
 * Henry Clay	R(DR)–KY*	14th-16th	December 4,1815 October 28, 1820
 * John W. Taylor	R(DR)–NY*	1 6th	November 15, 1820 March 3, 1821
 * Philip Barbour	R(DR)–VA*	1 7th	December 4,1821-March 3, 1827
 * Henry Clay	R(DR)–KY*	18th	December 3,1823 March 6,1825b
 * John W. Taylor	R(DR)–NY*	19th	December 5,1825 March 3, 1827
 * Andrew Stevenson	N/A–VA	20th	December 3,1827 March 3, 1829
 * Andrew Stevenson	J–VA	2 1st-23rd
 * John Bell	N/A–TN	23rd	June 2, 1834 March 3, 1835
 * James K. Polk	J–TN	24th-25th	December 7, 1835 March 3, 1839
 * Robert M.T. Hunter	W–VA	26th	December 16,1839 March 3, 1841
 * John White	W–KY	27th	May 31, 1841 March 3, 1843
 * John W. Jones	D–VA	28th	December 4, 1843 March 3, 1845
 * John W. Davis	D–IN	29th	December 1, 1845 March 3, 1847
 * Robert C. Winthrop	W–MA	30th	December 6, 1847 March 3, 1849
 * Howell Cobb	D–GA	31st	December 22, 1849 March 3, 1851
 * Linn Boyd	D–KY	32nd-33rd	December 1, 1851 March 3, 1855
 * Nathaniel P. Banks	Am—MAc	34th	February 2, 1856 March 3, 1857
 * James L. Orr	D–SC	35th	December 7, 1857 March 3, 1859
 * William Pennington	R–NJ	36th	February 1, 1860 March 3, 1861
 * Galusha A. Grow	R–PA	37th	July 4, 1861 March 3, 1863
 * Schuyler Colfax	R–IN	38th-40th	December 7, 1863 March 3, 1869
 * Theodore Pomeroy	R–NY	40th	March 3, 1869d
 * James G. Blaine	R–ME	41st-43rd	March 4, 1869 March 3, 1875
 * Michael C. Kerr	D–IN	44th	December 6, 1875 Aug. 19, 1876e
 * Samuel J. Randall	D–PA	44th-46th	December 4, 1876 March 3, 1881
 * J. Warren Keifer	R–OH	47th	December 5, 1881 March 3, 1883
 * John G. Carlisle	D–KY	48th-50th	December 3, 1883 March 3, 1889
 * Thomas B. Reed	R–ME	51st	December 2, 1889 March 3, 1891
 * Charles F. Crisp	D–GA	52nd-53rd	December 7, 1891 March 3, 1895
 * Thomas B. Reed	R–ME	54th-55th	December 2, 1895 March 3, 1899
 * David B. Henderson	R–IA	56th-57th	December 4, 1899 March 3, 1903
 * Joseph G. Cannon	R–IL	58th-61st	November 9, 1903 March 3, 1911
 * James B. (Champ) Clark	D–MO	62nd-65th	April 4, 1911 March 3, 1919
 * Frederick H. Gillett	R–MA	66th-68th	May 19, 1919 March 3, 1925
 * Nicholas Longworth	R–OH	69th-7 1st
 * John N. Garner	D–TX	72nd	December 7, 1931 March 3, 1933
 * Henry T. Rainey	D–IL	73rd	March 9, 1933 August 19, 1934f
 * Joseph W. Byrns	D–TN	74th	January 3, 1935 June 4, 1936g
 * William B. Bankhead	D–AL	74th-76th	June 4, 1936 September 15,1 940h
 * Sam T. Rayburn	D–TX	76th-79th	September 16,1940-January 3,1947
 * Joseph W. Martin, Jr.	R–MA	80th	January 3, 1947 January 3, 1949
 * Sam T. Rayburn	D–TX	81st-82nd	January 3, 1949 January 3, 1953
 * Joseph W. Martin, Jr.	R–MA	83rd	January 3, 1953 January 3, 1955
 * Sam T. Rayburn	D–TX	84th-87th	January 5, 1955 November 16, 1961i
 * John W. McCormack	D–MA	87th-9 1st	January 10, 1962 January 3, 1971
 * Carl Albert	D–OK	92nd-94th	January 21, 1971 January 3, 1977
 * Thomas P. O’Neill, Jr.	D–MA	95th-99th	January 4, 1977 January 3, 1987
 * James C. Wright, Jr.	D–TX	100th-101st	January 6, 1987 June 6, 1989j
 * Thomas S. Foley	D–WA	101st-103rd
 * Newt Gingrich	R–GA	104th-105th	January 4, 1995 January 3, 1999
 * J. Dennis Hastert	R–IL	106th-	January 6, 1999-


 * Although the Biographical Directory of the American Congress, 1774-1996 identifies these Speakers as Republicans, the party designation “Democratic Republicans” is more widely used and familiar to readers. This designation, R(DR), should not be confused with the contemporary Republican Party, which did not emerge until the 1 850s. A key to all party abbreviations can be found in the Appendix on page 35.
 * a.	Resigned from the House of Representatives, January 19, 1814.
 * b.	Resigned from the House of Representatives, March 6, 1825.
 * c.	Speaker Nathaniel P. Banks served in the House three separate times under three different party designations. In the 34th Congress, he served as an American Party Member.
 * d.	Elected Speaker, March 3, 1869 and served one day.
 * e.	Died in office, August 19, 1876.
 * f.	Died in office, August 19, 1934.
 * g.	Died in office, June 4, 1936.
 * h.	Died in office, September 15, 1940.
 * i.	Died in office, November 16, 1961.
 * j.	Resigned from the House of Representatives, June 6, 1989. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CORNELIUSSEON (talk • contribs) 05:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Federal Succession?
Replaced 'Federal Succession' with Presidential Succession. Why? The Federal Government of the USA, is made up of 3 branches (Executive, Legislative & Judicial), not just 2 (Executive & Legislative). GoodDay 22:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you know...
That no Speaker, current or former, has gone on to become President? But we have also never had a First Lady become President. :-) -Amit, 03/10/07


 * James K. Polk became President, surely? john k 17:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I recognized that when I was reading through the 2002 World Almanac last night and said to myself, "oops." I'm glad I made my remark on the discussion page. My bad. Somebody might want to mention Polk in this article. I also want to point out that Polk got elected for his gubernatorial record. Interesting resume. -Amit, 03/23/07

I hope we can see a certain 1st Lady bacome president soon. As for the incumbent, she should run once the HRC admin ends

The same photo twice
Is there any special reason why this article includes the exact same photo of Pelosi twice?

Automated Review
- The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. - *Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?] - *Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per Manual of Style (links) and WP:CONTEXT.[?] - *If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?] - *There may be an applicable infobox for this article. For example, see Template:Infobox Biography, Template:Infobox School, or Template:Infobox City.[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually) - *Per Wikipedia:Context and Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?] - *This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?] - *Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?] - You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Davnel03 21:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The Picture
Southern Texas and I engaged in an edit war earlier today which was temporarily stopped only by operation of the 3RR. I submit that the larger picture of the current officeholder should be included in its previous location; that the picture or lack thereof on any other page, especially Vice President of the United States to which Southern Texas earlier made reference is of little relevane to this discussion; and that consensus on this page should be obtained before removing the picture is made, especially after dissent was expressed. On the merits of the question, I find it silly, less-informative, and frankly quite petty to refuse the use of a normal-sized picture of the current officeholder. I admit that the thumbnail is in the List of Speakers box but that doesn't mitigate my point and I would be more than happy to remove the thumbnail picture all the way at the bottom of the article in favor of the normal-sized picture at the top of the article. I agree that this article is about the Speaker of the House of Representatives but to refuse placement of the picture of Speaker Peolsi because she happens to be in office at the time and because other pages don't include it is unsupportable in my view.

Of course, I'll be more than glad to respect a consensus. Given the requirements of wikipedia, I am sure that Southern Texas would be willing to do the same.

What say you all?

JasonCNJ 20:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * After looking at the article and seeing the dispute, I think that the picture is appropriate in the history section, at a similar size to those of other the office holders. Because the article is about the office, it probably shouldn't be in the lede. As an aside, I would also remove the "first female speaker" part of the caption and just mention that she is the incumbent; it is not yet known how significant that her being the first woman Speaker will be. Cmprince 20:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's clearly appropriate in the lede. The current officeholder is certainly worth noting early on, and it's consistent with other similar pages.  I agree that she should only be referenced as the current speaker, not the first female, for the same reasons you've said. JCO312 20:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to discuss this here. That should be clear, since I posted here already.  But, to restate my position, the images should be used to highlight significant office holders.  That is how it is used in many other similar articles.  Notably, you have not attempted to remove the image of Henry Clay, despite the fact that his picture is also included in the list.  The current office holder is notable, simply for being the current office holder.  That is why there is an image of Chief Justice Roberts on the Chief Justice of the United States page, in addition to his image on the list. JCO312 22:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

First Female Speaker Significance
I am removing to this section a comment made by User:Cmprince which said:
 * As an aside, I would also remove the "first female speaker" part of the caption and just mention that she is the incumbent; it is not yet known how significant that her being the first woman Speaker will be. Cmprince 20:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The fact that she is the first is known and recognized as significant -- even by the opposition leadership and the President (who happens to be of another party.) The idea that we do not know how significant her placement in history is lacks credibility or support by any other major political leader of the country. JasonCNJ 20:28, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe it is significant but I don't think it should be in the lead. Instead I think it should be put lower down in the article in the history section. As for the picture I think its obvious were I stand on that.-- Southern Texas  21:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Pointless analogy with prime ministers
The introduction states that "the position is elected in much the same way prime ministers are elected under a parliamentary systems." I think this should be removed : Keriluamox 17:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Few parliamentary systems actually elect their head of government. The head of governement is appointed by the head of state, for example, in Britain, in Canada, in Australia, in France, in Italy, in Finland, in Portugal and in Denmark. He is however elected in some countries (Germany, Austria and Spain…).
 * The comparison is serioulsy misleading as far as the Speaker’s role is concerned.

The Picture part II
I don't think the picture should be in the lead since it is already in the list with all the other speakers. I don't think we should give more coverage to one speaker than another. For the other pictures in the article they are different pictures (or should be) from those in the list and if there must be two pictures of Pelosi at least make it another one and put it at the bottom the history section where it is mentioned that she is the first female.-- Southern Texas  22:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * They are not other pictures. The picture of Henry Clay is the same.  I don't see why we shouldn't give more coverage to one speaker over another.  Some are more significant than others.  I don't think anyone would argue that Muhlenberg or Rayburn were not far more significant than, for example, Langdon Cheves.  The current office holder has independent significance, as they presently embody the subject of the article.  LOTS of other articles recognize this, and provide a picture in the lede or close to it.  Chief Justice of the United States is a good example.  JCO312 22:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I did it this should end the dispute.-- Southern Texas  22:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You did what??? JCO312 23:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I added a picture of Pelosi to the bottom where it talks about her. I replaced the Henry Clay photo with another to avoid double use. This is called compromise-- Southern Texas  00:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no need to be snide (I don't need you to tell me what compromise is). What you're doing is not compromise, it's forcing your opinion on others.  3 other people have said that it should be in either the history or the lede, and you seem set about to ignore that.  You violated 3RR, and instead of proposing your "compromise" you simply did it.  You haven't addressed my substantive argument at all. JCO312 01:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * While I most certainly do not condone the ongoing edit war and apparent violation(s) of the 3RR, I agree with Southern Texas's position that the photo of Pelosi is inappropriate for the lead of this article. The article is about the office and not the incumbent.  However, a photo of Pelosi in the history section would be more than appropriate, particularly given her status as the incumbent and the first woman in this office.
 * (It's also not a particularly attractive photo of Pelosi. Her smile appears very forced and fake.)  --ElKevbo 02:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose I'm somewhat ambivalent on that question of whether the picture should be in the lede or the history section. I think that it's appropriate in the lede to include who the office holder is, and the picture simply adds to that information.  It works well on President pro tempore of the United States Senate.  If others feel strongly, I don't mind having it moved to the history section (that's how it is on Chief Justice of the United States, and I think it works fine either way). JCO312 02:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think having the photo in the lead, particularly as the very first photo in the lead, gives undue weight to the person who happens to be the incumbent. The article should have a broader focus. I would make the same argument for other similar articles if I were to wander over to them and become involved (don't hold your breath; articles involving politics tend to be too contentious and frustrating to edit, IMHO). --ElKevbo 02:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you think of that image? It's supposed to be her "official" portrait.  As I said, I think it's good in the lede, but whatever approach we take, we should make it consistent with President pro tempore of the United States Senate, as the same logic will apply. JCO312 02:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The new photo is slightly better. But it's not necessarily the current photo or the previous one.  She appears to think that she has to force a large smile in these photos when a more natural look would, IMHO, suit her better. She's an attractive woman for her age and I think her forced smile greatly detracts from the photos.  But enough amateur photo/art commentary from me...
 * And I wish you good luck in trying to enforce or even find consistency among Wikipedia articles. :) (For what it's worth, I took a quick peek at that article and I would make the same argument there that I am here.  Displacing the nice template they've got on the article to make room for the incumbent gives him undue weight.  These are all high-profile politicians and I'm sure they've all got Wikipedia articles where we can place all the photos in the world.  These articles are about the office, not the person who happens to inhabit right now.)  --ElKevbo 02:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheers on the consistency point. There is a separate page for the List of Presidents pro tempore of the United States Senate, but it was merged here.  I don't see why they wouldn't be consistent, but I'm not sure how to best go about it.  As far as the picture goes, what can I say, if she always seems to force her smile, that's on her. JCO312 02:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ElKevbo, I agree with you that the article is about the office and not the incumbent. (Nancy Pelosi has her own page.) But you cannot escape the fact that Nancy Peolsi is the physical example of the office and of this article: she is the Speaker of the House. To not put a picture of the current officeholder in the lede, imho, appears to be an attempt to cover up or minimize that fact. The "undue weight" argument seems a bit much to me....there isn't any other person to whom weight could be given as there is no other Speaker of the House. I'll go back and check but I seem to recall a picture of Hastert on this page during his tenure. Lastly, while I appreciate all attempts to find a middle ground and will look for consensus on this question, I don't think the "History" section is the proper place for a picture of the current office holder. Perhaps, after her tenure, her significance as the first female speaker will be enough to grant her a place in that section but for now...I think that pic belongs in the lede. JasonCNJ 02:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I resent and reject your veiled accusation that I am "attempting to cover up or minimize" anything and I'd like an apology.
 * I maintain that the article is about the office and not the incumbent just as President of the United States is about that office and not George W. Bush. The image in the lead should be that most directly tied to the office and that is not the incumbent who is only briefly serving in the office.  --ElKevbo 03:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said or implied you were "attempting to cover up or minimize" the Speaker. I expressed my opinion - clearly labeled as such - that not putting up a picture of her in the lede did covered up/minimized it; but said opinion wasn't directed at you personally, but the idea that has been expressed by you and others on this page. If we wanted to get into a thread about "veiled accusations," I'm sure that we could, but that's so far beyond the actual content dispute that it would be silly.
 * I maintain that the article is about the office and not the incumbent, too. I think that the image in the lede should be that most directly tied to the office, too. I believe that image is the current officerholder - not a seal that, frankly, most people have never seen before. I believe that the best image to represent the office is the person holding the office. And given the advances in wikipedia, where we are able to make real-time changes that can accurately identify the current officeholder, whomever that may be for whatever time they may serve, I think we should do so.
 * I have no quarrel with you personally and I did not attack you personally. I disagree with the idea and I think the idea is an attempt to minimize the Speaker. But please don't make a leap into personal attacks that I have neither said nor implied. Whatever happened to good faith, I wonder?
 * JasonCNJ 03:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I should revise my earlier comment to say that the picture of the Chief Justice in Chief Justice of the United States is NOT in the history section, as I suggested earlier. It is (for some reason) in the duties section.  While this doesn't make a lot of sense to me, it makes more sense than putting pictures in the history section of people who currently occupy the office.  Let's not relegate them to history before their time.
 * In any event, since the page has been protected, perhaps we can take some time and come back at this with fresh eyes and cooler heads. And by perhaps, I mean that's all we can do since none of us are admins :).  JCO312 02:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Its dumb that we now have three pictures of Pelosi. The fallacy in your argument is the article about the President pro tempore of the senate has the incumbent in the lead but the article doesn't have a list. There is no double use there as there is here. The new picture is just a younger Pelosi with the same stupid look on her face. We have to decide is the article about Pelosi or the Speaker of the House. If people don't recognize the seal then good they will learn something. I say its fine to have the picture of her in the history section and its explanation is a bit more informative than the picture you are pushing in the beginning. There is too much of this nonsense on wikipedia, we argue about stupid things like pictures. We have to set a standard and I want to say right here that I would like to have a rule state that in an article about an office the current officeholder can not be in the lead. The article is about an office not the incumbent. I hope that we make progress right here today and so this garbage edit warring can end.-- Southern Texas  03:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * To the extent that the lack of a list constitutes a fallacy (I maintain that it does not), what about the Chief Justice of the United States page? That has a list, and the same image of the Roberts is used twice.
 * In any event, I agree that we should have a standard for this sort of thing. I also think we should have some consistency between the President pro tempore of the United States Senate page and this one.  That being said, this is not the forum to discuss such standards.  There is a mechanism to solicit more widespread community discussion.  Once I remember where that is, I will see if something can be set up. JCO312 14:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Any good, active Wikiprojects that might be interested in this discussion and able to chime in intelligently and helpfully? Is there an American politics Wikiproject (he asks without first looking for himself)?  --ElKevbo 14:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * WikiProject U.S. Congress. Although, isn't there a way to do a RFC or something like that, or a community strawpoll maybe? JCO312 15:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I would imagine that a friendly, neutral message on the Talk page requesting additional input would be sufficient for now. No need to make it more complicated or formal than necessary.  --ElKevbo 17:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. A standard that would apply to more than one page (which is what I believe Southern Texas was advocating) should not be discussed on just this talk page.  I think it needs to be broader, since it potentially implicates other pages. JCO312 17:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Then post an RFC or hit the Village Pumps if you don't think one or more Wikiprojects is sufficiently "broad" enough. I don't think you're going to get too far if you are trying to solve this all in one broad stroke as you (where the "you" may be you or even a Wikiproject) will likely run afoul of (likely warranted) accusations of ownership.  I would advise starting on one article, throughly discuss the issue there with those interested editors, and moving on to other similar articles.
 * I would also be very wary of canvassing or otherwise ganging up on those who hold different opinions, particularly if you manage to begin changing articles to conform with your desired outcome. We simply don't have a very strong sense of stare decisis when it comes to content and even layout, a property some view as a strength of Wikipedia.  --ElKevbo 17:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I started a discussion on the WikiProject U.S. Congress talk page. I don't know what you're talking about/trying to imply when you warn me against "canvassing or otherwise ganging up on those who hold different opinions."  I don't see how I've done that.  I also haven't changed any other article to conform with my point of view; quite the opposite, I cautioned Southern Texas against doing so as being violative of WP:POINT. JCO312 18:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not accusing you of anything of that nature. I am simply cautioning (and not you in particular) that those actions and behaviors could easily result if one were not careful in how one approached this issue.  I think your actions up to this point have been perfectly reasonable aside from our obvious difference of opinion.  --ElKevbo 21:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There should be a picture of Pelosi on this page, Byrd on the PPT page, Roberts on the SCCJ page, Bush on the POTUS page, etc. The picture should be at/near the top as if it somehow "summarzied" the article as a prime example of the article.  Consistency isn't the issue as much as common sense.  —Markles 17:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Lets remove the list, make it a separate page. Remove the image of Pelosi from the body and put the old picture back in the lead under the seal. Perhaps this will end the dispute.-- Southern Texas  20:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that this will end the dispute. I appreciate SouthernTexas's efforts at a compromise. JasonCNJ 21:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the list is fine where it is in this article, and no additional article is needed for it. I'm in favor of keeping the image of Pelosi at the top (as well as in the list), and doing the same thing in other related articles (president, VP, president pro temp, etc.).  I think it's useful for most viewers of the article to quickly a picture of who the office-holder is, instead of having to read the text or having to scroll to the bottom of the article to the list.  The image of Pelosi and the image of the seal seem a little too large, however.  --CapitalR 20:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I still do not like the image being at the top but moving the seal above it is a small step in the right direction. But if that makes everyone else happy then I'll go sulk in a corner by myself... You're all wrong!  Wrong, I tell you!  --ElKevbo 22:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

How is this:

-- Southern Texas  22:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Good effort but the photo of Pelosi (or anyone else we want to put there) is just too small to be useful and clear. How about just a simple "Incumbent" paragraph with accompanying photo at the beginning of the article if y'all really want to include/highlight the incumbent?  --ElKevbo 23:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's great. Very nice job.  I'm going to propose something similar on the President pro tempore page.  I think we should still discuss the list, which I think should be seperate. JCO312 18:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you 100%, the list should have its own page like all the other offices.-- Southern Texas  18:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm liking the infobox idea. Good job putting that in place for these articles.  I'm thinking of creating a template called  to standardize them. --CapitalR 21:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Split of section
I am suggesting a split of the list section of the article as it is with President pro tempore of the Senate. What is everybody's opinion on this.-- Southern Texas  03:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support split-- Southern Texas  03:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support split; will make the Speaker article easier to scan through. Good idea. Unschool 18:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. And while we're at it, how about doing the same thing over at Vice President of the United States? Unschool 22:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support. Let's be consistent with the other body and have a List for both houses of Congress. It will help solve the picture debate from earlier, shorten the article, and better organize information. JasonCNJ 18:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Per all of the reasons listed above, I agree that we should split the list. JCO312 20:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I created the page for the list in my sandbox and I will create the article on August 23, ten days after the proposition unless there are any oppositions here.-- Southern Texas  03:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The new article has been created at List of Speakers of the United States House of Representatives.-- Southern Texas  04:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

eligability of the speaker of the house?
Does the Speaker of the House have to be born in the U.S. ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.119.51 (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No. The Constitution is clear that the House shall choose its Speaker; there is no requirement that the Speaker be a member of the House, be born in the United States, or even be a citizen. Every Speaker of the House has been a member of the House and thus it is unlikely the House would ever choose a non-member for the position. But you don't need to be born in the U.S. to be a Member of Congress so it's entirely possible that someone not born in the United States could be elected Speaker. JasonCNJ (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

power to allow or disallow votes
not in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.184.238.231 (talk) 03:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * because that doesn't exist it just influencing policy just like every speaker has so its not a power but more of influence Gang14 (talk) 04:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Speaker of the House is essentially the House Majority Leader, most of the time. That's why they don't have the power to disallow votes; that would allow the majority party to ALWAYS get their way. NuclearWarfare (talk) 04:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Power to determine when bills reach the floor?
This article says the speaker has the power to determine when each bill reaches the floor, but the page on the United States House Committee on Rules says it has that power ("Between control over amendments, debate, and when measures will be considered, the Rules Committee exerts vast power in the House). So which one really has it, or do they share it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Web wonder (talk • contribs) 20:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

How Can A Speaker Be Removed From Power By Their Own Party?
Can a party vote to oust their speaker, or do they have to wait for the next election cycle?

Has a speaker ever been ousted by their party? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.14.154.3 (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The Speaker holds a variety of powers ...
Since it is stated in the prior § that the constitution does not "spell out" the role of the Speaker, how did the functions in the Presiding Officer § come into effect? I assume as the result of House Rules but that should be made clear and sourced. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there any procedure to remove an incumbent Speaker?
I presume not, given the absence of any reference to such a procedure, but it would be good to know. Grover cleveland (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Can someone with knowledge of this answer this in the article. Apart from the general interest about how accountability works for the speaker, it is extra relevant right now (Jan 2023) as the ongoing vote could result in a speaker who do not have the support of a majority. (I.e. some Democrats vote present and allows a republican speaker or the opposing fraction in the republican uses "the nuclear option" and vote present making the democratic candidate speaker.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.70.236.40 (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * To answer the initial question, yes, via a Motion to vacate. It has only been attempted a couple times, and is currently a bone of contention among Republicans, and one of the rules issues fueling the current speaker-election impasse at the start of the 118th Congress. Drdpw (talk) 12:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Pay
Surprisingly, there is no mention of the pecuniary rewards - and motives - of being Speaker. In fact, it seems the Speaker of the House gets almost fifty thousand dollars p.a. over the regular salary of a congressman.Orthotox (talk) 07:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Article is inaccurate
The current speaker of the house is not Ted Cruz. It is John Boehner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.146.13 (talk) 01:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Signing enrolled bills during long recesses?
What's that about? No source is given, but it doesn't make sense. How would a bill become enrolled during a long recess? Right here:

"The Speaker may also designate a Speaker pro tempore for special purposes, such as designating a Representative whose district is near Washington, DC to sign enrolled bills during long recesses."

How to reconcile this. --Beneficii (talk) 02:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Under House rule I paragraph 8(2), "With the approval of the House,the Speaker may appoint a Member to act as Speaker pro tempore only to sign enrolled bills and joint resolutions for a specified period of time." When the House goes on recess, there often is a backlog of bills to be signed by the Speaker, hence why this appointment is made. I would recommend adding "backlog" or another similar adjective before enrolled to clarify this. Overdraftfee (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

First day: chicken and egg problem
On the first day, who decides who is a member and who can vote for Speaker, before there is a Speaker? Int21h (talk) 11:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

For example, was Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. allowed to vote for the Speaker, John William McCormack, in 1967? (A reference to the Powell v. McCormack case.) Int21h (talk) 11:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Since, unlike the Senate, the House in not a "continuing body", are there any rules governing this? Int21h (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC) I just saw this here while looking for something else. Two and a half years is probably a little long to answer your question, and you may have found the answer elsewhere. But if this is still a live question, let me know and I'll tell you what I know. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Please do! int21h (talk · contribs · email) 00:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll get you this info after the holiday weekend. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The Congressional Research Service has a report on the 1st day of the House (https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL30725.pdf), which may be helpful to understand the process. To answer your question fully, based upon what I've read,the previous Clerk serves as presiding officer until the new Speaker is elected. A list of members-elect is prepared based upon those whose credentials are presented. The members-elect are the ones who nominate and elect the Speaker who is then sworn in. Afterwards, the Speaker swears in the other members. As Int21h noted, the Supreme Court in Powell v. McCormack found that Powell was unconstitutionally denied his seat in the House. Powell was denied the right to take the oath and therefore the right to vote on the Speaker. There is a lot of gray area on this issue of who decides qualification. The Court has not definitively ruled on the matter, but in Powell it did rule that "the House has no power to exclude a member-elect who meets the Constitution's membership requirements." Hope I could help. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me here. Overdraftfee (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

this thing is two long
It should be split into at least four articles, like the ones for vice president and president pro tempre.you know, list of Speakers. list of speakers by length of tenure...etc.YoursT (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Numbering
There are sources that Paul Ryan is actually the 54th Speaker, due to speakers being counted only once. Shall we change this at the article? GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Heck, I'm gonna be bold & fix them up. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I didn't see this discussion before opening a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics.  It looks like this bold renumbering may be premature.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  22:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Speaker.gov calls him the 54th Speaker, so going on that & precedent with other offices (such as PMs of other countries, among others), it should be safe to use the numbering that says Ryan is the 54th Speaker. Brucejoel99 (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * As I said on the other discussion, I was wrong - even 19th-century sources count only the first time a given person held the role in assigning the "nth" position in line. This is distinctly different from how reliable sources fill in the List of Presidents of the United States, where Grover Cleveland is both the 22nd and 24th President in the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidwr (talk • contribs) 21:24, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

List of Speakers
I have created a separate article for the lists related to Speakers of the House (link above). Like the President, Vice President, many governorships and lieutenant governorships, cabinet offices, among a variety of other offices, I believe this article needs a secondary article to house these things. A long list of 54 Speakers, with 62 line-items, along with a list of 54 by length of service, and living former speakers, the list area takes up a lot of space. By separating them, focusing on the office itself in the main article is simpler, and the lists are classified as such. With the precedent of independent lists for other offices, the efficient nature of such a move, I believe my original edit to this effect ought to be reinstated.

This new list article contains a comprehensive table which lists them in order of service, provides their portrait, their names, their lifespan, term of service, party, district represented, and congress(es) served under in a clean manner. Both articles will now posses their own more honed focus, cleaner design for each, and not be a long article with dispersed information.  Spartan7W  &sect;   18:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming that this is a merge proposal, so I would say


 * Support The length of the list is such that it is appropriate for its own page, consistent with other similar entries as stated above. JCO312 (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Salary
Someone needs to add the current salary of the Speaker as the last section of the article as this is important information to end the article with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.206.150.42 (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The salary is listed in the infobox.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(ring-ring)  23:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Absolute majorities
The article makes the following statement: "to be elected speaker a candidate must receive an absolute majority of all votes cast for individuals, i.e. excluding those who abstain."

That misstates the definition of "absolute majority". An absolute majority is a majority of the ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP of a given body, including those members who are absent or who are present but abstain. In the case of the US House of Representatives, it would also include those members not present because they had resigned, died, or been expelled and a vacancy existed in their seat.

See:

https://www.aph.gov.au/Help/Glossary

Absolute majority: "More than half the total votes of all those eligible to vote; in a house of Parliament, one more than half the votes of the total number of members of the house, whether they are present or not, as opposed to a simple majority."

https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/absolute-majority/

"Absolute majority refers to a majority of all those who are entitled to vote in a particular election, whether or not they actually cast ballots."

122.149.187.115 (talk) 09:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Capitalization
Capitalization per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography - Positions, offices, and occupational titles MOS:JOBTITLES "When a formal title for a specific entity (or conventional translation thereof) is addressed as a title or position in and of itself, is not plural, is not preceded by a modifier (including a definite or indefinite article), and is not a reworded description". Therefore it needs to be capitalized to "Speaker". Mechanical Keyboarder (talk) 05:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Interested parties please join at Talk:Vice_President_of_the_United_States instead of this fork of the issue. M.K. thanks for taking it to the talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 05:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

'Partisan Role' section: "Pelosi, who argued with President George W. Bush over the Iraq War [20]" The link provided does not substantiate this claim.
Link 20 mentions nothing about Iraq let alone any argument. Secondly, the phrase 'argued over the Iraq war' is too ambiguous and non-specific. Thirdly, an individual's position (within a divided party), is of questionable relevance to 'Partisan Role[s]' or to the article as a whole. I suggest deletion. (Archive of Link 20 ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VilaRest (talk • contribs) 22:23, February 5, 2020 (UTC)

JOBTITLES
We lowercase in the intros of President of the United States, Vice President of the United States, President pro tempore of the United States Senate, etc. Why do we not lower case the intro, of this page? GoodDay (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Nancy Pelosi was not fired
Multiple edits claiming that Nancy Pelosi was “fired” is misinformation. She will be succeeded by Kevin McCarthy as Speaker due to the GOP majority in the house gained through the 2022 midterm elections, but she was in no ways “fired.” 2603:7080:4A3D:DF50:1019:44B7:5C1A:4E97 (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Request to place article under semi-protected or protected status.
I know the result of the 2023 Speaker of the House election may seem obvious, but until a candidate secures the necessary amount of votes needed to win the Speakership, it does nobody any favors by preemptively editing articles and assigning titles before an official result is known.

As it stands right now (06JAN2023, 2223 hours, CST), Rep. McCarthy was defeated on the 14th ballot.

I would like to request this article, as well as Rep. McCarthy’s article, be placed under semi-protected or protected status to prevent preemptive editing. LordVesuvius (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed. McCarthy's picture shouldn't appear until he wins. Brucelucier (talk) 06:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect information
End of paragraph 3 in section "History" Polk is not the only Speaker to become president. LBJ did it in 64. 2600:1700:5270:E740:D8E4:C1D1:3D04:120 (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, LBJ was never Speaker, neither was he ever in House leadership. Drdpw (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Speaker emeritus
"The ceremonial role" — what role? The source mentions no functions, ceremonial or otherwise, for the emerita. It appears to be only an honorific granted by the party membership. 67.180.143.89 (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the case. The full hHouse will need to take action to make it official. Drdpw (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Flag
I am unable to find any reference to any source for an officially recognized flag for the Speaker. If you want to include any such image in the article, provide proof that it actually exists. Peter Isotalo 13:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * From crwflags.com : House of Representatives (U.S.). Drdpw (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Setting aside whether CRW Flags Inc. is a reliable source, the description seems to say that there are no images of a flag and that the House has no "documented authorization" for it. Peter Isotalo 15:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2023
Change,

"Under the current Rules of the House, the speaker is required to create a secret ordered list of members to temporarily serve as speaker of the House if the speakership became vacant,[20] and to provide the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives this list upon taking office.[21]"

To,

"Under the current Rules of the House, the speaker is required to create an ordered list of members to temporarily serve as speaker of the House if the speakership became vacant,[20] and to provide the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives this list upon taking office.[21] This list is traditionally kept secret from the public."

Add source from that states, regarding vacancy,

"The Office of Speaker may be declared vacant by resolution, which may be offered as a matter of privilege. Manual Sec. 315; 6 Cannon Sec. 35. Under rule I clause 8(b)(3), adopted in the 108th Congress, the Speaker is required to deliver to the Clerk a list of Members in the order in which each shall act as Speaker pro tempore in the case of a vacancy in the Office of Speaker. The Member acting as Speaker pro tempore under this provision may exercise such authorities of the Office of Speaker as may be necessary and appropriate pending the election of a Speaker or Speaker pro tempore. A vacancy in the Office may exist by reason of the physical inability of the Speaker to discharge the duties of the Office."

This source is the House Practice: A Guide to the Rules, Precedents and Procedures of the House and does not mention any requirement of secrecy for the pro tempore list. Slifer754 (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * House Practice isn't updated for each Congress, but the House Rules are. That source can inform past practices, but for the current House, the Rules of the 118th Congress is the controlling document. &mdash;—Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 01:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh awesome, that's good to know thank you. It's cool that they have a separate rules document for each Congress. However, I didn't see any mention of the pro tem list needing to be secret. From Rule 1.8.(3)(B),
 * "As soon as practicable after the election of the Speaker and whenever appropriate thereafter, the Speaker shall deliver to the Clerk a list of Members in the order in which each shall act as Speaker pro tempore under subdivision."
 * I could have definitely missed something though so please let me know if I did! Slifer754 (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

❌ – I am, however, going to remove the word "secret" from the sentence noted above, as there appears to be no such mandate for keeping the list secret.

Patrick McHenry
Should Patrick McHenry be listed as Acting (pro tempore) under the Speaker's post? I was going to make the edit myself but the page is templocked. ItsABlackHole (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * He is not "Acting speaker"; he should be listed as "Speaker pro-tempore" (Remember, he is a "temp"). Drdpw (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * He's not acting, he is the Pro Tempore, who has the power of a Speaker while the office is vacant. "Acting" is when a person takes the role when the incumbent is not available in a temporary situation but will return later. --WashuOtaku (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Except, Speaker pro tempore is also the title for the presiding officer when the incumbent is temporarily indisposed. We shouldn't overplay what the position is in general vs. this specific (and previously unknown) situation. In this case, the Speaker pro tempore is invested with the office of the speaker "as may be necessary and appropriate" to manage the election of a speaker or speaker pro tempore. The President pro tempore of the Senate is a different sort of position under each body's rules. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 01:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to underscore that the speaker pro tempore's role, in most instances, is pretty straightforward, a search of the Congressional Record finds 135,005 instances of the term, 2,474 instances during the 118th Congress alone. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 12:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Speaker pro tempore
I don't think that the seat being occupied by the Pro Tempore speaker counts as an "incumbent speaker" or should be reflected as the holder of the seat. Its not an acting position and has fundamentally different powers and responsibilities-the election of an actual speaker. I don't want to outright revert without a discussion on this. Andrewdonshik (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems user:Neutrality beat me to it. Andrewdonshik (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This should be returned to when the specifics of what exactly the speaker pro-tempore actually *is*. Theoretically he could have basically the same powers and position? Otherwise, I support it saying vacant until the new guy is elected Amshpee (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Should we be creating a page, or at least a section, for the Speaker pro tempore, as well as add them to the list on List of Speakers of the United States House of Representatives? GardenCosmos (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it certainly deserves a page given it doesn't have one right now. Amshpee (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know that it needs a full page and definitely they shouldn't be included on List of Speakers of the United States House of Representatives. This is a position that exists in the rules to stand in when the Speaker isn't available. The case of vacancy in the office is unique, but it doesn't elevate the status of the Speaker pro tempore. &mdash;—Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would agree. Per the Rules of the 118th Congress, the Speaker pro tempore "may exercise such authorities of the Office of Speaker as may be necessary and appropriate pending the election of a Speaker or Speaker pro tempore," but is otherwise limited in their reach and can only serve for three days (up to 10 if named due to illness of the Speaker). &mdash;—Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think based on the wording of (3)(A) in that section on Speaker pro tempore, it suggests they will go down the list of pro tempore McCarthy named, each for 3 days. Idk what happens when they reach the end. GardenCosmos (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Rule I(8)(3)(A) clearly states that, in case of a vacancy, the speaker pro tem shall act until the election of a speaker. So the 3 (10) day rule doesn't apply. I think it's fair to acknowledge him as speaker pro tempore in the info box. Mhapperger (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Pro tempore is a placeholder. They don't officially hold the seat for speaker. Cwater1 (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I added a section on speakers pro tem: their selection, etc. The section could use more content on their duties, details, etc. It seems clear that, although the speaker pro tem does exercise the powers and duties of the speaker, the pro tem is not the speaker, and shouldn't be listed as the incumbent with the photo, etc. Neutralitytalk 21:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Two things I think we should consider: creating an actual article for the Speaker pro tem (like the President pro tem of the Senate, which is an actual article) and listing the Speaker as the incumbent with the incumbent text switched from "Incumbent" to "Pro tempore" since October 3, 2023. ItsABlackHole (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2023
Update the 21st century section to include the following at the end: "In 2023, the Speaker position was successfully vacated for the first time by a motion to vacate, making the role of Speaker Pro Tem a real position, rather that one purely theoretical." 136.160.90.41 (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Against – The statement is just filler and not properly sourced. --WashuOtaku (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The position has never been "purely theoretical;" there have been 50 instances during the 118th Congress alone where a speaker pro tempore was designated. The speaker's office being vacant is what's making people at the moment more aware of the position. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Eligibility to House
The Speaker is not the only constitutional office where a possible nonmember can not bound by oath. There is also president pro tempore of the senate. Remove the last sentence of eligibility of non members. 207.96.32.81 (talk) 03:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ I have replaced the statement. Drdpw (talk) 03:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Inaccuracies
Not just anyone can be speaker of the house!!! 2601:547:CC81:13B0:F1F2:908:6762:E94F (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Actually, yes, you can. The Constitution simply says that the House shall "chuse their Speaker". U.S. Const. art. I, § 2, cl. 5. It says nothing about who the Speaker should be nor that they should be a member. Now, if you ask me, I think that's an awful prerequisite for the office, but my thoughts are immaterial when it comes to what the Constitution says. ItsABlackHole (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No. The constitution explicitly forbids this.
 * Section 1: Congress
 * All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
 * Legislative powers are only held by members of the Senate and House of Representatives. The speaker clearly has legislative powers, and thus must be a member of congress. 129.7.0.40 (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Mostly correct, which is way, were a non-house member, or even a non-voting delegate I suppose, to become speaker, he or she would have no vote or right to speak on legislation during debates. Drdpw (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This reasoning is at odds with Article 1 section 2:
 * Article 1 section 2:
 * The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
 * The Speaker is an officer of the House of Representatives. In what way is the Speaker an officer over the house members, if he has no power to do so? If the choice of speaker was truly unbounded, it would raise all sorts of obvious issues. Why not appoint a dog as the Speaker of the House? 129.7.0.40 (talk) 06:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives is an officer of the House with protocol, and administrative responsibilities over Members, but they are not a member of the legislative body. Just because the Speaker is a House officer doesn't mean they have to be a member of the body (although historically that has always been the case). Regarding the dog strawman, I'd quote from this recent Washington Post article: "The rules of the 118th Congress, for example, mandate that the speaker “shall put a question in this form: ‘Those in favor (of the question), say, “Aye.”’; and after the affirmative voice is expressed, ‘Those opposed, say “No.”’” No matter how talented the dog, its ability to formulate spoken English phrases would be limited." —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)