Elon Musk, a foreigner - could become the Speaker of the House.
But is it even legal or constitutional for Musk, who is not a US citizen, to assume control over Congress?
Caller Bill shares his opinions. Do you agree?
MORE FROM THOM
📃 Thom's Hartmann's 'Daily Take' Newsletter: https://HartmannReport.com
🎦 Watch a full program re-run anytime: / thomhartmann
🎧 Audio Podcast: https://thom.tv
FOLLOW THOM
📕 AMAZON: https://amzn.to/2hS4UwY
📝 DAILY TAKE: https://hartmannreport.com
👥 FACEBOOK: / thomhartmannprogram
📸 INSTAGRAM: / thom_hartmann
🎦 PATREON: / thomhartmann
🐦 X: / thom_hartmann
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/hartmannrepo...
🌐 WEBSITE: https://www.thomhartmann.com
📺 YOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/subscription_...
👕 Merchandise: https://teespring.com/stores/thom-har...
🍺 Thom Merchandise: https://teespring.com/thom-hartmann-m...
ABOUT THE PROGRAM
The Thom Hartmann Program is the leading progressive political talk radio show for political news and comments about Government politics, be it Liberal or Conservative, plus special guests and callers.
#MoreFromThom #ElonMusk
✔ Amazon links are affiliate links
VIDEO TRANSCRIPT
Bill: I want to discuss the concept of electing a private citizen as Speaker of the House. Before I make my quick case, let me briefly explain for anyone unfamiliar with the topic. Rand Paul has proposed that, if they remove Mike Johnson as Speaker, they replace him with Elon Musk. The president must be a citizen, at least 35 years old, and meet other requirements. The vice president, as leader of the Senate, has similar requirements. However, the Speaker of the House—third in line for the presidency if both the president and vice president are incapacitated—has no specific constitutional requirements. This means Elon Musk could, in theory, become Speaker.
Thom: Back to you, Bill.
Bill: No, he actually can't. I'm going to make two points. First, Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the Constitution was written for the common man. It says what it means and means what it says. Allowing tortured interpretations of it opens a constitutional Pandora's box. Second, in contracts, two words are crucial: "may" (which allows flexibility) and "shall" (which is absolute).
Bill: Article I, Section 1 states, “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.” This is important because it specifies who holds legislative power: the House and Senate. Article I, Section 2 defines the House of Representatives:
“The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states.”
Bill: This tiny paragraph defines the House’s composition and who its members are. Members must be chosen by the people every second year, have been citizens for at least seven years, and be at least 25 years old. Article I, Section 5 states:
“The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other officers and shall have the sole power of impeachment.”
Bill: It doesn’t explicitly say the Speaker must be a member of the House. However, since Article I, Section 2 defines members, and Section 5 repeatedly refers to “members,” it follows that only a member can be Speaker. If Musk cannot meet the qualifications to be a member, he cannot be Speaker.
Thom: I understand your argument that the House rules simply state they choose their Speaker, but we must consider the composition. If the House is composed of members, and Musk cannot qualify as a member, how can he have any authority?
Bill: This discussion has never been adjudicated, so either of us could be right. However, I haven’t heard any constitutional scholar support your position. Most scholars, and the general consensus on television, suggest that Musk could theoretically serve as Speaker because the Constitution is silent on specific requirements for the role.
Thom: We’ve had this debate before, such as during past battles over the Speakership when there was talk of bringing in someone from outside the House, like a former president or another politician.
Bill: Thom, I respect your logic, but you’ve yet to cite explicit constitutional language that prevents a non-member from serving as Speaker. If this were challenged, it would ultimately fall to the Supreme Court to interpret. At the end of the day, your position is thought-provoking, but I don’t think it would hold up under constitutional scrutiny.
Thom: Thanks for the call, Bill. I appreciate your contribution to the discussion today.
Информация по комментариям в разработке