2020 and Counting

The House of Representatives expanded somewhat regularly over the course of American history, reflecting the growth of the American population.  This growth, however, stopped in 1913, when House membership was capped at 435.  At that time, the United States population was approximately 97 million; today, it's just over 328 million.  In other words, if the House of Representatives is truly meant to serve as a sort of microcosm of the country as a whole--to represent, as it were--it should have at least three times as many representatives today as it had 100 years ago.

Sure, the thought of 1200 congressmen is slightly nauseating, especially when three of those congressmen would be Matt Gaetz.

(DIGRESSION: Has he been arrested yet?  Can we please get on that? EOD)

At the same time, we also get three AOC's, so I can live with that.

*****

The 2020 census has come and gone; it's all over but the counting--but since the whole thing is counting, I guess it's really not that all over, after all.

If you returned your census form last year, good for you! You count! If you didn't, fear not! You're in the good company of roughly 33% of your fellow Americans (or, as we've established above, about 110 million people).  This raises the uncomfortable question, If only about 67% of the population responds to the census, how does the Census Bureau know that that other 33% exists? And if the Census Bureau does, in fact, know this, why do we need to fill out census forms at all?

When it came to encouraging residents to complete census forms, states took different approaches. Some states, like California, New York, and Minnesota, began planning early and spent millions of dollars on outreach and marketing.  Oregon distributed ponies. On the other hand, states like Florida, Texas, and Arizona took an approach to the census that could best be described as "Meh."

Perhaps coincidentally--but probably not--these states are all run by Republicans, the governing party that has proclaimed itself hostile to government. I suppose that's their right, but did anyone point out to them that, by thwarting the nasty federal government's efforts to count their citizens, all these states have accomplished is ensuring their own underrepresentation and underfunding?

Kudos to them for owning the Libs.

In Which We Gaze in Awe at Congressional Fashion

Yes, Congress and the White House reached a tentative budget agreement that would more-or-less stabilize the country's finances for the next couple of years, but never mind that!  What's up with John Boehner's tie:

You don't normally see that shade of green outside of a box of Lucky Charms.  I'm guessing Boehner looked at his tie rack, filled with all shades and styles of Republican red and just said, "Fuck it!  I'm outta here! I'm gonna be a leprechaun!"

Supreme Court Round-Up

OK, OK. . . Elena Kagan's been on my ass for the last three hours, desperate to hear the Solipsist's take on the latest round of Supreme Court rulings.  OK, Associate Justice Kagan, here we go.

First, the case the Court got unambiguously right: Riley v. California.  In this and an associated case, United States v. Wurie, the Court held that law enforcement authorities needed to obtain a warrant before searching through someone's cell phone.  Police often looked through cell phones after arresting someone, searching for evidence of criminal activity--which, given today's smartphone technology, could include not only call histories but also photographs, internet searches, journal entries--even, dare we say it, blog posts.  Chief Justice John Roberts explained that the pervasiveness of cell phones (and, by extension, in all likelihood, tablets, personal computers, etc.) made them subject to the same protections against "general warrants" enshrined in the Constitution.  In other words, police may no more freely rummage through one's personal data contained on an iPhone than they could barge into one's bedroom and rifle through the underwear drawer, unless they first obtain a warrant.

More interesting than the verdict, however, was the acknowledgment by the Court that changing technological standards merited changing interpretations of constitutional actions.  Law enforcement officials, for example, equated searching a cellphone with other, more permissible searches of things like wallets or purses.  "That," wrote Chief Justice Roberts, "is like saying a ride on horseback is materially indistinguishable from a flight to the moon."  In other words, as technology changes we must revisit the actions of the Founding Fathers, who codified civic norms in a time vastly different from our own.  Just as a cell phone is vastly different from a wallet or an appointment book--and so calls for a different understanding of constitutional protections against unreasonable searches--so, too, is an AK-47 vastly different from a flintlock--and calls for a similar reassessment of the right to keep and bear arms.

Two other unanimous decisions were also decided correctly.  I say this begrudgingly, as I am totally sympathetic to the "losing" side in both cases.  First, in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, the Court basically said that President Obama had no right to make recess appointments to Executive Branch positions while the US Senate was "in session"--even though these "sessions" were merely pro forma meetings where no business was conducted--and, indeed, whose only purpose was to ensure that President Obama could not make recess appointments.  While I abhor the obstructionist tactics of Congressional Republicans, I recognize that a certain amount of political gamesmanship is a fact of American life.  And while I generally support President Obama--at least as far as his political appointments go--I am not keen to see any congressional tactic hurriedly eliminated, lest it be useful in the future when, say, someone like Ted Cruz occupies the Oval Office.

I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.

(And lest you accuse me of hypocrisy, I had similar qualms when the Democratic Senate leadership effectively eliminated the use of filibusters last year.)

The other correct if unsatisfying decision concerned the ability of legislatures to establish "buffer zones" around abortion clinics.  The aim is laudable: to protect women who seek abortions (or, indeed, any services from clinics such as those run by Planned Parenthood) from harassment by pro-life protesters, legislators have declared that protesters must maintain certain minimum distances from entrances to such facilities.  In its decision in McCullen v. Coakley, the Court declared unconstitutional a Massachusetts law, which created a 35-foot buffer zone around abortion clinics.  The law, the justices found, infringed on First Amendment rights to free speech.  And while I sympathize with the desire of women not to be accosted by right-wing zealots as they seek to exercise their right to control their own bodies, I think that placing arbitrary (35 feet?  Why not 30?  Why not 40?  Why not 6.5?) restrictions on speech is not the solution.  As the Court pointed out, existing laws that prevent harassment and other antisocial behavior can effectively serve the same purpose as the disputed law.

Finally, the case that I just don't understand: ABC v. Aereo.  The Court declared that what Aereo was doing was bad and wrong and must be stopped.  Now, I had never heard of Aereo before yesterday.  Apparently, it's a service that allows people to "pick up" the broadcast signals of the major television networks through a series of antennas.  The networks were upset that Aereo was allowing people to do this.  But unless I'm mistaken, this is how television always used to work!  You turned on the TV, you fiddled with your antennas as needed, and you were able to watch "The Incredible Hulk" at grandma's house.  When did this become illegal?

Anyway, Justice Kagan, there you have it.  On the whole, you guys did a good--if somewhat unsatisfying--job.  Now, if you'll excuse me, "Judge Judy" is on, and I need to fiddle with the ol' rabbit ears. . . .

I Hope President Obama Can Survive the Humiliation. . . .

Our not-so-long national nightmare is finally over!  The House of Representatives just approved a Senate bill to finance the government and raise the debt ceiling, paving the way for the restoration of government services and the return of furloughed workers.  Analysts portray the deal as a complete repudiation of the Republican Party's extremist wing, a political defeat of historic proportions, but this is unfair.

True, the Tea Party faction failed to achieve its primary goal--defunding the Affordable Care Act--but everybody knew they would fail.  Saying the Republicans lost that battle is like saying the New York Mets lost this year's World Series: They were never in it to begin with. 

And, sure, right now the Republican "brand" is about as popular as anal herpes, but given the American electorate's attention span, they have every possibility of bouncing back by next year's elections--unless they are stupid enough to pick this kind of battle again next October.  With Michele Bachmann retiring, though, the collective IQ of the GOP congressional caucus will probably rise just enough to allow them to avoid that debacle.  Too bad.

But amidst all the bad news for the GOP, let's not overlook the silver lining, the major concession they managed to wring from recalcitrant Democrats: a "slight tightening of income verification rules for Americans accessing new health insurance exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act."

I know you probably think that doesn't sound like much, but that's because you don't know what it really means!  The Tea Party scored a major victory here.  (My fellow liberals better brace themselves.)  According to an article in the Los Angeles Times, under the rules approved as part of this budget deal, the Secretary of Health and Human Services must "report to Congress by Jan. 1st on the 'procedures' in place to verify eligibility" for subsidies offered to help people pay for health insurance.  And as if that weren't enough, by July 1st, the Secretary must report on the effectiveness of the verification!

Well, Tea Party, I tip my hat!  You sure showed us!  I hope it was worth it.

Irony and Hypocrisy

Last week, in one of his typically insightful rants, Jon Stewart excoriated the Republicans for--brace yourself!--their hypocrisy in attempting to shift the blame for the continuing governmental shutdown onto President Obama, claiming that it is his unwillingness to negotiate that is unnecessarily prolonging the stalemate. 

 

Essentially, he points out that if Republicans want to claim that they are standing on principle and protecting Americans from what they sincerely believe to be catastrophically misguided legislation (the Affordable Care Act), then that's fine...but they have to "own it"--and willingly accept whatever consequences they suffer in the court of public opinion.  And while I always revel in an explication of GOP hypocrisy, I was struck yesterday by the irony of the Republicans' situation.

Because if the Cruz-controlled GOP hadn't shut down the government over Obamacare, they could right now be making tremendous political hay over the utter SNAFU that has thus far characterized the rollout of the Affordable Care Act.  An article in yesterday's Times catalogued the ongoing technical problems that have plagued the online portal where people could go to get information and ultimately to sign up for the insurance exchanges that are the centerpiece of the ACA.  While administration officials are hopeful that the glitches will be fixed soon, Republicans have cost themselves an opportunity for a "told-you-so" to end all "told-you-so's."  Because even if they could find people in the general public--i.e., those who haven't drunk the Tea-Party brewed Kool Aid--to listen to another one of their strident denunciations of this "existential threat to the nation," all President Obama would have to do is turn around and say that, yes, there are technical problems with the ACA website, but these problems could be fixed a lot faster if, y'know, THE REPUBLICANS HADN'T SHUT DOWN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!

The modern Republican Party: Hoist on their own petard since 2009!

Can't We Just Go All "House of Cards" on These Guys?

Democrats have their differences, but in the current standoff with Republicans--a standoff that has led to the wholesale shuttering of the federal government--they remain largely united, if not unanimous:  They remain determined to hang together to deny GOP hardliners any semblance of victory.  The Republicans, however, are not so united.  A number of Republican congressmen in both the House and Senate want this shutdown to end.  They know that the longer this goes on, the worse they and their party look: The American people, on the whole, are savvy enough to know that the Republicans forced this crisis, and whatever negative effects are felt, the GOP will shoulder the blame--Tea Party protestations about how President Obama could end the shutdown--if he would just, y'know, cave in to every farcical demand of the lunatic fringe--aside.  And the fact of the matter is that Speaker of the House John Boehner could end this impasse immediately, if he simply called for a spending vote stripped of any extraneous ideological demands--like the repeal of the Affordable Care Act or a recount of the 2012 presidential election.

Boehner, for his part, has put himself in a no-win situation.  He has to know that, in the end, he will have to cave.  He knows that President Obama can not now negotiate with the GOP--even if on some level the President agreed with one or two of the Republican demands--because that would effectively spell the end of the American presidency--not just the Obama presidency, but the presidency itself, as Obama would have established the precedent that Congress can force the repeal of any legislation it disagreed with simply by throwing a temper tantrum and refusing to do its job until baby gets its ba-ba.  John Boehner, in other words, is royally screwed.

So here's my question: Couldn't a group or Republican House members who want this crisis to end--and there are such people--get together and decide on a new Speaker?  Then they go to the Democrats and say, "Look, we know you'd like to have a Democrat in the position.  That's not going to happen, but will you guys all support Rep. X here, so that we can at least get the government up and running again, and then we can thrash out legislative issues in the forum in which such issues should be decided?"

I have no idea if such a gambit could work, but at this point, isn't it at least worth considering?  Maybe the GOP could get Kevin Spacey to make their case.

Best Thing I Read All Day

Unsurprisingly, the Republican House majority passed a budget bill that includes no funding to implement the provisions of the Affordable Care Act.  So, unable to prevent passage of the bill, unable to overturn the bill legislatively or at the ballot box, the GOP has now decided to drive the country over a financial cliff in a fit of sore-losership unequaled since Mike Tyson took a bite out of Evander Holyfield's ear.  Because the bill has about as much chance of making it through the Senate and receiving President Obama's signature as. . .well, as Mike Tyson had of beating Evander Holyfield.  And if the spending bill is not approved, then the federal government will shut down for the first time since 1996--and the GOP firebrands are perfectly OK with that.

Now, are you ready for the best part?  See, while shutting down the government will inconvenience a lot of people--families wanting to visit national parks, Medicare providers who may not be paid in a timely manner, low-level members of the federal bureaucracy who will find themselves furloughed--the essential business of the nation will continue.  The United States will, for example, still have an army.  (Don't get any funny ideas, Canada!)  This is because, even if the federal government comes to a general standstill, agencies charged with upholding "the safety of human life or the protection of property" would still be allowed--required--to function.

And--get ready for it--President Obama could unilaterally declare the provisions of the Affordable Care Act vital to protect human life!  In other words, by shutting down the government over a refusal to fund Obamacare, the House Republicans may actually expedite Obamacare's implementation!

Whatever you may think of President Obama, you have to envy him the utter stupidity of his adversaries.

I Can Haz 501(c)4 Status?

These past few days the news has focused obsessively on IRS-Gate: the apparent targeting of right-wing groups for intensive investigation by the IRS when these groups apply for tax-exempt status.  Regarding the scandal, here are my two cents (which, since I am clearly unaffiliated with any Tea Party groups will never be taxed or audited): The thought of any government agency--but especially the dreaded IRS--selectively investigating groups based on those groups' political leanings is, to say the least, disturbing.  Whoever made the decision to target Tea-Party groups should be sanctioned if not fired.  Much as I dislike "Tea Party Patriots" and their ilk, I acknowledge their right to organize freely and without fear of government interference: Indeed, any untoward government interference only helps these groups to advance their overwrought conspiracy theories.

For my money, though, the worst part of this whole debacle is that these Tea Party groups probably should be investigated--along with any number of liberal interest groups.  These groups that claim tax-exempt status--ostensibly as "social welfare" organizations--when in fact their primary purpose is to promote political agendas are abusing the system that grants deserved tax exemptions to legitimate charities.  How much harder will it now become for the IRS to do its actual job?

Benghazi, By Golly

Perhaps I'm missing something--it's been known to happen--but I don't understand all this ongoing congressional drama over Benghazi.  Yes, what happened was horrible, tragic: Four Americans, including the ambassador to Libya, were killed last September 11 when terrorists attacked the consulate in Benghazi.  In the heat of the moment, when events were still unfolding, UN Ambassador Susan Rice went on the Sunday morning news shows and said the attacks were a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islamic video.  Subsequently, the official story changed, and the incident was classified as a planned terrorist attack by an Al Qaeda offshoot.  This has since become the accepted version of events.

Now, Congress can--and should--investigate any intelligence failures that led up to the attack.  They should demand to know whether the attacks could have been prevented, as well as whether the responses to the attacks were as effective as they could have been.  The US should do everything possible to ensure the safety of its citizens, particularly its diplomatic corps and particularly in hostile territory.  But such reasonable concerns don't seem to be the focus of the seemingly endless congressional investigations that have been going on for the last eight months.  Rather, the Congressmen--well, let's call a spade an idiot, the Republican Congressmen--seem fixated on the fact that the Obama administration initially declared the assault a spontaneous demonstration of popular unrest rather than a coordinated terrorist attack.  Why is this so scandalous?

Let's take the worst-case political scenario for the Obama administration: Let's say President Obama and his inner circle knew immediately that the attack was the work of an Al Qaeda splinter group, but they didn't want to admit this in the heat of an election campaign, as it would undermine President Obama's major accomplishment in the war on terror, namely, the elimination of Osama bin Laden.  So Obama ordered his staff to put out the word out that the source of the attack was unknown, but that, in the initial moments, they thought it was just a street protest that got out of hand.  Let's say that these Congressional investigations somehow lead to the revelation of this fact.  Well. . . so?

I mean, yes, the revelation of such naked politicking in the aftermath of such senseless violence would be offensive to say the least.  It would certainly create (or, for some, reinforce) the image of Barack Obama as nothing more than a venal politician, willing to go to great lengths to gain political advantage.  But would it really rise to the level--as some GOP inquisitors have claimed--of Watergate-plus?  Hardly.  Because when all is said and done, all that these hearings are investigating is what happened in the wake of an attack--not whether the President or his subordinates allowed an attack to happen.  I mean, it's not as if there exists some memo stating in plain English something to the effect of "Al Qaeda determined to attack in Benghazi."

Just sayin'.

Sequester Fester

Yesterday, I discussed the offensively misplaced--though frankly unsurprising--priorities of the United States Congress, which took swift action to remedy the negative impact of the budgetary sequester on air travelers while ignoring legislation that might substantially improve--if not save--the lives of more needy Americans.  As I thought more about the issue, though, I realized how the events of the past week also represent a political fuck-up (technical term) for the Obama Administration and Democrats in general.

President Obama, et al, had originally decreed that no funding would be "restored" to sequestered agencies on a piecemeal basis.  The whole point of across-the-board budget cuts was to inflict pain on everybody: Republican and Democrat, liberal and conservative, sane and Bachmann.  Obama figured that, once the negative effects of sequestration trickled down--or up, as the case may be--to the general population, disgruntled constituents would pressure their elected representatives to come to an agreement on a far-reaching and equitable deficit reduction plan, ideally one that would include a mix of tax increases and spending cuts.  By alleviating the pain of air travelers--while doing nothing to solve long-term fiscal problems--Congressional supporters of a long-term solution have effectively lost--or at least diminished--their leverage against those (read: Republican true-believers) who are more or less happy with the current situation.  Indeed, this is why GOP Congressional leaders are largely claiming victory today.

One thing to note about what exactly happened in Congress, though: No new funds were given to the Transportation Department to support the return of furloughed workers.  All Congress did was give the Secretary of Transportation permission to move money from one area (airport improvements, I believe) to another.  In the long run, then, the same problems will likely arise: Either this money will run out, or airports in disrepair will lead to delays (at best!) somewhere down the line.

Where Democrats screwed up politically was when they initially said that agencies couldn't simply shift money from one "pot" to another.  While I understand the intent behind this rule--to force the sequester's consequences on the majority of Americans as quickly as possible--the rule itself defies common sense.  When a household is short on cash in, say, its primary checking account, it will not declare bankruptcy if it still has money in savings (indeed, it won't be allowed to declare bankruptcy).  While I know that comparisons between a household and a country are of limited accuracy and value, they have a logical (and thus political) appeal.  In the face of lengthy delays on runways across the country, Republicans could make a simple appeal: "Not only does Big Government take too much of your money, but Big Brother Obama won't even let federal agencies spend the money they have!"  And they kind of have a point.

Of course, all the Republicans (and the Democrats who voted with them) have accomplished is a temporary reprieve.  Eventually, all these agencies will run out of money for real, and eventually people will start to feel the pain of the sequester in earnest.  Still, it's upsetting to watch GOP Congressmen disingenuously claim to have the interests of average Americans in mind as they "restore" funds that were never really gone in the first place.

Priorities

So last year, after a contentious debate about raising the debt limit, President Obama and Congressional Republicans reached a grand bargain.  Republicans would agree to raise the debt limit, and Democrats and Republicans would work together to find a way to shave several trillion dollars off the national debt.  In order to ensure that a deal would be reached, the politicians agreed on a plan to punish themselves for failure: If the two sides couldn't agree on a deficit-reduction plan by a certain date, then automatic spending cuts would strike programs near and dear to both parties: Republicans would see cuts to the military while Democrats would see cuts to social programs.  (Only a churl would point out that the Democrats SHOULD have held out for automatic tax increases, and I am not a churl, so you didn't hear that from me.)  This automatic, across-the-board cutting is known as "sequestration."

Surprisingly to no one, Republicans and Democrats could not reach agreement on budget cuts, and the sequester went into effect several weeks ago.  And then a funny thing happened: Nobody cared.  Oh, sure, some poor people might have had a bit more trouble buying food, and perhaps some federally supported childcare programs might have had to shutter themselves.  But nobody who counts was suffering.  Until this week, that is.

This week, at airports across the country, passengers suffered extensive delays as a result of slowdowns caused by furloughed workers.  The workers were furloughed, of course, due to the sequester.  Not to worry, though, Congress was on the case!  This same institution that dithered for four months before not passing minimal gun regulation after a massacre of toddlers sprang into action after some folks had to sit on a runway for thirty extra minutes.

Priorities, people!

Sequester: Day One

As result of inability to reach agreement on ways to reduce deficit, automatic cuts have begun to take effect across country.  No one is unaffected, and we all must do our part.  For blogosphere, sequester has led to mandated cuts, including all articles.  No longer will you see words "   ," "  ," or "  ."  Also, word "      " will remain unavailable until further notice.

Recess Used to Be My Favorite Part of School

 

The Constitution allows presidents to appoint people to positions that normally require senate confirmation during times when the senate is not in session (i.e., in recess).  Originally, this rule was established because travel to the Capitol was difficult, and the founders wanted to ensure that important governmental vacancies could be filled during times when the senate was not around to confirm appointments.  Of late, though, presidents of both parties have used recess appointments to circumvent senators who would hold up appointments on purely partisan grounds.  Now, in a direct rebuke of this strategy, a federal appeals court has ruled unconstitutional several of President Obama's recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

The use of the tactic in this situation was undeniably a political power play.  Then again, it was also a response to a nakedly political power play on the part of Congress.  In the past, the senate would, while technically in recess, hold "meetings" that consisted of one senator going in, gaveling a meeting to order (despite the fact that no other senators might be there), and then adjourning.  Last year, during one such senatorial recess, Republicans in the House of Representatives used "the power of the House to block the Senate from adjourning for more than three days."  President Obama decided to challenge these pro forma sessions and made the appointments that have here been declared unconstitutional.

The ruling judges are all Republican appointees, so the spectre of partisanship hangs over their decision.  The fact of the matter is, though, the decision is correct.  As distasteful as the congressional strategy is, a president can not simply declare Congress in or out of session as he sees fit.  Of course, this ruling opens up the possibility for even greater governmental dysfunction than we've sadly grown accustomed to.  Nowadays, many senators see their role in the appointment process not so much as "advise and consent" but as "pontificate and obstruct."  Unless and until we find a way to minimize partisanship in the confirmation process, we face the prospect of never-ending battles over filling even the lowest level technocratic posts.   As much as I have appreciated attempts by Democratic congressmen to thwart the most retrograde appointments of Republican presidents, I am not blind to the fact that such constant battling weakens government's ability to function, as well as undermining the public's faith in government as a whole.  What is to be done?

Over the next few months, my college will be hiring a number of new full-time faculty members.  It's a fairly drawn out process, but first the college sends out a job announcement listing "minimum qualifications" (MQs) for the job.  Applicants must demonstrate (via resumes and questionnaires) that they meet these MQs before they are brought in for interviews.  The interview process is lengthy, but the college faculty and administration can rest assured that whoever is ultimately hired will at least be qualified for the job.

I would humbly suggest that a similar approach be adopted by other branches of government.  A list of MQs for every position should be drawn up--perhaps a list of disqualifying factors as well.  Any candidate proposed by a president who meets these MQs should be voted on--straight up or down, no filibustering allowed.  Perhaps Congress could be allowed a maximum number of rejections of people who possess the MQs.  That way, extreme partisans would have to take care before rejecting a candidate, lest they waste their "peremptory challenges" on candidates who may turn out to be the most palatable choice.

I'm just spitballing here. I have no idea how these ideas or others like them would be adopted at the federal level.  But something needs to be done.  Presidents should not flout the will of Congress, but neither should Congress stymie the ability of government to function out of purely partisan motives.  Recess appointments would not seem so attractive to presidents if Congress would actually do its job when in session.

That Inanimate Carbon Rod Looks Better All the Time

In a classic episode of "The Simpsons" (are there any other kind?), Homer takes umbrage when passed over for employee-of-the-month at the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant.  Adding insult to injury, Homer loses the title to an inanimate carbon rod.  So, really, John Boehner (R-Lachrymosia) shouldn't feel too bad.

Boehner was re-elected Speaker of the House by a relatively narrow margin, receiving 220 votes to Nancy Pelosi's (D-SodomandGomorrah) 192.  Interestingly, a number of votes went neither to Boehner nor to the Democratic leader Pelosi.  Votes were cast for other, more conservative Republicans, such as Eric Cantor (R-Rasputinia)and Raul Labrador (R-Who'sagoodboy?), as well as--on the Democratic side--civil rights icon John Lewis (D-I'dratherbemarchingonWashington). Additionally, some congressmen voted for such non-members as Colin Powell and Allen West, the latter having just lost his re-election battle in Florida.  This raises the obvious question: Can ANYBODY be elected Speaker of the House?

Well, actually, the answer may be "Yes": Absolutely anybody--or any THING--may qualify to serve as Speaaker of the House.  The Constitution simply states that the "House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers."  (Spelling and capitalization apparently don't count.)  Most commentators assume, in keeping with the rules for the Senate, as well as for the British Parliament on which much of our governmental structure was based, that the House is meant to choose from among its own members.  As we see, though, this was not clearly stated.

(DIGRESSION: What was it with the Founding Fathers and ambiguous phrasing?  Speaker elections, gun ownership. . . .Couldn't these guys ever just come right out and SAY stuff?  EOD)

And here I thought the papacy had lax standards!  To be elected Pope, though, one does have to be Catholic--and a man.  Even Supreme Court Justices have to be nominated by the President, which is why we've never had unqualified people in that august body!  (Now, now.  If Clarence Thomas ever opens his mouth, I'm sure we'll be amazed by the scintillating display of jurisprudential reasoning.)

An interesting sidebar: In the British Parliament, the newly-elected Speaker is actually dragged by the other members to the Speaker's chair.  Far from being the unambiguous (?) honor that it is today, the speakership actually involved a certain amount of risk: If a monarch didn't like what the speaker spake, a swift and often lethal demotion could follow.  While I hesitate to endorse such a medieval tradition today, I think we might all enjoy watching a nice Boehner-drag--possibly through a bramble patch.