The Hastert Rule

Here is one of the factors driving dysfunction in Congress.

Despite the fact that we assume we are a majoritarian democracy there are many places were the will of the majority - which tends to be understood as the will of the people is thwarted. One of the many areas this happens is in the US House of Representatives where the majority of House members do not determine what comes to the floor of the chamber - rather it is a majority of the majority party that matters.

Theoretically this means that 117 members can prevent the preferences of the remaining 318.

The Republican Conference tends to use this rule when in charge. It has been called the Hastert Rule after Speaker Dennis Hastert who was speaker from 1999 - 2007, and also the majority of the majority rule. Other Speakers have also adhered to the rule.

- Hastert was quoted as saying that his job as Speaker was to please the majority of the majority.

There is nothing set in stone about the rule, but it argued to be an effective way to keep House Republicans cohesive, though it does not encourage bi-partisanship.

Related stories:

- Hastert rule not working.
- The absurdity of the Hastert Rule.
- What the rule tells us about House Republicans.

The Hastert Rule and the Bill Making Process

Here's a story that provides some detail for our discussion of the US bill making process tomorrow in 2305. It involves the Hastert Rule - or the majority of the majority principle - which is a rule House Republicans have used since the mid 1990s whenever they are in the majority (it is named for former Speaker Dennis Hastert, but is said to have been developed by Former Speaker Newt Gingrich).

The rule simply requires that the Speaker of the House will not allow a vote on a bill unless it is supported by a majority of the majority - meaning a majority of his party. This prevents the minority from brining up a bill they support that has enough support from majority party members to potentially pass the House.

The rule effectively prevents the minority party - Democrats in the House - to have the ability to pass anything. It allows the Speaker to behave less the presiding officer of the House than the leader of his party.

Here's more on the subject:

- GOP House 'Insurgents Pushing to Weaponize the Hastert Rule."
- What the "Hastert Rule" figth tells us about House Republicans.
- Hastert Rule pushed by insurgent Republicans.

Remember that the Constitution says nothing about what happens prior to the presentation of a bill to the president for a possible signature, with two exceptions. Bill for raising revenue have to be introduced in the House and the bill has to have passed both the House and Senate.

Everything else presumably falls under the ability of Congress to determine its own rules of procedure. The current bill making process has evolved over the time into the comprehensive process that exists today.

What I cannot address - and cannot readily find though I'm sure such a thing exists - is a historical description of how the bill making process has evolved over time. I'd like to locate such a study.

One thing that needs to be emphasized as well is that the comprehensive bill making process that is described in most textbooks - see this one for example - is not how many bills actually become law. The actual process varies from time to time depending on circumstance.

One of the best ways to see this is by looking at the legislative histories of actual bills that have become law - you can find these in Thomas, which is run by the Library of Congress.

Here's a list of the laws which have been enacted so far this year. We'll walk through a few to see what the actual bill making process looks like. The Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act, for example, seems to have spent no time in committee.