The Speaker of the United States House of Representatives must be a constitutional officer, not an election opt-out.

Out of the apparent chaos of the Republican Party’s efforts to select the Speaker of the House, after the party regained the House in the recent midterm elections, an opportunity emerged for a victory for the politics of moderation and constitutionalism.

A faction of the House Republican convention is said to be jockeying for promises from Kevin McCarthy to bolster its political power, backed by the threat to find a more compliant leader than the California congressman. Meanwhile, some Democrats see a political advantage in the outsized influence that radical members of the Republican Party will have in choosing the next speaker, as it is an opportunity to show Republican radicalism clearly.

These dynamics have each faction and each party looking out for their own interests. But is there a way forward that is better for the nation as a whole? Out of this political chaos, can there be hope for some kind of constitutional reform?

The speaker is supposed to, at least some of the time, institutionally speak for the entire House of Representatives, which in turn represents the entire nation.

It is true that in modern practice the speaker is often little more than the leader of the majority party in the House of Representatives. But the speaker is not supposed to be just a party leader. The speaker’s role differs from that of the majority leader. One sees this in the fact that the speaker is an officer of the entire House of Representatives rather than of a single political party.

One sees this in the fact that Speaker is a constitutional position, expressly stated in Article I and in the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the Constitution. And in the fact that he or she is second in line To succeed the Presidency of the Republic: In the absence of a President or Vice-President assuming the Presidency, the Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies becomes the Acting President.

“IMG_9011(CC BY 2.0) by Corn stalker

In his rhetoric and work, Kevin McCarthy has shown no evidence of any interest in the constitutional order. His focus is entirely on his party’s political prospects. His preoccupation is understandable for the party leader. But he is now seeking to rise from being a partisan to a constitutional official without showing any apparent sense of national responsibility implied in the new role. Quite the contrary.

This is the first election for the position of Speaker of the House of Representatives since the events of January 6, 2021, when violent crowds attacked Congress in an attempt to annul constitutional elections and a peaceful and constitutional transfer of power.

The new speaker – the first president after January 6 – should not be dismissive of the election. The new speaker must not be either 147 deputies and senators who went over to the side of the mob and voted to reject voters from Arizona and Pennsylvania. The second constitutional official in the position of the presidency should not be the one who tried to overturn the recent elections for the presidency of the republic.

The new speaker is supposed to be a Republican, as the Republicans won (narrowly) control of the House. But he doesn’t have to be a bitter, partisan Republican. In keeping with his role as the constitutional officer of the entire House, the Speaker need not be a sitting member of the House, although there is likely to be a precautionary case for being a member or having recently been a member.

There are plenty of Republicans who did not vote to overturn the election results and could serve as president. One thinks of sitting members who are respected by their Republican and Democratic peers, such as Michael McCaul or Patrick McHenry. One can also think of new Republican members of the House of Representatives like Barbara Comstock, Charlie Dent, Will Hurd, and of course, Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney.

Five or more Trump loyalists appear poised to deny Kevin McCarthy the office he craves as they seek to deepen Trump’s influence on governance in America. It is certainly time for five or more more common-spirited House Republicans to seize this opportunity to reach out to Democrats to do the right thing.

This is the time for the Democratic Assembly to continue its turn. Together they can secure a speaker who is not an embarrassment at best, a threat at worst, to the constitutional order.

This is also an opportunity to regain some of this older understanding of speaking by getting a file A little A bipartisan choice for an officer who does not run either party’s agenda (leaving that to the majority leader and minority leader), but instead runs the House in an equitable manner. Such as A guide to house rules “The speaker’s role as president is one of impartiality,” he says [his or her] Provisions serve to protect minority rights.” Restoring the speaker’s forgotten constitutional role as supreme officer of the party would also be an opportunity to begin the recovery from the past six years—providing a chance for a first step on the long, arduous but hugely important road toward restoring civility, decency, and constitutionalism at the heart of our politics.

Is the Democratic Assembly in the House of Representatives ready to walk this path of sophistication? Are there enough Republicans willing to show some courage? If so, January 3, 2023 may be a hopeful inflection point rather than a depressing spectacle in the continuing decline of our constitutional system.