Controversy ensued recently when a vocal group within the Republican party (in the United States) began to make the argument that the Speaker position, long-regarded as a fundamental part of the Congress and government, is not needed.
The basis of the argument is that the Constitution doesn’t explicitly require one, hence leaving the role up to personal interpretation. This has caused some contention between the parties as Democrats have come out in opposition of the position, accusing the Republicans of attempting to undermine a critical aspect of the American moral order.
The leader of this group, Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, has been an active proponent of smaller government and a long-standing advocate against government intrusion in the life of the citizens. He highlighted the ambiguity of the position in the Constitution, saying that there was no hard and fast rule prescribing the role of the Speaker, and that the role could be done away with.
This statement was met with a fair bit of pushback from other politicians and citizens alike. Those who have argued against the idea are mostly Democrats, who view the role of the Speaker as an essential part of the legislative and democratic process. They recognize that the Constitution makes the role optional, as there is no clause specifically requiring it, but they believe that this does not mean it should be eliminated.
Furthermore, it is the understanding of many observers that the Republican effort to do away with the Speaker is driven more by politics than by policy. The hope, from their perspective, is that they can make the process easier in terms of passing controversial legislation that may not have the support of a majority in the Congress.
Ultimately it remains to be seen whether or not the Republicans will have their way in doing away with the Speaker role altogether. The notion has drawn considerable ire from both sides of the aisle and the public opinion on the matter is still largely against the proposal. Whether or not the proposal will ever become a reality is still uncertain, but the suspicion of those who oppose this change is that it may end up being more than just a suggestion.
