When and why did the House rules change to permit an inquiry without a vote?Does the US require a House vote...

Does code obfuscation give any measurable security benefit?

Matrix class in C#

Is sucess due to hard work sustainable in academic research?

Do any languages mark social distinctions other than gender and status?

What's the meaning of Electrical Inches?

I don't want my ls command in my script to print results on screen

Did I Traumatize My Puppy?

Conveying the idea of "tricky"

How to pronounce correctly [b] and [p]? As well [t]/[d] and [k]/[g]

C# Toy Robot Simulator

Prisoner's dilemma formulation for children

How to identify/find replacement bolt for STI

Why do military jets sometimes have elevators in a depressed position when parked?

Did it take 3 minutes to reload a musket when the second amendment to the US constitution was ratified?

Why were germanium diodes so fast and germanium transistors so slow?

Solve command does not solve this equation!

Are dead worlds a good galactic barrier?

Why is this a missed win?

What is the etymology of とある?

Why doesn't hot charcoal glow blue?

Why is Mars cold?

What is gerrymandering called if it's not the result of redrawing districts?

Confused about the meaning of the word "open" in this sentence

Banks in the City of London



When and why did the House rules change to permit an inquiry without a vote?


Does the US require a House vote to begin an impeachment inquiry?Why didn't Mueller have to submit a report to Congress?When the rules are suspended in the house, what exactly are those rules?Popular vote for the 2016 House electionWhen and why did Trump publicly change his attitude towards Comey?Why did the House Intelligence Committee vote against releasing the Democratic memo?What would it take for the Senate to auto-consent to an appointment?Does a presidential impeachment inquiry give the House additional powers to obtain documents more quickly?Let's say the impeachment procedure reaches the Senate. What next?Does the US require a House vote to begin an impeachment inquiry?Did past presidential impeachment inquiries have basic defendant's rights?






.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{
margin-bottom:0;
}
.everyonelovesstackoverflow{position:absolute;height:1px;width:1px;opacity:0;top:0;left:0;pointer-events:none;}








4

















This other question asks whether the House requires a vote to begin an impeachment inquiry, but several of the answers (including the accepted one) point out that the rules have changed since Clinton's impeachment, and thus a vote by the whole House is no longer required. However, I don't see a what or why for those rule changes.



Aside from the expiry of the position of Independent Counsel, what House rule(s) have changed to permit an inquiry-without-vote? When were they changed, and what reasons (if any) were cited for doing so at the time?










share|improve this question





























  • When was 1975. Why, not sure, probably frustration with investigation of Nixon administration.

    – Rick Smith
    8 hours ago











  • Isn't it a committee-level decision?

    – jeffronicus
    8 hours ago











  • What was House rule XI 2(m), page 19 Power to sit and act; subpoena power.

    – Rick Smith
    7 hours ago






  • 1





    Perhaps without a vote is unclear. Do you intend a vote by the House or a vote by a committee? For the House, see The Impeachment Process in the House of Representatives, PDF p 7, The Rules of the House since 1975 have granted committees the power to subpoena ... previously granted through resolutions ... and footnote 17, House Rule XI, clause 2(m).

    – Rick Smith
    7 hours ago











  • @RickSmith - Clarified that I'm referring to the full-House vote. Separately, If the rules haven't changed since 1975, that would be a reasonable frame-challenging answer. But I've seen that mentioned in several places, so you'd need to address that.

    – Bobson
    6 hours ago


















4

















This other question asks whether the House requires a vote to begin an impeachment inquiry, but several of the answers (including the accepted one) point out that the rules have changed since Clinton's impeachment, and thus a vote by the whole House is no longer required. However, I don't see a what or why for those rule changes.



Aside from the expiry of the position of Independent Counsel, what House rule(s) have changed to permit an inquiry-without-vote? When were they changed, and what reasons (if any) were cited for doing so at the time?










share|improve this question





























  • When was 1975. Why, not sure, probably frustration with investigation of Nixon administration.

    – Rick Smith
    8 hours ago











  • Isn't it a committee-level decision?

    – jeffronicus
    8 hours ago











  • What was House rule XI 2(m), page 19 Power to sit and act; subpoena power.

    – Rick Smith
    7 hours ago






  • 1





    Perhaps without a vote is unclear. Do you intend a vote by the House or a vote by a committee? For the House, see The Impeachment Process in the House of Representatives, PDF p 7, The Rules of the House since 1975 have granted committees the power to subpoena ... previously granted through resolutions ... and footnote 17, House Rule XI, clause 2(m).

    – Rick Smith
    7 hours ago











  • @RickSmith - Clarified that I'm referring to the full-House vote. Separately, If the rules haven't changed since 1975, that would be a reasonable frame-challenging answer. But I've seen that mentioned in several places, so you'd need to address that.

    – Bobson
    6 hours ago














4












4








4








This other question asks whether the House requires a vote to begin an impeachment inquiry, but several of the answers (including the accepted one) point out that the rules have changed since Clinton's impeachment, and thus a vote by the whole House is no longer required. However, I don't see a what or why for those rule changes.



Aside from the expiry of the position of Independent Counsel, what House rule(s) have changed to permit an inquiry-without-vote? When were they changed, and what reasons (if any) were cited for doing so at the time?










share|improve this question

















This other question asks whether the House requires a vote to begin an impeachment inquiry, but several of the answers (including the accepted one) point out that the rules have changed since Clinton's impeachment, and thus a vote by the whole House is no longer required. However, I don't see a what or why for those rule changes.



Aside from the expiry of the position of Independent Counsel, what House rule(s) have changed to permit an inquiry-without-vote? When were they changed, and what reasons (if any) were cited for doing so at the time?







united-states congress impeachment






share|improve this question
















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 7 hours ago







Bobson

















asked 8 hours ago









BobsonBobson

15.7k1 gold badge36 silver badges83 bronze badges




15.7k1 gold badge36 silver badges83 bronze badges
















  • When was 1975. Why, not sure, probably frustration with investigation of Nixon administration.

    – Rick Smith
    8 hours ago











  • Isn't it a committee-level decision?

    – jeffronicus
    8 hours ago











  • What was House rule XI 2(m), page 19 Power to sit and act; subpoena power.

    – Rick Smith
    7 hours ago






  • 1





    Perhaps without a vote is unclear. Do you intend a vote by the House or a vote by a committee? For the House, see The Impeachment Process in the House of Representatives, PDF p 7, The Rules of the House since 1975 have granted committees the power to subpoena ... previously granted through resolutions ... and footnote 17, House Rule XI, clause 2(m).

    – Rick Smith
    7 hours ago











  • @RickSmith - Clarified that I'm referring to the full-House vote. Separately, If the rules haven't changed since 1975, that would be a reasonable frame-challenging answer. But I've seen that mentioned in several places, so you'd need to address that.

    – Bobson
    6 hours ago



















  • When was 1975. Why, not sure, probably frustration with investigation of Nixon administration.

    – Rick Smith
    8 hours ago











  • Isn't it a committee-level decision?

    – jeffronicus
    8 hours ago











  • What was House rule XI 2(m), page 19 Power to sit and act; subpoena power.

    – Rick Smith
    7 hours ago






  • 1





    Perhaps without a vote is unclear. Do you intend a vote by the House or a vote by a committee? For the House, see The Impeachment Process in the House of Representatives, PDF p 7, The Rules of the House since 1975 have granted committees the power to subpoena ... previously granted through resolutions ... and footnote 17, House Rule XI, clause 2(m).

    – Rick Smith
    7 hours ago











  • @RickSmith - Clarified that I'm referring to the full-House vote. Separately, If the rules haven't changed since 1975, that would be a reasonable frame-challenging answer. But I've seen that mentioned in several places, so you'd need to address that.

    – Bobson
    6 hours ago

















When was 1975. Why, not sure, probably frustration with investigation of Nixon administration.

– Rick Smith
8 hours ago





When was 1975. Why, not sure, probably frustration with investigation of Nixon administration.

– Rick Smith
8 hours ago













Isn't it a committee-level decision?

– jeffronicus
8 hours ago





Isn't it a committee-level decision?

– jeffronicus
8 hours ago













What was House rule XI 2(m), page 19 Power to sit and act; subpoena power.

– Rick Smith
7 hours ago





What was House rule XI 2(m), page 19 Power to sit and act; subpoena power.

– Rick Smith
7 hours ago




1




1





Perhaps without a vote is unclear. Do you intend a vote by the House or a vote by a committee? For the House, see The Impeachment Process in the House of Representatives, PDF p 7, The Rules of the House since 1975 have granted committees the power to subpoena ... previously granted through resolutions ... and footnote 17, House Rule XI, clause 2(m).

– Rick Smith
7 hours ago





Perhaps without a vote is unclear. Do you intend a vote by the House or a vote by a committee? For the House, see The Impeachment Process in the House of Representatives, PDF p 7, The Rules of the House since 1975 have granted committees the power to subpoena ... previously granted through resolutions ... and footnote 17, House Rule XI, clause 2(m).

– Rick Smith
7 hours ago













@RickSmith - Clarified that I'm referring to the full-House vote. Separately, If the rules haven't changed since 1975, that would be a reasonable frame-challenging answer. But I've seen that mentioned in several places, so you'd need to address that.

– Bobson
6 hours ago





@RickSmith - Clarified that I'm referring to the full-House vote. Separately, If the rules haven't changed since 1975, that would be a reasonable frame-challenging answer. But I've seen that mentioned in several places, so you'd need to address that.

– Bobson
6 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















7


















As the answers in Does the US require a House vote to begin an impeachment inquiry? point out, House rules never required a vote to start an impeachment inquiry. In both previous impeachments, however, the House did pass an inquiry resolution in order to give themselves additional subpoena power in order to better carry out the inquiry.



This is not necessary now, however, as House rules already give the majority unilateral subpoena power. CNN states that this actually dates from rule changes made by the previous Republican controlled House:




In addition, Pelosi doesn't need the House vote authorizing an inquiry because her caucus already has extra legal authority compared to past inquiries.



During the Clinton and Nixon impeachment inquiries, the House passed their inquiry resolutions so they could gain tools like more subpoena power and depositions, and included in those resolutions were nods to bipartisanship that gave the minority party subpoena power, too.



But the House rules have changed since the last impeachment of a president more than two decades ago. In this Congress, the House majority already has unilateral subpoena power, a rule change that was made when Republicans last controlled the House, so Democrats don't need to pass any resolution to grant those powers.



https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/08/politics/nancy-pelosi-letter-impeachment/index.html




An article on Lawfare provides more detail on the specific rule changes involved:




What Powers Does a Formal Impeachment Inquiry Give the House?



The impeachment proceedings against both Presidents Nixon and Clinton began with a vote by the full House of Representatives ... In both cases, the resolution granted several specific powers to the committee for it to use in the course of completing the investigation with which it was charged by the full House.



...



until recent years, unilateral subpoena power was relatively rare for House committee chairs. But between the 113th and 114th Congresses, the number of chairs given this power by their committees doubled—and the judiciary committee was among them. The judiciary committee chair retains this authority in the current Congress; its rules stipulate that “a subpoena may be authorized and issued by the Chairman … following consultation with the Ranking Minority Member.”



...



Under practices in place in 1974 and 1998, deposition power for committee staff was periodically authorized by the full House for the purpose of specific investigations. ... Since 1998, however, the rules of the House governing staff depositions have evolved to give committees access to the tool more regularly. In 2007, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was given the ability to set its own rules “authorizing and regulating the taking of depositions by a member or counsel of the committee.”



...



In 2017, the rule permitting staff depositions was extended to cover almost all standing committees, and the member attendance requirement was modified such that it did not apply if the committee authorized the staff deposition to take place when the House was not in session. ... So the judiciary committee already has the power to conduct staff depositions and does not need a special grant of authority to do so.







share|improve this answer
























  • 1





    Yes, but I think the actual question is WTF exactly is that rule change... (I was thinking of asking this too, but Bobson beat me to it.)

    – Fizz
    8 hours ago













  • Nice find with the Lawfare article. Also, from there the White House has been raising the same [counter]argument since the Mueller inquiry. Their latest letter is not the first of this kind. There was a similar one on May 15 also signed by Cipollone. Also relevant the 2-1 DC appellate court decision: cnbc.com/2019/10/11/…

    – Fizz
    7 hours ago













  • @Fizz Yeah, I've only stumbled upon them recently, but they've got a lot of really interesting analysis

    – divibisan
    7 hours ago











  • @Fizz I suspect that it may have been a committee rule change, but I am not certain. The house granted subpoena power to committees in 1975 and modified it in 1977. The committee may delegate the subpoena power to the chairman under conditions that it may determine. I suspect that the committee rules determining the conditions are what changed. I'm writing this off the top of my head, though, based on some research I did yesterday and may not remember entirely correctly.

    – phoog
    6 hours ago



















6


















A tiny bit more detail from ABC:




The GOP minority does not have subpoena power, much to their chagrin, although Republicans changed the playbook in 2015 when they rewrote rules delegating subpoena power to individual chairmen without full approval from the House of Representatives.



Democrats reaffirmed that process earlier this year, adopting impeachment rules that includ[e] granting their chairmen the right to issue subpoenas unilaterally.




So I think that's the change that CNN is referring to. I haven't yet found the exact text of the decision, but we know its substance and year now.



And the exact rule in which this change is incorporated is




Rule XI, clause 2(m)(3) also allows committees to adopt rules to delegate the authorization and
issuance of subpoenas to a committee’s chair “under such rules and under such limitations as the
committee may prescribe.” This same subparagraph requires subpoenas to be signed by the chair
or by a member who has been designated by the committee.







share|improve this answer





























  • Politico has a nice article on the pros and cons a full floor vote (pros and cons which are entirely political), but that's besides the point here.

    – Fizz
    7 hours ago













Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});















draft saved

draft discarded
















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f46551%2fwhen-and-why-did-the-house-rules-change-to-permit-an-inquiry-without-a-vote%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown


























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









7


















As the answers in Does the US require a House vote to begin an impeachment inquiry? point out, House rules never required a vote to start an impeachment inquiry. In both previous impeachments, however, the House did pass an inquiry resolution in order to give themselves additional subpoena power in order to better carry out the inquiry.



This is not necessary now, however, as House rules already give the majority unilateral subpoena power. CNN states that this actually dates from rule changes made by the previous Republican controlled House:




In addition, Pelosi doesn't need the House vote authorizing an inquiry because her caucus already has extra legal authority compared to past inquiries.



During the Clinton and Nixon impeachment inquiries, the House passed their inquiry resolutions so they could gain tools like more subpoena power and depositions, and included in those resolutions were nods to bipartisanship that gave the minority party subpoena power, too.



But the House rules have changed since the last impeachment of a president more than two decades ago. In this Congress, the House majority already has unilateral subpoena power, a rule change that was made when Republicans last controlled the House, so Democrats don't need to pass any resolution to grant those powers.



https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/08/politics/nancy-pelosi-letter-impeachment/index.html




An article on Lawfare provides more detail on the specific rule changes involved:




What Powers Does a Formal Impeachment Inquiry Give the House?



The impeachment proceedings against both Presidents Nixon and Clinton began with a vote by the full House of Representatives ... In both cases, the resolution granted several specific powers to the committee for it to use in the course of completing the investigation with which it was charged by the full House.



...



until recent years, unilateral subpoena power was relatively rare for House committee chairs. But between the 113th and 114th Congresses, the number of chairs given this power by their committees doubled—and the judiciary committee was among them. The judiciary committee chair retains this authority in the current Congress; its rules stipulate that “a subpoena may be authorized and issued by the Chairman … following consultation with the Ranking Minority Member.”



...



Under practices in place in 1974 and 1998, deposition power for committee staff was periodically authorized by the full House for the purpose of specific investigations. ... Since 1998, however, the rules of the House governing staff depositions have evolved to give committees access to the tool more regularly. In 2007, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was given the ability to set its own rules “authorizing and regulating the taking of depositions by a member or counsel of the committee.”



...



In 2017, the rule permitting staff depositions was extended to cover almost all standing committees, and the member attendance requirement was modified such that it did not apply if the committee authorized the staff deposition to take place when the House was not in session. ... So the judiciary committee already has the power to conduct staff depositions and does not need a special grant of authority to do so.







share|improve this answer
























  • 1





    Yes, but I think the actual question is WTF exactly is that rule change... (I was thinking of asking this too, but Bobson beat me to it.)

    – Fizz
    8 hours ago













  • Nice find with the Lawfare article. Also, from there the White House has been raising the same [counter]argument since the Mueller inquiry. Their latest letter is not the first of this kind. There was a similar one on May 15 also signed by Cipollone. Also relevant the 2-1 DC appellate court decision: cnbc.com/2019/10/11/…

    – Fizz
    7 hours ago













  • @Fizz Yeah, I've only stumbled upon them recently, but they've got a lot of really interesting analysis

    – divibisan
    7 hours ago











  • @Fizz I suspect that it may have been a committee rule change, but I am not certain. The house granted subpoena power to committees in 1975 and modified it in 1977. The committee may delegate the subpoena power to the chairman under conditions that it may determine. I suspect that the committee rules determining the conditions are what changed. I'm writing this off the top of my head, though, based on some research I did yesterday and may not remember entirely correctly.

    – phoog
    6 hours ago
















7


















As the answers in Does the US require a House vote to begin an impeachment inquiry? point out, House rules never required a vote to start an impeachment inquiry. In both previous impeachments, however, the House did pass an inquiry resolution in order to give themselves additional subpoena power in order to better carry out the inquiry.



This is not necessary now, however, as House rules already give the majority unilateral subpoena power. CNN states that this actually dates from rule changes made by the previous Republican controlled House:




In addition, Pelosi doesn't need the House vote authorizing an inquiry because her caucus already has extra legal authority compared to past inquiries.



During the Clinton and Nixon impeachment inquiries, the House passed their inquiry resolutions so they could gain tools like more subpoena power and depositions, and included in those resolutions were nods to bipartisanship that gave the minority party subpoena power, too.



But the House rules have changed since the last impeachment of a president more than two decades ago. In this Congress, the House majority already has unilateral subpoena power, a rule change that was made when Republicans last controlled the House, so Democrats don't need to pass any resolution to grant those powers.



https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/08/politics/nancy-pelosi-letter-impeachment/index.html




An article on Lawfare provides more detail on the specific rule changes involved:




What Powers Does a Formal Impeachment Inquiry Give the House?



The impeachment proceedings against both Presidents Nixon and Clinton began with a vote by the full House of Representatives ... In both cases, the resolution granted several specific powers to the committee for it to use in the course of completing the investigation with which it was charged by the full House.



...



until recent years, unilateral subpoena power was relatively rare for House committee chairs. But between the 113th and 114th Congresses, the number of chairs given this power by their committees doubled—and the judiciary committee was among them. The judiciary committee chair retains this authority in the current Congress; its rules stipulate that “a subpoena may be authorized and issued by the Chairman … following consultation with the Ranking Minority Member.”



...



Under practices in place in 1974 and 1998, deposition power for committee staff was periodically authorized by the full House for the purpose of specific investigations. ... Since 1998, however, the rules of the House governing staff depositions have evolved to give committees access to the tool more regularly. In 2007, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was given the ability to set its own rules “authorizing and regulating the taking of depositions by a member or counsel of the committee.”



...



In 2017, the rule permitting staff depositions was extended to cover almost all standing committees, and the member attendance requirement was modified such that it did not apply if the committee authorized the staff deposition to take place when the House was not in session. ... So the judiciary committee already has the power to conduct staff depositions and does not need a special grant of authority to do so.







share|improve this answer
























  • 1





    Yes, but I think the actual question is WTF exactly is that rule change... (I was thinking of asking this too, but Bobson beat me to it.)

    – Fizz
    8 hours ago













  • Nice find with the Lawfare article. Also, from there the White House has been raising the same [counter]argument since the Mueller inquiry. Their latest letter is not the first of this kind. There was a similar one on May 15 also signed by Cipollone. Also relevant the 2-1 DC appellate court decision: cnbc.com/2019/10/11/…

    – Fizz
    7 hours ago













  • @Fizz Yeah, I've only stumbled upon them recently, but they've got a lot of really interesting analysis

    – divibisan
    7 hours ago











  • @Fizz I suspect that it may have been a committee rule change, but I am not certain. The house granted subpoena power to committees in 1975 and modified it in 1977. The committee may delegate the subpoena power to the chairman under conditions that it may determine. I suspect that the committee rules determining the conditions are what changed. I'm writing this off the top of my head, though, based on some research I did yesterday and may not remember entirely correctly.

    – phoog
    6 hours ago














7














7










7









As the answers in Does the US require a House vote to begin an impeachment inquiry? point out, House rules never required a vote to start an impeachment inquiry. In both previous impeachments, however, the House did pass an inquiry resolution in order to give themselves additional subpoena power in order to better carry out the inquiry.



This is not necessary now, however, as House rules already give the majority unilateral subpoena power. CNN states that this actually dates from rule changes made by the previous Republican controlled House:




In addition, Pelosi doesn't need the House vote authorizing an inquiry because her caucus already has extra legal authority compared to past inquiries.



During the Clinton and Nixon impeachment inquiries, the House passed their inquiry resolutions so they could gain tools like more subpoena power and depositions, and included in those resolutions were nods to bipartisanship that gave the minority party subpoena power, too.



But the House rules have changed since the last impeachment of a president more than two decades ago. In this Congress, the House majority already has unilateral subpoena power, a rule change that was made when Republicans last controlled the House, so Democrats don't need to pass any resolution to grant those powers.



https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/08/politics/nancy-pelosi-letter-impeachment/index.html




An article on Lawfare provides more detail on the specific rule changes involved:




What Powers Does a Formal Impeachment Inquiry Give the House?



The impeachment proceedings against both Presidents Nixon and Clinton began with a vote by the full House of Representatives ... In both cases, the resolution granted several specific powers to the committee for it to use in the course of completing the investigation with which it was charged by the full House.



...



until recent years, unilateral subpoena power was relatively rare for House committee chairs. But between the 113th and 114th Congresses, the number of chairs given this power by their committees doubled—and the judiciary committee was among them. The judiciary committee chair retains this authority in the current Congress; its rules stipulate that “a subpoena may be authorized and issued by the Chairman … following consultation with the Ranking Minority Member.”



...



Under practices in place in 1974 and 1998, deposition power for committee staff was periodically authorized by the full House for the purpose of specific investigations. ... Since 1998, however, the rules of the House governing staff depositions have evolved to give committees access to the tool more regularly. In 2007, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was given the ability to set its own rules “authorizing and regulating the taking of depositions by a member or counsel of the committee.”



...



In 2017, the rule permitting staff depositions was extended to cover almost all standing committees, and the member attendance requirement was modified such that it did not apply if the committee authorized the staff deposition to take place when the House was not in session. ... So the judiciary committee already has the power to conduct staff depositions and does not need a special grant of authority to do so.







share|improve this answer
















As the answers in Does the US require a House vote to begin an impeachment inquiry? point out, House rules never required a vote to start an impeachment inquiry. In both previous impeachments, however, the House did pass an inquiry resolution in order to give themselves additional subpoena power in order to better carry out the inquiry.



This is not necessary now, however, as House rules already give the majority unilateral subpoena power. CNN states that this actually dates from rule changes made by the previous Republican controlled House:




In addition, Pelosi doesn't need the House vote authorizing an inquiry because her caucus already has extra legal authority compared to past inquiries.



During the Clinton and Nixon impeachment inquiries, the House passed their inquiry resolutions so they could gain tools like more subpoena power and depositions, and included in those resolutions were nods to bipartisanship that gave the minority party subpoena power, too.



But the House rules have changed since the last impeachment of a president more than two decades ago. In this Congress, the House majority already has unilateral subpoena power, a rule change that was made when Republicans last controlled the House, so Democrats don't need to pass any resolution to grant those powers.



https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/08/politics/nancy-pelosi-letter-impeachment/index.html




An article on Lawfare provides more detail on the specific rule changes involved:




What Powers Does a Formal Impeachment Inquiry Give the House?



The impeachment proceedings against both Presidents Nixon and Clinton began with a vote by the full House of Representatives ... In both cases, the resolution granted several specific powers to the committee for it to use in the course of completing the investigation with which it was charged by the full House.



...



until recent years, unilateral subpoena power was relatively rare for House committee chairs. But between the 113th and 114th Congresses, the number of chairs given this power by their committees doubled—and the judiciary committee was among them. The judiciary committee chair retains this authority in the current Congress; its rules stipulate that “a subpoena may be authorized and issued by the Chairman … following consultation with the Ranking Minority Member.”



...



Under practices in place in 1974 and 1998, deposition power for committee staff was periodically authorized by the full House for the purpose of specific investigations. ... Since 1998, however, the rules of the House governing staff depositions have evolved to give committees access to the tool more regularly. In 2007, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was given the ability to set its own rules “authorizing and regulating the taking of depositions by a member or counsel of the committee.”



...



In 2017, the rule permitting staff depositions was extended to cover almost all standing committees, and the member attendance requirement was modified such that it did not apply if the committee authorized the staff deposition to take place when the House was not in session. ... So the judiciary committee already has the power to conduct staff depositions and does not need a special grant of authority to do so.








share|improve this answer















share|improve this answer




share|improve this answer








edited 7 hours ago

























answered 8 hours ago









divibisandivibisan

4,22619 silver badges41 bronze badges




4,22619 silver badges41 bronze badges











  • 1





    Yes, but I think the actual question is WTF exactly is that rule change... (I was thinking of asking this too, but Bobson beat me to it.)

    – Fizz
    8 hours ago













  • Nice find with the Lawfare article. Also, from there the White House has been raising the same [counter]argument since the Mueller inquiry. Their latest letter is not the first of this kind. There was a similar one on May 15 also signed by Cipollone. Also relevant the 2-1 DC appellate court decision: cnbc.com/2019/10/11/…

    – Fizz
    7 hours ago













  • @Fizz Yeah, I've only stumbled upon them recently, but they've got a lot of really interesting analysis

    – divibisan
    7 hours ago











  • @Fizz I suspect that it may have been a committee rule change, but I am not certain. The house granted subpoena power to committees in 1975 and modified it in 1977. The committee may delegate the subpoena power to the chairman under conditions that it may determine. I suspect that the committee rules determining the conditions are what changed. I'm writing this off the top of my head, though, based on some research I did yesterday and may not remember entirely correctly.

    – phoog
    6 hours ago














  • 1





    Yes, but I think the actual question is WTF exactly is that rule change... (I was thinking of asking this too, but Bobson beat me to it.)

    – Fizz
    8 hours ago













  • Nice find with the Lawfare article. Also, from there the White House has been raising the same [counter]argument since the Mueller inquiry. Their latest letter is not the first of this kind. There was a similar one on May 15 also signed by Cipollone. Also relevant the 2-1 DC appellate court decision: cnbc.com/2019/10/11/…

    – Fizz
    7 hours ago













  • @Fizz Yeah, I've only stumbled upon them recently, but they've got a lot of really interesting analysis

    – divibisan
    7 hours ago











  • @Fizz I suspect that it may have been a committee rule change, but I am not certain. The house granted subpoena power to committees in 1975 and modified it in 1977. The committee may delegate the subpoena power to the chairman under conditions that it may determine. I suspect that the committee rules determining the conditions are what changed. I'm writing this off the top of my head, though, based on some research I did yesterday and may not remember entirely correctly.

    – phoog
    6 hours ago








1




1





Yes, but I think the actual question is WTF exactly is that rule change... (I was thinking of asking this too, but Bobson beat me to it.)

– Fizz
8 hours ago







Yes, but I think the actual question is WTF exactly is that rule change... (I was thinking of asking this too, but Bobson beat me to it.)

– Fizz
8 hours ago















Nice find with the Lawfare article. Also, from there the White House has been raising the same [counter]argument since the Mueller inquiry. Their latest letter is not the first of this kind. There was a similar one on May 15 also signed by Cipollone. Also relevant the 2-1 DC appellate court decision: cnbc.com/2019/10/11/…

– Fizz
7 hours ago







Nice find with the Lawfare article. Also, from there the White House has been raising the same [counter]argument since the Mueller inquiry. Their latest letter is not the first of this kind. There was a similar one on May 15 also signed by Cipollone. Also relevant the 2-1 DC appellate court decision: cnbc.com/2019/10/11/…

– Fizz
7 hours ago















@Fizz Yeah, I've only stumbled upon them recently, but they've got a lot of really interesting analysis

– divibisan
7 hours ago





@Fizz Yeah, I've only stumbled upon them recently, but they've got a lot of really interesting analysis

– divibisan
7 hours ago













@Fizz I suspect that it may have been a committee rule change, but I am not certain. The house granted subpoena power to committees in 1975 and modified it in 1977. The committee may delegate the subpoena power to the chairman under conditions that it may determine. I suspect that the committee rules determining the conditions are what changed. I'm writing this off the top of my head, though, based on some research I did yesterday and may not remember entirely correctly.

– phoog
6 hours ago





@Fizz I suspect that it may have been a committee rule change, but I am not certain. The house granted subpoena power to committees in 1975 and modified it in 1977. The committee may delegate the subpoena power to the chairman under conditions that it may determine. I suspect that the committee rules determining the conditions are what changed. I'm writing this off the top of my head, though, based on some research I did yesterday and may not remember entirely correctly.

– phoog
6 hours ago













6


















A tiny bit more detail from ABC:




The GOP minority does not have subpoena power, much to their chagrin, although Republicans changed the playbook in 2015 when they rewrote rules delegating subpoena power to individual chairmen without full approval from the House of Representatives.



Democrats reaffirmed that process earlier this year, adopting impeachment rules that includ[e] granting their chairmen the right to issue subpoenas unilaterally.




So I think that's the change that CNN is referring to. I haven't yet found the exact text of the decision, but we know its substance and year now.



And the exact rule in which this change is incorporated is




Rule XI, clause 2(m)(3) also allows committees to adopt rules to delegate the authorization and
issuance of subpoenas to a committee’s chair “under such rules and under such limitations as the
committee may prescribe.” This same subparagraph requires subpoenas to be signed by the chair
or by a member who has been designated by the committee.







share|improve this answer





























  • Politico has a nice article on the pros and cons a full floor vote (pros and cons which are entirely political), but that's besides the point here.

    – Fizz
    7 hours ago
















6


















A tiny bit more detail from ABC:




The GOP minority does not have subpoena power, much to their chagrin, although Republicans changed the playbook in 2015 when they rewrote rules delegating subpoena power to individual chairmen without full approval from the House of Representatives.



Democrats reaffirmed that process earlier this year, adopting impeachment rules that includ[e] granting their chairmen the right to issue subpoenas unilaterally.




So I think that's the change that CNN is referring to. I haven't yet found the exact text of the decision, but we know its substance and year now.



And the exact rule in which this change is incorporated is




Rule XI, clause 2(m)(3) also allows committees to adopt rules to delegate the authorization and
issuance of subpoenas to a committee’s chair “under such rules and under such limitations as the
committee may prescribe.” This same subparagraph requires subpoenas to be signed by the chair
or by a member who has been designated by the committee.







share|improve this answer





























  • Politico has a nice article on the pros and cons a full floor vote (pros and cons which are entirely political), but that's besides the point here.

    – Fizz
    7 hours ago














6














6










6









A tiny bit more detail from ABC:




The GOP minority does not have subpoena power, much to their chagrin, although Republicans changed the playbook in 2015 when they rewrote rules delegating subpoena power to individual chairmen without full approval from the House of Representatives.



Democrats reaffirmed that process earlier this year, adopting impeachment rules that includ[e] granting their chairmen the right to issue subpoenas unilaterally.




So I think that's the change that CNN is referring to. I haven't yet found the exact text of the decision, but we know its substance and year now.



And the exact rule in which this change is incorporated is




Rule XI, clause 2(m)(3) also allows committees to adopt rules to delegate the authorization and
issuance of subpoenas to a committee’s chair “under such rules and under such limitations as the
committee may prescribe.” This same subparagraph requires subpoenas to be signed by the chair
or by a member who has been designated by the committee.







share|improve this answer
















A tiny bit more detail from ABC:




The GOP minority does not have subpoena power, much to their chagrin, although Republicans changed the playbook in 2015 when they rewrote rules delegating subpoena power to individual chairmen without full approval from the House of Representatives.



Democrats reaffirmed that process earlier this year, adopting impeachment rules that includ[e] granting their chairmen the right to issue subpoenas unilaterally.




So I think that's the change that CNN is referring to. I haven't yet found the exact text of the decision, but we know its substance and year now.



And the exact rule in which this change is incorporated is




Rule XI, clause 2(m)(3) also allows committees to adopt rules to delegate the authorization and
issuance of subpoenas to a committee’s chair “under such rules and under such limitations as the
committee may prescribe.” This same subparagraph requires subpoenas to be signed by the chair
or by a member who has been designated by the committee.








share|improve this answer















share|improve this answer




share|improve this answer








edited 7 hours ago

























answered 7 hours ago









FizzFizz

29.3k3 gold badges81 silver badges175 bronze badges




29.3k3 gold badges81 silver badges175 bronze badges
















  • Politico has a nice article on the pros and cons a full floor vote (pros and cons which are entirely political), but that's besides the point here.

    – Fizz
    7 hours ago



















  • Politico has a nice article on the pros and cons a full floor vote (pros and cons which are entirely political), but that's besides the point here.

    – Fizz
    7 hours ago

















Politico has a nice article on the pros and cons a full floor vote (pros and cons which are entirely political), but that's besides the point here.

– Fizz
7 hours ago





Politico has a nice article on the pros and cons a full floor vote (pros and cons which are entirely political), but that's besides the point here.

– Fizz
7 hours ago



















draft saved

draft discarded



















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f46551%2fwhen-and-why-did-the-house-rules-change-to-permit-an-inquiry-without-a-vote%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown









Popular posts from this blog

Hudson River Historic District Contents Geography History The district today Aesthetics Cultural...

The number designs the writing. Feandra Aversely Definition: The act of ingrafting a sprig or shoot of one...

Ayherre Geografie Demografie Externe links Navigatiemenu43° 23′ NB, 1° 15′ WL43° 23′ NB, 1°...