[Political Junkie Too]

This is a good article.

In my opinion, Greenwald makes one big mistake: he keeps referring to it as Congress' committee; it is not.

This committee is entirely the creation of Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives. It is Pelosi's committee.

This distinction is important: In the two chambers of Congress, the only Constitutionally-defined leadership role is the Speaker of the House; the Senate has no such equivalent roles. In the Senate, majority and minority leaders are by rule only.

This is a significant distinction. This means that the 1/6 committee is entirely a creation of the House of Representatives, and more specifically of Pelosi (who refused to seat two Republican-named members). It cannot have any more powers than the House has to delegate.

I mention this because Greenwald suggests that this will result in an expansive power-grab for Congress, but so far, the Senate has been silent on this. Neither chamber speaks for the other, and a power grab by the House should not imply that the Senate is entitled to the same.

Since this committee is entirely the creation of Speaker Pelosi, it should be constrained by the limitations of the Speaker, and of the House of Representatives. I think people should make more of how this committee was formed, and the illegitimacy of an unconstitutional power grab from one of the creations of Pelosi.

-PJ

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

It cannot have any more powers than the House has to delegate.

Legally true, but dems care about the rules only when forced to. The fedsurrection committee itself is illegitimate and yet continues all kinds of outrages.