Quickie background: At the end of the legislative session, House Speaker Tom Craddick held off a challenge to his leadership post by telling members he had "absolute power" to deny their efforts to be recognized for motions to remove him from the chair.

In two different requests, lawmakers asked Attorney General Greg Abbott for his opinion — which isn't legally binding — on six questions:

1 — Are the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate "legislative officers" who can be replaced by legislators according to House and Senate rules, or "state officers" who can only be removed as described in the Constitution?

2 — If a Speaker or a President pro tempore in the Senate is constitutionally impeached, does that cost the officeholder his or her seat in the Legislature, or just the leadership gig?

3 — If a Speaker is legally removed during a legislative session, does the House have a legal obligation to name a replacement or do they have to leave the seat empty?

4 — Does the Speaker have unlimited discretion about whether to recognize members' motions, including a motion to remove that Speaker?

5 — Do senators have the power — by Constitution or rule — to remove the president of the Senate by a majority vote, and at any time? Or is removal governed by the Constitution?

6 — Does the president of the Senate have the power — constitutionally or by rule — to refuse to recognize a motion by a senator to vacate the chair?

The first four questions were posed by Reps. Jim Keffer, R-Eastland, and Byron Cook, R-Corsicana. They closed their letter asking "whether there is any limit to the speaker's power in the face of House Rule 5, Section 24" — the rule cited by Craddick when he said the speaker has an "absolute" power to recognize or not recognize questions and motions from the floor of the House. They contend, in essence, that the speaker can control the order of recognition of legislators, but not whether they have a right to be recognized in the first place.

Rep. Will Hartnett, R-Dallas, followed a month later with the last two questions tossing the Senate and its rules fully into the soup. He said in his request to Abbott that he thinks these are political questions and that separation of powers should bar the AG from weighing in on legislative matters. But in case Abbott wanted to jump in, Hartnett wanted him to consider questions about the Senate along with those about the House.