[fblike]
Facing the threat of an insurgency from within his own ranks, Speaker of the House John Boehner shocked the nation’s political establishment on Friday by announcing his resignation from the speakership, as well as his House seat, effective October 30. Although obtaining the top position in the House, which is third in line for the presidency, was a remarkable accomplishment for Boehner, he had come under fire from Tea Party conservatives in recent years for not taking a harder line against President Barack Obama’s agenda. Conservatives grew irate that Boehner proved unable to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), was willing to broker continuing resolutions with the aid of substantial numbers of Democrats, and proved unwilling to risk another government shutdown over federal funding for Planned Parenthood. He, along with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, had become a punching bag for the Republican Party’s 2016 presidential candidates and Boehner began to feel as if he was becoming a distraction to the larger Republican agenda. Consequently, Boehner is deciding to leave his high profile position in Washington, thereby helping Republicans avoid a bitter leadership battle that could have reduced the party’s ability to defend its congressional majorities next November. Nevertheless, without Boehner substantial questions loom about whether his replacement will be able to form a good working relationship with the President and whether that individual will find it just as difficult to control an increasingly splintered caucus.
This topic brief will explain the likely reasons for Boehner’s decision to resign, profile the internal Republican battle to replace him, and then discuss how Boehner’s exit could affect the management of the federal government for the rest of President Obama’s tenure and the ongoing Republican presidential nominating contest.
Readers are also encouraged to use the links below and in the related R&D to bolster their files about this topic.
Here is today’s premium R&D to accompany 
Ever since 2006, Nepal’s political parties have attempted to reach an agreement on a new national constitution. Divided over the role of religion in government, whether the nation’s 239-year-old monarchy should be restored, political boundaries, and the rights of ethnic minorities, the nation saw little movement on a lasting constitutional draft. However, a 7.8-magnitude earthquake in April literally shook the country’s major parties out of their prolonged gridlock. On Sunday, supporters of a new constitution gathered in the capital of Kathmandu to celebrate, but reception across the country was mixed. Ethnic minorities in Nepal allege that the constitution denies them adequate representation and women’s rights activists allege that the document rolls back some of the protections women enjoyed in previous governments. Analysts agree that Nepal’s new constitution may give its federal authorities the ability to finally govern the country and fix the problems that ail one of the world’s poorest nations. Nevertheless, if federal officials are not able to acquire adequate buy-in from the nation’s various ethnic groups, the chances of achieving lasting change are minimal.
Here is today’s premium R&D to accompany