Can the Senate Majority Leader change during a Congressional term? [duplicate]

Question

With the change to the Alaska primary rules, and her recent denunciation of President Trump's actions inciting the recent violent riot/insurrection, a few (although I have yet to see particularly serious suggestion, hence my question) people have questioned whether Lisa Murkowski might leave the Republican caucus and sit as an independent. Obviously given the Republican Party has a 51-seat majority currently in the Senate, it wouldn't change the Senate leadership today, but the scenario does make me wonder about the question:

1. यह मानते हुए कि बहुमत वाली पार्टी का बहुमत 50 सीटों से नीचे चला गया क्योंकि एक या एक से अधिक सीनेटर स्वतंत्र या स्विच्ड पार्टियां बन गईं (और इसलिए परिदृश्य सीनेटर की मृत्यु के लिए अलग है और संभवतः एक विशेष चुनाव में उसी पार्टियों के उम्मीदवार का फिर से चुनाव), बहुमत करता है नेता अपने आप बदल जाते हैं?
2. या किसी खास तरह का वोट होना चाहिए?
3. क्या "मेजरिटी लीडर" की स्थिति वैधानिक रूप से उसी तरह से "हाउस स्पीकर" है, या यह कन्वेंशन की स्थिति अधिक है?

Answer 1

सीनेट के प्रमुख नेता की स्थिति सीनेट नियमों द्वारा बनाई गई है, जो आमतौर पर थोड़े से बदलाव के साथ कांग्रेस के हर सत्र के मंच पर लागू होती हैं।

सीनेट वोट द्वारा बहुमत नेता का चयन करता है, और किसी भी समय नेता बदल सकता है। यह तब हो सकता है जब पार्टियों का संतुलन बदल जाता है, चाहे मृत्यु, इस्तीफे, विशेष चुनाव, महाभियोग और कार्यालय से हटाने या एक सीनेटर के संरेखण के परिवर्तन से। अतीत में ऐसा हुआ है। यह तब भी बदल सकता है जब बहुमत पार्टी के सदस्य यह तय करते हैं कि वे एक अलग नेता चाहते हैं, जिसमें पार्टी संतुलन में कोई बदलाव न हो।

सीनेट का यह ओफ़्फ़िशियल पेज कहता है:

पार्टी के फर्श नेताओं के पदों को संविधान में शामिल नहीं किया गया है लेकिन 20 वीं शताब्दी में धीरे-धीरे विकसित किया गया है। प्रथम तल के नेताओं को औपचारिक रूप से 1920 (डेमोक्रेट) और 1925 (रिपब्लिकन) में नामित किया गया था।

सीनेट रिपब्लिकन और डेमोक्रेटिक फ्लोर के नेताओं को प्रत्येक कांग्रेस की शुरुआत में सीनेट में उनकी पार्टी के सदस्यों द्वारा चुना जाता है। किस पार्टी के सत्ता में होने के आधार पर, एक बहुमत के नेता के रूप में और दूसरा अल्पसंख्यक नेता के रूप में कार्य करता है।

...

The posts of majority and minority leader are not included in the Constitution, as are the president of the Senate (the vice president of the United States) and the president pro tempore. Instead, party floor leadership evolved out of necessity. During the 19th century, floor leadership was exercised by the chair of the party conference and the chairs of the most powerful standing committees. In 1913, to help enact President Woodrow Wilson's ambitious legislative program, Democratic Conference chairman John Worth Kern of Indiana began functioning along the lines of the modern majority leader. In 1919, when Republicans returned to the majority, Republican Conference chairman Henry Cabot Lodge, Sr., also acted as floor leader. Not until 1925 did Republicans officially designate Senator Charles Curtis of Kansas as majority leader, separate from the conference chair.

• There were two majority leaders during the 75th Congress (1937–1939), Joseph T. Robinson having died in office
• There were two majority leaders during the 83rd Congress (1953–1955) Robert Taft, Jr. (R-OH) having died in office
• 107th Congress (2001–2003) From January 3 to January 20, 2001, with the Senate divided evenly between the two parties, the Democrats held the majority due to the deciding vote of outgoing Democratic Vice President Al Gore. Senator Thomas A. Daschle served as majority leader at that time. Beginning on January 20, 2001, Republican Vice President Richard Cheney held the deciding vote, giving the majority to the Republicans. Senator Trent Lott resumed his position as majority leader on that date. On May 24, 2001, Senator James Jeffords of Vermont announced his switch from Republican to Independent status, effective June 6, 2001. He announced that he would caucus with the Democrats, giving the party a one-seat advantage and changing control of the Senate back to the Democrats. Thomas A. Daschle again became majority leader on June 6, 2001.

This essay from LegBranxh says:

Put simply, party leaders are powerful because rank-and-file senators defer to them to manage the institution how they see fit. This deference is not mandated by the Senate’s official rules. Rather, it is simply grounded in its past practice. The implication is that frustrated members can easily change how the Senate operates at any point

The actual Standing Rules of the Senate do not seem to contain any provision for the choice of majority and minority leader -- it seems to be purely a matter of custom, although several rules acknowledge the existence of the position.