|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Can someone explain US Senate procedure? /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1574863474 Message started by DesertCat on 11/27/19 at 06:04:34 |
|
Title: Can someone explain US Senate procedure? Post by DesertCat on 11/27/19 at 06:04:34 This post is not about Dems or Repubs. What law (or rule) states that the Senate can just sit on a bill that has been passed by the House? It doesn't seem fair. It seems to me that there should be a law that states that the Senate has to take up (vote) on any law that the House passes and sends to the Senate. To sum up what I'm saying: I think the Senate should have to either vote on the law passed to it by the House or modify it and send it back to the House. But the Senate shouldn't be allowed to just "sit" on a bill and do nothing. Is this in the Constitution somewhere? |
|
Title: Re: Can someone explain US Senate procedure? Post by WebsterMark on 11/27/19 at 06:35:02 Anything that forces lawmakers to slow down is a good thing. A House dominated by one party or group could pass legislation with catastrophic ramifications. Senators, with longer terms and theoretically longer term perspectives, are more isolated from short term public pressure. Good rule of thumb, change (and new laws) should be a slow, difficult process, requring blood, swear and tears. Its a safeguard against knee jerk reactions that leave you with buyer's remorse. Nothing better than an oldie but goodie! https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FFroMQlKiag |
|
Title: Re: Can someone explain US Senate procedure? Post by DesertCat on 11/27/19 at 06:42:13 754740515647506F435049220 wrote:
=========================== =========================== No. The House can pass 3 bills a day if it wants to. But before a bill can become law it MUST be voted on by the Senate. Legislation can NEVER go from the House to the President -- it must always go thru the Senate. Legislation paths: - House -> Senate -> President - Senate -> House -> Senate -> President Legislation can bounce back and forth between the House and Senate many times but the final vote is always taken by the Senate before a bill is passed to the President. And if the Senate makes ANY changes to a bill, it must be sent back to the House again. |
|
Title: Re: Can someone explain US Senate procedure? Post by Mavigogun on 11/27/19 at 06:42:50 A primer from the Senate: https://www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/Senate_legislative_process.htm A starting place for branched exploration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Procedures_of_the_United_States_Congress Mark's observation of balanced consideration is, of course, not our present circumstance- the processes is being monkey-wrenched to a degree never before seen in my lifetime. That School House Rock story of a Bill has been made impossible by the Republican members of the Senate, depriving the electorate of representation and a functional Legislative branch. I've seen no indication that the Founders anticipated a party so antithetical to our democratic process, except that general impression they would reject the notion of being gladly saddled with a broken system; they were, after all, Revolutionaries- not "Conservatives". |
|
Title: Re: Can someone explain US Senate procedure? Post by WebsterMark on 11/27/19 at 07:25:24 406177617670476570040 wrote:
=========================== =========================== No. The House can pass 3 bills a day if it wants to. But before a bill can become law it MUST be voted on by the Senate. Legislation can NEVER go from the House to the President -- it must always go thru the Senate. Legislation paths: - House -> Senate -> President - Senate -> House -> Senate -> President Legislation can bounce back and forth between the House and Senate many times but the final vote is always taken by the Senate before a bill is passed to the President. And if the Senate makes ANY changes to a bill, it must be sent back to the House again. [/quote] Yes, that's the process, as nicely portrayed in the clever cartoon from years ago. The rational is to involved both houses of Congress to provide their input which slows the process down. If your objection is why does the Senate get involved, you could just as easily say why does the President get involved? Why doesn't a bill immediately become a law once passed by The House? Is there a particular bill of interest to you that the House has passed that's not progressing in the Senate? |
|
Title: Re: Can someone explain US Senate procedure? Post by DesertCat on 11/27/19 at 07:29:41 4E7C7B6A6D7C6B54786B72190 wrote:
====================== ====================== Not what I said at all. I firmly believe that the House, Senate, and President should be part of the legislative process. My objection is that the Senate will sit on a bill passed to it by the House and do nothing. If the majority of the Senate doesn't "like" a bill then why don't they just vote and kill it. But why do nothing ????? And this decision to do nothing seems to rest with one man. That does not seem fair to me. If the Senate doesn't "want" to vote on a bill they could also modify it so heavily that it will be unpalatable to the House and it will die that way. |
|
Title: Re: Can someone explain US Senate procedure? Post by DesertCat on 11/27/19 at 07:42:40 754740515647506F435049220 wrote:
======================== ======================== The only way that catastrophic laws could be passed is when the Senate and House majority are of the same party, along with the President. And heaven forbid a Senator or Rep would vote their conscious instead of the party line. >:( |
|
Title: Re: Can someone explain US Senate procedure? Post by Mavigogun on 11/27/19 at 07:53:49 5C6E69787F6E79466A79600B0 wrote:
He made his objection abundantly clear- any honest person could clearly see it. But no- you play at refusing to get the point. Or are you so completely out of touch that you are unaware of Mitch McConnell's all-but-universal obstruction of the Senate's normal process? Which is it, Mark- dishonest or willfully ignorant? Sure, a trick question- there's no difference. |
|
Title: Re: Can someone explain US Senate procedure? Post by raydawg on 11/27/19 at 07:55:04 The house, because it passes a bill, is not authoritarian, by nature..... The house is represented by districts, which is why we have way more members in the house. Doing its job correctly, it should represent the general ebb and flow of folks across the nation. However, it has become a mechanism of party control, and reach, as paramount, instead of constituents. The senate is a even distribution of power, to combat advantages a populated state would have over other states, passing legislation that unfairly represents their interest more. Its a check and balance. Both parties are guilty of putting party over concerns of the welfare of the grater majority, the people, as in WE the PEOPLE...... This is why their approval numbers are way lower than Trumps, yet the media only calls out Trumps, as a means of showing dissatisfaction with him, etc..... extremely disingenuous, and they to suffer greatly from disapproval numbers, like car salesman :) In short, most of these folks who we elect, care about themselves.....FIRST and form their own alliances where it serves them the most, we are quickly forgotten and minimized.... How can we stop this....stop voting party line ONLY, but the best candidate that serves YOUR interest, and let that even out with your neighbors, but folks have become extremely tribal, and it has given us the current situation today....sadly. Remember....President Obama said: "Elections have consequences" when dismissing oppositions request to participate in drafting healthcare legislation..... Tell me, how is that welcoming everyone input? |
|
Title: Re: Can someone explain US Senate procedure? Post by WebsterMark on 11/27/19 at 08:10:58 Not what I said at all. I firmly believe that the House, Senate, and President should be part of the legislative process. Sitting on a bill is part of the process. If enough people like you object, the Senate will respond. That might take an entire election cycle, maybe two. The only way that catastrophic laws could be passed is when the Senate and House majority are of the same party, along with the President. Not necessarily. I tend to think establishing The Dept of Homeland Security in response to 9/11 was a knee jerk response generally endorsed by both parties in both houses. |
|
Title: Re: Can someone explain US Senate procedure? Post by DesertCat on 11/27/19 at 08:12:08 I just wish the founders had written this into the Constitution (of course with much better style than my wording): "When a bill is passed from the House to the Senate, the Senate has ten days to either vote on the bill or modify it and send it back to the House. And vice versa. When a bill is passed from the Senate to the House, the House has ten days to either vote on the bill or modify it and send it back to the Senate." (And yes, of course I realize that the ten days may have to span times when Congress is not in session.) |
|
Title: Re: Can someone explain US Senate procedure? Post by WebsterMark on 11/27/19 at 08:19:09 And heaven forbid a Senator or Rep would vote their conscious instead of the party line. That's something that does happen. It's a debatable point if it should happen more. Political parties have ideologies that offer guard rails, so to speak, that keep thoughts focused. But you're right, those same guard rails can lock people on a road that has a dead end. For example, I'm Pro-Life. I don't believe someone should take the life of an unborn baby for what is essentially a matter of convenience. That's a Republican ideology. However, if I personally apply that same logic to the death penalty, my conclusion is the State can't take the life of someone either so I'm against the death penalty even though the party I affiliate with is in favor of it. Jeff Flake, Senator from Arizona famously voted against his Parties wishes and the Kavanagh hearings dragged on a couple of more weeks, but ultimately, the end result was the same. |
|
Title: Re: Can someone explain US Senate procedure? Post by WebsterMark on 11/27/19 at 08:20:44 476670667177406277030 wrote:
Personally, given the prosperity of our nation today, my opinion is the current system works very well. |
|
Title: Re: Can someone explain US Senate procedure? Post by Mavigogun on 11/27/19 at 08:22:02 10031B06031505620 wrote:
That's a lie, Ray. Not of your origin- you're just puking up what others have digested for you, one bird brain to another -but a lie, just the same. The Congressional record testifies to the fiction you've repeated. The ACA was crafted with Republican participation; it may be that participation was aimed on whole at sabotage-regardless, Republican contributions were incorporated into the bill. Your conceit that a previous President said "elections have consequences" to justify this sabotage of our legislative process by the Republican Party is specious. "Elections have consequences, so Redmap Gerrymandering is excused. Elections have consequences, so Georgia's Secretary of State purging voter rolls in the very contest he was participating in is A-OK. Elections have consequences, so corrupt Administration violating both law and the Constitution is to be expected." You failed to understanding President Obama when he spoke of "consequences"- he was talking about the nature of legislative consideration in response to those who would completely obstruct taking a democratic measure of support. He was literally denouncing the very sabotage this thread speaks to. |
|
Title: Re: Can someone explain US Senate procedure? Post by raydawg on 11/27/19 at 08:33:14 073532232435221D31223B500 wrote:
Personally, given the prosperity of our nation today, my opinion is the current system works very well. [/quote] Well think about this..... They have lots of issues they must react to, consider.....with many different possibilities, to the outcome. Faster is not always better, Web gave a example with homeland security.... Look how it effected travel into our nation by innocent folks from other countries. It put a unfair burden upon them, etc.....not good. Look at how we use imminent domain laws to remove folks from their lawfully held properties, which one can say our Constitution protects.... We have to weigh the impact on those effected more than those who benefit..... In other words, we must look out for the "little guy" who if our focus is just on looking to see a possible greater benefit for more, which might equate to more reelection votes, then we have failed to protect everyone with the same honest assessment and commitment.... We should always default to the weakest, whenever possible, that is why we shouldn't rush this stuff along a time frame..... in my opine. |
|
Title: Re: Can someone explain US Senate procedure? Post by Mavigogun on 11/27/19 at 08:41:53 635156474051467955465F340 wrote:
38.1 million people live in poverty. 27.5 milion don't have health insurance- including 4.3 million children. The bottom 25% of households earn less than $22,500 per year- not individually, for the entire household. We just saw a massive financial crisis centered in our market that disrupted economies around the world, and resulted in a huge shift from home ownership to tenancy. Entire generations suffer crippling student debt. The workforce has shrank remarkably as folks withdraw from the market, unable to find sustaining work. The share of profit afforded workers has fallen well beyond a crisis nexus. Yet, here's Mark, celebrating how great the system is working- -for him. Remember, Mark's declared intent in voting for Trump was to foment war, break the Union. His idea of a "working" US democracy is aligned with Putin's. |
|
Title: Re: Can someone explain US Senate procedure? Post by raydawg on 11/27/19 at 08:44:38 refresher: Democrat Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s frustration over the Republican Party’s behavior since the election brings to mind a famous quote from President Obama following his 2008 win: “Elections have consequences.” He made the remark in a closed-door meeting at the White House in 2009, where Republicans had hoped to negotiate with him regarding the specifics of his stimulus package in response to the financial crisis. Initially, the president showed interest in what Republicans had to say, but his tone changed when it got down to the nitty gritty. “Elections have consequences,” he told then number two Republican Rep. Eric Cantor. “And at the end of the day, I won. So I think on that one I trump you.” The remark reportedly poisoned the well with Republicans, who used it to characterize him as stubborn and unwilling to work with Congress to achieve his objectives. Now almost ten years later, it’s the Democrat Party struggling to deal with the realities of a massive electoral defeat. Oh how ripe...he used the word trump, I didn't know that.... :o You can rant and call names, be accusatory all you want, its your thing.... I don't like it when either party, or anyone.....does it, period I was pointing that out to desert rat, not you.....m'kay? |
|
Title: Re: Can someone explain US Senate procedure? Post by Mavigogun on 11/27/19 at 08:54:51 73607865607666010 wrote:
I see- you believe Mitch McConnell and his Republican cronies in the Senate have the interest of the weak and vulnerable at heart when they prevent deliberation. That sure looks the same as preventing the voice of the weak from being heard, investing a few with the privilege of deciding what can even be discussed. Reminiscent of Jim Crow, actually. How long did those evil laws reign due to obstruction by a few in the Senate? It's a simple thing to appropriate a cloak of principle to swaddle unjust, anti-democratic privilege. We can't take our cues from patriotic-sounding pablum- look at what people do and the impact instead. |
|
Title: Re: Can someone explain US Senate procedure? Post by DesertCat on 11/27/19 at 10:43:15 6D7E667B7E68781F0 wrote:
============================ ============================ OK, my example of "ten days" is probably unrealistic. But there should be some deadline, maybe two months. That would seem to me long enough to consider all the ramifications of a bill. But "never", like we have now, is just not right. |
|
Title: Re: Can someone explain US Senate procedure? Post by WebsterMark on 11/27/19 at 11:35:42 Look at it this way; what if the House passed a bill you thought was horrible and before you knew it or could react, it was law. In that case, you would have wanted a additional review. |
|
Title: Re: Can someone explain US Senate procedure? Post by Mavigogun on 11/27/19 at 14:08:05 Mark spews more sophistic noise- pragmatic progress tempered by unrushed consideration is not the order of the day. This all-but-total obstruction of the legislative process is spiteful, contemptuous of the notion of representation and the democratic process. |
|
Title: Re: Can someone explain US Senate procedure? Post by Eegore on 11/27/19 at 16:03:22 I agree there should be a timeline. Is there any way one can pose a valid argument for getting results from a proposed outcome if the response can be zero for an infinite amount of time? If a group can ignore for an infinite amount of time anything they want, how efficient can we ever expect that group to be? And why would we pay them? |
|
Title: Re: Can someone explain US Senate procedure? Post by raydawg on 11/27/19 at 16:10:44 537371796473160 wrote:
We already possess that power....its your vote, that is what a vote is all about. But of course, its you, against me, and they live forevermore, happily.... The words to the song, indoctrination..... ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
Title: Re: Can someone explain US Senate procedure? Post by WebsterMark on 11/27/19 at 18:04:29 Is there any way one can pose a valid argument for getting results from a proposed outcome if the response can be zero for an infinite amount of time? The valid argument is to simply look around at the nation you live; a prosperous nation still abounding with opportunity. That would not be the case if every bill passed on the House was required to be acted on. |
|
Title: Re: Can someone explain US Senate procedure? Post by Mavigogun on 11/27/19 at 18:24:02 370502131405122D01120B600 wrote:
Mark has just infantilized the electorate, then indulged in that old Southern plantation lord paternal lie of doing the slaves a kindness by saving them from their own impulse. He's really that broken: a rationalization for every depravity, transgression against his neighbor. He would not be the first to cite the market as justification for corrupting of democracy, denying representation, core Constitutional rights. |
|
Title: Re: Can someone explain US Senate procedure? Post by DesertCat on 11/27/19 at 18:29:05 The House is the people. People elected those reps. For the Senate (and really just one man) to tell the people that this bill that was just passed from the House to the Senate is not worthy of any consideration . . . well . . . they might just as well spit on the people. Either vote on the bill or modify it and send it back to the House. Doing nothing is an affront -- and wrong. |
|
Title: Re: Can someone explain US Senate procedure? Post by WebsterMark on 11/27/19 at 18:54:46 People elect the Senate too. Well, I think we've reached an impasse. I think the system works well. I understand your point however. Happy Thanksgiving Desert. |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |