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?

WebsterMark wrote on 11/27/19 at 06:35:02:


===========================
===========================

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.

DesertCat wrote on 11/27/19 at 06:42:13:


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?

WebsterMark wrote on 11/27/19 at 06:35:02:


========================
========================

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.  

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?  
 

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.)

DesertCat wrote on 11/27/19 at 08:12:08:


Personally, given the prosperity of our nation today, my opinion is the current system works very well.

WebsterMark wrote on 11/27/19 at 08:20:44:


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.