It's today then ... (Trump thread)

[Carbomb]

A thought suddenly occurs: I don't know the difference, constitutionally and operationally speaking, between the Senate and Congress. I know the Senate is the Upper House, but it seems like they do more than simply scrutinise the legislation that Congress passes. 

I'm sure there are people more knowledgeable than myself who can explain, so anything you can tell me would be appreciated. What would make someone want to run for Senate instead of Congress?

[Chest Rockwell]

https://walberg.house.gov/about/how-congress-works

 

Crib sheet

[Carbomb]

34 minutes ago, Chest Rockwell said:

https://walberg.house.gov/about/how-congress-works

 

Crib sheet

Thanks for that, that's a really good resource. Of course, it's also left me with more questions, like: what happens when a President allows a law to become a law without his signature?

EDIT: To clarify, I will be reading these resources to find out instead of badgering people on here.

Edited July 31, 2017 by Carbomb

[Gus Mears]

3 hours ago, Carbomb said:

A thought suddenly occurs: I don't know the difference, constitutionally and operationally speaking, between the Senate and Congress. I know the Senate is the Upper House, but it seems like they do more than simply scrutinise the legislation that Congress passes. 

I'm sure there are people more knowledgeable than myself who can explain, so anything you can tell me would be appreciated. What would make someone want to run for Senate instead of Congress?

I'll skip a fair amount of the stuff covered in Chest's link, though it is absolutely worth reading the Constitution at some point for the legalistic definition of Senate powers. 

The Senate was envisioned by the Founding Fathers as a more deliberative body than the House of Representatives (I'll abbreviate to HOR from here) and specifically one that would not be beholden to public sentiment. Much of the philosophical basis on which the Constitution was built, Locke and the thought contained within the Federalist Papers, was concerned about ensuring that the majority could never commit tyranny over the minority. 

Most important differences of the top of my head between the two houses of Congress:

-Senate terms are 6 years and only a third of the Senate is elected at one time (again, to make it immune from short-term sentiment). The HOR system of biannual elections leads to greater partisanship and catering to public whims, though the Senate has been aggressively partisan under McConnell in fairness. 

- Each state elects two Senators. Again, this goes back to the tyranny against majority ethos of the Constitution. Also worth noting that until 1913 Senators were elected via their state legislatures and not via direct elections. This was changed via Constitutional Amendment.

-The Senate has greater foreign policy power. This is best encapsulated in the fact that the Senate ratifies treaties and the HOR doesn't. 

- The Senate is the only house than votes on Presidential appointments (including Supreme Court nominations). 

- The Senate has the filibuster, whereas the HOR doesn't any more. This means in practice that major pieces of legislation need a supermajority of 60 to pass the Senate. This has been diluted heavily in recent years due to the Democrats and then Republicans being willing to employ the 'nuclear option' which means only a simple majority is necessary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option) 

-The Senate doesn't have ad hoc committees whereas the HOR does. So, for instance, the HOR had the House Benghazi Committee a couple of years ago which was  overtly partisan. Wouldn't happen in the Senate. 

There are several reasons as to why someone would want to run for the Senate over the HOR. Again, top of my head:

-Exclusivity: the Senate is only 100 people so your vote carries more weight in of itself.

-Job security: 6 year terms, not 2 and you're not constantly campaigning for reelection like a Representative is.

-Foreign policy power: You will get a lot more classified and important briefings on foreign policy in the Senate because of the nature of its power viz international affairs. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is probably the most prestigious committee in Congress.

-National exposure: Again, due to relative power, Senators are a lot better known than the average freshman Representative. If you are looking to run for president, then being a Senator is an excellent staging post. You have key contacts, the ability to raise big money, national exposure, experience in key legislation. Out of postwar presidents, the following were US Senators: Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Obama. Compare that to people who were solely in the HOR (Ford and Bush the 1st). 

-Committee power: While there are less committees, you're more likely to get a good seat on one and possibly rise to chair it in short(ish) order. Though a lot of committee power has been altered since the 50's when it went from being strictly about seniority to a more 'spoils' system bastioned on party loyalty/popularity. 

In answer to your question about the president simply not signing legislation, that's basically already a thing and It's called a 'pocket veto' at the end of a session . It's a legislative technique employed to veto a decision, most notably in recent years by Bush the second in the tail end of his administration. There is no recourse to override this via supermajority (which there is when a bill is actively refused by a president). because of the timing.

 

Edited July 31, 2017 by Gus Mears

[Carbomb]

Thank you very much for taking the time to write that; really appreciated. I never took enough time to learn about governmental procedure in general, including the UK parliament's, something I feel a little sheepish about.

Re: the last bit, I should clarify: the resource Chest linked to had a link to "How A Bill Becomes Law", and on the "To The President" tab, it says this: 

"After a measure has been passed in identical form by both the House and Senate, it is considered “enrolled”. It is sent to the President who may sign the measure into law, veto it and return it to Congress, let it become law without signature, or at the end of a session, pocket-veto it."

I didn't know what a pocket-veto was, so thanks for that, but the bit I was referring to was the "let it become law without signature". I was wondering what the constitutional and material impact would be from that.

[Gus Mears]

1 minute ago, Carbomb said:

Thank you very much for taking the time to write that; really appreciated. I never took enough time to learn about governmental procedure in general, including the UK parliament's, something I feel a little sheepish about.

Re: the last bit, I should clarify: the resource Chest linked to had a link to "How A Bill Becomes Law", and on the "To The President" tab, it says this: 

"After a measure has been passed in identical form by both the House and Senate, it is considered “enrolled”. It is sent to the President who may sign the measure into law, veto it and return it to Congress, let it become law without signature, or at the end of a session, pocket-veto it."

I didn't know what a pocket-veto was, so thanks for that, but the bit I was referring to was the "let it become law without signature". I was wondering what the constitutional and material impact would be from that.

Ah right, sorry about that.

Basically, a bill automatically becomes law ten days after it is sent to the president if they do nothing at all. That's what it would mean. I should have clarified that a pocket veto only works when Congress adjourns within that ten day period (because they can't overturn what is basically a soft veto).

[Carbomb]

1 hour ago, Gus Mears said:

Ah right, sorry about that.

Basically, a bill automatically becomes law ten days after it is sent to the president if they do nothing at all. That's what it would mean. I should have clarified that a pocket veto only works when Congress adjourns within that ten day period (because they can't overturn what is basically a soft veto).

Ah, right, I see. So if the president does nothing and Congress doesn't adjourn, it is in essence merely a delay of ten days? I'm guessing there's probably some fine-point political tactics going on in such a move.

[JNLister]

It's effectively a way to say "I'm not going to actively support the bill but I'd rather let it become law than continue to fight it."

From what I can gather, it's more commonly used among state governors, particularly if they are presented with a budget they don't want to formally back, but don't want to create the political chaos of rejecting it and leaving the state without authorization to keep spending. 

[Carbomb]

2 hours ago, JNLister said:

It's effectively a way to say "I'm not going to actively support the bill but I'd rather let it become law than continue to fight it."

From what I can gather, it's more commonly used among state governors, particularly if they are presented with a budget they don't want to formally back, but don't want to create the political chaos of rejecting it and leaving the state without authorization to keep spending. 

I see. Ultimately, then, it's a PR thing.

[Sergio Mendacious]

Trump's communication director out so fast that he leaves a Mooch-shaped cloud of cocaine that stands under its own power for a few seconds before collapsing. Roberta Costa (Washington Post, I think) has a generally good inside line on gossip, according to him it was the new Chief of Staff wot done it, along with the Trump family "not wanting to be linked to such vulgarity." Which is hilarious.

[WyattSheepMask]

Another bites the dust. Has there ever so many cabinet changes in the first six months of a presidency before?

[Guest]

[Gus Mears]

@Carbomb

Just to add to the convo the other about signing/not signing bills into law. Trump has just put pen to paper over the latest Russian sanctions package, but used another technique which has developed over recent years. He signed it, but during the signing ceremony he outlined his reservations about the bill. 

 

 

Edited August 2, 2017 by Gus Mears

[Carbomb]

24 minutes ago, Gus Mears said:

@Carbomb

Just to add to the convo the other about signing/not signing bills into law. Trump has just put pen to paper over the latest Russian sanctions package, but used another technique which has developed over recent years. He signed it, but during the signing ceremony he outlined his reservations about the bill. 

 

 

That's interesting. I'm guessing it's something to do with objections being noted down for the official record?

[Gus Mears]

That's pretty much the measure of it. Allows him to save as much face as possible from both sides of the debate. He couldn't veto it, because it had overwhelming bipartisan support and the veto would have been overturned. He couldn't let it pass into law without signing it, because that would play into the narrative that he is beholden to Russia. Consequently, the least bad option was to sign it while outlining why he didn't think it was a very good piece of legislation. He's decided to say it's unconstitutional, which I assume is so that he can avoid the issue of whether he agrees with the idea of sanctioning Russia in of itself. 

Edited August 2, 2017 by Gus Mears