I'm all down with the whole compromise thing. I get how it works and what happens when it doesn't. I understand all that. I know that this will quickly devolve into a partison discussion, but I hope to get a few resonces that actually adress the situation. I'm speaking about the Senate Majority Leader Role. He decides what bills are brought before the members of the Senate for a vote. If a bill is proposed in the House and passes, the Majority seat holder can then in effect kill that bill by not allowing a vote on it in the Senate. If a bill does not match his personal ideals, he is allowed by the rules to not bring the bill for a vote by the peoples reprecentatives. I'm not sure if this was the plan as laid out by the founding fathers for one member of the Senate to be able to effect policy as such in this manor. Should the time that a Majority Leader is allowed to 'sit on a bill' be limited in some way? Maybe a year or so many sessions or something? Does something need to be rewritten?