Does a rule have to be changed?

Discussion in 'Congress' started by Firehorse, Sep 28, 2011.

  1. Firehorse
    Offline

    Firehorse Free Thinker

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Messages:
    548
    Thanks Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +77
    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?
     
  2. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,618
    I'm not remotely qualified to address the mechanics of Congress, but I certainly agree with you that reform is probably a good idea.

    I'd like, as one example, a law that insured that every aspect of a bill would address one subject and one subject only.

    Instead what is typically done is a compromise where two often dramatically different political issues are solved with one bill.

    For instance, if you want support for a war, you must also agree to changes in banking regulations.

    That kind of thing results in some very strange compromises that do not serve this nation very well.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Firehorse
    Offline

    Firehorse Free Thinker

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Messages:
    548
    Thanks Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +77
    Let me give an example so it doesn't become a "trash the current speaker" topic.

    House writes a bill during wartime that gives troops body armor. It passes with a high number of votes, the war is a popular war and the law would likely get a vast majority approval vote in the Senate, but the Majority Leader doesn't like the war .. So he doesnt bring it up for a vote.

    Is this what the founding fathers had in mind for the power of that particular seat in the Senate?
     
  4. Firehorse
    Offline

    Firehorse Free Thinker

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2011
    Messages:
    548
    Thanks Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +77

    I agree wholeheartedly and would have eventually started a topic on this subject. :)
     
  5. FA_Q2
    Offline

    FA_Q2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    14,329
    Thanks Received:
    2,091
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Washington State
    Ratings:
    +4,329
    That is a hard rule to enforce as a single topic is hard to define. Is HCR a single topic? Not really. It deals with a number of topics that are connected in some way but not really the same. I would like to see riders completely abolished though. That is an asinine concept in general. There is no reason that a rider can be attached to a bill. If they want a change, introduce another bill.

    As far as the OP goes, I would agree. There is no call for one member to have that kind of power, EVER. That is the presidents place, to veto a bill that he does not agree with. The senate is a place where multiple people get together to pass a bill. It should stay that way. If the leader of the senate does not want a bill passed, he should be able to garner enough support within his party to at least filibuster the bill if not get it killed.
     
  6. MeBelle
    Offline

    MeBelle Mebellien Mothership © Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2011
    Messages:
    15,003
    Thanks Received:
    5,342
    Trophy Points:
    340
    Ratings:
    +6,151
    Congress appropriates money for defense spending. The pentagon decides if money needs to be spent on body armor.

    Can you give another, more general, example?
     
  7. California Girl
    Offline

    California Girl BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    50,337
    Thanks Received:
    8,960
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +8,965
    It may worry you as much as it does me.... I agree.
     
  8. editec
    Offline

    editec Mr. Forgot-it-All

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    41,427
    Thanks Received:
    5,598
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +5,618
     
  9. FA_Q2
    Offline

    FA_Q2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    14,329
    Thanks Received:
    2,091
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Washington State
    Ratings:
    +4,329
    Simple, eliminate comities. I really do not see the point in their existence other than to create a bloated bureaucratic power structure that is not only unnecessary but also detrimental. Each congressman should be able to put fourth bills of their own accord. The number might need to be limited so you dont end up with too many bills to address.


    It will never happen though. The 2 parties do not want to give up their power. Eliminating the process would give individual senators more power and take power away from the party structures to influence and control their members.
     
  10. Sallow
    Offline

    Sallow The Big Bad Wolf. Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    56,535
    Thanks Received:
    6,132
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    New York City
    Ratings:
    +7,394
    I think that there are bills that probably could be brought to a public referendum if congress refuses to act on them.

    But that would have to be very strictly and narrowly defined.
     

Share This Page