Airliners.net

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 1:52 pm**

Note: Note talking elections here.

Seems to me that the Senate is more powerful than the House. They can appoint judges etc. while the House just toils with legislation and "hopes" the president signs the bill (more likely: veto, if the president is from the opposing party). In short: the Senate seems to be able to do more than the House can.
Isn't that strange? Why this power-imbalance?

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 1:56 pm**

Neither chamber is more powerful than the other. Each one has exclusive powers. So while the Senate has sole authority to confirm nominees to federal office, the House has exclusive power to impeach them. While the Senate ratifies treaties, all revenue altering bills originate in the House.

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 1:58 pm**

Perhaps so, but in the theoretical case of the House being 100% Democrat and the Senate being 100% Republican, any bills originating in the House - veto proof or not - will go nowhere in the Senate and therefore die.

To put it differently, would you rather be in 100% control of the House or the Senate?

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:02 pm**

Yeah.. That's not right at all OP. It is far more complicated. I don't even know where to begin with to be honest.

There are the legislative duties, which both chambers take part in.

There is oversight and investigatory duties, The senate does the former, the house the later.

Senate has advise and consent duties which includes treaties and confirming judges (this is not appointing, the president nominates judges, senate confirms).

House has appropriation duties.

It's really quite balanced.

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:02 pm**

Having control of the Senate right now is way more important. The top priority for conservatives is changing the federal judiciary. Appointing judges who can strike down progressive laws is more important than any legislation that the Democrats come up with. That's why this whole "preexisting conditions" thing is a giant scam. Republicans support it during election time and then use the judiciary to strike down all the provisions in the law that requires covering preexisting conditions. Its a beautiful scam.

They can also pick away at legislation passed at any point in the past as well. This is going to be a very bad (or good) think depending on what party you believe in.

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:03 pm**

To put it bluntly, the framers of our constitution didn’t totally trust the average voter.

The basic premise was popularly elected congressmen to originate legislation, with a more genteel senate to temper the popular passions of the people. To make senators less vulnerable to those popular passions they were given longer terms and chosen by state legislatures instead of popular vote.

Obviously we’ve scrapped that last part, but the idea was giving more power to a more deliberative body, less sensitive to the momentary urges of the average voter.

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:17 pm**

Dieuwer wrote:
To put it differently, would you rather be in 100% control of the House or the Senate?

Depends on what I care most about. Do I want a more balanced SCOTUS or do I really want to probe into what Trump may be hiding?

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:32 pm**

Dieuwer wrote:
Perhaps so, but in the theoretical case of the House being 100% Democrat and the Senate being 100% Republican, any bills originating in the House - veto proof or not - will go nowhere in the Senate and therefore die.

To put it differently, would you rather be in 100% control of the House or the Senate?

I think you're missing the point of the powers they have. If you have control of the house you can control the flow of money. So you don't like what the president is doing you can put a stop to it. If you control the senate you control the confirmation process and that influences the cabinet and the judiciary.

The system is literally designed to force you to work together.

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:46 pm**

trpmb6 wrote:
I think you're missing the point of the powers they have. If you have control of the house you can control the flow of money. So you don't like what the president is doing you can put a stop to it. If you control the senate you control the confirmation process and that influences the cabinet and the judiciary.

The system is literally designed to force you to work together.

Seems more like the system is designed to reward obstructionism and not being able to move at all. You said it yourself in your first sentence: "...you can put a stop to it". That's not moving forward, it's standing still.
And if the Senate and the House are in opposing hands, nothing will happen because of that. So, once again: "stopped/blocked".

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:55 pm**

Obstructionism doesn't win you anything though. Thus why, in the end, it forces you to work together.

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:56 pm**

trpmb6 wrote:
Obstructionism doesn't win you anything though. Thus why, in the end, it forces you to work together.

You see the Dems and Reps work together (soon)?

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:11 pm**

Dieuwer wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:
Obstructionism doesn't win you anything though. Thus why, in the end, it forces you to work together.

You see the Dems and Reps work together (soon)?

I believe we will see an infrastructure bill in 2019. I believe its one of the reasons Republicans in the house didn't move on infrastructure earlier, they saw this coming and wanted to wait on it so they could have something to win on before 2020.

I believe we will see some bipartisan work on immigration. Give Trump his wall and I bet you see a DACA bill.

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 3:19 pm**

When it comes to obstruction Dems are less united than Reps. If Dems were united, a much stronger version of Obamacare would have passed in just a couple of months when Dems were the majority in Senate and House along with Presidency. Though Pelosi pulled off a vote in House, Reid could never shore-up enough Dem senators.

Also, Reps are experts in throwing the tantrum, claiming Dems are shoving down their throat. Even after18 months dialog and compromises by Obama/Pelosi/Reid, Reps were crying on the day it passed.

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 4:43 pm**

Dieuwer wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:
I think you're missing the point of the powers they have. If you have control of the house you can control the flow of money. So you don't like what the president is doing you can put a stop to it. If you control the senate you control the confirmation process and that influences the cabinet and the judiciary.

The system is literally designed to force you to work together.

Seems more like the system is designed to reward obstructionism and not being able to move at all.

Given the right environment it can reward obstructionism in the short term, but that is not sustainable since you don't get anything done.

Up around somewhere in the Cliton area the US worked in a very bipartisan way, voting outside of party line was very common. Trpmb6 is right, it is designed to force people to cooperate, this current phase bay be a glitch, or ultimately finish one of the two big parties, before things get back to "normal".

Best regards
Thomas

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 4:45 pm**

It’s satire from the Babylon Bee, but oh so true.

U.S.—As the nation was torn apart by a relatively mundane, routine midterm election, just like the ones that regularly occur every four years, Americans began to wonder if a government in which such a commonplace election can impact so many lives in so many ways might just be a little bit too powerful.

The nation suddenly realized that a government holding elections that threaten far-reaching changes in each and every person's private life could actually need to be downsized a tad.

"I was starting to wonder why we were all at each other's throats," said one Democratic voter in Oregon. "And then it hit me: the politicians and policies we're voting on could shake up who has the government's blessings for the next few years, and which groups will get left out. And then I was like, 'Whoa. Maybe if the government weren't so huge and bloated, we wouldn't care about elections that much."

He then dismissed the idea as "crazy talk," however.

Pundits pondering the reasons behind the nation's unprecedented level of division also began to come to the same conclusion. "Like, if the government is so powerful that it's a life-or-death fight every couple years to take control of it, maybe we should just dismantle the whole thing?" said one anchor before the program suddenly cut to a "Technical Difficulties" screen.

GF

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 5:07 pm**

trpmb6 wrote:
Give Trump his wall and I bet you see a DACA bill.

Where were you when this happened? Or this?

How can you deal with a guy who says one thing now and tomorrow says another?

Posted: **Wed Nov 07, 2018 5:24 pm**

einsteinboricua wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:
Give Trump his wall and I bet you see a DACA bill.

Where were you when this happened? Or this?

How can you deal with a guy who says one thing now and tomorrow says another?

I'm not sure what broke down with it honestly. I will say, I'm in favor of a DACA bill with a pathway to citizenship for those who are already here. But I also want e-verify, I want a more streamlined immigration system that isn't so burdensome. I'd like to end visa lotteries, though that's not a deal breaker. I want improvements on the southern border, and the northern border - gotta keep those ugly canadian geese up north, they've made a mess of front yard this week (joke people). But most importantly, I want changes to the H1B system. It's abused to the detriment of both US workers and foreign workers. I'm not against bringing folks in on H1B who are actually needed. But I've seen it abused personally, and sometimes I'm not even sure these folks know their being taken advantage of. (Although, are you really being taken advantage of if you're making more money than you would have in another country, even if it means you're 20% less than someone here?)

Anyways, lets make it happen, I'm uber-conservative and want to see immigration reform. I think I can be fair.

Posted: **Thu Nov 08, 2018 12:18 am**

trpmb6 wrote:
einsteinboricua wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:
Give Trump his wall and I bet you see a DACA bill.

Where were you when this happened? Or this?

How can you deal with a guy who says one thing now and tomorrow says another?

I'm not sure what broke down with it honestly. I will say, I'm in favor of a DACA bill with a pathway to citizenship for those who are already here. But I also want e-verify, I want a more streamlined immigration system that isn't so burdensome. I'd like to end visa lotteries, though that's not a deal breaker. I want improvements on the southern border, and the northern border - gotta keep those ugly canadian geese up north, they've made a mess of front yard this week (joke people). But most importantly, I want changes to the H1B system. It's abused to the detriment of both US workers and foreign workers. I'm not against bringing folks in on H1B who are actually needed. But I've seen it abused personally, and sometimes I'm not even sure these folks know their being taken advantage of. (Although, are you really being taken advantage of if you're making more money than you would have in another country, even if it means you're 20% less than someone here?)

Anyways, lets make it happen, I'm uber-conservative and want to see immigration reform. I think I can be fair.

I want Canada’s immigration system, which is a points based system where merit, education and skills are a big determinant of the scoring system. If desiring the same immigration policy that Canada has makes me a right wing whacko, then I’m very comfortable with that label.

Posted: **Thu Nov 08, 2018 3:20 am**

Dieuwer wrote:
That's not moving forward, it's standing still.
And if the Senate and the House are in opposing hands, nothing will happen because of that. So, once again: "stopped/blocked".

[/quote]

What you believe to be cases of "standing still" and "nothing will happen" are actually cases where a system of checks and balances is having precisely its intended effect.

It requires people to be grown-ups and compromise.

Posted: **Thu Nov 08, 2018 4:52 am**

Neither the Senate nor the House can legislate on their own. Both houses can move bills forward but require the others vote to approve a bill. The Senate can only confirm Presidential appointments, judicial or executive, not make them. Both houses have subpoena powers as part of their oversight function. Study up on the USG, please.

GF

Posted: **Thu Nov 08, 2018 1:35 pm**

Dieuwer wrote:
Perhaps so, but in the theoretical case of the House being 100% Democrat and the Senate being 100% Republican, any bills originating in the House - veto proof or not - will go nowhere in the Senate and therefore die.

To put it differently, would you rather be in 100% control of the House or the Senate?

Senate. Hands down. Judges matter. The only thing the House can do is try to make a President miserable. They try that this cycle it will be a bloodbath for the left in 2020. People are sick of this shit. If you didn’t hear it in 2016, then go right ahead and shoot yourselves in the foot with investigations and impeachment. It will be the Houses Kavanaugh moment and it will have the same impact that the Kavanaugh hearings did on the Senate. A thumping.

Posted: **Fri Nov 09, 2018 3:01 am**

einsteinboricua wrote:
Dieuwer wrote:
To put it differently, would you rather be in 100% control of the House or the Senate?

Depends on what I care most about. Do I want a more balanced SCOTUS or do I really want to probe into what Trump may be hiding?

Would I want a lifetime appointment to the one of nine SCOTUS seats?

Or knowing that Trump probably makes less money than he claims, pays little to none on taxes, and probably is only "connected" to Russia in the most abstract ways? (Like we didn't know that already?)

Think I know the answer to that one my friend

Just my random prediction: what the Dem House "uncovers" won't really convince anyone... Everyone will cling to their preconceived notions

Posted: **Sun Nov 11, 2018 3:32 am**

At this point, I'd argue that neither house is very powerful. The last major meaningful piece of legislation that changed national policy was the ACA, and that was signed into law almost ten years ago. Since that time, most of the legislation that has passed and been signed into law has been reauthorization bills and budgets, or minor pieces of legislation that are not really major legislative achievements.

Posted: **Sun Nov 11, 2018 4:42 am**

DL717 wrote:
Dieuwer wrote:
Perhaps so, but in the theoretical case of the House being 100% Democrat and the Senate being 100% Republican, any bills originating in the House - veto proof or not - will go nowhere in the Senate and therefore die.

To put it differently, would you rather be in 100% control of the House or the Senate?

Senate. Hands down. Judges matter. The only thing the House can do is try to make a President miserable. They try that this cycle it will be a bloodbath for the left in 2020. People are sick of this shit. If you didn’t hear it in 2016, then go right ahead and shoot yourselves in the foot with investigations and impeachment. It will be the Houses Kavanaugh moment and it will have the same impact that the Kavanaugh hearings did on the Senate. A thumping.

Exactly Trump was strategic in going all over the country to secure the Senate race candidates to the disappointment of the house republican races. He is doing all this to stack the deck on the high court and he might get another shot at it with Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg falling and busting her ribs and falling asleep for every event. She needs to hang it up so Trump can appoint another conservative to the bench.

Posted: **Sun Nov 11, 2018 9:54 pm**

FreequentFlier wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:
einsteinboricua wrote:
Where were you when this happened? Or this?

How can you deal with a guy who says one thing now and tomorrow says another?

I'm not sure what broke down with it honestly. I will say, I'm in favor of a DACA bill with a pathway to citizenship for those who are already here. But I also want e-verify, I want a more streamlined immigration system that isn't so burdensome. I'd like to end visa lotteries, though that's not a deal breaker. I want improvements on the southern border, and the northern border - gotta keep those ugly canadian geese up north, they've made a mess of front yard this week (joke people). But most importantly, I want changes to the H1B system. It's abused to the detriment of both US workers and foreign workers. I'm not against bringing folks in on H1B who are actually needed. But I've seen it abused personally, and sometimes I'm not even sure these folks know their being taken advantage of. (Although, are you really being taken advantage of if you're making more money than you would have in another country, even if it means you're 20% less than someone here?)

Anyways, lets make it happen, I'm uber-conservative and want to see immigration reform. I think I can be fair.

I want Canada’s immigration system, which is a points based system where merit, education and skills are a big determinant of the scoring system. If desiring the same immigration policy that Canada has makes me a right wing whacko, then I’m very comfortable with that label.

Oh goody! That means we get way more refugees and chain migration lives on!

Something tells me you don’t know the first thing about the Canadian immigration system. Not surprised.

Posted: **Sun Nov 11, 2018 10:02 pm**

stratosphere wrote:
Exactly Trump was strategic in going all over the country to secure the Senate race candidates to the disappointment of the house republican races.

Newsflash: Trump didn't have to visit the states to notch a win. Those states were gonna elect a Republican no matter what. Having Clinton in the White House would have only made their elections a foregone conclusion rather than competitive. Besides, notice how he only visited the states where he still has a base. Did he visit MI or PA or VA? He paid more attention to IN, MO, WV, ND, and MT...states where he knew he could score easy wins (though his record was 3-2 in those states). And with very generic endorsements, it's no wonder why his picks didn't pick up more seats.

But nice way to spin the midterm election. As if we really believe he meant to lose the House to just keep the Senate...

Posted: **Sun Nov 11, 2018 10:05 pm**

The ultimate power is with the POTUS, Trump can use executive privilege to execute executive order and pretty much do what he wants.

Posted: **Sun Nov 11, 2018 10:18 pm**

I heard Trump can turn himself into a unicorn if he wants.

Posted: **Sun Nov 11, 2018 10:55 pm**

AA747123 wrote:
The ultimate power is with the POTUS, Trump can use executive privilege to execute executive order and pretty much do what he wants.

A bunch of hooey. Read Article II, he has no such power as has been amply demonstrated.

GF

Posted: **Mon Nov 12, 2018 12:16 am**

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
AA747123 wrote:
The ultimate power is with the POTUS, Trump can use executive privilege to execute executive order and pretty much do what he wants.

A bunch of hooey. Read Article II, he has no such power as has been amply demonstrated.

GF

Obama didnt bother to read it either with all of his illegal executive orders

Posted: **Mon Nov 12, 2018 12:25 am**

I’m so confused. I thought if the President does it, it can’t be illegal.

Posted: **Mon Nov 12, 2018 5:13 pm**

propero wrote:
I’m so confused. I thought if the President does it, it can’t be illegal.

Don't worry, the Russian bots select a few words from a list and throw them together. It's that logic that exposes them.

Posted: **Wed Nov 14, 2018 1:00 am**

I believe that the House is far more important than they seem at first glance. A Senate fully controlled by the GOP still needs to be nice to Dems controlling the House fun order to get funding for GOP programs.

The Senate is the body that confirms new judges, but the House has the power to fully investigate impeachment related issues.

In reality both the Senate and House need to work together in order for something to be achieved. In the "old days" when the elected members were actually living in the DC area much of the year there would be far more civilized discussions than today. That makes working together harder, but the GOP might be getting sufficiently tired of Trump to tell him to shove it

Posted: **Wed Nov 14, 2018 1:56 am**

AA747123 wrote:
The ultimate power is with the POTUS, Trump can use executive privilege to execute executive order and pretty much do what he wants.

AA747123 wrote:
Obama didnt bother to read it either with all of his illegal executive orders

Posted: **Wed Nov 14, 2018 7:09 pm**

In theory, the Constitution provides a system of checks and balances. Keeping that in mind, I would say the House and Senate check and balance each other.

House members are elected by each state based on the population of that state. This is why California and New York have more representation in the House than Wyoming and Montana. However, each state elects two Senators, so every state is represented equally.

The higher populated states can ban together and get legislation passed that favors their states, but, before the bill ever makes it out of Congress, it must be approved by the smaller population states in the Senate.

Posted: **Wed Nov 14, 2018 8:04 pm**

AA747123 wrote:
The ultimate power is with the POTUS, Trump can use executive privilege to execute executive order and pretty much do what he wants.

Oh, Svetlana, you’re a hoot! :rotfl:

Airliners.net

Senate vs House: Power

Senate vs House: Power

Re: Senate vs House: Power

Re: Senate vs House: Power

Re: Senate vs House: Power

Re: Senate vs House: Power

Re: Senate vs House: Power

Re: Senate vs House: Power

Re: Senate vs House: Power

Re: Senate vs House: Power

Re: Senate vs House: Power

Re: Senate vs House: Power

Re: Senate vs House: Power

Re: Senate vs House: Power

Re: Senate vs House: Power

Re: Senate vs House: Power

Re: Senate vs House: Power

Re: Senate vs House: Power

Re: Senate vs House: Power

Re: Senate vs House: Power

Re: Senate vs House: Power

Re: Senate vs House: Power

Re: Senate vs House: Power

Re: Senate vs House: Power

Re: Senate vs House: Power

Re: Senate vs House: Power

Re: Senate vs House: Power

Re: Senate vs House: Power

Re: Senate vs House: Power

Re: Senate vs House: Power

Re: Senate vs House: Power

Re: Senate vs House: Power

Re: Senate vs House: Power

Re: Senate vs House: Power

Re: Senate vs House: Power

Re: Senate vs House: Power

Re: Senate vs House: Power