Filibuster!
Wanted to post this when I saw the video, but procrastination got the better of me, as usual...
I had always known that the USA was the epitome of bureaucracy, and how the amendments to laws and bills were always incremental and not radical, largely due to the need for "unanimity". One can argue the pros and cons of that system, but that's not the point of this post, and I don't know the specifics to put forth a compelling case for either side anyway.
So, I always sort of knew what the congressional system was like, but wasn't 100% sure, but Obama's speech (see below) and reaction to the gun laws really piqued my interest.
So what exactly is the US congressional system? How is it that a minority can hold a disproportionate power in terms of voting for (against) a ruling? Well, the Wikipedia posts are highly informative, but I shall try to summarise here:
1. There are two houses in the United States Congress: (a) the lower House of Representatives; (b) the upper Senate.
2. There are a lot more Representatives than Senators: 435 vs 100
3. Terms are different: Representatives are elected every two years, Senators are elected every six.
4. Quotas are different: Each state will have 2 Senators, regardless of its population. (This gave every state an equal right to vote in the Senate, regardless of size)
5. For most purposes, the House and the Senate operates similarly. Key differences are
(a) Impeachment - House is empowered to pass bills of impeachment, and the Senate is obligated to try impeachment trial.
(b) Revenue bills must originate from the House.
(c)Treaties negotiated by the President must be ratified by a two-thirds majority in the Senate. (nothing to do with the House) - this is on top of the fact that only the Senate holds the power to confirm Cabinet officials, judges and other high officers.
All this doesn't address how power is disproportionately given to a small minority. To understand that is a question of parliamentary procedure, which can be answered by this really cute website, with just about enough info. I don't know the specifics, but I don't think it's the 2/3 majority vote at play here. It might all boil down to the veto power:
Veto
- A power that allows the President, a Governor or a Mayor to refuse approval of a piece of legislation. Federally, a President returns a vetoed bill to the Congress, generally with a message. Congress can accept the veto or attempt to override the veto by a 2/3 majority of those present and voting in both the House and the Senate
And the Congress is just one part of the tripartite check-and-balance system in the US. The relation between the Congress, the Supreme Court and the president is a topic for discussion another time. It's draining enough to just read and digest how the Congress works.
I had always known that the USA was the epitome of bureaucracy, and how the amendments to laws and bills were always incremental and not radical, largely due to the need for "unanimity". One can argue the pros and cons of that system, but that's not the point of this post, and I don't know the specifics to put forth a compelling case for either side anyway.
So, I always sort of knew what the congressional system was like, but wasn't 100% sure, but Obama's speech (see below) and reaction to the gun laws really piqued my interest.
Click to viewSo what exactly is the US congressional system? How is it that a minority can hold a disproportionate power in terms of voting for (against) a ruling? Well, the Wikipedia posts are highly informative, but I shall try to summarise here:
1. There are two houses in the United States Congress: (a) the lower House of Representatives; (b) the upper Senate.
2. There are a lot more Representatives than Senators: 435 vs 100
3. Terms are different: Representatives are elected every two years, Senators are elected every six.
4. Quotas are different: Each state will have 2 Senators, regardless of its population. (This gave every state an equal right to vote in the Senate, regardless of size)
5. For most purposes, the House and the Senate operates similarly. Key differences are
(a) Impeachment - House is empowered to pass bills of impeachment, and the Senate is obligated to try impeachment trial.
(b) Revenue bills must originate from the House.
(c)Treaties negotiated by the President must be ratified by a two-thirds majority in the Senate. (nothing to do with the House) - this is on top of the fact that only the Senate holds the power to confirm Cabinet officials, judges and other high officers.
All this doesn't address how power is disproportionately given to a small minority. To understand that is a question of parliamentary procedure, which can be answered by this really cute website, with just about enough info. I don't know the specifics, but I don't think it's the 2/3 majority vote at play here. It might all boil down to the veto power:
Veto
- A power that allows the President, a Governor or a Mayor to refuse approval of a piece of legislation. Federally, a President returns a vetoed bill to the Congress, generally with a message. Congress can accept the veto or attempt to override the veto by a 2/3 majority of those present and voting in both the House and the Senate
And the Congress is just one part of the tripartite check-and-balance system in the US. The relation between the Congress, the Supreme Court and the president is a topic for discussion another time. It's draining enough to just read and digest how the Congress works.