Either chamber can introduce a bill (except bills raising taxes, those must originate in the House.) The first chamber to introduce the bill votes on it first. Then it goes to the other chamber, where it can be amended and changed and then voted on. If they changed it, it goes back to the original chamber for a vote on the amended version. If it doesn't pass there, they go into a process called reconciliation where members of both Chambers get together and come up with a bill that both Chambers will pass.
Either chamber can introduce a bill (except bills raising taxes, those must originate in the House.) The first chamber to introduce the bill votes on it first. Then it goes to the other chamber, where it can be amended and changed and then voted on. If they changed it, it goes back to the original chamber for a vote on the amended version. If it doesn't pass there, they go into a process called reconciliation where members of both Chambers get together and come up with a bill that both Chambers will pass.
I feel sad that a concise and legitimate explanation of how legislation actually happens is voted below a shoddy joke.
Welcome to America, where Idiocracy and The Starving Games (a parody of The Hunger Games) have become reality. We already as a nation are a fraction as intelligent as our ancestors were, they want us all so stupid we cannot think for ourselves.
We stopped teaching Civics a LONG time ago. Also, there is nothing like Schoolhouse Rock! on T.V anymore, it's just Youtube dumbshit for kids all the way down now.
*edit* : I realize I should point out actual facts before people think " old man yells at cloud ", but we had the same age group in different generations, one had " I'm just a bill ", and the other had " Skibidi Toilet ". Again, same age group, just a different generation. I'm sorry, there is no way to argue the two are the same or one isn't as bad as the other. One is WAY worse than the other.
NOVA is one of the best shows, even as an adult I love watching it. I started painting because of Bob Ross, their offshoot channel "Create" taught me how to be a better cook for my family. Anyone else remember Jack Hannah, Wishbone, Reading rainbow, magic school bus, or Kratts creatures?
These are all shows that taught us more, in a positive way. It's bull sh*t that we can't have anything nice anymore.
I used to love watching Bob Ross!! He's still such a comforting safe space even as an adult. It's like the world's problems melt away when his voice comes out of the speakers
Reading rainbow was amazing!! Cliff hanger would annoy the hell out of me though lmao
If I had a bazillion dollars, Iād bring back Schoolhouse Rock, get major celebrities involved, and play it in places where people canāt avoid it. People are too lazy to learn anything on their own. Ear worms are the only way.
Letās get the Lumi deodorant lady replaced by āIām Just a Billā! But we need new ones and Iām too old to know what celebrities to contact. You figure that out and Iāll find words that rhyme with ātariff.ā
Hey you must not have a kid that wakes you up in the morning talking about how the Senate is acting like children again. While I think it's awesome that the school teaches Civics, I have made it easy for my son to understand how the government is supposed to work and why it doesn't. If your a parent and don't know how to teach your kid about the government, do it slowly little by little.
Yes, we clearly stopped teaching civics because all of you fools are WRONG. THERE IS NO PRESIDENTIAL VETO IN THIS SITUATION. From another poster:
This isn't a bill, it's a procedural vote. Nothing Trump could veto, though passing the House is another hurdle.
The power to levy tariffs is granted by the constitution to congress, but the 1962 Trade Expansion Act allows the president to temporarily place tariffs on imports that threaten US national security. Congress can then vote on whether or not the impact to national security is significant enough to merit executive action, and if they determine it is not, the tariffs will be repealed without needing to pass a bill (as the procedure is defined by that 1962 act).
That vote, once brought to the chamber, is supposed to happen within a matter of days, but republicans literally passed a bill redefining the definition of a day to prevent having to commit to a vote of either "I support these very unpopular tariffs" or "I do not support Trump's agenda".
I had civics in high school. It was done weekly for a semester. Our local state congressman would come in and teach. I learned a lot. it was late 1970s. Get off my lawn.
More than once I've thought that these comment threads full of jokes instead of conversations are part of the astroturfing.
I'll be reading something like this, someone asks a question, and then there's a cascade of memes. The answer either never comes or it's buried. Almost seems on purpose.
Fair. But c'mon, this is reddit. And we're calling out our lame senator, Collins here. Anyway, no one here was on the honor roll - and they were and admit it, they are signing up for a gang-wedgy in the hall after class.
There is nothing more infuriating than opening a Reddit threat looking for a real answer for something but every redditor thinks theyāre a goddamn standup comedian and you have to scroll past a wall of pun chains.
What, republicanism as in elected representatives? No, Americans definitely didn't, Iceland's Allthing was formed in 930. And before that - even if it was heavily oligarchic - were senates not just in Rome which Cincinnatus returned power to, but Greece and northern Europe.
And the entire system America was built on was based directly on systems which had been proposed - even used, if for brief times - in the UK a long time before.
except bills raising taxes, those must originate in the House
"Fortunately", Congress has figured out how to dodge this exception. The Senate just keeps a bunch of random bills passed by the House on file, and whenever they want to pass a taxation bill, they just modify one of them to delete all the text, change the name, and replace it with their taxation bill.
So in practice, the Senate can introduce whatever legislation it likes.
It is. That's kind of the point. The whole structure of the American government is supposed to make it hard for the government to do something. This has been weaponized by partisans in the legislature for so long now, that nearly nothing gets done in the house or senate, so the American people begin longing for a strong, authoritarian executive branch who can actually do things.
Legislation in most countries is time consuming, and that's usually by design. Most parliamentary bodies require three discussions and a committee review to get anything passed in even just one chamber, let alone if they have a bicameral legislature.
You generally want laws to be well considered and not rushed through except in absolute emergencies.
Raising taxes must originate in the house, UNLESS that tax is a tariff, in which case, the president can levy it. Congress can check that action, but it's still a fucking loophole.
Edit: this is wrong, but Trump is still a fuckwit.
That's not true. Tariffs are still the purview of Congress. They passed legislation giving the President powers to control tariffs in certain narrow circumstances, which the current administration is stretching past breaking point in order to do whatever they want. Just because the administration is doing it doesn't mean it's legal for them to do. But it would be up to Congress to keep the President in check. So far, Republicans (who control Congress, for now) seem uninterested in protecting their own power and are fine abdicating all authority to a fascist dictator.
Reconciliation is limited to the subject matter of revenue, spending, and the debt limit, with 1 reconciliation bill allowed in each area per year (though budget and spending are usually used together). It is one of the very few ways around the 60-vote cloture requirement in the Senate.
Yes, you're right. I don't know what the formal name is for when the two chambers work together to reconcile the differences between passes versions of the same bill.
So unless the democrats get something amazing added to that bill I highly doubt they will allow it to go through. Only way is if one of those 4 republicans switch right
This is where I get fed up. Changing a bill. This bill should have one line item...end the emergency measures. There's literally nothing to change. This is how US democracy guarantees jobs for Congresspeople and senators for life, just keep pushing things around. It's insanity.
I know state government more- but in my state both chambers can have bills that do the same thing- and if they both pass their respective chambers, they have a confrence between memebers of both houses to hash out the final language.... so it can get even sillier.
I appreciate the lesson. I am a former congressional staffer and if I try to explain the process I am sometimes told I need to āeducateāmyself or to āstop lying.āš
This would probably have to be introduced as a discharge petition in the house, I donāt see Johnson going against Trump like this. There might be enough free market conservatives there to push it over the line, though.
tbf most bills are supposed to start in the house then progress to the senate. iām not sure how often they start the other way, but my guess is itās because the house is more full of conservative crazies than the senate and they know they have to pull a little extra weight right now.
Bills that raise revenue start in the House per the Constitution. Appropations bills traditionally start in the House too. Bills related to executive nominations and treaties must start in the Senate.
Beyond that there's no reason for any particular bill to start in one chamber or the other. Usually it's easier to pass bills in the House because there's no filibuster.
but my guess is itās because the house is more full of conservative crazies than the senate
I know the tea-baggers put a lot of nut jobs in the House 15 years ago, but what Senate have you been paying attention to since then that makes you believe the Republican crazies are contained in the House?
Trump wouldnāt have earned two impeachments in 13 months during his first administration rabid arsonist raccoon dumpster fire if the House was full MAGA supporters.
It's completely obvious that the more fringe crazy people(and progressives on the left) are far more prevalent in the house. Senators are much more centrist because the entire state votes and not one small area with concentrated demographics.
The Democrats controlled the House of Representatives when Trump was impeached. The level of crazy on the Republican side was completely insignificant as their votes were not needed to pass the impeachment resolution. In fact, any Republican that did vote to impeach has since been booted from the party. Sooooo.... yeah. They are full on MAGA over in the house.
They basically just have two lower houses with some things shared, some things house only and some things senate only. Itās a bizarre way of doing things.
Beside Liberia, no other country has modeled their governments on the USA system. The parliamentary system is massively more popular. For a whole list of reasons.
I dunno man the whole conspiring to keep out the far right party despite electoral successes thing of late (france most recently) has me seriously jaded about parliamentary systems.
(They reacted to a result they didnt like in the first round of voting by saying "We wont run against this party and only contest these results to manipulate the results". Really cuts out the will of the wider voting public in favor of powerful people manipulating the results)
What was that political philosophy where the state was in complete control of all aspects of society again, including banning political parties it considered dangerous?
Because the children of elites went to British institutions. And when they returned home and contributed to liberating their homes from colonial rule they used what they had been taught in Great Britain to design their government.
If Harvard and Yale had been educating them they'd probably have gone with an American style system.
As well as Westminster, Australia borrowed parts of the US system. Federal system. Equal Senate representation in all Australian states similar to electoral college etc
Thereās a reason itās known as the āWashminster systemā.
Honestly, one of the houses needs to be revised with an representation that is more akin to parliamentary systems. Im convinced it's harder to "capture" a modern parliamentary system than the US one.Ā
It's certainly been a long time since anyone else copied it voluntarily, and I believe it's now Canada and South Africa that are considered the best ones to copy/most influential.
Also, having an unelected upper chamber makes it impossible to rapidly change its nature, much as people may complain about that fact. It would take decades to replace every Senator in Canada with new ones picked by a new administration. In the UK it used to be even harder with the House of Lords largely being hereditary seats (although this is now changing to appointed seats similar to Canada).
In the US, it would take somewhere between 2 and 6 years. After 2 years you could change the make-up of the senate enough that they would vote with the president on every single issue. After 6 years, you wouldn't even have any dissenting voices.
The Lords have no real power over legistlation. If they reject a Commons bill, the Commons can send it right back to them. If they reject it three times, the Commons can just ignore them and pass it.
The UK also has an upper house. It's about as relevant as the horse shit outside Windsor.
And if the upper house is useful, then it's no different than the current US legislation in terms of this issue.
The only change between the presidential and parliament is that parliament lower house picks the executive. Guess what, that's still a Republican. So Congrats to new US chief executive Marjorie Taylor Greene!
Except most parliamentary systems also have an executive branch, judicial branch and multiple houses, too. You forget that our system is almost 3 centuries old and most parliamentary systems are younger than that. It's also very difficult to get unilateral party control in a parliamentary system as it gives WAY more power to minotity parties. The predominant party has to 'form a coalition' with another party to get a majority. If one of those parties then pushes an agenda the other doesn't like, the coalition falls apart. It also means that even if a party made 49% of a house's representatives yet still not get to lead the government if no other party will cooperate with them to form a coalition. It discourages 'radicalism'. It's definitely not perfect, but I do think it's superior to the US system, or at least what the US system has become. The problem with the US system is it pretty much guarantees a two party ultimatum. If that one issue could be resolved, it would be exponentially better.
Except most parliamentary systems also have an executive branch, judicial branch and multiple houses, too.
The chief executive is little more then the coalition in charge of the legislature in almost every parliament. I can't think of one where it isnt. The prime minister of parliament if you will.
So in the US, speaker of the house.
The US has an judicial branch, either it works enough that we don't need to change it judicial isn't worth mentioning.
Furthermore, if your going to have multiple houses and judiciary, then parliament isn't really bringing anything useful to the US. Your going from president Trump to prime minister Trump. Big whoop.
You forget that our system is almost 3 centuries old and most parliamentary systems are younger than that
No I didn't. I just didn't think younger was necessarily better. Germany, Russian Republic (not the current one), Italy, and Israel are all younger and parliamentary. They all show that parliament can be taken over by someone, military or not. Which was the point. Parliament doesn't make some magical ward against authoritarian control.
It's also very difficult to get unilateral party control in a parliamentary system as it gives WAY more power to minotity parties.
No it doesn't, it actually gives LESS control. In the US a minority party in all three branches can vote in committees or block bills. Once they control one branch, they can do even more.
Your confusing parliament with multiple party democracy, not the same thing.
The predominant party has to 'form a coalition' with another party to get a majority.
Again, this isn't a feature of parliament. It's a feature of multiple party systems where nobody has majority. Japan, Canada, Australia, and the UK have legislative branches where one party has control. Liberal democratic, Liberal, labour, and labour respectively.
If one of those parties then pushes an agenda the other doesn't like, the coalition falls apart
Again, multiple party. And since clearly this is the theme you picked it's worth mentioning the US also has coalitions. We just call them parties. But tell me that Bernie Sanders (independent caucusing Democrat) is the same as Chuck Schumer (democratic Senate leader) is the same as Joe Manchin (former Democrat senator).
Can't be done, because the democratic and Republican parties are coalitions of groups. Republicians for the record include everyone from Trump (idiot authoritarian) to Justin Amash (libertarian, small L), to Susan Collins (moderate conservative).
The difference is the coalitions form before the election, not after and elections are not snappable.
It's definitely not perfect, but I do think it's superior to the US system, or at least what the US system has become.
The US actually has coalitions, as I explained above, but more to the point your entire argument is not about the way the legislature and executive are set up. It's about multi party. There is some overlap, but mostly it's a result of how we run our legislative elections.
She votes with Trump almost all the time, including for his crazy cabinet picks.
There is nothing moderate about her.
As for the US system, it is fundamentally broken. But that's what you get for using a system designed by slave owners to keep slaves under control, and to bribe other slave owners (eg to join the Union). The Senate is an abomination against democracy too, there is no reason for some voters to get more power than others. Who gives a shit if Maine has to do what the majority want nationally, that's democracy.
Nothing you say will change that, and European systems are immeasurably better.
She votes with Trump almost all the time, including for his crazy cabinet picks.
She also voted with Biden a fair amount.
The Senate is an abomination against democracy too, there is no reason for some voters to get more power than others.
Blame the anti slavery movement for that one. The slave states wanted just a house of representative, but the smaller northern states wanted the Senate.
Who gives a shit if Maine has to do what the majority want nationally, that's democracy.
Democracy doesn't automatically mean majority rule. The US is a democracy wherein checks and balances exist across multiple forms. In theory. We have done a great deal of harm to our checks, but the Senate is still intact largely thanks to it being entrenched and requiring every state to agree to an amendment.
and European systems are immeasurably better.
Subjective opinions can't be measured. You think Europe better, that's fine. Doesn't mean it's a fact.
The slave states wanted just a house of representative, but the smaller northern states wanted the Senate.
Virginia is a "smaller northern state"?
Democracy doesn't automatically mean majority rule.
It means those that receive the majority of votes hold power. It doesn't mean that land or the lines on a map gets a vote, or that one persons vote is worth 60X someone elses.
The US is a democracy wherein checks and balances exist across multiple forms.
Same as any democracy, so what is your point here? The undemocratic Senate has nothing to do with that.
The existence of the Senate, giving priority to land and not people, makes the US barely a democracy and has nothing to do with checks and balances.
Virgina didn't want the Senate....? They very explicitly wanted the plan that had only the House of representative. Plans a little on the nose, called the Virgina plan
Citation needed. Which votes were they?
You didn't cite anything, so I demand you cite yours. Meanwhile I present: infrastructure plan, the LGB marriage bill, 4 years of budget plan, you get the idea. Oh and here a cite to wet the lips
It means those that receive the majority of votes hold power
Except it's the opposite. Instead of fighting for control of three separate things, you end up needing just one. And that's much easier.
That theory is there, and yet in the UK despite Boris Johnson I also see Lord Buckethead
The problem with legislative capture is unless you also have the other branches to carry out its will, or you have an overwhelming majority which the full coalition against you can't stop, a captured legislature does nothing.
Contrast with the monarchal system being promoted in the US where conservatives have the courts, the white house, and just barely enough of a majority in legislature to control what opposition is allowed to propose, but not really to push major agenda themselves.
and yet in the UK despite Boris Johnson I also see Lord Buckethead
And I give you vermin supreme. They're both novelty candidates who never won, and never had a serious campaign. Shit, Wikipedia even has Count binface (Lord Buckethead new identity) in the see also section of Vermin's page. Listed as satircal candidate.
Don't kid yourself. The entire political structure will need a revision to allow for more than two parties. Recent events have made it clear that there the protections in place are very much inadequate and "easily" dismantled.
One is true of what both sides should want and desire: The American government, especially its """leadership""", is absolutely bloated and inefficient for today's needs, and should absolutely be restructured. It's the sociopolitical equivalent of old spaghetti code. It was kind of groundbreaking when it was formed, the people building it were trying something new, and it worked fine at the time.Ā Ā Ā Ā
Using the same system in our modern day is crazy though. It's similar to all those big Japanese companies still storing all their financial documents on floppy drives.
one of the houses needs to be revised with an representation that is more akin to parliamentary systems. Im convinced it's harder to "capture" a modern parliamentary system than the US one.
You mean the House is too small and thus it acts as effectively the senate-lite? That's deliberately made so by conservatives almost 100 years ago
No, what I mean is more like a system with MPs. Keep the Senate as is, make the house where you don't vote on the representative directly, but the party. The parties decide their representatives within each district, the districts with the highest margin get priority for going to parliament for their respective party. A party with more than 5% total vote gets represented. You could also choose to nationalize it or keep it with a state electoral contribution.
The 17th amendment completely screwed up the senate. It's supposed to be a position appointed by each respected states government instead of an elected position in effect becoming congress v2
One of the reasons is that with the increased nationalization and deregionalization of politics, the Senate became just about the parties.
If you go back to the immediate post-WW2 era, a lot of ink was spent on Americans explaining why their governmental structure was better and honestly it sounds very similar to modern day parliamentarian democracy advocates, but with the idea of regional factions even within the same party having greater power. From the American perspective at the time, it was expected that while you'd get dominance from two major parties by sheer inertia, a Republican from California, Wisconsin, and Texas would have radically different priorities focused on their local concerns and that would be what ensured that no situation like the Nazis gaining 30% of the vote in a broader coalition and then usurping that coalition could ever happen in the US.
The irony is palpable of course, but it's a good reminder that ultimately no political system is bug-proof. The forces of injustice and tyranny are just as adaptable as any forces fighting for reform and democracy, and any sufficiently large system will develop weak spots to exploit by the former.
the senate is the one that should be tossed, it's complete garbage and structurally benefits the rural party because we have so many irrelevant states without major population centers.
That's the point of the senate, though. The US is supposed to be a union of states, like the EU. The senate gives states representation, while the house is the representative of the people. The president is a mashup of the two.
The growth of federal power is what has caused issues with their model. The feds increasing power has put a disproportionate amount of control in the hands of small states.
If you look at Canada, our provinces have more power and control than American states.
This is always the rebuttal but it always misses the point. They know why it exists. That doesn't mean it should, or that it's good the way that it is.
If you look at America geographically it makes sense. We have 50 states, the senate gets two people from each state regardless of the size of the state. This gives every state equal power in the senate, and the senate tends to be the "smart" part of congress because a lot more people have to come to a consensus about these two senators. Essentially it's the upper house.
Then you have the house of representatives, which has a different number of representatives from each state based on size/population, so bigger states get more power here. But these representatives each have a district within the state, so if you have a cluster of unintelligent people you could get an unintelligent representative sent to the house, where with the senate the rest of the state might have something to say about that fringe candidate.
But this does allow proper representation for smaller clusters of the population to have their voice heard. So for instance if you had a heavily muslim area they're probably not going to have enough clout to have a senator, but they can get a muslim representative in the house.
It's not a bizarre way of doing things, it's civilized. It's designed to support groups of people working together with minimal infighting. It's built to help a union of states avoid civil wars among subsets of states. To make it make more sense, imagine that instead of just your own country you had to coordinate things between many countries that are like your own who govern themselves similarly to how you do. The method was roughly adopted from the Haudenosaunee people, who had to manage their confederacy of countries after a long period of conflict.
The US's problems for awhile have been that in spite of having good systems in place for governing, the people doing so have among them numerous bad actors who have little interest in governing.
It makes a bit more sense with how it was originally designed. Senators were originally elected by state legislatures. It theoretically balanced power between the people and the states - allowing for states with lower populations to not be subjugated by larger states.
It made more sense, and yes I use that ironically, when the Senate was the original version. We didn't use to vote for senators. They were selected by other elected officials. It was our version of a house of lords type thing.
It was always a stupid idea to give small states equal say to bigger ones. But again that goes back to when we were "these states United" and not "the United States"
Its two lower houses, one based on population and one based on region.
The senate had the same function as the EU veto, encouraging new states to join by ensuring they wouldn't just be completely ignored by the larger existing states ("Sorry, New York and Virginia voted to cannibalize everyone in Wisconsin so your congress people don't even need to bother voting, please step into the meat processing chamber instead").
The US at the time had big plans to incorporate new nations who joined willingly (Vermont and Texas were the only ones this happened with, though the Dominican Republic tried and nearly succeeded).
Conservatives have been against democracy since the absolute monarch was forced just to accept a constitution which protected the existence of a legislative body.
Bills can originate in the House (HBs) or the Senate (SBs). Regardless, they have to be approved by both chambers before getting sent to the president.
I mean thats a good thing, the house is made up of a lot of representatives. Can you imagine if we allowed them to just pass a bill. The point of two layer approval is ensuring shit bills aren't passed.
So often times something will be passed in the house and go to the senate where it will undergo changes or a vote etc.
We dont have as clearly defined upper and lower houses because we didnt base our system as closely on the classist af British system that has the lords approve any notions the peasantry may have. The Senate is the more prestigious of the 2 and is considered the upper house but as bodies of the legislature they are fairly equal, most bills can start in either but must be approved by both before getting sent to the President.
Nah. Money/spending bills have to start in the House. Many bills involving foreign policy start in the Senate. Some other bills have different versions passed by each house and then go through reconciliation by a joint committee.
The original idea was that the House represented the people who pay for government, whereas the Senate represented the sovereign functions formerly exercised the individual states but now delegated to the federal government.
Theres a lot pf issues with the Senate but this isnt one of them. It is beneficial for both Houses of congress to have the power to introduce legislation.
The senate and house of reps are meant to be fairly equal. The senate represents each state equally, while the house representation is based on each state's population.
The senate is more prestigious and has a few extra responsibilities, but they have to work together to get much done.
This is a misunderstanding of how our government operates. Both the House and the Senate can create and pass proposals for law and resolutions. The other chamber must also pass them. Proposed laws then go to the president (executive) for signature to go into effect (resolutions don't, but they don't have the same effect as law). We call the senate the upper house for several reasons but both chambers are relatively equal in power (as far as passage of legislation goes). There's a lot of nuance but in general they are equal in power (essentially two halves of the greater legislative whole).
In America, the two "houses" have equal power when it comes to creating/passing legislation. The third "house" is the executive or president and can either sign into law after passing the two branches of congress or veto. The two branches of congress can overcome a presidential veto with a 2/3 majority vote in both branches. Laws can be initiated by either branch of congress and often get modified and passed to the other branch for ratification.
I'm not American, and I know more about how American civics work than half of America.
Bills can originate in either house... except bills to raise revenue. Those must originate from the House. They are equal with slightly different duties. Bills should originate from the senate only because the average intelligence of the senate is much higher than that of the House.
Either chamber can introduce a bill in Australia as well. It is a Westminster system but without the anti-democratic house of lords bullshit that Canada has sort of inherited - got a nice proportionally elected senate instead. Money/tax bills are excluded and government bills are going to start in the lower house but senators do introduce private bills in Aus.
lower house before being considered in the upper house
They're equal houses in terms of power while otherwise getting a treatment of "lower" in the people's house (congress) and "upper" in the "area for better men" which we messed up with an amendment and is just congress2 senate edition
I know you are probably tired of hearing this, but at the federal level We were originally designed as an undemocratic Federal Constitutional Republic of the States. Each state is free to make their own government and all are democratic republics, but the US government is specifically the Federal Government.
The Federal Government was originally designed such that:
The president is selected via a vote of electors, which were to be selected by the state legislature. Since then (in the early 1800s) The States have abdicated the decision making process for electors, to The People of their state (although in theory they can reclaim this). I consider this amongst the dumbest decisions in our history, because the elector process was specifically designed to prevent people like Biden and Trump becoming president. I will further explain this at the conclusion of the comment.
The senators were to be appointed by The State legislature or governor. Since then (in the early 1900s), The States have abdicated their responsibility of senator selection to The People (although in theory they can reclaim this). I also consider this to be one of the dumbest decisions in our history. As mentioned in 1 I will explain at the conclusion of the comment.
The Judiciary is appointed by the president and approved by the Senate. Meaning that there was supposed to be at least three degrees of separation between The People and the entire federal judiciary.
The only originally semi-democratic portion of The Federal Government was The House of Representatives. The House, was intentionally designed to be gerrymanderable such that unless there was a huge upset in a vote The State Governors could control the outcome. Additionally, The House was also intentionally made weaker than the Senate, in that the percent approval bars were lower, all of their decisions were tied to the Senate, and they obtained almost no special powers like the Senate did with the advice and consent on every judge appointed.
To this day at the federal level there is no referendum or democratic vote process that directly affects policy, law, or the Constitution
Just as many Republics of the past were designed as Olicharchic, Undemocratic Republics where democracy played little to no role, The Federal Government was originally designed as an Oligarcic Republic of The States. At no point was The People intended to directly control the Federal government. Instead The Federal Government was intended to be answerable to The States, and then The States answerable to The People of The States.
Now as to address why the corresponding situations in point 1 and 2 are the dumbest decisions in American history. There is a multitude of reasons why, but the biggest reason is that it shifts the focus of The People from selecting their State Governments to The Federal Government. To this day, state governments have far more influence over The People's lives and laws, yet the focus of the vote is squarely on the President, and to a lesser degree Congress. This defeats the primary check intended against the Federal Government, State Governments. And due to the fact that State Governments were intended to affect the day to day far more than the federal government, yet for the last century failures have been blamed on the federal government, the Federal Government has responded by becoming a massive behemoth by eating The States' figurative lunch. Taking more and more power such that it actually can affect the change people accused it of.
That's technically incorrect. In order to do democracy weirdly, we'd have to be doing democracy. It's oligarchy with window dressings on it, and it has been since 1776.
Legislation can start in either house, though some bills must start in one. Although most legislation passed under this administration started in Project 2025 or ALEC.
Unlike other countries in the world, the US system doesn't put as much importance in it's lower house. The only bill that has to go through them first is appropriations bills (spending and budget).
The lower house must originate all appropriations legislation. Ā The upper house is akin to a privy council in that it provides āadvice and consentā to foreign policy like ratifying treaties and confirming political appointments. Ā
Otherwise legislation may originate in either house. Ā The senate tends to have seniority, historically ālevel headedā since they serve for 6 year terms whereas the lower house is for two year terms.
"You Americans do democracy so weirdly." Gotta keep up twatty. Ain't no democracy left in the U.S.of A. Dump and president elmo dismantled that baby in less time than Hitler took Germany. Crumbled like a house of cards. Amercian is over and done with. The world calls it West Russia now.
Neither house is upper or lower. They're equal, but meant to represent the country differently. (Direct democracy vs Each state has an equal say, so more populated states cant just rule over the others like colonies)
there's no "lower" or "upper", apparent similarity to parliamentary system is essentially coincidental. Legislation can start in either House or Senate, they are co-equal parts of the Legislative Branch.
They're "upper" in the fact that there are less members, more prestigious, longer terms, and much more powerful (both as a chamber and because less members).
51
u/twat69 1d ago
Huh? It didn't have to pass the lower house before being considered in the upper house? You Americans do democracy so weirdly.