Please, PLEASE don’t respond with one-sided political rhetoric.
Both political parties in this current crisis bear some of the responsibility for the deadlock.
In any case, I’ve seen the argument that the House of Representatives, as a body, does not have to vote to spend any money. They can allow the country to shut down, or to let this republic fall into ruin because no decisions have been made at all. They have the power, apparently, to shut it all down, and the only check on this power is that they can be voted out of office. However, the next election is over a year away, so if I understand things correctly, if the deadlock stands then it could theoretically last for a year.
Frankly, if the House of Representatives, as a whole, refuses to even make a decision on what to spend money on, could they be removed from office for failing to perform their duties?
If, hypothetically, the President refused to make any decisions because “not now, I’m too busy debating with myself”, and refused to authorize the U.S. military to respond to invading troops (or authorize anything, at all), he could be removed for failure to do this duties, right?
And if the Supreme Court justices decided that they would just go play golf for a year and not review any cases, the same argument ought to apply.
Anyways, it occurred to me that the only solution I can see to this deadlock if it was likely to continue to the point of the United States government completely failing would be to disband the House.
The “fair” solution might be to send all members of the House of Representatives home, with the state governments ordered to produce replacements within 5 days or something. (in most states, the governors would appoint replacement members). What makes this solution fair is that it doesn’t penalize members of any particular political party.
Without a solution like this, there seems to be no reason a pure deadlock can’t arise, where the House passes a bill funding the government that contains some unacceptable provision that the President feels he must veto. This can continue forever, so long as the House has between 50%+1 to 66% support for this strategy, right?
The line item veto would have fixed this problem, but it was shot down by the Supreme Court.