How does the US work?

I think the word you’re looking for is ceases.

Not to mention early campaigning for various party candidates during mid-term elections, which Cheney did plenty of in 2002 and for important gubernatorial (and occasional mayoral) candidates during the entire term, as Cheney has been doing over the past few weeks leading up to this Tuesday. And I’m sure that as soon as he recuperates from this campaign season, Mr. Cheney will be criss-crossing the country working on the 2004 re-election campaign for himself and Mr. Bush.

So it’s not as though the VP sits around for 7 years or so, then starts running around trying to curry favor to get the big promotion in the next election.

I am not an active monarchist but after reading all of the above I am pleased I live in a country where the Queen is the head of state. She has (for all intents and purposes) no “actual” power, and more importantly probably gives barely a shit about what happens in NZ.

Our PM can’t do anything without a vote from parliment and sure that vote is rubber stampish if the govt has a clear majority, but since we bought in MMP there has not been a clear majority. I believe that the title of “world’s best democracy” is one that needs to be rexamined when it come to the US and I hope we keep old Lizzy Chips as head of state for as long as she may reign (and then I fully indorse old big ears as her successor).

I would hate to see the day that we elected our head of state from has-been, never-was-to-be politicains (or who had the most money to run a fantabulous campaign) and gave them a power that the Queen doesn’t have and doesn’t have any interest in having.

True. The Vice-Prez shows up on Air Force Two with Secret Service agents and can cut a pretty impressive figure (assuming he hasn’t been too actively ridiculed in the press) at a fundraising dinner for a congressman or senator who has shown (or promises to show) loyalty to the President.

The Veep’s in an excellent position to do stuff like this, because he has high standing but few actual responsibilities. Of course, as soon as something bad happens, the Secret Service shoves him in a big leather sack and tucks him away somewhere.

We do learn about US politics in school, here in Sweden, although it’s quite sketchy.

So I’ll add my own question: Apart from when they are elected - what’s the dif 'tween a senator and a congressperson?

As for the Constitution: It is a simple document. It comprises a few pages, little of the language is arcane, and the most complex math it ever contained has been struck down by amendments.*

*In the original Constitution, it was decided that a slave would be counted as two-thirds of a person for the purposes of a census. You can now safely ignore anything in the Constitution that relates to slavery.

It was written by lawyers (mostly), true, but those lawyers were some of the most intelligent men on the planet at the time, and some would stand well against the entire history of intelligent people. They were also radicals and revolutionaries who knew what they wanted and that anything they created would have to compare with everything else on Earth, before or since. They were creating a system modeled on an idea most of the world’s political leaders had thought failed, and they knew that their lives depended on getting it right this time.

Anyway, read the American Constitution. Reading the Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the Constitution) would be useful in following most American political discussions. I’ll summarize them here, briefly:

[list=#]
[li]This is a kind of Ten Things I Want in a Government': Government shall stay out of religion, not mess with free speech, and allow the people to peacefully protest and send letters to the Government asking for changes.[/li][li]This amendment is vague and seemingly self-contradictory. Some people (myself included) think it provides individuals the right to own guns and other weapons. Others, whom I respectfully disagree with, think it only allows state militias to own weapons. In any case, it relates to gun ownership.[/li][li]This is somewhat of a historical curio, and it reflects a major bitch the colonists had with the British military. It briefly states that the military shall not put soldiers in citizens' houses without the consent of the citizens involved. During the time the Constitution was being written, the British had a nasty habit of shoving troops in the homes of the locals, who would be forced to put up with uncouth redcoats.[/li][li]This amendment comes as close as anything does to establishing a right to privacy. It states that the Government can only search you, your home, and your property if they have a search warrant that specifically states what they will search and what they're looking for. Furthermore, those warrants can only be obtained if the Government can show probable cause that it you've done something wrong: mere suspicion doesn't cut it.[/li] (As for the right to privacy: The Constitution, being largely a procedural document, doesn't mention it. The Bill of Rights assumes it, but doesn't mention it specifically. It's largely assumed by the American legal system, however, and has been the basis for several successful attacks on various laws. Law can be like Jewish law: Only part of it is written down, and the rest is in the interpretations.) [li]This amendment describes various things to do with the legal system, mostly. The first section states that a grand jury must indict anyone who has been accused of a capital, or otherwise infamous, crime, except if the person's in the military when we're at war or it's a national emergency. (What is an infamous crime? Is that a specific concept, or simply a blanket statement? (See what I mean about interpretation?)) It goes on to say that nobody can be tried twice for the same crime. (The exact wording is put in jeapordy of life or limb’, which is where the term double jeopardy' comes from. And no, don't try to use the crappy movie of the same name to understand this. The movie gets it wrong.) The third part says that nobody can be made to testify against himself (as every criminal who's said "I'm standing on the fifth" knows), or be deprived of anything without due process (which means the Government can't just take something from you), and that nobody can be deprived of property without being paid a fair value (this comes up in cases of eminent domain’, where the Government pays some bloke for his land so a superhighway can be built).[/li][li]This is more about the rights of the accused. It says that anyone accused of a crime has the right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury in the jurisdiction where the crime occurred. The accused also has a right to know what the charges against him are, and to be able to see the people accusing him. Furthermore, he has right to legal counsel (a lawyer, in other words) and to be able to gather witnesses in his defense. All and all, a pretty information-packed sentence.[/li][li]This is the third amendment related to the legal system. It says that if any case is about a value of twenty dollars or more, the accused has a right to a trial by jury, and that no court can re-examine that trial except under the rules of English Common Law. I don’t know if the value is still set at twenty dollars, but it takes an amendment to change an amendment, and I don’t know of any amendment altering the value mentioned in this one. (BTW, would the `dollars’ mentioned in the Constitution be Spanish dollars, or were they foreseeing an American currency called the dollar?)[/li][li]This is the last one about the legal system (promise!). This one prohibits excessive bail and cruel or unusual punishments. Some states used the basic logic here to ban capital punishment, and captial punishment was once banned at the national level, but it’s currently in use in some states today. Whenever capital punishment is debated, this amendment is invoked, directly or indirectly.[/li][li]This amendment is cited as confusing, but it really isn’t. It says “Just because we didn’t mention a right here doesn’t mean the citizens don’t have it.” It’s too often ignored, and I think a lot of the laws today would be drummed off the books if it were looked at more closely by more judges. Again, you must turn to recent interpretation for answers.[/li][li]This amendment says that all of the powers not given to the Government explicitly are given to the states or the people. This amendment is also frequently overlooked.[/li][/list]

Senators serve in the Senate, and Congressperson is normally used to refer to someone who serves in the House of Representatives. Each state gets 2 Senators (making for a total of 100) while each state is divided into districts that elect their representives. The number of representatives varies based on the population of that state - for example, California, the state with the most people, has 54 representatives, while Wyoming, the least people, has only 1 representative in Congress. There are a total of 435 members of the House of Representatives.

www.census.gov/population/cen2000/tab01.pdf+number+of+representatives&hl=en&ie=UTF-8]This site has a full list of how many representatives each state gets.

For a bill to pass, it must get a majority vote in both the senate and the house of represenatives; if they President signs it, the bill becomes law; the President can veto the bill, which means it has to go back to the senate and house, here if it gets a 2/3 majority vote in each it becomes law anyways.

Also, each branch has its own specific powers- the Senate ratifies treaties, and approves the Presidents selection for cabinet members and federal judges, while, IIRC, the House of Reps is the only one that propose a law involving taxation.

Oops, I messed up on that last link - here
is the correct one. (Warning, .pdf file.)

Bah! Can I create no post without one stupid error?

The Constitution provided that slaves would each be counted as three-fourths of a person, not two-thirds. That was the `Three-Fourths Compromise’ I learned in grade school (grade school, mind you, when I was not twelve years old!) and I promptly forgot the moment it became relevant to the SDMB.

Not that it really matters, now. Slavery is dead and any language in the Constitution relating to slavery is now null and void.

Now, hold on there just a second.

In logic, there’s the “fallacy of the excluded middle” which is what you have written here. IOW, what about when the president neither signs nor vetoes a bill that Congress has passed?

The answer: it depends.

If Congress is still in session for ten or more days after passing the bill, it doesn’t matter whether the president signs it or not. It becomes law just the same..

If Congress recesses less than ten days after passing the bill, and the president doesn’t sign it, then it doesn’t become law. This is in effect a vetoless veto, or as it is commonly known, a “pocket veto.” As though the president just stuck the piece of paper in his pocket and then forgot about it.

Note that I don’t capitalize the word “president” when it’s a common noun. Only capitalize it when used as a title with a person’s name. Example:

You know, President Lincoln was re-elected in 1864.

But:

Lincoln was president from 1861 to 1865.

Derleth, the fraction you’re looking for is three-fifths.

I Googled. I searched for the only two fractions I could think of, in my caffienated state, and I clamped down on the only one I could verify.

I was still wrong, but I was wrong with someone.

To clarify one point, “congressperson” could refer to anyone from the Senate (upper chamber) or the House of Representatitives (lower chamber, though in the egalitarian U.S., the terms “upper” and “lower” have fallen into disuse - I’m Canadian and use them out of habit). The correct distinction is Senator versus Representative, or Senate versus House, not Senator versus Congressperson since a Senator is a Congressperson.

From the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 1:

Since the Senators are on six-year terms, they are somewhat less subject to short-term political influences. A piece of legislation rushed through the House (remember, all representatvies are up for election every two years, and thus under near-constant pressure to get re-elected) might die in the Senate, a safeguard against hasty decisions.

The key differences include the following:

Only the House can originate revenue bills (i.e. taxes).

The Senate must consent to (i.e. approve of) all international treaties.

The Senate is the body who must approve Presidential appointments (cabinet secretaries, federal judgeships including the Supreme Court, etc.), except for the appointment of a Vice-President, who must be approved by both houses.

If a President is to be impeached, the House selects the charges and the Senate conducts the trial.

There are other minor distinctions here and there, but those are (most of) the biggies.

When I wrote my summary, I specifically said I wasn’t going to discuss “oddball things like constitutional conventions and pocket vetoes and whatnot” for the simple reason of trying to keep my summary of the American federal government down to a manageable size.

Geez, at least read the thing you’re nitpicking.

It isn’t a nitpick. You left out the fact that most bills can become law without the president’s signature.

It is an important point, Bryan. It’s why the president’s power is a “veto,” while in Commonwealth monarchies, the Queen’s similar power is “royal assent.”

The president’s power is negative - legislation passes unless the prez stops it.

The Queen’s power is positive - her assent is required for a bill to become law.

(Skipping lightly over the constitutional convention that she won’t refuse assent… :cool: )

The motives of the “three-fifths” clause of the Constitution (slaves shall be counted as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of allocating seats in the House of Representatives) are often misunderstood. The slave states wanted slaves to be counted as full persons, because that would increase the representation of the slave states in the House. The free states wanted slaves to be excluded from the census for Congressional allocation, because slaves had no political rights. “Three-fifths” was the compromise that the free states and the slave states reached.

I guess someone should ask Stoneburg if his (her?) question has been answered sufficiently? And if there are any clarifications required?

Perhaps how the system works from the viewpoint of an average citizen vs. the legalities of the system? Anything else?

(I’m always fascinated by the questions non-Americans ask about our system - makes me think!)

What I never quite understood is what is the point of having the president “sign a bill into law” in the first place.

As things stand now, obviously it stops being a triviality when Congress recesses and a pocket veto would occur if the president didn’t sign.

But when Congress is going to stay in session for 10 or more days after passage, then the president’s signature is trivial.

Of course, it can be the occasion for making the signing a big victorious press event, like when LBJ signed the 1964 Civil Rights Bill into law, and handed out pens used for the signing as souvenirs of the great day. But from a strictly legislative, as opposed to P.R., point of view, it was still trivial. The bill would have become law just the same and the president’s signature was irrelevant.

So maybe the real question is why does a bill fail to become law if Congress recesses and the president doesn’t sign? What on earth was the point of throwing in that odd little technicality?

I’m very satisfied with the answer(s) to my initial question, I feel a lot more knowledgable now. Especially the clarifications and the explanation on how the Congress and Senate works. Thanks for the anwers :slight_smile:

In order for the president to veto a bill, he must return it to Congress. If Congress is in recess at the time, the bill can not be returned. The point of the provision is to ensure that Congress cannot eliminate the president’s veto power by simply passing everything all at once the day before they go on vacation.

Of course, another difference is that they have different numbers of members. The House of Reps as a whole has about the same amount of power as the Senate as a whole, but there are over four times as many representatives as senators, so an individual senator has about four times as much power as an individual representative.