Hmmm… if it were up to me, I would design it so that when the president wanted to veto a bill and Congress was out of session, it would just wait until the next time Congress was in session, and then the president could send it back with a veto. That way there wouldn’t ever be any need for a president to sign it into law. Simpler and neater that way.
And you could have pointed out that minor factual oversight without accusing me of committing a logical fallacy.
As I understand it (and I agree with friedo on this), the ten-day period after which bills go into limbo if congress goes out of session is to prevent a lame-duck congress from passing all kinds of untenable legislation in the final days before recessing. I can picture a (for example) Democrat-majority congress sliding some bills through at the last minute because they know that the incoming Republican majority will be compelled to vote against them. Picture a bill that involves some whopping tax increase but titled “The Protection of Poor Widows and Orphans During These Post 9/11 Days when Mercy and Justice Must Truly Be For All Bill.” If the incoming Republicans kill it, they get bad press.
Feel free to reverse the names in the above example to meet your respective affilitiations, i.e. an outgoing Republican congress setting up a huge military spending increase called the “Defense Enhancement To Protect America in These Post 9/11 Days When Safety For Our Children Must Be Our Greatest Concern Bill”.
Fact is, when I see someone trying to sneak something through at the last minute, I get suspicious, and a president should be, too. If the legislation is that important, congress should pass it well before recessing and if for some reason they can’t, let them have a few months during the recess to really think about it and restart the process as soon as they reconvene. It’s always possible something will change and the legislation will no longer be necessary.
Bill Clinton has already used that excuse.
The formal differences have been discussed, but in practical terms the Senate is considered a more reflective body, while the House is more reactive. That’s because it’s bigger, the shorter terms means members need to get their agenda out there quickly if they want to be reelected, and there’s a greater percentage of non-professional legislators (because there are more seats available and it’s easier to get one without necessarily having heavy support from the national party – not easy, but easier). Originally, senators were not elected by the voters but were appointed by their state governments, but that has been changed through amendment.
–Cliffy
To be more specific, the House has exactly 435 members (making a tie vote without abstentions impossible). Before 1850, the number of Representatives was determined by the total population, thus giving equal representation. After 1850, the number of Representatives was fixed, meaning that each Representative was less and less representative as the US population increased. By law, no single US state can have less than one Representative, and all US states have two Senators. For anyone who is wondering, three states have less than 1/435 of the US population (but none have yet to get as low as 1/970 the US population).
Nice job, Derleth, on summarizing the Bill of Rights.
To respond to eir question about the seventh amendment, regarding civil suits:
America was already on the dollar by the 1780s. In that era, $20 was a substantial amount, so it was important to ensure that major disputes would be resolved by a balanced legal procedure.
There was no provision to adjust this threshold for inflation. So legally, if I claim Cliffy (to pick a recent poster at random) owes me $20, I can insist on a full jury trial. In practice, most states have a system of small claims courts, for handling civil suits of relatively small amounts (often with a maximum of $10K or $25K) with less formal procedure, no jury, and (presumedly) lower court costs and legal expenses.
The US Constitution is a very good resource for showing how a government can be set up. It sets out a structure, clearly states who has what powers, keeps those powers sufficiently general, spells out certain restrictions, and specifies how to fill the various essential positions. Any organization needs to decide on these points, put them in specific terms, and make the specifications easy to locate.
The Constitution is also a good resource for showing how an organization’s basic rules can be adapted over time through interpretation and through amendment. It’s very noteworthy that in over 200 years, there have been fewer than 30 changes to the Constitution. And of those changes, 10 were adopted in one big batch as the Bill of Rights, and one undid another.
Not almost. Each state is (officially) sovereign. We learn in law school that there are 51 sovereigns in the United States – each of the 51 states plus the U.S. as a whole.
Why would someone who wants to be head of state be either “has been” or “never was to be”? It seems to me that the person running for the highest office would have to be in the prime of his or her political career.
It could, but it generally doesn’t. In the United States, almost every reference to a “congressman” or “congresswoman” (there’s no such thing as a “congressperson”) is a reference to a U.S. representative, not to a U.S. senator.
Merriam-Webster dictionary:
con • gress • per • son
Function: noun
Date: 1972
: a congressman or congresswoman
Yes, thanks, Walloon. I’ll rephrase: “Congressperson” is not correct when referring to a member of the U.S. Congress. Members of the House of Representatives may be referred to as “congressmen” or “congresswomen.” The more precise title, however, is simply “U.S. representatives.”
Topic: The two key concepts that make American government different from British-style parliamentary democracies are federalism (some powers reserved for the central government and some given to the state governments) and separation of powers (among the three branches of government).
As a unitary system, the traditional British government (pre-devolution), for example, does not apply either of these concepts. The central government is supreme and local governments are merely arms of the central government and the parliament (through the prime minister and the cabinet) supervises the exercise of (with some exceptions) executive, legislative, and judicial power.