Proposal: The "End Congressional Deadlock" Amendment

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@Smapti

Of course not. Parliament is much more civil.

Oh dearie dear dear. Who’s the first to tell him about Question Time?

[Smapti]

Whoosh.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

Whoosh right back atcha.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@flurb

But wouldn’t you want the second chamber doing some due diligence on these bills? Taking testimony in committee, asking questions, exploring potential unintended consequences, debating alternatives, etc. Or are they just to assume the originating chamber did all necessary due diligence?

Sure! There’d be a new equilibrium. If the first chamber wants a chance in hell that the second chamber will pass a bill, they need to be in constant communication. “Hey, Senate, we’re hoping to pass this budget by the end of October. Here it is now, and we’ll send over any amendments as soon as we have them, so y’all can be considering them.”

This wouldn’t be a courtesy: this would be necessary if they don’t want the Senate to vote down their bill. A bill that’s sent over with inadequate time for review would be DOA, and both sides would know that.

@flurb

That’s not how conference committees work. Conference committees are convened to resolve differences when the same bill (e.g. HR 1234) is passed by both chambers in different forms. What you’re proposing would be a new process that would present its own problems (e.g. who decides whether two bills are “similar bills” for the purposes of conferencing).

We’re saying the same thing with different words. What you’re calling the “same bill” I’m calling different bills, because what was passed differs.

@flurb

I think @Fear_Itself is on the right track, if you have an R House, D Senate and R White House, the House can just pass a whole bunch of whackadoodle bills in short order, or hold them at the desk and then dump them all on the Senate at the same time. Republicans in the Senate can use their right of unlimited debate, quorum calls, objections to unanimous consent agreements and other dilatory tactics to run out the timer. Democrats in the Senate might be able to vote down some of the bills, but would be hard pressed to schedule votes on all of them before the time limit expires.

Not at all, if they can be voted on en masse. If the House sends over ten thousand bills, the Senate can take up a motion to vote on all bills passed in the House in the last three weeks, voting them all down at once. Stupid games win stupid prizes.

@flurb

Also, changing the Senate Rules to affect the rapid voting scheme you propose would take a 2/3 vote of the Senate.

Not under this amendment it wouldn’t.