If the Democrats win a majority in the House in next week’s election, how will that leave the President/Congress dynamic?
Who will control what in relation to legislation?
What, if any, fetters will Congress be able to place on the Bush administration’s actions (and vice versa if relevant)?
Will the Dems be able to use control of Congress to run political interference on the Bush administration eg by appointing investigative committees etc?
Bear in mind this is GQ, folks. I don’t want political commentary on who should or should not do what, I just want the facts as to who will lawfully be in a position to do what.
I should add, I am assuming for the sake of the OP that the Dems will not win control of the Senate (which I understand to be the most likely outcome).
The United States has a bicameral legislature. Only Congress can enact laws. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate have to approve a law by a majority vote for it to be enacted. Then the law is sent to the President for his approval (if he does nothing with it, it automatically becomes a law in ten days). He can veto the law if he chooses. If he vetoes it, Congress can override his veto by a 2/3 majority.
As I understand it, the Dems are unlikely to obtain a 2/3 majority, if they win a majority at all. This presumably means that in the OP scenario, Bush would be unable to force legislation through, and would have to obtain Dem agreement (obviously) but also the Dems wouldn’t be able to force through legislation Bush doesn’t like. Is that correct?
Most likely. Bush won’t have a Republican majority in the House to pass laws he wants and the Democrats won’t have a veto-proof majority (or also may not a majority in the Senate) to pass the laws they want. The two sides will either have to learn to work together or nothing will get accomplished for two years.
Howerver, all laws regarding the spending of money must be initiated by the House of Representatives. It can be defeated in either chamber.
The President may veto. Now days, he may add a little note that basically says “Hey, I hate this law, and I am going to ignore the following parts of it.”
Where he got this power was by trying it out, and no one minded much. So, now it has precedent, and is in fact more powerful than the Constitution, until someone with balls decides to fight over it. Fat chance.
Well, this is certainly what’s on a lot of people’s minds. If the Democrats control the House but not the Senate, they’ll be able to run interference, definitely. A bill could make it out of the Senate but it would still have to clear the House. However, Democrats don’t move in lockstep the way Republicans do; Republicans are better at rounding up their congresspeople to vote together than Democrats. You’ll see your more conservative Democrats bolting the Democratic caucus regularly; Democrats herd like cats.
We’ll likely see more oversight of Republican bills, but I doubt we’ll see the new Democratic leadership investigating Bush and friends the way the Republicans started doing to Clinton in 1992, and then making all Congressional business focus foremost on investigating the president after 1994, when they took both houses of Congress. I think this development will be good for keeping Congress honest. And I don’t think it will make that much difference whether they take both the House and Senate or if they just take the House. But I’m willing to be wrong!
Bearing in mind that this is GQ and we don’t want to get political, are you saying that you don’t think we’ll see this because of some difference in the numbers, or what?
Another effect of winning a majority of House seats is the majority party gets to appoint the chairmen of the House Committees and Subcommittees. The chairmen wield control over the business of their committees, with the power to impede legislation and amendments to legislation offered by the minority party. A bill can only be voted on to become a law after it is approved by the respective committee, so this power is important.
Normally, if the President does not act on a law within ten business days, it becomes a law automatically. But, if Congress adjourns before the deadline, then it does not become a law. This latter situation is a pocket veto.
Investigations could follow. The Repubs were so powerful they could pull the plugs on any icommittee the Dems wanted. It permitted the Repubs to keep the lid closed on Plame and war atrociities. Perhaps the light may shine in.
I’m not getting political; I’m just stating the facts. The Republicans in Congress, headed by Newt Gingrich, were calling for Clinton’s head before he was inaugurated. Far fewer Democrats are calling for Bush’s head right now, nor have they ever. Really, which Congressional Democrats are calling for impeachment, criminal investigation, etc.? There might be a handful, but hardly enough to constitute a significant number. Why is this? Who knows? But the fact is that they’re not. In 1992 and 1994, the Republicans were, and they delivered.
The Democrats understand that impeachment proceedings, while tantalyzing to some people, are political losers, and won’t accomplish anything but to make vast numbers of voters mad at them. Besides, Bush is out of there in two years, anyway, so the potential returns aren’t worth the effort of creating a Cheney administration. If the Democrats want to fight the Bush message and the Bush appeal, they’ll do better to let him languish as an unpopular lame duck than to beat up on him in impeachment proceedings. The Democrats will also look better if they take the mantle of reformers and insist on oversight instead of punishment, which I guess boils down to a classic argument: is punishment more important, or is reform more important? My guess is that the Democrats are looking to opt to play the part of reformers rather than punishers; indeed, they’re at their best when they do. I think this is smart, and what I’ve been reading and hearing seems to back this up.
I’m discussing strategy as coldly as possible, but I suppose if I say that the Democrats will probably try to do something smart in 2007, I’ll be denounced as a partisan. That’s kind of inevitable, I guess. But since I’m assuming that the Democrats are smart and that they want to solidify whatever lead they take in Congress (as well as pick up more seats and the White House in 2008,) what I wrote is how I think the Democrats will proceed.
I guess I wasn’t paying close enough attention during those Saturday morning shows about “I am a Bill”… I thought the same thing, that if the President doesn’t sign it, it’s a pocket veto.
Assuming the Dems take the House by a narrow majority, the most effective tool they’re going to have at their disposal will be the committee chairmanships. In addition to the role they play in drafting and moving legislation, House committees are also responsible for conducting oversight of the agencies under their jurisdiction. Committee chairmen get to decide the how, where, when and who of that oversight, and have the power to issue subpoenas to compel reluctant witnesses to testify.
I’d expect a LOT more oversight hearings focusing on perceived failings of the administration. Also expect the committees’ reports of their findings (which are adopted by majority vote) to be highly critical.
This has got me thinking: wouldn’t it be better if the president had to sign every bill with a statement that says, “I, President X, approve this bill” or “I, President X, oppose this bill,” or allow a bill to become law by not signing it? Then the president could make a clear statement with his or her opposition to said bill by either signing a veto to it or, if he or she wants, to lamely let a bill become law after ten days, sending the signal that although President X is not in favor of this legislation, he’s not going to stand in its way. This would also serve to remind us that it’s Congress that writes the laws, not the president!
All federal government budget bills must start in the House. If the Democrats were to gain control of the House, along with committee chairs and committee makeup, the Democrats would also hold the purse strings.
Seems like a fair bit of power to me that any president would have to deal.
Chance, my assessment, again trying to keep it as non-partisan-rhetoric as possible, is that the Democratic leadership, by and large, holds the stance that impeachment should not be a political weapon, but one resorted to in situations like Watergate where the integrity of the government itself is at stake. There are, of course, a number of Republicans who hold the same view. (I believe that the Republican leadership has learned from the Clinton-impeachment fiasco how poor a weapon it is for political purposes, anyway, if not that the current leadership includes people who would not have pushed for impeachment in 1998, on which I cannot speak.) If it were discovered that the Bush White House had engaged in more scurrilous “dirty tricks” than have heretofore come to light, that might change the position to “it’s a Watergate-style situation.” But with present knowledge, I believe that’s not the case.
This post is not intended as a partisan shot, but as an attempt at objective analysis of what has been something of a partisan issue. If it seems a partisan take to anyone, it’s owing to a failure on my part to be as objective as I intend it to be.