Yes. The US Senate (and the local senate of 49 of the 50 states) IS a fully working legislative body, whose members can take initiative in presenting legislation – the main limitation being that legislation on revenues has to be attended first by the House (but the Senate can amend or defeat what the House sends up).
As explained to me in my American Political Thought and Constitutional Design classes (quite a few yaers ago, half remembered, and open to debate) one reasonn the founders included the senate was Aristotle’s idea of the mixed republic in which the vopices of one ruler, a selected elite, and the general population were balanced - the presidency, the senate, and the house respectively. YMMV
How a bill becomes a law, by Cliffy:
With the exception of revenue bills, any member of either Chamber can propse new legislation to his Chamber. The bill is then given a bill number in the format S. 27 or H.R. 27, dpending on which Chamber it’s in. (Sometimes legislation is introduced in only one Chamber; with important, politically sensitive issues, identical bills are often introduced in both Chambers simultaneously.) Typically the legislation is then assigned to one or more committees which have expertise in the area this law deals with (such as the Senate Judiciary C’tee, the House Ways & Means (taxes) C’tee, etc., etc.) Each Chamber has its own committees, which are made up of members of that Chamber from both parties.
Once the c’tee(s) get the bill, it’s usually assigned to a sub-committee. The Senators or Representatives on this committee (and primarily the committee staff) examine the bill, hold hearings of interested parties on its effects, analyze the costs, and generally study it to see whether it’s worthwhile and how it can be improved. They vote on amendments to the bill (called “marking it up”) and, if a majority of them approve of their final version, they “report it out” of the subcommittee. These votes are frequently along party lines, and it’s not uncommon to have a “minority report” from the losing side say why they don’t like the bill or the changes they would have made.
The same process occurs at the full committee level. If the committee can agree on a mark-up, they report it out to the full Chamber. This version of the bill is called the Chairman’s Mark. (F’rinstance, Sen. Lieberman is chair of the Governmental Affairs C’tee. If that committee reports out a version of S. 106 that it has marked up, it could be referred to as “Chairman Lieberman’s Mark of S. 106.”)
Once the bill is out of committee (and assuming the leadership doesn’t want it to die), the Chairman’s Mark is scheduled for floor debate. At this time any member of the Chamber can propose amendments, which if approved by majority vote are added to the bill. Eventually, there’s a final vote on passage of the bill. If it fails, the bill is dead (although it could be revived by any Member reintroducing it); if it’s a yea vote, the bill passes that Chamber. But here’s where it gets tricky.
As I noted earlier, bills (other than revenue bills) can be introduced in either Chamber or both. If our bill S. 106 was introduced only in the Senate, then the version that passed the Senate goes over to the House if it can find a Rep. willing to introduce it. (Or vice versa.) There, it goes through the same process on the other side (committees, mark-ups, amendments, etc.). Obviously, if the bill is lucky enough to get through the second Chamber, it’ll look very different than it does on the other side. (Even if bills are introduced simultaneously in both Chambers, the amendment processes will result in two different passed bills at the end of the line.)
Since a law must be passed by both Chambers, it has to be identical. Assuming the bills no longer are (which is almost always the case), the two versions must be reconciled. This is done by forming a conference committee, a committee made up of Senators and Reps. from both parties who have an interest in the bill. This committee tries to work through each provision of the bill, deciding whether the House or Senate version is best, or adding their own. If the committee can agree on a compromise bill, it’s reported out to both Chambers, which vote yea or nay. (No amendments are permitted or else it’d have to go back to conference.) If both Chambers reapprove this new version of the bill, it is considered passed by Congress.
There are now four things that can happen. 1. The President can sign it, in which case it becomes a law. 2. The President can do nothing, in which case it becomes a law without his signature in, IIRC, 10 days. 3. The President can veto it. In this case it does not become law. The President must explain what he doesn’t like about the bill. Congress can then either give up, go through the same legislative process to amend it into something the President will sign, or attempt to override the veto. To do so, both Chambers must again vote on the bill, there must be no amendments, and both Chambers must pass it with a 2/3 majority. If they do, it becomes law over the veto. (This almost never happens.) 4. The “pocket veto”: non-final legislation expires when Congress recesses for teh end of the session, whether that legislation be in commitee, on the floor, or on the president’s desk. Therefore, if Congress recesses while the Presiden’t 10-day period is still ongoing, the bill goes away without the President having to actively veto it. (This is a way for the Pres. to avoid a last-minute bill he doesn’t like without the political cost of an official veto.) Each law passed by Congress and either signed by the president or which becomes law without his signature is now the law of the land.
–Cliffy
Or, you can just listen to Schoolhouse Rock:
I’m just a bill
yes I’m only a bill
and I’m sittin’ here on Capitol Hill…
Zev Steinhardt
I thought the same thing until last fall, when I read an interview with New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson about Canada’s antidrug policy. Basically, he thought we had a good approach: less repression and more good sense. Mr. Johnson, who is a Republican, thought it was a shame that half of New Mexico’s police budget was spent on drug war, so he passed some drug reforms. However, such a choice might be surprising from a Republican, and his decisions were not popular to everyone. So he was quoted saying he envied our Senate made up of unelected people who can make decisions without worrying about reelection.
It is true that friends of the government have been appointed to the Senate. However, I do believe that a proportion of them do take their job seriously. The point of having a Senate is just that: having people that are appointed, not elected, to think about laws. This fact makes them more independent and less vulnerable to popular opinions, e.g. they can do things for the common good even if it’s politically risky.
Which state’s the exception? Are you not counting Nebraska because it’s a unicam, because I’m pretty sure they call themselves the State Senate.
You’re refering to Andrew Thompson. He was able to take so much time off from the Canadian Senate without being docked because he was more or less faking an illness. When Canadian reporters followed him to his villa in Mexico, they found he was in perfect health – my favourite photo was the one where he was dancing around a sombrero like something out of an old Bugs Bunny cartoon.
You can’t fire a senator, but Jean Chrétien tossed him out of the Liberal party. IIRC, he resigned rapidly after that.
I’ve never believed an unelected body is less given to corruption than an elected one. Even if the members do take their job seriously, their job is to lessen the say of the public. I think it’s unlikely for the common good to be served if the public doesn’t have a voice. The public are not children.
But to bring this back into the realm of GQ, not GD, this was probably the original intent. Modern democracy was still fairly new back then, and the Senate was probably put in place to alleviate fears. Now it just seems like dead weight to a lot of us.
But someday I’m gonna be a lawwwww
Or I hope and pray that I will
But today I am still
Just a Bill
Yeah, but I was surprised upon a recent viewing that Schoolhouse Rock doesn’t mention the 2/3 necessary to overturn a veto. But really I wanted to discuss reconciliation of divergent bills from both Chambers, and to do that you need to know something about the committee system.
–Cliffy
The (non-elected) Senate’s purpose was nicely explained to Thomas Jefferson by George Washington. As George explained it, the House is a hot cup of tea, and the Senate is the saucer you pour the tea into to cool it off.
See this NewsHour transcript – specifically the first paragraph by Richard Norton Smith.
Nebraska’s legislature is called… the Nebraska legislature.
But… the 49 districts are represented by Senators. So there we are.
Pardon me for poaching, Cornhuskers. :o 
Thanks, TheeGrumpy – Nebraska’s Legislature has no senate, even though the members call themselves Senators.