Newbie 0 #1 November 9, 2006 I'm not an American, so i don't fully understand the political wranglings of how things work. I'm reading that this marks a huge change for the US, and policy for the next 2 years will be markedly different from the last 6. How so? Surely Bush can veto whatever he feels like? Can someone please explain what actual difference this now makes to the political machine? Thanks "Skydiving is a door" Happythoughts Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tonto 1 #2 November 9, 2006 Shhhh They're s-l-e-e-p-i-n-g... tIt's the year of the Pig. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwtom 0 #3 November 9, 2006 Quote Can someone please explain what actual difference this now makes to the political machine? In UK terms: Imagine the queen is still chief executive (instead of a prime minister) and the anti-monarchy party won both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Cheers, T ******************************************************************* Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
labrys 0 #4 November 9, 2006 QuoteCan someone please explain what actual difference this now makes to the political machine? The president does have the ability to veto legislation, but congress can overturn a veto with a 2/3 majority in both houses, which isn't likely to happen with the sentate split so evenly but.... When there's a president in office who's in the same party as the majority in both houses, that party pretty much gets to do what it wants, as the republicans have been doing. If anyone wants to get anything done for the next 2 years they'll have to negotiate now. If the next president elected is a democrat, the democrats will have a lot of freedom to act. There are more implications like the control of the commitees that oversee the military, government spending, etc. and the ability to investigate the acts of those commitees but I'm not that well versed in the details.Owned by Remi #? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Samurai136 0 #5 November 9, 2006 QuoteCan someone please explain what actual difference this now makes to the political machine? "If the President approves of the legislation, he signs it. If he does not approve, he must return the bill, unsigned, within ten days (excluding Sundays) to the house of Congress in which it originated. The President is constitutionally required to state his objections to the legislation in writing, and the Congress is constitutionally required to consider them, and to reconsider the legislation. If on reconsideration the Congress passes the bill by a 2/3 majority in each house, it becomes law without the President's signature. Otherwise, the bill fails to become law unless it is presented to the President again and he chooses to sign it." The legislative branch write the laws. Those laws are developed in legislative sub-committee (think of it as a focus group) and presented to the full legislative branch to be voted on. The Speaker of the House presides over this process and designates which members of congress serve on particular committees. In addition, he controls when bills in sub-committee are presented to the floor. The president is Constitutionally Oath bound to uphold the laws of the US. If a 2/3 majority exists, the Legislative branch can dictate to the President what those laws will be. "Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian Ken Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #6 November 9, 2006 QuoteI'm not an American, so i don't fully understand the political wranglings of how things work. I'm reading that this marks a huge change for the US, and policy for the next 2 years will be markedly different from the last 6. How so? Surely Bush can veto whatever he feels like? Can someone please explain what actual difference this now makes to the political machine? Thanks Congress controls the money, and can subpoena and cross examine under oath members of the administration (which should be good to watch).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #7 November 9, 2006 QuoteQuote Can someone please explain what actual difference this now makes to the political machine? In UK terms: Imagine the queen is still chief executive (instead of a prime minister) and the anti-monarchy party won both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Cheers, T A better analogy: Christ is risen. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nathaniel 0 #8 November 9, 2006 The majority party in both chambers sets the agenda for what will happen. A simple majority in either the House or the Senate is required for almost all purposes. When a different party assumes the majority anew, the first thing they do is rewrite the bylaws of proceedings and reassign membership in the subcommittees (generally in proportion to the overall membership). The Senate is traditionally very generous to the minority party, and the House is traditionally very severe to the minority party. The Senate, for instance, generally lets the minority party speak for as long as they want (giving rise to filibusters). The House, on the other hand, traditionally places drastic limits the amount of time that a minority member may speak to the chamber, and the Speaker will not recoil from rudely shutting them up. Basically it means that the only majority party can do things such as introduce new legislation, initiate investigations, or hold hearings. The minority party can generally only get in the way. If the minority party is united and the majority is not, sometimes the minority party can squeeze things through a subcommittee. But it's pretty rare.My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheAnvil 0 #9 November 9, 2006 Not much, really. Neither side has a really big majority, so I doubt the legislative branch would ever garner the 2/3 majority required to over-ride a GWB veto. The Legislative branch controls the purse strings, so OMB will have a tougher time getting the budget it submits through Congress in its roughly original form. The Senate approves all of the President's judicial appointees and cabinet level appointees, so I'd say the character of the confirmation process is about to change a bit, though the process itself will remain the same. The Dems made such fools of themselves during the last SCOTUS and appellate court confirmation hearings I doubt the process could get any worse, though perhaps I underestimate the ability of politicians to much things up. The Executive Branch directs foreign policy and the Legislative funds the executive branch to execute it, so I'm not really sure how the Dem controlled congress expects to change the direction in Iraq or by what mechanism they believe they'll accomplish it. They have no control over tactics or the DoState other than funding it. The legislative process moves far too slowly for them to direct Foreign Policy directly, so I question anyone who thinks the Congress under new leadership will change the course of either the war or US foreign policy. Hearings by the foreign affairs committees can only accomplish so much. I think the biggest thing the Congressional leadership change will bring is to the budget process. But that's just me. Anybody else disagree? Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #10 November 9, 2006 I think the only thing that will happen is another attempt at an AWB(Assault Weapons Ban). I mean hey it idn't work last time, maybe it's because the goverment didn't throw enough money away. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #11 November 9, 2006 Put it this way: We have pretty much analogous elections over here in the form of by-elections). If the recent result had occurred in the UK it would have forced an immediate change of Government. Blair would have already stepped down and Cameron would be probably shortly be appointed PM in his place. Either that or a vote of no confidence would be forced which the current Govt. would not be able to guarantee winning. Parliament would have to be dissolved and we would have a pretty much immediate General Election. Either way you cut it, Blair would have been out on his ear... had it happened here. And that's only considering the loss of the House. The above would happen without even the loss of the Senate, (House of Lords), and of no longer holding the majority of State Governorships, (Local Councils). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #12 November 9, 2006 Quotean AWB. Huh? Average White Band? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,073 #13 November 9, 2006 >Average White Band? No, silly. All-Weather Bicycle, like the one shown below. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #14 November 9, 2006 QuoteI'm not an American, so i don't fully understand the political wranglings of how things work. I'm reading that this marks a huge change for the US, and policy for the next 2 years will be markedly different from the last 6. How so? Surely Bush can veto whatever he feels like? Can someone please explain what actual difference this now makes to the political machine? Thanks See here.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #15 November 9, 2006 QuoteAnybody else disagree? Not complete, but I think one aspect is missing. I think the big stick behind the door is the ability of Dems to now hold hearings into and subpeona a bunch of Republicans on all kinds of sensitive matters. I have this suspicion that the Republicans have some skeletons/embarrasing things in the closet which they would like to keep there. Blackmail may override a Veto or two. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pubwoof 0 #16 November 10, 2006 I doubt there will be much of a push for new gun legislation, assault weapons or otherwise. Too many of the new dems are blue dogs from conservative areas and the liberal dems have lost the stomach for it after 9/11. The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #17 November 10, 2006 Bush supported the Assault weapons ban too. as did Clinton Regardless of how you feel about guns, the assault weapons ban was in fact an exercise in meaningless political window-dressing. Kind of like the motley assortment of anti-alcohol laws in many different states: Laws that say you can't sell alcohol in stores on Sunday, but can still sell it in bars, laws that prohibit the sale of alcohol from liquor stores after 8 PM, laws that say you can't sell alcohol on any second Thursday after a full moon, or whatever. .Bullshit that doesn't actually make any positive difference in the real world, but some politician can point to it & justify his right to suck up oxygen on this planet. I got a new idea for a law (I've had a few ddrinks, but whatever). How about a New Holiday: National Kick a Politician in the Nuts Day! Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pubwoof 0 #18 November 10, 2006 QuoteHow about a New Holiday: National Kick a Politician in the Nuts Day! Wouldn't all the Hillary haters feel a bit left out? The glass isn't always half-full OR half-empty. Sometimes, the glass is just too damn big. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #19 November 10, 2006 QuoteQuoteHow about a New Holiday: National Kick a Politician in the Nuts Day! Wouldn't all the Hillary haters feel a bit left out? No, because they believe that Hillary actually HAS nuts! Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
