Thanks for that Ambi, you are such a fountain of knowledge. So I guess the house of representatives is similar to the house of lords apart from that it has more clout than our old foggies. I do believe the House of Commons could invoke a paper even if the house of lords rejected it, but I think it is only in exceptional circumstances - correct me if I'm wrong - I am no political expert.
So basically America is ungovernable for the next 2 years - n'est pas !
As you well know, we have our own General Election next May, but judging by the Question Times I have watched, it looks as if there will once again be a coalition govt. I suspect and predict the Tories will will a small majority (mainly due to Labour's infighting and lack of leadership), and I also predict that they well have to replace the Lib Democrats with UKIP as coalition partners. The only thing that is going to stop UKIP stealing lots of Tory and Lib Dem seats is Europe and other immigration issues. If the other parties do not come up with a plan to appease the electorate, then it's handing the votes to UKIP.
*********************************************
Hey, Jon ~
Thanks for your kind words. And no, the legislative process in the U.S. is fundamentally
disanalogous to that in the U.K., or Canada. After their experience with the power of the executive (the King-in-Council, Prime Minister, and Cabinet) the Founding Fathers deliberately
designed a system of "checks and balances" that is slow, cumbersome, and unwieldy - so that maximum debate and a painfully-extracted consensus is required to pass any legislation, particularly with respect to taxation: which, as you will recall, was the fundamental reason for the Revolutionary War.
In the U.K. and Canada, we have an interlocking legislative "fusion of powers." In which, the legislative and executive branches of government act (necessarily) in close coordination. As you know, originally the monarch and the Lords wielded significant power over the executive AND legislative powers, but, with the evolution of the (unwritten) constitution, and the advance of democratic ideas in the 19th century, the power of the monarch faded to a largely symbolic role (albeit with the prerogative to offer advice and counsel to the Ministry, in guaranteed regular consultation); and that of the Lords was attenuated to a largely consultative, deliberative, and occasionally suspensory role. With, also, a sometimes important role in policy development (via reports and commissions) and policy refinement, with respect to legislation proceeding from the Commons. (The Senate of Canada, which is modeled on the Lords, functions in essentially the same way. And is subject to the same criticisms; i.e., that people think they are about as useful as tits on a bull;-))))
At any rate, as you also know, the constitutional convention of executive/legislative fusion of powers means that the real, functioning executive (the P.M - who, in a majority situation, has a great deal more real power than any President of the U.S.A.; and the Cabinet, who with him or her devise the nation's policy direction and legislation) represent the party which either commands a majority in the legislature (Parliament) or which has been able to forge a coalition which amounts to a working majority. Thus, in our system, there is a reasonable expectation that legislation proposed by the executive (the great majority of whom are members of the Commons) will be enacted. If they fail to accomplish this on legislative initiatives which are more than incidental - for example, budget bills - it is considered that the government has "lost the confidence of the House", and, it falls. (Sorry, I know you know this, Jon - it is mostly for the benefit of friends who may not be so familiar with our system.)
***********************************************************
The American system is
completely different. It features a complete SEPARATION of powers: under which the President is responsible for the administration of the law (including, in times of emergency, the exigencies of national defence - he is the Commander-in-Chief) and for various policy initiatives. The Congress, however, has sole responsibility for MAKING law, and it (in both its houses) is entirely separate from, and independent of, the President and his predilections and desires. The old maxim about American government runs thus: "The President proposes, but Congress, disposes."
So, let's take an example - probably the trickiest one - making a budget. As the head of the Administration (the bureaucracy) the President controls such offices as the Office of Management and Budget, whose functionaries have at their disposal a wide range of information with respect to the state of the economy, the fiscal health of the country, and so on. The President, typically, will charge these officials with drawing up a budget proposal, but. . .
he cannot introduce it himself - as a Prime Minister, and his Minister of Finance, would do.
The President, Jon, will typically have his bureaucrats draw up a budget proposal, in keeping with the aims of his Administration. Then, he must find an ally in his own party, in the Senate or the House of Representatives (typically both) with whom to translate this proposal into a budget bill, and who will introduce it on the floor of these houses.
These bills are subject to extensive modifications (amendments) on the floor of both houses. These amendments, known as "riders", can (and often do) introduce elements extraneous to the bill - or they may even GUT the bill with a poisoned clause or two, if a member of the House of Representatives, or the Senate, wishes to kill it. Often these riders have little or nothing to do with the legislation in question. So, for example, a main budget bill may have appended to it, riders which assure that a certain bridge WILL be built in Alaska, or something like that.
The crucial things, though, Jon, are:
1.)
Both houses must pass the legislation, if it is to become law. And very frequently, the VERSIONS of the law they pass (if they both pass it) are quite different. In this case, the prospective legislation must be referred to what is known as a "conference committee", to iron out the differences between the versions, before it finally becomes law.
2.) The U.S. Senate, unlike the U.K.'s House of Lords, or the Canadian Senate, is far from being a "toothless tiger". Indeed, it is generally considered (by far) the more powerful of the two houses. Because, U.S. Senators not only have the power to introduce legislation (including money-bills); they have far longer terms than members of the House of Representatives (six years, as opposed to two); they have greater legitimacy than members of the House of Representatives (the latter representing small districts, as individual M.P.'s do; the former representing whole states; and, the wide privileges of Senate procedure allow Senators (particularly through the mechanism of the "filibuster") to delay or kill significant pieces of legislation, even sometimes those which enjoy a simple majority of support, in the Senate. Senators also chair highly influential committees, which are responsible for developing, introducing, and enacting, major pieces of legislation. Jon, many U.S. Senatorial campaigns are almost as hard-fought (and cost nearly as much money as) even Presidential ones.
3.) In a situation like the current one, where the Congress as a WHOLE is governed by a party other than the President's, it is entirely possible that the Congress will pass legislation with which the President himself, vociferously DISAGREES. The President has the power to veto such bills. If, however, Congress feels strongly enough about the legislation, they can (by a 2/3 majority in each house) override the veto, and see the legislation become law.
4.) Finally, Jon, as head of the Executive Branch, the President has the power to appoint many senior officials, most notably (and crucially) members of the Supreme Court. Many of these appointments (again, most crucially for the future of the country, appointments to the Supreme Court, whose members frequently define the way laws actually WORK, in practice) require Senate confirmation, and can be indefinitely delayed, or thwarted and denied altogether, by members of the Senate.
****************************************************************
So, Jon, these are the
technical/mechanical/constitutional reasons that President Obama is going to have such a miserable time, for the next two years. While he still has control over the levers of the federal bureaucracy, and certain mandated powers to do a variety of things under the aegis of "Executive Orders". . . . in the next two years, he will:
*Have great difficulty getting any legislation passed of his own, unless his opponents are already in full agreement with it;
*Have great difficulty getting crucial appointments, made; and,
*With some frequency, be faced with legislation to which he is actively hostile.
Sorry, this was long and probably for lots - exceedingly tedious. But, Jon I know you are interested in the "way things work", and this is the best way I could lay it all out, for you. The U.S. system of government is. . . exceedingly complicated. It was BUILT that way. To prevent any one person or centre or focus of power, from exercising tyranny over the land. Arguably, this has sometimes been a very good thing; arguably, in certain circumstances, it leads to paralysis. Certainly, it is a most unusual system, for anyone raised in a Parliamentary system, to contemplate.
(It was very funny, Jon - when I was a lad of 16, I was lucky enough to sit in the visitors' gallery in the U.S. Senate, where the guide discoursed eloquently, and learnedly, upon the architecture, the murals on the wall, the storied history, and tales of the great men and women who had inhabited the place. I raised my hand, and asked - in my turn - "But sir, how do you pass a BUDGET in this country?" He BLUSHED, visibly, and replied, "Sir, I
don't really know!" )
I also apologize, heartily, to American friends who know the system much better than I - sorry for the solecisms, and outdated information, which doubtless appear,
supra. I used to teach in the department of politics (in an exceedingly junior capacity) at the University of the Arctic - but I taught
political philosophy. Because, all these questions about the mechanics of government - - - while very intriguing, consequential, and FUN - - - are pretty vexing to a person of my scatterbrained temperament.
The one thing I
love about Plato is that he was dead when I started school; he's still dead
today; and, while one can argue the import of his
Symposium (and its various clauses) endlessly - no one can legislate Plato, out of existence! LOL! And he was a man, whose opinions featured absolutely NO "checks, or balances."
"A" XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
