Comparing the Emplementation and Scrutinizing of Proposed Bills in the House of Commons and Congress

There are a multitude of other factors that affect the passing of legislation, and the exploration of these factors is the subject of future scholarly research in the

Otto von Bismarck once said, “Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.” The arduous process that a bill undergoes in order to become a law may seem grueling and pointless; however, the processes high caliber of difficulty allows for the extreme prestige and exclusivity of bills that are passed. Because the process is so exhausting, and filibusters, subsequently requiring a super-majority vote to pass a bill, have always been such a threat in Congress, historically, bills that attempt to reform sensitive issues have not fared well in the legislative branch. However, when Congress does pass controversial laws, it then also faces the task of effectively enforcing them. But, when the process is carried out to

The legislative branch is responsible for enacting laws, and the executive branch is responsible for implementing laws. In Canada, the executive branch is represented by the Prime Minister and his or her cabinet, while the legislative branch is represented by the elected members of the House of Commons. According to James Kelly, “With the enhanced role of the Department of Justice and the absence of parliamentary counterweights to constitutional scrutiny, Charter dialogue is dominated by the cabinet to the exclusion of Parliament” (103). The cabinet’s decision to govern with the Charter from the centre will ensure further marginalization of Parliament by the cabinet. Under the Department of Justice Act, the minister of justice must certify that all bills being introduced to Parliament are Charter compliant. Therefore, the constitutionality of a bill is implied by its introduction into the House of Commons, and not in actuality by Parliament. Kelly states, “While the Department of Justice is providing an authoritative statement, it is simply an opinion that the minister of justice receives from the Department of Justice” (105). Moreover, there is limited resources available for parliamentarians to use in Charter

Parliament has a central function in carrying out a scrutiny role. It carries close inspection and where it is necessary, amendments maybe proposed this is carried out in both houses. It holds the government collectively and the PM and other ministers accountable for their actions. It does this in debates, question times and through the work of Departmental Select Committees (DSC). However it maybe be argued that is not enough since scrutiny does not often involve blocking legislation. It is not expected that parliament will make substantial changes, but it does

There is also current as well as past evidence that congress has passed legislation without knowing what is in the legislation that they passed. For example, currently our congressional representatives along with the American people are still trying to figure out what is in the new health care law called The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Arguably, the scrutiny of Public Bills has depended more on the House of Lords than it has on the House of Commons in recent years. The term “scrutiny” means the critical observation or examination regarding the Public Bills. The “effectiveness” of the scrutiny could be measured in a variety of ways, such as the period of time the bill stays in parliament for, and whether parliament can take on board evidence from committees and implement the bills into legislation. In order to determine if the House of Lords has been more effective than the House of Commons in scrutinising public bills, it is crucial to compare and contrast the effectiveness of the procedures used in both houses.

Members of Congress are charged with three primary duties—writing laws, overseeing the implementation of laws, and serving the needs of their constituents. Senate Filibuster, House Rules Committee and the Conference Committee all have had a profound effect in the lawmaking process. Additionally, general accounting office and hearings are both methods that Congress employs in order to maintain oversight over the federal bureaucracy. Lastly, Casework drastically affects members’ attention to legislation because it diverts their time, and resources away from focusing on legislation.

Filibusters are quite the conundrum, a pariah of sorts in the realm of U.S. politics, yet an integral part of our body of government. It is imperative that it remains to be kept alive in a warm embrace with the Senate, lest it is reduced to nothing more than a mere accessory to the House of Representatives. By nature, the filibuster is actually a resourceful tactic that utilizes the ideology of free speech to prolong and create an active dialog over legislation or to prevent a measure from being brought to a vote. However, in recent years the most unsettling adversity contemporary legislation faces is Rule XXII of the U.S. Senate. Forty-one senators can veto the lion's share of legislation by refusal of invoking cloture (sixty being the magic number). Due to the malapportionment of the Senate, less than forty-one percent of the population could be over represented, resulting in a conflicting vote against cloture sustaining debate indefinitely.

All MPs vote and speak about possible amendments to the bill. Complex bills such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 may require lengthier debate which may spread over many days. Once the report stage is finished the bill moves onto the third reading.

The most pressing issue I would face as an Assembly Member would be water conservation. The state’s lack of action and initiative to conserve water has led to California’s worst drought in over a century. This has led to panic reactions behind bills such as AB-1739, disregarding long-term economic impacts in order to fulfill short-term needs. Legislators proposing bills are not taking into consideration effects on jobs, business, and taxpayers.

It is no secret that the lawmaking process is a long winding road of difficulty and roadblocks. Without a few representatives, a bill cannot be introduced in the House or into the Senate. If a bill is introduced to the House, it is named a number with the letters “HR” before it. If it is taken to the Senate, then it’s given a number with the letter “S” before it. When presenting a bill, what is most important is who supports said bill. Usually, more powerful members of Congress are wanted to sponsor a piece of legislation for support for its path of approval.

Barbara Sinclair talks about how the legislative process has changed in her book Unorthodox Lawmaking. Sinclair argues that in the past, Congress worked like it does in School House Rock, where a bill gets introduced in the House or the Senate, it goes through some committees, who make changes. It then gets voted on and either passes or doesn’t, and the process continues. The reality is much messier than that idealistic view of the legislative process. In reality, Congress uses obscure rules, attempts to bypass committees, and sometimes needs to negotiate across the aisle. The majority party controls how a bill gets to the floor. They usually influence whether the bill bypasses committee or not. Bypassing committee has an effect on the lawmaking process however.

Finally turning to legislation, Docherty highlights particular trends in Canadian legislatures that are impacting the quality and timely nature of legislation. Firstly, the downsizing of legislatures occurring across Canada. In

All things first start with an idea. This idea, then becomes an action and this action in turn has a result. This same concept can be applied to the legislative process. The first step begins with an idea, this idea is shared and if it gains the support of the masses this idea will then become sponsored by a representative. Once this idea has sponsorship it then proceeds to the congressional level where this idea gets the new title of a bill. Upon the name change from idea to bill also comes the benefit of becoming a proposed piece of legislation. For a bill this means that it will be sent to both the House of Representatives and Senate awaiting it’s future through debate. If the debate proves favorable for the bill, that is both the House of Representatives and the Senate approve then this bill is sent off to the desk of the president. From the moment the bill arrives at the desk of the president a countdown of ten days begins, this is

There is a House of Commons Select Committee for each department within Whitehall. These were set up to scrutinise government and hold them to account. The formation of these committees consist of a minimum of 11 members and look at three aspects of each department – Administration, Policies and Spending. With this established, we will be looking at the policy aspect of scrutiny and evaluate how much Select Committees influence the content of legislation. The paper will be structured by starting with the analysis of current literature on this topic and trying to pinpoint what has already been stated about the influence select committees have