Senate Case Study

Senators represent an entire state, as members of the House of Representatives only represent districts, highlighting from the outset their different abilities to

The tactic, filibuster has a long history dating back to the 1800’s; it is used to delay bills being passed. It has been a way to win votes for the people and gives senates time to attain the votes they need or get they’re points across (US Site). Many don’t find this move very appealing because it is used mostly by the minority party to give some-kind of power over the majority. In fact, some senates argue that it should be abolished, there have been actions placed to end debates such as the cloture and the nuclear option. However, it is a lengthy process that does not guarantee an end to a filibuster.

Today, Supreme Court Nominee’s, Neil Gorsuch, Confirmation hearing came near conclusion on a very confrontational note with the Senate’s Principal Democrat threatening to filibuster. This would complicate the way the senate “conducts its business”. The Republicans eager to confirm Gorsuch only have a 52-majority instead of the 60-majority that is necessary. However, they say he will be confirmed anyway, even if it means removing the filibuster option and allowing nominees to be confirmed with a simple majority vote. Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer’s decision to filibuster was not unexpected but it will increase tension in the senate. “If this nominee cannot earn 60 votes — a bar met by each of President Obama’s nominees, and George Bush’s last two nominees — the answer isn’t to change the rules. It’s to change the nominee,” he said. Although the democrats do not have the votes to block this motion, his filibuster will publicize the resistance in the Congress.

The filibuster continues to be an area of controversy in the United States Senate. Critics of the rule claim that it has corrupted and even broken the institution, while proponents claim that the rule is a savior for the minority against unpopular laws instituted by the majority. Throughout history, the filibuster has shown its potentially dangerous side as well as its positive benefits. After any major party shift in the Senate, it seems that there is always talk of filibuster reform by the new majority. Although reform debates persist, rules and procedures regarding the filibuster have yet to be significantly changed since 1975, when the cloture rule was last amended. The debate has been revived

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.

Overall the committee experience was very thoughtful as it brings the model senators into an atmosphere that they could represent their senator’s ideologies more freely than in the floor. With Senator Casey, the committees were very thoughtful as not only Casey follow his state ideas but his own also. And an example at that is how Casey debated over the bill of healthcare thinking about the college students or the youth in overall who doesn’t have a parent and that need a healthcare that they can afford or get for free with their income. Not only he was in favor all the time with the democrat's bills but he himself also agree and voted yes for them pass so it could not only beneficiate his state but the United States in general. Furthermore, the impact of the constituency on a senators vote was very strong as not only made the party to reflect their choice but to help and bring a better offer on the bill, in this case, the bill of Human Trafficking in the H.E.L.P committee. As the book state "constituency context is another powerful influence on member's vote choices."(Davison, 264) A great example of what is said already is

The founding fathers maintained an inherent distrust of large government. Despite conflicting with the majoritarian model, the filibuster demonstrates the original values and principles taken into account when establishing the United States of America. The Senate, a lawmaking body formerly elected by state legislatures, remains representative of individual states rather than majority will. Because each state sends two representatives, half of congressional senators are elected by less than twenty percent of the total population. Through intended structure alone, the government of the United States demonstrates clear preference for the pluralistic model. In practice, the interests of states carry more influence than the interests of citizens. Concerning democratic principles, the filibuster is no more undemocratic than the government

Hello, Kevin. I am agree with your point that intelligence oversight is working but not at optimal. For example the 9/11 Commission concluded that many aspects of congressional oversight of the IC were “dysfunctional.” And it suggested several reforms they assessed would increase Congress’s capabilities: abolishing term limits for members of the intelligence committees so that they build their expertise to enhance their oversight abilities, combining the authorization and appropriation functions thus limiting the number of lawmakers involved and further increasing the efficacy of congressional oversight. Congress has tremendous power since it approves the fund; However, this also created opportunity for congress to abuse it if willing. Congress

Lawmakers use filibuster by using procedural rules to block or delay legislative action. The term filibuster refers to a long drawn out debate of a bill carried on by one or more senators. Lawmakers continue to talk about the matter to prevent any votes, lawmakers use other delaying tactics also.

This case consolidates two separate challenges to the constitutionality of two cancellations, made by President William J. Clinton, under the Line Item Veto Act ("Act").

The names of the authors that wrote an article titled Candidates and Policy in the United States Senate Elections are Gerald C. Wright and Michael B. Berkman. Although the previous literature on the subject suggests, that policy is not a major factor in the decision-making process, the article argued otherwise.

The nuclear option or constitutional option is a parliamentary procedure that allows the U.S. Senate to override a rule or precedent by a simple majority of 51 votes, instead of a supermajority of 60 votes. The presiding officer of the United States Senate rules that the validity of a Senate rule or precedent is a constitutional question. The presiding officer would immediately put the issue (such as a filibuster) to the full Senate, which decides by majority vote. The procedure, thus allows the Senate to decide any issue by majority vote, even though the rules of the Senate specify that ending a filibuster requires the consent of 60 senators (out of 100) for legislation, 67 for amending a Senate

For a bill to pass, it must receive the support of at least a majority of each house of Congress. In the house, time for debate is carefully limited as where in the Senate it is nearly timed less. A filibuster is an unlimited time debate used to prevent Senate from voting on a bill.

On July 1st, 1867, Canada confederated into a nation and committed to uphold democracy “From Sea to Sea”. As stated in the Constitution of our nation, Canada would be governed through a Parliamentary system, with both an upper and lower house of legislature. The lower house, the House of Commons, would include elected members from across the country. Conversely, the upper house, the Senate, according to Section 24 of the Constitution Act (1867), states: “The Governor General shall… summon qualified Persons to the Senate; and… every Person so summoned shall become… a Member of the Senate.”[1] This has amounted to almost 800 Canadians being appointed to the Senate since Confederation. However, as Canadians have grown to demand transparency

Thapa 2 Hadim Thapa Professor Sharifian GOVT 2306 09/29/17 In United States political system, senate has more power than house of representative.