Role of the US Senate

[AlexR]

Well, it was quite a relief to see that the US Senate has not gone over to the Dark Side .

This had me wondering about the role of the Senate and I took a look at a couple of websites, including Wikipedia. I learned about what the institution mostly does, and was surprised to see that bills can also start out in the Senate except in matters of expenditures.
What I didn’t see in my web search was the answer to a question that I should already know: If a bill proposed by the House is rejected outright by the Senate, i.e. isn’t just returned with proposed amendments, what happens? Can the House simply override the Senate dismissal of a bill they have approved?
In other words, can the Senate definitively block bills passed by a legislature with a Republican majority?
How many times can a bill shuttle back and forth between the House and the Senate before it is passed into law?

Also, long can passing a law be delayed?
Example: the Dems are dead-set against a bill passed by the Republican majority in the House. Between Senate amendments and a presidential veto, how long can the House initiative be thwarted?
Could this drag on for months, even years, and theoretically until the next election?

In most countries, the lower house has the final word. Is this the case in America?
I see that the Senate must accept presidential appointments and can drag its feet for months or even years in giving the go-ahead for key government posts.
The Senate also is crucial in Supreme Court Justice appointments. Ah, if only these were not for a lifetime!
Then there is the curious practice of the filibuster a procedural idiosyncracy that has a far-reaching impact and is difficult to overcome. Does this strange practice exist elsewhere?

Best regards,
Alex R.

[DavidG]

Can the House simply override the Senate dismissal of a bill they have approved?

No. A bill has to pass both the House and Senate before it goes to the President, who can then sign it into law as is, veto or pocket veto it, or alter it by (line-item veto from 1996-1998 or) selective implementation/enforcement by the Executive branch.

In other words, can the Senate definitively block bills passed by a legislature with a Republican majority?

Yes. And the House can do the same with a bill originating in the Senate. Though the usual scheme of things is that “the House proposes, and the Senate disposes.”

How many times can a bill shuttle back and forth between the House and the Senate before it is passed into law?

Usually a reconciliation committee is formed between House and Senate to iron out differences in the two versions of a bill. If there’s no agreement, the bill dies but can be reintroduced in the next session of Congress. This could go on indefinitely. Each session of Congress lasts 2 years, starting in January of odd years after the preceding November election.

Also, long can passing a law be delayed?

Example: the Dems are dead-set against a bill passed by the Republican majority in the House. Between Senate amendments and a presidential veto, how long can the House initiative be thwarted?

Indefinitely as long as the votes are (or aren’t) there. Presidents can try to get around this with Executive Orders. If the EOs get too far out of line, the opposition can go to the courts. The Supreme Court seems to have leaned recently towards granting the Executive wide powers once thought by many to be reserved for Congress. At times that appears to have more to do with which party occupies the White House than the law.

Counter-example: A Republican national abortion ban originating in the House is blocked by the Democrat-controlled Senate. A Republican President issues Executive Orders creating requirements so onerous that it is a de facto ban. Affected parties sue. The Christian wing of the Supreme Court sides with the Republican President in the name of God and All That Is Holy (though you won’t see that in their written opinions, only in their spoken comments to conservative political groups), imposing a Christian version of Sharia Law which denies women control of their own bodies.

Could this drag on for months, even years, and theoretically until the next election?

Not just theoretically. It’s not at all unusual for a bill to be reintroduced in the next Congress. It’s the American Way! It gets criticized plenty (gridlock, etc), but it tends to protect minorities.

Lately we’ve been hearing Ds complain about the tyranny of the minority related to disproportionate representation in the Senate and Electoral College, but the system has likely kept us out of more trouble than it’s caused. At least legislatively. I think there’s a case to be made about changing the way the Electoral College works in selecting the President, but that’s another debate.

In most countries, the lower house has the final word. Is this the case in America?

No. We are supposed to have a balance of power between Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches.

[JimHow]

It is difficult to pass a law. That’s the way the Founders intended it, and the process has served us well, as frustrating as it can sometimes be.

[AlexR]

Jim,

Thanks for your detailed answer to my questions.
If I had paid more attention in civics classes in high school, I'd have been aware of how things work.

What it amounts to is that the present situation *should* lead to dialog and compromise, which is a very good thing.

Alex

[DavidG]

Alex,

I’m sure I’d have forgotten some of the details since grade school, but my advocacy work in DC has provided continuing education.

The system is designed to promote dialog and compromise, but we haven’t seen a ton of that the last decade or so.

[JimHow]

Ha that was David’s excellent explanation.

Boy, I’ll tell you, the Dems had better win Georgia because 2024 is going to rough. There are like zero vulnerable Republicans and like 3-4 vulnerable Democrats.

[Chateau Vin]

I would like to add some slight change to answer— President can’t do line item veto. Either he/she has to veto the bill entirely or not. I think the second Bush administration tried to do it, and it was declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

Line item is a bad thing. If it were to be the law of the land, then we will have a great deal of gridlock and nothing will get done...An outcome of Nash Equilibrium and Competitive Strategy...

[AlexR]

Yes, sorry David,and thanks. I confused your answer with Jim's.

AR

[DavidG]

Thanks, CV. You’re right. Line item veto was a transient thing from 1996-1998 during the Clinton administration before SCOTUS said nuh-uh. I fixed the post above.

Some state governors have it. I agree, it was not a good thing.

[Chateau Vin]

And one more thing in my opinion...

Although the constitutional setup of Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches is intended to promote dialogue and compromise, lately I feel that Senate has become more powerful (again, it’s my opinion).

If we go back to history, actually Senate members were not elected (which was not good). Later, it was changed so that people in each state directly elect their senators.

With the power of judicial confirmations, Senate can reshape the judiciary according to their liking, subsequently shaping the legislative and even executive outcomes. Filibuster for judicial nominations supposedly promotes a compromise or middle ground picks, but with filibuster gone, winning the Senate has become sort of winner take all. So in my opinion, de jure, Senate is equal to House and Executive branch is coequal to Congress, but de facto, Senate has become more powerful than the others...I don’t think the founders have intended this...

[jal]

Boy, I’ll tell you, the Dems had better win Georgia because 2024 is going to rough. There are like zero vulnerable Republicans and like 3-4 vulnerable Democrats.

I think the Democrats win Georgia easily. Republicans voted for Walker while holding their nose just to win the Senate, now that the Senate is no longer in play, registered Republicans will not even show up to vote imo.

[JCNorthway]

That's an interesting perspective Jacques. And you may be right. Will be interesting to watch that race play out.

[Chateau Vin]

Boy, I’ll tell you, the Dems had better win Georgia because 2024 is going to rough. There are like zero vulnerable Republicans and like 3-4 vulnerable Democrats.

I think the Democrats win Georgia easily. Republicans voted for Walker while holding their nose just to win the Senate, now that the Senate is no longer in play, registered Republicans will not even show up to vote imo.

Or maybe, now that dems have the Senate, they don't have any motivation to vote for a second time in the runoff...

[JimHow]

My philosophy in politics is always to expect the worst and hope for the best. We did alright in those two runoffs last time but now is not the time to let up. Man, this is not our father’s Georgia anymore… or Arizona for that matter, although I’m getting a little pessimistic about the Governor race outcome, it seems like there’s just a little too many votes still outstanding.

[Harry C.]

Think of the bills Mitch let rot in committee. But the Senate passes most appointments themselves, ie, judicial.

[AKR]

Boy, I’ll tell you, the Dems had better win Georgia because 2024 is going to rough. There are like zero vulnerable Republicans and like 3-4 vulnerable Democrats.

I think the Democrats win Georgia easily. Republicans voted for Walker while holding their nose just to win the Senate, now that the Senate is no longer in play, registered Republicans will not even show up to vote imo.

Maybe Georgia can trade him to MN (again) ?