Mixing
What does it actually mean for the Republicans to have lost the House of Representatives.?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
As a non-US-person, (german) radio told me the democrats would now be able to force Trump to publish his tax return and prevent him from funding his wall.
That's probably a nice little "haha" for us non-involved outsiders, but as an analysis of what this political event actually means, it's kinda petty.
So my question is, based on previous presidents where the house was from the "other" party and expectations of what Trumps politics might change, what does this really mean?
Half hearted deals to keep things going? Both parties pushing political agenda forward trading one for another? Political stagnation? Nothing? A new president?
donald-trump house-of-representatives
asked 2 hours ago
DonQuiKong
1413
New contributor
DonQuiKong is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
As a non-US-person, (german) radio told me the democrats would now be able to force Trump to publish his tax return and prevent him from funding his wall.
That's probably a nice little "haha" for us non-involved outsiders, but as an analysis of what this political event actually means, it's kinda petty.
So my question is, based on previous presidents where the house was from the "other" party and expectations of what Trumps politics might change, what does this really mean?
Half hearted deals to keep things going? Both parties pushing political agenda forward trading one for another? Political stagnation? Nothing? A new president?
donald-trump house-of-representatives
asked 2 hours ago
DonQuiKong
1413
New contributor
DonQuiKong is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Reading suggestion : nytimes.com/2018/11/07/opinion/…
– Evargalo
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
up vote
8
down vote
favorite
As a non-US-person, (german) radio told me the democrats would now be able to force Trump to publish his tax return and prevent him from funding his wall.
That's probably a nice little "haha" for us non-involved outsiders, but as an analysis of what this political event actually means, it's kinda petty.
So my question is, based on previous presidents where the house was from the "other" party and expectations of what Trumps politics might change, what does this really mean?
Half hearted deals to keep things going? Both parties pushing political agenda forward trading one for another? Political stagnation? Nothing? A new president?
donald-trump house-of-representatives
asked 2 hours ago
DonQuiKong
1413
New contributor
DonQuiKong is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
As a non-US-person, (german) radio told me the democrats would now be able to force Trump to publish his tax return and prevent him from funding his wall.
That's probably a nice little "haha" for us non-involved outsiders, but as an analysis of what this political event actually means, it's kinda petty.
So my question is, based on previous presidents where the house was from the "other" party and expectations of what Trumps politics might change, what does this really mean?
Half hearted deals to keep things going? Both parties pushing political agenda forward trading one for another? Political stagnation? Nothing? A new president?
donald-trump house-of-representatives
donald-trump house-of-representatives
asked 2 hours ago
DonQuiKong
1413
New contributor
DonQuiKong is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 hours ago
DonQuiKong
1413
New contributor
DonQuiKong is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 hours ago
DonQuiKong
1413
New contributor
DonQuiKong is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 2 hours ago
DonQuiKong
1413
asked 2 hours ago
DonQuiKong
1413
1413
New contributor
DonQuiKong is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
DonQuiKong is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
DonQuiKong is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Reading suggestion : nytimes.com/2018/11/07/opinion/…
– Evargalo
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
Reading suggestion : nytimes.com/2018/11/07/opinion/…
– Evargalo
1 hour ago
Reading suggestion : nytimes.com/2018/11/07/opinion/…
– Evargalo
1 hour ago
Reading suggestion : nytimes.com/2018/11/07/opinion/…
– Evargalo
1 hour ago
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
The majority party in the House of Representatives gets to appoint the Chairman of every sub-committee in the House, there are many of these. These chairmen are all Republicans, but will soon all be Democrats, every one of them. The ruling party needs no excuse to replace them, and all chairmen are always appointed from the ruling party.
Each of these Chairmen has the authority to issue subpoena's (these are legal documents that can require the recipient to testify, to turn over records (like emails), and so on, refusing to do so is a crime that may result in being jailed for Contempt of Congress).
It is the job of both the House and Senate, independently if they like, to oversee government operations, conduct inquiries, get testimony under oath (lying under oath is perjury, a felony that can be punished by five years in prison).
YES, the House has the authority to demand from the IRS the Tax Returns of Donald Trump, pursuant to any number of investigations they might undertake to see if he is taking emoluments (payments from foreign countries) or profiting from his office or making decisions to benefit his own business, family, etc. The House does not need ANY excuse or evidence or permission to start such an investigation: They are in charge of oversight.
Further, the House chairmen are free to re-open any investigation their predecessors have put aside. So they can re-open investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, or 2018 election. During this investigation, the Democrats requested something like 64 subpoenas of records and testimony; the Republicans denied every single request. Well, every single one of those subpoenas will now be issued, the witnesses heard under oath before a Democratic Chair, and that includes Trump's children, friends, business records, business employees, tax returns, etc. Unlike the Republicans that excused blatant lying by some of these witnesses and allowed some (like Trump's son) to simply refuse to answer, a Democratic Chair can compel testimony under penalty of Contempt.
Further, for most of this testimony, it can be public if they wish, or be behind closed doors but all or some of the testimony revealed to the public. That is also within the purview of the Chair (with exceptions for some classified material).
Although the House cannot unilaterally pass any law (they can introduce one, but both the House and Senate must approve and the President must sign; or if he vetoes, be overruled by 2/3 of both).
But this power of investigation into corruption, self-dealing, foreign influence, and so on is actually a very big deal, and the results of the investigation can result in criminal charges. The House cannot be restrained or gagged by either the President or Senate, it is subordinate to neither one.
Finally, only the House, after investigation, can bring impeachment charges against the President (or against court judges appointed for life). These charges must then be heard by the Senate, which may vote to remove the offender from office. It is unlikely they will, especially with a Senate friendly to the President, but you never know what they might uncover that would change the minds of at least some Republican Senators. So yes, there is a remote chance that even a "New President" is the result.
P.S. Also, all spending of government must originate in the House, contrary to what it seems, neither the Senate or the President have the right to spend. So yes, the House can also ensure there are no funds to build a wall against immigrants spanning the border with Mexico. They have the purse.
answered 26 mins ago
Amadeus
1513
New contributor
Amadeus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
That's very interesting already. So they have a lot of power to gather information that was previously denied. Could you extend the law-making part a little? Can they block anything? Will they (probably)?
– DonQuiKong
4 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
This is an interesting and counter-intuitive state of affairs. What you are asking is at the core as to why the parliamentary system of government is long enduring and popular in the world. As kindly suggested in the comment, it is a presidential system as the executive branch is separate as is common in original parliamentary system. What I want to focus on is that it is a large body of different people, over 400 in the US. Each person has a different background, profession, upbringing and a short term in office in the HOR while being longer in the Senate. The only real change is that the leadership of the House of Reps. will be Nancy Pelosi. I specifically name her because the personality of the leader is important and would vary among any in her party. The end result is that it will be a contest between the President and the leaders of the House of Reps on setting the agenda and the annual budget priorities.
It is very easy to fall into the mental trap that "Now that the other party has control, things will change". However, what both parties have found out that it is difficult to synchronize 5 people let alone 230+ people to an agenda. Factions will form. All the emotions of human nature will come into play and things will slow down. Just imagine trying to get 4 people from work to go to lunch in the same place, there is just a large amount of issues
It is counter-intuitive because the first reaction to this is that there will be a difference to how business is conducted because there is another party. This is not actually true. The purpose of Congress is to legislate, control funding and guard its power in relation to the two other branches. There is always contention between the president and the leader of either house.
The second counter-intuition is that the slow down of legislation is bad since nothing gets done. This is missed because normally in other countries, the federal government is closer to the individual citizen. In the US, there is a tremendous layer of State, and local government which has its own parliament and constitution. In the state government is where things happen that have an immediate effect on the individual. It is valuable to me, my job, my family that Congress moves slowly and deliberately since they are so far removed from my way of life. And they have the power to affect such a large portion of the citizens. Slow is good.
Winning the majority in the house of representatives means that the party can elect a leader from their own party and organize committees in anyway they see fit. They may or may not include members from the other party. The role of the leader of the HOR is to arrange the political situation so that the agenda she sets will have the best chance of moving forward. She, however, will have to contend with factionalism in her own party who have agendas of their own. She will also have to deal with the sizable membership of the opposing party which has factions of its own. Finally, and most importantly, she has to run for her seat again in less than two year with the added pressure of making sure her party retains the majority. Will that mean fighting with the president, compromising, or somewhere in-between, the people will have to do this again in less than 2 years.
answered 56 mins ago
Frank Cedeno
2,1261619
3
"parliamentary system of government": this term is typically used to refer to systems of government like the UK, where members of the government a drawn from the legislature. The US system was created as a reaction to this; it's typically referred to as a presidential system.
– Steve Melnikoff
48 mins ago
It might be worth adding that one thing that could change is that the House has the power to subpoena documents and compel witnesses. A Democratic majority makes it more likely (though, as you suggest, not certain) that the House will exercise those powers.
– Steve Melnikoff
46 mins ago
Agreed with @SteveMelnikoff - the US doesn't have a parliamentary system as the term is generally used. It has a presidential system.
– HomoTechsual
40 mins ago
@SteveMelnikoff I agree, but it is a whole big subject that needs a question of it's own "What is Congress's power of subpoena". There are issues with jurisdiction and who they can and cannot compel. The problem of being held in contempt if your request to decline the subpoena fails. Separate but equal branches in the federal constitution mean the other branches can tell congress to suck an egg, etc.
– Frank Cedeno
37 mins ago
@SteveMelnikoff, I updated with the presidential system reference, thank you, wish I had time to do the update with subpoena powers.
– Frank Cedeno
29 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
-3
down vote
There are 435 seats in the House of Representatives. The house of Representatives or "the house" is one of the two chambers of the United States Congress.
To say that "X party lost the house", means that more than 217 of these seats have gone to the opposite party. This has a number of ramifications, mostly concerning vote counts.
*I should also note that the "speaker of the house" is chosen when a new Congress convenes, and this speaker will come from the party which controls the house. They are the parliamentary leader of the chamber.
What does this mean practically moving forward in this political climate? It could mean a lot of things, and it would depend on too many variables to state anything with too much certainty.
answered 1 hour ago
ActionEconomy
71
New contributor
ActionEconomy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
The majority party in the House of Representatives gets to appoint the Chairman of every sub-committee in the House, there are many of these. These chairmen are all Republicans, but will soon all be Democrats, every one of them. The ruling party needs no excuse to replace them, and all chairmen are always appointed from the ruling party.
Each of these Chairmen has the authority to issue subpoena's (these are legal documents that can require the recipient to testify, to turn over records (like emails), and so on, refusing to do so is a crime that may result in being jailed for Contempt of Congress).
It is the job of both the House and Senate, independently if they like, to oversee government operations, conduct inquiries, get testimony under oath (lying under oath is perjury, a felony that can be punished by five years in prison).
YES, the House has the authority to demand from the IRS the Tax Returns of Donald Trump, pursuant to any number of investigations they might undertake to see if he is taking emoluments (payments from foreign countries) or profiting from his office or making decisions to benefit his own business, family, etc. The House does not need ANY excuse or evidence or permission to start such an investigation: They are in charge of oversight.
Further, the House chairmen are free to re-open any investigation their predecessors have put aside. So they can re-open investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, or 2018 election. During this investigation, the Democrats requested something like 64 subpoenas of records and testimony; the Republicans denied every single request. Well, every single one of those subpoenas will now be issued, the witnesses heard under oath before a Democratic Chair, and that includes Trump's children, friends, business records, business employees, tax returns, etc. Unlike the Republicans that excused blatant lying by some of these witnesses and allowed some (like Trump's son) to simply refuse to answer, a Democratic Chair can compel testimony under penalty of Contempt.
Further, for most of this testimony, it can be public if they wish, or be behind closed doors but all or some of the testimony revealed to the public. That is also within the purview of the Chair (with exceptions for some classified material).
Although the House cannot unilaterally pass any law (they can introduce one, but both the House and Senate must approve and the President must sign; or if he vetoes, be overruled by 2/3 of both).
But this power of investigation into corruption, self-dealing, foreign influence, and so on is actually a very big deal, and the results of the investigation can result in criminal charges. The House cannot be restrained or gagged by either the President or Senate, it is subordinate to neither one.
Finally, only the House, after investigation, can bring impeachment charges against the President (or against court judges appointed for life). These charges must then be heard by the Senate, which may vote to remove the offender from office. It is unlikely they will, especially with a Senate friendly to the President, but you never know what they might uncover that would change the minds of at least some Republican Senators. So yes, there is a remote chance that even a "New President" is the result.
P.S. Also, all spending of government must originate in the House, contrary to what it seems, neither the Senate or the President have the right to spend. So yes, the House can also ensure there are no funds to build a wall against immigrants spanning the border with Mexico. They have the purse.
answered 26 mins ago
Amadeus
1513
New contributor
Amadeus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
That's very interesting already. So they have a lot of power to gather information that was previously denied. Could you extend the law-making part a little? Can they block anything? Will they (probably)?
– DonQuiKong
4 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
The majority party in the House of Representatives gets to appoint the Chairman of every sub-committee in the House, there are many of these. These chairmen are all Republicans, but will soon all be Democrats, every one of them. The ruling party needs no excuse to replace them, and all chairmen are always appointed from the ruling party.
Each of these Chairmen has the authority to issue subpoena's (these are legal documents that can require the recipient to testify, to turn over records (like emails), and so on, refusing to do so is a crime that may result in being jailed for Contempt of Congress).
It is the job of both the House and Senate, independently if they like, to oversee government operations, conduct inquiries, get testimony under oath (lying under oath is perjury, a felony that can be punished by five years in prison).
YES, the House has the authority to demand from the IRS the Tax Returns of Donald Trump, pursuant to any number of investigations they might undertake to see if he is taking emoluments (payments from foreign countries) or profiting from his office or making decisions to benefit his own business, family, etc. The House does not need ANY excuse or evidence or permission to start such an investigation: They are in charge of oversight.
Further, the House chairmen are free to re-open any investigation their predecessors have put aside. So they can re-open investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, or 2018 election. During this investigation, the Democrats requested something like 64 subpoenas of records and testimony; the Republicans denied every single request. Well, every single one of those subpoenas will now be issued, the witnesses heard under oath before a Democratic Chair, and that includes Trump's children, friends, business records, business employees, tax returns, etc. Unlike the Republicans that excused blatant lying by some of these witnesses and allowed some (like Trump's son) to simply refuse to answer, a Democratic Chair can compel testimony under penalty of Contempt.
Further, for most of this testimony, it can be public if they wish, or be behind closed doors but all or some of the testimony revealed to the public. That is also within the purview of the Chair (with exceptions for some classified material).
Although the House cannot unilaterally pass any law (they can introduce one, but both the House and Senate must approve and the President must sign; or if he vetoes, be overruled by 2/3 of both).
But this power of investigation into corruption, self-dealing, foreign influence, and so on is actually a very big deal, and the results of the investigation can result in criminal charges. The House cannot be restrained or gagged by either the President or Senate, it is subordinate to neither one.
Finally, only the House, after investigation, can bring impeachment charges against the President (or against court judges appointed for life). These charges must then be heard by the Senate, which may vote to remove the offender from office. It is unlikely they will, especially with a Senate friendly to the President, but you never know what they might uncover that would change the minds of at least some Republican Senators. So yes, there is a remote chance that even a "New President" is the result.
P.S. Also, all spending of government must originate in the House, contrary to what it seems, neither the Senate or the President have the right to spend. So yes, the House can also ensure there are no funds to build a wall against immigrants spanning the border with Mexico. They have the purse.
answered 26 mins ago
Amadeus
1513
New contributor
Amadeus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
That's very interesting already. So they have a lot of power to gather information that was previously denied. Could you extend the law-making part a little? Can they block anything? Will they (probably)?
– DonQuiKong
4 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
up vote
5
down vote
The majority party in the House of Representatives gets to appoint the Chairman of every sub-committee in the House, there are many of these. These chairmen are all Republicans, but will soon all be Democrats, every one of them. The ruling party needs no excuse to replace them, and all chairmen are always appointed from the ruling party.
Each of these Chairmen has the authority to issue subpoena's (these are legal documents that can require the recipient to testify, to turn over records (like emails), and so on, refusing to do so is a crime that may result in being jailed for Contempt of Congress).
It is the job of both the House and Senate, independently if they like, to oversee government operations, conduct inquiries, get testimony under oath (lying under oath is perjury, a felony that can be punished by five years in prison).
YES, the House has the authority to demand from the IRS the Tax Returns of Donald Trump, pursuant to any number of investigations they might undertake to see if he is taking emoluments (payments from foreign countries) or profiting from his office or making decisions to benefit his own business, family, etc. The House does not need ANY excuse or evidence or permission to start such an investigation: They are in charge of oversight.
Further, the House chairmen are free to re-open any investigation their predecessors have put aside. So they can re-open investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, or 2018 election. During this investigation, the Democrats requested something like 64 subpoenas of records and testimony; the Republicans denied every single request. Well, every single one of those subpoenas will now be issued, the witnesses heard under oath before a Democratic Chair, and that includes Trump's children, friends, business records, business employees, tax returns, etc. Unlike the Republicans that excused blatant lying by some of these witnesses and allowed some (like Trump's son) to simply refuse to answer, a Democratic Chair can compel testimony under penalty of Contempt.
Further, for most of this testimony, it can be public if they wish, or be behind closed doors but all or some of the testimony revealed to the public. That is also within the purview of the Chair (with exceptions for some classified material).
Although the House cannot unilaterally pass any law (they can introduce one, but both the House and Senate must approve and the President must sign; or if he vetoes, be overruled by 2/3 of both).
But this power of investigation into corruption, self-dealing, foreign influence, and so on is actually a very big deal, and the results of the investigation can result in criminal charges. The House cannot be restrained or gagged by either the President or Senate, it is subordinate to neither one.
Finally, only the House, after investigation, can bring impeachment charges against the President (or against court judges appointed for life). These charges must then be heard by the Senate, which may vote to remove the offender from office. It is unlikely they will, especially with a Senate friendly to the President, but you never know what they might uncover that would change the minds of at least some Republican Senators. So yes, there is a remote chance that even a "New President" is the result.
P.S. Also, all spending of government must originate in the House, contrary to what it seems, neither the Senate or the President have the right to spend. So yes, the House can also ensure there are no funds to build a wall against immigrants spanning the border with Mexico. They have the purse.
answered 26 mins ago
Amadeus
1513
New contributor
Amadeus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
The majority party in the House of Representatives gets to appoint the Chairman of every sub-committee in the House, there are many of these. These chairmen are all Republicans, but will soon all be Democrats, every one of them. The ruling party needs no excuse to replace them, and all chairmen are always appointed from the ruling party.
Each of these Chairmen has the authority to issue subpoena's (these are legal documents that can require the recipient to testify, to turn over records (like emails), and so on, refusing to do so is a crime that may result in being jailed for Contempt of Congress).
It is the job of both the House and Senate, independently if they like, to oversee government operations, conduct inquiries, get testimony under oath (lying under oath is perjury, a felony that can be punished by five years in prison).
YES, the House has the authority to demand from the IRS the Tax Returns of Donald Trump, pursuant to any number of investigations they might undertake to see if he is taking emoluments (payments from foreign countries) or profiting from his office or making decisions to benefit his own business, family, etc. The House does not need ANY excuse or evidence or permission to start such an investigation: They are in charge of oversight.
Further, the House chairmen are free to re-open any investigation their predecessors have put aside. So they can re-open investigations into Russian meddling in the 2016 election, or 2018 election. During this investigation, the Democrats requested something like 64 subpoenas of records and testimony; the Republicans denied every single request. Well, every single one of those subpoenas will now be issued, the witnesses heard under oath before a Democratic Chair, and that includes Trump's children, friends, business records, business employees, tax returns, etc. Unlike the Republicans that excused blatant lying by some of these witnesses and allowed some (like Trump's son) to simply refuse to answer, a Democratic Chair can compel testimony under penalty of Contempt.
Further, for most of this testimony, it can be public if they wish, or be behind closed doors but all or some of the testimony revealed to the public. That is also within the purview of the Chair (with exceptions for some classified material).
Although the House cannot unilaterally pass any law (they can introduce one, but both the House and Senate must approve and the President must sign; or if he vetoes, be overruled by 2/3 of both).
But this power of investigation into corruption, self-dealing, foreign influence, and so on is actually a very big deal, and the results of the investigation can result in criminal charges. The House cannot be restrained or gagged by either the President or Senate, it is subordinate to neither one.
Finally, only the House, after investigation, can bring impeachment charges against the President (or against court judges appointed for life). These charges must then be heard by the Senate, which may vote to remove the offender from office. It is unlikely they will, especially with a Senate friendly to the President, but you never know what they might uncover that would change the minds of at least some Republican Senators. So yes, there is a remote chance that even a "New President" is the result.
P.S. Also, all spending of government must originate in the House, contrary to what it seems, neither the Senate or the President have the right to spend. So yes, the House can also ensure there are no funds to build a wall against immigrants spanning the border with Mexico. They have the purse.
answered 26 mins ago
Amadeus
1513
New contributor
Amadeus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 4 mins ago
answered 26 mins ago
Amadeus
1513
New contributor
Amadeus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 26 mins ago
Amadeus
1513
answered 26 mins ago
Amadeus
1513
1513
New contributor
Amadeus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Amadeus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Amadeus is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
That's very interesting already. So they have a lot of power to gather information that was previously denied. Could you extend the law-making part a little? Can they block anything? Will they (probably)?
– DonQuiKong
4 mins ago
add a comment |Â
That's very interesting already. So they have a lot of power to gather information that was previously denied. Could you extend the law-making part a little? Can they block anything? Will they (probably)?
– DonQuiKong
4 mins ago
That's very interesting already. So they have a lot of power to gather information that was previously denied. Could you extend the law-making part a little? Can they block anything? Will they (probably)?
– DonQuiKong
4 mins ago
That's very interesting already. So they have a lot of power to gather information that was previously denied. Could you extend the law-making part a little? Can they block anything? Will they (probably)?
– DonQuiKong
4 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
This is an interesting and counter-intuitive state of affairs. What you are asking is at the core as to why the parliamentary system of government is long enduring and popular in the world. As kindly suggested in the comment, it is a presidential system as the executive branch is separate as is common in original parliamentary system. What I want to focus on is that it is a large body of different people, over 400 in the US. Each person has a different background, profession, upbringing and a short term in office in the HOR while being longer in the Senate. The only real change is that the leadership of the House of Reps. will be Nancy Pelosi. I specifically name her because the personality of the leader is important and would vary among any in her party. The end result is that it will be a contest between the President and the leaders of the House of Reps on setting the agenda and the annual budget priorities.
It is very easy to fall into the mental trap that "Now that the other party has control, things will change". However, what both parties have found out that it is difficult to synchronize 5 people let alone 230+ people to an agenda. Factions will form. All the emotions of human nature will come into play and things will slow down. Just imagine trying to get 4 people from work to go to lunch in the same place, there is just a large amount of issues
It is counter-intuitive because the first reaction to this is that there will be a difference to how business is conducted because there is another party. This is not actually true. The purpose of Congress is to legislate, control funding and guard its power in relation to the two other branches. There is always contention between the president and the leader of either house.
The second counter-intuition is that the slow down of legislation is bad since nothing gets done. This is missed because normally in other countries, the federal government is closer to the individual citizen. In the US, there is a tremendous layer of State, and local government which has its own parliament and constitution. In the state government is where things happen that have an immediate effect on the individual. It is valuable to me, my job, my family that Congress moves slowly and deliberately since they are so far removed from my way of life. And they have the power to affect such a large portion of the citizens. Slow is good.
Winning the majority in the house of representatives means that the party can elect a leader from their own party and organize committees in anyway they see fit. They may or may not include members from the other party. The role of the leader of the HOR is to arrange the political situation so that the agenda she sets will have the best chance of moving forward. She, however, will have to contend with factionalism in her own party who have agendas of their own. She will also have to deal with the sizable membership of the opposing party which has factions of its own. Finally, and most importantly, she has to run for her seat again in less than two year with the added pressure of making sure her party retains the majority. Will that mean fighting with the president, compromising, or somewhere in-between, the people will have to do this again in less than 2 years.
answered 56 mins ago
Frank Cedeno
2,1261619
3
"parliamentary system of government": this term is typically used to refer to systems of government like the UK, where members of the government a drawn from the legislature. The US system was created as a reaction to this; it's typically referred to as a presidential system.
– Steve Melnikoff
48 mins ago
It might be worth adding that one thing that could change is that the House has the power to subpoena documents and compel witnesses. A Democratic majority makes it more likely (though, as you suggest, not certain) that the House will exercise those powers.
– Steve Melnikoff
46 mins ago
Agreed with @SteveMelnikoff - the US doesn't have a parliamentary system as the term is generally used. It has a presidential system.
– HomoTechsual
40 mins ago
@SteveMelnikoff I agree, but it is a whole big subject that needs a question of it's own "What is Congress's power of subpoena". There are issues with jurisdiction and who they can and cannot compel. The problem of being held in contempt if your request to decline the subpoena fails. Separate but equal branches in the federal constitution mean the other branches can tell congress to suck an egg, etc.
– Frank Cedeno
37 mins ago
@SteveMelnikoff, I updated with the presidential system reference, thank you, wish I had time to do the update with subpoena powers.
– Frank Cedeno
29 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
This is an interesting and counter-intuitive state of affairs. What you are asking is at the core as to why the parliamentary system of government is long enduring and popular in the world. As kindly suggested in the comment, it is a presidential system as the executive branch is separate as is common in original parliamentary system. What I want to focus on is that it is a large body of different people, over 400 in the US. Each person has a different background, profession, upbringing and a short term in office in the HOR while being longer in the Senate. The only real change is that the leadership of the House of Reps. will be Nancy Pelosi. I specifically name her because the personality of the leader is important and would vary among any in her party. The end result is that it will be a contest between the President and the leaders of the House of Reps on setting the agenda and the annual budget priorities.
It is very easy to fall into the mental trap that "Now that the other party has control, things will change". However, what both parties have found out that it is difficult to synchronize 5 people let alone 230+ people to an agenda. Factions will form. All the emotions of human nature will come into play and things will slow down. Just imagine trying to get 4 people from work to go to lunch in the same place, there is just a large amount of issues
It is counter-intuitive because the first reaction to this is that there will be a difference to how business is conducted because there is another party. This is not actually true. The purpose of Congress is to legislate, control funding and guard its power in relation to the two other branches. There is always contention between the president and the leader of either house.
The second counter-intuition is that the slow down of legislation is bad since nothing gets done. This is missed because normally in other countries, the federal government is closer to the individual citizen. In the US, there is a tremendous layer of State, and local government which has its own parliament and constitution. In the state government is where things happen that have an immediate effect on the individual. It is valuable to me, my job, my family that Congress moves slowly and deliberately since they are so far removed from my way of life. And they have the power to affect such a large portion of the citizens. Slow is good.
Winning the majority in the house of representatives means that the party can elect a leader from their own party and organize committees in anyway they see fit. They may or may not include members from the other party. The role of the leader of the HOR is to arrange the political situation so that the agenda she sets will have the best chance of moving forward. She, however, will have to contend with factionalism in her own party who have agendas of their own. She will also have to deal with the sizable membership of the opposing party which has factions of its own. Finally, and most importantly, she has to run for her seat again in less than two year with the added pressure of making sure her party retains the majority. Will that mean fighting with the president, compromising, or somewhere in-between, the people will have to do this again in less than 2 years.
answered 56 mins ago
Frank Cedeno
2,1261619
3
"parliamentary system of government": this term is typically used to refer to systems of government like the UK, where members of the government a drawn from the legislature. The US system was created as a reaction to this; it's typically referred to as a presidential system.
– Steve Melnikoff
48 mins ago
It might be worth adding that one thing that could change is that the House has the power to subpoena documents and compel witnesses. A Democratic majority makes it more likely (though, as you suggest, not certain) that the House will exercise those powers.
– Steve Melnikoff
46 mins ago
Agreed with @SteveMelnikoff - the US doesn't have a parliamentary system as the term is generally used. It has a presidential system.
– HomoTechsual
40 mins ago
@SteveMelnikoff I agree, but it is a whole big subject that needs a question of it's own "What is Congress's power of subpoena". There are issues with jurisdiction and who they can and cannot compel. The problem of being held in contempt if your request to decline the subpoena fails. Separate but equal branches in the federal constitution mean the other branches can tell congress to suck an egg, etc.
– Frank Cedeno
37 mins ago
@SteveMelnikoff, I updated with the presidential system reference, thank you, wish I had time to do the update with subpoena powers.
– Frank Cedeno
29 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
This is an interesting and counter-intuitive state of affairs. What you are asking is at the core as to why the parliamentary system of government is long enduring and popular in the world. As kindly suggested in the comment, it is a presidential system as the executive branch is separate as is common in original parliamentary system. What I want to focus on is that it is a large body of different people, over 400 in the US. Each person has a different background, profession, upbringing and a short term in office in the HOR while being longer in the Senate. The only real change is that the leadership of the House of Reps. will be Nancy Pelosi. I specifically name her because the personality of the leader is important and would vary among any in her party. The end result is that it will be a contest between the President and the leaders of the House of Reps on setting the agenda and the annual budget priorities.
It is very easy to fall into the mental trap that "Now that the other party has control, things will change". However, what both parties have found out that it is difficult to synchronize 5 people let alone 230+ people to an agenda. Factions will form. All the emotions of human nature will come into play and things will slow down. Just imagine trying to get 4 people from work to go to lunch in the same place, there is just a large amount of issues
It is counter-intuitive because the first reaction to this is that there will be a difference to how business is conducted because there is another party. This is not actually true. The purpose of Congress is to legislate, control funding and guard its power in relation to the two other branches. There is always contention between the president and the leader of either house.
The second counter-intuition is that the slow down of legislation is bad since nothing gets done. This is missed because normally in other countries, the federal government is closer to the individual citizen. In the US, there is a tremendous layer of State, and local government which has its own parliament and constitution. In the state government is where things happen that have an immediate effect on the individual. It is valuable to me, my job, my family that Congress moves slowly and deliberately since they are so far removed from my way of life. And they have the power to affect such a large portion of the citizens. Slow is good.
Winning the majority in the house of representatives means that the party can elect a leader from their own party and organize committees in anyway they see fit. They may or may not include members from the other party. The role of the leader of the HOR is to arrange the political situation so that the agenda she sets will have the best chance of moving forward. She, however, will have to contend with factionalism in her own party who have agendas of their own. She will also have to deal with the sizable membership of the opposing party which has factions of its own. Finally, and most importantly, she has to run for her seat again in less than two year with the added pressure of making sure her party retains the majority. Will that mean fighting with the president, compromising, or somewhere in-between, the people will have to do this again in less than 2 years.
answered 56 mins ago
Frank Cedeno
2,1261619
This is an interesting and counter-intuitive state of affairs. What you are asking is at the core as to why the parliamentary system of government is long enduring and popular in the world. As kindly suggested in the comment, it is a presidential system as the executive branch is separate as is common in original parliamentary system. What I want to focus on is that it is a large body of different people, over 400 in the US. Each person has a different background, profession, upbringing and a short term in office in the HOR while being longer in the Senate. The only real change is that the leadership of the House of Reps. will be Nancy Pelosi. I specifically name her because the personality of the leader is important and would vary among any in her party. The end result is that it will be a contest between the President and the leaders of the House of Reps on setting the agenda and the annual budget priorities.
It is very easy to fall into the mental trap that "Now that the other party has control, things will change". However, what both parties have found out that it is difficult to synchronize 5 people let alone 230+ people to an agenda. Factions will form. All the emotions of human nature will come into play and things will slow down. Just imagine trying to get 4 people from work to go to lunch in the same place, there is just a large amount of issues
It is counter-intuitive because the first reaction to this is that there will be a difference to how business is conducted because there is another party. This is not actually true. The purpose of Congress is to legislate, control funding and guard its power in relation to the two other branches. There is always contention between the president and the leader of either house.
The second counter-intuition is that the slow down of legislation is bad since nothing gets done. This is missed because normally in other countries, the federal government is closer to the individual citizen. In the US, there is a tremendous layer of State, and local government which has its own parliament and constitution. In the state government is where things happen that have an immediate effect on the individual. It is valuable to me, my job, my family that Congress moves slowly and deliberately since they are so far removed from my way of life. And they have the power to affect such a large portion of the citizens. Slow is good.
Winning the majority in the house of representatives means that the party can elect a leader from their own party and organize committees in anyway they see fit. They may or may not include members from the other party. The role of the leader of the HOR is to arrange the political situation so that the agenda she sets will have the best chance of moving forward. She, however, will have to contend with factionalism in her own party who have agendas of their own. She will also have to deal with the sizable membership of the opposing party which has factions of its own. Finally, and most importantly, she has to run for her seat again in less than two year with the added pressure of making sure her party retains the majority. Will that mean fighting with the president, compromising, or somewhere in-between, the people will have to do this again in less than 2 years.
answered 56 mins ago
Frank Cedeno
2,1261619
edited 32 mins ago
answered 56 mins ago
Frank Cedeno
2,1261619
answered 56 mins ago
Frank Cedeno
2,1261619
answered 56 mins ago
Frank Cedeno
2,1261619
2,1261619
3
"parliamentary system of government": this term is typically used to refer to systems of government like the UK, where members of the government a drawn from the legislature. The US system was created as a reaction to this; it's typically referred to as a presidential system.
– Steve Melnikoff
48 mins ago
It might be worth adding that one thing that could change is that the House has the power to subpoena documents and compel witnesses. A Democratic majority makes it more likely (though, as you suggest, not certain) that the House will exercise those powers.
– Steve Melnikoff
46 mins ago
Agreed with @SteveMelnikoff - the US doesn't have a parliamentary system as the term is generally used. It has a presidential system.
– HomoTechsual
40 mins ago
@SteveMelnikoff I agree, but it is a whole big subject that needs a question of it's own "What is Congress's power of subpoena". There are issues with jurisdiction and who they can and cannot compel. The problem of being held in contempt if your request to decline the subpoena fails. Separate but equal branches in the federal constitution mean the other branches can tell congress to suck an egg, etc.
– Frank Cedeno
37 mins ago
@SteveMelnikoff, I updated with the presidential system reference, thank you, wish I had time to do the update with subpoena powers.
– Frank Cedeno
29 mins ago
add a comment |Â
3
"parliamentary system of government": this term is typically used to refer to systems of government like the UK, where members of the government a drawn from the legislature. The US system was created as a reaction to this; it's typically referred to as a presidential system.
– Steve Melnikoff
48 mins ago
It might be worth adding that one thing that could change is that the House has the power to subpoena documents and compel witnesses. A Democratic majority makes it more likely (though, as you suggest, not certain) that the House will exercise those powers.
– Steve Melnikoff
46 mins ago
Agreed with @SteveMelnikoff - the US doesn't have a parliamentary system as the term is generally used. It has a presidential system.
– HomoTechsual
40 mins ago
@SteveMelnikoff I agree, but it is a whole big subject that needs a question of it's own "What is Congress's power of subpoena". There are issues with jurisdiction and who they can and cannot compel. The problem of being held in contempt if your request to decline the subpoena fails. Separate but equal branches in the federal constitution mean the other branches can tell congress to suck an egg, etc.
– Frank Cedeno
37 mins ago
@SteveMelnikoff, I updated with the presidential system reference, thank you, wish I had time to do the update with subpoena powers.
– Frank Cedeno
29 mins ago
3
3
"parliamentary system of government": this term is typically used to refer to systems of government like the UK, where members of the government a drawn from the legislature. The US system was created as a reaction to this; it's typically referred to as a presidential system.
– Steve Melnikoff
48 mins ago
"parliamentary system of government": this term is typically used to refer to systems of government like the UK, where members of the government a drawn from the legislature. The US system was created as a reaction to this; it's typically referred to as a presidential system.
– Steve Melnikoff
48 mins ago
It might be worth adding that one thing that could change is that the House has the power to subpoena documents and compel witnesses. A Democratic majority makes it more likely (though, as you suggest, not certain) that the House will exercise those powers.
– Steve Melnikoff
46 mins ago
It might be worth adding that one thing that could change is that the House has the power to subpoena documents and compel witnesses. A Democratic majority makes it more likely (though, as you suggest, not certain) that the House will exercise those powers.
– Steve Melnikoff
46 mins ago
Agreed with @SteveMelnikoff - the US doesn't have a parliamentary system as the term is generally used. It has a presidential system.
– HomoTechsual
40 mins ago
Agreed with @SteveMelnikoff - the US doesn't have a parliamentary system as the term is generally used. It has a presidential system.
– HomoTechsual
40 mins ago
@SteveMelnikoff I agree, but it is a whole big subject that needs a question of it's own "What is Congress's power of subpoena". There are issues with jurisdiction and who they can and cannot compel. The problem of being held in contempt if your request to decline the subpoena fails. Separate but equal branches in the federal constitution mean the other branches can tell congress to suck an egg, etc.
– Frank Cedeno
37 mins ago
@SteveMelnikoff I agree, but it is a whole big subject that needs a question of it's own "What is Congress's power of subpoena". There are issues with jurisdiction and who they can and cannot compel. The problem of being held in contempt if your request to decline the subpoena fails. Separate but equal branches in the federal constitution mean the other branches can tell congress to suck an egg, etc.
– Frank Cedeno
37 mins ago
@SteveMelnikoff, I updated with the presidential system reference, thank you, wish I had time to do the update with subpoena powers.
– Frank Cedeno
29 mins ago
@SteveMelnikoff, I updated with the presidential system reference, thank you, wish I had time to do the update with subpoena powers.
– Frank Cedeno
29 mins ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
-3
down vote
There are 435 seats in the House of Representatives. The house of Representatives or "the house" is one of the two chambers of the United States Congress.
To say that "X party lost the house", means that more than 217 of these seats have gone to the opposite party. This has a number of ramifications, mostly concerning vote counts.
*I should also note that the "speaker of the house" is chosen when a new Congress convenes, and this speaker will come from the party which controls the house. They are the parliamentary leader of the chamber.
What does this mean practically moving forward in this political climate? It could mean a lot of things, and it would depend on too many variables to state anything with too much certainty.
answered 1 hour ago
ActionEconomy
71
New contributor
ActionEconomy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
-3
down vote
There are 435 seats in the House of Representatives. The house of Representatives or "the house" is one of the two chambers of the United States Congress.
To say that "X party lost the house", means that more than 217 of these seats have gone to the opposite party. This has a number of ramifications, mostly concerning vote counts.
*I should also note that the "speaker of the house" is chosen when a new Congress convenes, and this speaker will come from the party which controls the house. They are the parliamentary leader of the chamber.
What does this mean practically moving forward in this political climate? It could mean a lot of things, and it would depend on too many variables to state anything with too much certainty.
answered 1 hour ago
ActionEconomy
71
New contributor
ActionEconomy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
up vote
-3
down vote
up vote
-3
down vote
There are 435 seats in the House of Representatives. The house of Representatives or "the house" is one of the two chambers of the United States Congress.
To say that "X party lost the house", means that more than 217 of these seats have gone to the opposite party. This has a number of ramifications, mostly concerning vote counts.
*I should also note that the "speaker of the house" is chosen when a new Congress convenes, and this speaker will come from the party which controls the house. They are the parliamentary leader of the chamber.
What does this mean practically moving forward in this political climate? It could mean a lot of things, and it would depend on too many variables to state anything with too much certainty.
answered 1 hour ago
ActionEconomy
71
New contributor
ActionEconomy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
There are 435 seats in the House of Representatives. The house of Representatives or "the house" is one of the two chambers of the United States Congress.
To say that "X party lost the house", means that more than 217 of these seats have gone to the opposite party. This has a number of ramifications, mostly concerning vote counts.
*I should also note that the "speaker of the house" is chosen when a new Congress convenes, and this speaker will come from the party which controls the house. They are the parliamentary leader of the chamber.
What does this mean practically moving forward in this political climate? It could mean a lot of things, and it would depend on too many variables to state anything with too much certainty.
answered 1 hour ago
ActionEconomy
71
New contributor
ActionEconomy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 56 mins ago
answered 1 hour ago
ActionEconomy
71
New contributor
ActionEconomy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 1 hour ago
ActionEconomy
71
answered 1 hour ago
ActionEconomy
71
71
New contributor
ActionEconomy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
ActionEconomy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
ActionEconomy is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
DonQuiKong is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
DonQuiKong is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
DonQuiKong is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
DonQuiKong is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f35176%2fwhat-does-it-actually-mean-for-the-republicans-to-have-lost-the-house-of-represe%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Reading suggestion : nytimes.com/2018/11/07/opinion/…
– Evargalo
1 hour ago