Ok. They say there are no dumb questions so here goes...

Why are those in the House of Representatives considered somehow lower on the power ladder than those in the Senate?

eom

makes on behalf of major incidents, they seem to keep falling over and/or off the map and I don't think that would happen if Senators were making these same moves.

Like in the House, the majority party controls the agenda in the Senate. The difference is that minority party has more power to stop the majority from doing certain things.

If a Senator jumped on with Conyers he MIGHT be able to get a decent hearing room, but that has nothing to do with official rules. Senators tend to be more friendly with members of the other side of the aisle than their counterparts in the House and the fact that Arlen Specter (Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee) is much more level headed than Jim Sensenbrenner (Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee).

The only thing that the Senate dems could do is threaten to object to and fillibuster everything until there are legitimat hearings into the matters that Conyers is bringing up, but that would set a horrible precedent and also that's a threat that they need to save for the Supreme Court battle.

Either you're a true political junkie or fresh from government studies at some level - or perhaps a congressperson incognito...

:patriot:

Chances are that I will start out as an advisor rather than running for elected office. Hopefully, the first time you hear about me in the news, I will be the guy who got a Progressive Democrat elected President. Basically a mastermind like Karl Rove, but for our side. Oh yea and I have no intention of blowing any CIA agents' cover either.

Rove acts more like a general than an advisor. He quotes Sun Tzu and Napoleon. He makes sure to not only beat his opponents, but beat them so bad they can't run for public office ever again. He's like Ender Wiggin or something.

that they can't run for political office again, is something that I wouldn't mind doing to a few Republicans. Saxby Chambliss would be one to name a few.

Just that your'e not going to be anything like Rove as a consultant if you are a Dem. They fight dirty, but if we aren't afraid of speaking truth to power, I have faith that we don't have to stoop to Rove's level.

Just kidding. :)

Because the Senate has more jurisdiction over foreign policy, i.e treaties; the Senate does the confirmation hearings for judges; Senators represent entire states, and the rules of the Senate are such that individual senators have much more power than individual House members. Senators of the minority party can still be effective lawmakers, whereas House members of the minority party are often times relegated to being back benchers and pounding the table with loud speeches while the majority party actually makes the laws.

Duh... "Senators represent entire states" - it was so obvious.

Anyway - that answers the problems with Conyers I mentioned in the above post. Your description of House members of the minority party describes perfectly how they treat him and all the efforts he has been making on our behalf.

Still, I'm now extra proud of him for continuing to make them.

Tx.

So, are Wyoming's 2 senators more powerful than their 1 rep?

Wyoming has only 1 rep!?

to start an impeachment process? I assumed that meant they had more power but can a Senator start impeachment also.


And while we are at it WHEN DOES THE IMPEACHMENT TRIAL START? I'm sick to death of our party not holding people to the wall when there is obvious fraud or other illegality going on.

And I swear if this administration goes all the way through 4 more years with no impeachment or some sort of equivalent I am moving to Jamaica. Our legacy is going to be "the a country that impeaches a president because he lies about a blow job and allows the next one to murder, plunder and pillage freely and with no consequence".

It is just sickening. I was always told you can tell who you are by the company you keep. I don't want to keep company with these lying bastards anymore.

to Clinton's mpeachment, the house draws up articles of impeachment and votes on them.
If they pass, a trial takes place in the Senate.
If the impeachment passes in the Senate, the president is removed from office.
Nice little system of checks and balances those old farts set up, eh?

but didn't know why, so two of us have been 'edumicated'!

And maybe even a few more silent partners, 'eh?

There are fewer senators, they are elected state wide rather than from a smaller district. It's harder to be elected to the senate. They also serve for 6 years rather than 2.

As far as prestige goes, the Senate has always been considered the "upper house". Senators are often viewed in the national media as either champions of a certain policy or as potential presidential candidates and thus they get a lot of attention. There are simply too many congressmen for the national media to pay attention to as individuals, except for the leadership.

As far as power goes, the House runs on the rules set by the majority party. The senate runs largely on unanimous consent agreements. Any one senator can disrupt unanimous consent by simply saying "I object" and there would have to be a vote taken for whatever procedural motion that was suggested. Since the senate goes through so many procedures this would become incredibly cumbersome and usually it forces the senate to stop business and negotiate with the Senator who is blocking unanimous consent.

The Senate also confirms appointments and in the past few months, appointments have been pretty much the only real controversy in Washington and in the mainstream media.

If all the House reps got together and agreed on some legislation, based on input from their constituents, do they have any power (written or not) to influence their State's senators?

Althought I think that partisanship would prevent all reps from agreeing on anything anyway.

would probably also pass it, or pass a similar version and work out the difference in Conference Committee (a temporary committee formed if the house and senate pass similar bills but with a few differences, in which the house and senate work out the differences and find a bill that is acceptable to both houses).

But yea, partisanship would pretty much prevent all members of the house from agreeing on pretty much anything.

that individually they get kind of diluted. ??

There ARE stupid questions, this however is not one of them.

That's the best way I can describe it. Part of the reason is they are fewer in number, and that they have powers to check the executive and judicial branches (appointments, treaties) the House doesn't.

It goes beyond that. They are seen as more powerful because they were originally elected as representatives of the states, rather than by direct popular election. As such, they were seen as being able to transcend and check the will of the people to an extent. Even in the Constitutional Convention their "aristocratic influence" was criticized by the more republican/Jeffersonian delegates.

To a large extent, this attitude drives the Senate rules, in which individual senators have more power than individual members of the House.

So I'm happy to see your message had the 'elected by the state' information as well.

All revenue and tax bills have to originate in the house.....

One house member can isnstigate the impeachment process by introducing a resolution. Which then goes to the rules committee which is the only committee the Speaker sits on.......

The party in control sets the agenda and the rules of the game.......

"All revenue and tax bills have to originate in the house....."

What about spending bills? Them too?

But they mostly react to the presidents budgets and requests.......

Seems to me, if I recall correctly, that senators used to be appointed by governors. That changed with Amendment 17:

Amendment XVII
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

The Seventeenth Amendment was proposed by Congress on May 13, 1912, when it passed the House, 48 Cong. Rec. (62d Cong., 2d Sess.) 6367, having previously passed the Senate on June 12, 1911. 47 Cong. Rec. (62d Cong., 1st Sess.) 1925. It appears officially in 37 Stat. 646. Ratification was completed on April 8, 1913, when the thirty-sixth State (Connecticut) approved the amendment, there being then 48 States in the Union. On May 31, 1913, Secretary of State Bryan certified that it had become a part of the Constitution. 38 Stat 2049.

I always thought senators "had more power" because they were originally appointed by governors instead of elected by the people. In this regard, their power comes from power, and not from some lowly constituents. I read from these other posts that there more to it that that...

elected by the state legislatures.

Often they would elect distinguished citizens of the state and we had some great ones like Webster, Calhoun, Clay, Douglas etc.

On the other hand sometimes they were elected because they gave the most money to the legislators.

The Seventeenth Amendment is usually not noted as very important, but it was actually a very major change to the way the constitutional system worked.

The Senate was the ultimate state's right. Senators were chosen by the state legislatures and was the states' powerful weapon in Washington. If something was against the rights of the states, the senate would kill it. Any senator who voted against the interests of states would be replaced by the legislature at the next election.

As much as the Civil War, the passing of the 17th Amendment was the death of states rights in America. For better or worse, it was a major change to our system and balance of powers as the states lost their reach into the federal government.

And for setting me straight on this :hi:

Senate represents "all the people" collectively - created to determine the "good of all"

House represents a specific constituency - created to deal with more of the "mundane" issues.

It also originates from the time when the individual states were considered "sovereign" similar to nations, who willingly entered into an association of states (The United States "are"...) and after the civil war were forced to abandone their "sovereignty" to become more of a political jurisdiction of a single entity (The United States "is"...)

The Senate was a way of makeing each state have equal clout in the union, while the House was "more democratic" and represented each citizen TOGETHER in one chamber, and not as representatives of any particular STATE."

Google the "great compromise" vis-a-vis the US Constitution and 1776.