Hot answers tagged

51

No, the House of Representatives does not have the power to overrule a Senate veto. Article I, Section 7 is quite clear that a bill needs to pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate in order to become law. The two-chamber Congress was designed as a compromise between those founders who wanted every person to have an equal say in American ...


49

To pass, a bill needs to pass in the House and Senate and be signed by the President. Since the last election, Democrats took control of the House, so while the Obamacare repeal bills that failed in the Senate in 2017 might pass the Senate today, there's no way they would make it through the Democrat controlled House.


39

Yes, the Senate can hold a trial, but they would have to change their rules first in order to do so. There's no Constitutional requirement that the Articles of Impeachment be somehow "sent" to the Senate. The only parts of the US Constitution regarding impeachment are Article I, Section 2, Paragraph 5: 5: The House of Representatives shall chuse ...


37

The other answers indicate that Trump has appointed an unusually large number of judges, but they don't quite get to how Trump was able to nominate so many more judges than previous presidents. Vox: What Trump has done to the courts, explained One reason is that the Senate under the final two years of Obama's term was controlled by Republicans, and under ...


30

A short piece on PolitiFact published at the time in 2016 put Biden's 1992 speech in its political context: Biden's floor speech was on June 25, 1992, more than three months later in the election cycle than it is now. There was no Supreme Court vacancy to fill. There was no nominee to consider. The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay ...


30

There are no restrictions at the federal level for running for multiple offices at once. However, at least six states have imposed restrictions on running for multiple offices concurrently: Colorado (Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-4-501) Florida (Fla. Stat. Ann. § 99.012) Illinois (Ill. Ann. Stat. § 10-7) Louisiana (La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 453) Oregon (Or. Rev. Stat. §...


27

In the 2004 senate election, Obama was pitted against Jack Ryan. In the middle of the campaign, papers were released as part of Ryan's divorce that suggested he had taken his wife to sex clubs and asked her to have sex in public. Moreover, he had lied privately to the Republican committee, saying that there was nothing potentially embarrassing in the ...


26

With Democrat control of the House such a bill would have no chance of becoming law. Yehuda points out that bills are sometimes introduced for show, even if they have no chance of becoming law, to demonstrate a party's commitment to making something happen, or so that opponents are forced to vote for or against something that can be used against them later. ...


25

Yes it is unusual. Per this Vox article Trump has appointed 48 courts of appeal judges. Here is a comparison with other recent presidents at a similar point in their presidencies and their total number of appointments in parentheses: Trump: 48 Obama: 24 (55) Bush : 30 (62) Clinton: 27 (66) Bush Sr.: 31 (42) Reagan: 23 (83) ...


24

Because the current perception is that both sides see more advantages to being able to campaign on what they'd do if only the voters would hand them control of the House, Senate, and Presidency than they do in compromising and campaigning on the fact that they got something done. If no bill passes, Democrats can campaign on the need to overhaul policing and ...


23

As far as I know, there is no restriction. The question was raised when Joe Lieberman ran simultaneously for Senate and Vice President in 2000 (had he won both, he would have resigned his senate seat and his replacement been picked by the governor). Given that state term limits on House/Senate seats were ruled unconstitutional in the 1990s, I would imagine ...


22

Yes the Senate bill can be framed as an attempt by the U.S. to influence China. Whether that is a bad thing or not depends on your own beliefs. The U.S. commonly uses trade restrictions and sanctions to attempt to bring about change in other nations that it believes are acting against the interests of the U.S.. Iran continually faces sanctions for their ...


19

While the other answers address the legal issues better than I can, there’s some important context to this issue that is missing from the other answers which I’d like to discuss. As everyone knows, the Impeachment process has 2 stages: first, the House writes and votes on Articles of Impeachment, then the Senate holds a trial on them. Since the Articles of ...


19

That story is from 2 days ago before it passed and is no longer a relevant point. The issue was that 4 republican senators stalled the bill to try to weaken unemployment benefits. Sanders made a counter-threat to stall the bill if they didn't withdraw their objections, to prevent the Senate from giving in to their objections. Sanders objected to an ...


17

I'm not sure there any formally mandated consequences for not attending. On the other hand: Here are the guidelines for how senators are to conduct themselves during the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, which is expected to begin Tuesday. They were put out by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. Senators should plan to be in attendance ...


16

You make an astute observation. This isn't something which would happen in a fair legal trial. But legally this isn't a fair trial, it's a political process. In a fair legal trial, jurors who plan to work in total coordination with the defense would be dismissed, but the chief justice presiding over the case can't do that either. Legal trials will have to ...


15

The "Biden Rule" wasn't some kind of formal Senate rule, but rather was merely referring to the course of action that Biden himself suggested in 1992 that you mentioned, namely, not taking up a nomination during the election season. The name, of course, was used by Republicans just to point out the hypocrisy of the administration (and Senate ...


14

There are aspects of this bill that modify and restrict tax credits. If I'm not mistaken, this would make it subject to the Origination Clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 7(1)): All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.


12

A better comparison rather than making estimates about retirements would be looking at how many judges recent presidents appointed. According to wikipedia this seems to be 347 for Obama, and 335 for Bush. The letter you're referencing is dated at 12/07/19, so we can say it's 170 judges over 2.91 years, compared to 347 or 335 over 8 years. This would be 58....


12

So, why does the Chief Justice break ties during a impeachment trial and not the Vice President, which is the usual case? See Does the Vice-President retain their tiebreaking vote during an impeachment trial of the President?. Also, what authorizes the Chief Justice to cast tie-breaking votes? Precedent. In the impeachment trial of President Andrew ...


10

Can The Chief Justice Excuse Senators From The Jury In A Presidential Impeachment? No, the jury (such as it may be) is fixed by the Constitution. Article I, Section 3, "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." Article 2, Section 4, "The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from ...


10

Major legal experts say transmission isn't necessary Wouldn’t make sense. Constitution doesn’t mention transmission. And Supreme Court has said Senate has sole power to set trial rules. Senate could set a deadline for trial regardless. Or not. Senate and Trump probably don’t care. Either way, not a good look for the House Ds. Thus, it can be done, but it's ...


10

I'll just quote this because I think it's an amusing variant of the gridlock, namely the shuttlecock: In the late stages of the John Tyler presidency, as the White House and the Senate were at complete loggerheads, the Senate had no interest in confirming the president’s nominees for any office of any significance. Describing the “want of concord” between ...


9

The New York Times article How the Impeachment Process Works covers most of this. The Constitution does not lay out any set rules for Impeachment. Instead, the Senate itself writes and votes on the rules that will govern the impeachment proceedings: What are the rules for a Senate trial? There are no set rules. Rather, the Senate passes a resolution first ...


9

Apparently it comes from "whipper-in" which meant keeping the dogs from straying in a fox chase. So the idea is that the whip keeps the party members from straying... in their voting... at least in the British interpretation of that function. According to one newspaper The formal title of the British parliamentary “whippers-in” was shortened to ...


8

I am not sure whether this is the only reason but versus the end of Obama's tenure about ten percent of federal judgeships were vacant, or about 87. An administration focusing on filling these could easily arrive at the current numbers. I am not sure about the reasons for the vacancies (only a minority appears to be due to Republicans blocking them in the ...


8

Yes, in the same way that any action or inaction of a foreign government can be treated as "foreign interference". No, it's ordinary diplomacy.


8

It's important to remember that each chamber sets its own rules for impeachment. As such, the answer is entirely in how each chamber votes There's no Constitutional mandate for "impeachment managers". That is a convention of the House. In theory, the House may change its selected managers any time it sees fit by holding a vote to change them. The Senate ...


8

One argument that you'll hear against having witnesses is that they will not change the outcome of the trial. There is virtually no chance that the Republican-controlled Senate will vote to remove Trump, and calling witnesses will not change that. There is relatively little debate about the major facts of the case, so having witnesses corroborate those facts ...


8

First point... Having read this Amicus Brief all the way through, I can tell you that nowhere does it talk about 'legislative reprisal'. Nothing close to that terminology exists; it is nearly complete fabrication. There's only one phrase that comes close, namely that the public might demand that the court be “restructured in order to reduce the influence of ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible