Serious Question: Did The Founders Intend For The Senate Majority Leader To Have A VETO!?

[TrollBuster9090]

Obviously not!

I seriously can't imagine the framers of the Constitution giving the Senate Majority Leader a VETO over all legislation. Legislation passed in the House was meant to be voted on in the Senate. Yet, that's what McConnell has. A de facto legislative veto, equal to the President.

A legislative VETO was not given to the Senate Majority Leader. It's a de facto power that he usurped using a parliamentary glitch. I don't think it would stand up to legal scrutiny, so I can't understand why nobody has ever challenged it in court.

[canetoad]

1. Kick and

thank you for asking this question, which had perturbed me for a while.

If one man can vetoe the product of Congress, how is that democracy?

[Hortensis]

2. They did intend the senate, filled with sons of landed gentry,

to be a check on the house. Even arranged for senators to be appointed by presumably gentry, protecting congress from the erratic whims of the lower classes. Most expected senate seats would come to be often handed down within those prominent families that remained deserving of this special duty to society.

Did they want one man's decisions to determine what could come out of congress? Did they intend that the leader would require his caucus to vote on legislation they didn't write and hadn't read? No, but they were very smart men who did realize it could happen. It's this way because the rest of today's Republican senators are as corrupt and self serving in their own ways as McConnell, plus often gutless. Those who didn't go along were driven out some years ago.

Because all senators have the power and responsibility to vote, though, McConnell of course isn't "vetoing" anything alone. His rotten caucus just rubber stamps all his decisions.

[pecosbob]

17. Absolutely...one of their greatest fears was the mob

This is shown again and again in American history...anytime the 'people' stand up for their rights, the powers that be have crushed each uprising with police and with the army and with strikebreakers. They're still doing it today almost three hundred years later. Keystone?

[stopdiggin]

35. a mob IS a damned scary thing

getting back to the Senate -- it clearly WAS intended as a check on the political wills of the of the middle class -- but then, a government with checks on power was generally considered one of the "geniuses" of the founders ...

[pecosbob]

36. It's the culmination of four millenia of patriarchal property law.

That's the rotten nerve of the aching tooth.

[malaise]

3. Excellent post

Get thee to the greatest page

[Hugin]

4. I believe you are correct in your assertion Moscow Mitch's legislative constipation is an abuse of

power.

The Senate Majority Leader is a more modern creation which came about after the advent of the party system. The party system was not covered in the Constitution, where it’s written that the second highest vote recipient of Presidential votes becomes the Vice President. Who presides over the Senate and is only able to vote in the event of a tie vote. (Which would be common given there are always an even number of Senators.) The way it has evolved with the majority leader deciding what is voted on instead of either the House or a vote in the Senate gives two votes to shut down legislation if the party holding the Senate is of the same party as the VP. It hardly seems like what was intended when the Speaker of the House was made third in line for the President.

[Hugin]

7. Before you ask, there are also Constitutional problems with the party "ticket" system.

As I say above, it was originally written that the VP would be the second highest vote recipient in the election. If that remained true then HRC would be the VP today. Which could potentially lead to a lot of intrigue.

So, the genius fix was to have the POTUS and VP run as a ticket which technically means both people get exactly the same number of votes. The determination of who serves as POTUS being a wink and a nod agreement between the winner of the Party Primary, the Party, and the prospective VP. I don’t know if ever there has been a primary challenger chosen as a running mate based on popularity in the primaries, but, there have been a number of running mates chosen from other competitors for the top slot. I think Joe Biden was the last of these recently. The last for the Republicans was George H. W. Bush.

But, this leads to the problem of, if they both get exactly the same # of votes, which is really in charge from a legal Constitutional viewpoint. Especially, based on a Constitution which was written without parties in mind.

[onenote]

21. There is no "constitutional problem" because in 1804 the Constituion was amended

Twelfth Amendment.

[Hugin]

24. I still see nothing about parties or tickets.

The President and Vice President are voted for separately in the 12th Amendment by the Electors (not based on a popular vote) and the person with the second highest # of Electoral Votes is appointed to be the Vice President.


"Amendment XII

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;-The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;-The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President-The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

It is exactly as I explained. The Vice President is not chosen by the Primary process and is selected by the Party led by the winner of the Party Primary.

[onenote]

31. The reason for the 12th Amendment was the rise of parties/tickets

So, again, no Constitutional "problem".

[FBaggins]

5. Yes and no

Majority Leader isn't a position created by the Constitution in the first place, so it obviously wasn't given a veto.

However - there's also no Constitutional presumption that legislation passed in one chamber must even be considered by the other. To the extent that the majority leader actually represents the majority of senators... yes, they can entirely ignore the other chamber if they want to.

And yes... it happens the other way around too. There was a period of time during Obama's presidency that we controlled the Senate while Republicans controlled the House. There were hundreds of bills passed by the House that never came up for a vote in the Senate.

On edit - from The Hill three years ago:

Eleven of the 19 sessions between the 94th Congress and the 113th Congress had more than 300 House bills awaiting action by the end of the session, according to the Post and GovTrack.

https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/281536-nearly-400-house-bills-stuck-in-senate-limbo

[Hugin]

8. Note that they didn't block a SCOTUS nomination and hearings, though.

Putin’s Mitch entirely owns that piece of work.

[FBaggins]

10. Not a clear cut as you might imagine

What's the constitutional difference between a SCOTUS nomination and an appellate court nominee?

[Hugin]

25. SCOTUS is mentioned in the Constitution.

Appellate court nominees aren't.

[FBaggins]

28. I can't imagine why that's in the least bit relevant

They certainly are mentioned in both Article II Section 2 Clause 2 and in Article III Section 1.

There is no constitutional difference in the confirmation process. The fact that one is named and the other is referred to as a category (e.g., "such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish&quot doesn't impact that at all.

[democratisphere]

6. Currently we appear to have a dictatorial duocracy where

2 psychopaths control almost everything that happens in our government. There are other rethuglicons to take their place with THIS ideology when the duo are eventually gone. The evil rethuglicon empire is a huge problem that will persist and perpetuate.

[Merlot]

38. Getting rid of mcconell will not solve the problem

The republicans have always wanted "smaller government." By stopping any legislation they can, they are accomplishing their goal.

mcconell and trumpft have just given the republicans a roadmap that they will use again and again.

[democratisphere]

39. So true.

It is a BIG problem.

[BlueJac]

9. K&R

[Vinca]

11. Great post and a question that needs to be asked on the floor of the Senate.

[BigmanPigman]

12. And in the media.

[malaise]

14. Yes yes yes!

[Hoyt]

13. Good point. Have any states found a way around majority leaders who keep legislation bottled up?

[FBaggins]

16. Sure! Lots of them

Elect a new Senate majority.

[Voltaire2]

15. The constitution says very little about

how the House and Senate operate. So it is difficult to make a constitutional argument that they aren’t being run correctly.

[spanone]

18. K&R...

[brush]

19. The Senate is broken and with the filibuster and the hold that individual senators can put on a...

bill and Moscow Mitch's grim reaper blockage on what reaches the floor for a vote, it can't likely be fixed without wholesale dismantling/an amendment.

Without that the country just staggers from one party's hold onto the majority and being able to stifle whatever bills that come out of the House to the next party doing the same thing when it gets the majority.

It was a good theory by the founders—the Senate being the deliberative body given long terms vs the short term House so that bills can be debated thoughtfully and thoroughly without having to worry about how one's vote might affect re-election—but the way it's worked out with the majority leader having the power to kill bills by not letting them get to the floor for a vote, makes him/her just about as powerful as the President.

[Scruffy1]

20. The exercise of reading the founding fathers minds is pure bunkum to me.

The Supremes jsut use it as an excuse for continuing war on the populace. The Second Amendment to the Constitution is a prime example. In no court in the USA was it ever interperted as protecting individual gun ownership. It is clearly marked for militias and "the people", not the person. Enter Republican Supreme court appointees like Powell, Rehnquist and Burger and 180 years of settled law goes down the drain. They are not "originists" they are political toadies or they wouldn't have been picked. The whole point was to keep dollars flowing from lobbyists to their benefacdtors. Why these hacks get so much respect from the media, I have no idea.
I could go on for hours, but the point is the Supremes consist of 9 political appointees and have always been politicol. In the end the Constitution is whatever they say it is so it pointless to read it as written and speculate. If they say it is green ham that's what it is and all lower courts are bound by it.

[aikoaiko]

22. I think this is a Senate rule. If so, the Senate gave the maj leader this authority at some point

It would be interesting to see when it was initiated and by whom.

[at140]

27. -----------------this----------------------

[grantcart]

23. Obviously not and the filibuster was never intended to have any impact on legislation

The rule on cloture was originally intended to formalise a rule allowing all Senators an opportunity to speak on any legislation before voting, never intended to stop voting on an issue.

For 100 years it was only used once, for a Senator that wanted to slow down a vote so he could make a speech in favor of railroad expansion.

After the civil war it began to be used as a parliamentary device to choke off legislation that had large public support but was vehemently opposed by a small minority, primarily civil rights related legislation and the ceiling was changed from 66% to 60'%.

The founding fathers envisioned the Senate as a body that would be removed from partisan and would.be moved by representatives that appointed by state legislators for longer terms would house orators and thinkers to give a home for non partisan debate at a higher level.

Boy were they wrong

[Hugin]

26. Exactly.

"Boy were they wrong." <-- No kidding.

[PoliticAverse]

33. When you had to actually talk in order to filbuster a bill, filibusters were rarely effective.

Usually they delayed legislation from passing for a bit (the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for filibustered but eventually passed for example).

The creation of the "silent", anonymous filibuster has resulted in the filibuster being used to successfully block legislation often.

Note that the filibuster can be modified at any time by 50+1 votes (aka "The Nuclear Option" - as Harry Reid did to stop Republicans from blocking Obama's appointments and Mitch McConnell did to get through a Supreme Court nominee).

[yonder]

29. Great question from the OP and comments here.

[PoliticAverse]

30. "I don't think it would stand up to legal scrutiny," - of course it would.

The constitution doesn't require the Senate to take up legislation passed by the House...
any more than the House is required to take up legislation passed by the Senate.

One of the purposes of the founders had in creating the Senate was for it to act as a check on the populism of the House btw.

Additionally the President isn't required to take any action on ( i.e. "sign or veto" ) legislation passed by Congress.

[onenote]

32. +1

[brooklynite]

34. Neither did the Founders intend for the Senate to have a Filibuster...

[Locutusofborg]

37. However the Framers of the Constitution

did include in Article 1, Section 6 that: “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”