| Line 22: |
Line 22: |
| | | | |
| | The leader of the Senate is chosen by majority vote of the political party that is in the majority. Currently there are 59 senators who are Democrats (including two Independents who vote with the Democrats), so the Majority Leader of the Senate is a Democrat: [[Harry Reid]]. | | The leader of the Senate is chosen by majority vote of the political party that is in the majority. Currently there are 59 senators who are Democrats (including two Independents who vote with the Democrats), so the Majority Leader of the Senate is a Democrat: [[Harry Reid]]. |
| − |
| |
| − | ==IV. Legislative [[History]]==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The [[Constitution]] is a model of clarity compared with what Congress passes each year. Ambiguities pervade laws passed by Congress. Often the [[congressman|congressmen]] argue among themselves, and then pass compromised language rather than clarity. They may not even agree what the language means at the time it is passed.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | [[Senator]]s like [[Ted Kennedy]] make comments on the [[Senate]] floor and in [[committee]] reports about what they feel the [[statute]]s mean. Sometimes lengthy descriptions of intent are inserted by a few [[senator]]s into these reports. [[Court]]s then pick up on these comments to find meanings that may not have been shared by most of the supporters of the [[statute]]s.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | The reports and [[statement]]s by [[congressman|congressmen]] in connection with passage of a [[bill]] are known as its “[[legislative]] [[history]].” For most of our [[history]], it was popular for [[court]]s to rely heavily on [[legislative]] [[history]] in interpreting a [[statute]]. To combat this, Presidents [[Ronald Reagan]] and the first [[George H. W. Bush|George Bush]] began attaching their own interpretations of [[statute]]s to what they signed into [[law]].
| |
| − |
| |
| − | What did the [[framers]] of the [[Constitution]] do? They insisted that all notes and viewpoints be destroyed at the end of the [[constitution]]al convention. They did not want any “[[legislative]] [[history]]” to influence the interpretation of the [[Constitution]] itself. Only [[James Madison]] preserved his notes, which were not published until many decades later.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Several on the [[Supreme Court]], such as [[Antonin Scalia|Justice Scalia]], feel that [[legislative]] [[history]] should have no influence in interpreting a [[statute]]. The text of the [[statute]] alone should define its meaning. What do you think?
| |
| | | | |
| | ==V. [[Congress]]ional [[Power]]s== | | ==V. [[Congress]]ional [[Power]]s== |
| Line 63: |
Line 51: |
| | What’s left? [[Congress]] can also expand its authority under these [[power]]s with the “[[Necessary and Proper Clause]],” also known as the “[[elasticity|Elastic]] Clause.” [[Congress]] can make any [[law]] that is proper for executing any [[power]] granted to any part of [[government]], not just [[Congress]]. But there must be an underlying, specific grant of [[power]] in addition to the [[Necessary and Proper Clause]]. For example, [[Congress]] could not pass [[law]]s establishing local [[police]] departments because there is no grant of [[power]] to the [[federal]] [[government]] in that area. | | What’s left? [[Congress]] can also expand its authority under these [[power]]s with the “[[Necessary and Proper Clause]],” also known as the “[[elasticity|Elastic]] Clause.” [[Congress]] can make any [[law]] that is proper for executing any [[power]] granted to any part of [[government]], not just [[Congress]]. But there must be an underlying, specific grant of [[power]] in addition to the [[Necessary and Proper Clause]]. For example, [[Congress]] could not pass [[law]]s establishing local [[police]] departments because there is no grant of [[power]] to the [[federal]] [[government]] in that area. |
| | | | |
| − | ==VI. How [[Law]]s are Made== | + | == How Laws are Made == |
| | | | |
| | The basic process for passing [[federal]] [[law]] is as follows: A [[committee]] in the [[House of Representatives]] drafts a new [[statute]]. If the [[committee]] approves the [[bill]], then it is sent to the [[House_of_Representatives|House]] Rules [[Committee]], which will dictate the rules for debate and [[amendment]] by the full [[House_of_Representatives|House]] prior to a [[vote]]. If it ultimately passes the full [[House_of_Representatives|House]], it then proceeds to a [[committee]] in the [[Senate]], which may revise it before approving or rejecting it. If the [[Senate]] [[committee]] approves it, perhaps in revised form, then it goes to the full [[Senate]] for passage. [[Amendment]]s may be proposed by any [[senator]], and any [[senator]] may try to block by a [[vote]] by arguing indefinitely (this is known as a [[filibuster]]). In the [[Senate]], 60 [[vote]]s are necessary to end a [[filibuster]] and force a final [[vote]]. | | The basic process for passing [[federal]] [[law]] is as follows: A [[committee]] in the [[House of Representatives]] drafts a new [[statute]]. If the [[committee]] approves the [[bill]], then it is sent to the [[House_of_Representatives|House]] Rules [[Committee]], which will dictate the rules for debate and [[amendment]] by the full [[House_of_Representatives|House]] prior to a [[vote]]. If it ultimately passes the full [[House_of_Representatives|House]], it then proceeds to a [[committee]] in the [[Senate]], which may revise it before approving or rejecting it. If the [[Senate]] [[committee]] approves it, perhaps in revised form, then it goes to the full [[Senate]] for passage. [[Amendment]]s may be proposed by any [[senator]], and any [[senator]] may try to block by a [[vote]] by arguing indefinitely (this is known as a [[filibuster]]). In the [[Senate]], 60 [[vote]]s are necessary to end a [[filibuster]] and force a final [[vote]]. |
| Line 73: |
Line 61: |
| | Overrides of [[veto]]es were very rare prior to [[President]] [[Andrew Johnson]]. Only three [[president]]s have been overridden ten or more times: [[President]]s [[Andrew Johnson]], [[Harry Truman]] and [[Gerald Ford]]. The reason is simple: each faced a [[Congress]] that was dominated by the opposing political party. [[Republican]] President [[Reagan]] [[veto]]ed 78 [[bill]]s of [[Congress]], but was only overridden nine times. That is remarkable given his principled positions and the overwhelming [[Democrat]]ic control of the [[House of Representatives]] during his presidency. | | Overrides of [[veto]]es were very rare prior to [[President]] [[Andrew Johnson]]. Only three [[president]]s have been overridden ten or more times: [[President]]s [[Andrew Johnson]], [[Harry Truman]] and [[Gerald Ford]]. The reason is simple: each faced a [[Congress]] that was dominated by the opposing political party. [[Republican]] President [[Reagan]] [[veto]]ed 78 [[bill]]s of [[Congress]], but was only overridden nine times. That is remarkable given his principled positions and the overwhelming [[Democrat]]ic control of the [[House of Representatives]] during his presidency. |
| | The [[Republican]]-controlled [[House_of_Representatives|House]] voted to override President [[Clinton]]’s [[veto]] of the ban on [[partial-birth abortion]], but the [[Senate]] lacked the 2/3rd majority required. It was not until [[President Bush]] was [[elected in 2000 and the [[Republican]]s captured the [[Senate]] in 2002 that now it appears this [[bill]] will be enacted into [[law]]. With [[George W. Bush|Bush]] agreeing to sign the bill, only a majority (rather than 2/3rd) vote is necessary in [[Congress]] to enact it. | | The [[Republican]]-controlled [[House_of_Representatives|House]] voted to override President [[Clinton]]’s [[veto]] of the ban on [[partial-birth abortion]], but the [[Senate]] lacked the 2/3rd majority required. It was not until [[President Bush]] was [[elected in 2000 and the [[Republican]]s captured the [[Senate]] in 2002 that now it appears this [[bill]] will be enacted into [[law]]. With [[George W. Bush|Bush]] agreeing to sign the bill, only a majority (rather than 2/3rd) vote is necessary in [[Congress]] to enact it. |
| | + | |
| | + | == Legislative History == |
| | + | |
| | + | The [[Constitution]] is a model of clarity compared with what Congress passes each year. Ambiguities pervade laws passed by Congress. Often the [[congressman|congressmen]] argue among themselves, and then pass compromised language rather than clarity. They may not even agree what the language means at the time it is passed. |
| | + | |
| | + | [[Senator]]s like [[Ted Kennedy]] would insert comments on the [[Senate]] floor and in [[committee]] reports about what they feel the [[statute]]s mean. Sometimes lengthy descriptions of intent are inserted by a few senators into these reports. [[Court]]s then pick up on these comments to find meanings that may not have been shared by most of the supporters of the statutes. |
| | + | |
| | + | The reports and statements by congressmen in connection with passage of a [[bill]] are known as its “legislative history.” For most of our history, it was popular for courts to rely heavily on legislative history in interpreting a statute. To combat this, Presidents [[Ronald Reagan]] and the first [[George H. W. Bush|George Bush]] began attaching their own interpretations of statutes to what they signed into [[law]]. |
| | + | |
| | + | What did the [[Framers]] of the [[Constitution]] do? They insisted that all notes and viewpoints be destroyed at the end of the constitutional convention. They did not want any “legislative history” to influence the interpretation of the Constitution itself. Only James Madison preserved his notes, which were not published until many decades later. |
| | + | |
| | + | Several on the [[U.S. Supreme Court]], such as [[Antonin Scalia|Justice Scalia]], feel that legislative history should have no influence in interpreting a statute. In what is known as "[[textualism]]", these [[conservatives]] feel that the text of the statute alone should define its meaning. What do you think? |
| | | | |
| | == States Determine Election Procedures == | | == States Determine Election Procedures == |