3 ms·

Isn't there anything in the US constitution to break deadlocks? In Australia if the government can't get a bill through the senate, they can try again in 3 mont

by shirro 13y ago

Isn't there anything in the US constitution to break deadlocks? In Australia if the government can't get a bill through the senate, they can try again in 3 months and if it still doesn't go through then it can be used a trigger to dismiss the house of reps and the senate and call a new election.

jwarkentin 13y ago
I think 3 months is a bit long to wait, but I'd be all for a new election.
gizmo686 13y ago
The most the constitution has is that, in the event of a tie, the Vice President gets to have the deciding vote.
nknighthb 13y ago
No. There is no monarch or governor general. There are no reserve powers. There is no provision for early general elections. The President is not a Prime Minister, and Congress is not a parliament. Neither is responsible to the other. The House of Representatives and the Senate can each freely block the other indefinitely. The only Constitutional mechanisms available for breaking a deadlock are Congressional elections every 2 years (entire house and 1/3rd of Senate), Presidential elections every 4 years, and the theoretical ability of 2/3rds of the states to force a Constitutional Convention to propose amendments (this has never actually happened; all Constitutional amendments have been first proposed by Congress; in either case, any amendments must be ratified by 3/4ths of states, which will never happen in the current environment where half the states would be happier destroying the country than seeing the scary black man in office for one more day).
- twoodfin 13y ago
  which will never happen in the current environment where half the states would be happier destroying the country than seeing the scary black man in office for one more day OK, I'm not thrilled that this article isn't [dead] already, but regardless: This is not reddit and absurdities like that comment do not contribute to the discussion.
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    In my experience, pointing out the hysterical racism involved does contribute to the understanding of the situation by non-Americans. And you don't get to accuse me of absurdities when the other side's motto is "Keep the government out of Medicare!". You just don't.
    - twoodfin 13y ago
      I don't really know how to respond to this. No one in this discussion said "Keep the government out of Medicare". In fact, as far as I know, no one in the leadership of the Republican party has said it, either, so it would be an odd sort of "motto". But of course you know this. In contrast, you did ascribe vile racist motives to more or less half the country. Indeed, so racist they'd be willing to destroy the country to fulfill their base aims. All their professed arguments (about, say, the negative effect on hiring triggered by the ACA) are simply a smokescreen. We're lucky our international readership has you to fill them in on this fundamental truth of American politics. Is this article [dead] yet?
      - nknighthb 13y ago
        We've heard all their professed arguments every time the minimum wage has gone up, or emissions standards have been tightened, or safety regulations have been increased. Same talking points every time the government does anything, always wrong. It's not even a smokescreen, it's transparent reflex. Meanwhile, Wal-Mart bumps 35,000 to full-time, and another 35,000 temps to permanent part-time. This besides the 55k seasonal they're about to add. So much negative effect on hiring!
        twoodfin 13y ago
        We've heard all their professed arguments every time the minimum wage has gone up, or emissions standards have been tightened, or safety regulations have been increased. Same talking points every time the government does anything, always wrong. It's not even a smokescreen, it's transparent reflex. And it was always racism? I don't think you're being consistent.
- shirro 13y ago
  We get half senate elections, not 1/3, but a similar result with the senate being out of step with the reps. Which is why in a crisis the double dissolution is a whole senate election to try and get things moving again. It seems odd that the President, being head of state, would not have similar powers to the Crown/GG to dismiss a dysfunctional parliament to resolve deadlocks. Too much power wrapped up in the presidency then I guess. Similar problems happen all around the world where there is a minority government or an upper house blocking supply bills. The unusual thing with the US is the lack of constitutional mechanisms to resolve the problem before the government has to shut down. It seems odd that the writers of the constitution didn't recognise the problem.
  - vacri 13y ago
    It seems odd that the writers of the constitution didn't recognise the problem. There had only been a couple of similar republics before - there wasn't a lot of [codified] experience in the area. The Holy Roman Empire and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had some similar power structures, for example, but I imagine that their process of obtaining and distributing funds was fairly different.
  - nknighthb 13y ago
    The Westminster conventions your Constitution derived from are younger than the US Constitution (and your Constitution is about half the age of ours), and your Constitution was not written by a generation that had just fought a war to free itself from a monarchy. The Presidency was deliberately neutered, and the concept of blocking supply as a tool to thwart already-passed laws was not well-established.
  - caf 13y ago
    It is worth remembering that the framers of the Australian Constitution were informed by, among other things, the United States' century of experience with their Constitution. They had a chance to fix some of the bugs.
Tiktaalik 13y ago
Isn't there a lot of flexibility in Commmonwealth countries with regard to dissolving government and calling for a new election? In Canada you usually just proclaim "this parliament is dysfunctional" and then call a snap election.
- shirro 13y ago
  I am not a parliamentary expert but there are lots of ways I think. Not passing a supply bill (equiv to the budget crisis) would trigger an election, not passing a non-supply bill repeatedly can be a trigger, a motion of no-confidence in the government. Or governments can resign. Not being able to pass bills required to finance the government would be seen as equivalent to the government having lost the confidence of parliament and I think under a Westminster system they would have to resign or face being dismissed by the head of state as they have clearly lost the ability to govern.
  - caf 13y ago
    In fact the "classic" no-confidence motion was a motion to amend the budget by an amount of 1 pound / 1 dollar.
giardini 13y ago
I would welcome elections now. If we had elections now the Democrats would be tarred, feathered and ridden out of Washington on a rail.
Steko 13y ago
"Isn't there anything in the US constitution to break deadlocks? " Angry constituents, generally.

by shirro 13y ago

jwarkentin 13y ago

I think 3 months is a bit long to wait, but I'd be all for a new election.

gizmo686 13y ago

The most the constitution has is that, in the event of a tie, the Vice President gets to have the deciding vote.

nknighthb 13y ago

No. There is no monarch or governor general. There are no reserve powers. There is no provision for early general elections. The President is not a Prime Minister, and Congress is not a parliament. Neither is responsible to the other. The House of Representatives and the Senate can each freely block the other indefinitely. The only Constitutional mechanisms available for breaking a deadlock are Congressional elections every 2 years (entire house and 1/3rd of Senate), Presidential elections every 4 years, and the theoretical ability of 2/3rds of the states to force a Constitutional Convention to propose amendments (this has never actually happened; all Constitutional amendments have been first proposed by Congress; in either case, any amendments must be ratified by 3/4ths of states, which will never happen in the current environment where half the states would be happier destroying the country than seeing the scary black man in office for one more day).

twoodfin 13y ago
which will never happen in the current environment where half the states would be happier destroying the country than seeing the scary black man in office for one more day OK, I'm not thrilled that this article isn't [dead] already, but regardless: This is not reddit and absurdities like that comment do not contribute to the discussion.
- nknighthb 13y ago
  In my experience, pointing out the hysterical racism involved does contribute to the understanding of the situation by non-Americans. And you don't get to accuse me of absurdities when the other side's motto is "Keep the government out of Medicare!". You just don't.
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    I don't really know how to respond to this. No one in this discussion said "Keep the government out of Medicare". In fact, as far as I know, no one in the leadership of the Republican party has said it, either, so it would be an odd sort of "motto". But of course you know this. In contrast, you did ascribe vile racist motives to more or less half the country. Indeed, so racist they'd be willing to destroy the country to fulfill their base aims. All their professed arguments (about, say, the negative effect on hiring triggered by the ACA) are simply a smokescreen. We're lucky our international readership has you to fill them in on this fundamental truth of American politics. Is this article [dead] yet?
    - nknighthb 13y ago
      We've heard all their professed arguments every time the minimum wage has gone up, or emissions standards have been tightened, or safety regulations have been increased. Same talking points every time the government does anything, always wrong. It's not even a smokescreen, it's transparent reflex. Meanwhile, Wal-Mart bumps 35,000 to full-time, and another 35,000 temps to permanent part-time. This besides the 55k seasonal they're about to add. So much negative effect on hiring!
      - twoodfin 13y ago
        We've heard all their professed arguments every time the minimum wage has gone up, or emissions standards have been tightened, or safety regulations have been increased. Same talking points every time the government does anything, always wrong. It's not even a smokescreen, it's transparent reflex. And it was always racism? I don't think you're being consistent.
shirro 13y ago
We get half senate elections, not 1/3, but a similar result with the senate being out of step with the reps. Which is why in a crisis the double dissolution is a whole senate election to try and get things moving again. It seems odd that the President, being head of state, would not have similar powers to the Crown/GG to dismiss a dysfunctional parliament to resolve deadlocks. Too much power wrapped up in the presidency then I guess. Similar problems happen all around the world where there is a minority government or an upper house blocking supply bills. The unusual thing with the US is the lack of constitutional mechanisms to resolve the problem before the government has to shut down. It seems odd that the writers of the constitution didn't recognise the problem.
- vacri 13y ago
  It seems odd that the writers of the constitution didn't recognise the problem. There had only been a couple of similar republics before - there wasn't a lot of [codified] experience in the area. The Holy Roman Empire and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had some similar power structures, for example, but I imagine that their process of obtaining and distributing funds was fairly different.
- nknighthb 13y ago
  The Westminster conventions your Constitution derived from are younger than the US Constitution (and your Constitution is about half the age of ours), and your Constitution was not written by a generation that had just fought a war to free itself from a monarchy. The Presidency was deliberately neutered, and the concept of blocking supply as a tool to thwart already-passed laws was not well-established.
- caf 13y ago
  It is worth remembering that the framers of the Australian Constitution were informed by, among other things, the United States' century of experience with their Constitution. They had a chance to fix some of the bugs.

Tiktaalik 13y ago

Isn't there a lot of flexibility in Commmonwealth countries with regard to dissolving government and calling for a new election? In Canada you usually just proclaim "this parliament is dysfunctional" and then call a snap election.

shirro 13y ago
I am not a parliamentary expert but there are lots of ways I think. Not passing a supply bill (equiv to the budget crisis) would trigger an election, not passing a non-supply bill repeatedly can be a trigger, a motion of no-confidence in the government. Or governments can resign. Not being able to pass bills required to finance the government would be seen as equivalent to the government having lost the confidence of parliament and I think under a Westminster system they would have to resign or face being dismissed by the head of state as they have clearly lost the ability to govern.
- caf 13y ago
  In fact the "classic" no-confidence motion was a motion to amend the budget by an amount of 1 pound / 1 dollar.

giardini 13y ago

I would welcome elections now. If we had elections now the Democrats would be tarred, feathered and ridden out of Washington on a rail.

Steko 13y ago

"Isn't there anything in the US constitution to break deadlocks? " Angry constituents, generally.