[willed]

I was just reading an article on the BBC website about efforts by Congress to call into question Bush's Iraq policy, and realised that I have no real idea how the US political system works.

So there's Congress and the Senate - I see them as kind of like the UK Parliament and House of Lords right? - but then who are the House of Representatives? Is that just another name for one of those two? And how much power over all of these does the President himself have?

I know I could find this all out on Wikipedia or something, but I'm sure there are advantages to having someone explain these things!

(Mods - I didn't put this in the Political lounge because it's more of a general knowledge question about politics, rather than a political question... move it if you disagree)

[hart]

I'm not a big expert but the basic breakdown is the House and the Senate are two parts of Congress. It's referred to as "bicameral" meaning having two houses or parts.

The central idea was that the original founders wanted to create a balanced government in which nothing like a dictatorial king could arise. So in theory, the three branches of government are Executive (president), Congress, and the judiciary all of which have their own powers to guide the government. The free press is considered a fourth vital if informal part of that balance.

The Congress is a tricky attempt to balance both the rights of individual states and the rights of large population groups. So the Senate has two Senators from each of the states no matter what the population (so Vermont at what, about 600,000 residents has an equal vote with New York which has millions of residents.) The House of Representatives is structured by population size. The bigger the state the more representatives.

The problem for us at the moment is that the President is the "commander in chief" meaning he has some powers to wage war without any other part of government officially agreeing. Congress, on the other hand, controls the money so right now the main option they have to stop the war if they really want to is to cut off funds which is politically hazardous. The people themselves have no literal power until the next elections and only a very clear unified support of one position or the other would be likely to create action on the part of congress as regards this war. GWB has made it clear that he has no intention of changing his course based on the feelings of either Congress or the citizens.

This question of powers relating to war is one that is not explicitly spelled out and has been evolving as different wars pass. As per the the tri-partate structure of the government a true conflict between executive and legislative branches could end up in the judicial system.

and that's my basic understanding.

[philm]

Well, here's a UK viewpoint.

My simple understanding is the the Congress is broadly the equivalent of our Houses of Parliament in that the Congress contains both the House of Representatives and the Senate and the Houses of Parliament contains the House of Commons and the House of Lords.

I think that whereas the Commons holds the real power with a bit of checking and balancing by the Lords, in the US, the House of Representatives and the Senate are more equal in power. Of course we have nothing comparable to the President in terms of political power; obviously our monarch is the Head of State like the US President.

[Nodnarb]

Good explanation.

To make it even more simple:

3 seperate but equal parts of government:
1) Executive (president) (enforces the laws)
2) legeslative (congress: house/senate) (makes the laws)
3) and judciary (courts) (judges consitutionality of laws)

"Checks and balances" is a term used to explain why we have these three seperate parts, meaning that no one part should be able to become to powerful. For example, if Bush wants to go through with the war 100%, and Congress (both the house and the senate) decide they do not want to, they have the power to "check" on the executive branch, and cut off funding, effectively ending the war.
I believe the president still has other options even if congress disagrees, but I'm not 100% on that.

You mentioned you wanted to go to wikipedia...if you really are that interested in learning how the U.S. gov works, wikipedia really has a few great articles on the government and general and the 3 seperate branches and how they interact.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by willed 

So there's Congress and the Senate - I see them as kind of like the UK Parliament and House of Lords right? - but then who are the House of Representatives? Is that just another name for one of those two?

Yes, no, sort of.

There are two houses of Congress: the Senate and the House of Representatives. They were formed during the drafting of the Constitution as a sort of compromise between the smaller states, who wanted each state to have equal representation in Congress, and the larger states, who wanted voting power to be based on population. The Senate essentially represents the smaller states' viewpoint: each state has exactly two Senators. The House of Representatives is the larger states' viewpoint: voting power is roughly based on population, though each state has at least one Representative here. Although the Senate is technically the 'upper' house while the House of Representatives is the 'lower' house, this doesn't mean all that much. All members of Congress are elected directly nowadays; it used to be that Senators were appointed by the state governors, but nowadays this only happens if a Senator is removed from office, and even then it's only a temporary measure.

Bills can be introduced in either house (except for appropriations bills, which can only be introduced in the House of Represenatatives), but they must be passed by both houses before they can become law. This often takes several iterations, as each house will make modifications to a bill before passing it, but eventually both houses must pass the same version.

After a bill has been passed by both houses, it is sent to the President, who has ten days (not counting Sundays) to decide what to do with it:

• If the President signs the bill, it becomes a law.
• If the President vetoes the bill, it doesn't become a law (but see below; there are ways around that).
• If the President doesn't do either of these things (letting the time limit expire) and Congress is in session, the bill becomes a law anyway.
• If the time limit expires and Congress isn't in session, then the bill doesn't become a law. This is called a "pocket veto", and it doesn't come into play often because of its time-sensitive nature, but it has been used a few times.

If the President explicitly vetoes the bill (i.e. not a pocket veto), Congress can override that veto, but it takes a two-thirds majority in both houses to do that. This has happened in the past. Congress can't override a pocket veto, because by definition it's not in session when that happens. It could of course propose the bill again, but this doesn't happen often.

And how much power over all of these does the President himself have?

The President has veto power, which is nothing to sneeze at, but other than this he doesn't really have all that much power over Congress specifically. Although the main role of the President is one of law enforcement, sitting members of Congress cannot be arrested or put on trial during their term; this was done so that the President couldn't arbitrarily arrest members of Congress in a grab for power. Members of Congress can be impeached and removed from office, and then they can be arrested and tried, but this requires a Congressional hearing with the Supreme Court presiding (which is the actual impeachment part of things; removal from office only happens if the impeachment hearing actually results in a conviction).

The President can also be impeached and removed in this manner, as can Supreme Court justices, though as with members of Congress this can only be done for "high crimes and misdemeanors." Impeachment hearings have happened in the past, but no President has ever been successfully removed from office: either the hearings failed to convict, or (in Nixon's case) the President resigned from office before things got that far, rendering the whole thing moot.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by hart 

The central idea was that the original founders wanted to create a balanced government in which nothing like a dictatorial king could arise. So in theory, the three branches of government are Executive (president), Congress, and the judiciary all of which have their own powers to guide the government. The free press is considered a fourth vital if informal part of that balance.

Evidently you consider politicians manipulating the media to be the big missing piece that the Founding Fathers just kind of left out. One side of the media (CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC) kisses the Democrat butt, while the other side (FOX News, the majority of talk radio) kisses Republican butt. The media is the biggest part of this country's problem. I agree that it's of significant importance, but unfortunately the only effect that it's had on America is polarizing its people even more and out right lying (or at least manipulating the news) in order to further the causes of those behind the scenes.

[EDIT] Upon looking at your post again, it seems that I might have misinterpreted what you were saying. I think I actually agree with you.

[OldManMac]

It works like this. Get yourself connected to a large corporation with lots of money (no matter if you're in the legislative, executive, or judicial branch), ask them what they want to accomplish, and then open your pockets, and then make sure you do your darndest to accomodate them. It's rather simple, isn't it?

[Peder Rice]

Yeah, the free press is supposed to be that final check on power, by providing all citizens complete information about state affairs, but... whoops!

[Peder Rice]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

It works like this. Get yourself connected to a large corporation with lots of money (no matter if you're in the legislative, executive, or judicial branch), ask them what they want to accomplish, and then open your pockets, and then make sure you do your darndest to accomodate them. It's rather simple, isn't it?

What's with the rampant corruption these days? Stupid military-industrial complex and drug companies.

[voiceofra]

Little known - or at least acknowledged - fact:
The United States is NOT a Democracy.
The United States is a Republic operating under a Federalist system.
In fact, the USA ranks 17th among Democratic nations. (PDF & PDF as HTML page)
Not surprisingly, the US was low on the list due to some aspects of governance and civil liberties (can you say "Patriot Act"?).
Another tidbit: the US Electoral College does NOT have to vote the way they were 'elected' to vote. They can vote any damn well they please.

For the record, I am an American born and raised. A little jaded and supercritical of the government, but American nonetheless.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by voiceofra 

Little known - or at least acknowledged - fact:
The United States is NOT a Democracy.
The United States is a Republic operating under a Federalist system.
In fact, the USA ranks 17th among Democratic nations. (PDF & PDF as HTML page)
Not surprisingly, the US was low on the list due to some aspects of governance and civil liberties (can you say "Patriot Act"?).
Another tidbit: the US Electoral College does NOT have to vote the way they were 'elected' to vote. They can vote any damn well they please.

[macintologist]

Why go to school when you have MacNN?

[SirCastor]

I don't think anyone who has an understanding of what a Democracy truly is has any difficulty identifying the US as not one.

There are some really excellent explanations of our Government structure. Well done.

[HackManDan]

It's also important to note that all the talk about the three branches of government being equal, with a system of “checks and balances”, isn’t fully accurate.

The Supreme Court, which today judges the constitutionality of laws passed (judicial review), does not explicitly have that power. Additionally, the Court is not exactly independent. In fact, its funding and the number of justices on the bench is dependent on Congress and the President. President Roosevelt threatened to pack the court with new justices after they repeatedly struck down New Deal laws, which led the court to reverse direction on its rulings. Moreover, the Court was actually shut down by Congress for over a year between 1802 and 1803.

In a way, the Court has as much power as Congress and the President are willing to cede it.

[willed]

Cheers guys, good stuff - see, there is still something to be said for the personal touch rather than just Googling!

[olePigeon]

The U.S Government operates under 4 branches:

Judicial
Legislative
Executive
Corporate

Somehow the Executive and Corporate merged and the other two are only there for posterity.

[Jawbone54]

I believe that one of our Founding Fathers (Hamilton, I think...but I could be wrong) described the republican elements of America as the saucer that holds the cup (democracy).

I have no idea what he meant by that. We're a representative republic, by the way.

[- - e r i k - -]

It works sort of like this:



Oooh, I'm going to burn for this

[hart]

Originally Posted by Millennium 

The President has veto power, which is nothing to sneeze at, but other than this he doesn't really have all that much power over Congress specifically.

That brings up one of the controversial elements of the current administration. This president has made liberal uses of what is called "signing statements" which essentially means that he signs a bill into law but writes a little note saying "I sign this bill but if I don't want to I won't obey it."

Maybe Millennium who is clearly informed on a much more detailed level can discuss the history and legitimacy of this strange detour around the main system.

PS can someone explain how to save an animated GIF? I always wondered.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by hart 

That brings up one of the controversial elements of the current administration. This president has made liberal uses of what is called "signing statements" which essentially means that he signs a bill into law but writes a little note saying "I sign this bill but if I don't want to I won't obey it."

Maybe Millennium who is clearly informed on a much more detailed level can discuss the history and legitimacy of this strange detour around the main system.

PS can someone explain how to save an animated GIF? I always wondered.

My understanding of signing statements (though I am, by no means, an expert) is that they have always been there but never considered to have any legal weight. The current administration, however, seems to have taken the position that the president can use these signing statements to interpret the new law as he sees fit. As he is also the one in charge of enforcing the laws, this gives him quite a bit of power which really he has no right to as the interpretation of the law is supposed to be the purview of the judiciary.

[voiceofra]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

The U.S Government operates under 4 branches:

Judicial
Legislative
Executive
Corporate

Somehow the Executive and Corporate merged and the other two are only there for posterity.

It's hard to say if that's funny because it's true or that the laughter is not due to humor but to nervousness and fear that it's true

[centerchannel68]

It doesn't.

[voiceofra]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Hard to tell if you're mocking me or what.
if not, that's funny.
if you are...you probably think the Founding Fathers were Christian and founded this country in the name of god.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by hart 

That brings up one of the controversial elements of the current administration. This president has made liberal uses of what is called "signing statements" which essentially means that he signs a bill into law but writes a little note saying "I sign this bill but if I don't want to I won't obey it."

Signing statements aren't codified in the Constitution, but they've become a feature of the political system through tradition. Other examples of these traditions are the Senate filibuster, judicial review (which allows the courts to strike down unconstitutional laws), and so forth.

Technically, signing statements are not binding law. Their purpose is, in fact, supposed to be as nothing more than an annotation stating a plan for how the executive intends to enforce a given law, if the President feels that such annotations are needed. Bush is abusing this tradition, but since signing statements aren't binding there's not a lot that can be done about it. Some say that he is using it in a way that's tantamount to a line-item veto, and while this isn't strictly correct (since, once again, signing statements aren't binding), it's certainly a powerful example of the kind of damage a line-item veto could do.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by voiceofra 

Hard to tell if you're mocking me or what.
if not, that's funny.
if you are...you probably think the Founding Fathers were Christian and founded this country in the name of god.

No, rest assured, I was mocking you.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by hart 

That brings up one of the controversial elements of the current administration. This president has made liberal uses of what is called "signing statements" which essentially means that he signs a bill into law but writes a little note saying "I sign this bill but if I don't want to I won't obey it."

It's not so much a refusal to obey a newly passed law but rather an Executive-branch interpretation as to how to interpret said law. (And to be completely anal, it is just a bill until the President signs it, then it becomes a law.) Signing statements are a way for a President to apply his own interpretation to a law if he so chooses. In some instances it means "Hey, I am not going to follow this law" and in other instances it means "I will follow this law when I want to". I think the original intent of the signing statement was to provide a President the option of adding more specificity to a law if it came to him from Congress with vague details. But in the past few decades Congress has gotten pretty good about micro-managing the details of the bills they pass so, if they become law, they function exactly how they want them to function. Anyway, Millennium or Simey (Where IS he?) would be the best person to answer this question in a complete, and completely accurate, manner.

[olePigeon]

Women Can Vote Bill
This bill assures that women will always have the right to vote.
This bill assures that women will won't always have the right to vote. - Signed, GW.

"OK, boys, make it law."

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by willed 

Can someone explain how the US political system works?

Wait... The US political system works?

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

No, rest assured, I was mocking you.

(I enjoyed the choice of pic as well)

[Kerrigan]

As an interesting historical aside, the US political system closely resembles that of 18th century Britain. The president is essentially an elected king, with the same sorts of powers, privileges, and limitations that the 18th century British executive had. The senate was modeled after Parliament, with two houses reflecting a dual aristocratic and "common" make up.

The biggest difference seems to be that the judicial functions exists independently of the Senate, whereas in the UK it has always been within Parliament.

It's also worth mentioning that since the US is so large, states have some autonomy. This contrasts with the UK which is highly centralized, and every bit of legislation must go through London. Devolution could change that, of course.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by willed 

I was just reading an article on the BBC website about efforts by Congress to call into question Bush's Iraq policy, and realised that I have no real idea how the US political system works.

George?