Why is the Speaker of the House 3 in line to be PoTUS, but the Senate...

[dutch508]

GusFring (563 posts)
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100213445259

Why is the Speaker of the House 3 in line to be PoTUS, but the Senate has all the power
I've always been curious about this. Like it or not, the House represents America more than the Senate imo.

Another DUmpmonkie who has no understanding of the way the US Government operates... or why...

rso (374 posts)

1. House

The Senate has the exclusive power to confirm Presidential appointees, but the House is where Federal funding originates, so I would not say that the Senate has more power than the House.

PSPS (9,285 posts)

2. The last three years demonstrates that the senate has far more power

Although impossible to achieve, the senate should just be abolished. Some senators have even admitted as much. The house originates spending along with other bills but, without the senate's approval, they go nowhere. Moscow Mitch refers to himself as the "grim reaper" because the senate is "where house bills go to die." Further, the senate can (and is) frantically packing the courts and confirming criminals and foreign agents to governmental posts, and the house has no say in any of that.

Also, every state gets two senators regardless of its population. Wyoming, for example, contains fewer people in the entire state than any medium-sized city. Yet is still has two senators (Wyoming's population is 1.5% of California's, just 12% of Los Angeles alone!) So, in essence, the senate's very existence enables minority rule in the US.

 

SBoy (71 posts)

4. It's the Senate rules they've written for themselves

That allowed the Senate Majority Leader to become the most powerful person in the Country, second only to the President.

It's not like it is specifically written out in the constitution or anything...

Star Member rurallib (53,866 posts)

5. My understanding is that back in the early days the Senate was chosen by forms other than being elected by a direct vote. Mostly they were chosen by state legislatures. Often that meant they were selected by a committee or a powerful individual and then passed on in a show vote. I believe the choice by state legislature was in the constitution.

That changed somewhere in the progressive era fully 100+ years ago.

From the beginning the House has been elected by popular vote. The leader of the House - the speaker - is elected by a majority of members who were elected by popular vote. Thus the Speaker at that time was the closest - next to the president/ VP - to be chosen by popular vote.

 

[SVPete]

So much ignorance ... but the best answer probably is, "Because potato".

[DLR Pyro]

Translation:  we dont like a conservative senate blocking our whacked out bills so let's just get rid of them.

[jukin]

Now this is just some kind of wild assed guess but here it goes, "Because The Constitution states that succession order."

You stupid DUmbass.

[hillneck]

And this from the so called or more aptly "self called" smartest people in the world.  They don't understand or know basic civics.  Then they go to DUmmieland for answers. 

[SVPete]

Translation:  we dont like a conservative senate blocking our whacked out bills so let's just get rid of them.

They don't like the way the Constitution divided power when they don't get their way. But they use those divided powers to obstruct what they do not like. The one standard DU-folk have, the double-standard.

[thundley4]

SBoy (71 posts)

4. It's the Senate rules they've written for themselves

That allowed the Senate Majority Leader to become the most powerful person in the Country, second only to the President.

The suspected pedophile( he has never denied it),  Dingy Harry Reid set many of the precedents that Mitch McConnell has used to thwart the demonrats.

[freedumb2003b]

PSPS (9,285 posts)

2. The last three years demonstrates that the senate has far more power

Although impossible to achieve, the senate should just be abolished. Some senators have even admitted as much. The house originates spending along with other bills but, without the senate's approval, they go nowhere. Moscow Mitch refers to himself as the "grim reaper" because the senate is "where house bills go to die." Further, the senate can (and is) frantically packing the courts and confirming criminals and foreign agents to governmental posts, and the house has no say in any of that.

Also, every state gets two senators regardless of its population. Wyoming, for example, contains fewer people in the entire state than any medium-sized city. Yet is still has two senators (Wyoming's population is 1.5% of California's, just 12% of Los Angeles alone!) So, in essence, the senate's very existence enables minority rule in the US.

You can always count on lefty fascists to embrace the tyranny of the majority.

[Texacon]

They had ZERO issue with the senates power when Harry Reid was not allowing Republican house majority bills to have a vote.

What’s changed??

KC

[DumbAss Tanker]

They're idiots.  IIRC the choice between House Speaker and Senate Majority Leader has waffled back and forth over our history, depending on party control of the Presidency and the two Congressional branches; the current system came in and has stayed undisturbed because switching it with the political winds proved to be just too divisive and a political battle in itself.  Of course the Speaker will have had to be elected within the past two years, and the Senate Majority Leader could be almost six years in office at any given time, so there is an argument that the Speaker would be more in touch with current political winds (Which is actually a stupid reason, since in both cases they'll be from jurisdictions that have re-elected them time after time in order for them to have accumulated the necessary seniority to reach those posts, so there is nothing contemporary about the beliefs and orientation of either one of them).

[Wineslob]

Translation:  we dont like a conservative senate blocking our whacked out bills so let's just get rid of them.

Just like the Electoral College.

[SVPete]

SBoy (71 posts)

4. It's the Senate rules they've written for themselves

I guess it would be news to LPC Noob that US Constitution gives each house of Congress the authority to write its own rules.

[Mary Ann]

They're idiots.  IIRC the choice between House Speaker and Senate Majority Leader has waffled back and forth over our history, depending on party control of the Presidency and the two Congressional branches; the current system came in and has stayed undisturbed because switching it with the political winds proved to be just too divisive and a political battle in itself.  Of course the Speaker will have had to be elected within the past two years, and the Senate Majority Leader could be almost six years in office at any given time, so there is an argument that the Speaker would be more in touch with current political winds (Which is actually a stupid reason, since in both cases they'll be from jurisdictions that have re-elected them time after time in order for them to have accumulated the necessary seniority to reach those posts, so there is nothing contemporary about the beliefs and orientation of either one of them).

If I remember correctly from my high school civics class, the Speaker is #3 because the VP presides over the Senate, and is already in the line of succession. (Of course, high school was a loooooooong time ago, and much has been forgotten in the intervening years.)

[SVPete]

If I remember correctly from my high school civics class, the Speaker is #3 because the VP presides over the Senate, and is already in the line of succession. (Of course, high school was a loooooooong time ago, and much has been forgotten in the intervening years.)

The VP's role is mostly ceremonial, but you are correct. If there is a tie vote of the full Senate the VP casts the deciding vote. Your memory is better than the "memory" of DUpipo who either skipped class or were "studying" someone to whom they were sexually attracted or involved. Or both.

[freedumb2003b]

They had ZERO issue with the senates power when Harry Reid was not allowing Republican house majority bills to have a vote.

What’s changed??

KC

Dingy harry did not heed the oldest and wises political aphorism: In politics, do not acquire unto yourself a power you do not want your opposition to use against you.

[freedumb2003b]

You guys missed this MENSA candidate (bolding mine):

rurallib (53,877 posts)

5. My understanding is that back in the early days the Senate was chosen

by forms other than being elected by a direct vote. Mostly they were chosen by state legislatures. Often that meant they were selected by a committee or a powerful individual and then passed on in a show vote. I believe the choice by state legislature was in the constitution.

That changed somewhere in the progressive era fully 100+ years ago.

From the beginning the House has been elected by popular vote. The leader of the House - the speaker - is elected by a majority of members who were elected by popular vote. Thus the Speaker at that time was the closest - next to the president/ VP - to be chosen by popular vote.

This idiot never heard of the 17th Amendment (the second worst one ever, after the 19th).  He thinks things kinda were different and then they done changed all on themselves.

He also does not understand the basis for our government and why it was DESTROYED by the 17th. 

[jukin]

You can always count on lefty fascists to embrace the tyranny of the majority.

Except when they are the minority then the fascistitas will embrace the tyranny of the minority.