
Seal_of_the_United_States_Senate">Image:Us senate seal.png|framed|Seal of the United States Senate The United States Senate is one of the two houses of the Congress of the United States, the other being the United States House of Representatives. In the Senate, each U.S. state is equally represented by two members, regardless of population; as a result, the total membership of the body is 100. Senators serve for six-year terms, which are staggered so that elections are held in approximately one-third of the seats (a "Classes of U.S. Senators") every second year. The Vice President of the United States is the presiding officer of the Senate but is not a senator and does not vote except to break ties. The Senate is regarded as a more deliberative body than the House of Representatives; the Senate is smaller and its members serve longer terms, allowing for a more collegiate and less partisan atmosphere that is somewhat more insulated from public opinion than the House. The Senate has several exclusive powers enumerated in the Constitution not granted to the House; most significantly, the President of the United States must ratify treaties and make important appointments "with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" (Article One of the United States Constitution). A bicameralism Congress was created as a result of the Connecticut Compromise, a compromise made at the History of the United States Constitution, under which states would be represented on the basis of population in the House of Representatives, but would be equally represented in the Senate. The Constitution provides that the approval of both houses is necessary for the passage of legislation. The exclusive powers enumerated to the Senate in the Constitution are regarded as more important than those exclusively enumerated to the House. As a result, the responsibilities of the Senate (the "upper house") are more extensive than those of the House of Representatives (the "lower house"). The Senate of the United States was named after the ancient Roman Senate. The chamber of the United States Senate is located in the north wing of the United States Capitol building, in Washington, D.C., the national capital. The House of Representatives convenes in the south wing of the same building. ==History== Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress was a unicameral body in which each state was equally represented. The inefficacy of the federal government under the Articles led Congress to summon a constitutional convention (political meeting) in 1787; all states except Rhode Island agreed to send delegates. Many delegates called for a second Congressional chamber, modeled on the House of Lords (the aristocratic upper house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom). For example, John Dickinson (lawyer) argued that the second chamber should "consist of the most distinguished characters, distinguished for their rank in life and their weight of property, and bearing as strong a likeness to the British House of Lords as possible." The structure of Congress was one of the most divisive issues facing the Convention. The Virginia Plan called for a bicameral Congress; the lower house would be elected directly by the people, and the upper house would be elected by the lower house. The Virginia Plan was primarily supported by the larger states, as it called for representation based on population in both Houses. The smaller states, however, favored the New Jersey Plan, which called for a unicameral Congress with equal representation for the states. Eventually, a compromise, known as the Connecticut Compromise or the Great Compromise, was reached; one house of Congress (the House of Representatives) would provide proportional representation, whereas the other (the Senate) would provide equal representation. In order to further preserve the authority of the states, it was provided that state legislatures, rather than the people, would elect senators. The Constitution was ratified by the requisite number of states (nine out of the 13) in 1788, but its full implementation was set for March 4, 1789. However, the Senate could not begin work until a majority of the members assembled on April 6 of the same year. The Founding Founders intended the Senate to be a more stable, deliberative body than the House of Representatives. James Madison described the Senate's purpose as "A necessary fence against...fickleness and passion". George Washington, in answer to a question by Thomas Jefferson, said "we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it (from the The House of Representatives)". The early 19th century was marked by the service of distinguished orators and statesmen such as Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, Henry Clay, Stephen Douglas and Thomas Hart Benton. The era, however, was also marred by sectional clashes between the free North and the slavery South. For most of the first half of the 19th century, a balance between North and South existed in the Senate, as the numbers of free and slave states were equal. Southern senators could often block schemes passed by the House of Representatives, a body dominated by the populous North. Sectional conflict was most pronounced over the issue of slavery, and persisted until the American Civil War (1861–1865). The war, which began soon after several southern states declared secession from the Union, culminated in the South's defeat and in the abolition of slavery. The ensuing years of Reconstruction witnessed large majorities for the United States Republican Party, which many Americans associated with the Union's victory in the Civil War. The efforts of "Radical Republicans" led to the impeachment of United States Democratic Party President Andrew Johnson in 1868 for political purposes; the trial ultimately ended in acquittal, with the Senate falling one vote short of the two-thirds majority requisite for conviction. Reconstruction ended in 1877, at approximately the same time as the Gilded Age began. This period was marked by sharp political divisions in the electorate; both the Democrats and the Republicans were in power in the Senate, but neither could obtain large majorities. At the same time the Senate descended into a period of irrelevance that stood in sharp contrast with the pre-Civil War era. Very few senators had long and distinguished careers, with most serving but for a single term. The corruption of state legislatures was also widespread; nine cases of bribery in Senate elections arose between 1866 and 1906. Many individuals, furthermore, perceived the Senate as a bastion of the rich and the élite. Several reformers of the Progressive Era pushed for the direct election of senators by the people, rather than state legislatures; they achieved their objective in 1913 with the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Amendment ultimately had the result of making senators more responsive to the concerns of voters. In the 1910s a Senate leadership structure developed, with Henry Cabot Lodge and John Worth Kern becoming the unofficial leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, respectively. The Democrats appointed their first official leader, Oscar Underwood, in 1925; the Republicans followed with Charles Curtis in 1925. Initially, the powers of the leaders were very limited, and individual senators—especially the chairmen of important committees—still held more clout. The influence of the party leaders, however, would eventually grow, especially during the tenures of skilled leaders such as Lyndon B. Johnson. ==Members and elections== Article One of the Constitution stipulates that each state may elect two senators. The Constitution further stipulates that no constitutional amendment may deprive a state of its equal suffrage in the Senate without the consent of the state concerned. The District of Columbia and Incorporated territory are not entitled to any representation. As there are presently 50 states, the Senate comprises 100 members. The senator from each state with the longer tenure is known as the "senior senator," and his or her counterpart as the "junior senator"; this convention, however, does not have any special significance. Senators serve for terms of six years each; the terms are staggered so that approximately one-third of the Senate seats are up for election every two years. The staggering of the terms is arranged such that both seats from a given state are never contested in the same general election. Senate elections are held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, Election Day, and coincide with elections for the House of Representatives. Each senator is elected by his or her state as a whole. Generally, the Republican and Democratic parties choose their candidates in primary elections, which are typically held several months before the general elections. Ballot access rules for independent and third party candidates vary from state to state. For the general election, almost all states use the First Past the Post electoral system system, under which the candidate with a plurality of votes (not necessarily an absolute majority) wins. The sole exception is Louisiana, which uses runoff voting. Once elected, a senator continues to serve until the expiry of his or her term, death, or resignation. Furthermore, the Constitution permits the Senate to expel any member with a two-thirds majority. Fifteen members have been expelled in the history of the Senate; 14 of them were removed in 1861 and 1862 for supporting the Confederate States of America secession, which led to the American Civil War. No senator has been expelled since; however, many have chosen to resign when faced with expulsion proceedings (most recently, Bob Packwood in 1995). The Senate has also passed several resolutions censuring members; censure requires only a simple majority and does not remove a senator from office. The Seventeenth Amendment provides that vacancies in the Senate, however they arise, may be filled by special elections. A special election for a Senate seat need not be held immediately after the vacancy arises; instead, it is typically conducted at the same time as the next biennial congressional election. If a special election for one seat happens to coincide with a general election for the state's other seat, then the two elections are not combined, but are instead contested separately. A senator elected in a special election serves until the original six-year term expires, and not for a full term of his or her own. Furthermore, the Seventeenth Amendment provides that any state legislature may empower the Governor to temporarily fill vacancies. The interim appointee remains in office until the special election can be held. All states, with the sole exception of Arizona, have passed laws authorizing the Governor to make temporary appointments. Senators are entitled to prefix "The Honourable" to their names. The annual Salaries of United States Senators of each senator, as of 2005, is $162,100; the President pro tempore and party leaders receive larger amounts. Analysis of financial disclosure forms by CNN in June 2003 revealed that at least 40 of the then senators were millionaires. In general, senators are regarded as more important political figures than members of the House of Representatives because there are fewer of them, and because they serve for longer terms, represent larger constituencies (except for House at-large districts, which comprise entire states), sit on more committees, and have more staffers. The prestige commonly associated with the Senate is reflected by the background of presidents and presidential candidates; far more sitting senators have been nominees for the presidency than sitting representatives. ==Qualifications== Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution sets forth three qualifications for senators: each senator must be at least thirty years old, must have been a citizen of the United States for at least the past nine years, and must be (at the time of the election) an inhabitant of the state he or she represents. The age and citizenship qualifications for senators are more stringent than those for representatives. In Federalist No. 62, James Madison justified this arrangement by arguing that the "senatorial trust" called for a "greater extent of information and stability of character." Furthermore, under the Fourteenth Amendment, any federal or state officer who takes the requisite oath to support the Constitution, but later engages in rebellion or aids the enemies of the United States, is disqualified from becoming a senator. This provision, which came into force soon after the end of the Civil War, was intended to prevent those who sided with the Confederacy from serving. The Amendment, however, provides that a disqualified individual may still serve if two-thirds of both Houses of Congress vote to remove the disability. Under the Constitution, the Senate (not the courts) is empowered to judge if an individual is qualified to serve. During its early years, however, the Senate did not closely scrutinize the qualifications of members. As a result, three individuals that were Constitutionally disqualified due to age were admitted to the Senate: twenty-nine-year-old Henry Clay (1806), and twenty-eight-year-olds Armistead Mason (1816) and John Eaton (1818). Such an occurrence, however, has not been repeated since. In 1934, Rush D. Holt, Sr. was elected to the Senate at the age of twenty-nine; he waited until he turned thirty to take the oath of office. ==Officers== The political party with a majority of seats is known as the majority party; if two or more parties in opposition are tied, the Vice President's affiliation determines which is the majority party. Each party elects a senator to serve as floor leader, a position which entails acting as the party's chief spokesperson. The Majority Leader is, furthermore, responsible for controlling the agenda of the Senate; for example, he or she schedules debates and votes. Each party, furthermore, elects a Whip (politics) to assist the leader. A whip works to ensure that his or her party's senators vote as the party leadership desires. The Constitution provides that the Vice President of the United States serves as the President of the Senate and holds a casting vote. By convention, the Vice President presides over very few Senate debates, attending only on important ceremonial occasions (such as the swearing-in of new senators) or at times when his or her casting vote may be crucial. The Constitution also authorizes the Senate to elect a president pro tempore of the United States Senate (Latin for "temporary president") to preside in the Vice President's absence; the most senior senator of the majority party is customarily chosen to serve in this position. Like the Vice President, the president pro tempore does not normally preside over the Senate. Instead, he or she typically delegates the responsibility of presiding to junior senators of the majority party. Frequently, freshmen senators (newly-elected members) are allowed to preside so that they may become accustomed to the rules and procedures of the body. The presiding officer sits in a chair in the front of the Senate chamber. The powers of the presiding officer are extremely limited; he or she primarily acts as the Senate's mouthpiece, performing duties such as announcing the results of votes. The Senate's presiding officer controls debates by calling on members to speak; the rules of the Senate, however, compel him or her to recognize the first senator who rises. The presiding officer may rule on any "point of order" (a senator's objection that a rule has been breached), but the decision is subject to appeal to the whole house. Thus, the powers of the presiding officer of the senate are far less extensive than those of the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. The Senate is also served by several officials who are not members. The Senate's chief administrative officer is the Secretary of the Senate, who maintains public records, disburses salaries, monitors the acquisition of stationery and supplies, and oversees clerks. The Secretary is aided in his or her work by the Assistant Secretary of the Senate. Another official is the Serjeant-at-Arms, who, as the Senate's chief law enforcement officer, maintains order and security on the Senate premises. The Sergeant-at-Arms position has evolved; now the Capitol Police handle routine police work, while the Sergeant-at-Arms main deals with administrative oversight of technological services. ==Procedure== Like the House of Representatives, the Senate meets in the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. At one end of the Chamber of the Senate is a dais from which the president pro tempore presides. The lower tier of the dais is used by clerks and other officials. One hundred desks are arranged in the Chamber in a semicircular pattern; the desks are divided by a wide central aisle. By tradition, Democrats sit on the right of the center aisle, while Republicans sit on the left, as viewed from the presiding officer's chair. Each senator chooses a desk on the basis of seniority within his or her party; by custom, the leader of each party sits in the front row. Sittings are normally held on weekdays; meetings on Saturdays and Sundays are rare. Sittings of the Senate are generally open to the public and are broadcast live on television by C-SPAN. Senate procedure depends not only on the rules, but also on a variety of customs and traditions. In many cases, the Senate waives some of its stricter rules by unanimous consent. Unanimous consent agreements are typically negotiated beforehand by party leaders. Any senator may block such an agreement, but, in practice, objections are rare. The presiding officer enforces the rules of the Senate, and may warn members who deviate from them. The presiding officer often uses the gavel of the Senate to maintain order. The Constitution provides that a majority the Senate constitutes a quorum to do business. Under the rules and customs of the Senate, a quorum is always assumed to be present unless a quorum call explicitly demonstrates otherwise. Any senator may request a quorum call by "suggesting the absence of a quorum"; a clerk then calls the roll of the Senate and notes which members are present. In practice, senators almost always request quorum calls not to establish the presence of a quorum, but to temporarily delay proceedings. Such a delay may serve one of many purposes; often, it allows Senate leaders to negotiate compromises off the floor. Once the need for a delay has ended, any senator may request the presiding officer to rescind the quorum call. During debates, senators may only speak if called upon by the presiding officer. The presiding officer is, however, required to recognize the first senator who rises to speak. Thus, the presiding officer has little control over the course of debate. Customarily, the Majority Leader and Minority Leader are accorded priority during debates, even if another senator rises first. All speeches must be addressed to the presiding officer, using the words "Mr. President" or "Madam President." Only the presiding officer may be directly addressed in speeches; other Members must be referred to in the third person. In most cases, senators do not refer to each other by name, but by state, using forms such as "the senior senator from Virginia" or "the junior senator from California." There are very few restrictions on the content of speeches; there is no requirement that speeches be germane to the matter before the Senate. The rules of the Senate provide that no senator may make more than two speeches on a motion or bill on the same legislative day. (A legislative day begins when the Senate convenes and ends with adjournment; hence, it does not necessarily coincide with the calendar day.) The length of these speeches is not limited by the rules; thus, in most cases, senators may speak for as long as they please. Often, the Senate adopts unanimous consent agreements imposing time limits. In other cases (for example, for the Budget process), limits are imposed by statute. In general, however, the right to unlimited debate is preserved. The filibuster is a tactic used to defeat bills and motions by prolonging debate indefinitely. A filibuster may entail long speeches, dilatory motions, and an extensive series of proposed amendments. The longest filibuster speech in the history of the Senate was delivered by Strom Thurmond, who spoke for over twenty-four hours in an unsuccessful attempt to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957. The Senate may end a filibuster by invoking cloture. In most cases, cloture requires the support of three-fifths of the Senate; however, if the matter before the Senate involves changing the rules of the body, a two-thirds majority is required. Cloture is invoked very rarely, particularly because bipartisan support is usually necessary to obtain the required supermajority. If the Senate does invoke cloture, debate does not end immediately; instead, further debate is limited to one hundred hours. When debate concludes, the motion in question is put to a vote. In many cases, the Senate votes by voice vote; the presiding officer puts the question, and Members respond either "Aye" (in favor of the motion) or "No" (against the motion). The presiding officer then announces the result of the voice vote. Any senator, however, may challenge the presiding officer's assessment and request a recorded vote. The request may be granted only if it is seconded by one-fifth of the senators present. In practice, however, senators second requests for recorded votes as a matter of courtesy. When a recorded vote is held, the clerk calls the roll of the Senate in alphabetical order; each senator responds when his or her name is called. Senators who miss the roll call may still cast a vote as long as the recorded vote remains open. The vote is closed at the discretion of the presiding officer, but must remain open for a minimum of 15 minutes. If the vote is tied, the Vice President, if present, is entitled to a casting vote. If the Vice President is not present, however, the motion is resolved in the negative. ==Committees== [[Image:Dirksen226.jpg|thumb|300px|right|Dirksen Senate Building Committee Room 226 is used for hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee.]] The Senate uses committees (as well as their subcommittees) for a variety of purposes, including the review of bills and the oversight of the executive branch. The appointment of committee members is formally made by the whole Senate, but the choice of members is actually made by the political parties. Generally, each party honors the preferences of individual senators, giving priority on the basis of seniority. Each party is allocated seats on committees in proportion to its overall strength. Most committee work is performed by sixteen standing committees, each of which has jurisdiction over a specific field such as Finance or Foreign Relations. Each standing committee considers, amends, and reports bills that fall under its jurisdiction. Furthermore, each standing committee considers presidential nominations to offices related to its jurisdiction. (For instance, the Senate Judiciary Committee considers nominees for judgeships, and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee considers nominees for positions in the United States Department of State.) Committees have extensive powers with regard to bills and nominees; they may block either from reaching the floor of the Senate. Finally, standing committees also oversee the departments and agencies of the executive branch. In discharging their duties, standing committees have the power to hold hearings and to subpoena witnesses and evidence. The Senate also has several committees that are not considered standing committees. Such bodies are generally known as Select or special committee or Select or special committee; examples include the Select Committee on Ethics and the Special Committee on Aging. Legislation is referred to some of these committees, though the bulk of legislative work is performed by the standing committees. Committees may be established on an ''ad hoc'' basis for specific purposes; for instance, the Senate Watergate Committee was a special committee created to investigate the Watergate scandal. Such temporary committees cease to exist after fulfilling their tasks. Finally, the Congress includes joint committees, which include members of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Some joint committees oversee independent government bodies; for instance, the Joint Committee on the Library oversees the Library of Congress. Other joint committees serve to make advisory reports; for example, there exists a Joint Committee on Taxation. Bills and nominees are not referred to joint committees. Hence, the power of joint committees is considerably lower than those of standing committees. Each Senate committee and subcommittee is led by a chairman (always a member of the majority party). Formerly, committee chairmanship was determined purely by seniority; as a result, several elderly senators continued to serve as chairmen despite severe physical infirmity or even senility. Now, committee chairmen are in theory elected, but in practice, seniority is very rarely bypassed. The chairman's powers are extensive; he or she controls the committee's agenda, and may prevent the committee from approving a bill or presidential nomination. Modern committee chairmen are typically not forceful in exerting their influence, although there have been some exceptions. The second-highest member, the spokesperson on the committee for the minority party, is known in most cases the Ranking Member. In the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Select Committee on Ethics, however, the senior minority member is known as the Vice Chairman. ==Legislative functions== Most bills may be introduced in either House of Congress. However, the Constitution provides that "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." As a result, the Senate does not have the power to initiate bills imposing taxes. Furthermore, the House of Representatives holds that the Senate does not have the power to originate appropriation bills, or bills authorizing the expenditure of federal funds. Historically, the Senate has disputed the interpretation advocated by the House. However, whenever the Senate originates an appropriations bill, the House simply refuses to consider it, thereby settling the dispute in practice. The constitutional provision barring the Senate from introducing revenue bills is based on the practice of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, in which only the British House of Commons may originate such measures. Although it cannot originate revenue bills, the Senate retains the power to amend or reject them. The approval of both the Senate and the House of Representatives is required for any bill, including a revenue bill, to become law. Both Houses must pass the exact same version of the bill; if there are differences, they may be resolved by a conference committee, which includes members of both bodies. For the stages through which bills pass in the Senate, see Act of Congress. ==Checks and balances== The Constitution provides that the President can make certain appointments only with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. Officials whose appointments require the Senate's approval include members of the Cabinet, heads of federal executive agencies, ambassadors, Justices of the Supreme Court, and other federal judges. However, Congress may pass legislation to authorize the appointment of less important officials without the Senate's consent. Typically, a nominee is first subject to a hearing before a Senate committee. Committees may block nominees, but do so relatively infrequently. Thereafter, the nomination is considered by the full Senate. In a majority of the cases, nominees are confirmed; rejections of Cabinet nominees are especially rare (there have been only nine nominees rejected outright in the history of the United States). The powers of the Senate with respect to nominations are, however, subject to some constraints. For instance, the Constitution provides that the President may make an appointment during a congressional recess without the Senate's advice and consent. The recess appointment remains valid only temporarily; the office becomes vacant again at the end of the next congressional session. Nevertheless, Presidents have frequently used recess appointments to circumvent the possibility that the Senate may reject the nominee. Furthermore, as the Supreme Court held in ''Myers v. United States'', although the Senate's advice and consent is required for the appointment of certain executive branch officials, it is not necessary for their removal. The Senate also has a role in the process of ratifying treaties. The Constitution provides that the President may only ratify a treaty if two-thirds of the senators vote to grant advice and consent. However, not all international agreements are considered treaties, and therefore do not require the Senate's approval. Congress has passed laws authorizing the President to conclude executive agreements without action by the Senate. Similarly, the President may make congressional-executive agreements with the approval of a simple majority in each House of Congress, rather than a two-thirds majority in the Senate. Neither executive agreements nor congressional-executive agreements are mentioned in the Constitution, leading some to suggest that they unconstitutionally circumvent the treaty-ratification process. However, the validity of such agreements has been upheld by the courts. [[Image:3a05488v.jpg|thumb|300px|The Senate has the power to try impeachments. Shown above is the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson.]] [[Image:Senate in session.jpg|thumb|300px|The impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton was the second such trial; he was acquitted and found innocent of the charges against him.]] The Constitution empowers the House of Representatives to impeachment federal officials for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" and empowers the Senate to try such impeachments. If the sitting President of the United States is being tried, the Chief Justice of the United States must preside over the trial. During any impeachment trial, senators are constitutionally required to sit on oath or affirmation. Conviction requires a two-thirds majority of the senators present. A convicted official is automatically removed from office; in addition, the Senate may stipulate that the party be banned from holding office in the future. No further punishment is permitted during the impeachment proceedings; however, the party may face criminal penalties in a normal court of law. In the history of the United States, the House of Representatives has impeached sixteen officials, of whom seven were convicted. (One resigned before the Senate could complete the trial.) Only two Presidents of the United States have ever been impeached: Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1999. Both trials ended in acquittal; in Johnson's case, the Senate fell one vote short of the two-thirds majority required for conviction. Under the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Senate has the power to elect the Vice President if no vice presidential candidate receives a majority of votes in the United States Electoral College. The Twelfth Amendment requires the Senate to choose from the two candidates with the highest numbers of electoral votes. Electoral college deadlocks are very rare; in the history of the United States, the Senate has only had to break a deadlock once, in 1837, when it elected Richard Mentor Johnson. The power to elect the President in the case of an electoral college deadlock belongs to the House of Representatives. ==Current composition== *''Main article: List of United States Senators'' ''Current as of 3 January 2005.'' {| |- | colspan="2" rowspan="1" align="center" valign="top" | Affiliation | valign="top" | Members
|- |bgcolor="#CC0000"| | Republican Party (United States) | 55 |- |bgcolor="#3333CC"| | Democratic Party (United States) | 44 |- |bgcolor="#999999"| | Independent | 1 |- | colspan="2" rowspan="1" | Total
| 100 |} ==See also== *History of the United States Senate *Women in the United States Senate *Reconciliation (Senate) ==References== *Berman, Daniel M. (1964). ''In Congress Assembled: The Legislative Process in the National Government.'' London: The Macmillan Company. *Byrd, Robert C. (1989–1994). ''The Senate, 1789-1989: Addresses on the History of the United States.'' Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. *''Congressional Quarterly's Guide to Congress'', 5th ed. (2000). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press. *Story, Joseph. (1891). ''Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.'' (2 vols). Boston: Brown & Little. *[http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/626.htm] *[http://www.thisnation.com/question/037.html] ==External links== *[http://www.senate.gov The United States Senate. Official Website.] *[http://bioguide.congress.gov/biosearch/biosearch.asp ''Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, 1774 to Present''.] Legislative Branch of the United States Government National upper houses United States Senate
Are the two bodies of Congress in the U.S. really upper and lower? I didn't think there was such a distinction. User:Kingturtle 03:51 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC) :There isn't, but I had an unrelated question. How are committees named? Their official names are like, U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, but many people say, Senate Appropriations Committee, or something similar... neither has a page... User:Ugen64 00:15, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC) ==Committees== I have begun work on creating pages for the standing Senate committees. I am using the full name, as in U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services and U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. I am using these names because that's how they are named in the Senate Rules, and because that's how they were linked on the Senate page. It's been difficult finding histories of the various committees, so the work has been slow. I've been trying to include a brief history, the committee jurisdiction, and the current sitting members (including chairman and ranking Dem.) I've also included the subcommittees (even harder to find information on) and their chairs and ranking Dems. The two I linked above are the only ones I've done so far; the Appropriations committee has been started by someone else and I haven't looked at it yet. I'm working on the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs now. User:Friedo 17:04, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC) == Operation == I don't think a filibuster is the most significant element of the Senate's operations; at best this is a procedural oddity with some real political effects. Much more important are what it actually ''does''. --User:Delirium 06:14, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC) ==Political Color Coding?== On the article for the United States Senate Republicans are represented by red and Democrats by Blue. At the last presidential election, the map states being changed as votes came in shown on News bulletins followed this convention on some networks, but on others GOP was blue and Democrats were Red. The latter were predominantly BBC, SKY i.e. British whereas FOX and I think CNN i.e. Ameirican followed the former convention. In Britain Blue and Red are synonomous with Conservative and Labour; or right and left so perhaps that is the reason this method was used instead. Whilst as a non American I am likely to assume that Red for GOP and Blue for Dems is correct IS IT? or were the NEWS channels just selecting one colour for each for the sake of illustration which could just as easily been stripes and polkadots? User:Dainamo 15:54, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC) : Yes, in U.S. red for Republicans and blue for Democrats has become traditional. Accordingly, the center of the country is often called the "red states". No idea why nor when this was first adopted. Do we have an article discussing that? -- User:Jmabel 17:03, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC) ::There's Red state and Blue state, but I'm not sure they discuss the origin. Talk to an older political junkie than me. User:Meelar_User_talk:Meelar">User:Meelar|User:Meelar User talk:Meelar 18:02, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)
Goes back to the 19th century I beleive User:Smith03 18:03, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
:I seriously doubt that. My personal recollection is that the red state/blue state stuff started fairly recently. (I had originally said "the 1980s" but see below User:Dpbsmith 20:08, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)). In particular, the colors used are always a sort of pastel salmon red and deep sky blue, whereas traditional campaign color schemes of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s always used the brightest of primary colors... Also, during the 1950s and early 1960s I can't imagine that any political party would have allowed itself to be associated with any shade of red or pink. (That's ''no joke,'' I'm ''not kidding.'' Those were the days when schools stopped using the term "social studies" because even the word "social" seemed dangerous). User:Dpbsmith 19:58, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party#Colors_and_emblems_for_parties well you better edit this page if you doubt what I said User:Smith03 02:04, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
:Google Groups search on ''"red state" "blue state"'' , sorted in chronological order, from 12 May 1981 through 25 July 2001—that is, all USENET posting containing both of the exact phrases "red state" and "blue state" shows 9 hits total. Two irrelevant hits in 1995 and 1999. First one in sense of "Republican" and "Democrat" is Nov. 23, 2000. Searching from 25 July 2001 through today, in contrast, yields 238 hits. Here's a link to the search: [http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=%22red%20state%22%20%22blue%20state%22&as_epq=%20&safe=off&ie=UTF-8&as_drrb=b&as_mind=12&as_minm=5&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=25&as_maxm=7&as_maxy=2001&as_scoring=d&lr=&num=100&hl=en] User:Dpbsmith 20:08, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
::I agree with User:Dpbsmith. I have a recollection of seeing television coverage at least one pre-2000 election in which the states carried by the Democrat were red and the Republican wins were blue. Although I can't state the year with certainty, it sticks in mind because, as a Democrat, I remember feeling upset at an apparent bow to the Republicans' linking Jefferson's party to Communism. I think it would be more accurate to say that colors were used rather indiscriminately before 2000, but that the closeness and sharp polarization of the 2000 election resulted in extensive discussion of the state-by-state division, with the result that red for Republicans and blue for Democrats seems to have become entrenched in the popular usage. The TV networks have always used different colors as an easy and obvious way to show state-by-state wins, but I don't think I ever heard the terms "red states" and "blue states" used before 2000. By the way, in New York, candidate petitions are pink for the Republicans and pastel green for the Democrats, and have been since well before 2000. User:JamesMLane 19:04, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
In general, I'd suggest avoid using colors that may needlessly confuse an international audience, but the cited use is a graph with a clear legend indicating its color codes without implying any meaning beyond the graph. It's fine by graph standards. While it may be a bit disconcerting on first glance to a UK audience, it's not ambiguous or misleading, unless someone looking for a fight in this heated political year wants to infer something about using red for Republicans. (Sure, many Communist parties and countries favor it, but so do we in the U.S. — as one of our three patriotic colors. Besides, as an independent, I'd have better grounds to complain about having my ''non''-affliation coded in yellow. ☺) -- User:Jeffq 23:30, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Jeff, as I asked the orginal question, let me clarify that there was no confusion from a clearly labeled table or map. I was just interested in the correct form according to tradition. If we are discussing a particular country, the best policy is to use their chosen designation. In the same fashion I would address a Lieutenant in the US Army "Lou-tenant" amd one in a Commonwealth country "Lef-tenant" thus adopting what is appropriate in the particular situation. User:Dainamo
* In the '70s and '80s, the predominant practice was to show the Republicans are blue and the Democrats as red -- following the European tradition that the party of the Left got the color of Revolution. My first memory of the ''Republicans'' assigned red is no earlier than the 2000 election, and I recall it seemed at that time counter-intuitive and contrary to tradition. It seemed ''wrong''. But I assume that as "Liberal" went from a term of pride to a term of opprobrium in the '80s, the connotations of Red (especially in a country that, unlike Europe, doesn't generally make much distinction between "socialist" and "communist") were such it seemed to some news organizations to be unfair to always assign that color to the Democratic Party. Given the extreme polarization during and even more so since, the 2000 elections, the (counter-intuitive) terms "red state" and "blue state" are firmly entrenched in the ''Zeitgeist'', yet another point of similarity at which the U.S. will differ from out English-speaking relatives. User:Orthogonal 12:00, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps we could have a map showing the state with two Rs in red, two Ds in blue, one of each in white. -- User:Mcarling 10:25, Nov 7 2004 (UTC)
==Represenatation==
Is there anyone else out there who thinks it's unfair that every state gets two Senators? Aren't some people getting disproportionate influence? Aren't "one man, one vote" and "equality under law" important principles of democracy?
Ahh, you speak of the great compromise made during the Constitutional Convention. More populous, Southern states wanted representation based on population; less populous, Northern states wanted equal representation, for obvious reasons. The compromise was that "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." (US Constitution I.2) The Fourteenth Amendment would of course remove the clause about slaves counting as 3/5s of a person when distributing representatives, and therefore electors in a presidential election.
User:Laguna72 19:49, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
:Don't forget that the Senate was originally intended to represent the states — this is why the state legislatures originally chose their Senators. - User:Jredmond 19:52, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
::Since the 17th Amendment, Senators have represented the inhabitants of states, not state governments. Since Senators currently represent people, it seems that one justification for an equal suffrage Senate has been lost. (Hamilton called states "artificial entities")
::Since Senators are now elected just like Congressmen, it seems doubtful than anyone can claim that Senators are inherently wiser than Congressmen either. If Senators do consider wider interests than Congressmen, it would seem the reasons for that are that Senators represent larger and more diverse districts than Congressmen and have six year terms.User:Dinopup
:::The 17th Amendment did not diminish the justification for states' equal suffrage in the Senate. A "state" is an organized body of ''people'' within a definite territory, not merely its legislature; it is the sovereign rights of each ''state'', not merely its legislature, that the principle of state equality is meant to protect and upon which equal Senate suffrage rests. How senators are chosen is irrelevant insofar as equal suffrage is concerned.
:::That is not to say that the 17th Amendment did not strike a dissonant constitutional chord. By replacing indirect election with direct representation for the sake of "progressive" populism, the Amendment worked a partial excision of the constitutional provisions designed to protect individual rights from popular rule. The way to restore harmony is not, I submit, to complete the excision, but to reverse it, as Georgia Senator Zell Miller has proposed by calling for the repeal of the 17th Amendment.User:Pgva 07:42, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
::"that the principle of state equality is meant to protect and upon which equal Senate suffrage rests. How senators are chosen is irrelevant insofar as equal suffrage is concerned."
::To me, it's ridiculous to treat states with 600,000 people the same as states with 35 million. The notion that the states are equal is absurd. Why should a person get the equivalent of 17 more votes by moving across Lake Tahoe from California to Nevada? Or the equilalent of 19 more votes by moving from Pennsylvania to Delaware?
::The Senate treats the citizens of some states as "more equal" than the citizens of others. That's unjust.
:::Which constitutional principle applies in making that judgment? Were I to apply the principle of "one man, one vote", I would agree. But that principle manifestly does not apply, as I explained Talk:Connecticut Compromise.
:::My conclusion is informed by the understanding that the "will of the majority" does not convey legitimacy on an otherwise unjust exercise of power. The houses of Congress do not grant such a license; they ''protect'' their constituencies from arbitrary government power. The House ''protects'' persons, the Senate ''protects'' states ''from'' government. Additional protections do not offend the principle, ''unless'' you believe that majority will in itself legitimizes unlimited government of all kinds. Those who prefer limited constitutional government require "one man, one vote" (in the House), but are happy to admit complimentary principles to further limit government and thereby protect freedom.User:Pgva 17:21, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
“The House protects persons, the Senate protects states from government.”
::But states per se are almost never affected by the legislation that comes out of Congress. Nearly all legislation affects persons, corporations, unions, etc.
:::Of course the legislation usually does not regulate ''state governments'', what it regulates are the states' traditional objects of legislation. When Congress usurps legislative powers that constitutionally belong to the states, states most certainly are affected, as the universe of legislation that is theirs alone to vary in accordance with the will of their people shrinks. The Senate gives the people, as ''states'', a marginal advantage in saying "no" to such usurpations. So, for instance, if the House were to pass a law outlawing firearms within one hundred feet of a school, the Senate, recognizing that such a law is nowhere authorized by the constitution, would have a marginal incentive to reject it, assuming that the question was sufficiently close (as I conceded, tools to protect liberty work at the margins ''only''). And thus: Massachusetts can have gun-free school zones if it wants, Texas is free not to, U.S. citizens can freely choose their state of residence, and voila, liberty and the proper balance of state-federal power are preserved another day.
::There are a few cases when legislation does affect states – state grant formulas and appropriations. In those instances, small states have an enormous undue advantage. Numerous studies have shown that small states get more pork barrel appropriations than large states. Small states have insisted that block grant formulas favor them.
:::In other words, popular attempts at ''wealth redistribution''. It is comforting to know that, even today, our Madisonian system resists such attempts, distorting the formulas and putting the brakes on the socialist enterprise. That a system conceived in liberty, not socialism, is an imperfect wealth redistributor should come as no surprise and ought to be celebrated by freedom-loving citizens everywhere. The solution, I suggest, is not to perfect the mechanisms of redistribution but to stop putting the system to a use for which it was not designed.
“I’m not at all sure why the Senate “always wins” since the constitution gives equal power to the House and Senate on spending matters (maybe the House needs more backbone?)”
::What the Senate wins on is block grant budget formulas. With most block grants, every states is guaranteed a certain minimum, regardless of size or need. House members don’t have an incentive to fight Senators on unfair block grant formulas because House constituents care less about abstract budgeting methods than they do pork. Also, House members are always up for reelection, Senators every sixth year, so sometimes Senators win on funding disputes because they have the luxury of time. The incentives might seem subtle, but Oppenheimer and Lee demonstrate that when there is a dispute between the House and the Senate on a budget formula, the Senate almost always wins.
:::I can accept this explanation without concluding that there is anything wrong with the constitution, especially since the House and Senate have equal power over spending matters, meaning that any perceived inequities are merely realpolitik. That House constituents care less about "abstract budgeting methods" than "pork" is certainly their prerogative, and if their representatives concede political territory in conference committee, then that is their choice.
“My conclusion is informed by the understanding that the "will of the majority" does not convey legitimacy on an otherwise unjust exercise of power. The houses of Congress do not grant such a license; they protect their constituencies from arbitrary government power. The House protects persons, the Senate protects states from government. Additional protections do not offend the principle, unless you believe that majority will in itself legitimizes unlimited government of all kinds.”
::Almost no one believes that something that the majority supports is automatically good, but with the Senate, not all minorities are equally protected. If you wanted a legislative body to protect all minorities equally, you would want a “one man, one vote” legislature, but require it to have a 60% majority to pass something.
:::As I indicated previously, the Senate is majoritarian in character (majority of states rather than persons). The Senate protects state ''majorities'' from federal usurpation, just as the House protects majorities of ''persons''. Minority rights are protected (at the margins) by balancing the houses against one another and with the aid of the president's veto, the courts' powers of judicial review, federalism enabling citizens to choose their state of residence and vary local policies accordingly (rather than having national uniformity), and so forth. Minority rights are realized in these checks and balances. The difference with the 60% rule (not to besmirch the idea) is that the checks and balances have independent justifications that help preserve their place in the constitutional design, e.g. the Senate protecting states' rights, the president defending his executive prerogatives, the courts upholding the rule of law.
::Here are a few minorities which the Senate hasn't historically protected. The tens of millions of Americans who live in cities, Americans who are non-white, Americans who work in manufacturing. Those are some pretty large groups.
:::Of course I meant protected ''from government'', and to the extent that population-based apportionment is needed to negate legislation, the House does that.
::Since the 1960's State Senates have been apportioned according to population. Has this resulted in a tyranny of the majority?
:::Certainly it has, to the extent that the two houses agree more often and pass more laws restricting freedom.User:Pgva 17:56, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Pgva,
You seem to be saying that you favor the Senate because believe liberty is protected by legislative inaction. To me, that seems more like an argument for bicameralism than an equal suffrage Senate.
::"other words, popular attempts at ''wealth redistribution''. It is comforting to know that, even today, our Madisonian system resists such attempts, distorting the formulas and putting the brakes on the socialist enterprise."
BUT THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE! Powerful Senators have done hundreds of things to redistribute wealth and create all kinds of socialistic federal programs.
What do you call it when Ted Stevens (R-AK) and Robert Byrd (D-WV) use their perches on the Appropriations committee to take home billions of dollars in unneeded projects to their home states? What do you call it when Trent Lott has the navy buy ships it doesn't need because the ships would be made in his home state?! Isn't that a redistribution of income from the wealthier regions of the country to the poorer?
The TVA was more the product of powerful upper-South Senators than Franklin Roosevelt. Is the TVA not "socialist"?
What do you call farm subsidies? The Democrats pushed the farm subsidy expansion bill through the Senate in 2002 because they wanted to save Tim Johnson's South Dakota Senate seat (many farm state Republicans voted for the bill as well). The Republicans pushed the bill through the House because they wanted that Senate seat too, and weren't going to let overrepresented farmers like the Democrats more.
You contradict your own argument when you say "In other words, popular attempts at ''wealth redistribution''
The biggest aspect of block grants that is redistributional is that every state gets a minimum, no matter its size. Thus, block grants favor small states. If you don't like wealth redistribution, you _shouldn't_ like an equal apportionment Senate. What small state Senators want is worse than big government, it's big government taht disproportionately benefits them.
Blocking legislation you don't like isn't a reason to favor an equal apportionment Senate. What would you think if rural people disproportionately favored big government? (er, which they do)
If you don't like big government, then you should be pretty mad at what the Senate did to George W. Bush's tax cuts. The Senate trimmed a couple hundred million off of both of them. Who were the two Republican hold out Senators on the 2001 tax cuts? Jeffords and Chafee, both representatives of pretty tiny states.
If the Senate were apportioned by population you would still see pork, but you wouldn't see certain states vastly privileged over others. Have you been to NYC? They have wanted to build an East Side subway for sixty years, but have never been able to get the money from Washington to do it, even though they send 10 bil more to DC than they get back. The only East Side subway NYC has now is incredibly crowded, a second East Side line would be used by millions of people, and wouldn't be considered "pork" by most people at all.
You have said many things about state equality, but there is nothing rational about how state lines have been drawn. If you were going to divide the USA into fifty sub-units, would you ever make the metropolitan area of Providence a sub-unit equal to half the West Coast?
:''"If the Senate were apportioned by population you would still see pork, but you wouldn't see certain states vastly privileged over others."''
:The real problem is not the Senate, it is that the socialist ("pork-barrel") mindset turns the very concept of liberty upside down. "Freedom" becomes freedom to steal from one's neighbors. It's laughable that we are debating whether the Senate enables "equitable" stealing, because of course there is no such thing. Were we to practice genuine liberty in this country, where each individual produces for himself, engages in private enterprise and does not rely on the government's monopoly on force (intended to protect, not abrogate, individual rights) to expropriate from others, the small states' Senate advantage would not be so onerous and immoral a burden as you describe. To coin a phrase, ''everything'' gets mixed up when you try to practice socialism. Now, we could try to rearrange individual pieces of our system, which would take us still further from our founding ideal; or, we could set to work to restore the liberty that is properly ours. Forget about the Senate's marginal impact; focus on changing the overwhelming consensus favoring big government, against which no free republic will long survive.User:Pgva 20:28, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
:''"You have said many things about state equality, but there is nothing rational about how state lines have been drawn. If you were going to divide the USA into fifty sub-units, would you ever make the metropolitan area of Providence a sub-unit equal to half the West Coast?"''
:Why not? Many of the original states were created by religious minorities uphappy with the policies of their governments. They left and formed distinct societies (not "sub-units") in which they would be free to practice their religion and pursue their values as they saw fit. No one has ever suggested that to do so they required an equal number of persons. Rhode Island is one such example.
:Today, people are still free to relocate to states more conducive to their happiness. That is why preserving states' rights matters. The more areas of policy that are dictated by the federal government nationwide, the less free all of us are (to escape from tyranny to other jurisdictions). This is crucially important to real liberty. Why did the New Deal have to be a ''national'' policy? Because socialism fails when people are free to escape it (actually, it fails anyway, but it fails faster when people are free to escape). Witness the exodus from California. Witness Germany's Berlin Wall, that was designed to keep people in.
:Even so, one could argue that the state divisions of yesteryear are obsolete. The constitution has a ready answer. States lines may be redrawn with the consent of the affected legislatures and Congress.User:Pgva 20:57, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
:''"What small state Senators want is worse than big government, it's big government that disproportionately benefits them."''
:I at first struggled to understand this disproportionality-of-benefits objection. After all, what ''are'' "proportional benefits", anyway? Nowhere does the constitution say that "appropriations shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers". If this had been a preeminent value to the founders, surely they would have said so.
:When I considered the objection from the modern welfare state point of view, however, the objection did make some sense. For if the issue is ''pork-barrel handouts'', then disproportionate distribution is cause for complaint, but disproportionate to what? Why not require proportionality of benefits to ''individual income taxes'' paid, rather than the equal per capita distribution that the demand for a population-apportioned Senate implies? Could it be that the ''proportional benefits'' objection, far from being an objection to socialism, is a cover for a redistributionist ''social justice'' idea that taxes the rich exclusively while demanding equal benefits for rich and poor alike, that ''that'' is the root cause of complaint against equal Senate suffrage?
:Of course this cannot be right. "Proportionality" is simply not a reasonable standard for ''necessary'' federal spending. Only in an illegitimate federal welfare state could this consideration be deemed proper. The solution, once again, is not to perfect the welfare state, but to eliminate it.User:Pgva 03:50, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
:: Even if maldistributed appropriations aren't literally unconstitutional, that doesn't mean that maldistributed benefits aren't unfair, or even contrary to the unwritten intent of the Constitution. All the major Founding Fathers actually opposed an equal suffrage Senate anyway. As you alluded to, the Framers of the Constitution never imagined that a welfare state would emerge. Certainly the Framers wouldn't have wanted a state support itself by skimming off other states.
::Personally, I'm less bothered by the "welfare state," (Soc Security Medicare are ok IMO), than I am by the "subsidy state." Since Senators are disproportionately from rural areas, and rural areas are the biggest subsidy grabbers of all, the Senate does constribute to the subsidy mess that we see in Washington.
::Since your opposition to big government drove your support of an equal suffrage Senate, I tried to show that the Senate actually encourages _more_ big government, not less. I agree with you that it would be nice if states paid for more of their own stuff, especially infrastructure. But try convincing a Hawaii, Wyoming, or South Dakota congressman to believe that.
::(in Sizing Up the Senate, Oppenheimer and Lee demonstrate in many ways that small state Senators pull down more pork, subsides, quotas than what is their fair share).
::I didn't care about the equal Suffrage Senate until two years ago. I find it indefensible that counter terrorism money is distributed through a system that leaves the most endangered places (NYC, Chicago, LA) with less money than places that face no risk at all (Wyoming). We probably wouldn't have that unfair formula if it weren't for the disproportionate power of small state pols.
::You can take comfort from the fact that the equal suffrage Senate can never be changed. Article V in the Constitution makes an amendment to change the Senate basically unconstitutional. Perhaps in a few decades we will see fission movements in the larger states. There are people in northern California who want a separate state; Norman Mailer ran for mayor of NYC on a platform of making New York "the fifty-first state." (alas, Albany would never allow their cash cow to go free)
:I agree that leaving major cities underprotected from terrorism is indefensible. Without examining the specific appropriations, I will assume that you are correct in focusing on the state distribution of counterterrorism monies and that cities are indeed underprotected, and that our small state senators are chiefly responsible for this underprotection. Since counterterrorism is obviously a legitimate federal enterprise, I will concede that the issue (properly understood) is not one of illegitimate big government but legitimate national defense, and that it is sometimes proper for the federal government to enlist the help of the states and localities through federal grants for that purpose.
:The proportionality, therefore, is proportionality on the basis of ''genuine need'' as determined by the ''relative threat'' of terrorism to given areas. It is not simply a per capita proportionality, which might itself work a malappropriation in the context of terrorism (indeed, the cities you mention probably deserve much ''more'' than per capita dollars). However, since per capita would be a lesser malappropriation than the one resulting from treating all states as equally threatened, you have identified Senate apportionment as the culprit. I will argue that this is not correct, and that the real problem is the widespread "handout" mentality at the voting booth.
:Our founders apparently presumed that in matters of common national interest such as war, our senators would, in their select wisdom, rise above their parochial interests to consider the nation as a whole; that in so doing, they would consider the complex factors that determine genuine threat and appropriate monies accordingly; that they would, opposite a popularly-elected House that (perhaps) ''did'' misappropriate monies for the sake of per capita pork, make necessary revisions to best protect the nation. What is missing in today's scenario is not per capita Senate apportionment, but an ability to rise above parochial interests and do what is right for the country as a whole. The 17th Amendment may be partly to blame, but indirect election was only a marginal buffer of popular will. Far more important is the ''handout mentality'' that so totally pervades our culture as to render our national Senate an embarrassment.
:Remember when Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura appointed Dean Barkley to fill the Senate seat vacated by the late Senator Paul Wellstone? His one instruction to Barkley was to bring back as many federal dollars as possible. I was shocked, because we rarely see our culture's shameful proclivity for grabbing handouts stated so openly and positively. Yet what Ventura said then is also stated silently by most of us when we enter the voting booth. That is where the problem lies, for if our primary concern is "what can I get from the government", then we have truly ceased to be "one nation", and the best that the citizens of our cities can do is to fend for themselves. I view all federal welfare and subsidy programs as being the product of the same psychological impulse, and thus all problematic.
:The solution lies with you and I and the citizens of this country. When the time comes that ''we'' cease voting for candidates who will bring back the most pork, our federal councils will have a chance to function rationally. We should demand that our Senators appropriate money, not proportionately per capita, but ''rationally'' per the actual threat.
:It may take time for our culture to adjust. In an age of terrorism, pork-as-usual must give way to the genuinely common good. Yet when such a widespread consensus does occur, our politicians will have no choice but to respond to the popular will. It is far better that we direct our attention to where the problem actually lies, rather than attacking the straw man of Senate apportionment.User:Pgva 18:56, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Pgva,
I'm not sure if we'll ever get past subsidy and pork grubbing with the system we currently have. I personally vote for the candidate with whom I agree on the national issues, but even if I wanted to vote against pork, for whom would I vote? Pork politics is absolutely bipartisan. My two Senators (Corzine & Lautenberg) really aren't known for pork or subsidy grabbing either (even if they do favor the welfare state). What can I do to weaken Byrd or Stevens?
Also, let's say that I could vote for a candidate who was against subsidies and who was against pork, why good would it do for my district/state to unilaterally stop seeking pork while other districts/states stay at the trough?
It would be nice if the president took a stand against pork, but no president is realistically going to do that, since pork helps a president pass legislation. Clinton got NAFTA through the House by making all kinds of special infrastructure promises.
Maybe a line item veto would be a good idea? (but even if we had a line item veto, a pres isn’t going to use it to fight the projects of powerful legislators)
I never knew that about Ventura and Dean Barkley. I had thought those two were good people.
You write of the problems of politicians only caring about their own constituents, and not the entire country. Another problem is that so many politicians only care about the present, and not the future. I'm sure you're aware that we're sticking future generations with trillions and trillions in debt. Americans disdain Canada and Western Europe for big government, but at least those governments are fiscally solvent!
I don't think you'll agree with me on this, but I wish we had a system of voting which would allow more than two parties to emerge. The reason we don’t have viable alternative parties isn’t lack of ballot access, lack of media coverage, or even lack of money, it’s our geographic based first past the post voting system.
If we had a proportional representation voting system that represented ideas, rather than geography, you would see less pork. Let’s say that legislators were elected from party lists (like most countries in Europe), and not from single member districts. Congressmen would no longer have an incentive for pork barrel politics at all, and could vote for the national interest, rather than what they perceive as their district’s interest.
I would not want to do away with all geographic representation, the additional member systems used by Germany and New Zealand seem close to ideal to me.
A question . . . why is it that so many Americans revere the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, but hate current politicians and how Washington works? If you look at polls, Americans rate Congressmen on the same level as used car salesmen. America has by far the lowest voter turnout in the democratic world.
:"It may take time for our culture to adjust. In an age of terrorism, pork-as-usual must give way to the genuinely common good."
Let's hope so. Tom DeLay just called for a more intelligent distribution of counterterrorism money. Unfortunately, the Senate just voted down an amendment to do just that!
::If a sufficient number of people were against pork and in favor of waging a national campaign to counter terrorism, then the parties and candidates would race to gain their votes. We would have parties in lockstep ''against'' pork rather than ''for'' it, and favoring a rational distribution of counterterrorism funds. This requires a seismic shift in popular opinion, as the attitudes towards entitlement must change before our political system will follow. The task is to educate people from California to Maine (and Alaska and West Virginia) to adopt a philosophy that rejects the expectation of handouts and demands a rational national defense of our cities.
::Neither Senate apportionment nor electoral districts in general are the real problem. We would be far better off focusing on the problem of narrow interest voting and the handout mindset - rather than ''any'' of these straw men. So long as a majority of individual voters continue to "vote their porketbook", that sentiment will find its realization in misappropriated funds no matter which system channels it. If the pork is not doled out by district, then it will be doled out by some other political subdivision of voters, as pols will always pander to groups to get elected as long as people respond favorably to pandering. It makes no sense to misdirect the criticism from where it belongs - the mass opinion of the people - to the system that faithfully channels their will. Focus on persuading people to insist that their pols forswear pork and behave rationally. Attacking "the system" is both too easy and too ineffectual. Persuading people to be good citizens may be hard, but is the only certain way to effect genuine change.
::As to the founders: In my opinion, they are so revered because our modern political philosophy of simple democracy and social entitlement suffers so badly in comparison to their Enlightenment-era ideals of freedom. They conceived and implemented what we today could not and would not. Yet we continue to benefit from their gift to us, and that quite simply engenders gratitude.User:Pgva 18:35, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Pgva,
I think the big majority of voters do vote for the candidate whom they think is better for the nation. Unfortunately, a minority of voters without ideological bents, will vote for the candidate they think will bring home more subsidies and pork for the state. Another name for this kind of "porketbook" voter is a "swing voter."
You aren't going to see the end of pork until you see the end of geographic representation.
----
When I said that people must ''cease'' voting for candidates who will bring back the most pork, I meant that the way to prevent candidates from serving pork to gain swing votes is to ensure that they would ''lose'' even more votes in the process. A "swing vote" minority holds no power other than that which the great mass of people grants to it by its complicity.
Pandering with unnecessary spending must be greeted, not with shrugs of inevitability, but with such stigma and disapproval that no politician would dare do it. It must be as shocking and disqualifying an act as uttering a racial epitaph.
Geographic districting fosters a government whose members possess state and local attachments. This creates a necessary bond between the ordinary citizen and the highest councils of government: witness that while people hold Congress in low esteem generally, they tend to support their own representative. The direct accountability between representative and local constituents empowers the individual citizen and legitimizes the government in a way that proportional representation simply cannot. To insist that national interests can be served only by cutting the Congress loose from its local moorings is simply wrong.
In peacetime, Congress ought by design to be reduced to quarreling local factions, to better preserve our liberty. Yet in time of war, we presuppose that our elected representatives will find, in "the angels of their better nature", the capacity to put the national interest first - just as all citizens must - or face being turned out of office. The solution is not to create a mixed body through an additional member system, but to resolve the matter where it first belongs - in the hearts and minds of the citizenry.
Our present situation illustrates this principle dramatically. The misallocation of federal money that you cite is, in time of war, indefensible. But many citizens remain skeptical that we are in an outright state of war. In their view, a terrorist threat means more a mixed state of war and peace; wrong as that conclusion is, it probably best explains the ongoing tolerance for pork-barrel spending. People are holding on to the idea that "business as usual" can go on, that September 11 was (for them) an insufficient stimulus towards national unity. I do not agree with them, but neither am I yet willing to find in our present circumstances an excuse to fundamentally reorder a federal system that has served us well for over two centuries. In a democratic republic we cannot blame the system for the failure of the people's judgment. The task remains to educate, persuade and lead. User:Pgva 20:40, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Nor is persuading voters in ''particular states'' the only way to correct Senate misdeeds. Senators are sufficiently few in number and well enough known to the ''entire country'' as to expose them as individuals to widespread criticism for bad behavior. Even Robert Byrd could not withstand the voices of 280 million Americans united to fight a rational war on terrorism. What could possibly be worse than diverting counterterrorism money from the places that need it most? A cacophony of outrage should rise from every quarter. Senators Stevens and Byrd should be forced to see the light or be drummed out of the Senate in shame. This too would be the inevitable result of a united popular opinion. Where that is lacking, the task is to create it. User:Pgva 04:43, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
:"Nor is persuading voters in ''particular states'' the only way to correct Senate misdeeds. Senators are sufficiently few in number and well enough known to the ''entire country'' as to expose them as individuals to widespread criticism for bad behavior."
::The above is absolutely not evidenced by history. America has had dozens of examples of Senators criticized (or hated) by the entire nation, but secure in their own states.
::Before the 1960's the nation had a large majority in favor of anti-lynching laws and voting rights acts for blacks, but Southern Senators were consistently able to block that legislation until the mid-1960's. The rest of the country didn't like that, but what could anyone do? The reason you always have courts making laws in the USA is because our legislative process is so damn slow.
:: Another example of foolish Senators not facing any retribution from the rest of the nation. . . . from Late 1940 to Dec 1941, when World War II was raging in Europe, a majority of Americans wanted to assist Britain somehow, but a small group of interior state Senators led by Hiram Borah of Idaho and _____ Nye blocked doing anything for months and months. What could the rest of the country do? (see Master of the Senate for a history of this shameful and idiotic episode)
::It is ironic that you mentioned the Iraq War . Let's agree to disagree about the rationality of the War, but did you know that the Senate only debated Iraq (in the mid of Oct) for _five_ days? Wasn't the Senate supposed to be some great deliberative body? but look how much deliberation they conducted on such an awesomely important decision?
:"The direct accountability between representative and local constituents empowers the individual citizen and legitimizes the government in a way that proportional representation simply cannot"
::Take heart PGVA, my ideas about proportional representation on the federal level are hopeless.
:"When I said that people must ''cease'' voting for candidates who will bring back the most pork, I meant that the way to prevent candidates from serving pork to gain swing votes is to ensure that they would ''lose'' even more votes in the process."
::Unfortunately, I think your hopes for a sea change in our political culture on pork are hopeless as well. I have never heard of a legislator losing reelection because he did _too_ much for his district. Right now the trend is the opposite of what you want, congressional earmarks are way up since 2001.
::I know that I won't be able to persuade you to support proportional representation (or an additional member system, which I think is ideal), but you should concede that PR has some virtues and our district system certainly has its problems (other than pork). PR gives people more viable choices, PR allows more ideas to be expressed, PR ends the phenomenon of the "swing district," PR causes campaigns to be waged on issues and not personality, PR results in a legislature that more accurately reflects the opinions of the electorate, PR results in more women and minorities being elected, PR leads to higher turnout.
Of course there are countless examples when the Senate behaved indefensibly and individuals senators acted foolishly. My central contention is that, in every case, a lack of sufficient popular agreement in the country was the enabler. To simplify my point, I will offer only two degrees of popular opinion: ''sufficiently divided'' and ''sufficiently united''. Senators can block legislation, misappropriate money and generally behave abominably when popular opinion is ''sufficiently divided'' as to let them get away with it, especially in numbers. On the other hand, when popular opinion is ''sufficiently united'', any senator attempting to defy it would be branded as a pariah and be outvoted.
This is the nub of the matter: In the cases you cite, senators were able to behave indefensibly because popular opinion was ''sufficiently divided'' on those questions. Every evil attributed to Senate apportionment wears the tag: "because the people were not sufficiently united to demand otherwise".
The framers began with a loose confederation of states and in their generation managed to achieve 50% unity, with the other 50% being provided by each succeeding generation proving the states' unity in the crucible of the Senate. ''That'' is the federal design.
The task is to work as private citizens to move popular opinion in our direction until it is sufficiently united to achieve our aims which in the Senate means winning a majority of states. If our arguments are sound and our effort sustained, we will ultimately prevail. I like the example of counterterrorism misappropriations because it strikes me as a clearly sound argument that would, if competently presented, resonate with people in sufficient numbers to prevail.
I prefer to be optimistic about the possibility of moving popular opinion. Consider the conservative movement of the 1980s. Ronald Reagan was so successful in moving popular opinion in his direction that for decades afterward the Left was substantially in tatters with no chance of enacting its agenda. This reversed a trend towards socialism that for decades was thought to be irreversible. Yet under Reagan, popular opinion was sufficiently united to enact his conservative agenda.
Civil rights legislation was delayed because a sufficient portion of the country was still against it, but that eventually changed. Pork is doled out because anti-pork people like me are still too few in number, but that could change. We need not remain a nation of shameless parasites forever, and the question is, what do we intend to do about it?
The same applies to every public policy question under the sun. There is no matter of law so far removed from popular influence that no amount of national unity could change it. If our position is truly just, by what reason would we give up hope of ultimately prevailing? User:Pgva 04:21, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
----
The best argument against equal Senate suffrage might go something like this: "Pgva, you are correct that our constitution attempts to counterbalance 'equality of persons' and 'equality of states' as co-equal principles in the federal design with the effect of protecting states' equal rights against federal encroachment and constraining legislation generally. Yet while liberty does indeed demand that the constitution embody principled mechanisms to protect liberty, all such principles must be consonant with the equal weight of all citizens' votes whenever the people are invested with the franchise from which national powers must derive. In weighing citizens' votes, any addition of one mathematical principle necessarily subtracts from another; adding to 'one man, one vote' destroys the principle utterly.
"At least insofar as the powers delegated to the government operate upon persons, not states, the exercise of those powers requires that the equality of citizens' votes be absolutely protected throughout. Purely national powers cannot derive from a federal or compound source but only from a source itself purely national in character. Yet the apportionment of the House, Senate and Electoral College all violate this rule to various extents. We can forgive the minor inequities of the House as a practical consideration and know that the Electoral College will be as perfectly apportioned as the Congress itself. The great problem lies in the Senate which violates the maxim of equality not for practical reasons but to admit an inadmissible principle. Such injustice cannot be tolerated by a free people. Whatever the political realities of 1787 may have dictated at that time, they have no bearing whatever today. We ought to demand, with sufficient unity to prevail, that this injustice in our constitution be corrected forthwith."
Alas, I cannot conceive of a satisfactory rejoinder; I therefore concede the point regarding Senate apportionment and thank you for a very lively debate. User:Pgva 15:40, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
==Book Recommendation==
For everyone interested in the Senate, I recommend "Sizing Up the Senate: The Unequal Consequences of Equal Representation" by Frances Lee and Bruce Oppenheimer. User:Dinopup
== apportioning? ==
how is it that states only vote for a senator a year? also, (and I know this is a little off topic), how is the australian senate apportioned? I know that each australian state has 12 senators. how do they work it so that the state doesn't have to vote for all 12 senators a year?
:Australia uses a system of proportional representation called single transferable vote. Australians vote for 6 Sens at a time.
:America's system of voting (plurality wins, winner take all) is actually unusual in international perspective. Our voting system is called first past the post. FPTP leads to a two party system, PR leads to a multi-party system. PR is not the same thing as "parliamentary government."
US Senators serve 6-year terms; these are staggered, such that one-third of the Senate is elected every two years. This ensures that, at any given time, at least one Senator from a given state has at least two years' experience, and that each state only has to endure one Senatorial contest at a time. - User:Jredmond 21:58, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
== Confirmation ==
Is confirmation done by a majority, or some other type of plurality? Does it vary depending on the office? This information would be very useful; the current paragraph on confirmation is very brief. --User:LostLeviathan 20:14, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:The actual Senate vote to confirm a presidential appointment requires a simple majority to pass, but in practical terms, getting to a vote under Senate procedures requires a three-fifths majority to invoke cloture on debate (though three-fifths is a requirement that the Senate has chosen to impose upon itself, not a requirement imposed anywhere by the Constitution). In remaining vague, the paragraph may be sensibly sidestepping these difficulties. User:Pgva 21:02, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
== I move to break out big sections ==
We are getting an advisory that this page is getting too big.
I move that the following sections be broken into individual pages,
with a short synopsis and link to the new pages:
1 Composition and elections
2 Specific Powers
3 Operation
4 History
User:Weide 17:18, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
:History has been broken out which makes the page more concise. Others should probably as well. --User:Sebmol 02:52, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
::If history wasn't worthy of being in the main article, I suggest that the tables and lists should be taken out as well. If you measure a section's worth by information per column inch, the lists of committees etc are not so valuable. I move especially that the list of impeachments be put into a separate page. The impeachment listings are trivial, IMO. User:dinopup
:::There is probably some truth to that. There is a practice I saw in some other Wikipedias that create a portal on a subject that presents links to articles on the same subject. So, if there was, for example, portal on the United States government, it wouldn't necessarily have much content itself but instead serve as a "portal" to most/all articles directly related to the government. I'm trying to find out if there's any precedent for that sort of thing on this one. The advantage would be that we could remove some of these "link-tables" without losing the structural aides. Any suggestions?
:::--User:Sebmol 04:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
== Floor leaders when there's no majority party ==
What would happen, hypothetically, if a third party would (with the help of black magic) gain so many seats in the Senate that there wouldn't be a majority party? How would they choose minority/majority leaders, etc?
* Minority and majority leaders aren't constitutionally dictated -- they're just titles defined by the parties for their floor leader. Technically those titles would not be meaningful if no party had a majority. There would still be Republican and Democratic leaders, but they would have to form ad hoc coalitions to get bills passed (not really that different from now). The third parties would have to negotiate with the other parties the numbers of seats they would get on committees and the amount of staff funding they would get, just as the Democrats and Republicans negotiate today. Presumably the large parties would negotiate reasonably and give resources/memberships proportional to the third party's representation, since they might need third party votes on another issue. The only exception might be if a third party were viewed as so unspeakable (Nazis, Stalinists, KKK or whatever) that the main parties would rather compromise with each other on every issue than negotiate with the third party.
==Filler-Buster==
I came to the Uited States Senate page looking for something about the filler-buster and what it is. I watch the CNN news very occationally from my Aussie TV and they had this debate about the likelyhood that the Filler-Buster was going to be removed from the senate. I'm not very educated in politics but Im interested to know what it is about. User:Lightamplification 13:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
:You mean filibuster. That movement was called the nuclear option. Check out those pages. --User:JohnM 07:34, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
==Treaty or treaties ?==
In the "specific powers/treaties part", wouldn't it be more correct to say "enter into a treaty" than "enter into a treaties" ?
==More deliberative than House==
"The Senate is regarded as a more deliberative body than the House of Representatives; the Senate is smaller and its members serve longer terms, allowing for a more collegiate and less partisan atmosphere that is somewhat more insulated from public opinion than the House"
This is a well known fact, not a mere assertion. See [http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly57.asp] (3rd paragraph), [http://www.thisnation.com/question/037.html] (2rd paragraph), [http://www.politicalquest.org/index.php/ccID/55/cID/51/cf/United_States_History_of_The_Senate/cssID/91/csf/United_States_Senate_Constitutional_Creation] etc.
==Two questionable lines==
"In general, however, the right to unlimited debate is preserved."
:Can someone confirm that this is still true? I know a lot of bills have passed recently with no time to read the bill or discuss it, though that may have been in the House, not the Senate. Some bills (like the PATRIOT Act) have been voted on before they were even printed and with very little discussion allowed [http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/dec2001/ashc-d12_prn.shtml].
::Unanimous consent agreements can limit debate. If any senator objects, however, debate cannot be limited except by cloture. -- User:Lord Emsworth 13:14, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"the Senate may stipulate that the party be banned from holding office in the future" after impeachment.
:Can someone confirm this? They can ban a whole party? User:harry491 User_talk:harry491 12:37, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
::"Party" refers not to the political party, but to "party" as in the defendant. Yes, they can ban the defendant from holding office in the future. -- User:Lord Emsworth 13:13, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Legislative Branch of the United States Government
#REDIRECT United States Senate
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with United_States_Senate:
United_States_Senate
United_States_Senate
United_States_Senate
United_States_senate
United_States_Senate_Committee_on_Finance
United_States_Senate_Committee_on_the_Judiciary
United_States_Senate_Democratic_Conference_Chairman
United_States_Senate_Democratic_Policy_Committee_Chairman
United_States_Senate_Democratic_Whip
United_States_Senate_Finance_Committee
United_States_Senate_Majority_Leader
United_States_Senate_Majority_Whip
United_States_Senate_Minority_Leader
United_States_Senate_Minority_Whip
United_States_Senate_Republican_Conference_Chairman
United_States_Senate_Republican_Policy_Committee_Chairman
United_States_Senate_Republican_Whip
United_States_Senate_Select_Committee_on_Intelligence
United States Senate
Seal_of_the_United_States_Senate">Image:Us senate seal.png|framed|Seal of the United States Senate The United States Senate is one of the two houses of the Congress of the United States, the other being the United States House of Representatives. In the Senate, each U.S. state is equally represented by two members, regardless of population; as a result, the total membership of the body is 100. Senators serve for six-year terms, which are staggered so that elections are held in approximately one-third of the seats (a "Classes of U.S. Senators") every second year. The Vice President of the United States is the presiding officer of the Senate but is not a senator and does not vote except to break ties. The Senate is regarded as a more deliberative body than the House of Representatives; the Senate is smaller and its members serve longer terms, allowing for a more collegiate and less partisan atmosphere that is somewhat more insulated from public opinion than the House. The Senate has several exclusive powers enumerated in the Constitution not granted to the House; most significantly, the President of the United States must ratify treaties and make important appointments "with the Advice and Consent of the Senate" (Article One of the United States Constitution). A bicameralism Congress was created as a result of the Connecticut Compromise, a compromise made at the History of the United States Constitution, under which states would be represented on the basis of population in the House of Representatives, but would be equally represented in the Senate. The Constitution provides that the approval of both houses is necessary for the passage of legislation. The exclusive powers enumerated to the Senate in the Constitution are regarded as more important than those exclusively enumerated to the House. As a result, the responsibilities of the Senate (the "upper house") are more extensive than those of the House of Representatives (the "lower house"). The Senate of the United States was named after the ancient Roman Senate. The chamber of the United States Senate is located in the north wing of the United States Capitol building, in Washington, D.C., the national capital. The House of Representatives convenes in the south wing of the same building. ==History== Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress was a unicameral body in which each state was equally represented. The inefficacy of the federal government under the Articles led Congress to summon a constitutional convention (political meeting) in 1787; all states except Rhode Island agreed to send delegates. Many delegates called for a second Congressional chamber, modeled on the House of Lords (the aristocratic upper house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom). For example, John Dickinson (lawyer) argued that the second chamber should "consist of the most distinguished characters, distinguished for their rank in life and their weight of property, and bearing as strong a likeness to the British House of Lords as possible." The structure of Congress was one of the most divisive issues facing the Convention. The Virginia Plan called for a bicameral Congress; the lower house would be elected directly by the people, and the upper house would be elected by the lower house. The Virginia Plan was primarily supported by the larger states, as it called for representation based on population in both Houses. The smaller states, however, favored the New Jersey Plan, which called for a unicameral Congress with equal representation for the states. Eventually, a compromise, known as the Connecticut Compromise or the Great Compromise, was reached; one house of Congress (the House of Representatives) would provide proportional representation, whereas the other (the Senate) would provide equal representation. In order to further preserve the authority of the states, it was provided that state legislatures, rather than the people, would elect senators. The Constitution was ratified by the requisite number of states (nine out of the 13) in 1788, but its full implementation was set for March 4, 1789. However, the Senate could not begin work until a majority of the members assembled on April 6 of the same year. The Founding Founders intended the Senate to be a more stable, deliberative body than the House of Representatives. James Madison described the Senate's purpose as "A necessary fence against...fickleness and passion". George Washington, in answer to a question by Thomas Jefferson, said "we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it (from the The House of Representatives)". The early 19th century was marked by the service of distinguished orators and statesmen such as Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, Henry Clay, Stephen Douglas and Thomas Hart Benton. The era, however, was also marred by sectional clashes between the free North and the slavery South. For most of the first half of the 19th century, a balance between North and South existed in the Senate, as the numbers of free and slave states were equal. Southern senators could often block schemes passed by the House of Representatives, a body dominated by the populous North. Sectional conflict was most pronounced over the issue of slavery, and persisted until the American Civil War (1861–1865). The war, which began soon after several southern states declared secession from the Union, culminated in the South's defeat and in the abolition of slavery. The ensuing years of Reconstruction witnessed large majorities for the United States Republican Party, which many Americans associated with the Union's victory in the Civil War. The efforts of "Radical Republicans" led to the impeachment of United States Democratic Party President Andrew Johnson in 1868 for political purposes; the trial ultimately ended in acquittal, with the Senate falling one vote short of the two-thirds majority requisite for conviction. Reconstruction ended in 1877, at approximately the same time as the Gilded Age began. This period was marked by sharp political divisions in the electorate; both the Democrats and the Republicans were in power in the Senate, but neither could obtain large majorities. At the same time the Senate descended into a period of irrelevance that stood in sharp contrast with the pre-Civil War era. Very few senators had long and distinguished careers, with most serving but for a single term. The corruption of state legislatures was also widespread; nine cases of bribery in Senate elections arose between 1866 and 1906. Many individuals, furthermore, perceived the Senate as a bastion of the rich and the élite. Several reformers of the Progressive Era pushed for the direct election of senators by the people, rather than state legislatures; they achieved their objective in 1913 with the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Amendment ultimately had the result of making senators more responsive to the concerns of voters. In the 1910s a Senate leadership structure developed, with Henry Cabot Lodge and John Worth Kern becoming the unofficial leaders of the Republican and Democratic parties, respectively. The Democrats appointed their first official leader, Oscar Underwood, in 1925; the Republicans followed with Charles Curtis in 1925. Initially, the powers of the leaders were very limited, and individual senators—especially the chairmen of important committees—still held more clout. The influence of the party leaders, however, would eventually grow, especially during the tenures of skilled leaders such as Lyndon B. Johnson. ==Members and elections== Article One of the Constitution stipulates that each state may elect two senators. The Constitution further stipulates that no constitutional amendment may deprive a state of its equal suffrage in the Senate without the consent of the state concerned. The District of Columbia and Incorporated territory are not entitled to any representation. As there are presently 50 states, the Senate comprises 100 members. The senator from each state with the longer tenure is known as the "senior senator," and his or her counterpart as the "junior senator"; this convention, however, does not have any special significance. Senators serve for terms of six years each; the terms are staggered so that approximately one-third of the Senate seats are up for election every two years. The staggering of the terms is arranged such that both seats from a given state are never contested in the same general election. Senate elections are held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, Election Day, and coincide with elections for the House of Representatives. Each senator is elected by his or her state as a whole. Generally, the Republican and Democratic parties choose their candidates in primary elections, which are typically held several months before the general elections. Ballot access rules for independent and third party candidates vary from state to state. For the general election, almost all states use the First Past the Post electoral system system, under which the candidate with a plurality of votes (not necessarily an absolute majority) wins. The sole exception is Louisiana, which uses runoff voting. Once elected, a senator continues to serve until the expiry of his or her term, death, or resignation. Furthermore, the Constitution permits the Senate to expel any member with a two-thirds majority. Fifteen members have been expelled in the history of the Senate; 14 of them were removed in 1861 and 1862 for supporting the Confederate States of America secession, which led to the American Civil War. No senator has been expelled since; however, many have chosen to resign when faced with expulsion proceedings (most recently, Bob Packwood in 1995). The Senate has also passed several resolutions censuring members; censure requires only a simple majority and does not remove a senator from office. The Seventeenth Amendment provides that vacancies in the Senate, however they arise, may be filled by special elections. A special election for a Senate seat need not be held immediately after the vacancy arises; instead, it is typically conducted at the same time as the next biennial congressional election. If a special election for one seat happens to coincide with a general election for the state's other seat, then the two elections are not combined, but are instead contested separately. A senator elected in a special election serves until the original six-year term expires, and not for a full term of his or her own. Furthermore, the Seventeenth Amendment provides that any state legislature may empower the Governor to temporarily fill vacancies. The interim appointee remains in office until the special election can be held. All states, with the sole exception of Arizona, have passed laws authorizing the Governor to make temporary appointments. Senators are entitled to prefix "The Honourable" to their names. The annual Salaries of United States Senators of each senator, as of 2005, is $162,100; the President pro tempore and party leaders receive larger amounts. Analysis of financial disclosure forms by CNN in June 2003 revealed that at least 40 of the then senators were millionaires. In general, senators are regarded as more important political figures than members of the House of Representatives because there are fewer of them, and because they serve for longer terms, represent larger constituencies (except for House at-large districts, which comprise entire states), sit on more committees, and have more staffers. The prestige commonly associated with the Senate is reflected by the background of presidents and presidential candidates; far more sitting senators have been nominees for the presidency than sitting representatives. ==Qualifications== Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution sets forth three qualifications for senators: each senator must be at least thirty years old, must have been a citizen of the United States for at least the past nine years, and must be (at the time of the election) an inhabitant of the state he or she represents. The age and citizenship qualifications for senators are more stringent than those for representatives. In Federalist No. 62, James Madison justified this arrangement by arguing that the "senatorial trust" called for a "greater extent of information and stability of character." Furthermore, under the Fourteenth Amendment, any federal or state officer who takes the requisite oath to support the Constitution, but later engages in rebellion or aids the enemies of the United States, is disqualified from becoming a senator. This provision, which came into force soon after the end of the Civil War, was intended to prevent those who sided with the Confederacy from serving. The Amendment, however, provides that a disqualified individual may still serve if two-thirds of both Houses of Congress vote to remove the disability. Under the Constitution, the Senate (not the courts) is empowered to judge if an individual is qualified to serve. During its early years, however, the Senate did not closely scrutinize the qualifications of members. As a result, three individuals that were Constitutionally disqualified due to age were admitted to the Senate: twenty-nine-year-old Henry Clay (1806), and twenty-eight-year-olds Armistead Mason (1816) and John Eaton (1818). Such an occurrence, however, has not been repeated since. In 1934, Rush D. Holt, Sr. was elected to the Senate at the age of twenty-nine; he waited until he turned thirty to take the oath of office. ==Officers== The political party with a majority of seats is known as the majority party; if two or more parties in opposition are tied, the Vice President's affiliation determines which is the majority party. Each party elects a senator to serve as floor leader, a position which entails acting as the party's chief spokesperson. The Majority Leader is, furthermore, responsible for controlling the agenda of the Senate; for example, he or she schedules debates and votes. Each party, furthermore, elects a Whip (politics) to assist the leader. A whip works to ensure that his or her party's senators vote as the party leadership desires. The Constitution provides that the Vice President of the United States serves as the President of the Senate and holds a casting vote. By convention, the Vice President presides over very few Senate debates, attending only on important ceremonial occasions (such as the swearing-in of new senators) or at times when his or her casting vote may be crucial. The Constitution also authorizes the Senate to elect a president pro tempore of the United States Senate (Latin for "temporary president") to preside in the Vice President's absence; the most senior senator of the majority party is customarily chosen to serve in this position. Like the Vice President, the president pro tempore does not normally preside over the Senate. Instead, he or she typically delegates the responsibility of presiding to junior senators of the majority party. Frequently, freshmen senators (newly-elected members) are allowed to preside so that they may become accustomed to the rules and procedures of the body. The presiding officer sits in a chair in the front of the Senate chamber. The powers of the presiding officer are extremely limited; he or she primarily acts as the Senate's mouthpiece, performing duties such as announcing the results of votes. The Senate's presiding officer controls debates by calling on members to speak; the rules of the Senate, however, compel him or her to recognize the first senator who rises. The presiding officer may rule on any "point of order" (a senator's objection that a rule has been breached), but the decision is subject to appeal to the whole house. Thus, the powers of the presiding officer of the senate are far less extensive than those of the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. The Senate is also served by several officials who are not members. The Senate's chief administrative officer is the Secretary of the Senate, who maintains public records, disburses salaries, monitors the acquisition of stationery and supplies, and oversees clerks. The Secretary is aided in his or her work by the Assistant Secretary of the Senate. Another official is the Serjeant-at-Arms, who, as the Senate's chief law enforcement officer, maintains order and security on the Senate premises. The Sergeant-at-Arms position has evolved; now the Capitol Police handle routine police work, while the Sergeant-at-Arms main deals with administrative oversight of technological services. ==Procedure== Like the House of Representatives, the Senate meets in the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. At one end of the Chamber of the Senate is a dais from which the president pro tempore presides. The lower tier of the dais is used by clerks and other officials. One hundred desks are arranged in the Chamber in a semicircular pattern; the desks are divided by a wide central aisle. By tradition, Democrats sit on the right of the center aisle, while Republicans sit on the left, as viewed from the presiding officer's chair. Each senator chooses a desk on the basis of seniority within his or her party; by custom, the leader of each party sits in the front row. Sittings are normally held on weekdays; meetings on Saturdays and Sundays are rare. Sittings of the Senate are generally open to the public and are broadcast live on television by C-SPAN. Senate procedure depends not only on the rules, but also on a variety of customs and traditions. In many cases, the Senate waives some of its stricter rules by unanimous consent. Unanimous consent agreements are typically negotiated beforehand by party leaders. Any senator may block such an agreement, but, in practice, objections are rare. The presiding officer enforces the rules of the Senate, and may warn members who deviate from them. The presiding officer often uses the gavel of the Senate to maintain order. The Constitution provides that a majority the Senate constitutes a quorum to do business. Under the rules and customs of the Senate, a quorum is always assumed to be present unless a quorum call explicitly demonstrates otherwise. Any senator may request a quorum call by "suggesting the absence of a quorum"; a clerk then calls the roll of the Senate and notes which members are present. In practice, senators almost always request quorum calls not to establish the presence of a quorum, but to temporarily delay proceedings. Such a delay may serve one of many purposes; often, it allows Senate leaders to negotiate compromises off the floor. Once the need for a delay has ended, any senator may request the presiding officer to rescind the quorum call. During debates, senators may only speak if called upon by the presiding officer. The presiding officer is, however, required to recognize the first senator who rises to speak. Thus, the presiding officer has little control over the course of debate. Customarily, the Majority Leader and Minority Leader are accorded priority during debates, even if another senator rises first. All speeches must be addressed to the presiding officer, using the words "Mr. President" or "Madam President." Only the presiding officer may be directly addressed in speeches; other Members must be referred to in the third person. In most cases, senators do not refer to each other by name, but by state, using forms such as "the senior senator from Virginia" or "the junior senator from California." There are very few restrictions on the content of speeches; there is no requirement that speeches be germane to the matter before the Senate. The rules of the Senate provide that no senator may make more than two speeches on a motion or bill on the same legislative day. (A legislative day begins when the Senate convenes and ends with adjournment; hence, it does not necessarily coincide with the calendar day.) The length of these speeches is not limited by the rules; thus, in most cases, senators may speak for as long as they please. Often, the Senate adopts unanimous consent agreements imposing time limits. In other cases (for example, for the Budget process), limits are imposed by statute. In general, however, the right to unlimited debate is preserved. The filibuster is a tactic used to defeat bills and motions by prolonging debate indefinitely. A filibuster may entail long speeches, dilatory motions, and an extensive series of proposed amendments. The longest filibuster speech in the history of the Senate was delivered by Strom Thurmond, who spoke for over twenty-four hours in an unsuccessful attempt to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957. The Senate may end a filibuster by invoking cloture. In most cases, cloture requires the support of three-fifths of the Senate; however, if the matter before the Senate involves changing the rules of the body, a two-thirds majority is required. Cloture is invoked very rarely, particularly because bipartisan support is usually necessary to obtain the required supermajority. If the Senate does invoke cloture, debate does not end immediately; instead, further debate is limited to one hundred hours. When debate concludes, the motion in question is put to a vote. In many cases, the Senate votes by voice vote; the presiding officer puts the question, and Members respond either "Aye" (in favor of the motion) or "No" (against the motion). The presiding officer then announces the result of the voice vote. Any senator, however, may challenge the presiding officer's assessment and request a recorded vote. The request may be granted only if it is seconded by one-fifth of the senators present. In practice, however, senators second requests for recorded votes as a matter of courtesy. When a recorded vote is held, the clerk calls the roll of the Senate in alphabetical order; each senator responds when his or her name is called. Senators who miss the roll call may still cast a vote as long as the recorded vote remains open. The vote is closed at the discretion of the presiding officer, but must remain open for a minimum of 15 minutes. If the vote is tied, the Vice President, if present, is entitled to a casting vote. If the Vice President is not present, however, the motion is resolved in the negative. ==Committees== [[Image:Dirksen226.jpg|thumb|300px|right|Dirksen Senate Building Committee Room 226 is used for hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee.]] The Senate uses committees (as well as their subcommittees) for a variety of purposes, including the review of bills and the oversight of the executive branch. The appointment of committee members is formally made by the whole Senate, but the choice of members is actually made by the political parties. Generally, each party honors the preferences of individual senators, giving priority on the basis of seniority. Each party is allocated seats on committees in proportion to its overall strength. Most committee work is performed by sixteen standing committees, each of which has jurisdiction over a specific field such as Finance or Foreign Relations. Each standing committee considers, amends, and reports bills that fall under its jurisdiction. Furthermore, each standing committee considers presidential nominations to offices related to its jurisdiction. (For instance, the Senate Judiciary Committee considers nominees for judgeships, and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee considers nominees for positions in the United States Department of State.) Committees have extensive powers with regard to bills and nominees; they may block either from reaching the floor of the Senate. Finally, standing committees also oversee the departments and agencies of the executive branch. In discharging their duties, standing committees have the power to hold hearings and to subpoena witnesses and evidence. The Senate also has several committees that are not considered standing committees. Such bodies are generally known as Select or special committee or Select or special committee; examples include the Select Committee on Ethics and the Special Committee on Aging. Legislation is referred to some of these committees, though the bulk of legislative work is performed by the standing committees. Committees may be established on an ''ad hoc'' basis for specific purposes; for instance, the Senate Watergate Committee was a special committee created to investigate the Watergate scandal. Such temporary committees cease to exist after fulfilling their tasks. Finally, the Congress includes joint committees, which include members of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Some joint committees oversee independent government bodies; for instance, the Joint Committee on the Library oversees the Library of Congress. Other joint committees serve to make advisory reports; for example, there exists a Joint Committee on Taxation. Bills and nominees are not referred to joint committees. Hence, the power of joint committees is considerably lower than those of standing committees. Each Senate committee and subcommittee is led by a chairman (always a member of the majority party). Formerly, committee chairmanship was determined purely by seniority; as a result, several elderly senators continued to serve as chairmen despite severe physical infirmity or even senility. Now, committee chairmen are in theory elected, but in practice, seniority is very rarely bypassed. The chairman's powers are extensive; he or she controls the committee's agenda, and may prevent the committee from approving a bill or presidential nomination. Modern committee chairmen are typically not forceful in exerting their influence, although there have been some exceptions. The second-highest member, the spokesperson on the committee for the minority party, is known in most cases the Ranking Member. In the Select Committee on Intelligence and the Select Committee on Ethics, however, the senior minority member is known as the Vice Chairman. ==Legislative functions== Most bills may be introduced in either House of Congress. However, the Constitution provides that "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." As a result, the Senate does not have the power to initiate bills imposing taxes. Furthermore, the House of Representatives holds that the Senate does not have the power to originate appropriation bills, or bills authorizing the expenditure of federal funds. Historically, the Senate has disputed the interpretation advocated by the House. However, whenever the Senate originates an appropriations bill, the House simply refuses to consider it, thereby settling the dispute in practice. The constitutional provision barring the Senate from introducing revenue bills is based on the practice of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, in which only the British House of Commons may originate such measures. Although it cannot originate revenue bills, the Senate retains the power to amend or reject them. The approval of both the Senate and the House of Representatives is required for any bill, including a revenue bill, to become law. Both Houses must pass the exact same version of the bill; if there are differences, they may be resolved by a conference committee, which includes members of both bodies. For the stages through which bills pass in the Senate, see Act of Congress. ==Checks and balances== The Constitution provides that the President can make certain appointments only with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. Officials whose appointments require the Senate's approval include members of the Cabinet, heads of federal executive agencies, ambassadors, Justices of the Supreme Court, and other federal judges. However, Congress may pass legislation to authorize the appointment of less important officials without the Senate's consent. Typically, a nominee is first subject to a hearing before a Senate committee. Committees may block nominees, but do so relatively infrequently. Thereafter, the nomination is considered by the full Senate. In a majority of the cases, nominees are confirmed; rejections of Cabinet nominees are especially rare (there have been only nine nominees rejected outright in the history of the United States). The powers of the Senate with respect to nominations are, however, subject to some constraints. For instance, the Constitution provides that the President may make an appointment during a congressional recess without the Senate's advice and consent. The recess appointment remains valid only temporarily; the office becomes vacant again at the end of the next congressional session. Nevertheless, Presidents have frequently used recess appointments to circumvent the possibility that the Senate may reject the nominee. Furthermore, as the Supreme Court held in ''Myers v. United States'', although the Senate's advice and consent is required for the appointment of certain executive branch officials, it is not necessary for their removal. The Senate also has a role in the process of ratifying treaties. The Constitution provides that the President may only ratify a treaty if two-thirds of the senators vote to grant advice and consent. However, not all international agreements are considered treaties, and therefore do not require the Senate's approval. Congress has passed laws authorizing the President to conclude executive agreements without action by the Senate. Similarly, the President may make congressional-executive agreements with the approval of a simple majority in each House of Congress, rather than a two-thirds majority in the Senate. Neither executive agreements nor congressional-executive agreements are mentioned in the Constitution, leading some to suggest that they unconstitutionally circumvent the treaty-ratification process. However, the validity of such agreements has been upheld by the courts. [[Image:3a05488v.jpg|thumb|300px|The Senate has the power to try impeachments. Shown above is the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson.]] [[Image:Senate in session.jpg|thumb|300px|The impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton was the second such trial; he was acquitted and found innocent of the charges against him.]] The Constitution empowers the House of Representatives to impeachment federal officials for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" and empowers the Senate to try such impeachments. If the sitting President of the United States is being tried, the Chief Justice of the United States must preside over the trial. During any impeachment trial, senators are constitutionally required to sit on oath or affirmation. Conviction requires a two-thirds majority of the senators present. A convicted official is automatically removed from office; in addition, the Senate may stipulate that the party be banned from holding office in the future. No further punishment is permitted during the impeachment proceedings; however, the party may face criminal penalties in a normal court of law. In the history of the United States, the House of Representatives has impeached sixteen officials, of whom seven were convicted. (One resigned before the Senate could complete the trial.) Only two Presidents of the United States have ever been impeached: Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1999. Both trials ended in acquittal; in Johnson's case, the Senate fell one vote short of the two-thirds majority required for conviction. Under the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Senate has the power to elect the Vice President if no vice presidential candidate receives a majority of votes in the United States Electoral College. The Twelfth Amendment requires the Senate to choose from the two candidates with the highest numbers of electoral votes. Electoral college deadlocks are very rare; in the history of the United States, the Senate has only had to break a deadlock once, in 1837, when it elected Richard Mentor Johnson. The power to elect the President in the case of an electoral college deadlock belongs to the House of Representatives. ==Current composition== *''Main article: List of United States Senators'' ''Current as of 3 January 2005.'' {| |- | colspan="2" rowspan="1" align="center" valign="top" | Affiliation | valign="top" | Members
|- |bgcolor="#CC0000"| | Republican Party (United States) | 55 |- |bgcolor="#3333CC"| | Democratic Party (United States) | 44 |- |bgcolor="#999999"| | Independent | 1 |- | colspan="2" rowspan="1" | Total
| 100 |} ==See also== *History of the United States Senate *Women in the United States Senate *Reconciliation (Senate) ==References== *Berman, Daniel M. (1964). ''In Congress Assembled: The Legislative Process in the National Government.'' London: The Macmillan Company. *Byrd, Robert C. (1989–1994). ''The Senate, 1789-1989: Addresses on the History of the United States.'' Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office. *''Congressional Quarterly's Guide to Congress'', 5th ed. (2000). Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press. *Story, Joseph. (1891). ''Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.'' (2 vols). Boston: Brown & Little. *[http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/626.htm] *[http://www.thisnation.com/question/037.html] ==External links== *[http://www.senate.gov The United States Senate. Official Website.] *[http://bioguide.congress.gov/biosearch/biosearch.asp ''Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, 1774 to Present''.] Legislative Branch of the United States Government National upper houses United States Senate
United States Senate
Are the two bodies of Congress in the U.S. really upper and lower? I didn't think there was such a distinction. User:Kingturtle 03:51 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC) :There isn't, but I had an unrelated question. How are committees named? Their official names are like, U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, but many people say, Senate Appropriations Committee, or something similar... neither has a page... User:Ugen64 00:15, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC) ==Committees== I have begun work on creating pages for the standing Senate committees. I am using the full name, as in U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services and U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. I am using these names because that's how they are named in the Senate Rules, and because that's how they were linked on the Senate page. It's been difficult finding histories of the various committees, so the work has been slow. I've been trying to include a brief history, the committee jurisdiction, and the current sitting members (including chairman and ranking Dem.) I've also included the subcommittees (even harder to find information on) and their chairs and ranking Dems. The two I linked above are the only ones I've done so far; the Appropriations committee has been started by someone else and I haven't looked at it yet. I'm working on the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs now. User:Friedo 17:04, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC) == Operation == I don't think a filibuster is the most significant element of the Senate's operations; at best this is a procedural oddity with some real political effects. Much more important are what it actually ''does''. --User:Delirium 06:14, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC) ==Political Color Coding?== On the article for the United States Senate Republicans are represented by red and Democrats by Blue. At the last presidential election, the map states being changed as votes came in shown on News bulletins followed this convention on some networks, but on others GOP was blue and Democrats were Red. The latter were predominantly BBC, SKY i.e. British whereas FOX and I think CNN i.e. Ameirican followed the former convention. In Britain Blue and Red are synonomous with Conservative and Labour; or right and left so perhaps that is the reason this method was used instead. Whilst as a non American I am likely to assume that Red for GOP and Blue for Dems is correct IS IT? or were the NEWS channels just selecting one colour for each for the sake of illustration which could just as easily been stripes and polkadots? User:Dainamo 15:54, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC) : Yes, in U.S. red for Republicans and blue for Democrats has become traditional. Accordingly, the center of the country is often called the "red states". No idea why nor when this was first adopted. Do we have an article discussing that? -- User:Jmabel 17:03, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC) ::There's Red state and Blue state, but I'm not sure they discuss the origin. Talk to an older political junkie than me. User:Meelar_
United States Senate
Legislative Branch of the United States Government
United States senate
#REDIRECT United States Senate
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
U
UA | UB | UC | UD | UE | UF | UG | UH | UI | UJ | UK | UL | UM | UN | UO | UP | UR | US | UT | UW | UX | UY | UZ |Words begining with United_States_Senate:
United_States_Senate
United_States_Senate
United_States_Senate
United_States_senate
United_States_Senate_Committee_on_Finance
United_States_Senate_Committee_on_the_Judiciary
United_States_Senate_Democratic_Conference_Chairman
United_States_Senate_Democratic_Policy_Committee_Chairman
United_States_Senate_Democratic_Whip
United_States_Senate_Finance_Committee
United_States_Senate_Majority_Leader
United_States_Senate_Majority_Whip
United_States_Senate_Minority_Leader
United_States_Senate_Minority_Whip
United_States_Senate_Republican_Conference_Chairman
United_States_Senate_Republican_Policy_Committee_Chairman
United_States_Senate_Republican_Whip
United_States_Senate_Select_Committee_on_Intelligence
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
