For those understanding how Congress

Texshooter · Apr 18, 2013

works.

Peter King (R - NY) said he would next week introduce something very similar to Toomey-Manchin in the House.

Playing theatre of the mind, if something did pass (which I don't think it would) would it then go back to Senate?

Or do all laws have to originate in the Senate first?

Just curious.

rookorami · Apr 18, 2013

Bill can be introduce in the House or Senate but must pass both in order to be sent to be signed or vetoed by the POTUS.

http://www.lexisnexis.com/help/CU/The_Legislative_Process/bill2law.gif

Diamondback6 · Apr 19, 2013

Peter King needs an opponent in the 2014 Primary Election.

JRH6856 · Apr 19, 2013

Simple summary:

All spending bills (bills that actually authorize spending as opposed to budget bills which propose spending) must originate in the House. Other than than that, bills can originate in either house and must pass both houses in final form in order to be sent to POTUS for signature.

Once a bill passes the house of origin, it goes to the other house where it may pass as is, be modified by amendment, or die in committee or because the Speaker chooses not to allow action.

If modified and passed, the bill then goes to a joint committee to iron out the differences between the two versions. The committee version is then submitted to both houses for an up or down vote.

After passing both houses, the bill is sent to POTUS who either signs it into law, fails to sign, or vetoes the bill. If vetoed, a 2/3 majority vote in both houses is required to override the veto. If POTUS fails to sign within 10 days, the bill becomes law unless the congressional term expires before the 10 days is up. If this occurs, the bill does not become law (this is called a pocket veto).

Texshooter · Apr 19, 2013

JRH6856 said:
Simple summary:

All spending bills (bills that actually authorize spending as opposed to budget bills which propose spending) must originate in the House. Other than than that, bills can originate in either house and must pass both houses in final form in order to be sent to POTUS for signature.

Once a bill passes the house of origin, it goes to the other house where it may pass as is, be modified by amendment, or die in committee or because the Speaker chooses not to allow action.

If modified and passed, the bill then goes to a joint committee to iron out the differences between the two versions. The committee version is then submitted to both houses for an up or down vote.

After passing both houses, the bill is sent to POTUS who either signs it into law, fails to sign, or vetoes the bill. If vetoed, a 2/3 majority vote in both houses is required to override the veto. If POTUS fails to sign within 10 days, the bill becomes law unless the congressional term expires before the 10 days is up. If this occurs, the bill does not become law (this is called a pocket veto).

Thank you for that explanation.

Civics classes were a LOOOONg time ago for me.

DsbJax · Apr 19, 2013

This was introduced in the Senate because this is where they felt it had the better chance of passing. There was no hope of this ever becoming law because they knew that the House would not go along with it. After the House shot it down it was to be used as a club in the 2014 elections in hopes of getting the House/Senate/Presidency all in the hands of the Democrats. This was the reason for the President’s temper tantrum the other day, he had no hopes of it becoming law but now he may have lost a chance to flip the House.

Bartholomew Roberts · Apr 19, 2013

Part of the overall strategy here was to get a bill through the Senate, blame the House for blocking gun control, and use the issue for fundraising/effort to win House majority in 2014. So the companion bill was ready to go in the House with the expectation Toomey-Manchin would pass the Senate.

Last I had read, the House had agreed to consider any legislation passed by the Senate; but House Judiciary Chairman has repeatedly said that no gun control originating in the House is leaving his conmittee. So until something passes in the Senate, I do not expect the House to take up gun control.

Dframe · Apr 19, 2013

It is MY belief that the administration wanted this to pass the senate and then die in the house, which would give obama the "Wedge Issue" he so desparatly wants in order to take back the house in 14. BLAME the Republicans!! This put a serious kink in his socilaist plans because Democrats control the senate, and THEY rejected him. Should the house go Democrat in 14, they'll go FLAT OUT to pass as much socilist garbage as they can, before obama is finally out of office

abajaj11 · Apr 19, 2013

DsbJax said:
This was introduced in the Senate because this is where they felt it had the better chance of passing. There was no hope of this ever becoming law because they knew that the House would not go along with it. After the House shot it down it was to be used as a club in the 2014 elections in hopes of getting the House/Senate/Presidency all in the hands of the Democrats. This was the reason for the President’s temper tantrum the other day, he had no hopes of it becoming law but now he may have lost a chance to flip the House.

Good analysis! Another reason to add to the temper tantrum may have been that the terrorist attacks in Boston took attention away from the anti 2A rhetoric when they thought they had momentum!

JRH6856 · Apr 19, 2013

Obama's initial desire was to not address gun control at all until after 2014. The plan was to hammer the House over the budget and tax gridlock and immigration, and try to flip the House in 2014 on those issues. Then with control of both houses and the prospect of at least 1 SCOTUS appointment before his term ends, Gun control would be his legacy.

When Sandy Hook occurred, DiFi slipped the leash and introduced her AWB 2013, and others jumped on the bandwagon. Obama was not happy and made Biden the point man for the administration. Since DiFi had opened the dance in the Senate, they worked out the strategy outlined above in #6,7,8. to try and salvage something.

clutch · Apr 19, 2013

Diamondback6 said:
Peter King needs an opponent in the 2014 Primary Election.

And if NY comes up with a pro second candidate, even a dem, I'll send money to support the candidate. I'd rather have a good Democrat in office than an bad republican.

Diamondback6 · Apr 20, 2013

Don't forget, King Peter the Mediocre was also one of the architects and chief enablers of Amerikanische Staatssicherheitsdienst...

joeschmoe · Apr 20, 2013

Another reason for the tantrum is they needed it to allow debate in the house which would give the loud mouthed Rep's a chance to give emotional speeches on CSPAN. Which would make great TV now and at election time. The Senators did not have the same opportunity as part of the compromise to limit debate and voting times.

It's all just theater.

Carne Frio · Apr 20, 2013

For some perspective on congress; congress
is a term that some use to describe a troop of
baboons.http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=a congress of baboons

For those understanding how Congress

Texshooter

Member

rookorami

Member

Diamondback6

Member

JRH6856

Member

Texshooter

Member

DsbJax

Member

Bartholomew Roberts

Member

Dframe

Member

abajaj11

Member

JRH6856

Member

clutch

Contributing Member

Diamondback6

Member

joeschmoe

Member

Carne Frio

Member

Similar threads