The Real Mitt Romney

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by Adak

WHAT?? The legislative branch of the federal government is NOT RELEVANT to the actual process of legislation??

Thanks for the laughs.

Nice pivot, son.

Re-read my statement:

Don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing about needing a "Conservative House of Rep. and Senate" to "help" anybody, nor is that relevant to the actual process of legislation.

Allow me to rephrase it since you completely missed the point. Twice.

The political leanings of the members of the House and Senate have nothing to do with the actual process of legislation.




$5 says my words get spun again.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

Nice pivot, son.

Allow me to rephrase it since you completely missed the point. Twice.
The political leanings of the members of the House and Senate have nothing to do with the actual process of legislation.

$5 says my words get spun again.

Well, I'm retired, so I'm probably not your "son", but you've skipped a few Poli Sci or Civics classes, somewhere along the way.

The President signs the bills, and he requests bills (as FDR famously did right after Pearl Harbor, in his "date that shall live in infamy" speech to Congress). But the House and the Senate must pass bills, BEFORE they ever reach the President and can be signed into law by him (or not).

So it's takes both the House and Senate, and usually the President (unless the Congress overrides his veto), to pass a bill, and enact it as a law.

Are you referring to the attorneys who write the bills? That's called "authoring", not legislating.

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by Adak

Well, I'm retired, so I'm probably not your "son", but you've skipped a few Poli Sci or Civics classes, somewhere along the way.

The President signs the bills, and he requests bills (as FDR famously did right after Pearl Harbor, in his "date that shall live in infamy" speech to Congress). But the House and the Senate must pass bills, BEFORE they ever reach the President and can be signed into law by him (or not).

So it's takes both the House and Senate, and usually the President (unless the Congress overrides his veto), to pass a bill, and enact it as a law.

Are you referring to the attorneys who write the bills? That's called "authoring", not legislating.

Nah, if I had a son, he'd be more forthright. And no, you're wrong again. I had to slog through Civics classes in high school. And I'm still technically correct. The President does request bills, this is correct. The Presidential office is one of several places bills can come from. That is just a request, borne of an idea. Sure, the request will be written down but that in itself is not the bill. Later on, he can speak with House and Senate members/leaders to get them to pass it, champion the cause. All of the actual making, creating, AUTHORING is done by Congress. After the bill is made, written, debated, revised, rewritten, re-debated and passed (if it does), then and only then does it go back to the President for any tangible action, the signing.

This is starting to get into word usage and similar semantics so... potato, potahto.

And just out of curiosity, exactly how many Civics and Poli-Sci classes have you taken to be so impliedly qualified to speak on legislative processes? I wasn't aware there was a required number. How many does one need to take? Is there a certification?

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

Nah, if I had a son, he'd be more forthright. And no, you're wrong again. I had to slog through Civics classes in high school. And I'm still technically correct. The President does request bills, this is correct.

Correct is as I stated, the President MAY request bills.

The Presidential office is one of several places bills can come from. That is just a request, borne of an idea. Sure, the request will be written down but that in itself is not the bill. Later on, he can speak with House and Senate members/leaders to get them to pass it, champion the cause. All of the actual making, creating, AUTHORING is done by Congress. After the bill is made, written, debated, revised, rewritten, re-debated and passed (if it does), then and only then does it go back to the President for any tangible action, the signing.

This is starting to get into word usage and similar semantics so... potato, potahto.

Yes, and you've come around nicely. The above is correct.

And just out of curiosity, exactly how many Civics and Poli-Sci classes have you taken to be so impliedly qualified to speak on legislative processes? I wasn't aware there was a required number. How many does one need to take? Is there a certification?

I'm not sure. You had to take at least one class in junior high, and a World History class in 10th grade (iirc). I'm not sure what you needed beyond that to graduate from high school, because I went into advanced courses offered from the college, while a Senior in high school. That's where I took Poli Sci.

The hard part was getting papers typed. High school didn't require that, and I didn't have a typewriter. Finally got an old manual one.

I had all A's in history classes, but this was the best in a large high school of 3,500 students, so everybody in there was REALLY smart. Most were smarter than I was, getting A's in every subject. Our instructor was a Marine Major, who was seriously smart.

He used to joke when the smartest guys were out of the class, that he should mark their papers down to a 'B', and we could watch them melt into a little spot of grease on their desk. It was funny the way he told it, but of course, he never did it.

I remember Paul Hall was perhaps the smartest student in the class, but he loved to "debate" (argue). Finally he went overboard with it, and was kicked out of the class for arguing with the instructor. What was the instructor saying that he had to argue against? That millions of people died in WWII!! We were stunned, I can tell you.

Days gone by.

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by Adak

Yes, and you've come around nicely.

Yes, you indeed have, especially since I haven't changed what I was saying at all, just how I said it. That seemed to work for you. Cheers, I guess.

I'm not sure. You had to take at least one class in junior high, and a World History class in 10th grade (iirc). I'm not sure what you needed beyond that to graduate from high school, because I went into advanced courses offered from the college, while a Senior in high school. That's where I took Poli Sci.

The hard part was getting papers typed. High school didn't require that, and I didn't have a typewriter. Finally got an old manual one.

I had all A's in history classes, but this was the best in a large high school of 3,500 students, so everybody in there was REALLY smart. Most were smarter than I was, getting A's in every subject. Our instructor was a Marine Major, who was seriously smart.

He used to joke when the smartest guys were out of the class, that he should mark their papers down to a 'B', and we could watch them melt into a little spot of grease on their desk. It was funny the way he told it, but of course, he never did it.

I remember Paul Hall was perhaps the smartest student in the class, but he loved to "debate" (argue). Finally he went overboard with it, and was kicked out of the class for arguing with the instructor. What was the instructor saying that he had to argue against? That millions of people died in WWII!! We were stunned, I can tell you.

Days gone by.

Interesting in it's way, and I'm sure civics curricula vary from public vs private school and where the schools are, not to mention my high school and college years were in a very different era than yours, Retired. And when you mention history, I assume you mean specifically American history, not world history or ancient history or similar. But it given that, it seems plenty of pundits, marketing ad writers and bumper-sticker writers never got even a single civics class, considering how they insist the President is the be-all-end-all on policy-making and whether or not an idea becomes law is all down to him.


Of course, if they did, then the one-line zingers wouldn't be as marketable.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

Yes, you indeed have, especially since I haven't changed what I was saying at all, just how I said it. That seemed to work for you. Cheers, I guess.
Interesting in it's way, and I'm sure civics curricula vary from public vs private school and where the schools are, not to mention my high school and college years were in a very different era than yours, Retired. And when you mention history, I assume you mean specifically American history, not world history or ancient history or similar.

Originally Posted by Adak

Retired. (also).

World History class in 10th grade (iirc).

They are quite complete. More to learn than you can possibly remember, but a great class. This was in the pre bilingual public school teaching era. Now the students learn about half as much, and are basically dumb as dirt, unless they attend private school or are home taught. I'm sure some learn a lot on the internet.

But it given that, it seems plenty of pundits, marketing ad writers and bumper-sticker writers never got even a single civics class, considering how they insist the President is the be-all-end-all on policy-making and whether or not an idea becomes law is all down to him.

Yes, the President is a focus for things he has little to do with, at times. Sells more bumper stickers, gets higher ratings on the news, etc.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Cyber Wolf

Yes, you indeed have, especially since I haven't changed what I was saying at all, just how I said it. That seemed to work for you. Cheers, I guess.

One more time:

Your post in #363:

"Don't put words in my mouth. I said nothing about needing a "Conservative House of Rep. and Senate" to "help" anybody, nor is that relevant to the actual process of legislation."

Is incorrect.

The way it works is, congress can pass a law if it can break a Presidents veto, by getting a 2/3rds approval, in both the House of Rep. and the Senate.

It can pass a bill up to the President, despite opposition, if it has enough votes to break the opposition's filabuster, or if it can wear down the filabuster. That requires 60% of the Senators voting to stop the debate on the bill. Since a filabuster can done in different ways, what is needed to beat it may take different measures.

Without opposition, Congress can pass a bill up to the President if they have a majority who vote for it. On a tie vote only, the Vice President will cast the deciding vote.


Your post in #389:

"The political leanings of the members of the House and Senate have nothing to do with the actual process of legislation."

That's incorrect, obviously.

Some references are here, others you'll have to Google for:

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/ref...s/glossary.htm

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by Adak

One more time:

The way it works is, congress can pass a law if it can break a Presidents veto, by getting a 2/3rds approval, in both the House of Rep. and the Senate.

Correct, and as you state, still not done by the President. No direct action taken by the President. Next...

It can pass a bill up to the President, despite opposition, if it has enough votes to break the opposition's filabuster, or if it can wear down the filabuster. That requires 60% of the Senators voting to stop the debate on the bill. Since a filabuster can done in different ways, what is needed to beat it may take different measures.

Very good, and again, as you state, still not done by the President. No direct action taken by the President. Next...

Without opposition, Congress can pass a bill up to the President if they have a majority who vote for it. On a tie vote only, the Vice President will cast the deciding vote.

Full marks, and once again, as you state, still not done by the President. No direct action taken by the President. Next...

Your post in #389:

That's incorrect, obviously.

Some references are here, others you'll have to Google for:

That's a webpage full of glossary terms. I'm seeing a whole lot about what the House does and what the Senate does, and a whole lot about term definition, such as what 'adjournment sine die' means. (Thanks by the way, that was a new term for me.) Fascinating. Do let me know if I missed it, but I'm still not seeing a term that defines how the office of the President has the ability to change the actual process laid out in Article 1, Sections 1 and 2 and further defined in the 17th, 20th and 25th Amendments because he's Conservative or Liberal or Insert-Label-Here. Considering the official guidelines for the creation of laws in this country, my statement is correct.

QED, the Office of President and what color his sign has on it has no direct effect on the process until the bill comes to him to sign, because that is his prescribed role. He can indirectly affect it as a champion and cheerleader; he talk to people and flex Executive Muscle, such as it is. He can go to Senator X's office, or House Leader Y's office and have a nice chat. And that might change some minds and a bill might sail through or get voted down because of it. He can sign it or send it back and say 'Do it again!' But he's not the one actually doing it. Therefore, anything he wants to do or have done must get past the 535 first. If most of the 535 like his plan, it'll be fairly easy; if most don't, it can be tough going; if most don't give a whatsit, then who knows. His political leanings do not supersede the 535 in the process. When it comes to passed laws, he can say "I had this done." He can not say "I did this."


And it is possible to talk about political process without being partisan. Jus' sayin'.