House GOP changed rules before shutdown to prevent Senate bill from easily returning

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
TheAristocat

TheAristocat

Senior Member
#2
Oct 4, 2011
2,150
26
0
#2
House Republicans acknowledge that under a rarely used rule, if the Senate rejects a motion to go to conference to work out differences between the House and Senate on legislation – as Senate Democrats did - any House Member may be able move to concur with the Senate amendment, meaning they could bring the Senate legislation to the floor of the House for a vote.
Click to expand...
House Republicans see the issue differently, saying that their rule change simply ensures that what they see as the Senate’s refusal to negotiate is not rewarded with control of the House floor.
Click to expand...
In other words the House wants their voice to be heard rather than just skipped over by the Democrats in the Senate. And there are Democrats in the House as well. At any rate, that's what I get from this. Some will say that they had ulterior motives; apparently that's your position. But from what I've heard the deal was ultimately a loss for the Republicans as the Democrats ended up coming out ahead in the compromise.

It's not that the Republicans have the authority to re-open the government - if that's even the end result that they were aiming for. The Republicans control a majority of the House, while the Democrats control a majority of the Senate. That's just how it worked out. In the future that may not be the case. But checks and balances are a good thing, no?
 
Last edited:
David_1

David_1

Banned
#3
Mar 21, 2011
1,515
16
0
#3
Checks and balances are good.

I'm just glad the terrorists lost this time.
 
SonInMe

SonInMe

Banned
#5
Mar 1, 2012
1,353
7
0
#5
Like our president and the democrat party NEVER do this stuff...LOL.

Investigate how Obama got the votes to pass Obamacouldcareless.
 
David_1

David_1

Banned
#8
Mar 21, 2011
1,515
16
0
#8
Ritter said:
Checks and balances are brilliant. So is civility. Show some.
Click to expand...
They threatened the world economy will collapse. They are un-Christian scum. Economic Terrorists.
 
Ritter

Ritter

Banned
#9
Jul 25, 2005
2,417
34
0
#9
David_1 said:
They threatened the world economy will collapse. They are un-Christian scum. Economic Terrorists.
Click to expand...
The way the world economy is run is unsustainable. It will be less sustainable if America continues into the dire sink of taxing and spending to support a bloated and ineffective bureaucratic state.

To call making that point (however weekly) is slanderous and cheapens the term of terrorism.

You have let your emotions attached to policy run away with your head.
 
wisebeardman

wisebeardman

Banned
#10
Mar 22, 2013
4,718
124
63
Indiana
#10
David_1 said:
They threatened the world economy will collapse. They are un-Christian scum. Economic Terrorists.
Click to expand...
the wold economy is going to collapse period. it dont matter who shut down the US gov. its going to collapse anyway.

but if you want to know who the real terrorists are in the US government look to the democrats. since the idiot in chief openly supports groups on the US State sponsor of terror list. and also supports those who both the US and UK are at war with.. (you know ol bin ladens group)
 
Elizabeth619

Elizabeth619

Senior Member
#11
Jul 19, 2011
6,397
109
48
#11
Great, Australians think Republicans are terrorists, and Obama and his Liberal goons think I am a terrorist because I am white, Christian, and southern....and republican.
 
G

Graybeard

Guest
#12
#12
Thank God I'm not American:cool:
 
posthuman

posthuman

Senior Member
#13
Jul 31, 2013
36,682
13,139
113
#13
TheAristocat said:
In other words the House wants their voice to be heard rather than just skipped over by the Democrats in the Senate.
Click to expand...
the house wanted a minority that couldn't win an open vote to be able to stop the collective voice of the house - in the form of a vote called by any house member - and thereby jeapordize the minority bloc that was holding the budget up & trying to make an end-run around the legislative process by winning concessions that had failed popular votes almost 50 times already.

at least that's what it sure looks like. they knew they probably wouldn't win a popular vote in the house, so they cut off the voice of the house as a whole so the voices of the Tea Party minority would be heard and no other voices in the house would be.

that's my take on it. now instead of the process written by the founders & set up to expidite a vote and resolution when two opposing parties held majorities in the respective branches of the congress, we have a system designed for a minority with leveraging power to prevent a senate compromise from coming to a vote. to make deadlock last as long as possible.

is that progress?
 
RickShafer

RickShafer

Banned
#15
Sep 8, 2012
4,367
58
0
#15
I love how someone living under the egis of the queen feels free to chastise a nation which had the fortitude to free itself from the bonds of monarchical rule.
- Oh yes, Australia is still a province of the empire on which the sun never set.

Truly classic.
 
Elizabeth619

Elizabeth619

Senior Member
#16
Jul 19, 2011
6,397
109
48
#16
RickShafer said:
I love how someone living under the egis of the queen feels free to chastise a nation which had the fortitude to free itself from the bonds of monarchical rule.
- Oh yes, Australia is still a province of the empire on which the sun never set.

Truly classic.
Click to expand...
What gets me is the politics in Australia is almost the exact opposite of what Americas is so I cant help but wonder if these American bashing Australians even understand what they are bashing. To the best of my understanding the Liberal Party of Australia is very similar to Americas Republican party. They are conservative, and the Australian Labor Party is similar to our Democratic party.

According to what I have studied the Labor Party is more supportive of socialism.
Tony Abbott, the PM is of the Liberal Party, and his views are more center-right.
 
posthuman

posthuman

Senior Member
#17
Jul 31, 2013
36,682
13,139
113
#17
TheAristocat said:
How is calling for a vote in the House cutting off the voice of the House?
Click to expand...
how is preventing any House member from calling for a vote on a Senate compromise "calling for a vote in the House" ?

go back and re-read what change the GOP made.
 
TheAristocat

TheAristocat

Senior Member
#18
Oct 4, 2011
2,150
26
0
#18
posthuman said:
how is preventing any House member from calling for a vote on a Senate compromise "calling for a vote in the House" ?

go back and re-read what change the GOP made.
Click to expand...
TheAristocat said:
House Republicans acknowledge that under a rarely used rule, if the Senate rejects a motion to go to conference to work out differences between the House and Senate on legislation – as Senate Democrats did - any House Member may be able move to concur with the Senate amendment, meaning they could bring the Senate legislation to the floor of the House for a vote.

House Republicans see the issue differently, saying that their rule change simply ensures that what they see as the Senate’s refusal to negotiate is not rewarded with control of the House floor.
Click to expand...
A piece of legislation goes to the House for a vote, after it passes the House (this is the House version of the legislation) it goes to the Senate, after it passes the Senate (this is the Senate version of the legislation now) it goes to a conference committee in which the House and Senate can work out their differences on the legislation. In a conference committee the legislation may change form due to changes in word choice or other modifications to please both chambers of Congress (this is the version of legislatioin that results in a compromise). After a conference committee the legislation goes to both chambers for another vote without any chance of amendment. This never happened, because the legislation never went to the conference committee (i.e. the final version would have been the Democrat-controlled Senate legislation). So if the legislation doesn't go to the conference committee after the House and Senate voted on it as in this case, then with this rule the Senate-version of the legislation can go back to the House for another vote. In which case the House could shoot it down.

So the Democrats were trying to pass a Democrat-version of the legislation that didn't consider the Republican House's version. With this rule the House can bring that Democrat-version to a vote in the House rather than the Democrat-controlled Senate-version going up for a simple yes/no vote without any chance of changing it. Given the House could still vote against the Senate-version in either case, but if the House wanted to pass the legislation (which they would want to do in order to lift the shut down) they wouldn't be able to change any part of it without this rule. And the Senate-version would be the final version that came out of the mess when the government started back up.

That's the way I understand it at least.
 
Last edited:
JesusChica1991

JesusChica1991

Banned
#19
May 9, 2012
1,514
25
0
#19
This thread has made me laugh. I wake up and get called a terrorist because I'm a republican who doesn't think that it's the government's job to be the church. I don't think "terrorist" means what you think it means lol.
 
TheAristocat

TheAristocat

Senior Member
#20
Oct 4, 2011
2,150
26
0
#20
TheAristocat said:
With this rule the House can bring that Democrat-version to a vote in the House rather than the Democrat-controlled Senate-version going up for a simple yes/no vote without any chance of changing it.
Click to expand...
If the House brought the Senate-version to a vote in the House they could shoot down the Senate amendments to it and it would go back to being the House-version. In which case the Senate would definitely want to compromise with the House by bringing it to the conference committee; otherwise the legislative process would come to a stand still. But if it didn't go to the conference committee in the first place and just went to both chambers for a vote - as would happen without this rule the House introduced - then it'd only be the Senate-version going up for a yes/no vote. And the House would have no say in the legislation except to shoot it down entirely and end up prolonging the shutdown in order to bring it to the conference committee and work out their differences (i.e. compromise).

Basically it seems the Senate was trying to force the House to accept the Senate version (with no chance of compromise) or else to prolong the shutdown and take flak from that.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.