How exactly is Obama the head of government when the house of representatives is majority republican?

How exactly is Obama the head of government when the house of representatives is majority republican?
The republicans have a leader in the house of representatives so he literally is the *head of government* but doesn't hold the title even though all new legislation comes from him?

Other urls found in this thread:

abc.net.au/news/2016-07-05/election-2016-new-senate-terms-explained/7571406
businessinsider.com.au/malcolm-turnbull-has-called-for-a-double-dissolution-election-for-july-2-2016-5
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

The speaker is essentially a moderator and the guy who presents shit at the house; hence the name. He also becomes president in the event that the current president and vice president are both unable hold office

Because the legislature isn't the entire government in the US. We have separation of powers.

the executive is not the legislature

the us government is not comparable, brit-successor pls

Executive orders, that's how Obama for example formed the "Antibiotics Task Force" to save antibiotics.

Because Congress doesn't sign laws into force, the President does.

then why Obama tries to push his own agenda and succeeds from time to time

you have weak separation of powers, basically giving the president a dictator stick he can swing from time to time
in effect laws are proposed and passed in the house of representatives just like a parliamentary system, republicans are the ones passing legislation in the US unless the democrats suck their dicks correct?

Wrong on a bunch of levels.

he can request a member of the house to introduce a bill and he can veto a bill

he cannot make them
incorrect

Lol, the executive branch is the weakest of the branches. Congress has the real power

No, the Supreme Court has the most power.

In America executive and legislative powers are separate, don't bother asking why it's fucking retarded and makes no sense

You need to remember that our government was set up by people afraid of government so it is designed to be slow, cumbersome, and difficult to consolidate power in any one branch.
Any law passed by both houses of congress needs the President's approval, or needs to pass with a 2/3 majority to override his veto.
The president has very limited powers and can't create laws, only act to enforce existing laws.

What's the difference between House of Representatives and the Senate? I mean, aside from the number of people.

house votes on the bills first and must pass them first before it goes to the senate

It's called checks and balances dipshit. It's a really, really simple concept.

The senate is made up of 2 senators from each state. The house is made up of 435 representatives and distributed to states based on population totals with each 10-year census.
Laws can be proposed in either chamber, but need to pass in both to be enacted.

The president can just go over the parliaments head with executive orders, and veto bills he doesn't like. If anything that makes it less secure against tyranny

It has less though if anything. Your executive can just choose to ignore the legislative

Any executive order is subject to review by the judiciary (third branch of government) and can be ruled to be outside the president's power to enact if it is ruled to be making law rather than enforcing law.

So Senate exists so that smaller states don't get screwed over by the bigger ones?

Exactly

Exactly

No, a bill can start in the Senate also.

House Reps serve 2-year terms and are from single member districts from their state. The number of reps a state has is roughly proportional to the size of its population.

Senators serve 6 year terms, with 1/3 of them being up for election every 2 years (ex: 33 on ballot in 2016, 33 in 2018, 34 in 2020). Each state gets 2 Senators regardless of population.

but Polish senate is a completely obsolete house that can only stall bills ineffectively

what's the difference

kind of

senators serve 6 year terms and looks out for the long run

representatives serve 2 year terms and looks for short gains

they are a part of the dual party power play

governors usually become senators and vice versa

That's not true you fucking idiot.

Senators represent entire states. Representatives represent only their single district.

Because Obama has the most power of any single politician in the government. The legislature is only one part of the government. They can keep Obama in check and vice versa.

>muh checks and balances

It's a real thing that gets used all the time.

The two legislative houses actually compete with each other in a fashion.
The senate views itself as the "upper" house even though there is no formal designation of superiority. Senators are expected to be better behaved and "wiser" than their counterparts in the House of Representatives. Its not a formal designation, but the culture of the two bodies is very distinct.
Very few presidents are elected from the ranks of the Representatives, but many presidents come from the ranks of Senators.

>They can keep Obama in check

How? What power does congress have over the president?

So, how does President's power compare to the Senate and the House?

The Legislative branch sets the government's budget despite what the president may want.
They also have the power to impeach the president if they feel his behavior is negligent (though that's more of an empty threat)

it's a memephrase coined so Americans can sleep at night, the same as "2nd amendment protects us from tyranny"

Power of the purse, control over treaties (in theory, not actuality), control over trade, etc. However, the president controls an immense bureaucracy and takes the lead in foreign policy (matters which the legislature often avoids), so the checks are less prominent than they should be.

The Senator actually has more power than the House. The Senate can ratify treaties while the House can't. The House can vote to impeach a President or government official, but the Senate is the one that gets to perform the trial, convict, and remove them from office.

The President has more administrative power. Congress has more lawmaking power.

The president can not make new laws. He can only act to enforce existing laws.
Much like a police officer can't make new laws, but enforces existing ones.
The president appoints judges (though the appointments are for life, so they are independent once appointed)
The president is commander of the armed forces, but only the Legislature can declare war.

It's something that literally gets implemented every single year you dumb Slav cunt.

funny that of all things you chose to insult my linguistic group

The judicial branch is evidence to the contrary.

they can impeach him and they can veto his veto

most of president's task is involved with his cabinet in regulating rules and laws

the senate and the house have special committees that looks out for different parts of the system

Funny that you talk about things you know fucking nothing about you post-communist shitstain.

The system doesn't work because separation of executive and legislative powers is entirely superfluous. Parliament is already divided in two so that anything proposed in the lower house is checked by the upper. Combining the two is just much more efficient and cuts unnecessary bureaucracy. Most importantly it helps prevent political deadlocks which constantly cripple the US.

Although to fix that they'd also have to get rid of laws allowing random dickheads to "filibuster"

Its not a perfect system by any means.
It is designed to be cumbersome and difficult to consolidate power in any one single branch.
With all its faults, it has worked out fairly well and we're stuck with it because changing it is nearly impossible by design.

you seem needlessly wound up

it's not like you giving a shit about politics affects in anyhow

filibuster is suppose to force a compromise
it is working as intended

You're talking about deadlocks when you just had a double dissolution. Hilarious.

Being able to initiate revenue bills is far more important than being yesmen to the president or holding an empty threat.

It's anti-democratic for 1 guy to stop passage of a law that has the support of everyone else.

No we haven't? Please don't talk about stuff you don't understand

That doesn't make any sense.

The House initiates all bills for raising revenue which grants them far more importance and strength than the Senate.

Yes, you fucking did.

abc.net.au/news/2016-07-05/election-2016-new-senate-terms-explained/7571406

> But, in the weekend's double dissolution election, all senators were up for a vote.

filibuster is actually not a law but simply a procedural rule adopted by the Senate. At any time, the Senate could do away with the filibuster rule, but they don't because both parties want to maintain it so they can use it when they are in the minority.

So how much legitimacy is there to people blaming the President for everything wrong that government did during his term?

And the Senate can change anything about the bill and throw it right back to the House because the same version has to pass both houses.

they can vote for closure of a filibuster at 60%
so no he can't just talk out of a vote, unless there are not enough senators to vote on a closure which usually happens

And it's democratic when Congress is able to override that veto.
>Please don't talk about stuff you don't understand
irony

businessinsider.com.au/malcolm-turnbull-has-called-for-a-double-dissolution-election-for-july-2-2016-5

But the House controls what is drawn up to begin with. The ball is in their court and the Senate has to play along.

quite a bit

the wars for example were not congressional actions

or the bills the president introduced, he cannot make them but he can get behind them

say the no one left behind bill by gwb, he didn't make it but it was his thing, people attribute it to him

Truthfully, very little.
The president actually has very little power to force things along. The role is more of a leader, planner, and coach.
The president can make speeches and ask for laws to be passed, but he has no power to make them other than persuading others to do it.

Some. Blaming the President for administrative stuff, like executive departments and agencies can be legitimate. Blaming the President for Congress not getting shit done or for the overall economy or whatever is bullshit.

If there's a significant majority, the filibuster can be stopped with a cloture. It's a fair system that allows for cooler heads to prevail.

And that is anti-democratic because?

Not after the first draft. The Senate can just demand their version of a bill be passed.

pooland BTFO

So why not just have somebody say they don't want something to pass instead of forcing them to talk for hours on end?

>quite a bit
>Truthfully, very little.
>Some.

I love living in a democracy.

You can (usually) blame presidents for
>foreign policy
>executive actions
>military affairs
>some legislation (executives can whisper in a congressman's ear and have some associated bills)

Not what was said you illiterate shit. You bitched about deadlocks and non-functioning government and you literally had to dissolve yours because it wasn't doing anything. Don't whine about dysfunction when you have the same problem.

And the House has the luxury of refusing and drawing up a different bill. As I said, the ball is in their court.

Only on the first draft and only on spending. Literally that simple.

>The Legislative branch sets the government's budget despite what the president may want.

So why did the Republicans freak out about the Government shutdown a year ago and blame Obama? From what your saying, it sounds like it was their fault for setting the budget to go above the debt limit and then not approving a raise in the debt limit.....they controlled congress at the time, right?

bills needs to be voted after they are introduced
if you filibuster there is a timed out, it's just easier

>only on the first draft
They could just kill the bill and draw up another one if they feel like it. The Senate doesn't have that luxury.
>only on spending
Oh right, spending's not important at all, my bad.
Literally that simple.

>You bitched about deadlocks and non-functioning government and you literally had to dissolve yours because it wasn't doing anything

The double dissolution solves the issue though, so what's your point? A government deadlock would not be easily fixed like that in the US

It was their fault. The public overwhelmingly blamed them for it (which was objectively correct).

No I'm saying why make them talk for hours, instead they could just say "I'm going to filibuster this",

Military action is a tricky one.
Technically, the President can order troops into action, but only congress can decide to pay anything above costs already approved by budget. Technically, if congress did not approve of the use of force by the military, they could choose to not pay any additional money required to keep the operation going.

Drawing up another bill does nothing at all if the Senate rejects it. Having the "first move" has no serious advantage when the exact same version of a bill has to pass both houses. It can be an infinite stalemate and neither house has the power to break it.

It doesn't at all guarantee that it gets solved.

because it is still a parliamentary debate and most of the time they only filibuster when not all of the senators are present

That's a really good question, and you can see by the varied responses it isn't an easy one to answer. It all depends on how much non-direct influence people think he has over the legislative process. Some think he has a lot, and thus blame him for the issues in congress. Some think he has very little, and don't blame as much.

Think of it this way..
the president is responsible for enforcing laws, including food safety laws. So he says he's hired 5 people to do meat inspection. Congress thinks that's too much and they refuse to pay for 5 people.
The president says, "hey, we already have five people doing meat inspection, they need to get paid".
Congress says, "fuck you, no one's getting paid, you don't need five people to do that. You should only hire 3 people."
Then its a contest of wills to see who gives in first.
Hope that cleared it up.

Everyone in the US pretty much blamed congress. The only sane way to put blame on Obama for that type of shit is that he has done an incredibly poor job of fostering a climate of cooperation between the two parties. He'll claim the Dems supported bipartisan measures, but really all they did was make their bills as usual and put them to vote and say "The Republicans blocked it."

In order to form government in Australia the Governor General has to recognize a party has the stability to control the country. In effect this mean they need to have enough of a majority in parliament to pass at least supply and confidence. Otherwise the government is dissolved and another election is held. This continues until a party has enough of a large enough to majority to control the government effectively.

who the hell passed obongo care if the house is republican majority?

There wasn't a Republican majority at the time. The Democratic party had the majority in the Senate.

Both the House and Senate were controlled by Democrats at the time

so can't republicans repeal this shit now then and repeal welfare too?

No, because the President can just veto the repeal bill (and has on several occasions) and Republicans can't get the votes to override him.

How often do you have independents in the Congress?

PPACA replaced medicare and medicaid
if the repeal it they will have to introduce something else, lots of work

In order to really move shit along, you need 1 party to control both houses of Congress and the Presidency simultaneously.

>we're stuck with it because changing it is nearly impossible by design.
Unless you go with extra-systemic means, which a lot of founding fathers and their contemporaries advocated keeping as a back pocket.

There's never been a a speaker who became president, whenever voted as one after or inherrited, has there?