Comparing the Emplementation and Scrutinizing of Proposed Bills in the House of Commons and Congress
This essay will examine how two institutions, namely the House of
Commons and Congress, which are supposed to serve the same process,
differ widely in the way they implement and scrutinise proposed bills.
The essay will examine the relationship between the legislature and
the executive; the importance of the party; and the constitutional
arrangements which give each legislature very different
characteristics.
The French philosopher Montesquieu said that there could be no
democracy unless the three branches of government, legislature,
judiciary and executive, were separate bodies, which acted as checks
upon each other; preventing concentration of power in one branch.
Alexander Hamilton, one of the Founding Fathers of the US
constitution, shared Montesquieu's opinion and famously said that
"[we] must counter ambition with ambition" . As a result the US
constitution contains a system of separation of powers, designed, at
least in theory, to ensure democracy through equally powerful branches
of government. The term 'gridlock' refers to a situation where
legislative decisions are effectively halted because there is so much
contention and too many interests to satisfy. The separation of powers
creates a situation were gridlock is becoming increasingly common.
The Congress is a bi-cameral legislature consisting of the House of
Representatives (435 members) and the Senate (100 members). Congress
has profited from a division of labour through the creation of
Congressional Committees. These Committees are where the real
decisions are mad...
... middle of paper ...
...mental institutional changes would have
been much harder to achieve in the US, because so many interests would
have to be considered.
In conclusion, it can be seen that both institutions have positive and
negative aspects with their approaches to the legislative function of
government. However, it is unfair to say that the HoC is any less
effective at scrutinising the government than the Congress. The real
answer is that both institutions place an emphasis on different areas
of the legislative process; the Congress placing much emphasis on
scrutiny; whilst the HoC places more emphasis on effective delivery of
policy. The result is two institutions which go a long way to ensuring
democracy, but will only ever be truly effective at all aspects of the
legislative process if they synthesise their good qualities together.
and bills that set clear rules and laws to appeal to both sides. The most
then prepares its reports. If a change to the law is decided on then a
First, in the long process of a bill becoming a law is introducing a bill. After someone from Congress in either chamber has come up with an idea for a bill they must introduce it. For members of the House of Representatives this is easy. All they have to do is put their idea in a mahogany box at the front of the chamber called the hopper. Now for a Senator to introduce a bill they must either hand it to the clerk of the Senate or they must talk about it in a presentation to their peers in a floor speech. Sometimes though Senators can cut down this process by adding their bill as an amendment to legislation that is already being processed. This saves them a lot of time. Also, new ideas for bills are labeled depending on what chamber they come from. Bills from the house will always be labeled with an H.R. with its number behind it. Well bills from the Senate will always be labeled with an S. followed by its number.
The procedure for approving a bill and making it a law involves many steps. The following description is a short summary from “How Our Laws are Made”, an in depth description of the legislative process that can found on the website of the Library of Congress. After a bill is drafted, a member...
In light of the recent Senate scandal, the public’s attention has been directed to the government’s credibility and its members’ discipline again. Mike Duffy’s 90,000 dollars scandal has put the Canadian government’s party discipline into the spotlight. While it is well-known amongst general public, there are other similar incentives and disincentives shared between the Members of the Parliament (MPs) and senators in keeping them disciplined, as well as some different ones that set them apart. In this essay, I am going to analyze the main levers of party discipline in the House of Commons and the Senate for their effectiveness. By comparing the similarities and differences, I will explain for the motivations behind the Senate, even if they have seemingly fewer incentives than the MPs, such as free of worrying about being re-elected.
In terms of scrutinizing the executive and actions of government, the House of Commons has a number of opportunities at its disposal, mainly in the form of debates and questions. The Commons is notorious for its constant debate; the Commons can express its views on foreign policy and international crisis, for example the 1956 debates of the Suez crisis and the emergency debate on the Falklands following the Argentinean invasion in 1982. Question time is also a very important example of an opportunity for the executive’s actions and plans to be publicly questioned as the meeting is now frequently featured on TV news and politics analysis programmes. This allows Her Majesty’s Royal Opposition to challenge the exec...
David Doherty, “Legislatures”. In William Cross, eds., Auditing Canadian Democracy, 10th ed. (Vancouver: UBC Press, 2010)
Otto von Bismarck once said, “Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.” The arduous process that a bill undergoes in order to become a law may seem grueling and pointless; however, the processes high caliber of difficulty allows for the extreme prestige and exclusivity of bills that are passed. Because the process is so exhausting, and filibusters, subsequently requiring a super-majority vote to pass a bill, have always been such a threat in Congress, historically, bills that attempt to reform sensitive issues have not fared well in the legislative branch. However, when Congress does pass controversial laws, it then also faces the task of effectively enforcing them. But, when the process is carried out to completion, laws that are enforced have significant impacts on the everyday lives of the American people—such as laws concerning abortion rights. In the United States, the government and Congress have significantly affected the rights of women with regard to abortions through laws that either restrict or guarantee their legality and availability, while the government’s capacity to do so is affected by the principle of federalism along with that of the separation of powers.
Today, there is a major issue about Parliament related to Senate. The Senate usually examine bills to make sure that they are the most benefitting choice. They are also in charge of protecting the rights and interests of Canadians. As a result, Senate can be referred as a "sober second thought." However, a large number of Canadians disagree this and think that Senate should be abolished. Certainly, Senate is the useless system which rather affects society in a negative way. This is because the Senate costs lots of money, it is unfair system and the Senators do not perform any significant actions.
Throughout history, there have been many factors that seem to have influenced the operations of Congress. Some of these factors have been the committee system, seniority, and political parties. These are only a few of the factors that actually have an influence on Congress’s decisions of certain operations.
Despite American author Mark Twain’s insistence that the members of Congress are idiots, the legislative body of the United States of America holds quite a bit of power. Although the powers of Congress, as granted to them in the Constitution of the United States, have remained the same, the importance placed on those powers has changed overtime, lessening for some, and rising for others.
Stilborn, Jack. Senate Reform: Issues and Recent Developments. Ottawa: Parliamentary Information and Research Service, 2008.
This essay will discuss the process of scrutinising Parliamentary Bills in the United Kingdom and the extent to which this process has been effective throughout the years.
legislation being passed or not. Scholars recognize this power and recognize that it can make a big
The next stage is Committee of the whole where the bill can be debated by members informally. Each clause is scrutinised and amendments are made. The proposing minister is quizzed about the bill and a vote takes place however if an agreement was obtained in the second reading then this stage is not needed.