Deleted member 109224
Article I of the Constitution requires bicameralism (passage by the House and Senate) and Presentment (approval by the president) to pass legislation in the United States. But Article I also allows the two Chambers to come up with their own rules and procedures.
In the early 20th Century there was much frustration with the Senate, and this in part resulted in the 17th Amendment and Direct Election of Senators. The 17th Amendment passed in large part because the Senate noticed that a sufficient amount of states were about to call for an Article V Constitutional Convention on the issue of Direct Election to the United States Senate, so the Senate had the 17th Amendment put through to avoid the uncertainties of what might come out of an Article V Convention.
Around the same time in the United Kingdom, which itself ostensibly requires bicameralism to pass legislation, took away the House of Lords's veto power - effectively making most legislation unicameral. [Yes I am oversimplifying].
What if the Senate, under its own rules, adjusted itself in a similar manner such that all bills passed by the House (with some exceptions, like reform of the judiciary or state-specific concerns like voting, for example, due to Jim Crow) of a variety of sorts were presumptively approved by the Senate? The Senate would still be in charge of constitutionally assigned exclusive functions (confirmations, etc.) but the bulk of legislating in practice would be done by the House and rubber stamped by the Senate. I'm guessing the Senate would build in an exception such as the presumption being overturned if 2/3 of the body says so or if the leaders of the majority and minority caucuses agree to deny the presumption on a particular bill.
Legislation thus would be a debate between the House and the President, with the Senate being a somewhat elite body focused on oversight of the Executive. Could such a thing have gotten through? What would have been the impact of this?
In the early 20th Century there was much frustration with the Senate, and this in part resulted in the 17th Amendment and Direct Election of Senators. The 17th Amendment passed in large part because the Senate noticed that a sufficient amount of states were about to call for an Article V Constitutional Convention on the issue of Direct Election to the United States Senate, so the Senate had the 17th Amendment put through to avoid the uncertainties of what might come out of an Article V Convention.
Around the same time in the United Kingdom, which itself ostensibly requires bicameralism to pass legislation, took away the House of Lords's veto power - effectively making most legislation unicameral. [Yes I am oversimplifying].
What if the Senate, under its own rules, adjusted itself in a similar manner such that all bills passed by the House (with some exceptions, like reform of the judiciary or state-specific concerns like voting, for example, due to Jim Crow) of a variety of sorts were presumptively approved by the Senate? The Senate would still be in charge of constitutionally assigned exclusive functions (confirmations, etc.) but the bulk of legislating in practice would be done by the House and rubber stamped by the Senate. I'm guessing the Senate would build in an exception such as the presumption being overturned if 2/3 of the body says so or if the leaders of the majority and minority caucuses agree to deny the presumption on a particular bill.
Legislation thus would be a debate between the House and the President, with the Senate being a somewhat elite body focused on oversight of the Executive. Could such a thing have gotten through? What would have been the impact of this?
