With 2/3 majority, congress has the ability to pass whatever laws they want without threat of presidential veto, they are able to pass laws that affect how the president must do things on domestic issues and foreign ones too.
Does this mean that when a party countrols 2/3 of congress, the speaker of the house (leader the party in majority of congress) becomes more politically powerful than the president?
2007-12-12 11:01:14 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
the wider the net, - the bigger the holes.
Even if one party controlled 2/3'rds , - that doesn't mean on every vote, -the reps are gonna follow the party line.
Each state is different, - as much as people are different. States vote for their best interests, -and also consider their loyalty to the party.
BTW.. the bigger a party gets, - the more diverse the ranks are, - and the harder it is to get a unified front.
2007-12-12 11:03:53 · answer #1 · answered by MK6 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually the framers of the Constitution knew the legistlature would be the most powerful institution in the federal gov't (and as a result, the leader of that institution would hold the most powerful office in the gov't). As a direct result, the legistlatur was split into two houses, the House of Representatives & the Senate. This also had the effect diminishing the political clout of the more populous states.
Even so, many still considered the Speaker more powerful that the President, as the House controlled the gov't spending (all bills relating to finance MUST originate in the HoR).
That was pre-Civil War & most especially pre 20th century!
The Speaker of the House will not be more powerful, even with a 2/3 majority (see "Tip" O'Neal during the Reagan presidency) but may exert far more influence. The speaker may serve as long as he/she is re-elected & retains control of the majority party in Congress, meaning the position could be conceivably controlled by a single individual for decades.
Also it's important to note that the Speaker decides what issues come up for a vote and when. Control of the proceedure can be very powerful within the Congress.
However, the Speaker has only limited influence in foreign affairs, limited by controlling the budget.
2007-12-12 11:27:56 · answer #2 · answered by Monkeyboi 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Probably. Most people over estimate the power of the President. He controls no money except what congress gives him. He cannot start or stop war. Congress has that responsibility. He can make no laws. Only Congress can do that. The President has few real powers. The administration is just that, the group that administers our government under the laws and budget provided by the Congress.
At this time the liberal press and dems do everything they can to make it seem like Bush is some evil dictator, when he is really just a figurehead with not much real power.
2007-12-12 11:18:08 · answer #3 · answered by GABY 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
ok, you're particularly no longer likely to get "non-partisan smart recommendations" to a partisan, unintelligent question. A: the international community puzzled approximately us for years with Bush as president, and all the lies that have been recommended in that administration did no longer carry forth an impeachment mutually as he substitute into straight away away in touch in using waterboarding and diverse torture concepts. B: Speaker Pelosi would not have some "psychological ailment and the shortcoming to ever tell the certainty returned". C: The electorate of this country do no longer % who's Speaker of the homestead. The president and te "US companies" (whoever it somewhat is) do no longer % it the two, so no, it does no longer be an better perfect concept by using certainty could no longer the way it works.
2016-11-26 02:26:08 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would require 2/3 in house and senate. That's a lot of people to get to agree but they would get a lot done.
Of course there is a leader in house and one in senate so you'd have 2 leaders there.
2007-12-12 11:09:13 · answer #5 · answered by madjer21755 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They still aren't commander in chief, but the president really won't be able to do much without the cooperation of that speaker.
2007-12-12 11:04:31 · answer #6 · answered by Yahoo Answer Angel 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
With veto "over ride "power, you're pretty well on target.
Presidents don't usually invoke a veto when they know it will be over ridden. It appears weak.
And that's when the "pork" is the fattest.
2007-12-12 11:12:38 · answer #7 · answered by ed 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. You're assuming that every single elected official votes along party lines.
2007-12-12 11:05:49 · answer #8 · answered by DOOM 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sure, I mean look how powerful Pelosi is? (Obviously, sarcasm.)
2007-12-12 11:04:32 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋