Senate coup?

David · Jan 15, 2019

Looks like Sen. Romney is positioning himself to oust Sen. McConnell and allow a vote on the budget. If that happens there's no way the Senate can come back from this as an ally of the President. Trump will veto everything out of spite and the Senate will have to effectively become the executive in order to get anything done. That kinda power won't end with Trump, the Senate (and to a lesser extent the House on account of controlling the money) will be the primary branch of government for a generation if they are able to pull this off (not a sure thing).

It'll be interesting to see if the pieces fall into place.

PaulSmith69 · Jan 16, 2019

I doubt it.

Southern Dad · Jan 17, 2019

The Senate doesn’t become the executive if a veto happens. 2/3rds of the Senate and 2/3rds of the House, can all vote together to override a presidential veto. A veto being overridden isn’t the end of a presidency. Obama has one veto overridden. Bush had 4 overridden. Clinton has 2 overridden. Bush had 1. Reagan had 9.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

David · Jan 17, 2019

Southern Dad said:
The Senate doesn’t become the executive if a veto happens. 2/3rds of the Senate and 2/3rds of the House, can all vote together to override a presidential veto. A veto being overridden isn’t the end of a presidency. Obama has one veto overridden. Bush had 4 overridden. Clinton has 2 overridden. Bush had 1. Reagan had 9.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Normally but Trump is spiteful, even if you support him you can't deny that. He'll veto everything in retaliation and the Senate will have to override it all to accomplish anything. This will necessarily (combined with needing to work with a Dem House) force the Senate to adopt an agenda independent of the President. A Senate that ignores the President and overrides all veto attempts is a Senate that has usurped executive authority as the President would have no say in anything at that point. The President wouldn't even be able to pick their own cabinet in that case as the Senate, empowered in this way, would only confirm their own picks.

All of this falling into place is of course a tall order but the Senate is definitely working on it. Remember, the Senate passed a budget 100-0 that completely ignored Trump's wish list including the wall. The House (under Rep. Ryan) didn't vote on it which is why the shutdown happened. That's also why Sen. McConnell won't hold a vote, the Dem house sent the exact same budget so he knows it'll pass with a veto-proof majority (unanimously in fact). The only thing stopping the Senate from seizing power is Primary fears.

PaulSmith69 · Jan 17, 2019

David said:
Normally but Trump is spiteful, even if you support him you can't deny that.

That's FAKE news. An actual word that would actually apply is: DETERMINED.

Southern Dad · Jan 19, 2019

David said:
Normally but Trump is spiteful, even if you support him you can't deny that. He'll veto everything in retaliation and the Senate will have to override it all to accomplish anything. This will necessarily (combined with needing to work with a Dem House) force the Senate to adopt an agenda independent of the President. A Senate that ignores the President and overrides all veto attempts is a Senate that has usurped executive authority as the President would have no say in anything at that point. The President wouldn't even be able to pick their own cabinet in that case as the Senate, empowered in this way, would only confirm their own picks.

All of this falling into place is of course a tall order but the Senate is definitely working on it. Remember, the Senate passed a budget 100-0 that completely ignored Trump's wish list including the wall. The House (under Rep. Ryan) didn't vote on it which is why the shutdown happened. That's also why Sen. McConnell won't hold a vote, the Dem house sent the exact same budget so he knows it'll pass with a veto-proof majority (unanimously in fact). The only thing stopping the Senate from seizing power is Primary fears.

If the House and Senate came together to override numerous presidential vetoes, that would still be a huge accomplishment for President Trump. He would be the man that brought the Republicans and Democrats together.

Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk Pro

PaulSmith69 · Jan 19, 2019

Southern Dad said:
If the House and Senate came together to override numerous presidential vetoes, that would still be a huge accomplishment for President Trump. He would be the man that brought the Republicans and Democrats together.

Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk Pro

Indeed!

David · Jan 20, 2019

Southern Dad said:
If the House and Senate came together to override numerous presidential vetoes, that would still be a huge accomplishment for President Trump. He would be the man that brought the Republicans and Democrats together.

Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk Pro

The man so fucking incompetent mortal political enemies came together to fix his fuckups = huge accomplishment is some expert level spin my friend. lol

PaulSmith69 · Jan 21, 2019

David said:
huge accomplishment is some expert level spin my friend. lol

Close but no cigar! More like: "huge accomplishment is some expert level objective evaluation".

Southern Dad · Jan 21, 2019

David said:
The man so fucking incompetent mortal political enemies came together to fix his fuckups = huge accomplishment is some expert level spin my friend. lol

Would it not be impressive?

PaulSmith69 · Jan 21, 2019

Southern Dad said:
Would it not be impressive?

Indeed, if TRUE!

David · Jan 21, 2019

Southern Dad said:
Would it not be impressive?

Impressively embarrassing maybe.

Southern Dad · Jan 23, 2019

David said:
Impressively embarrassing maybe.

David, in your opinion is it embarrassing when a president has a veto overturned by 2/3rds of both houses? Does that make you think less of the person in the Oval Office?

David · Jan 24, 2019

Southern Dad said:
David, in your opinion is it embarrassing when a president has a veto overturned by 2/3rds of both houses? Does that make you think less of the person in the Oval Office?

Yes because it means they failed to negotiate.

PaulSmith69 · Jan 24, 2019

David said:
Yes because it means they failed to negotiate.

They negotiated the 2/3 bi-partisan majority - hello?!!!

Southern Dad · Jan 24, 2019

David said:
Yes because it means they failed to negotiate.

So when President Obama had a veto overriden, he failed?

Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk Pro

PaulSmith69 · Jan 25, 2019

Southern Dad said:
So when President Obama had a veto overriden, he failed?

Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk Pro

Veto threat
Occasionally, a President either publicly or privately threatens Congress with a veto to influence the content or passage of legislation. There is no record of what constitutes a "veto threat", or how many have been made over the years, but it has become a staple of Presidential politics and a sometimes effective way of shaping policy. A President may also warn Congress of a veto of a particular bill so as to persuade Congress not to waste time passing particular legislation or including certain provisions in a bill when the President is prepared to veto it.

Summary of vetoes

President Vetoes/overridden Total 1505/110

Bill Clinton 36/2

George W. Bush 12/4

Barack Obama 12/1

Southern Dad · Jan 25, 2019

PaulSmith69 said:
Summary of vetoes

President Vetoes/overridden Total 1505/110

Bill Clinton 36/2

George W. Bush 12/4

Barack Obama 12/1

You forgot one.

Donald J Trump 0/0

Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk Pro

David · Jan 27, 2019

Southern Dad said:
So when President Obama had a veto overriden, he failed?

Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk Pro

Obama had a hostile Congress after 2010. Trump had single party rule until a few weeks ago and still controles 1/2 of Congress and the SC. He has no excuse for not getting anything done.

PaulSmith69 · Jan 28, 2019

David said:
Obama had a hostile Congress after 2010. Trump had single party rule until a few weeks ago and still controles 1/2 of Congress and the SC. He has no excuse for not getting anything done.

It is a fallacy that the President "controles" (sic) Congress. The three (3) branches of government are independent and our Forefathers specifically brilliantly set up "checks & balances" against each other.

Senate coup?

Similar threads