The US Senate as a revising chamber

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

It's a commonplace that the US Senate has too much power compared to upper houses elsewhere, but I'm not sure that this is true any more with respect to normal legislation, and I'm not sure of that because individual Senators' own arrogation of power is starting to actually diminish the whole chamber's legislative muscle relative to the House.

Because of the procedural filibuster now being in place for pretty much everything, really the only domestic policy that actually gets passed into law any more is fiscal and appropriations policy. Such policy has to originate in the House, and yet the House rarely amends it after the Senate amends it; we don't see many conference committees any more on big banner legislation, just the "House concurring to the Senate's amendment". In this way the Senate acts as an almost dictionary-definition revising chamber on money bills, and also abdicates its power over the content of other bills by simply refusing to adopt rules that would allow any other kind of bill to pass.

The really overpowered aspects of the Senate are its treaty and advice-and-consent powers and the fact that the public perceives Senators as more prestigious than Representatives in all sorts of vague subjective ways. And in those respects the body is in fact way too powerful. But it's actually not uniquely powerful in its relationship to ordinary legislation any more, because with our current political culture it functions as a revising chamber on money bills and just kills everything else.

jao

[Del Tachi]

smart and good post.  bravo, Nathan

what possible constitutional reforms would you support to reinforce this understanding of the senate's role?  allow it to keep revising power on money bills, but nix its ability to veto normal legislation?  perhaps replaced with a new ability to recommit or reconsider bills back to the House?  or delay passage only for a certain period of time?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

smart and good post.  bravo, Nathan

what possible constitutional reforms would you support to reinforce this understanding of the senate's role?  allow it to keep revising power on money bills, but nix its ability to veto normal legislation?  perhaps replaced with a new ability to recommit or reconsider bills back to the House?  or delay passage only for a certain period of time?

I've long favored modifying the Senate's powers as an alternative to the more popular proposal of modifying its apportionment, yes. I think doing so would be both more consistent with America's political traditions in general and easier to actually accomplish. The only ways to change how the Senate is apportioned would be either amending the Constitution multiple times to remove an entrenched clause and then change the feature of the political system that the entrenched clause was there to entrench, or having Congress start gerrymandering states. Neither is likely, and the fact that the latter is easier to imagine at this point than the former is, or should be, existentially terrifying. Replacing the Senate's ability to sit on normal legislation indefinitely with a Parliament Act-esque process where it just goes to the President's desk after a full year or a full session of inaction would, however, be achievable via the normal constitutional amendment process, as would replacing its ability to straightforwardly vote down legislation with an ability to recommit it to the House. So yes, those are both avenues I would support exploring.

Moving at least some of the advice-and-consent power to the House could also be worth looking at (despite how terrifying it is to imagine Louie Gohmert, or conversely, idk, Eddie Bernice Johnson,* having a vote on Cabinet and SCOTUS nominations!), although I wouldn't object to keeping the treaty power with the Senate, since the relatively-less-ideological world of foreign policy seems like an appropriate specialty for a less-powerful but more-deliberative upper house to have.

*I've said it before and I'll say it again: there's something in the water in North and East Texas!

[dead0man]

well there isn't any revising going on in the House this cycle because the Dems just put whatever they want in the Bills they send on to the Senate.  Where else would any revising take place besides the Senate?

[Frodo]

So in essence, you want the United States Senate to become the American version of the United Kingdom's House of Lords in the sense it is the junior partner to the lower chamber in its power and function:

Legislation, with the exception of money bills, may be introduced in either House.

The House of Lords debates legislation, and has power to amend or reject bills. However, the power of the Lords to reject a bill passed by the House of Commons is severely restricted by the Parliament Acts. Under those Acts, certain types of bills may be presented for Royal Assent without the consent of the House of Lords (i.e. the Commons can override the Lords' veto). The House of Lords cannot delay a money bill (a bill that, in the view of the Speaker of the House of Commons, solely concerns national taxation or public funds) for more than one month.

Other public bills cannot be delayed by the House of Lords for more than two parliamentary sessions, or one calendar year. These provisions, however, only apply to public bills that originate in the House of Commons, and cannot have the effect of extending a parliamentary term beyond five years. A further restriction is a constitutional convention known as the Salisbury Convention, which means that the House of Lords does not oppose legislation promised in the Government's election manifesto.

By a custom that prevailed even before the Parliament Acts, the House of Lords is further restrained insofar as financial bills are concerned. The House of Lords may neither originate a bill concerning taxation or Supply (supply of treasury or exchequer funds), nor amend a bill so as to insert a taxation or Supply-related provision. (The House of Commons, however, often waives its privileges and allows the Upper House to make amendments with financial implications.) Moreover, the Upper House may not amend any Supply Bill. The House of Lords formerly maintained the absolute power to reject a bill relating to revenue or Supply, but this power was curtailed by the Parliament Acts.