How can a single Member of the House block a Congressional bill?Why is the Speaker of the House able to stop...
When a current flow in an inductor is interrupted, what limits the voltage rise?
Is the world in Game of Thrones spherical or flat?
Preserving culinary oils
Looking after a wayward brother in mother's will
Strange math syntax in old basic listing
Get LaTeX form from step by step solution
Is having a hidden directory under /etc safe?
Can a helicopter mask itself from Radar?
What are the problems in teaching guitar via Skype?
Can't connect to Internet in bash using Mac OS
Self-Preservation: How to DM NPCs that Love Living?
etoolbox: AtBeginEnvironment is not At Begin Environment
Understanding STM32 datasheet regarding decoupling capacitors
Beginner's snake game using PyGame
How to properly maintain eye contact with people that have distinctive facial features?
Intuition behind eigenvalues of an adjacency matrix
My player wants to cast multiple charges of magic missile from a wand
How crucial is a waifu game storyline?
Do creatures all have the same statistics upon being reanimated via the Animate Dead spell?
Humans meet a distant alien species. How do they standardize? - Units of Measure
How to detach yourself from a character you're going to kill?
Term for checking piece whose opponent daren't capture it
Using PCA vs Linear Regression
Can an old DSLR be upgraded to match modern smartphone image quality
How can a single Member of the House block a Congressional bill?
Why is the Speaker of the House able to stop a vote on a clean spending bill?How can House member make up votes if they failed to cast the vote when called?Are there any procedural advantages to indefinitely delaying or canceling a vote on a bill?How is the final name of a bill decided in the US Congress?How would the Single Transferable Vote be implemented in the United States? (House and Senate)Are there any laws that prohibit legislators from voting upon unread bills, or is it a dereliction of duty?Can the Senate block House Subpoenas?Does the U.S. House of Representatives have the power to block drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)?Can Congress end the government shutdown without the President's agreement?Can the Speaker of the House of Reps be replaced?
I read a news article today that claims that a Congressional bill to provide disaster relief to US communities has been derailed, because a single Member of the House of Representatives objected to it.
How is it possible for a single member of congress to effectively 'veto' an entire bill like this? I thought most (if not all) votes in Congress are decided by majority vote. Was this vote different for some reason, which meant it had to be unanimous? (if so, why?)
united-states congress house-of-representatives
asked 9 hours ago
Time4TeaTime4Tea
1,204824
add a comment |
I read a news article today that claims that a Congressional bill to provide disaster relief to US communities has been derailed, because a single Member of the House of Representatives objected to it.
How is it possible for a single member of congress to effectively 'veto' an entire bill like this? I thought most (if not all) votes in Congress are decided by majority vote. Was this vote different for some reason, which meant it had to be unanimous? (if so, why?)
united-states congress house-of-representatives
asked 9 hours ago
Time4TeaTime4Tea
1,204824
@DenisdeBernardy there is a reference to a 'unanimous consent vote' in the article, during which Texas Representative Chip Roy apparently objected. I have no idea what this 'unanimous consent vote' is, or how/why it would be used.
– Time4Tea
8 hours ago
2
@DenisdeBernardy - It wasn't even in the Senate. It was a voice-vote in the House.
– PoloHoleSet
8 hours ago
1
Actually, it's two now.
– Rick Smith
8 hours ago
add a comment |
I read a news article today that claims that a Congressional bill to provide disaster relief to US communities has been derailed, because a single Member of the House of Representatives objected to it.
How is it possible for a single member of congress to effectively 'veto' an entire bill like this? I thought most (if not all) votes in Congress are decided by majority vote. Was this vote different for some reason, which meant it had to be unanimous? (if so, why?)
united-states congress house-of-representatives
asked 9 hours ago
Time4TeaTime4Tea
1,204824
I read a news article today that claims that a Congressional bill to provide disaster relief to US communities has been derailed, because a single Member of the House of Representatives objected to it.
How is it possible for a single member of congress to effectively 'veto' an entire bill like this? I thought most (if not all) votes in Congress are decided by majority vote. Was this vote different for some reason, which meant it had to be unanimous? (if so, why?)
united-states congress house-of-representatives
united-states congress house-of-representatives
asked 9 hours ago
Time4TeaTime4Tea
1,204824
asked 9 hours ago
Time4TeaTime4Tea
1,204824
edited 8 hours ago
Time4Tea
asked 9 hours ago
Time4TeaTime4Tea
1,204824
asked 9 hours ago
Time4TeaTime4Tea
1,204824
asked 9 hours ago
Time4TeaTime4Tea
1,204824
1,204824
@DenisdeBernardy there is a reference to a 'unanimous consent vote' in the article, during which Texas Representative Chip Roy apparently objected. I have no idea what this 'unanimous consent vote' is, or how/why it would be used.
– Time4Tea
8 hours ago
2
@DenisdeBernardy - It wasn't even in the Senate. It was a voice-vote in the House.
– PoloHoleSet
8 hours ago
1
Actually, it's two now.
– Rick Smith
8 hours ago
add a comment |
@DenisdeBernardy there is a reference to a 'unanimous consent vote' in the article, during which Texas Representative Chip Roy apparently objected. I have no idea what this 'unanimous consent vote' is, or how/why it would be used.
– Time4Tea
8 hours ago
2
@DenisdeBernardy - It wasn't even in the Senate. It was a voice-vote in the House.
– PoloHoleSet
8 hours ago
1
Actually, it's two now.
– Rick Smith
8 hours ago
@DenisdeBernardy there is a reference to a 'unanimous consent vote' in the article, during which Texas Representative Chip Roy apparently objected. I have no idea what this 'unanimous consent vote' is, or how/why it would be used.
– Time4Tea
8 hours ago
@DenisdeBernardy there is a reference to a 'unanimous consent vote' in the article, during which Texas Representative Chip Roy apparently objected. I have no idea what this 'unanimous consent vote' is, or how/why it would be used.
– Time4Tea
8 hours ago
2
2
@DenisdeBernardy - It wasn't even in the Senate. It was a voice-vote in the House.
– PoloHoleSet
8 hours ago
@DenisdeBernardy - It wasn't even in the Senate. It was a voice-vote in the House.
– PoloHoleSet
8 hours ago
1
1
Actually, it's two now.
– Rick Smith
8 hours ago
Actually, it's two now.
– Rick Smith
8 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
The US house (and other systems) allows for expedited voting via "unanimous consent" - without a proper vote where each member's position is noted, the Speaker simply asks for a voice vote and motions to pass with unanimous consent (which does not mean everyone votes "yes" but rather that anyone who would vote "no" effectively acknowledges that there are sufficient "yes" votes to pass, so they aren't going to waste their time).
However, any member can object to a measure passing this way, which is what happened in this case, and demand a full vote. This objection then delays the measure because it must be scheduled for a full vote.
Most reporting I have seen on the issue correctly describes this as a "delay" rather than a "veto" and indeed "delay" is a more appropriate description.
answered 8 hours ago
Bryan KrauseBryan Krause
24119
Wow, you would think Congress would be able to at least implement yes/no push buttons for this stuff, wouldn't you? Anyway, so it means the bill isn't dead, just that some time will be wasted as it has to go through a full majority vote?
– Time4Tea
8 hours ago
2
@Time4Tea In this case it's in part because the House was in a pro forma session - there weren't enough folks around for a full vote. The reason Democrats have some reason to be upset here is that it doesn't seem like they had any indication there would be a problem here (i.e., the Republican leadership was on board, this is one member's doing). Frankly, even with all the bickering between the parties right now, most of the work the House does is non-controversial and passes by these simple votes. But yes, it is not completely dead, I've updated my answer to mention this is a delay.
– Bryan Krause
8 hours ago
Ok, thanks for the additional information.
– Time4Tea
8 hours ago
2
It's also worth noting that this is more of a delay than it would otherwise be, because the House is in recess. Otherwise, they could just take the full vote immediately or the next day.
– Bobson
7 hours ago
@Time4Tea You should see how the British vote on things, then.
– zibadawa timmy
1 hour ago
add a comment |
A single lawmaker didn't really veto the bill. What they "vetoed" was an instant, immediate, as-is passage of the legislation. The process is called "unanimous consent" where the idea is that, if no one objects, the bill is passed. Fast and easy.
It can still pass, but it will have to go through the usual process including scheduled debate time for the bill, which will delay things quite a bit and would probably also see some changes to the bill through negotiations, relevant committee markups, riders, or via amendments.
answered 8 hours ago
PoloHoleSetPoloHoleSet
12.3k12858
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f41813%2fhow-can-a-single-member-of-the-house-block-a-congressional-bill%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The US house (and other systems) allows for expedited voting via "unanimous consent" - without a proper vote where each member's position is noted, the Speaker simply asks for a voice vote and motions to pass with unanimous consent (which does not mean everyone votes "yes" but rather that anyone who would vote "no" effectively acknowledges that there are sufficient "yes" votes to pass, so they aren't going to waste their time).
However, any member can object to a measure passing this way, which is what happened in this case, and demand a full vote. This objection then delays the measure because it must be scheduled for a full vote.
Most reporting I have seen on the issue correctly describes this as a "delay" rather than a "veto" and indeed "delay" is a more appropriate description.
answered 8 hours ago
Bryan KrauseBryan Krause
24119
Wow, you would think Congress would be able to at least implement yes/no push buttons for this stuff, wouldn't you? Anyway, so it means the bill isn't dead, just that some time will be wasted as it has to go through a full majority vote?
– Time4Tea
8 hours ago
2
@Time4Tea In this case it's in part because the House was in a pro forma session - there weren't enough folks around for a full vote. The reason Democrats have some reason to be upset here is that it doesn't seem like they had any indication there would be a problem here (i.e., the Republican leadership was on board, this is one member's doing). Frankly, even with all the bickering between the parties right now, most of the work the House does is non-controversial and passes by these simple votes. But yes, it is not completely dead, I've updated my answer to mention this is a delay.
– Bryan Krause
8 hours ago
Ok, thanks for the additional information.
– Time4Tea
8 hours ago
2
It's also worth noting that this is more of a delay than it would otherwise be, because the House is in recess. Otherwise, they could just take the full vote immediately or the next day.
– Bobson
7 hours ago
@Time4Tea You should see how the British vote on things, then.
– zibadawa timmy
1 hour ago
add a comment |
The US house (and other systems) allows for expedited voting via "unanimous consent" - without a proper vote where each member's position is noted, the Speaker simply asks for a voice vote and motions to pass with unanimous consent (which does not mean everyone votes "yes" but rather that anyone who would vote "no" effectively acknowledges that there are sufficient "yes" votes to pass, so they aren't going to waste their time).
However, any member can object to a measure passing this way, which is what happened in this case, and demand a full vote. This objection then delays the measure because it must be scheduled for a full vote.
Most reporting I have seen on the issue correctly describes this as a "delay" rather than a "veto" and indeed "delay" is a more appropriate description.
answered 8 hours ago
Bryan KrauseBryan Krause
24119
Wow, you would think Congress would be able to at least implement yes/no push buttons for this stuff, wouldn't you? Anyway, so it means the bill isn't dead, just that some time will be wasted as it has to go through a full majority vote?
– Time4Tea
8 hours ago
2
@Time4Tea In this case it's in part because the House was in a pro forma session - there weren't enough folks around for a full vote. The reason Democrats have some reason to be upset here is that it doesn't seem like they had any indication there would be a problem here (i.e., the Republican leadership was on board, this is one member's doing). Frankly, even with all the bickering between the parties right now, most of the work the House does is non-controversial and passes by these simple votes. But yes, it is not completely dead, I've updated my answer to mention this is a delay.
– Bryan Krause
8 hours ago
Ok, thanks for the additional information.
– Time4Tea
8 hours ago
2
It's also worth noting that this is more of a delay than it would otherwise be, because the House is in recess. Otherwise, they could just take the full vote immediately or the next day.
– Bobson
7 hours ago
@Time4Tea You should see how the British vote on things, then.
– zibadawa timmy
1 hour ago
add a comment |
The US house (and other systems) allows for expedited voting via "unanimous consent" - without a proper vote where each member's position is noted, the Speaker simply asks for a voice vote and motions to pass with unanimous consent (which does not mean everyone votes "yes" but rather that anyone who would vote "no" effectively acknowledges that there are sufficient "yes" votes to pass, so they aren't going to waste their time).
However, any member can object to a measure passing this way, which is what happened in this case, and demand a full vote. This objection then delays the measure because it must be scheduled for a full vote.
Most reporting I have seen on the issue correctly describes this as a "delay" rather than a "veto" and indeed "delay" is a more appropriate description.
answered 8 hours ago
Bryan KrauseBryan Krause
24119
The US house (and other systems) allows for expedited voting via "unanimous consent" - without a proper vote where each member's position is noted, the Speaker simply asks for a voice vote and motions to pass with unanimous consent (which does not mean everyone votes "yes" but rather that anyone who would vote "no" effectively acknowledges that there are sufficient "yes" votes to pass, so they aren't going to waste their time).
However, any member can object to a measure passing this way, which is what happened in this case, and demand a full vote. This objection then delays the measure because it must be scheduled for a full vote.
Most reporting I have seen on the issue correctly describes this as a "delay" rather than a "veto" and indeed "delay" is a more appropriate description.
answered 8 hours ago
Bryan KrauseBryan Krause
24119
edited 8 hours ago
answered 8 hours ago
Bryan KrauseBryan Krause
24119
answered 8 hours ago
Bryan KrauseBryan Krause
24119
answered 8 hours ago
Bryan KrauseBryan Krause
24119
24119
Wow, you would think Congress would be able to at least implement yes/no push buttons for this stuff, wouldn't you? Anyway, so it means the bill isn't dead, just that some time will be wasted as it has to go through a full majority vote?
– Time4Tea
8 hours ago
2
@Time4Tea In this case it's in part because the House was in a pro forma session - there weren't enough folks around for a full vote. The reason Democrats have some reason to be upset here is that it doesn't seem like they had any indication there would be a problem here (i.e., the Republican leadership was on board, this is one member's doing). Frankly, even with all the bickering between the parties right now, most of the work the House does is non-controversial and passes by these simple votes. But yes, it is not completely dead, I've updated my answer to mention this is a delay.
– Bryan Krause
8 hours ago
Ok, thanks for the additional information.
– Time4Tea
8 hours ago
2
It's also worth noting that this is more of a delay than it would otherwise be, because the House is in recess. Otherwise, they could just take the full vote immediately or the next day.
– Bobson
7 hours ago
@Time4Tea You should see how the British vote on things, then.
– zibadawa timmy
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Wow, you would think Congress would be able to at least implement yes/no push buttons for this stuff, wouldn't you? Anyway, so it means the bill isn't dead, just that some time will be wasted as it has to go through a full majority vote?
– Time4Tea
8 hours ago
2
@Time4Tea In this case it's in part because the House was in a pro forma session - there weren't enough folks around for a full vote. The reason Democrats have some reason to be upset here is that it doesn't seem like they had any indication there would be a problem here (i.e., the Republican leadership was on board, this is one member's doing). Frankly, even with all the bickering between the parties right now, most of the work the House does is non-controversial and passes by these simple votes. But yes, it is not completely dead, I've updated my answer to mention this is a delay.
– Bryan Krause
8 hours ago
Ok, thanks for the additional information.
– Time4Tea
8 hours ago
2
It's also worth noting that this is more of a delay than it would otherwise be, because the House is in recess. Otherwise, they could just take the full vote immediately or the next day.
– Bobson
7 hours ago
@Time4Tea You should see how the British vote on things, then.
– zibadawa timmy
1 hour ago
Wow, you would think Congress would be able to at least implement yes/no push buttons for this stuff, wouldn't you? Anyway, so it means the bill isn't dead, just that some time will be wasted as it has to go through a full majority vote?
– Time4Tea
8 hours ago
Wow, you would think Congress would be able to at least implement yes/no push buttons for this stuff, wouldn't you? Anyway, so it means the bill isn't dead, just that some time will be wasted as it has to go through a full majority vote?
– Time4Tea
8 hours ago
2
2
@Time4Tea In this case it's in part because the House was in a pro forma session - there weren't enough folks around for a full vote. The reason Democrats have some reason to be upset here is that it doesn't seem like they had any indication there would be a problem here (i.e., the Republican leadership was on board, this is one member's doing). Frankly, even with all the bickering between the parties right now, most of the work the House does is non-controversial and passes by these simple votes. But yes, it is not completely dead, I've updated my answer to mention this is a delay.
– Bryan Krause
8 hours ago
@Time4Tea In this case it's in part because the House was in a pro forma session - there weren't enough folks around for a full vote. The reason Democrats have some reason to be upset here is that it doesn't seem like they had any indication there would be a problem here (i.e., the Republican leadership was on board, this is one member's doing). Frankly, even with all the bickering between the parties right now, most of the work the House does is non-controversial and passes by these simple votes. But yes, it is not completely dead, I've updated my answer to mention this is a delay.
– Bryan Krause
8 hours ago
Ok, thanks for the additional information.
– Time4Tea
8 hours ago
Ok, thanks for the additional information.
– Time4Tea
8 hours ago
2
2
It's also worth noting that this is more of a delay than it would otherwise be, because the House is in recess. Otherwise, they could just take the full vote immediately or the next day.
– Bobson
7 hours ago
It's also worth noting that this is more of a delay than it would otherwise be, because the House is in recess. Otherwise, they could just take the full vote immediately or the next day.
– Bobson
7 hours ago
@Time4Tea You should see how the British vote on things, then.
– zibadawa timmy
1 hour ago
@Time4Tea You should see how the British vote on things, then.
– zibadawa timmy
1 hour ago
add a comment |
A single lawmaker didn't really veto the bill. What they "vetoed" was an instant, immediate, as-is passage of the legislation. The process is called "unanimous consent" where the idea is that, if no one objects, the bill is passed. Fast and easy.
It can still pass, but it will have to go through the usual process including scheduled debate time for the bill, which will delay things quite a bit and would probably also see some changes to the bill through negotiations, relevant committee markups, riders, or via amendments.
answered 8 hours ago
PoloHoleSetPoloHoleSet
12.3k12858
add a comment |
A single lawmaker didn't really veto the bill. What they "vetoed" was an instant, immediate, as-is passage of the legislation. The process is called "unanimous consent" where the idea is that, if no one objects, the bill is passed. Fast and easy.
It can still pass, but it will have to go through the usual process including scheduled debate time for the bill, which will delay things quite a bit and would probably also see some changes to the bill through negotiations, relevant committee markups, riders, or via amendments.
answered 8 hours ago
PoloHoleSetPoloHoleSet
12.3k12858
add a comment |
A single lawmaker didn't really veto the bill. What they "vetoed" was an instant, immediate, as-is passage of the legislation. The process is called "unanimous consent" where the idea is that, if no one objects, the bill is passed. Fast and easy.
It can still pass, but it will have to go through the usual process including scheduled debate time for the bill, which will delay things quite a bit and would probably also see some changes to the bill through negotiations, relevant committee markups, riders, or via amendments.
answered 8 hours ago
PoloHoleSetPoloHoleSet
12.3k12858
A single lawmaker didn't really veto the bill. What they "vetoed" was an instant, immediate, as-is passage of the legislation. The process is called "unanimous consent" where the idea is that, if no one objects, the bill is passed. Fast and easy.
It can still pass, but it will have to go through the usual process including scheduled debate time for the bill, which will delay things quite a bit and would probably also see some changes to the bill through negotiations, relevant committee markups, riders, or via amendments.
answered 8 hours ago
PoloHoleSetPoloHoleSet
12.3k12858
answered 8 hours ago
PoloHoleSetPoloHoleSet
12.3k12858
answered 8 hours ago
PoloHoleSetPoloHoleSet
12.3k12858
answered 8 hours ago
PoloHoleSetPoloHoleSet
12.3k12858
12.3k12858
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f41813%2fhow-can-a-single-member-of-the-house-block-a-congressional-bill%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
@DenisdeBernardy there is a reference to a 'unanimous consent vote' in the article, during which Texas Representative Chip Roy apparently objected. I have no idea what this 'unanimous consent vote' is, or how/why it would be used.
– Time4Tea
8 hours ago
2
@DenisdeBernardy - It wasn't even in the Senate. It was a voice-vote in the House.
– PoloHoleSet
8 hours ago
1
Actually, it's two now.
– Rick Smith
8 hours ago