'Evaluate the claim that the Senate is far more powerful than the House of
Representatives within Congress.'
Wendy Barnes (2014)
Introduction
Congress is the legislative branch of the federal government with its role and powers
laid down in Article 1 of the Constitution which begins by stating that “all legislative
powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which
shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Section 8 of Article 1 goes
on to specify the particular powers which the framers wished to transfer from state
legislatures to the federal legislature.1 The tenth amendment in 1971 reinforced the
fact that the legislative ambit of Congress was strictly limited by stating that “the
powers not delegated to the United State by the Constitution…are reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people”. Nevertheless, Congress’ legislative range has
expanded due to the doctrine of implied powers which entitles Congress “to make all
laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing
powers.” The framers deliberately created a Congress of two chambers, with
different terms of office, representation and powers, bicameralism, to provide further
checks and balances and avoid tyranny.2 An evaluation with be given on these
powers and the claim that the Senate is far more powerful than the House of
Representatives within Congress.
Senate
The Senators’ sense of independence has often seen the Senate prove obstinate
where the House of Representatives has acquiesced, particularly in the face of
radical measures.3 The Senate’s exclusive powers are seen as more prestigious
than those of the House of Representatives. This has already been demonstrated
with regards to the US constitution as the Senate rejected the Balance Budget
Amendment in 1995. The Senate rejected an amendment banning desecration of the
US flag in 1995 and 2000, despite the House having passed the measure with the
required two-thirds majority on three occasions over the same period.4 More
recently in May 209, almost all Senate Democrats showed their independence from
the president. Obama had promised in his election campaign that the prison camp
for suspected enemy combatants at Guantanamo By would be closed. However
fearing that they would be accused of softness towards terrorism, senators voted
overwhelmingly by 90-6 to deny funding for the closure of the camp or the transfer of
any detainees to facilities in the US.5 This shows that the Senate is not only powerful
than the House of Representatives but far more powerful as they enjoy significantly
exclusive powers, represent the entire state, serve longer terms and are the
recruiting pool for presidential and vice-presidential candidates. In comparison,
ministers in the UK have limited independence due to the strength of the whip
system making sure ministers vote accordingly. Issues arise regarding
1
McKeever R & Davies P, Politics USA 2nd edition, Pearson Longman, 2006,pg 206 2
Harris C, AQA Government and Politics -­‐ The Government of the USA, Phillip Allan, 2012, pg 19 3
Fairclough P, The Lords and The Senate, Politics Review, Phillip Allan, February 2005, pg 22 4
Ibid , pg 22 5
Ashbee E, Saying no to the president, Politics Review, Phillip Allan, September 2009, pg 21 independence as the party whips in the USA have the tougher task in getting their
members to vote together as legislators are often chosen in primary elections and
feel that retaining loyalty of the “folks back home” is more important than pleasing
the party hierarchy in Washington.6
The Senate can is a major obstacle to regular legislation.7Clinton, for example,
achieved only a 65% success rate in the Senate in 2000 though this may be due to
the fact that Republicans controlled the chamber. Clinton achieved only an 85%
success rate in 1993 as a freshly inaugurated president, with high public approval
rating and a clear Democrat majority in both the House and the Senate.8
Additionally, the Senate alone has the power to confirm by a simple majority
appointments to federal judiciary and executive branch made by the president. As a
result, the Senate must give consent to any vacancies the president wishes to fill.
When Hilary Clinton resigned in her post as Secretary of State in 2013, President
Obama gained the approval of the Senate with a vote of 94-3 to appoint John Kerry
to replace her.9 This clearly shows how the Senate is far more powerful than the
House of Representatives especially with regard to the appointments of Supreme
Court justices, cabinet secretaries and ambassadors. With this power comes the
ability to deny a president’s chosen nominee as witnessed with the rejection of
Reagan’s choice Robert Bork for the Supreme Court in 1987 and George Bush’s
choice of Tower in 1989 as the defence secretary. 10 Despite this, the majority of
modern-day examples of the Senate’s rejection of presidential nominations, whether
to the executive or judicial branches have come when the president’s party has not
controlled the Senate. A Democratic Senate in 1987 rejected Republic President
Ronald Reagan’s nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court and a Republican
Senate rejected Bill Clinton’s nomination of Ronnie White as federal trial court judge
and the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1999.11
Regardless of what the chamber does as a whole, individual Senators are able to
exercise much power through filibusters. The filibuster arises from the right of
senators to speak freely. Through this practice of talking at length on virtually any
subject, a single minded minority can succeed in talking the bill out of time and
existence. The late Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina spoke for 24 hours
and 18 minutes against the 1957 Civil Rights Act.12 The filibuster allows a member to
talk a proposal out of time, though it is a weapon of last resort. Though one would
expect the House of Lords to be a less effective block on the House of Commons
due to the Parliaments Act of 1911 and 1945 as well as the Salisbury Doctrine, this
second chamber has proven a major obstacle to government legislation over the last
25 years. The various Conservative administrations were defeated in Lord’s votes on
6
Batchelor A, US Congress and UK Parliament, Politics Review, Phillip Allan, November 2006, pg 15 7
Fairclough P, The Lords and The Senate, Politics Review, Phillip Allan, February 2005, pg 22 8
Ibid, pg 22 9
Bennett A, A2 US Government and Politics 4th edition, Phillip Allan for Hodder Education, 2013, pg 188 10
Harris C, AQA Government and Politics -­‐ The Government of the USA, Phillip Allan, 2012, pg 20 11
Bennett A, A2 US Government and Politics 4th edition, Phillip Allan for Hodder Education, 2013, pg 220 12
Fairclough P, The Lords and The Senate, Politics Review, Phillip Allan, February 2005, pg 22 241 occasions between 1979 and 1997; 155 of these occasions were under Margret
Thatcher with the remaining under John Mayor.13 Ornstein and Mann’s critique
stresses the extent to which powers of the Senate have weakened. This is because
the dramatic expansion of the federal government as it assumed greater
responsibilities limited the extent to which effective oversight could be undertaken.
Rather than being proactive, Congress often tends to respond long after events have
taken place.14
The Senate has power with its role in the oversight of the executive branch of
government.15 Senate standing committees have a role in overseeing the work of the
Federal Departments. In addition, the Senate has its own select committees, such as
the Senate CIA committee, and forms joint special committees with the House of
Representatives at times. The House of Lords similarly exercise power with regards
to the scrutiny of the executive. The House has traditionally spent approximately 30
minutes each day dealing with questions to ministers formally tabled by peers.16 The
Senate role and power in scrutiny is often questioned. Rupert Cornwell writing in the
independence in March 2006 commented saying “America is not a parliamentary
democracy. If it were, the chances that a prime minister George W. Bush would now
have lost a no-confidence vote in Congress and the Republican Party and the United
States would be under new leadership.” This is because the US president appears
before Congress only to give a State of the Union Address, which involves none of
the probing questions a UK prime minister and other ministers must respond to.17
The Senate has considerable influence in the field of foreign affairs holding the
power to declare war and having the sole power to ratify treaties negotiated by the
president. Former presidents, such as Jimmy Carter, have bemoaned the fact that
two-thirds Senate approval is required for the ratification of treaties arguing that the
Senate should have to vote by two-thirds to block the treaties negotiated by the chief
executive. Jimmy Carter struggled to secure Senate support for the Strategic Arms
Limitation Treaty (SALT 2) in 1979 though the Soviet invasion meant that it never
went to a formal vote. Woodrow Wilson also failed famously for failing to gain
support for the Treaty of Versailles in 1920.18Senate therefore has far more power
over US foreign policy. Similarly the House of Lords has had an input in foreign
policy through the recommendations given to ministers by its select committees
investigating European Commission proposals. A disadvantage of this is the fact that
the use of powers is inconsistent and varies on the whether there is a united
government. The rule of thumb seems to be that when there is united government,
the president’s own party in Congress acts more like a lapdog – some would say a
Chihuahua. However a divided government ensures a more watchdog approach –
some would say a Rottweiler.19
13
Ibid, pg 22 14
Ashbee E, How effective is Congress, Politics Review, Phillip Allan, November 2007, pg 21 15
Fairclough P, The Lords and The Senate, Politics Review, Phillip Allan, February 2005, pg 23 16
ibidpg 23 17
Batchelor A, US Congress and UK Parliament, Politics Review, Phillip Allan, November 2006, pg 15 18
Harris C, AQA Government and Politics -­‐ The Government of the USA, Phillip Allan, 2012, pg 20 19
Bennett A, Congress – Watchdog or Lapdog, Politics Review, Phillip Allan, February 2010, pg 3 House of Representatives
The House of Representatives possesses powers to impeach members of both other
branches of government 20This was witnessed in 1998 with the impeachment of
President Clinton.21 In comparison, in the UK, the House of Commons alone can
remove the government of the day.22 This power is based on the convention of
collective ministerial responsibility that the government is collectively responsible to
Parliament and all ministers are obliged to support official government policy.23 A
government that is defeated in the House of Commons on a main issue or matter of
confidence is obliged to resign or to call a general election.24 Much oversight occurs
in the House of Commons, most notably in Question Time and for half an hour each
week in Prime Minister’s Question Time. Despite the House of Representatives
possessing great powers of impeachment, its responsiveness have proven
problematic. The responsiveness of the House to the concerns of other groups in
society.25
The constitution provided the House of Representatives with the power to originate
all money bills. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 which
provided funding for tax relief, expanded social benefits and increased spending on
education and healthcare provisions originated from the House of Representatives.26
This measure was termed the biggest spending bill in American history by the NBC
Nightly News and was underpinned by the economic argument that a substantial
boost to demand would stimulate consumption and thereby encourage business
ventures. This shows that the House of Representatives is powerful as the House
has the ability to set the financial agenda and control thee purse strings of
governments thorough its powerful Ways and Means and Appropriations
committees. Despite this, the claim that the Senate is far powerful than the Senate is
still accurate. In comparison to the UK, the House of Lords can delay bills passed by
the House of Commons for up to one year besides money bills as determined by the
Speaker in the House of Commons.27 Problems have arose especially after the midst
of the “political honeymoon” that follows the election of a new president. In 2009,
although President Obama had originally sought a fiscal stimulus package that
allocated 40% of the finding to tax cuts, the bill passed through the House of
Representatives whom reduced this to a third.28
Concurrent Powers
20
Bennett A, The Hose of Commons and the House of Representatives Politics Review, Phillip Allan, November 2005, pg 30 21
Bennett A, The Hose of Commons and the House of Representatives Politics Review, Phillip Allan, November 2005, pg 30 22
Heywood A, Essentials of UK Politics, Palgrave MacMillan, Hampshire, 2011, pg 205 23
Ibid pg 243 24
Ibid , pg 205 25
Batchelor A, Comparative responsiveness, Politics Review, Phillip Allan, April 2008, pg 23 26
Ashbee E, Obama, Congress and the economic crisis, Politics Review, Phillip Allan, September 2009, pg 20 27
Heywood A, Essentials of UK Politics, Palgrave MacMillan, Hampshire, 2011, pg 206 28
Ashbee E, Obama, Congress and the economic crisis, Politics Review, Phillip Allan, September 2009, pg 20 According to Fairclough in theory, the Senate and the House of Representatives are
co-equal in terms of their legislative power. This is due to the fact that they have five
concurrent powers.29This sense of equality is reflected in the fact that most bills are
discussed concurrently by both chambers. No bill can pass into law without Senate
approval by a simple majority and proposals for constitutional amendments require
Senate super-majorities of two-thirds to match those in the House. The only way the
Senate can be regarded as inferior to the House of Representatives is regarding
money bills where the House of Representatives, like the House of Commons,
initiates all such bills under its financial privilege.30 By houses must vote by two-third
majorities to override the president’s veto of a bill. Congress overrode President
Bush’s veto of the Water Resources Development Bill in 2007. The vote in the
House was 381-40 which was 100 votes over the 281 required for a two-third
majority. Similarly the vote in the Senate was 81-12 which was 19 votes over the
required 62 votes.31The houses are co-equal with regards to initiating constitutional
amendments which must be approved by a two-thirds majority in both houses before
it can be sent to the states for their ratification. Houses must concur in a declaration
of war. This has occurred 5 times with the last in 1941 when America declared war
on Japan in World War 2. This defies the claim that the Senate is far more powerful
than the House of Representatives as the House of Representatives enjoys equal
legislative power with the Senate. According to Bennett, there is hardly anything the
House can do unless the Senate agrees, making them equal partners.32 In the UK,
the House of Commons clearly enjoys a dominate position in legislation. Although
the House of Lords can propose amendments as it did to the great effect on the
2005 Prevention of Terrorism Bill, it is the House of Commons which decides the
state and fate of bills.33
Conclusion
To conclude, the claim that the Senate is too powerful than the House of
Representatives within is incorrect The Senate has greater undeniable power as
compared to the House of Representatives with its abilities to exercise power
through filibusters, overwhelming influence with regards to foreign affairs, the ability
to confirm appointments and the power with regards to the overnight of the executive
branch. Although this may lead to the conclusion that the Senate is too powerful
within Congress the powers of the House of representatives shows otherwise. This is
due to the fact that the House of Representatives has power to originate certain bills
and most importantly impeach members of the government. This does not equate
powers within the two Houses yet ensures that the Senate is not too powerful than
the House of Representatives within Congress.
29
Bennett A, A2 US Government and Politics 4th edition, Phillip Allan for Hodder Education, 2013, pg 189 30
Fairclough P, The Lords and The Senate, Politics Review, Phillip Allan, February 2005, pg 22 31
Bennett A, A2 US Government and Politics 4th edition, Phillip Allan for Hodder Education, 2013, pg 89 32
Bennett A, The Hose of Commons and the House of Representatives Politics Review, Phillip Allan, November 2005, pg 29 33
Ibid , pg 30 Bibliography
Texts
•
•
•
•
Heywood A, Essentials of UK Politics, Palgrave MacMillan, Hampshire, 2011
Bennett A, A2 US Government and Politics 4th edition, Phillip Allan for
Hodder Education, 2013
McKeever R & Davies P, Politics USA 2nd edition, Pearson Longman, 2006
Harris C, AQA Government and Politics - The Government of the USA, Phillip
Allan, 2012
Politics Review
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ashbee E, Obama, Congress and the economic crisis, Politics Review, Phillip
Allan, September 2009
Fairclough P, The Lords and The Senate, Politics Review, Phillip Allan,
February 2005
Batchelor A, Comparative responsiveness, Politics Review, Phillip Allan, April
2008
Ashbee E, Saying no to the president, Politics Review, Phillip Allan,
September 2009
Bennett A, The Hose of Commons and the House of Representatives Politics
Review, Phillip Allan, November 2005
Batchelor A, US Congress and UK Parliament, Politics Review, Phillip Allan,
November 2006
Ashbee E, How effective is Congress, Politics Review, Phillip Allan,
November 2007
Bennett A, Congress – Watchdog or Lapdog, Politics Review, Phillip Allan,
February 2010