Congress takes so long, becasue if they acted quickly then there would be a strong central body. There would be no room for debate and opposition. This would also upset the checks and balance system put in place by the framers.
For a bill to become a law there is a lot of things that have to happen. It needs to be sponsered, go through a committee which can take a while, then be debated(usually for a very long time which may be part of the problem) then passed in the House and Senate. I think that there are pros and cons on both sides, because you want Congress to legislate on an issue that may need to be passed fast, like the economic stimulus package, but also you don't want Congress to rush to get a bill done that may be uselss or even have a negative impact.
The reason it takes so long for congress to act is because the founders meant for it to be a huge ordeal to pass anything. If it wasn't a huge job for congress to do whatever they try to do, then congress would have too much power, which would encroach on our liberties. The people who set up the constitution tried to make a beaurocracy, so that the only way something would get passed is if a vast majority strongly agreed.
It takes a great deal of time for Congress to act because Congress needs to be representative of the people. It can't be too easy for Congress to act or it would seem they have overdrawn on their power. If acting quickly the majority of the American public would probably claim that Congress is abusing their powers and becoming a strong central body. I agree with Andrew's answer in the fact that the process has its pros and cons. The sponsorship of the bill and passing it through a committee is a long task. Sometimes it is good to adequately debate and come up with the best resolution, but other times legislation is needed more quickly and it puts a halt on the drive and determination to get things done when a long proccess is present.
Like Heather said, for it to react quickly they would need a strong central body, and that is not what the framers meant for congress to be. They wanted it to be hard for congress to act. Otherwise congress would have way to much power and would not be required to represent the peoples interests. The way it is set up requires that a majority is in favor. They allow people to debate and argue over how to handle issues. Things that would not be possible if they were to act quickly.
congress is more decentralized and has an unlimited amount of time to discuss problems and all representations are equal and those who oppose the oppositons can draw the conversation on why not to let it pass, so that it may just be decided to not pass it.
Congress takes longer amounts of time to act due to their duty to think, discuss/debate, act rationally, and give each member a chance to debate their side of the issue. Keeping equal opportunity allows everyone to voice their opinion on the issue or use fillibusters to postpone decisions on the issue and keeping equality keeps the checks and balances in effect. The checks and balance support decentralization of the government and due to the fact that bills and laws effect a lot of people, it needs to be carefully considered before put into effect and the process is long and complicated as it is.
It takes congress so long to act because of discussion and the size of the body. Congress could act faster if they had a strong leader, but that would be against what the people want. Keeping the congress more decentralized helps keep the power dispersed. The downfall being the time it takes.
It often takes congress a long time to act. Passing legislation is a drawn out process, and as legislation goes through the motions it has many chances to die, explaining why legislation may be intruduced several times before finally sticking. First a bill must be introduced by a member of congress. It goes into a committee (and subcommittee) and after much checking and revisions, it may eventually be dabated on the senate or house floor. If it is passed, this often new version goes on to another house, again relying on a vote to survive. The senate and house versions must be combined, and then finally get a presidential review. This whole ordeal can take months (or years), and if a bill dies out due to session/ congress time limits, the process must start over. Though our legislature can seem slow and ineffective, the system we have we set out by the framers in hopes that many views would be shared and considered, that only the strongest legislation would be passed, and that no one group would control our government and country.
10 comments:
Congress takes so long, becasue if they acted quickly then there would be a strong central body. There would be no room for debate and opposition. This would also upset the checks and balance system put in place by the framers.
For a bill to become a law there is a lot of things that have to happen. It needs to be sponsered, go through a committee which can take a while, then be debated(usually for a very long time which may be part of the problem) then passed in the House and Senate. I think that there are pros and cons on both sides, because you want Congress to legislate on an issue that may need to be passed fast, like the economic stimulus package, but also you don't want Congress to rush to get a bill done that may be uselss or even have a negative impact.
The reason it takes so long for congress to act is because the founders meant for it to be a huge ordeal to pass anything. If it wasn't a huge job for congress to do whatever they try to do, then congress would have too much power, which would encroach on our liberties. The people who set up the constitution tried to make a beaurocracy, so that the only way something would get passed is if a vast majority strongly agreed.
It takes a great deal of time for Congress to act because Congress needs to be representative of the people. It can't be too easy for Congress to act or it would seem they have overdrawn on their power. If acting quickly the majority of the American public would probably claim that Congress is abusing their powers and becoming a strong central body. I agree with Andrew's answer in the fact that the process has its pros and cons. The sponsorship of the bill and passing it through a committee is a long task. Sometimes it is good to adequately debate and come up with the best resolution, but other times legislation is needed more quickly and it puts a halt on the drive and determination to get things done when a long proccess is present.
Like Heather said, for it to react quickly they would need a strong central body, and that is not what the framers meant for congress to be. They wanted it to be hard for congress to act. Otherwise congress would have way to much power and would not be required to represent the peoples interests. The way it is set up requires that a majority is in favor. They allow people to debate and argue over how to handle issues. Things that would not be possible if they were to act quickly.
congress is more decentralized and has an unlimited amount of time to discuss problems and all representations are equal and those who oppose the oppositons can draw the conversation on why not to let it pass, so that it may just be decided to not pass it.
Congress takes longer amounts of time to act due to their duty to think, discuss/debate, act rationally, and give each member a chance to debate their side of the issue. Keeping equal opportunity allows everyone to voice their opinion on the issue or use fillibusters to postpone decisions on the issue and keeping equality keeps the checks and balances in effect. The checks and balance support decentralization of the government and due to the fact that bills and laws effect a lot of people, it needs to be carefully considered before put into effect and the process is long and complicated as it is.
It takes congress so long to act because of discussion and the size of the body. Congress could act faster if they had a strong leader, but that would be against what the people want. Keeping the congress more decentralized helps keep the power dispersed. The downfall being the time it takes.
It often takes congress a long time to act. Passing legislation is a drawn out process, and as legislation goes through the motions it has many chances to die, explaining why legislation may be intruduced several times before finally sticking. First a bill must be introduced by a member of congress. It goes into a committee (and subcommittee) and after much checking and revisions, it may eventually be dabated on the senate or house floor. If it is passed, this often new version goes on to another house, again relying on a vote to survive. The senate and house versions must be combined, and then finally get a presidential review. This whole ordeal can take months (or years), and if a bill dies out due to session/ congress time limits, the process must start over. Though our legislature can seem slow and ineffective, the system we have we set out by the framers in hopes that many views would be shared and considered, that only the strongest legislation would be passed, and that no one group would control our government and country.
hello
Post a Comment