DOCSLIB.ORG

Congressional Record—Senate S1666

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Congressional Record—Senate S1666 S1666 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Ð SENATE February 12, 1999 (3) Attorney General, A.H. Garland, closure to the process, and would help that future congresses will recognize the im- 1886ÐOn March 24, 1886, the Senate to heal the divisions between the par- portance of allowing this bipartisan state- passed a resolution of ``condemnation'' ties which were created during these ment of censure and condemnation to remain of the Attorney General for refusing to proceedings, so that we can move on to intact for all time; and be it Further resolved, That the Senate now move turn over government papers regarding work together to address the real prob- on to other matters of significance to our the removal of a District Attorney lems confronting the American people, people, to reconcile differences between and from Office. like saving social security, improving within the branches of government, and to (4) Ambassador Thomas Bayard, education, and continuing the fight to work togetherÐacross party linesÐfor the 1896ÐOn March 20, 1896 the House of reduce crime. benefit of the American people. Representatives considered a resolu- It is time that we move on to these Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we are tion condemning and censuring Ambas- other matters of significance to our prepared to conclude the session. I sim- sador Bayard for diplomatic impropri- people, to reconcile differences between ply await the instructions from the eties. He was charged with making par- and within the branches of govern- majority leader to do such items as tisan remarks to British audiences. ment, and to work togetherÐacross may remain. CENSUR OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS party linesÐfor the benefit of the I suggest the absence of a quorum. Congress has also used censure to American people. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The condemn the conduct of its own mem- I ask unanimous consent that a list clerk will call the roll. bers. Nine senators and 22 members of of cosponsors and the text of the reso- The legislative clerk proceeded to the House have been censured. lution be printed in the RECORD. call the roll. Indeed, many members of this body There being no objection, the mate- Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask personally know former senators who rial was ordered to be printed in the unanimous consent that the order for have been censured. To those who RECORD, as follows: the quorum call be rescinded. argue that censure is ``a wet noodle COSPONSORS The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without across the wrist,'' I would respectfully Mrs. Feinstein, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Moy- objection, it is so ordered. request that they ask their colleagues nihan, Mr. Chafee, Mr. Kohl, Mr. Jeffords, f how these former senators felt about Mr. Lieberman, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. being censured. I am confident, because Daschle, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Reid, Mr. Gorton, ORDER FOR STAR PRINTÐS. 5 I have had some of these conversations Mr. Bryan, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask myself, that they would find that cen- unanimous consent that the bill S. 5 be sure was felt deeply, and was a very Wyden, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Durbin, Mrs. Murray, Mr. star printed with the changes that are significant stain upon their reputa- Wellstone, Mr. Breaux, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. at the desk. tions and legacy. Dorgan, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Reed, Ms. Landrieu, The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without CENSURE HISTORY CONCLUSION Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Levin, Mr. Rockefeller, objection, it is so ordered. In sum, censure is a powerful tool Mr. Robb, Mr. Inouye, and Mr. Akaka. f used very sparingly by Congress to con- demn unacceptable conduct. Congress RESOLUTION OF CENSURE APPOINTMENTS BY THE VICE has initiated censure proceedings in Whereas William Jefferson Clinton, Presi- PRESIDENT policy disputes, but it has also criti- dent of the United States, engaged in an in- appropriate relationship with a subordinate The PRESIDING OFFICER. The cized executive branch officials in the Chair, on behalf of the Vice President, case of President Buchanan, Navy Sec- employee in the White House, which was shameful, reckless and indefensible; pursuant to Public Law 94±304, as retary Welles, and President Nixon for Whereas William Jefferson Clinton, Presi- amended by Public Law 99±7, appoints personal misconduct. dent of the United States, deliberately mis- the Senator from Colorado (Mr. CAMP- So to those who argue that passing led and deceived the American people, and BELL) as Co-Chairman of the Commis- this censure would establish a prece- people in all branches of the United States sion on Security and Cooperation in dent for the future where presidents government; Europe. and cabinet officials could be censured, Whereas William Jefferson Clinton, Presi- The Chair, on behalf of the Vice I hope this discussion has made it dent of the United States, gave false or mis- President, pursuant to the order of the clear: that precedent has already been leading testimony and his actions have had the effect of impeding discovery of evidence Senate of January 24, 1901, appoints the set. in judicial proceedings; Senator from Ohio (Mr. VOINOVICH) to BIPARTISAN CENSURE PROMOTES HEALING Whereas William Jefferson Clinton's con- read Washington's Farewell Address on In this bipartisan censure, we pro- duct in this matter is unacceptable for a Monday, February 22, 1999. vided the Senate with a real oppor- President of the United States, does demean tunity to achieve a strong, unifying, the Office of the President as well as the f bipartisan conclusion to this whole President himself, and creates disrespect for APPOINTMENTS BY THE the laws of the land; tawdry, exhausting and divisive con- PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE troversy. Whereas President Clinton fully deserves censure for engaging in such behavior; The PRESIDING OFFICER. The The House's actions were marred Whereas future generations of Americans with partisanship. Indeed, one example Chair, on behalf of the President pro must know that such behavior is not only tempore, pursuant to Public Law 96± of this was the action of the House unacceptable but also bears grave con- leadership to prevent a censure resolu- sequences, including loss of integrity, trust 388, as amended by Public Law 97±84, tion from even being considered on the and respect; appoints the following Senators to the House floor. Whereas William Jefferson Clinton re- United States Holocaust Memorial The Senate started its proceedings on mains subject to criminal actions in a court Council: The Senator from California a high note, when we came together to of law like any other citizen; (Mrs. BOXER), and the Senator from agree unanimously, across party lines, Whereas William Jefferson Clinton's con- New Jersey (Mr. LAUTENBERG). duct in this matter has brought shame and upon procedures for the trial. Passing The Chair, on behalf of the President dishonor to himself and to the Office of the pro tempore, pursuant to Public Law our censure resolution by a strong, bi- President; and partisan vote would represent an ap- Whereas William Jefferson Clinton 99±498, appoints Donald R. Vickers, of propriate ``bookend'' to this bipartisan through his conduct in this matter has vio- Vermont, to the Advisory Committee beginning, and would stand this Senate lated the trust of the American people: Now on Student Financial Assistance for well in the annals of history. therefore, be it term ending September 30, 2001. Moreover, it would put the proper Resolved, That the United States Senate f historical perspective upon the Sen- does hereby censure William Jefferson Clin- ton, President of the United States, and does ate's actions and determinations, APPOINTMENTS BY THE condemn his wrongful conduct in the strong- MAJORITY LEADER which should not be read as a vindica- est terms; and now be it tion of the President. Further resolved, That the United States The PRESIDING OFFICER. The I believe that passing this censure on Senate recognizes the historic gravity of this Chair announces, on behalf of the Ma- a bipartisan basis would bring a real bipartisan resolution, and trusts and urges jority Leader, pursuant to Public Law.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History
    Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History Updated February 1, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45087 Resolutions to Censure the President: Procedure and History Summary Censure is a reprimand adopted by one or both chambers of Congress against a Member of Congress, President, federal judge, or other government official. While Member censure is a disciplinary measure that is sanctioned by the Constitution (Article 1, Section 5), non-Member censure is not. Rather, it is a formal expression or “sense of” one or both houses of Congress. Censure resolutions targeting non-Members have utilized a range of statements to highlight conduct deemed by the resolutions’ sponsors to be inappropriate or unauthorized. Before the Nixon Administration, such resolutions included variations of the words or phrases unconstitutional, usurpation, reproof, and abuse of power. Beginning in 1972, the most clearly “censorious” resolutions have contained the word censure in the text. Resolutions attempting to censure the President are usually simple resolutions. These resolutions are not privileged for consideration in the House or Senate. They are, instead, considered under the regular parliamentary mechanisms used to process “sense of” legislation. Since 1800, Members of the House and Senate have introduced resolutions of censure against at least 12 sitting Presidents. Two additional Presidents received criticism via alternative means (a House committee report and an amendment to a resolution). The clearest instance of a successful presidential censure is Andrew Jackson. The Senate approved a resolution of censure in 1834. On three other occasions, critical resolutions were adopted, but their final language, as amended, obscured the original intention to censure the President.
    [Show full text]
  • The First Day of a New Congress: a Guide to Proceedings on the House Floor
    The First Day of a New Congress: A Guide to Proceedings on the House Floor -name redacted- Specialist on the Congress Updated December 19, 2018 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov RL30725 The First Day of a New Congress: A Guide to Proceedings on the House Floor Summary Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution sets a term of office of two years for all Members of the House. One House ends at the conclusion of each two-year Congress, and the newly elected Representatives must constitute a new House at the beginning of the next Congress. Consequently, the House must choose its Speaker and officers and adopt the chamber’s rules of procedure every two years. The Constitution mandates that Congress convene at noon on January 3, unless the preceding Congress by law designated a different day. P.L. 113-201 set January 6, 2015, as the convening date of the 114th Congress. Congressional leaders planned that the 115th Congress would convene January 3, 2017, and that the 116th Congress would convene January 3, 2019, obviating the need for a law to set the date. Although no officers will have been elected when the House first convenes, officers from the previous Congress perform certain functions, such as conducting the election of the Speaker. The House follows a well-established first-day routine. The proceedings include— a call to order by the Clerk of the House; a prayer led by the Chaplain and the Pledge of Allegiance led by the Clerk; a quorum call ordered by the Clerk; the election of the Speaker, ordered by the Clerk and conducted with the assistance of tellers; remarks by the Speaker-elect, followed by his or her swearing-in by the dean of the House; the oath of office for the newly elected and re-elected Members, administered by the Speaker; adoption of the rules of the House for the new Congress; adoption of various administrative resolutions and unanimous consent agreements; and announcement of the Speaker’s policies on certain floor practices.
    [Show full text]
  • Unanimous Consent Agreements Establishing a 60-Vote Threshold for Passage of Legislation in the Senate
    = 3&3.24:8= 438*39=,7**2*398=89&'1.8-.3,= &=0*849*=-7*8-41)=+47=&88&,*=4+=*,.81&9.43= .3=9-*=*3&9*= *,&3=:?&33*= >3(-= 3&1>89=43= 43,7*88=&3)=9-*=*,.81&9.;*=74(*88= &>=+,`=,**3= 43,7*88.43&1= *8*&7(-=*7;.(*= 18/1**= <<<_(78_,4;= -..3+= =*5479=+47=43,7*88 Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress 3&3.24:8= 438*39= ,7**2*398=89&'1.8-.3,=&=0*849*=-7*8-41)= = :22&7>= The Senate frequently enters into unanimous consent agreements (sometimes referred to as “UC agreements” or “time agreements”) that establish procedures for the consideration of legislation that the Senate is considering or will soon consider. In recent practice, such unanimous consent agreements have sometimes included a provision that would require a 60-vote threshold to be met for amendments or legislation to be considered agreed to, rather than the simple majority ordinarily required. These amendments or measures may be of a controversial nature with the potential for causing a filibuster. By incorporating a 60-vote threshold, such UC agreements avoid the multiple requirements imposed by Senate Rule XXII for invoking cloture, while preserving the same requirement for super-majority support. This report will be updated each session of Congress. 43,7*88.43&1=*8*&7(-=*7;.(*= 3&3.24:8= 438*39= ,7**2*398=89&'1.8-.3,=&=0*849*=-7*8-41)= = 3974):(9.43= The Senate’s emphasis on individual and minority rights, reflected in both its standing rules and chamber custom,1 can make it challenging for the chamber to achieve its various goals in a timely manner.
    [Show full text]
  • The Legislative Process on the House Floor: an Introduction
    The Legislative Process on the House Floor: An Introduction Updated May 20, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov 95-563 The Legislative Process on the House Floor: An Introduction Summary The daily order of business on the floor of the House of Representatives is governed by standing rules that make certain matters and actions privileged for consideration. On a day-to-day basis, however, the House can also decide to grant individual bills privileged access to the floor, using one of several parliamentary mechanisms. The standing rules of the House include several different parliamentary mechanisms that the body may use to act on bills and resolutions. Which of these will be employed in a given instance usually depends on the extent to which Members want to debate and amend the legislation. In general, all of the procedures of the House permit a majority of Members to work their will without excessive delay. The House considers most legislation by motions to suspend the rules, with limited debate and no floor amendments, with the support of at least two-thirds of the Members voting. Occasionally, the House will choose to consider a measure on the floor by the unanimous consent of Members. The Rules Committee is instrumental in recommending procedures for considering major bills and may propose restrictions on the floor amendments that Members can offer or bar them altogether. Many major bills are first considered in Committee of the Whole before being passed by a simple majority vote of the House. The Committee of the Whole is governed by more flexible procedures than the basic rules of the House, under which a majority can vote to pass a bill after only one hour of debate and with no floor amendments.
    [Show full text]
  • AFS RR Primer
    Running a Meeting under Robert’s Rules of Order A Primer for AFS Unit Leaders For further information, contact: John Boreman AFS Constitutional Consultant [email protected] Updated: 4 April 2016 Table of Contents Topic Page Order of Business………………………………………………………………..3 Approving Minutes……………………………………………………………...4 Handling Motions………………………………………………………………..5 Types of Motions…………………………………………………………………7 Adjourning………………………………………………………………………… 9 Recording Minutes…………………………………………………………….10 2 Updated: 4 April 2016 Order of Business The AFS Rules provide an order of business for the annual Business Meeting that must be followed and which supersedes the order suggested in Robert’s Rules. For other AFS meetings, Robert’s Rules suggests that the meetings follow the following order of business: 1. Reading the Minutes of the previous meeting [and their approval] 2. Reports of Officers and Standing Committees 3. Reports of Special Committees 4. Special Orders 5. Unfinished Business and General Orders 6. New Business • Note that “Determination of a Quorum” is not part of the formal order of business, because the meeting must have a quorum before any official business is conducted. • “Special Orders” are usually motions or actions carrying over from past meetings, for which the members want to make certain are addressed at the present meeting. Unfinished actions can also be handled under “Unfinished Business.” • Reading of the minutes under the first order of business may be waived if the draft minutes are distributed to the members ahead of the meeting. If the minutes are distributed ahead of time, a motion to dispense with reading of the minutes may be made. This motion must be seconded, is neither debatable nor amendable, and requires a simple majority to pass.
    [Show full text]
  • No Member Is to Come Into the House with His Head Covered, Nor To
    JEFFERSON'S MANUAL § 377±§ 380 a vote given by a Senator on a question relating to his own right to a seat; but the House has never had occasion to proceed so far (V, 5959). No Member is to come into the House with his § 377. Wearing of hats head covered, nor to remove from by Members. one place to another with his hat on, nor is to put on his hat in coming in or re- moving, until he be set down in his place. Scob., 6. Until 1837 the parliamentary practice of wearing hats during the session continued in the House; but in that year it was abolished by clause 7 of rule XIV. § 378. Adjournment of A question of order may be ad- questions of order. journed to give time to look into precedents. 2 Hats., 118. The Speaker has declined, on a difficult question of order, to rule until he had taken time for examination (III, 2725; VI, 432; VII, 2106; VIII, 2174, 2396, 3475), and may take a parliamentary inquiry under advise- ment, especially where not related to the pending proceedings (VIII, 2174; Apr. 7, 1992, p. ÐÐ), but it is conceivable that a case might arise wherein this privilege of the Chair would require approval of the majority of the House, to prevent arbitrary obstruction of the pending business by the Chair. On occasion, the Chair has reversed as erroneous a decision pre- viously made (VI, 639; VII, 849; VIII, 2794, 3435). The law of Parliament evidently contemplates that the adjournment of a question of order shall be controlled by the House.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 1 Adjournment
    Chapter 1 Adjournment A. GENERALLY; ADJOURNMENTS OF THREE DAYS OR LESS § 1. In General § 2. Adjournment Motions and Requests; Forms § 3. When in Order; Precedence and Privilege of Motion § 4. In Committee of the Whole § 5. Who May Offer Motion; Recognition § 6. Debate on Motion; Amendments § 7. Voting § 8. Quorum Requirements § 9. Dilatory Motions; Repetition of Motion B. ADJOURNMENTS FOR MORE THAN THREE DAYS § 10. In General; Resolutions § 11. Privilege of Resolution § 12. August Recess C. ADJOURNMENT SINE DIE § 13. In General; Resolutions § 14. Procedure at Adjournment; Motions Research References U.S. Const. art. I, § 5 5 Hinds §§ 5359–5388 8 Cannon §§ 2641–2648 Manual §§ 82–84, 911–913 1 VerDate 29-JUL-99 20:28 Mar 20, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 2574 Sfmt 2574 C:\PRACTICE\DOCS\MHP.001 PARL1 PsN: PARL1 §1 HOUSE PRACTICE A. Generally; Adjournments of Three Days or Less § 1. In General Types of Adjournments Adjournment procedures in the House are governed by the House rules and by the Constitution. There are: (1) adjournments of three days or less, which are taken pursuant to motion; (2) adjournments of more than three days, which require the consent of the Senate (§ 10, infra); and (3) adjourn- ments sine die, which end each session of a Congress and which require the consent of both Houses. Adjournments of more than three days or sine die are taken pursuant to concurrent resolutions. §§ 10, 13, infra. Adjournment Versus Recess Adjournment is to be distinguished from recess. The House may author- ize a recess under a motion provided in rule XVI clause 4.
    [Show full text]
  • 111-Quorum.Pdf
    QUORUM Paragraph 1 of Rule VI provides that a quorum shall consist of a majority of the Senators duly chosen and sworn, and under the rules and practices of the Senate, any Senator may suggest the absence of a quorum before the Senate is permitted to act on any business. However, under a unanimous consent agreement placing a limitation on the debate of a measure and assigning control of that time, while that matter is pending no Senator may suggest the absence of a quorum unless that Senator con­ trols a sufficient amount of time (which has been held by the precedents to be 10 minutes). But, it has been equally well estab­ lished by the precedents that any Senator has a right to call for a quorum before a vote begins even if that Senator controlled no time, or even if there was an order that a vote occur at a time certain. However, certain unanimous consent agreements have been interpreted to preclude quorum calls. The Presiding Officer has no authority to count to see if a quorum is present when a Senator suggests the absence of a quorum unless the Senate is operating under cloture; the rules provide that once a Senator makes a point of no quorum, "the Presiding Officer shall forthwith direct the Secretary to call the roll" and the Presiding Officer "shall announce the result." U nti! a point of no quorum has been raised, the Senate oper­ ates on the assumption that a quorum is present, and even if only a few Senators are present, a measure may be passed or a nomi­ nation agreed to.
    [Show full text]
  • OUTLINE of PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE- a Brief Outline Of
    -OUTLINE OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE- A brief outline of Parliamentary Motions most commonly used. (Exceptions to the motions are not stated in this outline.) (NOTE: This outline is designed to be used in either house; select the proper word in parenthesis. The language is only suggested, and is not mandatory.) 1. READING OF A BILL FOR THE THIRD TIME UNDER SUSPENSION OF THE RULES. When a bill is read the third time on the same legislative day, it requires a suspension of the rules. In view of the constitutional provisions and the rules, the motion is: "I request unanimous consent that the rules be suspended, that the printing of the bill be dispensed with, that the committee reference be dispensed with, and the (House) (Senate) Bill No. _____ be read the third time in full, preparatory to its final passage." 2. MOTIONS INCIDENTAL TO PLACING A BILL ON ITS FINAL PASSAGE. a. The sponsor of the bill makes the following motion: "I move that (House) (Senate) Bill No. _____ be placed on its final passage, subject to debate, amendment and substitution." b. If an amendment is offered from the floor, the following motion applies: "I move the adoption of Floor Amendment No. ___." c. The sponsor of the bill explains the contents of the bill, after which it is subject to debate, amendment or substitution. d. If a bill is non-controversial, in order to expedite business and to dispense with the calling of the roll, the following motion is made: "I request unanimous consent of the (House) (Senate) that the record show that the roll was called on the final passage (House) (Senate) Bill No.
    [Show full text]
  • “Regular Order” in the US House: a Historical Examination of Special
    The Erosion of “Regular Order” in the U.S. House: A Historical Examination of Special Rules Michael S. Lynch University of Georgia [email protected] Anthony J. Madonna University of Georgia [email protected] Allison S. Vick University of Georgia [email protected] May 11, 2020 The Rules Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives is responsible for drafting special rules for most bills considered on the floor of the House. These “special rules” set the guidelines for floor consideration including rules of debate and the structure of the amending process. In this chapter we assess how the majority party uses special rules and the Rules Committee to further their policy and electoral goals. We explain the work of the Rules Committee and assess how the use of rules has changed over time. Using a dataset of “important” legislation from 1905-2018, we examine the number of enactments considered under restrictive rules and the rise of these types of rules in recent Congresses. Additionally, we use amendment data from the 109th-115th Congresses to analyze the amending process under structured rules. Introduction In October of 2015, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) was elected Speaker of the House. Among other promises, Ryan pledged to allow more floor amendments through open processes and to return the House to “regular order” (DeBonis 2015). Ryan’s predecessor, former-Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), had been aggressively criticized by members of both parties for his usage of special rules to bar amendments. Despite his optimism, many were skeptical Ryan would be able to deliver on his open rule promises.1 This skepticism appeared to be warranted.
    [Show full text]
  • Bypassing Senate Committees: Rule XIV and Unanimous Consent
    . Bypassing Senate Committees: Rule XIV and Unanimous Consent Michael L. Koempel Senior Specialist in American National Government November 30, 2009 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RS22299 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress c11173008 . Bypassing Senate Committees: Rule XIV and Unanimous Consent Summary Most bills and joint resolutions introduced in the Senate, and many House-numbered bills and joint resolutions received by the Senate after House passage, are referred to committee. Provisions of Senate Rule XIV and unanimous consent, however, allow the Senate to bypass a measure’s referral to committee. Unanimous consent can also be used to truncate a committee’s consideration of a measure. Rule XIV requires measures to be read twice before referral to committee. After the second reading, by objecting to further proceeding under Rule XIV, a Senator, normally the majority leader (or a designee) acting on his own initiative or at the request of any Senator, prevents referral to committee. The measure is placed directly on the Senate Calendar of General Orders. Unanimous consent is also used to bypass referral and place measures on the calendar. Placing a measure on the calendar, however, does not guarantee floor consideration. The Senate regularly uses unanimous consent to consider and pass noncontroversial legislation that has not been referred to committee. Unanimous consent can also be used to truncate a committee’s consideration of a noncontroversial measure referred to it, and for the Senate to pass the measure. The Senate leadership uses an informal process called “clearance” (or “hotlining”) to determine if any Senator would object to a specific bill or joint resolution being considered and passed by unanimous consent.
    [Show full text]
  • Dear Senator Elect, Congratulations on Your Election to the Senate of the United States
    Dear Senator Elect, Congratulations on your election to the Senate of the United States. The Senate is one of the greatest deliberative bodies in the world, partially because of its unsurpassed protection of minority rights. It is designed so that one individual Senator can slow down, or even stop, the Senate from passing a bill. Although some in today’s culture of immediacy see this as a weakness, it is actually a strength of the Senate. The Founding Fathers did not create our government to be fast acting. The process was designed to be slow and make sure that the government was actually doing the right thing. James Madison once wrote, “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” Our Founders created a government with checks and balances, both among the three branches as well as within the legislative branch. The House of Representatives follows a majority rule system that can be fast, but not always the most thoughtful process. Therefore, the Founding Fathers wisely designed the Senate to be slower, more deliberative body. According to Madison, it would serve as a “necessary fence” against the “fickleness and passion” that tended to influence the attitudes of the members of the House. The Senate not only serves as a check against the House, but we also are a check against the executive branch. We have the responsibility to advise and consent to treaties and presidential nominations. Although the executive has the responsibility to negotiate treaties, it is our obligation to ensure that the United States does not enter into any treaties that are against our interests.
    [Show full text]