Can someone please tell me if I'm misunderstanding how checks and blances in the government are supposed to work?

The major inaccuracy in the scenario given is with the fact that no bill has been presented for Trump to veto. From a cynical standpoint one might very well conclude that the system of checks and balances is working just fine since neither side has the weight to impose its will upon the other. It is a crude and clumsy way to govern and openly working to the detriment of the country. The issue will be resolved with the answer to the question “which side can be made to bleed politically beyond tolerable limits?” The Democrats fully understand their advantage in this, as Trump has painted himself into a corner with his wall. As the days pass and the disruptions magnify, the point will surely arrive when the answer to the question “is the wall worth it?” becomes unavoidable to even the dimmest of wits constituting his hapless base. The poor Republicans are in effect begging the Democrats to throw them a crumb, ANY CRIMB of a counter proposal, but the Dems merely have to sit on the rather certain bet that Trump will never make the case that the wall justifies the ever mounting shutdown crises.

I think you’re watching too much CNN. I’m not aware of any unanimous vote to reopen the government without border funding. If that had happened Trump would have had to veto or sign. He’s not done either.

I am the original author of the post.

I don’t watch CNN, or any other TV news source. I don’t have cable. I get all my info from print sources. Nice try at an ad hominem, though.

But as you both noted there was a mistake in my post, though it doesn’t change any of the arguments presented. The bill that passed unanimously was one that would have kept the government open in the first place, not one to reopen it.

The only reason Trump hasn’t been given a bill to veto, as I noted, is because McConnell isn’t allowing any bill to come to the floor that he thinks Trump won’t sign. But this is shitty behavior on McConnell’s part because, as I noted, there is no reason whatsoever why Trump needs to sign such a bill. They have the votes in Congress to override a veto. If McConnell had any interest whatsoever in reopening the government he would bring a vote to the floor. He’s just being Trump’s crony here.

But McConnell is merely doing his duty as the fool’s copilot for the suicide mission. His constituents believe devoutly in both the mission and the dolt in front of it. McConnell will be re-elected even after his party loses the Senate in 2020 and the fool (if yet unindicted) is humiliated at the polls.

@Mariah – It’s hard to keep track of which bill you’re talking about but I suspect it is the continuing resolution that kept the government open through December 21st. Trump signed that bill. If there is some other bill your talking about, you’ll need to specify.

I provided a link, @Jaxk. My link specifies a bill that would have kept the government open through February, which Trump did not support because it didn’t contain his border wall funding.

From my link:

“The Senate passed the legislation by voice vote late Wednesday, and the House was expected to take it up on Thursday. Congressional leaders said they expected Trump to sign it before the shutdown deadline.

But the mercurial president — who just a week ago declared he would be “proud” to shut down the government over the wall funding — did not publicly announce his support for the deal, throwing the outcome into question as Trump’s conservative allies on and off Capitol Hill mounted a furious lobbying campaign to convince the president to reject the deal.”

Regardless, you are derailing the thread, which is asking about checks and balances. Is it or is it not true that two men alone (the president and Senate Majority Leader) can hold the government hostage by not allowing a vote on a potential veto override to come to the floor?

Your pointing at McConnell as holding it up while saying the Senate passed it. Both can not be true. There is no bill that I can see that passed both the House and Senate. If there was it would go to the President to sign. He could then Veto it or sign it. If vetoed Congress could then try to over ride the veto. That’s how it works. The only continuing resolution that made it to his desk, he signed. The question seems to be built on a false premise. Obviously you would like to take this in a different direction so I’ll leave you to your pursuits.

Of course they can both be true. The Senate can pass a bill and then McConnell can block a vote to override a veto.

Listen, forget the current situation. I shouldn’t have even mentioned it in my post. I am trying to ask a question about how American government in general works.

Is the following scenario plausible in our government:

- The House and Senate, with a strong majority, pass a bill to fund the government
– The president vetoes the bill
– The Senate majority leader refuses to bring a vote to the floor to override the veto, even though they have the votes in the Senate to do so, because he personally agrees with the president
– The government is now at a standstill because two, count em two, dudes aren’t getting what they want

That is my question. Feel free to answer that question.

That in fact is how it can work. But again, it’s the majority leader’s constituents who agree with the President. McConnell probably doesn’t personally agree with anything beyond keeping his job.

How is Mariah’s scenario a check or a balance? Isn’t that kind of stand off exactly what the founding fathers were trying to prevent?

Both sides are checked. On one side 2 men appear to wield the whip, but the Senate has the power to oust its President, and for that matter, the other President as well.

So why isn’t the Senate doing it?

Clearly they don’t regard the issue worthy of the effort.

So, the Republican majority Senate doesn’t regard the issue as worthy of the effort, but some people still want to blame the Democrats. Interesting.

Those who would prefer to blame the democrats will be increasingly forced toward answering the question “is the wall worth wrecking the government and the country in its wake?” What’s the sane answer to that one?

Thanks @stanleybmanly – the fact that the majority leader can be replaced at any time is the check I had missed in my original post.

As for the current situation, after doing some reading I realize I was indeed mistaken but not in a way that makes any meaningful difference to my argument.

Trump has indeed not vetoed anything yet. What’s happening is that McConnell is refusing to bring any legislation to the floor that he foresees Trump vetoing. This is just as bad because it’s ignoring the fact that the veto override process exists and that they have the votes to carry it out. That’s the significance of the previous unanimous vote – it proves that they have the votes to override a veto. McConnell is refusing to act as a check on Trump.

Because of this behavior, the Senate ought to vote to replace him, but they’re not doing so, making the rest of them complicit in this as well.

2020 looms. Cheer up. In the runup to then the House is going to wreak the sort of vengeance on Trump seen only in fairy tales. His life is about to become unbearable. Pelosi is one shrewd woman and tough as barbed wire. The fat boy is going to suffer for his sins, beginning with this shutdown. He’s already roasting on a spit and the heat can only rise. Watch and see.

Is it 2020 yet?? Is it 2020 yet?? Is it 2020 yet?? Is it 2020 yet?? Is it 2020 yet??