I showed this to my Civics classes a few weeks ago and they absolutely loved it! This video was the perfect ice breaker to this extremely complicated process. Thank you for making these videos, I look forward to using more in the future!
A bill passes a very convoluted path with a great deal of friction. Where does the energy come from to push those bills through all those hurdles? You'd think that nothing would get passed, yet we get 80,000 pages of new law a year. (I'm behind in my reading, but I'm sure some government official will tap me on my shoulder when I do wrong by some new law.) Walt
This was soo much better and clearer than the CrashCourse video. Thank you so much. Gonna have to watch a couple times in order to commit to memory, but you laid out the process perfectly. About to kill my legislative systems exam
As for the opinion you asked for: In short - I think this is a relatively good process compared to the alternatives. Our system pleases and protects as many people as possible while reducing the effort required to enforce the new rules once they've been hammered out. The alternative is a system which makes the rule-making process easier (monarchy or authoritarian state), but in turn makes it much harder to enforce the rules and protect people. All systems are flawed, therefore it's paramount that an institution with the power to incarcerate or kill (the State) should be as limited as possible while still being able to maintain an orderly society.
Hip's vids are always great. What I thought was interesting was all the different committees that can kill a bill before it even goes anywhere. Someone with a certain agenda that is the head of one of these committees can have more power than the actual house in killing a bill and I find that problematic and should be changed. The committees can be stacked ahead of time to make sure that bills that have certain earmarks be canned from the get-go. There aught to be some type of way to make these committees more unbiased; maybe some guiding rules. I'm not referring to the rules committees necessarily, all the committees should have stipulations that keep out those negative agendas. More bills that make sense are beneficial for the average citizen need to be passed instead of these bills that benefit multinational corporations.
I think it's pretty clear that the kind of filter bills must pass through has to do with which party dominates Congress. There is no chance in hell that Affordable Care would pass this Congress. Yet even if plaintiffs win King V Burwell, the Affordable Care Act will only be modified; it won't be eliminated like the present Congress would prefer. The important point here is that even though the hurdles are high and there's lots of them, once through that mill, the next Congress finds it very difficult to remove. The teeth in the ratchet of government growth are even larger once the economy adjusts to the new regulations, and the change in incentives. Removing a law that has been so entrenched would be a much larger problem than the original problem was to solve.
Maybe you can talk about Birth Certificates next. What they are for and how they incorporate us. Where do they go? Ultimately. How are they used in the global Market Place. i.e. stocks and bonds. Collateral?
Heres a Question i have been wondering where do I go to hear about a bill before it even makes it through the process to become a law? My question is do they have to tell you about a bill as soon as the legislation is introduced or before it gets to congress, Or do they not have tell the citizens at all?
Thank you!! This was very helpful to me!! Also at 5:58, what tv show is this from?? It's killing me that I can't remember...yet it's right on the tip of my tongue, ugh!!
Question: does very bill need to start with a companion bill? Or can a House bill pass both the house and senate, or would the senate need to right it's own bill? For Example HR38 passes the house and goes to the senate for a vote but the senate has S446 which is basically the same bill not not really. can the senate just disregard the senate bill and just vote on the houses bill HR38?
Question: If you would like for your idea to become a bill. Do you have to send it to a congressman from your state or can they be from a different state?
Send it to some one you think would support it. If you believe in something like the bathroom law send it to North Carolina lol... If you sent it to someone like Tulsi Gabbard, it would die right there because she supports Bernie Sanders.
I presume Affordable Care Act originated in the senate. Anything different about that bill becoming law? Milton Friedman did an informal study on congressional inaction. Maybe you read about that. He plotted the rate of change of Dow Jones Index or something like that with how flumixed congress was. I guess that makes it a histogram rather than a function. The horizontal axis was: both houses Republican, both houses Democrat, president same as senate and so. The assumption there is that the more divided the government the fewer the number of really important bills passed. The bars were very clearly: economy boomed when congress was most contentious. Friedman treated this as amusing more than it was informative because correlation isn't causation etc. etc.
Apple sauce is good. I think that it is good deal that we have so many ways that a bill can die, but I am no happy with the way that the log-roll and use different tactic like that.
Overall not a bad presentation, but one factual error and one logic error which were both related. First: Reagan never had the House during his two terms, only the Senate for two years. This is quickly and easily verifiable. Second, your mildly partisan rant about Obama not truly having the power to push legislation through two sympathetic chambers of congress was not entirely correct (7:49). The criticism that generated this complaint was that pundits and the administration itself were claiming massive bipartisan support for the President's policies and preferences when, in fact, the only thing bipartisan was opposition. So that small rant is a bit of a strawman. The most well known of these examples was the PPACA, which could use its own 12 minute video explaining how the procedures outlined in this video were actually put into practice.
Robert Reid Thank you for your correction related to the House and Reagan. I do think the issue of bipartisanship and Obama is more muddled than either of us presented. I did avoid the McConnell election night dinner with Newt, Boehner and the like making the pact to oppose the President at every juncture. I am sure if the Dems did this with Reagan his legacy would be quite different. And I am not sure if it really has anything to do with Obama's leadership qualities; perhaps it does but we will never truly know the GOP's motivation for taking such a hardline partisan line with the President back in 2004. For what's it worth they stuck to their guns.
Keith Hughes Setting aside the veracity of the claims - the election night dinner might have had more meaning if there were any evidence of follow-through on such a proposed course of action. Of course this accepts the shaky premises that an opposition party's opposition is both unacceptable and objectively bad. I think you're also looking back on the Reagan years with a rather large filter to think that he never dealt with staunch, purely partisan opposition (most notably Tip O'Neill) and obstructionism. Also, do you dispute that opposition to the President - particularly on the subject of the PPACA - was bipartisan? This isn't muddled; it's a simple fact. It was passed in a way that - at minimum - muddies the very point you began at 7:49. Like I said, that process deserves its own 12 minute video. You could actually probably get a semester out of it in a second year Poli-Sci course, but you seem to excel in cramming a ton of info in a small space.
He is so distracting he blinks so much, the way he forces his face towards the camera, and his annoying voice. I had to listen to the video with my eyes closed just to concentrate.
I want you to know that all your videos are seriously getting me through Government!
You’re doing the hard work!
Wish I couldve found this channel at the start of my Spring semester. Damn it. Studying now for my final tomorrow. Thank you a ton!
The price of apple sauce is too damn high! *rambles aimlessly to himself*
The price of applesauce isn’t high enough. A lot of effort goes into making applesauce and the workers need to be paid a lot more
I showed this to my Civics classes a few weeks ago and they absolutely loved it! This video was the perfect ice breaker to this extremely complicated process. Thank you for making these videos, I look forward to using more in the future!
Thank you for the help. I had to make a presentation on how a bill becomes a law
Always happy to help with an assist. Just remember you're the one making layups
Good breakdown of a complicated process. What's the old saying? Laws are like sausages. It's best not to see them being made. Something like that.
I love using your videos to supplement materials to flip my AP GOPO classroom. Thank you for all your work!
A bill passes a very convoluted path with a great deal of friction. Where does the energy come from to push those bills through all those hurdles? You'd think that nothing would get passed, yet we get 80,000 pages of new law a year. (I'm behind in my reading, but I'm sure some government official will tap me on my shoulder when I do wrong by some new law.)
Walt
This was soo much better and clearer than the CrashCourse video. Thank you so much. Gonna have to watch a couple times in order to commit to memory, but you laid out the process perfectly. About to kill my legislative systems exam
I have an AP quiz tomorrow and this video helped a lot, thank you.
Thanks for the video! You broke it down better than my college professor, and hopefully helped me get an "A" on my paper!
As for the opinion you asked for: In short - I think this is a relatively good process compared to the alternatives. Our system pleases and protects as many people as possible while reducing the effort required to enforce the new rules once they've been hammered out. The alternative is a system which makes the rule-making process easier (monarchy or authoritarian state), but in turn makes it much harder to enforce the rules and protect people.
All systems are flawed, therefore it's paramount that an institution with the power to incarcerate or kill (the State) should be as limited as possible while still being able to maintain an orderly society.
Can you do a video on lobbying in the U.S? I just need a good visualization of it on how it all connects.
This is helping me so much with online government! Thanks
Hip's vids are always great. What I thought was interesting was all the different committees that can kill a bill before it even goes anywhere. Someone with a certain agenda that is the head of one of these committees can have more power than the actual house in killing a bill and I find that problematic and should be changed. The committees can be stacked ahead of time to make sure that bills that have certain earmarks be canned from the get-go. There aught to be some type of way to make these committees more unbiased; maybe some guiding rules. I'm not referring to the rules committees necessarily, all the committees should have stipulations that keep out those negative agendas. More bills that make sense are beneficial for the average citizen need to be passed instead of these bills that benefit multinational corporations.
I think it's pretty clear that the kind of filter bills must pass through has to do with which party dominates Congress. There is no chance in hell that Affordable Care would pass this Congress. Yet even if plaintiffs win King V Burwell, the Affordable Care Act will only be modified; it won't be eliminated like the present Congress would prefer. The important point here is that even though the hurdles are high and there's lots of them, once through that mill, the next Congress finds it very difficult to remove. The teeth in the ratchet of government growth are even larger once the economy adjusts to the new regulations, and the change in incentives. Removing a law that has been so entrenched would be a much larger problem than the original problem was to solve.
*APPLESAUCE!!*
Maybe you can talk about Birth Certificates next.
What they are for and how they incorporate us.
Where do they go? Ultimately. How are they
used in the global Market Place. i.e. stocks and bonds.
Collateral?
Heres a Question i have been wondering where do I go to hear about a bill before it even makes it through the process to become a law? My question is do they have to tell you about a bill as soon as the legislation is introduced or before it gets to congress, Or do they not have tell the citizens at all?
Thank you!! This was very helpful to me!! Also at 5:58, what tv show is this from?? It's killing me that I can't remember...yet it's right on the tip of my tongue, ugh!!
Barney Miller
thank you for doing my political science class for me
I think you're doing it. I mean the videos without you watching them are pretty pointless for your class.
Published on my birthday.
Question: does very bill need to start with a companion bill? Or can a House bill pass both the house and senate, or would the senate need to right it's own bill? For Example HR38 passes the house and goes to the senate for a vote but the senate has S446 which is basically the same bill not not really. can the senate just disregard the senate bill and just vote on the houses bill HR38?
A shame that the bill doesn't go thru the Ethics Committee or a constitutional committee. Not like it would matter much these days.
Question: If you would like for your idea to become a bill. Do you have to send it to a congressman from your state or can they be from a different state?
Send it to some one you think would support it. If you believe in something like the bathroom law send it to North Carolina lol... If you sent it to someone like Tulsi Gabbard, it would die right there because she supports Bernie Sanders.
What’s the difference between a bill starting with HB vs. HR?
Dumb question: anyone know the name of the intro song?
Thank you.
this helps me for my civics homework
I presume Affordable Care Act originated in the senate. Anything different about that bill becoming law?
Milton Friedman did an informal study on congressional inaction. Maybe you read about that. He plotted the rate of change of Dow Jones Index or something like that with how flumixed congress was. I guess that makes it a histogram rather than a function. The horizontal axis was: both houses Republican, both houses Democrat, president same as senate and so. The assumption there is that the more divided the government the fewer the number of really important bills passed. The bars were very clearly: economy boomed when congress was most contentious. Friedman treated this as amusing more than it was informative because correlation isn't causation etc. etc.
Hi! Great info - thanks! Can I have a copy of your chart please?
President does not sign a bill or veto it within 10 days (not counting Sundays)
- Applesauce!
And special interests are like congressmen - everyone hates congress, but loves their congressman. Everyone has a special interest.
I can't hear you very well 2/3 into the video. Thank you
What is the name of the la la la la song
Apple sauce is good. I think that it is good deal that we have so many ways that a bill can die, but I am no happy with the way that the log-roll and use different tactic like that.
Thanks for understanding me
Keep it on
can't remember, have you covered the times where the vp had to break a tie?
Yup it's in there towards the end; before I get the President after the General Printing Office.
Keith Hughes not talking about this video, the specific instances. the mention in this video is what made me think of it.
I wanted to talk about applesauce. Personally I prefer mott. Mr Hip what do you think?
coooool dude
Ok thanks 12 hours to final exams :D
Overall not a bad presentation, but one factual error and one logic error which were both related. First: Reagan never had the House during his two terms, only the Senate for two years. This is quickly and easily verifiable.
Second, your mildly partisan rant about Obama not truly having the power to push legislation through two sympathetic chambers of congress was not entirely correct (7:49). The criticism that generated this complaint was that pundits and the administration itself were claiming massive bipartisan support for the President's policies and preferences when, in fact, the only thing bipartisan was opposition. So that small rant is a bit of a strawman.
The most well known of these examples was the PPACA, which could use its own 12 minute video explaining how the procedures outlined in this video were actually put into practice.
Robert Reid Thank you for your correction related to the House and Reagan. I do think the issue of bipartisanship and Obama is more muddled than either of us presented. I did avoid the McConnell election night dinner with Newt, Boehner and the like making the pact to oppose the President at every juncture. I am sure if the Dems did this with Reagan his legacy would be quite different. And I am not sure if it really has anything to do with Obama's leadership qualities; perhaps it does but we will never truly know the GOP's motivation for taking such a hardline partisan line with the President back in 2004. For what's it worth they stuck to their guns.
Keith Hughes Setting aside the veracity of the claims - the election night dinner might have had more meaning if there were any evidence of follow-through on such a proposed course of action. Of course this accepts the shaky premises that an opposition party's opposition is both unacceptable and objectively bad. I think you're also looking back on the Reagan years with a rather large filter to think that he never dealt with staunch, purely partisan opposition (most notably Tip O'Neill) and obstructionism.
Also, do you dispute that opposition to the President - particularly on the subject of the PPACA - was bipartisan? This isn't muddled; it's a simple fact. It was passed in a way that - at minimum - muddies the very point you began at 7:49. Like I said, that process deserves its own 12 minute video.
You could actually probably get a semester out of it in a second year Poli-Sci course, but you seem to excel in cramming a ton of info in a small space.
Keith Hughes As an aside, did you mean 2010 instead of 2004? I'm not recalling a GOP congress taking a hardline partisan line against a GOP president.
moose king im josh
So, I wanna talk about apple sauce
+Yumi San Wich you've come to the right place. Cinnamon or original?
Keith Hughes Ugh, hard question. You have to be in the right mood for cinnamon, original is always good though.
+Yumi San Wich but it's a scientific fact that cinnamon makes everything better. Smh
Well my mother taught me all apple sauces are created equal, but I must admit cinnamon is very special.
Are you a democrat or a republican? I'm a republican.
He is so distracting he blinks so much, the way he forces his face towards the camera, and his annoying voice. I had to listen to the video with my eyes closed just to concentrate.
This is edgy there man.