One of my most disappointing moments in life was the realization that adults are actually just as juvenile as children, just more complicated about it.
All the good shit we learn as kids goes out the window. Be kind to each other, share, communicate. It just goes bye bye. We teach people to say yes to pressure and authority and never teach them how to discuss or have a proper argument with out metaphorically throwing poo at the person/party we don't agree with. We're still apes because we refuse to acknowledge our shortcomings and learn to deal with them effectively. Any society/species/country that says it's at it's peak, the best or most evolved is one that's absolutely subject to Dunning-Krueger effect.
Mankind is always ultimately childish, because children express the purist distillation of human instinct. *Ehem,* shameless repost from myself in another comment thread under this video.
@@vixxcelacea2778 We live in a system which rewards people with wealth and power for being cut-throat, greeedy and lacking empathy. As much as we wish to teach children to be kind, a 'good sport' and to share those are not the foundational, unspoken rules of our societies.
@@James-xx7yt Of course giving up your personal responsibility to do good to any system based on faith governments, NGO, massive religions and nine times outta ten they will only pay you lip service while keeping your time/work/money. If they aren't specific about what they are doing then most likely cents on the dollar it's just them panhandling for a paycheck. Exception being government can send men with guns to ensure they can rob you by force, usually selling a bridge to nowhere.
Wouldn't that announcement imply that they are the only senator present at the session and therefore not have the right to vote for congressional action?
A senator's wage is actually really low. Not enough to afford a house within a reasonable distance from the senate. It's yet another barrier to keep normal/honest people out, because being rich/accepting bribes becomes an implicit requirement.
@@Serastrasz The U.S. Census Bureau lists the annual median personal income at $33,706 in 2018. Rank and file senators make $174,000. They make 5 times what the middle-earning American makes. I don't think that counts as 'really low'.
@@farmduck2762 It was originally 2/3, but the Nuclear Option was evoked which lowered the bar to 50. (50 because as Grey explained, when it's 50-50, the Vice President gets to tiebreak, and generally the Vice President votes the same way as the President)
In Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, it was two-thirds of present Senators. However, that specifically addressed treaties. Later (and by that I mean later in the same sentence), it only says "advice and consent of the Senate" when addressing nominations. This is why the number is always changing.
Well the thing about that is. It was always 1/2 as per constitution. Well most specifically.... Constitution doesn't say any special limit just that: "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... .. Judges of the supreme Court, ...." Which means it pretty much is by default simple majority. Since there are other cases where constitution says 2/3 majority, like ratifying treaties and breaking Presidential veto. Actually just above the nomination bit is the bit of "He (POTUS) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur". So clearly if the crafters wanted they could have also written "shall appoint Judges of the supreme Court, provided two thirds of Senators present concur." They didn't. So to them ratifying treaties was more serious matter than confirming Judges. just saying might be one of those things to amend to constitution. Since to me it seems rather sensible to just have constitutional level demand "Supreme court judges are so powerful, naming them requires 2/3 of Senators present." The reason it was 2/3 was senate internal procedural rule. More specifically filibuster. Which also explains the wobbly limit. the change to 3/5 was the filibuster limit changing and then "nuclear option" is nuclear option of over coming filibuster in general. Not nuclear option to play fast and loose with Constitution.... Constitution in itself was already playing fast and loose with Supreme Court judges being matter of simple approval by Senate. Ergo shenanigans was mostly Senate playing Shenanigans with their own internal rules, which they have power to do and if weren't so stuffy could just say outloud "it's 1/2 now, we decided so." or just say outright "since there is that loophole anyway, lets just say filibusters aren't a thing at all anymore."
Adults getting more recess than school kids is just messed up .... could you imagine if kids had a loop-hole they could exploit to force the educational system to give them 3 day recesses every 4 days? That would be the ultimate kid shenanigans!
I think you have it wrong. "Adults" don't get more recess. "Politicians" get more recess. This is why the US Founders who wrote the Constitution suggested it was a part-time job. Then again, they also suggested that pay for these positions be low, and that a two-party political system was a really bad idea...then changed all that after George Washington left office.
@@samuelzuleger5134 And the President was supposed to be a neutral third party who could walk between the aisles and get compromises from both parties. Which stopped being a thing after George Washington retired and never happened again. In reality, this country really needs a thorough rewriting of the Constitution, with the intent of making it actually work in modern times. This was the original intention of the constitution and the founding fathers. The problem is everyone is terrified the other party is going to make life worse if you rewrite the highest law in the land. For example, some people don't want socialism in the US and some do. That is just one of many issues with the constitution, however. Whether we have a two party system, how voting works, delays, technology, international law and activities, everything under the sun has been changed so radically over time that it NEEDS to be addressed at some point. But unless one party takes 75% control of the states, that will never happen. By the way, THIS is the true nuclear option. Once you touch the constitution, everything else is out the window. Supreme Court only interpret the constitution, so you just rewrite it to be more clear until they obey. You can change everything in the constitution too. Monarchy time? Yup. Murder every person of the other party legally? Yup. There are literally no limits on what you can do if you have 75% control of states.
What I understood: The senate are big babies who don't like it when decisions are made that don't influence them, or benefit the political party.... And take a lot of breaks.
Let's be fair now, The President is also a big baby who doesn't like having a counter-power stopping him from making all decisions himself. Big Babies everywhere !
to be fair, they're not exactly just taking vacations when they're not in session. they're busy campaigning so they get reelected. and campaigning is a lot of work, nothing to sneeze at. but yeah everything else you said is pretty accurate.
@@completeepicness5070 For a man that explains the rules of sport, it is not surprising that he has interest in the laws, or rules, of the American legal system.
So has everyone waiting for THERE opportunity to exploit a law made in 2013 please explain to me why that law passed making it possible for a more hatted justice to be able to win.
The year is 20XX. Everyone cheats the system at TAS levels of perfection. Because of this, the winner of a court appointment depends solely on who is allowed to speak first. The Rock Paper Scissors metagame has evolved to ridiculous levels due to it being the only remaining factor to decide court appointments. Humanity has reached its pinnacle. The low tier peasants are living in poverty.
I’m impressed that this was all facts, no spin, no partisan hackery, just facts. It’s an incredible breath of fresh air! Thank you CGP Grey. You’re the gift we don’t deserve but desperately need!
8:44 Funny enough in Argengina a really controversial tax law ended in a tie and the vp disagreed with the president, it's probably the biggest middle finger a vp has ever done
@@cakeisyummy5755 So, this is 2007, the VP, instead of coming from the same political party of the president (or even a major supporting group like american VPs tend to do), was a senator from the opposition that had switched political parties. (In an attempt to broaden support for election) The problem happened on a tax increment on agricultural exports, which is major business due to it being a large part of Argentina's economy, farmers (and importantly farming associations) went on strike, mass protests happened, some against the initiative, then others in favor, road blocks, etc. and the president's approval plummeted. The opposition was against it, and it came down to a tie in the senate (with the tax increase having passed in the lower chamber) Thus, it came down to the VP's vote, who then sided against the tax increase.
That middle finger had a cost, the vp nuked his political career and went back to his home province. He's now on an advisory role of sorts for his party, and has very sporadic appearances on tv.
Yes this was entirely done by software all you need to do is put a picture of what the person looks like and it'll turn into a stick figure all these Stick Figures were based on original images of people
Might makes right, and force is the gold standard of persuasion. If for no other reason than that *ethical* persuasion requires mutual goodwill and faith, something which can never be assured. This ensures that *unethical* persuasion (lies deceit and coercion) always holds an advantage, as the only recourse to being cheated is to deal with the schemer on their own terms (at which point all hope of mutual compromise is lost) and cheat back, or walk away empty handed. This's where the gold 'nuclear' standard comes into play, as if you were willing to walk away empty handed you'd likely never have shown up to play ball in the first place. Once you understand this concept you understand the heart of all human interaction, in the past, present and future.
Really feels like the half plus one was the biggest turning point. Suddenly a nominated justice went from needing to be pretty palatable to most of senate to just needing to convince their half that they'd represent their political will.
The best part is "no politician can write laws that can cover everything, so a court has to interpret then, even when there are laws that are pretty clear on meaning"
It's not complex. The entire point is for it to be simple. The claim of it being "complex" is just a lie that only serves to help those that want to toss it aside because their ideology dictates that the government should be as powerful as it wishes to be (so that the enlightened elite can rule over us peasants) instead of _extremely_ limited, as was intended by the Constitution.
@@Regimeshifts founding fathers are goats bruh don't ever try disrespect them. Shit I ain't even American but these dudes had almost everything worked out , including slaves . A declaration of it's abolishion was prepared you know the story
I'm so "happy" that you can accurately depict the highest branches of government as schoolgirls and schoolboys arguing amongst one another with petty bullshit.
@@aenetanthony unless they where in the room but not the senator in charge and just raised they hand and asked for a roll call. That might do it, I think, maybe, I'm actually not sure at all.
He was never gone... A month between videos is business as usual, quality over quantity. I wonder how idiots like you even find channels like this, you're not the market audience, it's like explaining chemistry to a rock.
See, this is the kind of thing that would be helpful for all the non poli-sci majors out there...Even the poli-sci grads I do know were impressed by the eloquence and precision of this video. THIS is why I love CGP Grey and his videos and why I subscribed years ago! Thank you, and may this be spread over the entire US so that _we the people_ might understand how our own government works...
It's worth mentioning here for non poli-sci majors there are some shenanigans that the Supreme Court doesn't really get to rule on. For example, the Supreme Court cannot declare a constitutional amendment unconstitutional. In a similar manner, packing the court is affirmatively Constitutional, since there is neither precedent nor Constitutional or legal precept that limits the Court to a given number. It also ignores the fact that the Supreme Court itself can be involved in shenanigans. It is, indeed, less likely, but the Supreme Court acting at the behest of its nominating party, for example with regards to gerrymandering or expanding the vote, can weaken the legitimacy of the Court just as surely as congressional shenanigans can. Finally, it doesn't address the mountains of shenanigans that have gone on in the past 6 years. Packing the Court sounds scary, but it's just as legal and similarly norm-breaking to what Senator McConnell has orchestrated with regards to Merrick Garland and RBG's seat.
@@Corrael What a shocking conclusion. The orchestrations with regards to Merrick Garland and RBG are in no way norm breaking. No opposing senate has confirmed the nominee of a lame duck president in over 100 years. The norm breaking behaviour was that the senate was willing to hear the nominee after the presidential elections, rather than holding hearings and rejecting all nominees until the election, as was previously done. You've managed to equate two complete opposites.
@@Cacaroni Let's hold off on the historical precedent here for a moment and return to the confirmation of Merrick Garland. Garland was not given hearings, which itself was a break of a norm, but during that lack of hearings, numerous Republicans stated that they would not pursue a nomination in a presidential election year. This in itself is an attempt to establish a new norm, and justify behavior by it. But the precedent does go the other way as well -- The only Justice to die closer to an election day than RBG (Taney) had his replacement nominated only after the election, as with the three justices who died less than or around 100 days before the election. (Minton, Trimble, and McKinley). Conversely, those who died much more than 100 days before an election all received confirmation hearings that year, whether or not they were confirmed. The question is, however, not whether *you* think it's shenanigans and thus will beget shenanigans, but whether the Democratic party and its leaders think it's shenanigans, as that is what typically results in escalation. And it's overwhelmingly clear that they do, and frankly, I believe they are right to.
Since the Senate doesn’t recess because no one requests a roll, couldn’t a Senator of the same party as the president slip in and call for a roll call? Then wouldn’t they automatically be in recess?
Only the senator in charge of the session can make a roll call, which would be the person who was assigned by the president pro tempe (the most senior senator). So this would only work if you managed to convince the one person who was specifically selected to not do this.
@@OctoRang I'm not correcting you, because I don't know the answer, but that word "request" makes me suspect that the request could be denied by the president pro-temp.
@@notmee2388 it could, but he can be overruled by a majority in the room. So if we assume that that senator is the only one in the room, that makes him a majority.
@Spanish Mapping Politically yes but the country is still very prosperous, and unlike rome Canada and Mexico aren't filled with bloodthirsty barbarians.
@@puellanivis -- Counterpoint, all arguments about the difference between rules lawyering and shenanigans are already talking about rules lawyering, and are therefore also talking about shenanigans.
Well to be fair, recess isn't exactly the same as free time, it's just that the Senate and House members get to go back to their districts and actually interact with their constituents. It's basically a way for them to continue being able to accurately represent the will of their constituents and get a handle on what's going on in their state/district. All of that is in theory though, as we all know that politicians tend to have their aides do most of the work while they shmooze with the wealthy elites. Still proper framing is important.
@@femsplainer It's the same in parliamentary democracies, to an outsider it looks like MP's take a _lot_ of time off, but of course they have community surgeries and similar to do back in their constituencies.
@@daerdevvyl4314 Yes, the term does not have an exclusively medical use in the UK. It can mean an event where MP's are available to give advice to members of the public.
Ralphie Raccoon Okay. Thanks for telling me. By the way, did you ever see a kids’ cartoon called The Raccoons? It aired on Canadian TV in about the 1990s. One of the main characters was Ralph Raccoon.
One of my favorite things about these grey “politics” videos is that he does say anything about either party and doesn’t mention them, so we can escape partisan politics and just judge what actually happened
I think one of the markers of being a mature person is recognizing that politicians on both sides are unruly children who play shenanigans and rule-lawyering at every opportunity to get their way because if they don't get their way they'll throw a tantrum.
I think we're not too far away from an unruly cabinet member ordering the DC Police to follow the Supreme Court justices the President wants gone, then impeaching them for the "high crime and misdemeanor" of doing 5mph over. There's technically nothing illegal about that, and the Supreme Court doesn't get to decide what offences are impeachable. Congress does.
Not only is he British, he makes his own parties (Orange and Yellow), but I don’t know any American political party with either of those colors (Dems are blue, Reps are red)
Yup, what seems unbelievable to America is just "coming back to typical realpolitik power relations after an *unusually* long lucky streak with stable constitutional government and rule of law" to the rest of the world. Regression to the mean.
To paraphrase a certain raving chair-bound God-Skeleton: Just because it is right doesn't change the fact that it is unfathomably idiotic. True, my friend. Very true.
@@menkaragamble8175 Because you're going to alienate half of your audience. Imagine if your favorite content creator came out and started shoving Repubilcan politics into their videos, you'd be rightfully pissed. That's why we're pissed when Democrats do it. Or Labor and Conservative, or Liberal and Conservative, or BJP and... you get the idea.
@@Skeloperch Why does alienation matter? Do you say yes to everything and everyone so that you don't "offend" people? Is letting other people decide what you say "good"? And why can't you be pissed if your favorite content creator doesn't shove politics into their videos? "apolitical" is a political position after all.
So basically this is just the President and the Senate playing “HAH, YOU THINK YOU OUTSMARTED ME BUT I OUTSMARTED YOU OUTSMARTING ME”, back and forth, on and on and the Supreme Court is like “Ugh...”
@TheLastSanePerson in theory of course, almost every person in congress is looking out for themselves, they care about getting re elected and staying in office, not working together to make this country a better place.
@@shavingryansprivates4332 Like when the Republicans decided tho change the law for simple majority instead of 2/3 because they couldn't pass a supreme court judge? Oh wait, that was the democrats.
Imagine getting to take half a year off from your job, then only actually work once every 4 days for less than 30 seconds. How the hell is this allowed?
Let me tell yo ua secret. it is not politicians who makes things go around no matter how much they want you to belive it. I bet we wouldn't even notice if a good percentage of them would dissapear. Garbagemen, firefighters, emergency responders on the other hand..... so its only "natural" that we talk about politicians we pay them fortunes, we give them status and we even put them on the pages of our history books.
@@ObeseYeti actually they are different things - on break is a break, they aren't there. The 3 days recess + 20 second pro-forma is a technically-not-a-break. What OP is saying is _they are not mutually exclusive_ and they can take half an year worth of breaks and work 20 seconds a quarter of the rest of the days. It's like they could effectively work *20 seconds every other week* . That's less than 10 minutes of "work" a year. Which they can delegate among themselves and rotate. So, like... 40-ish sessions an year, I guess they might cut it down to like, 40 seconds a year or even less?
Other kids: I want to be an astronaut and go to space and discover really cool things! Me: I think I’ll just go join the senate and work 1 every four days and then just vote with the majority whenever a remotely controversial decision must be made.
Eh, you'd need to have a campaign to get on the senate. Getting into the house of representatives, though, would be much easier and with so many more people your vote would matter even less.
@@sethroberts2485 The House of Representatives, on average, actually works fewer house every year than the Senate. In 2019, for example, the Senate was in session for 947 hours, whilst the House was in session for 787 hours. Either way, it averages out to about 20 hours of work per week in the year. I don't know if committee meetings are included in that, though.
@@manojraghavendran5760 By "hmm"s Grey shows that there are huge asterisks in the rules, but he can't go over them in that point in the video, that induces the funny
NPC 2749 political power gains in the US boil down to one party trying to get more power over the other. It’s not an unreasonable position to say that the US’ Supreme Court should be representative of the political or philosophical opinion of the people of the nation as a whole, and thus politically balanced and central as a court.
cjeam no that is completely unreasonable. The ENTIRE POINT of life appointments is so that while the congress and by extension nations opinion may change THEIRS DONT unless there is a constitutional amendment
@@cjeam9199 I don't believe the law is a "balance" as it is why there is no limits on how many justices the president can have in a year. The law should be interpreted as it is originally intended to be (then again can you trust one side to interpret that honestly 😆?)
Senator Harry Reid was the first to use pro forma sessions to block President George W. Bush from making recess appointments. Well at least we know how it started.
@@Evirthewarrior Not to mention Reid pulling the nuclear option on federal judicial appointees (minus the Supreme Court) when the GOP started playing the same game as Reid.
Its crazy because everyone has become so deeply rooted in whatever party their apart of that if their apart of the same party as their congressmen we're gonna send back in the same Congress that while simultaneously forcing people to stay home couldn't get any legislation to help Americans during the pandemic. We watch them only give us 1200 dollars while not allowing Americans to work but if you ask a Congress member why they'll just point and blame the other party when they're all responsible.
yes, but I think it's also worth noting that a two party system is at least the most efficient of any party system - Were we to have 10 parties of 10% of the population each, it's not a lie to state that any one election will generally only receive 10-12% support for the outcome, which is a far cry from our ~50% satisfaction in a 2 party system. It's a shitshow, but not only is it an inevitable shitshow, it's at least the best of all the shitshows.
US Government was designed so the 3 branches would check and balance themselves... But it was not intended for a 2 party system that doesn't care about the 3 branches.
Gridlock is a feature, not a bug. The founding fathers built it to be difficult to accomplish buisness without compromise. That's why the Nuclear Option was one of the most aggregious attacks on our system ever.
@@Sykdude Sounds about right for Americans. Fight nukes with nukes in order to establish ""peace" until somone figures put how to use them without consequences instead of forbidding or working on removing all the nuke options and force compremise by plugging loop holes.
And even though Washington warned that political parties would undermine the Union, those in government did nothing to enact measures to limit the power of parties.
@@Kino_Cartoon I'm not sure if your being sarcastic or not, but it is an American thing. Compromise was built into the system from the very beginning. We don't seem like it now, but the U.S. isn't homogeneous. We're built on 50 individual states and in the early days and until even now, those powers didn't always like each other. Compromise is how those states were brought together. Like the electoral college, you hear endless whining about it and articles about its dubious history but it too was formed from compromise. Smaller states wouldn't join a union where population was the sole factor of representation and larger states wouldn't join the union where population didn't matter.
Seems like 2/3 majority for senate confirmation would help keep the president from nominating a partisan justice, unless you get a trifecta: president party matches senate majority, senate majority is 2/3, and a SC justice leaves office. Because midterm elections typically swing against the just-elected president's party, he'd need that strong senate backing AND be able to appoint a SC justice in a fairly narrow window. Since the justice's previous rulings are dragged out, and he's grilled in public, and investigated in general, he'd have to have set up his whole life as a sleeper agent for his favored political tribe hoping that he gets a crack at slipping through the Senate's jaws and revealing himself as a fully-operational judicial traitor.
Yeah it did get rid of them. Because everyone including Ruth Bater Ginsburg knew Roe was going to fall. Literally every human being that completed law school knew that Roe was ruled incorrectly.
I just feel sad for that one senator who is holding the fort down like a true MVP while he watches his fellow senators go on vacation. Do you think he gets left out of vacation plans cause, "oh Jerry you wouldnt want to come to the beach house restort party its gonna be so hot and boring on my private island. Wouldnt you rather stay behind in this magnificent auditorium and get to announce senate in session over and over again?"
You would think that all the senators would take turns doing this "mildly uncomfortable task" every four days. But judging from the lack of a fair system we have, I'm pretty sure your scenario is most likely what actually happens.
"The senate doesn't work all year round, taking seasonal recesses. In the Summer, or the winter. And if it's pandemic season, then too..." What a sick burn! The senate calls out of work more than I do!
Have you met any newly elected in the last 15 years? I know way too many older people who left government because the new generation is way to childish...from both parties. Then again, I also remember McCain-Feingold (Feingold was my Senator) and when David Obey (my Democrat Representative from Wisconsin) and Paul Ryan (a Republican from Wisconsin) could agree on things that would help the state of Wisconsin. But that time passed about 12 years ago.
it's like that everywhere, in every place, not just govt. 90% of people doing your electrical work are probably thinking "wow, this person sucks at electrical safety, and I should tell them their house is going to burn, but I'm lazy so screw it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯", and the same for every other job your life relies on.
@@Julianna.Domina google for the following terms: Seattle chaz segregation. It seems twitter suspended the original accounts that presented proof. I'm going to search for the videos.
This channel absolutely has the most entertaining yet informative way of explaining laws, politics, geographic boundaries, etc. Every time I see a new one, I immediately hit play! Love the content, wish you the best of luck in growing the channel!
6:50 This makes me really want to run for Senate with the sole purpose of showing up on one of those "totally-not-a-recess" days just to call a roll call vote to troll all my (hypothetical) colleagues.
I love how the supreme court has god powers and can snap their fingers to teleport the president and the senate while looking bored at the shenanigans of mere mortals
Well, it *is* true to an extent. The supreme court has the final say in everything that crosses the desk, so in theory, they are the most powerful branch of government. The only limit on them is that someone has to bring a case to them, they can't just pick a law to interpret at will.
@@themaskedkid5266 except Marbury v Madison basically established that they can strike down laws as soon as enacted. That said, it rarely seems that Supreme Court ever does this, but federal judges do it all the time
TheMaskedKid yes but because of the checks and balances system the Supreme Court is not all-powerful. They can be brought down if both the President and Congress can agree. There’s this thing called the US constitution that can be changed with Amendments. While the Supreme Court reserves the right to interpret the constitution, if the government curves their power then there is little that they can do to stop it. Also, if for some crazy reason the Supreme Court went full tyrant then they could just impeach them/wait until they die and get new people in. The main point I’m making is while the SC is the most powerful of the branches, they aren’t all-powerful.
Considering that the Brazilian supreme court is the only government branch that has power over the others, and is de facto dictating the country for some years now... Yeah. They are overpowered entities
The reason why not a single senator ever did that is because it’s not that easy to become one in the first place and hold it long enough after disagreeing with the party (or even both of them) on something petty like that. They care more about their jobs rather than actual politics
I think the point people miss with that behavior is: It's not a power move against the other party or laziness of congress. It's a power move against the president. Why would a senator willingly give more power to the president? It's not that congress shouldn't have any vacation time either (everyone should be alowed some vacation).
I'm kinda surprised noone ever bribed that one senator to call for a roll call. The senate would end up in recess and the president could force dozens of appointees that same day.
Calculating for a “three-day break, pro-forma session, repeat” period of 4 days, and a pro-forma session length of 20 seconds, the Senate can literally always be on recess, except for when it isn’t *_0.006% of the time._*
@@73_65 The problem is, Senators are invariably rich. They won't care. Their government salary is never going to be their main source of income. For example, Joe Biden was consistently the "poorest" Senator during his time in the Senate, and he's still a millionaire.
often simply closing the video then re-opening it will drop said ads. sometimes you'll have to do it multiple times, but you'll spend less time doing that than watching a 15 sec + ad.
"Wait a minute, I'm the President! You can't depose me, you're deposed!" "Aww... wait a minute, I'm the Supreme Court! You can't depose me, you're deposed!"
@@Nilguiri lol, there may never be a stronger case of projection. I wrote a complete nonsense sentence in the style of the nonsensical poster before me
That recess vs vacation bit is so idiotic that I really can’t believe this is allowed. It’s absolutely clear what the SPIRIT of the law is and you shouldn’t use these kinds of technicalities to circumvent the law. For all intents and purposes, vacation and recess are the same thing.
The spirit of the tax law is also pretty clear, but most rich people pay less then a street peddler. The reason this is allowed is because the people who get to decide that are also the ones who benefit the most. It's a blatant conflict of interest and sign of corruption.
I think the real issue is that the real solution would be to amend the constitution, but nobody wants to open the can of worms that precedence would be. That's why people want to push activist judges into the supreme court to pretend the constitution says something different than it actually does, as a way to tweak the constitution without actually changing it.
Yeah, they CAN but they probably get peer pressured from doing so with one senator talking about taking their kids on a trip or an elderly senator taking his wife to the hospital for a surgery or something. So likely it never happens.
This quote can literally be found under EVERY major political video nowadays. Not a criticism, just an interesting indicator of the political climate we live in.
Essentially, bring term limits to the senate and the house. The only issue is that the one who decides that is congress, and why would they limit THEIR power?
I've mostly heard it from invoicing, where it's just a preliminary invoice that's sent before the goods are delivered or services rendered. Kind of a "this is not _guaranteed_ to be the final price, but this is what we think it will cost at this point in time".
Shenanigans, nuclear options? Yup, 'you will regret the fallout'... not even a few years later... lol Gawd damn politicians can be so stupid sometimes. Reminds me of that congressman worried about Guam capsizing.
>The more I learn about politics the more I realize I should vote and become more involved in the process so that we don't lose our very fragile "democracy". Fixed.
@Guy Panzerboss >The more I learn about politics the more I realize that voter suppression via disengaging voters through making them believe that they are powerless is the greatest way for the elite to keep their power lol According to you, we should not take control of our system by voting because..the elite have power. So to summarize your point. "let's keep the elite in power by not voting because..muh feelings" VOTE! If you have time to comment on youtube, you have time to vote. It's free!
@@zanethegamer4910 I don’t know. I guess they could be more in support of the president having a temporary appointment, but I’d think they would want approval either way.
@@sirbob430 no like if The president wants to make a temporary appointment and 1 senator was with the president on that... Then the Senator went to the next meeting (Since they can't stop it from happening) and called a role call so the senate would have only 2 members in and Since the role call was made that means the senate was not in order since there were 2 members. That would mean the Senate would be on break... Meaning the president could make a temporary appointment
@@odemata87 I don't think he meant the actual exam, probably just a regular test his teacher gave him as opposed to the evil acorns of the college board.
ORORORORO!!! I spend half of my day sleeping! ORORORO!!! Then I sometimes get up and tell you that I am a famous content creatorORORORORO!!! Please don't sleep while driving, dear mit
![BRASIL vs. URUGUAY [1-1] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 12](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-hWBAuxF1eY/mqdefault.jpg)
One of my most disappointing moments in life was the realization that adults are actually just as juvenile as children, just more complicated about it.
All the good shit we learn as kids goes out the window. Be kind to each other, share, communicate. It just goes bye bye.
We teach people to say yes to pressure and authority and never teach them how to discuss or have a proper argument with out metaphorically throwing poo at the person/party we don't agree with.
We're still apes because we refuse to acknowledge our shortcomings and learn to deal with them effectively.
Any society/species/country that says it's at it's peak, the best or most evolved is one that's absolutely subject to Dunning-Krueger effect.
Mankind is always ultimately childish, because children express the purist distillation of human instinct.
*Ehem,* shameless repost from myself in another comment thread under this video.
@@MarikHavair That is actually pretty insightful.
@@vixxcelacea2778 We live in a system which rewards people with wealth and power for being cut-throat, greeedy and lacking empathy. As much as we wish to teach children to be kind, a 'good sport' and to share those are not the foundational, unspoken rules of our societies.
@@James-xx7yt Of course giving up your personal responsibility to do good to any system based on faith governments, NGO, massive religions and nine times outta ten they will only pay you lip service while keeping your time/work/money. If they aren't specific about what they are doing then most likely cents on the dollar it's just them panhandling for a paycheck. Exception being government can send men with guns to ensure they can rob you by force, usually selling a bridge to nowhere.
The one senator that doesn’t do roll call is in the unique position of accurately saying, “I am the senate”
And in the ultimate nuclear option of saying roll call...
@@clueless_cutie or could potentially just make additional rulings by themselves? with a vote of one-zero out of a possible one vote victory?
Is it wrong that I heard that in Palpatine's voice...?
@@tommytomthms5 ooooh how has this never been done?
Wouldn't that announcement imply that they are the only senator present at the session and therefore not have the right to vote for congressional action?
Boy am I happy that our nations politics is based entirely around serving its people's interests and isn't just a giant pissing contest
Preach. What country?
I love living in a country where a large majority of the government isn't allowed to have breaks and do nothing with no consequences.
@@glerbus9561 Couldn't be my American ass
the 3 day break thing is like doing 1 easy question on your homework and then taking a break for 11 hours
Speaking from experience, eh ???
When they do it = Meh
When I do it = I'm awful, evil, procrastinating, on the road to failure, blah blah bad!
Schrödinger's Senate: The senate is and is not in recess unless someone asks for a roll call.
I can be the first reply to this massively liked comment.
Except I am the Senate.
No I'm the senate
So, why doesn't a SECOND senator, from the minority party, show up to work that day, with the express purpose of yelling "ROLL CALL!"?
@@bcubed72 Because going on vacation is a Bi-partisan Rubber stamp.
“Shenanigans beget shenanigans.” A proverb of proverbs.
A tautology for our time.
Swear to God I will pistol whip the next guy to says "shenanigans"!
-Captain O'Hagan
Violence breeds violence
In the end it has to be this way
Hello deutsch
I'm still wondering what does this word means... (I'm from Brazil)
"Full-time pay for part-time work" - the motto of Congress
A senator's wage is actually really low. Not enough to afford a house within a reasonable distance from the senate. It's yet another barrier to keep normal/honest people out, because being rich/accepting bribes becomes an implicit requirement.
It’s really difficult to find a good house for $150K year.
@@Serastrasz The U.S. Census Bureau lists the annual median personal income at $33,706 in 2018. Rank and file senators make $174,000. They make 5 times what the middle-earning American makes. I don't think that counts as 'really low'.
With no term limits..... Crazy
E. Steev Ramsdell for their role and demand yea it is low
Senators on "recess": "We're so smart."
Also senators: "I don't get why the American people hates us!"
Oh no, they understand. They just don't care.
So true
@@brianbethea3069 indeed ... that would be the little word PERMANENT in the assignment lul
*_You fuckers voted them in lmao_*
Im convinced all politicians in USA have hatred towards the Americans populace.
2/3
Mathematicians: That's pretty cut and dry.
Politicians: Looks like 1/2 if I squint.
@@farmduck2762 It was originally 2/3, but the Nuclear Option was evoked which lowered the bar to 50. (50 because as Grey explained, when it's 50-50, the Vice President gets to tiebreak, and generally the Vice President votes the same way as the President)
@@flyerton99 Does 2/3 get rounded to 67 or 66, in the current Senate?
In Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, it was two-thirds of present Senators. However, that specifically addressed treaties. Later (and by that I mean later in the same sentence), it only says "advice and consent of the Senate" when addressing nominations.
This is why the number is always changing.
Well the thing about that is. It was always 1/2 as per constitution. Well most specifically.... Constitution doesn't say any special limit just that:
"by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... .. Judges of the supreme Court, ...."
Which means it pretty much is by default simple majority. Since there are other cases where constitution says 2/3 majority, like ratifying treaties and breaking Presidential veto. Actually just above the nomination bit is the bit of "He (POTUS) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur". So clearly if the crafters wanted they could have also written "shall appoint Judges of the supreme Court, provided two thirds of Senators present concur." They didn't. So to them ratifying treaties was more serious matter than confirming Judges. just saying might be one of those things to amend to constitution. Since to me it seems rather sensible to just have constitutional level demand "Supreme court judges are so powerful, naming them requires 2/3 of Senators present."
The reason it was 2/3 was senate internal procedural rule. More specifically filibuster. Which also explains the wobbly limit. the change to 3/5 was the filibuster limit changing and then "nuclear option" is nuclear option of over coming filibuster in general. Not nuclear option to play fast and loose with Constitution.... Constitution in itself was already playing fast and loose with Supreme Court judges being matter of simple approval by Senate.
Ergo shenanigans was mostly Senate playing Shenanigans with their own internal rules, which they have power to do and if weren't so stuffy could just say outloud "it's 1/2 now, we decided so." or just say outright "since there is that loophole anyway, lets just say filibusters aren't a thing at all anymore."
@@carultch I think it would be 67 because 66 is less than 2/3, so to get more than 2/3 you need 67 or more votes
Adults getting more recess than school kids is just messed up .... could you imagine if kids had a loop-hole they could exploit to force the educational system to give them 3 day recesses every 4 days? That would be the ultimate kid shenanigans!
I think you have it wrong.
"Adults" don't get more recess. "Politicians" get more recess.
This is why the US Founders who wrote the Constitution suggested it was a part-time job. Then again, they also suggested that pay for these positions be low, and that a two-party political system was a really bad idea...then changed all that after George Washington left office.
Adults? In the senate?
They're lazy bruh
This is my ultimate elementary school dream
@@samuelzuleger5134 And the President was supposed to be a neutral third party who could walk between the aisles and get compromises from both parties. Which stopped being a thing after George Washington retired and never happened again.
In reality, this country really needs a thorough rewriting of the Constitution, with the intent of making it actually work in modern times. This was the original intention of the constitution and the founding fathers. The problem is everyone is terrified the other party is going to make life worse if you rewrite the highest law in the land.
For example, some people don't want socialism in the US and some do.
That is just one of many issues with the constitution, however. Whether we have a two party system, how voting works, delays, technology, international law and activities, everything under the sun has been changed so radically over time that it NEEDS to be addressed at some point. But unless one party takes 75% control of the states, that will never happen.
By the way, THIS is the true nuclear option. Once you touch the constitution, everything else is out the window. Supreme Court only interpret the constitution, so you just rewrite it to be more clear until they obey. You can change everything in the constitution too. Monarchy time? Yup. Murder every person of the other party legally? Yup. There are literally no limits on what you can do if you have 75% control of states.
This is literally like play fighting a kid, but they keep giving themselves invincibility
And you/I keep giving ourselves anti invincibility weapons
@@99999bomb an unstoppable force vs an immovable rock, who wins?
@@X-Ter answer: the universe implodes
Shenanigans beget shenanigans!
Yeah, in-
{Title card}
What I understood:
The senate are big babies who don't like it when decisions are made that don't influence them, or benefit the political party.... And take a lot of breaks.
Let's be fair now, The President is also a big baby who doesn't like having a counter-power stopping him from making all decisions himself. Big Babies everywhere !
to be fair, they're not exactly just taking vacations when they're not in session. they're busy campaigning so they get reelected. and campaigning is a lot of work, nothing to sneeze at.
but yeah everything else you said is pretty accurate.
And are ridiculously overpaid.
@@bjorn94 yeah this entire video is just a showcase of how self absorbed politics has become.
And get paid a sh!t ton of money, sounds like fun to me.
American politics at its finest.
Thanks CGP.
Ninh Ly, didn’t expect to see you here.
Agreed
@@completeepicness5070 For a man that explains the rules of sport, it is not surprising that he has interest in the laws, or rules, of the American legal system.
Yep pretty much
Ninh explains, the rules of the Senate
I feel like Grey's been sitting on this one for awhile waiting for it to become relevant.
So has Senator Mitch Mcconnell.
So has everyone waiting for THERE opportunity to exploit a law made in 2013 please explain to me why that law passed making it possible for a more hatted justice to be able to win.
newb mann *Their
@@CertifiedSlamboy ok I concede
I beter not have spelled concede wrong
@@Newbmann that's a little better
This is literally just the Congress and the President throwing out “no u” cards.
uno reverse card
At this point I'm just waiting for absolutely nothing to never happen anymore because if someone does, they lose
DavidBox why do you think the party platforms haven’t changed in 30 years besides minor issues. Nothing ever gets done.
@@thatrandomnoob8611 Minor issuses keep getting solved? Way better that what I expected
The year is 20XX. Everyone cheats the system at TAS levels of perfection. Because of this, the winner of a court appointment depends solely on who is allowed to speak first. The Rock Paper Scissors metagame has evolved to ridiculous levels due to it being the only remaining factor to decide court appointments. Humanity has reached its pinnacle. The low tier peasants are living in poverty.
The whole Recess thing is the most hilarious thing I’ve ever heard about politics and it’s great
Imagine one mf senator called a row
@@Joseph_mama *roll
He won't, if he does, he would be beaten to death
I mean, for the American populace, it’s horrible, but from a comedy standpoint it’s great
So you can tell someone only watched this video on this topic which is a simplified version of the senate.
Why doesn’t one member of the president’s party call for a roll?
It’s weird feeling like we’re simultaneously living in history and in the future.
which is very motivating, what you do now will literally change the future
The Federal body was designed to be an absolute bureaucratic mess to keep it from gaining too much power.
Well... Technically we always are? If that helps?
It's called the present...
@@surprisedchar2458 it was just designed based on what sounded good lmao, they had no clue what they were doing
*Who knows* how many senators are in the room. We'll just presume it's 51.
Math 100
@@pocketlightt lol
no one else is in the room where it happens
There clearly isn't anyone here...
@@BlueEngland but you can’t prove that
I’m impressed that this was all facts, no spin, no partisan hackery, just facts. It’s an incredible breath of fresh air! Thank you CGP Grey. You’re the gift we don’t deserve but desperately need!
There were a few partisan jabs made. I'm glad you didn't catch them.
@@nooneimportant2787 yeah but there were jabs at both sides kinda like SNL used to be.
What nice is his party are yellow and orange too
There was an artful avoidance.
conservatives be like: waaah waaah people don't like us because we're evil and stupid waaaah!
8:44
Funny enough in Argengina a really controversial tax law ended in a tie and the vp disagreed with the president, it's probably the biggest middle finger a vp has ever done
Can you tell us more?
Tell us more.
@@cakeisyummy5755
So, this is 2007, the VP, instead of coming from the same political party of the president (or even a major supporting group like american VPs tend to do), was a senator from the opposition that had switched political parties. (In an attempt to broaden support for election)
The problem happened on a tax increment on agricultural exports, which is major business due to it being a large part of Argentina's economy, farmers (and importantly farming associations) went on strike, mass protests happened, some against the initiative, then others in favor, road blocks, etc. and the president's approval plummeted. The opposition was against it, and it came down to a tie in the senate (with the tax increase having passed in the lower chamber)
Thus, it came down to the VP's vote, who then sided against the tax increase.
That middle finger had a cost, the vp nuked his political career and went back to his home province. He's now on an advisory role of sorts for his party, and has very sporadic appearances on tv.
As an argentinian I would LOVE to see Grey try to explain the politics here, because oh boy it makes the US look easy
i love how grey depicts the supereme court as a person who's just sick of everyone's shit
To be fair, that is pretty much exactly how they feel.
They do seem to be the only part of government making rational decisions
Like a tired secretary
@@georgesracingcar7701 are you sure about this
@@georgesracingcar7701 didn't they dismiss a case about Nestlé using child slavery
I love that Grey can turn a stick figure into an instantly-identifiable fed with a pair of sunglasses and an earpiece.
Wouldn't be the first time. Probably got it from newgrounds. We can't forget about no punctuation either.
Ibid
Yes this was entirely done by software all you need to do is put a picture of what the person looks like and it'll turn into a stick figure all these Stick Figures were based on original images of people
It's also fun to mute his videos and see just how much of the gist is still understandable. (a lot)
And how a colored tie can change someone from a regular Joe into the President of the United States of America.
"Shenanigans beget shenanigans". That, folks, is how the Roman Republic became a military dictatorship.
Might makes right, and force is the gold standard of persuasion.
If for no other reason than that *ethical* persuasion requires mutual goodwill and faith, something which can never be assured. This ensures that *unethical* persuasion (lies deceit and coercion) always holds an advantage, as the only recourse to being cheated is to deal with the schemer on their own terms (at which point all hope of mutual compromise is lost) and cheat back, or walk away empty handed. This's where the gold 'nuclear' standard comes into play, as if you were willing to walk away empty handed you'd likely never have shown up to play ball in the first place.
Once you understand this concept you understand the heart of all human interaction, in the past, present and future.
And this is how USA will rot into far-rightwing dictatorship. Currently we are in transitional phase.
That, and an assassination of one Julius Caesar. But potato potato
@@johnathanarcher6999 Oh no, it was long dead by that point.
***VOTE THIRD PARTY***
Oh look, this video is relevant again.
Yeah, now it's VERY RELEVANT.
Really feels like the half plus one was the biggest turning point. Suddenly a nominated justice went from needing to be pretty palatable to most of senate to just needing to convince their half that they'd represent their political will.
My thoughts exactly
how was the nuclear option put in for fucking SCOTUS appointments?
Just half. Even worse.
@@nathanmeagher7869 You can thank the democrats for that one as well as a few others that they are now cursing due to it biting them back.
@@francisdrake6320 who wouldve seen it coming?!?
everyone not on capitol hill at the time
The image of a Supreme Court justice halfheartedly teleporting two opposing parties into the room over and over is just sending me
She’s supposed to be the teacher i think
I'm looking for this comment
Where
@@aurorapaisley7453 11:15
7:10
Founding fathers : write an extremely complex constitution
Politicians : Yeah let's take 3 days off every 4 days
The best part is "no politician can write laws that can cover everything, so a court has to interpret then, even when there are laws that are pretty clear on meaning"
@@InfernosReaper i mean thats pretty true
Founding fathers : write an extremely complex constitution
Founding fathers : own slaves
so...
It's not complex. The entire point is for it to be simple. The claim of it being "complex" is just a lie that only serves to help those that want to toss it aside because their ideology dictates that the government should be as powerful as it wishes to be (so that the enlightened elite can rule over us peasants) instead of _extremely_ limited, as was intended by the Constitution.
@@Regimeshifts founding fathers are goats bruh don't ever try disrespect them. Shit I ain't even American but these dudes had almost everything worked out , including slaves . A declaration of it's abolishion was prepared you know the story
I'm so "happy" that you can accurately depict the highest branches of government as schoolgirls and schoolboys arguing amongst one another with petty bullshit.
6:58 so, theoretically, a senator wanting to spoil these shenanigans could show up and ask for a roll call, right?
I guess so and I also guess that would be the last time he/she ever gets assigned to anything in the Senate or even the party.
Yes, any senator can ask for a roll call.
Well yes, but they wouldn't get chosen for that ever again.
@@aenetanthony unless they where in the room but not the senator in charge and just raised they hand and asked for a roll call. That might do it, I think, maybe, I'm actually not sure at all.
seems right...and it might be pretty funny to witness too.
And just when we needed him, he returned.
Dude, he never left
He was never gone... A month between videos is business as usual, quality over quantity.
I wonder how idiots like you even find channels like this, you're not the market audience, it's like explaining chemistry to a rock.
Guys chill
@@MuscarV2 Rocks have feelings too.
@@MuscarV2 Chill man I know how he takes forever to make vids. I watch the QnAs. Been watching Grey for forever. It's just a RUclips comment...
See, this is the kind of thing that would be helpful for all the non poli-sci majors out there...Even the poli-sci grads I do know were impressed by the eloquence and precision of this video. THIS is why I love CGP Grey and his videos and why I subscribed years ago! Thank you, and may this be spread over the entire US so that _we the people_ might understand how our own government works...
And in some cases, doesn't 😆
It's worth mentioning here for non poli-sci majors there are some shenanigans that the Supreme Court doesn't really get to rule on. For example, the Supreme Court cannot declare a constitutional amendment unconstitutional. In a similar manner, packing the court is affirmatively Constitutional, since there is neither precedent nor Constitutional or legal precept that limits the Court to a given number.
It also ignores the fact that the Supreme Court itself can be involved in shenanigans. It is, indeed, less likely, but the Supreme Court acting at the behest of its nominating party, for example with regards to gerrymandering or expanding the vote, can weaken the legitimacy of the Court just as surely as congressional shenanigans can. Finally, it doesn't address the mountains of shenanigans that have gone on in the past 6 years. Packing the Court sounds scary, but it's just as legal and similarly norm-breaking to what Senator McConnell has orchestrated with regards to Merrick Garland and RBG's seat.
I don't think we can understand how the government works because there's always another shenanegan just around the corner.
@@Corrael What a shocking conclusion. The orchestrations with regards to Merrick Garland and RBG are in no way norm breaking. No opposing senate has confirmed the nominee of a lame duck president in over 100 years. The norm breaking behaviour was that the senate was willing to hear the nominee after the presidential elections, rather than holding hearings and rejecting all nominees until the election, as was previously done. You've managed to equate two complete opposites.
@@Cacaroni Let's hold off on the historical precedent here for a moment and return to the confirmation of Merrick Garland. Garland was not given hearings, which itself was a break of a norm, but during that lack of hearings, numerous Republicans stated that they would not pursue a nomination in a presidential election year. This in itself is an attempt to establish a new norm, and justify behavior by it.
But the precedent does go the other way as well -- The only Justice to die closer to an election day than RBG (Taney) had his replacement nominated only after the election, as with the three justices who died less than or around 100 days before the election. (Minton, Trimble, and McKinley). Conversely, those who died much more than 100 days before an election all received confirmation hearings that year, whether or not they were confirmed.
The question is, however, not whether *you* think it's shenanigans and thus will beget shenanigans, but whether the Democratic party and its leaders think it's shenanigans, as that is what typically results in escalation. And it's overwhelmingly clear that they do, and frankly, I believe they are right to.
Since the Senate doesn’t recess because no one requests a roll, couldn’t a Senator of the same party as the president slip in and call for a roll call? Then wouldn’t they automatically be in recess?
Only the senator in charge of the session can make a roll call, which would be the person who was assigned by the president pro tempe (the most senior senator). So this would only work if you managed to convince the one person who was specifically selected to not do this.
@@AnEnormousNerd that’s not true, any senator can request a roll call
@@OctoRang I'm not correcting you, because I don't know the answer, but that word "request" makes me suspect that the request could be denied by the president pro-temp.
@@notmee2388 it could, but he can be overruled by a majority in the room. So if we assume that that senator is the only one in the room, that makes him a majority.
@@OctoRang majority in a room to call a roll call to check how many people are in the room? shenanigens at its finest
The fall of the Roman republic summed up in one phrase:
Shenanigans beget shenanigans.
I thought you said the fall of America
@@zachattack1279 empires average 250 years. america is 244.
@Spanish Mapping its not like the government is currently falling apart or anything
@Spanish Mapping Politically yes but the country is still very prosperous, and unlike rome Canada and Mexico aren't filled with bloodthirsty barbarians.
@@justinnnnnn5676 Dont underestimate the canadian geese.
"impressive rules-lawyering" and "shennanigans" are the same thing.
You sound like a DM
Exactly, he said it that what is "impressive rules-lawyering" and "shennanigans", is a matter of opinion.
This youtuber is too smart....he uploaded the video as soon as the the indian supreme court resulted today about Ayodhya....Good move dude👍
All impressive rules-lawyering is shenanigans, but not all shenanigans are rules-lawyering. Therefore, they cannot be the same thing.
@@puellanivis -- Counterpoint, all arguments about the difference between rules lawyering and shenanigans are already talking about rules lawyering, and are therefore also talking about shenanigans.
"Shenanigans beget shenanigans" is probably the truest statement I've ever heard.
or nothing is as permanent as a temporary solution
I need that on a T-Shirt.
Brian Cox does not like this video.
Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes.
I will wear that T-Shirt everyday! pack me dozen please
I love how the supreme court justices always look jaded and sick of the shenanigans of the government.
This entire channel is explaining all of the “if” and “if else” statements in America’s source code
+
America Law module source code to be exact
And a bit of the UK's if and if elses.
Python??
such a true and underrated comment
"You wanna work all year round? Go right ahead."
You mean like 85 % of the entire American working class. Oh, boo hoo.
Well to be fair, recess isn't exactly the same as free time, it's just that the Senate and House members get to go back to their districts and actually interact with their constituents. It's basically a way for them to continue being able to accurately represent the will of their constituents and get a handle on what's going on in their state/district.
All of that is in theory though, as we all know that politicians tend to have their aides do most of the work while they shmooze with the wealthy elites.
Still proper framing is important.
@@femsplainer It's the same in parliamentary democracies, to an outsider it looks like MP's take a _lot_ of time off, but of course they have community surgeries and similar to do back in their constituencies.
Ralphie Raccoon Uh sorry. Did you say surgeries?
@@daerdevvyl4314 Yes, the term does not have an exclusively medical use in the UK. It can mean an event where MP's are available to give advice to members of the public.
Ralphie Raccoon Okay. Thanks for telling me.
By the way, did you ever see a kids’ cartoon called The Raccoons? It aired on Canadian TV in about the 1990s. One of the main characters was Ralph Raccoon.
So, what happens if the only senator in the room asks for a roll call?
One of my favorite things about these grey “politics” videos is that he does say anything about either party and doesn’t mention them, so we can escape partisan politics and just judge what actually happened
I think one of the markers of being a mature person is recognizing that politicians on both sides are unruly children who play shenanigans and rule-lawyering at every opportunity to get their way because if they don't get their way they'll throw a tantrum.
@@ctrl677 this is very true of both parties
@@andrewbogard2411 Yep, that's what they said.
I think we're not too far away from an unruly cabinet member ordering the DC Police to follow the Supreme Court justices the President wants gone, then impeaching them for the "high crime and misdemeanor" of doing 5mph over. There's technically nothing illegal about that, and the Supreme Court doesn't get to decide what offences are impeachable. Congress does.
Not only is he British, he makes his own parties (Orange and Yellow), but I don’t know any American political party with either of those colors (Dems are blue, Reps are red)
People living in democratic countries: "Woah, all this stuff is too crazy, this would never happen!"
Me, who grew up in Eastern Europe: "First time?"
Noice
Me who also is from eastern europe:
Can't president just bribe one of the senators to say there is not enough senators in senate and break it all?
@@legatlanius8259 It would need to be a pretty huge bribe because then every other senator would vote to remove the offender...
Yup, what seems unbelievable to America is just "coming back to typical realpolitik power relations after an *unusually* long lucky streak with stable constitutional government and rule of law" to the rest of the world. Regression to the mean.
@@legatlanius8259 Yes but no. The senator, in this case, can just break the news that somebody bribed him and that may be a case of impeachment.
Usually learning more makes me less stressed because I understand it better. I am decidedly more stressed right now.
To paraphrase a certain raving chair-bound God-Skeleton: Just because it is right doesn't change the fact that it is unfathomably idiotic.
True, my friend. Very true.
The more I learn, the more I'm sure that nobody really knows what they're doing. Everyone is just going with the flow.
@@blackjack2526 I wasn't expecting a TTS reference here. The Man-Emperor approves.
@@BrenttFease Your Corpse-Emperor is weak. Much like your Primarchs!!! Iron Within, Iron Without.
@@blackjack2526 oh shit, I'm used to being the heretic in these... **scrambles for notes** umm.... something something exterminatus?
Grey's one of the best commentators who can talk politics without getting political.
It's a rare ability that very few have mastered.
Most of the time. This video was fantastically done.
What's wrong with being political? Let me guess, "both sides are bad"?
@@menkaragamble8175 Because you're going to alienate half of your audience. Imagine if your favorite content creator came out and started shoving Repubilcan politics into their videos, you'd be rightfully pissed. That's why we're pissed when Democrats do it. Or Labor and Conservative, or Liberal and Conservative, or BJP and... you get the idea.
@@Skeloperch Why does alienation matter? Do you say yes to everything and everyone so that you don't "offend" people? Is letting other people decide what you say "good"?
And why can't you be pissed if your favorite content creator doesn't shove politics into their videos? "apolitical" is a political position after all.
I love the image of senators spending their recess time at the playground swings.
Love the supreme justices ability to teleport people. Just looks like a really bored all powerful god.
I’m sure it’s fed up with dealing with idiotic mortals.
@@somemoron9306 is that an intentional pun?
That’s because the Supreme Court are made up of the nine most boring wizards.
The reason they serve for life is because it takes a lot of magical energy to give to the justices in order to be able to do that.
Just uploaded season 1 episode 1 of my comedy cooking show enjoy
Oh man, I'm sure glad all these people don't get paid tax dollars! Haha, imagine if they did
Don't remind me...
My paycheck has a very good imagination...
People who are paid in tax dollars should not be allowed the vote, this solves a good amount of the problem.
@@churblefurbles How, exactly?!?!
The populous is gullible enough to elect these kinds of leaders. So, I guess they are fine using their tax money this way.
So basically this is just the President and the Senate playing “HAH, YOU THINK YOU OUTSMARTED ME BUT I OUTSMARTED YOU OUTSMARTING ME”, back and forth, on and on and the Supreme Court is like “Ugh...”
Separation of powers = no room for a king.
@TheLastSanePerson in theory of course, almost every person in congress is looking out for themselves, they care about getting re elected and staying in office, not working together to make this country a better place.
This is what the democrats COULD do but they don't because we haven't steeped to this level as republicans have overwhelmingly done.
@@shavingryansprivates4332 Like when the Republicans decided tho change the law for simple majority instead of 2/3 because they couldn't pass a supreme court judge? Oh wait, that was the democrats.
Joseph would've been a great politician.
The more I learn about politics the more I realize that society exists through sheer luck.
Imagine getting to take half a year off from your job, then only actually work once every 4 days for less than 30 seconds. How the hell is this allowed?
I don't think those are two different things. The working once every 4 days is a part of the break
Let me tell yo ua secret. it is not politicians who makes things go around no matter how much they want you to belive it. I bet we wouldn't even notice if a good percentage of them would dissapear. Garbagemen, firefighters, emergency responders on the other hand..... so its only "natural" that we talk about politicians we pay them fortunes, we give them status and we even put them on the pages of our history books.
@@ObeseYeti actually they are different things - on break is a break, they aren't there. The 3 days recess + 20 second pro-forma is a technically-not-a-break. What OP is saying is _they are not mutually exclusive_ and they can take half an year worth of breaks and work 20 seconds a quarter of the rest of the days. It's like they could effectively work *20 seconds every other week* . That's less than 10 minutes of "work" a year. Which they can delegate among themselves and rotate. So, like... 40-ish sessions an year, I guess they might cut it down to like, 40 seconds a year or even less?
You havr to spend almost all that "free time" either campaigning or fundraising though.
The laws were made during times when it was really hard to get everyone together in one place at one time.
Other kids: I want to be an astronaut and go to space and discover really cool things!
Me: I think I’ll just go join the senate and work 1 every four days and then just vote with the majority whenever a remotely controversial decision must be made.
big brain plays!
Funny because that's what they all do anyway.
Eh, you'd need to have a campaign to get on the senate. Getting into the house of representatives, though, would be much easier and with so many more people your vote would matter even less.
plus you get paid for doing nothing
@@sethroberts2485 The House of Representatives, on average, actually works fewer house every year than the Senate. In 2019, for example, the Senate was in session for 947 hours, whilst the House was in session for 787 hours. Either way, it averages out to about 20 hours of work per week in the year. I don't know if committee meetings are included in that, though.
"Irreversible-hmm-decision"
"two-thirds-hmm-majority"
heh
yoy
I had to back up the video both times to understand what he was saying :D
@@stevenmanley8924 I dont get it
@@manojraghavendran5760 By "hmm"s Grey shows that there are huge asterisks in the rules, but he can't go over them in that point in the video, that induces the funny
"Because Justices serve for life, the Legislative and Executive branches can't do anything about it."
C.I.A.: *"Now this looks like a job for me!"*
Friendly reminder that the CIA is not supposed to have operations within US borders btw X)
Exactly, Scalia was murdered in his sleep by suffocation from his own pillow... CIA at its finest...damn bastards
Imagine the branches of government actually cooperating to prioritise effectively governing the nation over personal and politic power gains.
Might just be an accident seeing as he used the colors yellow and orange instead of specific parties
NPC 2749 political power gains in the US boil down to one party trying to get more power over the other.
It’s not an unreasonable position to say that the US’ Supreme Court should be representative of the political or philosophical opinion of the people of the nation as a whole, and thus politically balanced and central as a court.
Looking at the house.
cjeam no that is completely unreasonable. The ENTIRE POINT of life appointments is so that while the congress and by extension nations opinion may change THEIRS DONT unless there is a constitutional amendment
@@cjeam9199 I don't believe the law is a "balance" as it is why there is no limits on how many justices the president can have in a year. The law should be interpreted as it is originally intended to be (then again can you trust one side to interpret that honestly 😆?)
Every four days:
"Say the line, senator!"
Don't have a cow, man.
One senator should show up one time and ask for a roll call just to troll the rest of those Dbags
@@montypython5521 The entire senate has agreed to this. That won't happen any time soon.
@@r3ked272 I know, but I would love to see it happen
"I AM the Senate!"
“Shenanigans beget shenanagins.”
Senator Harry Reid was the first to use pro forma sessions to block President George W. Bush from making recess appointments. Well at least we know how it started.
"Shenanigans beget shenanigans" is my new motto.
The truest truth that had ever been spoken.
Hey yo, fellow Bill Maher viewer....
Nvm, I just watched to the point where CGP Grey said it... lol. Maybe he watches Maher??
@@Evirthewarrior Not to mention Reid pulling the nuclear option on federal judicial appointees (minus the Supreme Court) when the GOP started playing the same game as Reid.
3:13 CGP Grey literally predicted the last supreme court justice appointment
They have done so in the past.
The whole 3:00-3:26 was basically Gorsch, and Barrett. Kavanaugh doesn’t really fit into that, but that’s a whole other story.
Remember when george Washington told us how our nation would die?
Yeah he was right. It was the parties.
Bingo. And it's not surprising it's the left being wimpy and disorganized while the right becomes more and more power hungry.
Its crazy because everyone has become so deeply rooted in whatever party their apart of that if their apart of the same party as their congressmen we're gonna send back in the same Congress that while simultaneously forcing people to stay home couldn't get any legislation to help Americans during the pandemic. We watch them only give us 1200 dollars while not allowing Americans to work but if you ask a Congress member why they'll just point and blame the other party when they're all responsible.
People love to bring this up but it was inevitable in the political system that this would happen.
yes, but I think it's also worth noting that a two party system is at least the most efficient of any party system - Were we to have 10 parties of 10% of the population each, it's not a lie to state that any one election will generally only receive 10-12% support for the outcome, which is a far cry from our ~50% satisfaction in a 2 party system. It's a shitshow, but not only is it an inevitable shitshow, it's at least the best of all the shitshows.
Pffft, that old guy. He didn't even have Twitter back then. What did he know?🙄
US Government was designed so the 3 branches would check and balance themselves... But it was not intended for a 2 party system that doesn't care about the 3 branches.
@niduoe stre WELCOME TO FIRST PAST THE POST
Gridlock is a feature, not a bug. The founding fathers built it to be difficult to accomplish buisness without compromise. That's why the Nuclear Option was one of the most aggregious attacks on our system ever.
@@Sykdude Sounds about right for Americans.
Fight nukes with nukes in order to establish ""peace" until somone figures put how to use them without consequences instead of forbidding or working on removing all the nuke options and force compremise by plugging loop holes.
And even though Washington warned that political parties would undermine the Union, those in government did nothing to enact measures to limit the power of parties.
@@Kino_Cartoon I'm not sure if your being sarcastic or not, but it is an American thing. Compromise was built into the system from the very beginning. We don't seem like it now, but the U.S. isn't homogeneous. We're built on 50 individual states and in the early days and until even now, those powers didn't always like each other. Compromise is how those states were brought together. Like the electoral college, you hear endless whining about it and articles about its dubious history but it too was formed from compromise. Smaller states wouldn't join a union where population was the sole factor of representation and larger states wouldn't join the union where population didn't matter.
"I am the Senate"
- Chancellor Palpatine, 19 BBY
M. McConnell = Palpatine
I keep expecting Nancy Pelosi to say that
"Not yet."
-Jedi Master Mace Windu, 19 BBY
@@MrBassmann15 It's treason, then.
@@MrPopoCoalti*Demonic screeching*
Remember when we thought selecting justices for life would get rid of outside influences on them?
"What do you mean it failed?" - U.S. government
Seems like 2/3 majority for senate confirmation would help keep the president from nominating a partisan justice, unless you get a trifecta: president party matches senate majority, senate majority is 2/3, and a SC justice leaves office. Because midterm elections typically swing against the just-elected president's party, he'd need that strong senate backing AND be able to appoint a SC justice in a fairly narrow window.
Since the justice's previous rulings are dragged out, and he's grilled in public, and investigated in general, he'd have to have set up his whole life as a sleeper agent for his favored political tribe hoping that he gets a crack at slipping through the Senate's jaws and revealing himself as a fully-operational judicial traitor.
Yeah it did get rid of them. Because everyone including Ruth Bater Ginsburg knew Roe was going to fall. Literally every human being that completed law school knew that Roe was ruled incorrectly.
I just feel sad for that one senator who is holding the fort down like a true MVP while he watches his fellow senators go on vacation. Do you think he gets left out of vacation plans cause, "oh Jerry you wouldnt want to come to the beach house restort party its gonna be so hot and boring on my private island. Wouldnt you rather stay behind in this magnificent auditorium and get to announce senate in session over and over again?"
You would think that all the senators would take turns doing this "mildly uncomfortable task" every four days. But judging from the lack of a fair system we have, I'm pretty sure your scenario is most likely what actually happens.
I bet he i paid well
Couldn't an opposing senator just stay and call for a roll call?
@@grandmasterub I believe so. I think this only works if Senators from both parties agree to it.
Stop assuming gender lol
"The senate doesn't work all year round, taking seasonal recesses. In the Summer, or the winter.
And if it's pandemic season, then too..."
What a sick burn! The senate calls out of work more than I do!
Think it says something about our representatives when they only work 1 day in 4, and only for five minutes on that day!
4:37 there's a little green mistake monster in the bush by the tree
Actually that's Kentucky's senior senator Mitch McConnell
Nice catch!
Sounds like a poem.
WHAT
How did you see that?!
I think we all know why we are here in this point in history
Roe v Wade
Yeah...
pretty much
its funny to watch people get so angry about their side of an issue which doesnt matter at all
@@Qaptyl it matters to a lot of us because it impacts us directly but I'm sure you don't give a damn.
I love how people still act like school-children even at the highest levels of a government.
Have you met any newly elected in the last 15 years? I know way too many older people who left government because the new generation is way to childish...from both parties. Then again, I also remember McCain-Feingold (Feingold was my Senator) and when David Obey (my Democrat Representative from Wisconsin) and Paul Ryan (a Republican from Wisconsin) could agree on things that would help the state of Wisconsin.
But that time passed about 12 years ago.
it's like that everywhere, in every place, not just govt.
90% of people doing your electrical work are probably thinking "wow, this person sucks at electrical safety, and I should tell them their house is going to burn, but I'm lazy so screw it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯", and the same for every other job your life relies on.
People are petty, the only difference is how much they try to hide behind decorum and pretend otherwise.
I don't. And I don't like how people reward them for it, and also blame the few working adults in the government for it
Really? Cause I hate it quite a bit.
"shenanigans beget shenanigans" - best description of the entire US political system from top to bottom..
I love how the Supreme Court judges always looks so bored
Seems like theyre tired of being the adults in every situation.
Can the senate's pro-forma session strategy not be blocked by a single senator loyal to the president asking for a roll call?
So the whole system is basically a tom and Jerry episode.
pretty much
Is the president Tom or Jerry?
@@kilacamyrneh4624 Depends on the day
@@kilacamyrneh4624 Both
That's what the Swiss say too... all the holes in their cheese, just an elaborate Tom and Jerry set-up!
Wednesday: *Capitol Building Shenanigans*
I agree
@@benivinson3693 I mean, the people who stormed the Capitol were definitely the snowflakiest of snowflakes
yeah very much but chaz/chop is just really funny with the "black people only" areas. don't you just love segregation?!
@@benivinson3693 Except... Those didn't exist?
@@Julianna.Domina google for the following terms: Seattle chaz segregation. It seems twitter suspended the original accounts that presented proof. I'm going to search for the videos.
This channel absolutely has the most entertaining yet informative way of explaining laws, politics, geographic boundaries, etc. Every time I see a new one, I immediately hit play! Love the content, wish you the best of luck in growing the channel!
Omw.. you watch this kinda info Peter?
Yes it's a phenomenal channel, but it also has 4 million subscribers
6:50
This makes me really want to run for Senate with the sole purpose of showing up on one of those "totally-not-a-recess" days just to call a roll call vote to troll all my (hypothetical) colleagues.
I love how the supreme court has god powers and can snap their fingers to teleport the president and the senate while looking bored at the shenanigans of mere mortals
Well, it *is* true to an extent. The supreme court has the final say in everything that crosses the desk, so in theory, they are the most powerful branch of government. The only limit on them is that someone has to bring a case to them, they can't just pick a law to interpret at will.
@@themaskedkid5266 except Marbury v Madison basically established that they can strike down laws as soon as enacted. That said, it rarely seems that Supreme Court ever does this, but federal judges do it all the time
@@mkostrub Well, if that's the case, then truly the supreme court has the power to thanos snap the whole government if they wanted to
TheMaskedKid yes but because of the checks and balances system the Supreme Court is not all-powerful. They can be brought down if both the President and Congress can agree. There’s this thing called the US constitution that can be changed with Amendments. While the Supreme Court reserves the right to interpret the constitution, if the government curves their power then there is little that they can do to stop it. Also, if for some crazy reason the Supreme Court went full tyrant then they could just impeach them/wait until they die and get new people in. The main point I’m making is while the SC is the most powerful of the branches, they aren’t all-powerful.
Considering that the Brazilian supreme court is the only government branch that has power over the others, and is de facto dictating the country for some years now... Yeah. They are overpowered entities
"Shenanigans beget shenanigans" might be the most apt description of politics ever.
"Shenanigans beget shenanigans" needs to be on a shirt
American Politics 101: “Shenanigans begat Shenanigans”
It's shenanigans all the way down.
shenanigan cascade
Makes one want to become a senator just to show up on those breaks and demand a roll call
*DEW IT*
AlexV I was wondering this as well
AlexV couldn’t they also vote against taking another 3 day break?
The reason why not a single senator ever did that is because it’s not that easy to become one in the first place and hold it long enough after disagreeing with the party (or even both of them) on something petty like that. They care more about their jobs rather than actual politics
I think the point people miss with that behavior is: It's not a power move against the other party or laziness of congress. It's a power move against the president. Why would a senator willingly give more power to the president? It's not that congress shouldn't have any vacation time either (everyone should be alowed some vacation).
I'm kinda surprised noone ever bribed that one senator to call for a roll call. The senate would end up in recess and the president could force dozens of appointees that same day.
Calculating for a “three-day break, pro-forma session, repeat” period of 4 days, and a pro-forma session length of 20 seconds, the Senate can literally always be on recess, except for when it isn’t *_0.006% of the time._*
CUT THEIR SALARY to .006%.
@@glasslinger Better yet, dont pay them at all.
@@73_65 The problem is, Senators are invariably rich. They won't care. Their government salary is never going to be their main source of income. For example, Joe Biden was consistently the "poorest" Senator during his time in the Senate, and he's still a millionaire.
u can have a senator stay and call for the role call
and the president has the power to adjourn congress too
RUclips is getting real comfortable with these double no skip ads
often simply closing the video then re-opening it will drop said ads. sometimes you'll have to do it multiple times, but you'll spend less time doing that than watching a 15 sec + ad.
You're still watching
Get youtube vanced
Buy a macbook pro with touchbar. You can skip by sliding it to the end in a sec. Though buying premium would be cheaper;p
@@behatiprinslooooooo 😭
"Wait a minute, I'm the President! You can't depose me, you're deposed!"
"Aww... wait a minute, I'm the Supreme Court! You can't depose me, you're deposed!"
Oversimplified reference?
@@artkondratyev4307 yes it is
"exclamation point question mark"
"exclamation point question mark"
Kiro Exclamation Point.
Question Mark.
Exclamation Point.
Question mark.
Exclamation point.
Question mark.
Aaaaaaand repeat.
Learning from this video :
1. US is messed up
2. US is messed up
3. Shenanigans
"The Senate will decide your fate".
"Oh, but I AM the Senate".
Hahaha lol
Not. Yet.
@@davidhong1934 It's treason then.
I love democracy
"I AM the democratic party"
5:32 The sound substitution of the bang of the gavel with a tongue click perfectly punctuates the absurdity of pro-forma sessions.
Tudidu u pop sunuggv
Tudicu a pap snofovv
@@mellowords What does this mean?
@@paulcristo It means they are either Trumpeteers or Brexiteers.
@@Nilguiri lol, there may never be a stronger case of projection. I wrote a complete nonsense sentence in the style of the nonsensical poster before me
"This is madness!"
"This is politics."
*_"THIS IS AMERICA"_* 🇺🇸 🦅
Both can be true.
definition of american politics
They mean the same thing
Unlike war bird which could mean your anti or pro war Dont ask
The affairs of the City.
I love how this video escalates from innocent asterisks to full on thermonuclear shenanigans
When people controlling working parts in the government are as responsible as a kid wanting to skip school
School policy: 3 days in a row and u get a bunch of points marked off
That one kid:
This felt more like an elaborate competition for who refuses the most to do their jobs. Petulant children.
Great video.
That recess vs vacation bit is so idiotic that I really can’t believe this is allowed. It’s absolutely clear what the SPIRIT of the law is and you shouldn’t use these kinds of technicalities to circumvent the law. For all intents and purposes, vacation and recess are the same thing.
Hi, Spirit of the year here...
Julius Ceasar: a loop is a loop stab me 25x!
The spirit of the tax law is also pretty clear, but most rich people pay less then a street peddler. The reason this is allowed is because the people who get to decide that are also the ones who benefit the most. It's a blatant conflict of interest and sign of corruption.
@@Serastrasz its not corruption when its legal technically
- Random politician
I think the real issue is that the real solution would be to amend the constitution, but nobody wants to open the can of worms that precedence would be.
That's why people want to push activist judges into the supreme court to pretend the constitution says something different than it actually does, as a way to tweak the constitution without actually changing it.
Does that mean, someone could stay behind and ask for a roll call and force the Senate to come back from vacay?
yes they could and I would do it
Yeah, they CAN but they probably get peer pressured from doing so with one senator talking about taking their kids on a trip or an elderly senator taking his wife to the hospital for a surgery or something. So likely it never happens.
“Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason.”
― Mark Twain
This statement is BRILLIANT!!
This quote can literally be found under EVERY major political video nowadays. Not a criticism, just an interesting indicator of the political climate we live in.
Not actually Mark Twain, not sure who said it, but it's a fantastic quote nonetheless.
Essentially, bring term limits to the senate and the house. The only issue is that the one who decides that is congress, and why would they limit THEIR power?
Zansi This is a quote from John Wallner. Not Mark Twain.
God knows how many recordings Grey listen in his free time to get those impersonation on point.
I just learned that our government is a circus from the start.
welcome to elections
It's always been kinda janky.
just a power grabbing team game where those not playing the game deal with all the consequences
Wasn't it obvious after the "presidential debate"?
As opposed to... can you nominate any other government in the world that is perfect?
Every time he said “shenanigans beget shenanigans” I thought the video would never end. :)
"Pro-forma" is Latin for "the minimum pieces of flair so almost everyone else can go play with their mistresses on their yachts."
I dont think I believe you, but I dont know latin.
I've mostly heard it from invoicing, where it's just a preliminary invoice that's sent before the goods are delivered or services rendered. Kind of a "this is not _guaranteed_ to be the final price, but this is what we think it will cost at this point in time".
“But our shenanigans are cheeky and fun. Their shenanigans are cruel and tragic. Which makes them not shenanigans. EVIL SHENANIGANS.”
i swear god i'll pistal whip the next person who
says shenanigans
@@aaronbarnes2550 Hey, what's that place you like to go to with all that goofy shit on the walls?
U mean shenanigans
Alright meow
Shenanigans, nuclear options? Yup, 'you will regret the fallout'... not even a few years later... lol Gawd damn politicians can be so stupid sometimes. Reminds me of that congressman worried about Guam capsizing.
The more I learn about politics the more depressed I become.
>The more I learn about politics the more I realize I should vote and become more involved in the process so that we don't lose our very fragile "democracy".
Fixed.
@Guy Panzerboss >The more I learn about politics the more I realize that voter suppression via disengaging voters through making them believe that they are powerless is the greatest way for the elite to keep their power
lol According to you, we should not take control of our system by voting because..the elite have power. So to summarize your point. "let's keep the elite in power by not voting because..muh feelings"
VOTE! If you have time to comment on youtube, you have time to vote. It's free!
@Guy Panzerboss Is it Latvia? Its Latvia isn't it.
@Guy Panzerboss Ah yes of course. East of Latvia. Luxembourg?
@@bukowski9526 Luxembourg is west of Latvia.
This really aged like fine wine.
Fax
i mean the depiction of the supreme court is still accurate so yeah it really did
So...if a senator came in and asked for a roll call they could mess this pro-forma session up?
yup
They probably wouldn’t though because they’d be the equivalent of that one kid who reminds the teacher to assign homework.
@@sirbob430 what about a senator of a different color? (Political color... Like on the side of the president)
@@zanethegamer4910 I don’t know. I guess they could be more in support of the president having a temporary appointment, but I’d think they would want approval either way.
@@sirbob430 no like if The president wants to make a temporary appointment and 1 senator was with the president on that... Then the Senator went to the next meeting (Since they can't stop it from happening) and called a role call so the senate would have only 2 members in and Since the role call was made that means the senate was not in order since there were 2 members. That would mean the Senate would be on break... Meaning the president could make a temporary appointment
I literally had an AP Government test a few hours ago. If you had started but one day earlier, we might have saved my GPA.
Love the rhyme! So very CGP Grey
So early in the school year?
@@odemata87 we started in August. Its our 7th week back.
@@odemata87 I don't think he meant the actual exam, probably just a regular test his teacher gave him as opposed to the evil acorns of the college board.
Nobody expects the judiciary committee inquisition!
ORORORORO!!! I spend half of my day sleeping! ORORORO!!! Then I sometimes get up and tell you that I am a famous content creatorORORORORO!!! Please don't sleep while driving, dear mit
I love how Grey sounds like he is genuinely about to laugh at 6:22