Comparing USA to parliamentary governments.

[I'm Supposn]

Comparing USA to parliamentary governments.

Leaders of USA's two legislative chambers are the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and the majority leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell. I suppose they each can refrain, if not effectively prevent a question from coming to a vote on the floor of their respective chambers.
Does a prime minister or anyone else have such similar power in parliament?

Respectfully, Supposn​

 

[I'm Supposn]

From the thread of "Comparing USA to European and other parliamentary governments":

Originally Posted by I'm Supposn
Peter King, prior to an member's proposal being discussed or voted upon on the “floor” (i.e. Before the entire membership) of the USA's House of representatives or Senate, (except in extraordinary emergncy circumstances or procedures), proposals are generally sent to be vetted by the chamber's comittee appropriate for the topic of the proposal. After that vetting, propsals' drafts and the chamber's committees' major and minoity opinions are published. The proposal's draft is then returned to the chamber's floor.

It is the scheduling of this all that's the chamber's basis of the chamber's majority leaders power to effectively restrain or prevent proposals from being voted upon by the chamber's entire membership.

Youre telling me that all MP proposals have EFFECTIVELY equal opportunuty to be discussed and voted upon by the entire membership of Holland's Parliament? I doubt that the MPs' have the time to do all of that?
I assume that Holland's Parliament also has some vetting process. If that's actually the case, is there no one in Holland with the power to effectively restrain or prevent proposals from being voted upon by Holand's entire membership?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[TheParser]

The United States is ALREADY becoming a parliamentary democracy.

1. President Andrew Johnson was impeached (but not convicted by the Senate) because the House had lost confidence in him.

2. President Richard Nixon resigned because, as he explained, he had lost the confidence of both Houses of Congress (Parliament).

3. President William Clinton was impeached (but not convicted) because the House had lost confidence in him.

4. Now the House may impeach President Donald Trump because it has lost confidence in him (although presumably the Senate may decline to convict him).


In other words, both the Republicans (in President Clinton's case) and the Democrats (in President Trump's case) are abusing the impeachment provision of the Constitution by deciding that the Congress can kick out a duly elected president if s/he does not have the "confidence of Parliament."

 

[Rogue Valley]

Comparing USA to parliamentary governments.

Leaders of USA's two legislative chambers are the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and the majority leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell. I suppose they each can refrain, if not effectively prevent a question from coming to a vote on the floor of their respective chambers.
Does a prime minister or anyone else have such similar power in parliament?

Respectfully, Supposn​

Isn't this your second thread on this subject?

 

[JimHackerMP]

If I understand correctly, all the "vetting" is done in Cabinet. Very few bills get voted on that don't already have cabinet approval, or so I am told by my Canadian and British contacts.