Jump to content

Talk:United States Congress: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Gpyoung (talk | contribs)
766 edits
No edit summary
m Reverted 1 edit by 2601:989:4400:1FD0:C09A:13CB:9636:64A7 (talk) to last revision by HandsomeFella
 
(561 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
'''{{featured}}'''
{{American English}}
<small>This article was featured on Wikipedia's Main page on 22 August 2005.</small>
{{Article history
|action1=FAC
|action1date=19:28, 24 July 2005
|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Congress of the United States
|action1result=promoted
|action1oldid=19351286


|action2=FAR
Shouldn't the statement '..the Senate is fully equal to the House..' be '..the Senate is fully equal in all legislation except finance bills, which must originate in the House...' ?
|action2date=11:46, 26 September 2007
|action2link=Wikipedia:Featured article review/United States Congress/archive1
|action2result=removed
|action2oldid=160302128


|maindate=August 22, 2005
Then list the special powers of each chamber (Voting Impeachment for the House, trying Impeachment and the 'consent sections' for the Senate.
|currentstatus=FFA

}}
How '''many''' ''representatives'' does the US congress have?
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=

{{WikiProject U.S. Congress|importance=Top|subject=thing}}
-- [[user:Marijn|Marijn]]
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Top|DC=Yes|DC-importance=High}}

{{WikiProject Politics|importance=mid|American=yes|American-importance=Top}}
-----
{{WikiProject Law|importance=high}}

{{WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia}}
Why is it [[:United States Congress/Alaska|United States Congress/Alaska]]? Why not [[:Alaska/United States Congress|Alaska/United States Congress]]? Why not [[:Representatives from Alaska|Representatives from Alaska]] or something else that does not presuppose some sort of bogus hierarchy like this?
}}

{{annual readership|scale=log}}
Yours for a subpage-free Wikipedia,
<br>[[User:LMS|LMS]]

-----

Also, shouldn't the description of the allotment of Representatives be dated nicely (as in, "As of the reapportionment following the 1990 Census..."). I'd add this but I don't know if the 2000 Census-based reapportionment has happened yet. -- EdwardOConnor

We could just update it when it changes: [http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/tab01.txt Apportionment Population and Number of Representatives, by State: Census 2000] ---[[User:Jagged|Jagged]]

The reapportionment following the 2000 Census takes effect for the 2002 elections. The 2000 elections followed the 1990 Census. --[[User:RjLesch|RjLesch]]

----
Is this the Congressional Biographical Directory copyrighted? If not, it could be used to get stub biographies of everyone who's ever served in Congress, which would be useful. [[User:Jlk7e|john]] 05:00 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

:The Copyright Office of the Library of Congress says in its [http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wnp Circular 1], ''Copyright Basics,'' "Works by the U. S. Government are not eligible for U. S. copyright protection." So if that directory is a federal publication (as the Congressional Record is), the information in it is available. [[User:OtherDave|OtherDave]] 00:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
----
Why is [[Bernie Sanders]] listed as an independent if he is a member of the [[Democratic Socialists of America]]? --[[User:Jiang|Jiang]]

He runs for office as an independent, so far as I know. [[User:Jlk7e|john]] 03:53, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

:It's common practice in the U.S. to refer to any member of Congress who is not a member of the Democratic or Republican parties as an independent. Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords, formerly a Republican, lists himself as an Independent on his official web site. (In the opposite direction, it's common practice in Minnesota to refer to what is officially the state's Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party as the Democrats.) [[User:OtherDave|OtherDave]] 00:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

== Wikipedia:WikiProject US Congress ==

One may be interested in [[Wikipedia:WikiProject US Congress]]. --[[User:Jiang|Jia]][[User talk:Jiang|'''ng''']]

== Elections Schedule for US Senate ==
I wrote, at [[Congress of the United States#Elections]]
: (One additional possible wrinkle remains: rarely, a state may divide itself into two Senate districts, with an Senate election occurring every sixth year in each district, and never in both districts in one year.)

I said "may" in the sense that my only reason (other than wild speculation) for believing that states have that option is that i have the notion that there was one that used to have two US Senate districts, and that they had switched to having both run at large like everyone else. I want to say it was one of the single-Rep states, and keep trying to recall which. (Idaho? But it has 2! The singles are VT, Delaware, both Dakotas, WY, Montana, Alaska)

I hope i wasn't getting it backwards, and thinking of a state that used at-large elections for the House, intentionally (rather than just when they got deadlocked on redistricting).

In any case, i'm not coming up with good ideas on how to research this. --[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]] 06:15, 2004 Feb 5 (UTC)

:Senators represent the entire state, not a district. The entire state votes in each senatorial election. - [[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]] 06:20, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

How it's done is not the question. The question is whether it's done that way bcz almost everywhere it works well, or bcz there's a law (IMO the US Constitution, including [[17th Amendment]] is silent). If there's a state that's done it differently ''in the past'' as i recall, that answers the question; if someone cites a law that forbids it, then i'm mistaken; a law that says "nothing in this act shall be construed to require...", that's also definitive. But how it's done at present is well known and not of interest. We're looking for specific evidence on why.

(It may help to point out that in a single-rep state, Senate districts would be the only way to achieve sectional representation, which is achieved in other states in the House, rather than the Senate. --[[User:Jerzy|Jerzy]] 07:15, 2004 Feb 5 (UTC)

I think the key to the way Senators are elected is in the wording used in both the 17th Amendment and 2 USC 1, both of which specify that Senators shall chosen from a state by "the people thereof". Dividing a state in half would not allow a Senator to be elected by "the people thereof", just half of them. There are no provisions given in the U.S. Code dealing with Senate districts, while there are references elsewhere in 2 USC 1 dealing with the number of representatives that a state can choose at once. Some states used to vote on all House members throughout the state, but that practice is now prohibited. --[[User:Btimmer|Btimmer]] 23:22, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

: I asked the U. S. Senate Historical Office (historian@sec.senate.gov) in an email if it could say "whether senators have ever been elected to represent a specific part of a state, rather than the whole state." I received this reply today from Mary Baumann, a researcher/writer in that office:

::''I do not know of any instance in which a state has created senatorial election districts for the election of senators to the U.S. Senate. Prior to the passage of the 17th Amendment, which provided for the direct election of senators, there were times when divided state legislatures were unable to agree on a single candidate and seats in the Senate were left vacant. There were also instances in which rival state legislatures would send more than one "elected" senator to the U.S. Senate:
{{User:MiszaBot/config
::''[http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/State_Houses_Elect_Senators.htm State Houses Elect Senators]''
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
::''[http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Direct_Election_Senators.htm Direct Election of Senators]''
|counter = 4
|minthreadsleft = 1
::''Feel free to add this response to your online discussion. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.''
|algo = old(90d)
::''Mary Baumann, Researcher - Writer, U.S. Senate Historical Office ''
|archive = Talk:United States Congress/Archive %(counter)d

}}
:[[User:OtherDave|OtherDave]] 16:45, August 12, 2005 (UTC)



: The secretary of the senate keeps register of each "class" of senator, to decide when each is due for re-election. The first senate drew lots to divide themselves into thirds, and they have balanced themselves out with each new state - normally the winner got the longest term, the loser the shorter. One third at a time was also interpreted to mean a states senators would be in different classes. The "law" for this The constitution, which requires one third requirement and makes the senate the final arbiter of its own elections [[User:Garryq|garryq]] 00:34, 14 May 2004 (UTC)


Head Honcho is the offical term ? for speaker of house and pres pro tem
: No, ''honcho'' is American slang for a boss or a leader (from Japanese ''han cho,'' leader or head of a group. A common explanation is that the Americans occupying Japan after World War II coined ''honcho'' as an English word, then extended it to ''''head'''' '''honcho''' for the big boss, commander, etc. 16:45, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

== Specific Powers of Houses ==

I am going to move the specific powers of the houses, such as the advice and consent power of the Senate and the Impeachment power of the House to their respective pages. This page should probably focus on powers which Congress as a whole is responsible for. [[User:Pmadrid|Pmadrid]] 01:55, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

==Congressional delegations==
If there is support, I would like to remove the section entitled "Congressional delegations" from this page. That section more properly pertains to the House of Representatives, not to Congress as a whole. -- [[User:Lord Emsworth|Emsworth]] 20:49, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:I can agree with that, but please, move it to [[United States House of Representatives]]. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 00:12, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

==Changing One Third==

There is probably a simple answer, but how does one change one third of 100? Is it approximated by the sequence 33,33,34 or is it an average over time. I'm Confused [[User:Dainamo|Dainamo]] 00:20, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:It is approximated, 33-33-34, as you suggest; the Constitution states that the number must be as close to one-third as practicable. -- [[User:Lord Emsworth|Emsworth]] 00:06, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

==Title==
The official title of Congress is "Congress of the United States," not "United States Congress." Art. I, Sec. i states in part, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States." Therefore, I shall be moving this page from [[Congress of the United States|U.S. Congress]] to [[Congress of the United States]]. -- [[User:Lord Emsworth|Emsworth]] 23:29, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:Agreed. [[United States Constitution]] should be moved too. The oaths of office use the form "Constitution of the United States" as does the constitution itself. --[[User:Jiang|Jia]][[User talk:Jiang|ng]] 00:35, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
:Agreed. [[User:Neutrality|[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]/<sup>[[User talk:Neutrality|talk]]</sup>]] 03:53, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
:Strongly disagree with both. [[Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)]] makes it abundantly clear that "common" names should be used instead of "official" names, and US/United States in front of Congress or constitution gets 10 times as many hits. [[User:Niteowlneils|Niteowlneils]] 23:04, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
:Disagree. As Niteowlneils says, United States Congress is by far the more common usage. Similarly, the web sites for the two Houses use the styles "United States Senate" and "United States House of Representatives" on their home pages. [[User:OtherDave|OtherDave]] 18:15, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

==[[Congress of the United States#Elections|Elections]]==
:''A candidate gets to run in an election by winning a primary.''
This may be true in most cases when a party's endorsement is at stake, but I am certain there are other methods of qualifying for a ballot. I feel this statement is broad, vague and misleading. [[User:Ground|Ground]] 03:26, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

::You are correct. Primaries are used by the two major parties, but are not required by law. (If they were, it would make it impossible for anyone to run as an independent.) A party may use any method it wants to nominate a candidate. For smaller parties, getting their candidates on the ballot usually involves gathering a specified number of signatures (which varies from state to state). [[User:Funnyhat|Funnyhat]] 00:53, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::: Primaries, in states that use them, are the method by which a party chooses its candidate for the general election. Depending on state law, the general election may permit write-in candidates, so in theory a person unaffiliated with any party could organize a write-in campaign and be elected to the House or the Senate. [[User:OtherDave|OtherDave]] 00:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

== Pork ?? ==

From the article:

:According to Citizens Against Government Waste, conference committees even add pork to legislation. For the 2005 budget conference committees added 3407 pork barrel appropriations, budget, up from 47 pork barrel appropriations in 1994.

What is this about? Is it nonsense, or am I just missing something because I'm British?

::Pork is federal spending that is attached to legislation to which it is not germane. We think of pork as being very wasteful. (the expression comes from the pork which used to be given as gifts to slaves). This isn't nonsense. Pork is a well-established word in American political vocabulary.

Go here
http://www.cagw.org/site/FrameSet?style=User&url=http://publications.cagw.org/publications/pigbook/pigbook-%20summary/index.htm



[[User:Dinopup|Dinopup]] 02:48, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

== Ghost links ==

Of the 76 links in [[Wikipedia:Offline reports/This is a most wanted article]], a '''majority''' of them (41) are about United States Congresses. Anyone trying to create meaningful articles on them?? [[User:Georgia guy|Georgia guy]] 00:12, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
:Eventually, yes. Welcome to Wikipedia, where an article doesn't need to be written this decade, let alone this minute. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 02:55, May 7, 2005 (UTC)


== Congressional Salaries ==
[[image:US_Congress_Salary_1860-2000.png|thumb|US Congressional Annual Salary, 1860-2000.]]

New to Wikipedia, I didn't want to update the article itself, but there should be a section on 'Congressional Pay'. I noticed there is a page for [[Salaries of United States Senators]] (isn't pay the same for Representative and Senator?). I found the same data here: *[http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_pay.htm CongressLink] (the wiki link does not list a source). Both list salaries back to 1789, the effective date of the United States Constitution, which replaced the Articles of Confederation.

With this historical context, perhaps 'Congressional Salaries' should be given its own page with information about formulas for raises, versus inflation, average American income or the minimum wage, as well as how members of Congress can vote to raise their pay (I don't know enough about this process), including information regarding the so-called '1989 Midnight Congressional Paygrab'.

In addition to salaries, reference to benefits, pensions, honoraria, income taxes and additional income while in office should be explored. --[[User:RickAguirre|RickAguirre]] 30 June 2005 15:47 (UTC)
:This graph is mostly a representation of inflation since 1860; and is therefore misleading. A section on pay and the 27th amendment should be included. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 13:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

== Congressional Websites & Voting Records ==

It would be worth noting that each elected member of Congress has his or her own website. While I've not visited each and every member of Congress's website, it is interesting that most I've seen do not publish their voting record outright. Indeed, each member tends to postively highlight issues which they deem important, and minimize or ignore other issues around which they may have actually voted on.

Perhaps a review of the respective websites is in order, with an emphasis on what most of these websites have in common, as well as useful information that is omitted (such as voting record and salary info). --[[User:RickAguirre|RickAguirre]] 30 June 2005 15:47 (UTC)

: The main page of [http://www.house.gov/ the House] and [http://www.senate.gov/ the Senate] web sites include links (or links to links) to each member's site. [[User:OtherDave|OtherDave]] 00:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


== Section on Women in Congress ==

This is not needed. Yes, it should be noted in the article but giving tis topic its own section is inappropriate. It was also not at all NPOV and refelects the very worst of the affirmative action lobby ie. "Congress has historically been composed of white males". A statment like that, although admittedly true is extremely pointed and should not be in a Wikipedia article. This content can be moved to another section and written in a way that does not suggest that "white anglo saxon suberban upper-middle-class males" have in some way "deprieved" others of playing a role in congress.
--'''[[User: Gpyoung|Gpyoung]]'''&nbsp;<sup>''[[User talk:Gpyoung|talk]]''</sup> 02:36, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

:: Er- but it's undeniably accurate and true. It is also true that white anglo-saxon Protestant males have deprived others (minorities and women) of a role in Congress in the past. That's not POV, that's just established, easily proven fact.

:: Now, if the article went on to say, "...composed of white males, which proves they're a whole lot of scumbags," then I could see where your claim comes in. As it is- no.--[[User:Deridolus|Deridolus]] 09:51, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

:Despite claiming that the issue should be raised, no attempt was made to reword this, and it was simply deleted. Restoring the section with an apropriate title. Deleting statements of facts and quotes of authoritive opinions, because you disagree with those opinions, or belive it 'political correctness'; is tantamount to vandalisim. Don't re-delete without further discussion and agreement here.
:In fact, I call for someone who has the time and ability, to do research to expand this into a full section on the make up of congress in respect to religious and ethnic minorities as well.
: --[[User:Barberio|Barberio]] 14:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I have rewritten this section and renamed it "Membership". I was not sure about the title, so feel free to change. The only title that I would object to is "Minorities in Congress" or something of that sort. One of the thing that I tried to do in the rewrite is to show that the immigrants in the 19th Centurty (the so -called "White People" as we know them today) were also denied oppertuniy. --'''[[User: Gpyoung|Gpyoung]]'''&nbsp;<sup>''[[User talk:Gpyoung|talk]]''</sup> 19:22, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

==History section==
I will support any drastic condensation of the '''History''' section. We have several articles on the [[History of the United States]]; this ''should not'' be another one.

In particular, the article needs only one sentence on the [[Republic of Vermont]] - it was never part of the Continental Congress, and its part in the institutional history of Congress begins in 1791.

I count seventeen British North American colonies in 1776: the thirteen plus NS,QU, FL, and the island of Newfoundland, which was not technically North American until the settlement of Labrador. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 13:31, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

== Senator and Congressman at the same time ==
=== Question ===
Would someone be able to clarify why congresmen elected to senate traditionaly resign their place in the house. After some little research, I can't find any rules on this, so wonder if it is just a tradition. Is it possible to legaly hold positions in the House and Senate at the same time? --[[User:Barberio|Barberio]] 22:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

:Wow, that's a really good question. Nothing that I can see in the Constitution makes that restriction, and as I understand it, no law or senate/house rule can change or increase the constitutional restrictions (this was dealt with by the Supreme Court when it struck down Congressional term limit laws). So yeah, it seems to me that it may be legally possible (though it would be very unpopular politically I would think), but then I might be missing something. [[User:Ddye|Ddye]] 01:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

:"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members" (Art.I, sect 5, clause 1) and such a decision cannot be reviewed by any court/; therefore it is more than "tradition"; anyone who attempted to sit in both houses simultaneously would run at least a very serious risk of being expelled from both of them by an almost unanimous vote. [[User:Pmanderson|Septentrionalis]] 20:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

:: Nothing in the above citation says that either house is required, expected, or even likely to object to simultaneous holding of House and Senate seats. All it says is that each house can do what it wants about the matter. We may ''believe'' that this practice would be frowned upon, but I see no ''evidence''. ~ [[User:Jeffq|Jeff Q]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Jeffq|(talk)]] 21:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

::: We do not need evidence against the simultaneous holding of House and Senate seats for this article. The article does not state anywhere that simultaneous holding is prohibited. Barberio did add a statement (since commented out) stating that it was not prohibited&mdash;''that'' statement needs evidence, or it is simply original research and not appropriate for Wikipedia. [[User:Mateo SA|Mateo SA]] | [[User talk:Mateo SA|talk]] 22:10, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

: One might also ask, "Can a person hold two or more seats in the House simultaneously?" The Constitution does not explicitly forbid that, either. (And no, the fact that the person would have to be elected from more than 1 district does not prevent this, because the Const. does not require that Reps. be residents of their district.) I would say that holding two seats is ''inherently'' incompatible. In any event, I don't think you should add a claim like this to the article simply because the Const. and rules don't explicitly forbid it. [[User:Mateo SA|Mateo SA]] | [[User talk:Mateo SA|talk]] 21:14, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

::Furthermore, even if people were required to live in their district, it's still possible - sometimes, just after a census has given a state another representative, that rep is "at large" until they redraw the districts, which can sometimes take a while. So someone could win District 4 where he lives, AND win the at-large district. Interesting. --[[User:Golbez|Golbez]] 21:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

=== Deletion of first addition ===
The original noting of this I wrote for the article has been deleted under a claim of unverified cites. Which is a little silly, as you can verify that there are no rules to bar holding both positions by refering to the Constitution and House and Senate rules, which should be suitable citation. However, this *is* an issue that is notable and should be raised in the article. Would someone like to sugest any ways I can re-word this. Note, what I wrote made no claims as to if someone *could* hold both seats, just that it was not explicitly barred, and that any practical bar was held on basis of tradition.
This is doubly notable as most other bicameral institutions do have an explicit bar. (For example Peers being bared from holding positions in the House of Commons) If no one suggests alternative ways to note this, I'll restore the original. --[[User:Barberio|Barberio]] 22:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

: You said that there was "no legal restriction" against dual officeholding and that the prohibition was because of tradition. Simply because there isn't an explicit prohibition doesn't mean there isn't a real implicit or inherent prohibition. Simply because a restriction is not explicit does not mean it is not real or doesn't exist. For example, the concept of [[separation of powers]] is considered implicit in the Constitution, even though there is no explicit requirement for it. It follows from that argument that the prohibition is not necessarily the result of "tradition". Both of those claims are the result of your own analysis of the Constitution and rules; they are are original research. The logical holes in your analysis are a good example of why Wikipedia does not publish original research. There very well might be a legal opinion or law review article about this concept. You should look for something like that and cite ''it,'' not make your own argument and cite the evidence you've analyzed. [[User:Mateo SA|Mateo SA]] | [[User talk:Mateo SA|talk]] 22:26, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

: To clarify: The lack of an explicit bar is fact. The claims that there is no legal restriction and that the prohibition is because of tradition are ''conclusions.'' Those claims are the points that need citations. And without that support, the observation that there is no explicit bar is simply trivia and not relevant to this article. [[User:Mateo SA|Mateo SA]] | [[User talk:Mateo SA|talk]] 22:31, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

:: This leaves me in a quandry. I can cite and verify that there is no law to bar someone holding both offices, but the only cite I have there is precident not to is that it hasnt happened. If I only include in the article the part I can verify and cite, that there is no law to bar holding dual offices, then the article is misleading. If I include that there is precident to not do so, then the article is uncited. If I fail to include it at all, then we miss out inclusion of a notable fact. This is not trivia. Most other bicameral institutions do have an explicit bar, and Congresses lack of one is notable and of interest.

:: Can you please suggest a way to re-phrase this addition, or help me in looking for cites to support the precident?

::(Incidently, the 'seperation of powers' between the three branches of government '''is''' explicit in the constitution. It does not use the term, but it does use language to describe a seperation of powers. ie, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States" means that the Congress is the lone and sole originator of legislative power.) --[[User:Barberio|Barberio]] 22:48, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

::: Here's a suggestion: ''research the topic.'' Look in annotated Constitutions, law reviews, etc., to see if there is any mention of that subject; base your arguments on the information you find.

::: Some other examples of items implicit in the Constitution: The Constitution does not explicitly forbid Congress from changing state boundaries without the consent of the states involved. Article 4, Section 3, Clause 1 prohibits Congress from creating new states out of old states without their consent, but does not explicitly prohibit moving territory between existing states or making portions of states into federal territories. But I don't think anyone would seriously suggest Congress has that power. A biggie: judicial review. Again, the Const. does not explicitly give the courts that power, but it is considered to be implicit in the vesting of the judicial power. Finally, see my example about simultaneous holding of House seats above. [[User:Mateo SA|Mateo SA]] | [[User talk:Mateo SA|talk]] 23:43, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

=== Reply from SHO and 2nd addition ===
Received a reply on this from the Congresional History Office
:Hello John -

:I think Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution would come the closest to expressing this:

:"No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."


:I do know that there were a few times when individuals held state offices while serving in the Senate. Although newly elected senators typically resigned their state or local offices before assuming their seats in the Senate, a few retained their offices while serving in the Senate and/or the House of Representatives. Concurrent officeholding took place on rare occasions during the eighteenth century, before state constitutions and statutes, and customary practice, barred state legislators from serving in Congress.

:Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.

::Mary Baumann
::Researcher - Writer
::U.S. Senate Historical Office

I'll start working on a way to add this information. --[[User:Barberio|Barberio]] 21:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[[User:Mateo SA|Mateo SA]], if you are going to remove information provided by the '''Senate Historical Office''' as spurious claims, please provide some substantial cites to do so. --[[User:Barberio|Barberio]] 22:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

: I didn't say the info provided by the Senate Historical Office was a "spurious claim". I deleted the info and interpretations that ''you'' added. The Office's reply does ''not'' say that most other bicameral institutions prohibit dual officeholding. As I point out below, the reply doesn't address the subject of dual officeholding ''within'' Congress at all.

: This reply doesn't address the question presented here, as to whether a person can simultaneously serve in both the House and Senate (I'm not sure why the writer didn't address the question). It only speaks about state officials.

: I rewrote the section Barberio added to delete the claim that "most other bicameral institutions" explicitly ban dual legislative officeholding. We need sources for that claim. I don't know if it is true that most other bicameral institutions in the world prohibit dual officeholding within themselves. And that's a separate issue from whether members of federal legislatures in ''federal systems'' are explicitly prohibited from also serving in local governments. Each of those claims needs its own citation.

: I still don't think its appropriate to include the statements about dual officeholding. Without a corresponding discussion as to whether custom or inherent rules prevent it, I think including the statement is misleading. Since Barberio insists on adding it, however, I've rewritten the statement so that it is less misleading (in particular, I've including the corresponding observation about holding two or more House seats simultaneously). I've also clarified the distinction between federal and state offices. [[User:Mateo SA|Mateo SA]] | [[User talk:Mateo SA|talk]] 22:50, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

:: Um, I was refering to you'r stripping the section of the information provided directly from the Senate Historical Office. That of the history of dual office holding in the 18th century. I will grant you that it is apropriate to edit out the 'most other' statement, but the rest of your edits seem to be spurious considering the rest of the section was factual. --[[User:Barberio|Barberio]] 23:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

::: I did not remove the reference to the 18th century the second time; Ddye did. I removed the info the first time because I thought it was excessively detailed. I had no idea that you that it was so important to mention that there were a few instances of dual officeholding in the 18th C. I would have appreciated it if you had pointed out what you thought was "spurious". You restored the entire paragraph, including the sentences about "most other" institutions, the full text of the clause, and your grammatically convoluted first sentence. The rest of my edits involved shortening a section on a point that you yourself say is "'''very''' obscure". It is not necessary to include (almost) every word in the SHO's reply simply because it was from an official source. Finally, as I've pointed out below, my edits also involved clarifying the confusion you made between dual officeholding within Congress and federal-subnational dual officeholding. [[User:Mateo SA|Mateo SA]] | [[User talk:Mateo SA|talk]] 00:26, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

:I don't want to start an edit war over whether we can say that there is a custom or convention against it, but it is imperative that we mention that it's never happened, and I've edited to reflect that. [[User:Ddye|Ddye]] 22:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

:: What you added about it never happening is fine with me. I still think this topic needs to be researched further [[User:Mateo SA|Mateo SA]] | [[User talk:Mateo SA|talk]] 22:58, August 24, 2005 (UTC); 23:00, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I've forwarded this section as currently writen to the Senate History office to ask if we've got it wrong, since this is a '''very''' obscure point and they would be authorative. Can I ask you to hold off edits till we get a responce. --[[User:Barberio|Barberio]] 23:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Barberio - I'd appreciate it if you would read my edits before reverting them. I took your long sentence about a minor fact (dual officeholding in the 18th C.), shortened it, and moved it to another location. As it was, placing the entire long sentence at the end of the paragraph gave undue attention to a minor detail. Your re-addition of your sentence made the paragraph redundant. [[User:Mateo SA|Mateo SA]] | [[User talk:Mateo SA|talk]] 00:04, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

To illustrate my above point, I've added your version of the paragraph, with emphasis added:
<blockquote>
The U.S. Constitution does not prohibit Representatives or Senators from simultaneously holding a state post. '''During the [[eighteenth century]], some members of Congress did also serve as state officials.''' However, such cross-federal dual officeholding is now prohibited by state constitutions and statutes, and custom. '''Concurrent officeholding took place on rare occasions during the eighteenth century, before customary practice barred state legislators from serving in Congress.'''
</blockquote>
: [[User:Mateo SA|Mateo SA]] | [[User talk:Mateo SA|talk]] 00:14, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

:That there were '''rare''' occurances of dual office holding is not a minor detail, it serves to demonstrate that what is now commonly accepted practice was not always so. The sentance served to clarify that occurances dual office holding applied to State legislatures, not State Offices. The sentance is an almost direct quote from the SHO email, so I feel is the most apropriate wording to use to describe it. That it came out as redundancy is my fault after trying to tidy up the 'clarity edit'.
:For the sake of halting wiki-ping-pong on the article, I'll keep it as is from your edit till I get further responses from the SHO. --[[User:Barberio|Barberio]] 01:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


== The Congress vs Congress ==
:: Your "tidying up" of my edit consisted of adding back the redundant sentence and putting in a carriage return to divide the paragraph in two. It is Those were the ''only differences'' between the two. I find very offensive that you continue to make your claim that my edit was substantive instead of for form. Please don't put "clarity" in quotation marks to try to slander me. The only possibly substantive change I had made was to change the reference from "state legislators" to "state officials". That really doesn't change the meaning of the paragraph. As I've tried to point out again and again, there is difference between cross-federal officeholding and intralegislative dual-officeholding. The Constitution has no restrictions on federal officials of any kind serving as state officials. The SHO e-mail does not restrict itself to members of Congress and state legislators. A sentence in the reply says "Although newly elected senators typically resigned their '''state or local offices''' before assuming their seats in the Senate, a few retained their offices while serving in the Senate and/or the House of Representatives." It does not say that the only instances of dual officeholding were of state legislators holding posts in the Senate. "State and local offices" includes more than just legislators. The following sentence in the SHO reply refers only to legislators, yes, but that contradicts their previous remarks. This shows that the people at the SHO are not infallible.


While normally its called "Congress" (as in members of Congress voted on X), but is it not proper to call it "The Congress" (as in members of the Congress voted on X) [[User:Tildin|Tildin]] ([[User talk:Tildin|talk]]) 09:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
:: As for using the wording of the SHO e-mail, that is unnecessary, and is arguably plagiarism. You did not place those words in quotes or cite the email, and in so doing you presented someone else's work as your own. In any event, there is nothing magical about the words used by the SHO. My new sentence says the same thing (except for the reference to "legislators", which I've since changed) as the SHO sentence. Simply because it is a new wording does not change its meaning.
::(Mateo forgot his Sig)


== Q: Is switching party grounds for a "formal installation"? ==
::: Since this is getting heated, and you're going to start accusing people of things like plagiarism, I see no point in continuing to discuss this with you. When you've calmed down enougth to accept all people editing this have made mistakes so far, myself and yourself included, then we might continue working on the article. If you wish the SHO to clarify what you see as a contradiction, then I suggest you contact the SHO. --[[User:Barberio|Barberio]] 11:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


In the article on the [[118th United States Congress]], Joe Manchin's switch to Independent prompted [[user:Zeddawg]] to change the "Date of formal installation" from "N/A" (entered by me I believe) to the date of his party switch. I reverted that, pointing out that "'' ... he wasn't installed in the Senate then, he was installed back in November 2010. N/A is most appropriate since he isn't new.''".
:::: I'm perfectly willing to admit I've made mistakes; I deleted the 18th cent. point without considering whether it might be important. I apologize for suggesting you plagiarized. But you still haven't apologized for accusing me distorting my edit comments. I've made it clear that I did not intend to remove the info about the 18th century. Once you reverted my edits, I did not restore the material omitting the 18th century point; another user did. You placed remarks in the edit comments and on this page accusing me of removing "substantive material" without pointing out what that material was. I had no idea you were talking about the 18th century point or that you considered it important. This discussion started out talking about people holding offices in both the Senate and House in Congress. I naturally thought that you were referring to something that had to do with that, not the entirely new subject of people holding both federal and state offices. Whether the history of dual officeholding in the 18th was trivial or not, I did not think it was essential to paragraph; I did not pay it much attention and deleted it largely inadvertently. Yet you never apologized for accusing me and you continue to refer to my remarks as "'clarity' edits", insinuating that I've distorted my motive.


That was then reverted by [[user:OutlawRun]], referring to previous examples in the [[111th United States Congress|111th]] (Arlen Specter) and [[107th United States Congress|107th]] congresses (Jim Jeffords and Virgil Goode), where their switches have a "Date of formal installation".
:::: You distorted your own edits when you wrote about my new 18th-cent. comment. You said that you somehow missed it while "trying to tidy up the 'clarity edit'". ''All you did was restore your sentence and add a paragraph break.'' How are these two edits so confusing that you were unable to read the 2nd sentence of the paragraph?


So we need a consensus here. Should a switch of party affiliation/registration be viewed as a "formal installation"? Is the person who changes his/her registration sworn in anew? I don't believe so.
:::: Finally, why has this topic shifted to cross-federal dual-officeholding? You initiated this talk section by writing about people holding seats in both the Senate and House. Then you posted a letter from the SHO that had largely to do with people being both members of Congress and state officers. When I edited your remarks, you became incensed about my edits regarding that topic, not the original topic of holding seats in both the Senate and House. Why have you shifted the focus of this section?


If someone thinks we need to be able to sort on the column, and the N/A ruins that, we could easily solve that "problem" by applying template {{tl|sort}} like this: <code><nowiki>{{sort|the date in question|N/A}}</nowiki></code>, or possibly some use of "data-sort-value".
::::: [[User:Mateo SA|Mateo SA]] | [[User talk:Mateo SA|talk]] 13:06, August 25, 2005 (UTC)


[[User:HandsomeFella|HandsomeFella]] ([[User talk:HandsomeFella|talk]]) 19:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
::::: This issue seems to be closed. Since Barberio continues to ignore me, I don't think there's anything further to say. [[User:Mateo SA|Mateo SA]] | [[User talk:Mateo SA|talk]] 16:16, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:29, 18 July 2024

Former featured articleUnited States Congress is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 22, 2005.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 24, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
September 26, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article


The Congress vs Congress

[edit]

While normally its called "Congress" (as in members of Congress voted on X), but is it not proper to call it "The Congress" (as in members of the Congress voted on X) Tildin (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Q: Is switching party grounds for a "formal installation"?

[edit]

In the article on the 118th United States Congress, Joe Manchin's switch to Independent prompted user:Zeddawg to change the "Date of formal installation" from "N/A" (entered by me I believe) to the date of his party switch. I reverted that, pointing out that " ... he wasn't installed in the Senate then, he was installed back in November 2010. N/A is most appropriate since he isn't new.".

That was then reverted by user:OutlawRun, referring to previous examples in the 111th (Arlen Specter) and 107th congresses (Jim Jeffords and Virgil Goode), where their switches have a "Date of formal installation".

So we need a consensus here. Should a switch of party affiliation/registration be viewed as a "formal installation"? Is the person who changes his/her registration sworn in anew? I don't believe so.

If someone thinks we need to be able to sort on the column, and the N/A ruins that, we could easily solve that "problem" by applying template {{sort}} like this: {{sort|the date in question|N/A}}, or possibly some use of "data-sort-value".

HandsomeFella (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_Congress&oldid=1235334093"