Talk:United States Congress/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

the Third Continental Congress

In my own research about the history of congress I think it would be accurate to mention the Third Continental Congress that started December 20, 1776. That while the Articles of Confederation was formed in the Second Continental Congress they were not finalized until the Third and submitted to the 13 Colonies on November 15, 1777. It was also the Third Continental Congress that conducted the war against England. http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_arti.html.

What happened between the Continental and the US Congresses? There is a silent period of about 12 years.

Hakj (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Quick fact checking

While doing research I couldn't help notice the page says: "James Madison called for a bicameral Congress: the lower house elected directly by the people, and the upper house elected by the lower house." The part about Madison supporting the Senate being elected by the House seems to directly contradict his Federalist 51 paper:

"In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. Were this principle rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people, through channels having no communication whatever with one another. "

Now the question comes, did Madison consider the Senate above the House which is elected by the people and doesn't need to be elected by the people? Can someone find evidence that Madison did/did not support direct election of Senators?

HeadofRed 23:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia manipulation by Congress members

Wikipedia as the world's leading encyclopedia with more than 16 million users per month is a global player par excellence. It is de rigeur to edit Congress manipulations of Wikipedia. Reverting user will be checked for Congress affiliations by neutral admin group.Good afternoon, gentlemen.80.138.158.108 21:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I am neutral, merely watching this article for edits that are not encyclopedic. Yours wasn't. An encyclopedia article on the United States Congress need not contain news of a relatively minor event. It makes Wikipedia appear self-obsessed. —Cleared as filed. 21:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

As there is no exact quantitative limit between minor and major events, the inclusion is justified.80.138.130.146 17:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, there's no exact quantitative limit, but this event is way under even a fuzzy limit. In the history of the United States Congress, you think a few Congressional staffers trying to change Wikipedia articles is a noteworthy event? There are other articles where this is being mentioned, and that is appropriate. —Cleared as filed. 17:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

As it is one important mosaic stone in an America becoming a police state according to t h e Zbigniew Brzezinsky ("technotronic era", powerful US statesman and professor), it must be included to prevent further damage from the public as it is only the top of a recent iceberg.80.138.130.146 17:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Who is Z. Brzezinky and why would we care about his POV in an article about the history of the U.S. Congress? If Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, how does Congressional staffers editing turn the U.S. into a police state? Things worked exactly the way they should have — other editors caught the problem and the changes were reverted. If there were some governmental power issue at stake here, the U.S. would have shut down Wikipedia for not allowing the changes to stay. As it is, there is no story here, other than an embarassing one for the Congressional members whose staffs tried to whitewash their articles. —Cleared as filed. 17:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

As an Average Joe Citizen who holds no political power, a college student to be exact, let me way in favor of the Congressman in this argument. Surely the maniplation of Wikipedia for disinformation or propaganda purposes is something to be chastised, in the specific instances where a specific edit fits that description. But, to claim that any edit, on any level and for any reason, by any Congess member, should be condemned and warrants such rude, crude threats of background checks, is a most charlatanous argument and a load of sensational, infantile tripe.

Wikipedia is open-source and invites any and all free people in free countries to edit it, the only test/requirement for qualification being the content/value of the edit in question and not the nature or identity of the editor other than, sometimes, being a registered member. Thus, if a person who holds an elected office feels the need to make an edit, and can make the edit, that's Wikipedia's fault, and Wikipedia can restrict access to edits however it pleases, if that's what Wikipedia really wants to do.

Futhermore, a police state is a place where, as the Congressman points out, the government makes the changes whether you like it or not, where you cannot revert them, and where nobody knows that the change even happened because there is no dissenting voice. A police state is also a place where such edits occur in places with limited access to the content, like a professional news site, and not something so mundane as a site where anyone and everyone can make an edit, with all due respect to this great and wonderful encyclopedia. The editor "warning" Congress and threatening background checks and whatnot is, through his own actions, more guilty of promoting a police state mentality than some random edit by a person who just happens to be in Congress.

It is far too easy and intellectually mediocre to engage in self-righteous posturing over insignificant issues, like editing for encyclpedic quality, than to actually judge each individual edit for its quality and validity, which is what people should do in a free and enlightened society. Framing all things government as the bad and things counter-government as good, then throwing in some quotes and references to "police state" is a gross, lazy-minded oversimplification of a complex matter. In fact, let me make some more references, this time to 80s liberal French philosopher and theorist Foucault, who argued that sometimes the people claiming to be unconformist, subversive, and/or revolutionary, are themselves enforcers of the status quo, unwitting agents of the Powers that Be, and are themselves undermining true freedom of choice. Specifically, the "Repressive Hypothesis" postulates, amongst other things, that some people use "secret knowledge" (like conspiracies without evidence) to elevate their personal sense of worth above their perception of others (blind sheep), fostering a kind of elitism that requires the constant production of "us-vs.-them" dichotomies without any real consideration for what is actually true.

The retort that "there is no quantitative limit" to distinguish between a "major" or a "minor" event, which was given to justify the anti-Congress statements, is a pedantic and absurd truism that, ironically, sounds like something a politician would say. Sorry, we are not impressed, sir, it is not enough to say "Clinton lied, period," or "there is no exact limit, period," rational people must weigh in the relative circumstances and make a value judgement instead of playing rhetorical games that clumsily juggle the de facto and the ipso facto and ex post facto. In plain speech, if a Congressman wants to contribute to Wiki, let him, and let the contribution stand or fail by its own weight and by the opinions of thousands of other editors using their own free judgment. Here's a quote for you, speaking of the difference between a police state and a free society: "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its Republican form, let them stand undisturned, as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated when reason is left to combat it"--Thomas Jefferson. --Supersexyspacemonkey 20:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no justification for including specific actions of members of congress on a page about the structure of congress, simple as that. 212.219.142.161 15:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Checking some recent edits

I was just on Recent Changes Vandalism Patrol and noticed some anonymous edits (by User:69.166.151.138) to this article. I reverted them as they looked like sneaky vandalism, but not being American and not knowing anything about the US Congress, I thought it prudent to check with the readers/editors of this page. The edits can be seen here. They are: "There are 105 senators, serving six-year terms. Recent additions have been made for Guam, The Phillipines and one representing the Virgin Islands." and "The House of Representatives consists of 427 members representing the fifty states." If this information is true, please revert my reversions, and accept my apologies (and please cite references if possible). Regards, Canley 02:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope — your intuition was correct. Good job and thanks! —Cleared as filed. 06:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Purpose?

In reading this, it is hard for a non-american to know what the purpose or role of the congress is. Could someone put in a one or two sentance summary of what it is supposed to do? eg 'it reviews proposed legislation', or 'it writes legislation' or 'it approves budgets'.

There are actually well-educated people who aren't quite sure what purpose Congress serves. But in all seriousness, such a paragraph would probably be useful to include. It would have to be fairly generic as, especially in recent weeks, the purpose of congress and how that relates to the purpose of the other branches has become a more controversial subject. sebmol 04:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I second (or third) the initial suggestion. After reading parts of this article, I have no idea as to what Congress does. Too much of it requires linking, several times to basic definitions to understand (United States Congress->Legislature->Deliberative assembly) :::: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2 of 8 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest using the content of Article 1 of the Constitution to outline the role and actions of congress. Sure they may do things that is nor within the exact limits, but the purpose of the Congress is outlined, and the powers defined, in the Constitution. 198.49.81.62 (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant information

The "Checks and balances" section seems to be a little irrelevant in parts to the congress. The article is called 'United States Congress' so it seems like it should talk about the congress, not the other branches. A lot of the things in that section should maybe be revised or moved to the Checks and Balances article. Marcus 01:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The Checks and Balance system is part of the role of the Congress, and thus should be included in the article. Checks and Balances are part of what makes Congress what it is.198.49.81.62 (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Above law

Where do i put www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/180306bushsigns.htm this] in? --Striver 16:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Constitutional History

Would it not be appropriate to add information referencing the 17th Amendment? That amendment fundamentally changed the nature of Congress. I could do some research and put a tidbit in by the night's end. Mustang 03:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I see it is in there. However, it seems a little POV to me. There were negative side effects of the amendment like the fact that the state legislatures were no longer represented in the federal government, and senators now had to please voters, leading in part to a dramatic increase in governmental spending this century. Mustang 03:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...that statement seems POV to me. There were real problems that can be verified, and the amendment was verifiably put forth as a solution. What other effects it may have had, unless put forth in some reliable, reasonably neutral publication, are WP:NOT. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Next?

Here is some guy that belives there is a posibility of Pearl Harbor 3 being directed against the senate. links: [1], [2], [3]. I dont agree with everyting that he said, and he doesnt have any evidence, but i thought it was intresting. --Striver 20:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is some guy that believes Kang and Kodos are controlling congress [localhost]. I don't agree with everything he said, and he has no evidence, but I thought it was funny.

Seriously, what's the point? --Mmx1 01:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Article misleading on comparisons to parliamentary democracy?

I'm not sure but potentially the article is partially misleading on comparisons to parliametry democracy. It appaears to be partially confusing the difference between a federation and other styles of government. In federations, there tends to be a state based representation regardless of population in the upper house. For example in the Australian senate and Dewan Negara in Malaysia (which was partially modelled after the US anyway AFAIK). Even in India, the Rajya Sabha is not solely based on population I believe. The upper house in some federations such as Australia (and possibly India but not Malaysia or Canada) also tend to be have a much higher level of power/equality as in the US. The biggest difference is probably related to (as the article mentions) the fact that the lower house is the one which decides the Prime Minister and cabinet. Therefore, there is a direct connection between the PM & Cabinet and the lower house and so these tend to dominate, unlike in the US where the President & cabinet is seperate from the lower house/House who therefore tend to act indepedently of the President and therefore this effectively means the senate is allowed to have a greater say. Also, out of tradition, even though the upper house may have nearly equal powers in some federal parliaments countries in many areas, they don't tend to utilise that power. (E.g. even though they may be able to make laws and block laws, they rarely do it.) Nil Einne 11:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I've made some minor changes to that section. Evilteuf 17:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Comparison to parliamentary democracy

The final comment in this section reflects a concern that a freshman may be able to "bring him the bucks" [sic]. Is this quoted correctly?? It doesn't sound grammatical, even by American standards! Should it be "bring home the bucks"? Or "bring in the bucks"?? Or something else??? Mooncow 12:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I was about to make a change when I found this discussion topic. I think the correct quote is "Bring home the bacon."; a reference to the Pork Barrel politics. I could be wrong. But someone should check on this and correct the quote because "bring him the bucks" [sic] doesn't make any sense. 20:14 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it really an advantage that the Senate gives small states equal representation and power with large states? This sounds like POV to me, as a strong argument can be made that this is really unequal representation giving small states disproportionate power relative to their populations. Esorlem 15:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It is an advantage because it is a federation. It is not pov, but a reflection of the history and purpose olf the states, which is that the states created the federation, the federation did not create the states, and so the Great Compromise that balances of power between population and states is an advantage towards the federal system of government.--Supersexyspacemonkey 19:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Function of the Senate and the House of Representatives

Could anyone provide a little info. on what's the functions of the Senate as contrasted with the House of Representative?

I read a line on the page of United States House of Representatives: "The bicameral Congress arose from the desire of the Founders to create a "house of the people" that would represent public opinion, balanced by a more deliberative Senate that would represent the governments of the individual states"

Could anyone explain the nature of "house of people" of the House of Representative and the nature of "represent governments of the individual states" of the Senate? Are the electorates of the House of Representatives are politicians? while those of the Senate are govt. officials?

Both house contain politicians, not government officials. Unlike in parlimentary systems, government ministers are not current members of congress so in nearly all cases their position in Congress is the only government position held (at the time) by members. In fact, it is forbidden to hold office in Congress and elsewhere in the federal government at the same time. (It is however allowed, but very rare, to have a position in the state or local government at the same time).

The original mechanism for electing senators called for them to be chosen by the state legislature in their state. This has since been amended to require popular election. The originally difference, along with the 2 year terms for the house vs 6 years in the senate, and the smaller election districts in the house, has let to the house being considered the "house of the people".

kenj0418 15:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Finally, can someone tell me what is the functions and the difference of functions between the Senate and the House of Representatives?

In most areas they perform the same function. All laws must be approved by both branches. There are a few specific types of legislative action that are different between the branches. Additionally, there are some traditional differences in the rules and norms between the house and senate. Some differences:

• All tax legislation must begin in the house
• During impeachment, impeachment occurs in the house, with the trial over removal from office occurs in the senate.
• High-level government appoinments require the advice and consent of the senate
• Treaties require the advice and consent of the senate
• Requirements for office differ (House: 25 years old, citizen for 7 years) (Senate: 30 years old, citizen for 9 years)
• Senate rules allow for unlimited debate on an issue unless 60 (of 100) members agree to limit debate. This can lead to Filibusters where a minority of members can block approval of a measure they oppose. The house generally has much tighter control on the length of debate for a measure.

kenj0418 15:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Your generous help will be much appreciated.scarlett_tong 12:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Robert Byrd added as President pro tempore of Senate in place of Dick Cheney

I'm making this change because in modern times, the Vice President rarely presides or 'leads' the Senate. This task is left more often to the President pro tempore (usually the longest serving member of the party in power). The President pro tempore is a ceremonial head of the Senate much in the same sense the President of the Senate is, as both are established by the Constitution (see President pro tempore article for reference) in Article 1, section 3. The Vice President does perform the vital role of breaking ties, but this has only occured 242 times (see President of Senate article for reference). Even more common is more a freshmen Senator to preside over the body (see President of Senate article for reference again).

A Vice President is, constitutionally, the President of the Senate and it is true that historically the VP presided over the body (see Wikipedia President pro tempore article for reference). But since the 1960s this has not been the case and in a modern sense the VP's role in the Senate can be seen as purely ceremonial.

If anyone has a major objection to this, perhaps the template can be modified to allow a listing for both President of the Senate and President pro tempore. Whoblitzell

Well, if we're going to go by the actual control of congress's operations, then it's neither of "President of the Senate" or "President pro tempore", which are functionally ceremonial posts. Day to day leadership is maintained by the United States Senate Majority Leader. I agree with the principle that the infobox should list the actual active leader of the senate, and I've edited to reflect. --Barberio 13:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Further research on my part has indicated that this is indeed the case. I was pretty sure Dick Cheney didn't run the Senate on a regular basis though :) Whoblitzell

Why does the info box say Dick Cheney when this talk thread indicates a desire for Majority Leader Reid or Pres pro tem Byrd? I would like to change it back and remove Dick Cheney. Any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonCNJ (talk • contribs)

Just a few comments. First, excluding Dick Cheney could be interpreted by some as POV. It is true the Democrats control Congress, but Dick Cheney is still President of the Senate. While the President of the Senate in modern times is something of a ceremonial role, the Vice President still wields power as the official responsible for swearing in new senators, breaking tie votes, and in counting electoral votes. Moreover, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House are both offices established by the U.S. Constitution and are the official presiding officers of their respective bodies. The President pro Tempore is also a constitutional office, so it should also be included in the infobox. The majority leaders of the Senate is a political office established in the mid-20th century, and while the Senate Majority Leader is the day-to-day operator of the Senate, he is not officially its "presiding officer." If we were to include the Senate Majority Leader, then why not the House Majority Leader or the respective Minority Leaders? My recommendation is to only include official Constitutional officers in the infobox for the United States Congress article: Speaker, President of the Senate, and President Pro tempore. Majority and Minority leaders can be included in the respective House and Senate articles' infoboxes.Dcmacnut 15:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I don't think removing Dick Cheney would be POV, but I would like to have a bright-line rule for this sort of thing...and using only Constitutional officers works fine for that purpose. Good compromise: thanks for the edit adding in the President pro tempore. I'm satisified with this resolution. JasonCNJ 17:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

In order to keep featured status...

I was looking at this article, and although it is a great article, it needs inline citations in order to keep up with today's featured article standards. WP:CITE would be a good place to start as well as recent featured articles to see how this should be done. The Placebo Effect 21:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The article has extensive citations and references, but it is not clear which citations fit with which parts of the article. Since many of these items are not available on-line, adding in-line citations sounds like a tall order to me without having access to the books themselves. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dcmacnut (talk • contribs) 04:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

The language used as regards the powers of the Congress should be taken word for word from the constitution rather than paraphrased. This becomes important in legislation. One example the by and with the advise and consent of the Senate was changed in legislation and repeals of legislation regarding the Acts of Tenure to remove the preposition by thereby eventually resulting in the Presidents claim that US attorneys serve at the will of the President whereas the sole power of removal in the Constitution is impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate.

The attacks on Congressional power by the executive branch have been strongly affected by the strong influence of the Federalist Society on Law Schools, resulting in the lawyers who run for congressional seats having been improperly instructed as to give them the impresion that judicial review, separation of powers, checks and balances take away power from the Congress and give it to the President especially when given the role of commander in chief after a declaration of war by Congress he is called to active service. Rktect 01:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Member Group Section Unbalanced

Every single group listed here sides with the Democrats. An aprox equal number of caucuses siding with the Republicans needs added for balance. Jon 14:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could be bold and add those groups directly? JasonCNJ 16:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the main list of cacussses page has over 95% red links, so numerious articles need created first. Jon 14:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Comparison to Parlaimentary systems

Some of the following are notes to myself in response to the Featured Article Removal comments. However, I am putting this here in case someone else wants to get around to this before I will have the chance to:

RE: Regional alienation in Canada. — In Canada, the "pictorial model of representation" holds that "parliamentary institutions should be microcosms of the Canadian electorate, with the same balance of demographic characteristics found in the broader population." (Keith Archer, Roger Gibbins, Rainer Knopff, Heather MacIvor and Leslie A. Pal, Parameters of Power: Canada's Political Institutions, 3rd ed. (Canada: Thomson, 2002), p. 194.) This leads less populated parts to hold less power and sway in the Federal government. Unlike in the United States, where each Senator or Representative is equal, and does not matter what the make-up of the constituency is. Also perhaps useful: [4],[5].

RE: Loyalties to constituents. — "It is a core characteristic of the American scheme of government that states’ Congressional delegations serve (in effect) as the states’ embassies in Washington... Party discipline is weak in the U.S. system; members of Congress are somewhat more loyal to their constituents at home. Hence a platform within Congress tends to be more valuable in the long term than access to the Executive." (Russel Lawrence Barsh, Trust Responsibility and the Coordination of Aboriginal Issues in the United States: Potential Applications in Canada, (June 2000). PDF. Also: Disraeli's "climbing the greasy pole" and "Damn your principals, stick to your party."

If anyone wants to make sense of this in the comparison section, I have done some of the work for you. If not, I will try and get back to this at an unspecified time in the future. Mahalo nui loa. --Ali'i 13:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

References and help with the article

As promised on the FAR page, I would have time in mid-Sept. to work on the article. I can spend some time on the article now and help out. Though, this is a broad topic, and not sure how quickly we can get this fully cited and up to current FAC standards. The main thing I can offer is adding cites and material, based on references I'm working with. These include the following books:

• English, Ross M. (2003). The United States Congress. Manchester University Press. - a more general overview
• Davidson, Roger H., and Walter J. Oleszek (2004). Congress and Its Members. CQ Press.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Oleszek, Walter J. (2004). Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process. CQ Press.
• Polsby, Nelson W. (2004). How Congress Evolves: Social Bases of Institutional Change. Oxford University Press.
• Zelizer, Julian E. (2004). The American Congress: The Building of Democracy. Houghton Mifflin.

Don't have these now, but other potentially good references. Likely, I may see them at a used book shop, and can pick up a copy.

• Price, David E. (2000). The Congressional Experience. Westview Press.
• Herrnson, Paul S. (2004). Congressional Elections: Campaigning at Home and in Washington. CQ Press.

With this list of sources to use in adding inline cites, I have updated the reference section to make it easier to keep track. --Aude (talk) 20:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Noting this for inclusion in the article:

Mayhew

• Mayhew, David (1974). Congress: The Electoral Connection. Yale University Press. - This has been widely cited in scholarly literature. [6] He argues that members of Congress operate throughout their terms with the goal of winning re-election motivating and influencing their actions and decisions – how they allocate their time, take positions on issues, seek publicity, deal with special interest groups, etc. Based on his work, rational choice theory is now a dominant explanation for how Congress and its members operate.
• He has another influential book, Divided We Govern, where he disputes the previously accepted notion that, when Congress and the presidency are controlled by different parties, less important legislation is passed than under unified government. --Aude (talk) 04:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Fenno

• Fenno, Richard F. (1973) Congressmen in Committees Little, Brown. - also influential
• Fenno's Paradox

Added. --Aude (talk) 06:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Other

For me... or anyone that wants to help: Presidential power over time/Imperial Presidency... even though this should be obvious. Little nuggets throughout:[7],[8] & [9],[10],[11],[12],[13] PDF, [14], [15], [16],[17]... some are sources, some are links to offline sources. There is much, MUCH more out there. Overall, I think historians would say "duh". But I'll try anyway. --Ali'i 14:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite of Powers section

I would like to see a rewrite (using mostly the same text... so maybe a reorganization) of the Powers section. Right now it seems just sloppily thrown together (with no real introduction, form, or logic in order):

I. Powers

A. A jumble of various powers Congress has (jumping around the U.S. Constitution).

B. A snippet of the U.S. Constitution listing enumerated powers.

C. Amendments... granting further powers.

D. Limits of power... short discussion on what Congress can't do.

E. Checks and balances

In my opinion, it should read more logically:

I. Powers

A. Powers given.

A short introduction... explaining that Congress derives all power from "The People"; delegated to it during the Contitutional Convention, and set forth in the Constitution. Congress has two types of powers: Expressed powers (Enumerated powers) and implied powers. (Inherent powers don't really need to be discussed, in my opinion).

1. Enumerated powers. Listing and describing those powers explicitly laid out in the U.S. Constitution, probably including the Civil War Amendments.

(?)i. Powers exclusive to the Senate.

(?)ii. Powers exclusive to the House.

2. Implied powers. Listing and describing those powers that Congress has (though not expressly given) through the necessary-and-proper clause, etc., as explained in McCulloch v. Maryland and elsewhere.

(?)3. Other powers? Or a discussion of the powers exclusive to the Senate and exclusive to the House.

B. Powers expressly denied. Mostly from Article I, Section 9.

C. Checks and balances.

Did I miss anything big? Am I way off in my thinking? Do other people think that the organization is fine? Or that it's bad? Can my outline be fixed in any way? I think this really should happen if we want to try and keep this a Featured Article. Mahalo nui loa. --Ali'i 16:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I generally agree with your suggestions, and have made some edits to reorganize the section. I think "checks and balances" should be a separate section from powers. There is enough to discuss there, to make it a section on par with "Powers". Also, the introduction for the "powers" section needs to summarize key areas that Congress has power, such as over financial and budgetary matters. More references, copyedits, and other work is still needed for these sections. Should have time to work on references during the weekend. --Aude (talk) 15:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Comparison section

I've tagged this section as I think it the most troublesome in terms of sourcing and wording. I was going to go over it line-by-line but there's too much. Example: "Parliamentary democracies are generally characterized by a single representative body." What, they're literally unicameral? And why do I feel that Canada and Britain are being extrapolated to cover the entire world. This follows: "In Commonwealth countries, the House of Commons serves as the equivalent to the entire Congress, and the Upper House (in Great Britain, the House of Lords; in Canada, the Senate; etc.) has generally become subservient to the Lower House. In the U.S. Congress, the Senate and House of Representatives operate separately and have powers independent of the other." Clearly contradictory.

A larger question: why is this section even necessary? If it were simply cut, it'd save a good chunk of the work needed to go back to FAC. Marskell 13:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Took out uncited material, leaving a smaller section with some cites and more basic statements like "Congress exercises only legislative powers" which are basic knowledge and may not need cites. --Aude (talk) 13:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Limits of power

There does not seem to be anything written under the limits of power section. I am not that familar with this article so I cannot correct it. I just thought I would bring it up. Andy120290 (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The History Section

The history section is nice, but is missing a few points. More specifically, it jumps from ratification of the Constitution to post-Gilded Age. I would think that more has to be added. NuclearWarfare (talk) 23:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Contempt

The section on contempt indicates that congress does not have the power to enforce its own contempt citations. Although it is correct that congress has not done so since the 1930s, congress does still retain the power of inherent contempt, and may order the sargeant at arms to bring people before the congress to face a contempt charge, imposing a penalty of confinement lasting up to the end of the current congress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.3.252 (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What are the "rankings" of the most powerful individuals in the U.S. Congress?

Aside from Dick Cheney (the President of the Senate), what are the "rankings" of the most powerful people in the U.S. Congress? (I.e., most powerful person, 2nd most powerful person, etc.)? I assume they would be drawn from among:

• Nancy Pelosi (Speaker, U.S. House)
• Steny Hoyer (Majority leader, U.S. House)
• Robert Byrd (President pro tempore, U.S. Senate)
• Harry Reid (Majority leader, U.S. Senate)

Thanks, Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The official order of the whole government on a constitutional level is: President-(Executive Branch), Vice President-(Senate), Speaker-(House), Chief Justice-(Judiciary), but all are coequal. After that, there is no set order. NuclearWarfare (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Unofficially, the rankings probably go Speaker of the House/Senate Majority/Senate Minority/House Majority/House Minority... followed by the chairs of influential committees, such as Ways and Means. Cheney's role as President of the Senate is actually quite minimal... mostly just breaking the rare ties that come up. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 21:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

What "official" source made the official rankings?—Markles 23:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The US Constitution. It labels no head of the government, so you have to treat all branches of government as equal. NuclearWarfare (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• The original question, above, is about "official" rankings in the "Congress."—Markles 12:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Caucuses' strengths over time?

Is there an article or a section of an article on Congress that gives a table or some other presentation of the partisan compositions of each chamber over time? I was hoping to include this information in the article Political party strength in U.S. states but had no luck finding it among the many articles on Congress. Thanks for any help anyone might provide. Qqqqqq (talk) 00:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

When does George Bush stop being president?

In the third paragraph of the checks and balances section, it says "George W. Bush (2001-). Shouldn't that be (2001-2009) or (2001-2009). Is it 2009 (when Obama will be sworn in) or is it 2008 (when Obama was voted in, and became President-Elect)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.180.127.97 (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It's January 20, 2009. However, Wikipedia policy generally states that we do not put complete start and end dates in the terms of office for incumbents. Bush is President until January 20, and it should remain 2001- until he actually leaves office.DCmacnut<> 01:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

True. He might die in the meantime (natural causes; suicide; assassination), or resign. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool, good to know 202.180.127.97 (talk) 07:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Updating

We have a nes administration, certain sections need to be updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmy da tuna (talk • contribs) 03:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

How a bill becomes a law (redirects here currently)

Surely it should redirect to somewhere global, like legislature? The reason I am not doing so is that doesn't really have the required information. Is there anywhere we can redirect this globally and usefully? 128.232.241.211 (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right, as laws are made by bodies other than the United States Congress. Although not one article on Wikipedia links to that phrase, I'd nonetheless support that change. Qqqqqq (talk) 23:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made the change. Qqqqqq (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

We're adjourned

Does the President have the authority to adjourn Congress on his own? If so, under what conditions? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 22:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the Constitution, each House requires the consent of the other to adjourn for more than three days. In practice, questions of adjournment are handled easily by concurrent resolution and the President stays out of the situation. The only mention of authority for the President to adjourn Congress on his own is found in Article III, Section 3: ...in case of disagreement between [both Houses], with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper;. I have not done any research but I'm fairly certain that authority under this section has never been exercised by a President. In any event, it would be Congress -- by virtue of its disagreement -- that would give the President the authority to adjourn them. Of course, once Congress has adjourned, the President does have the authority to order them to re-convene in special session "on extraordinary occasions." Hope that answers your question. JasonCNJ (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Majority of Votes or of Members

Is a majority of the members of a house required for passage, or merely of those voting? I.e. if 90 Senators vote do you need 46 for passage, or 51? How about overriding vetoes? Two-thirds of members (67)? or those voting (60)? Boris B (talk) 05:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

All questions in the House are decided by a majority of those present and voting on the question, with at least a quorum present. Almost all questions in the Senate are decided by a majority of those present and voting on the question, with at least a quorum present. There are some Senate questions (such as a vote on a cloture motion or waiving a point of order relating to the Budget Act) that specify the threshold as three-fifths of all Senators duly chosen and sworn (60 votes in a 99- or 100-member Senate.)

If 90 Senators vote on the question of final passage of a bill or resolution, only a majority would be necessary so the question would pass with the affirmative vote of 46 Senators.

The threshold for overriding vetoes is not subject to a higher threshold by Senate or House rules, just the two-thirds mentioned in the Constitution. That two-thirds is based off the number of Members present and voting on the override, as long as a quorum is present. JasonCNJ (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

General problem areas needing attention to restore WP:NPOV

• Congress versus the Presidency. The Framers wanted Congress to be the dominant branch; today it is weak compared to the presidency. There are numerous books such as "The Broken Branch" showing this. Why is this the case? This issue should be addressed. There are excellent sources about this.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Congressional pay and perks, like the nation's best health care plan for members. How wealthy are congresspersons, senators. Is this addressed? Very little discussion of this here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Incumbency. 90% reelection rates. Unaccountability to voters. Extreme average age (Senators = 62 years AVERAGE AGE). These issues are glossed over in this article, but it gets to the heart of what's happened. (see discussion in previous section).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Lack of references (less than 40). An article of this size should have several hundred references.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Public approval ratings of the Congress hover around 20% (? not sure number). Why? Address this.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Analysis of Congress from reputable academics like Benjamin Ginsberg (professor)and numerous others is lacking. Why are professors like sanford Levinson and Larry Sabato calling for a Second Constitutional Convention. Missing. These viewpoints should be included for balance.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Little mention of scandals, corruption, indictments.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Instances of Congress failing to act in matters such as possible impeachments of Bush (regarding the Valerie Plame/Scooter Libby affair) or Clinton (Monica Lewinsky business). Or, failing to adequately discuss things like "Should we go to war in Iraq?" Congress is supposed to have the power to declare war (according to Constitution). Why is it that the only war it's declared (according to my recollection) was World War II? These issues need to be addressed.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• How come almost all Americans don't know the name of their congressperson? If they're our representatives, what's going on? Address.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

These are a few of the more important problems areas in my view. Please do not remove the WP:NPOV tag, but rather, let's fix this article to make it worthy of inclusion into the excellent encyclopedia (my POV) called Wikipedia.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

These are all issues that do not belong in an encyclopedic article about Congress the Institution. It is about Congress as a whole. Not the current congress. Not current scandals. No current congressmen. It's about the entire body since it's creation in 1789. There are plenty of other articles where these issues can be discussed. Congressional oversight, History of United States Senate, History of the United States House of Representatives. Perks and other benefits of members are at the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate. As far as public approval ratings, which Congress? The 111th Congress has low approval ratings, but some past congresses had very high approval ratings? What would you include? You'd need to include a discussion of congresses with high approval ratings as well as low approval ratings to avoid POV issues.DCmacnut<> 14:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree about your sense of what this article should be about. You're saying "United States Congress" should be about the institution as a whole -- I agree. But to cover the whole congress means to discuss not only it's structure of Congress as it was supposed to be, according to the original Constitution of 1787, but what it has evolved to become today, complete with its powers (or lack thereof), blemishes, organization, scandals, perks, public reaction, etc etc. I don't see these things covered in this article which, in my view, reflects a conception of what Congress is supposed to be. It's like the article was written in the 1950s. You're saying it shouldn't be about specific congresspersons or specific scandals or specific congresses -- I agree. But this institution has a history of scandals -- big ones -- which are largely omitted here. Why? It's misleading to write about "United States Congress" and not have this stuff here. These things belong in this article. And the general pattern is that ALL recent Congresses have had low approval ratings -- why? This article reads like something that the Congress itself, or lobbyists, might write. What about the powerful influence of lobbying on all recent Congresses? This stuff is omitted here, and needs to be here for WP:BALANCE. And the tag about neutrality needs to stay on this article until these issues I've raised are either dismissed by consensus, or dealt with through facts and references (which I'll try to do but I'm working on other stuff right now). And we should consider adding another tag about needing more references.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree that this article violates WP:NPOV. I've restored the original paragraph on terms you deleted with your revert of my edit, but I am keeping your 90% reeelection reference for now. These issues you are raising have been discussed many times before, and concensus has been that while they are encycopedic, they are inappropriate for this article. There are many other articles, many stubs, where these discussions can be fleshed out in more detail, such as articles on specific scandals. The article on Congressional oversight already covers quite a bit of what you want to discuss. Why not expand that article further well referenced sources of whether or not Congress is living up to that oversight responsibility? Why clutter this article up with information that can just as easily be written about elsewhere?DCmacnut<> 15:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Dcmacnut, I think you're trying to be reasonable and I respect that you kept in the incumbency stuff. And I'll reconsider about the WP:NPOV tag but I'm wondering what other editors think. I haven't had time to explore the different articles you're talking about -- I will -- and see whether the kinds of issues I'm raising more properly belong there. I'll think about this but I have other stuff to do in the near future. I see myself as non-partisan (doesn't everybody?). But I've read extensively on political topics over the last few years (books, newspapers) and my sense is that the consensus of political reporters, columnists, academics who take a serious look at American politics -- my sense is acknowledged experts would not respect this current WP article as being fair or neutral. Even president Obama in his book The Audacity of Hope lays out serious criticisms of the US Senate (of which he was a member). And I get little sense that there's any serious criticism here. There are only about 40 references. My experience has been that the process of searching for references, verifying, researching -- these things flesh out the truth, the pluses and minuses. I think this article is good as a start and I bet most of the information is essentially accurate; and I'm not criticizing the excellent work that has been done so far; my complaint is that it's unbalanced and avoids stuff that I think is important, and that I think most reasonable people would think is important too.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

One technical note. Dcmacnut, I'm very impressed how you combined the references in the reference section. So reference numbers don't clutter up the text. Cool technology! I copied the code and will use it in other stuff I'm doing. I didn't know that stuff was possible. Even though we'll probably keep dickering about this article, let me say, thanks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I looked over other Congress-related articles to get a sense of what DCmacnut was talking about. And I kind of see the point that generally editors see articles like "United States Congress" and "United States Senate" and "United States H or R" as summary overviews, with other articles talking about specifics. So I can understand a concern that articles dealing with general topics may become overloaded with overly specific information -- I get this. But, at the same time, the three big articles in this group -- this one, as well as United States Senate and United States House of Representatives -- in my view -- reflect a "status quo" view which is out of step with what most Americans think, and which is substantially at odd with what most newspaper reporters, academics and political commentators think. If Congress has approval ratings around 20% as I've noted before, that means 80% of Americans disapprove of Congress -- issues about why this is so need to be addressed here, along with numerous other issues I've raised (above in this talk section). At the very least there should be sections on "criticism". These articles could be improved by adding references (only about 40 for each; for articles of this importance, references should be in the hundreds). These articles are great so far -- I like the great blue and red graphics btw -- great job!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to create a "sandbox" page for this article, and perhaps next week, add stuff to it, with links from this talk page. That's a way editors can look at it and discuss where it belongs and what we want to do with it. I think it would be cool to get the Congress-related articles back to "featured article" status if possible (my POV). Further, let's consider removing the POV tag after perhaps a few days; I had hoped to use it to generate discussion, and I don't think it needs to be there indefinitely, but as a way to get more people to pay attention to this stuff.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The sandbox page is an excellent idea. And make it FA! This is an important subject & deserves "front page" status. (BTW, I'm Canadian, so no POV.) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 22:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

US Congress Sandbox page is Talk:United States Congress/sandbox

I created the sandbox page Talk:United States Congress/sandbox. Next week I'll start putting stuff here for perusal by other editors. Is it worthy for inclusion? If so where? If not why? If interested, please leave brief comments about each factoid. I'll try to start putting stuff there next week, and I urge others to do similarly. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I added new stuff for consideration. Some of the stuff about the pay is already in the article, but we could use the references to back it up. Go to Talk:United States Congress/sandbox and please comment and consider putting the sandbox on your "Watchlist".--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Added stuff about the necessity of advertising (negative advertising) in congressional races in the sandbox.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Added information to Talk:United States Congress/sandbox about disconnect between voters & Congress; voter apathy; high cost of re-elections.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Added info on Sandbox page about advantages of incumbency, PAC money, criticism by academics.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Review of new material of Talk:United States Congress/sandbox

I've added new material for consideration in a sandbox page. I believe this information is important, relevant, well-researched, well-referenced. It would expand the references to over 100 (and help advance this article to GA status, perhaps FA). I don't think it should replace the current information, only be included for WP:BALANCE. One suggested it's POVish (since it's critical of Congress); another argued that the Congress is only a summary article (a highly POSITIVE one in my view) and should be kept short, and belongs elsewhere; still, in my view, I think a summary article should be WP:NPOV and have WP:BALANCE so I think it's important to include material which is both supportive of Congress as well as critical even in a summary article. So, I'm thinking there are two options:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Adding a new section to this Congress article (which is perhaps easiest from an editing standpoint) which is essentially "Criticism of the Congress" (or perhaps a better wording) probably at the bottom, and include most of the sandbox material (perhaps shortened, edited for clarity and flow) in this section.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: there's a criticism-section in the sandbox which can be included -- check it out.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Insert material directly into the current text at different places -- such as in the "war powers" area, to add information that the executive has become the primary decider of wars; to insert text into the "two year term" issue about the huge advantages of incumbency which essentially makes the "two term" information misleading since lawmakers are essentially there for life (90% reelection rates). This would take more editing.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Any ideas which is better?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Added criticism section

New section has plenty of solid references and uses DCMacnut's super cool reference clumping tool -- so multiple reference numbers don't bump into each other in the text (check out how it works). Removed neutrality tag. This section brings the article into WP:BALANCE hopefully with a WP:NPOV tone. The sandbox page was available for perhaps two weeks and attracted only one comment so perhaps there isn't much interest in this topic? My sense is that most Americans are unused to criticism, and the length and specificity of this added section might initially strike readers as odd and POV. It may seem this way because, if you think about it, there is hardly any place where majority opinion is regularly criticized. Tocqueville wrote about this in "Democracy in America", that the majority controls the legislature, media, business, markets -- majority controls thought (it's like the naked king asking people to evaluate his fashion sense), that is, the majority can very easily decide to ignore or dismiss what it doesn't want to hear, such as opinions like "Congress has issues". If the criticism section strikes you as odd, I suggest you delve into the references of the added section, and read these articles -- you'll find that these are mainstream sources, NY Times, WSJournal, USAToday, with prominent voices -- George Will, Barack Obama, Henry Waxman, former secretaries of state -- they are all critics of Congress. Please listen to what they're saying, because they're exposing serious problems -- these are important overview criticisms which properly belong in any summary article on "Congress". Most Americans are unaware of these problems since few, if any, people today seem to even read newspapers. If you still feel the added section is POV, please try to bolster the opposite view (that Congress functions well) with facts, references, from solid sources; my hunch is you may have trouble finding good sources to say stuff like "Congress is doing a great job" other than perhaps congresspersons or lobbyists themselves. But why not look? I did. My feeling is much of the remainder of the article remains poorly referenced, and content about the structure of Congress, powers, processes and such could be expanded, perhaps with additions from the Federalist Papers (although much of this writing is hard to wade through). More analysis from Alexis de Tocqueville who wrote Democracy in America would be a strong plus in my view. And my aim is to get this article closer to featured article status once again--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Update. Added section about lawmaker trips abroad, with wives, visiting the Rhine, touring fancy chapels, $40 teas, unused hotel suites, spas, $300/night hotels, free trips courtesy the US Air Force. Who pays for this stuff? I do. Any wonder I have no more $ left to donate to Wikipedia? Added picture. I'm not making this stuff up; it's the Wall Street Journal saying this stuff. Added inline reference.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Image of Congress Logo is NOT OFFICIAL

Just to let you know that the image you currently have with regard to the US Congress is NOT an official seal. Congress, in itself has no official seal, but the House of Representatives and the Senate have their own seal. The implication is that viewers may be under the mistaken impression that the image is an official seal, and if the image remains, there should be some way to notify the viewer of this fact. Perhaps putting the title "Unofficial Seal of the United States Congress" or "Unofficial Seal of the US Congress" will suffice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.139.91 (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

would be great if someone could clarify the SESSIONS section

Would be helpful to make that section a bit more clear. Is there a different between congress being in session and on break? meaning can congress be on a break, but in sessions. I was simply trying to find if congress CAN work right up till the end of the year, but everything I have looked at is very confusing and talks about the hstory of the twentyith amentment. I am simply interested in knowing when congress is working, and when they aren't. Cheers RichGriese (talk) 11:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This article reads like an advertisement for Congress and clearly violates WP:NPOV and WP:BALANCE

A person reading this article would get little sense of how most Americans distrust the Congress. There is SCANT criticism of Congress in it. There is little mention of Congressional scandals dealing with bribery, payoffs, corruption. There is misleading information such as "Congresspersons are elected every two year terms" which suggests competitive elections every two years; the reality is that most congresspersons are in office for life (re-election rates for members seeking re-election are about 90% -- this is well documented by excellent sources in newspapers as well as a Congressional study itself) since incumbents enjoy advantages such as (1) access to cash from lobbyists (2) gerrymandered districts (3) so-called franking privileges (a significant advantage for incumbents since they get free promotional mailings to constituents which challengers lack). Most challengers are outspent 6 to 1 by incumbents are don't really have a fighting chance. The average age of congresspersons and senators is well over 60, according to some sources; why? They're in office for life (unless caught by a scandal, make an unpopular stand on a subject the public wakes up about (rarely happens), or they run afoul of a powerful lobby.) There is little mention of academic criticism of Congress or its members (numerous political books deal with this subject; in fact, it would be difficult to find an intelligent academic treatment by a respected political scientist these days praising the Congress). There is no indication that Congress has become WEAK compared to the presidency, and that the executive branch has assumed many of its duties by using an extensive network of government agencies to essentially legislate, in essence, usurping Congress' task. I do not think I saw any mention of how Congress has failed to identify or act against outrageous acts by Democrat presidents such as Clinton ("signing statements" are a clear violation of the Constitution according to the American Bar Association, although I think it was Reagan who began doing this); there was no mention that Congress failed to call Bush II on the whole Scooter Libby/Valerie Plame matter (which academics suggest should have at least called for discussion about impeachment of the president.) Some sources suggest Congresspersons routinely throw out constituent mail; is this in this article? My sense is this article is essentially parroting back what people think Congress should be, according to the 1789 reading of the Constitution; but the reality of Congress is not here in this article. Is there any mention of how or why Congress has sunk so low in public opinion polls? --Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the article. It is only a description of the institution itself. Any sort of criticism or scandals would have to be put on the respective congressperson's article (go ahead if you want to) or if there is an appropriate article for a said scandal. All members of the House of Representatives serve two year terms. Period. No matter what you like to think, a member of the House must be re-elected every two years. Your complaints about the politics of such elections are inappropriate for this article. And if you are still not satisfied, then go complain somewhere else because Wikipedia is obviously not the site you are looking for. Andy120290 (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Wikipedia is supposed to present balanced views. This article, in my view, is highly tilted towards the notion that Congress is a respectable wing of government with few, if any problems. This article is what a high school history teacher might write -- a teacher who hadn't been reading any political books over the last decade, or who hadn't read newspapers like the NY Times or Washington Post which features political writers highly critical of the Congress. There is VIRTUALLY NO CRITICISM of the Congress. A reader who only read this article would probably think that nothing was wrong. This article omits scandals; it omits the low opinion ratings which the public has; it glosses over issues such as "franking privileges" and "gerrymandering" as if they're somehow irrelevant. And the focus on the "two year term" is misleading -- yes, there are "elections" every two years, but the reality is (and this is backed by numerous sources which I can and will present) that once a congressperson is in office, there's a 90% of being re-elected if this person seeks re-election. This is NOT how the founding fathers would have wanted it; elections were supposed to be competitive. They're not. The only way a congressperson loses a seat is if (1) they decide not to run (2) they die (3) scandal and forced out (4) refuse to take money from lobbyists (most don't) and lack funds for attack ads or (5) faced by an unusually aggressive and shrewd challenger. This discussion of reelection is vitally important to the institution; since congresspersons will be reelected no matter what voters do (in 90% of cases) congresspersons are unaccountable to the public. They're NOT really representatives. This article wholly omits discussion of how elections have been jiggered in favor of incumbents. It's essentially an advertisement for the status quo Congress. It needs balance, criticism, a NPOV.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, this needs to be addressed. I do worry it'll degenerate into partisan bickering, but to ignore what Congress has historically done & is still doing to keep members in office, such as gerrymandering or taking PAC $, or what powers & priveleges it has but rarely discusses, such franking or the platinum-plated health care (funded & run by USG, which I notice GOP doesn't mind for themselves, but not for Joe Public) is to present a very unbalanced & incomplete picture. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 02:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree I hope it doesn't degenerate into partisan bickering. Excellent point, btw. I'm not talking Republicans vs Democrats. But I think there's plenty of criticism to go around for both parties. And I'm not talking about removing stuff from this article (what is there seems solid) but balancing it with more contemporary criticism from academics, newspapers, facts from respectable sources (NY Times, Washington Post) as well as prominent academics & political scientists. You're right about the health care plans -- Congress gets gold plated health plans, we get diddly squat.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The only thing that raises a NPOV concern for me are the comments made in this section of the talk page. Yes, I've read the studies which indicate that 90% of Congressmen are re-elected. If you'd like to source that information and identify an appropriate place in the article for that fact, feel free. But the idea that you could establish sources which verify "the only way a congressman leaves office is if they (1) retire, (2) die," etc., is hogwash. You certainly are entitled to an opinion that there are only five ways a Congressman may leave office but the fact remains that two-year terms are the length of time for a Member of Congress. You may have an opinion about what the founding fathers would have wanted, but you are going to be UNABLE to have a source which identifies that the founding fathers ARE upset with Congress as it exists today. Those opinions have no place in the article.JasonCNJ

In response to JasonCNJ's excellent comments -- about the "only way a congressman leaves office" -- clearly we have a difference of opinion here. I suggest we get facts to bolster our cases. I have included facts in the article about reelection rates (congresspersons seeking reelection; there are a few who voluntarily choose to leave office) around 90%; it's varied from 85% to 95% according to other studies. I found five sources indicating this. If you find sources showing turnover (congresspersons seeking reelection) is 50%, please show me.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree we won't be able to raise dead Founders to reference them. But there are reliable sources who have made statements like "The Founding Fathers would have disapproved of gerrymandering" and such. I'll hunt for them.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Gerrymandering is controlled by states; some states have it (California), some states do not (Iowa), some states use an independent commission to draw districts, some do not. But an in-depth discussion about gerrymandering would be inappropriate for an article on Congress; use the gerrymandering page for that.JasonCNJ

About gerrymandering. Perhaps you're right gerrymandering is controlled by state governments. But it benefits congressional reelections. It's a HUGE benefit in some districts. It makes incumbents virtually unassailable in what some call "safe seats". Omitting gerrymandering from a discussion of the US Congress seems unbalanced, in my view, since it clearly advantages incumbents. I bet nobody reads the gerrymandering page, by the way; it's how congress would prefer it. And I'm not talking about an in-depth discussion of gerrymandering; rather, I'd like to include it in this article; I didn't see it. It should be here.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, you have strong opinions on Congress. But let's not allow our political feelings about government and Congress to infect this article which is well-researched, well-sourced, and presents a balanced view of Congress. I'm certainly open to NPOV additions -- but your writings on the talk page indicate a great risk that your contributions to the article will not be honest, balanced, and neutral. For what it's worth, Members of Congress do not have health care provided by the Government; they are part of the Federal Employees Healthcare Trust which provides all federal employees with the choice of one of 18 plans. Congress provides the "employer" portion of the healthcare, just as the Feds pick up the "employer" portion of healthcare for federal employees. I support publically available national healthcare but let us have respect for facts.JasonCNJ

JasonCNJ (talk) 10:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed JasonCNJ used terms like "feelings" and "strong opinions" to describe my arguments. You're suggesting I'm emotional? Sorry, my arguments are based on facts. You fear my contributions will not be "honest, balanced, and neutral" because of my emotions? Hey, what happened to WP:AGF? People who you disagree with your POV are emotional, with "strong feelings", dishonest? Come on. Stick to facts, reason, sources, references.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree with the original point. This is an encyclopedia, not a discussion board. It does not read like an advertisement. If you believe there is POV, then correct that specific problem. I removed the hatnote which was incorrect.—Markles 11:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how a comment like "this is an encyclopedia" advances this discussion. We all know it's an encyclopedia. And to trivialize my criticisms above suggesting that "it's just a discussion board" is unproductive; if you have specific problems with my criticisms above, please share them, or respond to my arguments with arguments of your own. I'm suggesting this article is biased towards a history-teacher-ish understanding of what Congress is supposed to be (according to the original Constitution) but bears little resemblance to what Congress is today. There are FEW sources relatively for an article of this importance=- less than 40. Public approval ratings for Congress hover in the 20% range (I'll research this to get a more accurate number); this article ignores this. I think this article brings a distorted picture of the Congress as a functioning, working, deliberative body elected by the people. I do not think this is the case. The vast majority of political commentators, political scientists, newspaper reporters writing about American politics will disagree with this blemish-free assessment of the Congress. Bringing in viewpoints through well-referenced sources from respectable publications like the NY Times and WSJournal and Washington Post and Newsweek will help improve this article, in my view. Let's follow Wikipedia's rules. They work. Stick to facts. And this article can become something we're all proud of.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added information about reelection results. I believe emphasizing "two-year terms" without any discussion of reelection tendencies is misleading, since it suggests there's substantial turnover every two years. This is an important issue. It gets to the heart of the matter, since once in office, in my view, representatives are largely unaccountable to voters, since they're going to get reelected regardless of what happens. In essence, even the term "representative" is misleading since congresspersons do not need the electorate (after getting in office).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It may be the 2yr term is in law, but as a practical matter, incumbency rates run around 90% (I've heard as high as 98% quoted). Why there's such a disconnect between intent & fact deserves inclusion, & not only to paint Congresscritters as unethical crooks, but to explain things have changed since 1789, & to describe how & why they've changed. As to opion on Talk, that's where it belongs. Opinion on what does/doesn't belong, & how it should be phrased, are apt here, if only to avoid a revert war. (FYI, my own "strong opinions" will keep me from making more than cosmetic edits, 'cause I don't trust myself to be completely objective at a first pass.)

To name a couple of things I'd want to see: the changed fundraising environment (PACs), the reason so much $ is needed (mainly TV time), & the influence of lobbyists on laws ($ buys access Joe Public doesn't get, can't dream of; if Lexcorp gives $1mil & I give $1000, whose call do you suppose Cong. Petrelli is going to take? Esp if he wants to get re-elected {& what pol doesn't...?}), not to mention on the actual writing of laws. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 06:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Good points. I don't think you should invalidate yourself from contributing because you have strong opinions; but I think what will help everybody (including myself) is sticking to WP's rules and using facts. I think there are plenty of facts backing up what you're saying, what I'm saying, plus facts which bolster the status quo too. But how can we all avoid stupid edit wars? This is an excellent question. I was wondering if we did this -- had some kind of extra "Sandbox" page next to the Congress page where we could contribute new lines & information with references, and say where we thought it belonged. And have links on this "Congress:Talk" page to the "Congress:Sandbox" page, so other editors could have a chance to look over what's going to happen, and see if its worthy, where it should go or not go, that sort of stuff. I think this might be a sensible way to approach things. And then if editors like the new stuff, then we can put it in the Congress article, or not, depending on what's decided. What do others think?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it reads like an advertisement for Congress at all. It doesn't make assertions that the members of Congress do their jobs well or that they're moral or that they're better than either of the two branches of government. The article is a like a textbook overview of the institution. Compare it with other articles on national legislatures (e.g. Parliament of Australia or Diet of Japan) and one finds that the United States Congress is analogous to those others. There's no particular fawning tone. There are specific articles on specific topics that may come up. I suppose an article titled something like Public perception of the United States Congress or Criticisms of the United States Congress could be created (if no such article exists). But those articles would have to adhere to NPOV. Wikipedia articles should not be a venue for pushing agendas (e.g. throw incumbent X out or limit power of Congress relative to another branch). --JamesAM (talk) 17:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

My complaint with this article isn't that it's fawning over Congress, or saying things like "Congress is moral" or such. But what I'm saying is that a high school student, reading this article and nothing else, would get a false idea of what Congress is. Serious stuff is omitted or glossed over. Editors have been working on this page, but haven't referenced it nearly as much as it should have been -- there is precious little input from mainstream newspapers and magazines which needs to be included. I let the "advertisement" tag be removed since I agree it doesn't read like an ad, but I still think the article, as it reads, has a strong POV in the sense that important issues and criticisms are omitted. There's hardly any discussion about gerrymandering, corruption, power slippage vs the presidency (see my other comments in the talk pages). It would be like an article talking about "sharks" without mentioning shark-related deaths. The current article, in my view, reflects the structure of Congress as it was described by the Constitution of 1787, and it does a good job so far; but it doesn't describe the reality of Congress today.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that you may not see this article as highly POV in favor of Congress because of this reality -- that America is a place where precious little thinking happens, where a rather mindless "we the people" mentality prevails in which majority opinion is always thinking its right -- and Americans of all stripes get sucked into a belief system because there are few, if any opportunities, for status quo ideas to be attacked. Most people no longer read books any more -- political sections of bookstores are hard to find these days. But I think American government has changed substantially, and the facts will support me on this. I've been reading extensively -- and my sense is mainstream papers like NY Times, WSJournal, Washington Post, Newsweek -- as well as important and prominent academics such as Larry Sabato and Sanford Levinson and Benjamin Ginsberg and others -- would look at this article and roll their eyeballs. Political commentators such as David Sirota or academics like Dana D. Nelson would suggest there's something seriously wrong with America, and it has to do with power shifting, corruption, serious and dangerous changes, and most Americans are not aware of these developments, and should be, and I think the facts will bear this out. I'll try working up a sandbox page perhaps beginning Monday, as a way for all of us to get a look at some of the stuff that's out there, and then we can dicker about what data goes in where, and I think it will be a learning experience for all of us. If we strive to make this article a "Featured Article", I think this process will bring out all sides of the issue. And I strive for WP:NPOV and will do my best to be fair to all points of view.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought this article was exactly what I needed. I appreciated that it laid out who and what Congress is in a way I could understand without all of the excessive and sometimes lurid details I see on this discussion page. I'd hoped to find some insightful discussion here on the function of Congress and how that has changed over time. I'm disappointed to find only some bickering over how to somehow slant the foundation article. As if this were some kind of political blog site. I'm disappointed. Really I was looking exactly for something a history teacher might write about our government. When statements are made that there isn't enough criticism of the subject, followed by long political speeches of opinion (supported by random facts of dubious relevance), it seems like someone trying to advance an agenda. I'm sorry I came to this page, and even sorrier that I took you all seriously for a minute.Crash73 (talk) 10:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of the criticism section

I noticed that an entire well-referenced section was removed WITH LITTLE OR NO DISCUSSION here on this talk page. The article shrunk significantly, perhaps by a quarter of the size. The number of references dropped precipitously. Since "editors" here are unidentified, it is highly likely that the perpetrators here were associated with the US Congress perhaps as aides or paid lobbyists which, if true, would violate Wikipedia's policy about being neutral contributors. In my view, the substantial deletion returns this "article" into a PR piece for the US Congress because it gives readers no indication of the INTENSE DISSATISFACTION with the Congress from the American public (approval ratings hovering around 25% or lower in recent years). So it gives readers a false sense that all is well. I believe cutting an entire section like this deserves much more consensus and agreement before being done, not merely pointing to another page (where the issue wasn't resolved). As the article is again, it looks like an advertisement for the US Congress which violates WP's no-advertising policy. As a compromise, I'm willing to keep the criticism section off PROVIDED there is a link at the bottom to a Google knol where the criticism section can reside. In that way, if users feel the criticisms constitute opinion, then it will satisfy their need to have the criticism section removed; but at the same time, for people interested in learning more about the Congress, they can find it in a Google knol by clicking on it. If this is unacceptable, I'll have to insist that the criticism section be returned and I'll insist that labels such as "advertisement" and "not-neutral" be attached to the top of the article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I am adding a link to the knol here which has the criticism section with references. I urge readers to restore the criticism section to re-balance the article; if not, then leave the link; otherwise, this article is a glaringly pro-Congress article which violates Wikipedia's policies against neutrality and advertising.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Putting aside the issue of whether the Criticism section should ultimately stay or not, removing it without discussion is unacceptable. Moreover, Andy120290's edit summary ("Talk gets me nowhere") of his most recent reversion is contrary to WP principles. In the two other major articles where this section exists (that I'm aware of), the section has remained pending discussion. I don't see why the Congress article should be any different.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with BBb23. Like, we need to hash this out. I'm interested in learning more from the people who have problems with the criticism section. Like, is there anything I can do to address their concerns? Wondering. My sense is Andy sees the article this way: that it's essentially neutrally descriptive about the Congress; and then there's this CRITICISM SECTION. What he's saying is there's no praise section -- is that what he's trying to say? So I'm kind of seeing how he sees things. From my viewpoint, the so-called "description" section isn't neutral, but maybe I'm too critical? --Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I just read over the Congress article, trying to see it with fresh eyes. I learned some things I didn't know. It's a pretty good article as it is. But what struck me is that there are only about 50 references. The criticism section has, in itself, over 60+ references. My general sense is that for these encyclopedia type articles, striving to have lots of references helps us stay mainstream, stay neutral, write good solid stuff. So I'm thinking that the task here isn't so much to focus on whether to keep the criticism section or not, but rather to improve this article with more research, more references. In that way, positives will emerge as well as negatives, and maybe we can get this article back to "Featured Article" status once again.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)