Talk:United States Congress/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

General discussion

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...' ?

Then list the special powers of each chamber (Voting Impeachment for the House, trying Impeachment and the 'consent sections' for the Senate.

How many representatives does the US congress have? -- Marijn

Why is it United States Congress/Alaska? Why not Alaska/United States Congress? Why not Representatives from Alaska or something else that does not presuppose some sort of bogus hierarchy like this?

Yours for a subpage-free Wikipedia,
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: Apportionment Population and Number of Representatives, by State: Census 2000 ---Jagged

The reapportionment following the 2000 Census takes effect for the 2002 elections. The 2000 elections followed the 1990 Census. --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. john 05:00 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

The Copyright Office of the Library of Congress says in its 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. 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? --Jiang

He runs for office as an independent, so far as I know. 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.) OtherDave 00:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject US Congress

One may be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject US Congress. --Jiang

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. --Jerzy 06:15, 2004 Feb 5 (UTC)

Senators represent the entire state, not a district. The entire state votes in each senatorial election. - 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. --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. --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:
State Houses Elect Senators
Direct Election of Senators
Feel free to add this response to your online discussion. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.
Mary Baumann, Researcher - Writer, U.S. Senate Historical Office
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 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. 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. -- Emsworth 20:49, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can agree with that, but please, move it to United States House of Representatives. --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 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. -- 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 U.S. Congress to Congress of the United States. -- 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. --Jiang 00:35, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 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. 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. OtherDave 18:15, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

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. 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). 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. 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.

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?? 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. --Golbez 02:55, May 7, 2005 (UTC)


Congressional Salaries

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: *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. --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. 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). --RickAguirre 30 June 2005 15:47 (UTC)

The main page of the House and the Senate web sites include links (or links to links) to each member's site. 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. --Gpyoung talk 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.--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.
--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. --Gpyoung talk 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.

OK. I have now created a separate History of Congress article. I've simply copied this History section from the Congress article to the new article. Therefore, the History section from the Congress article can now be drastically reduced to conform to Wikipedia's article length recommendations/restrictions. --Markles 15:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Trimmed down the section a lot. Someone check it over to make sure I've not unintentionaly introduced errors by ommision. --John R. Barberio talk, contribs 17:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
But wait, I meddled some more! Somebody, stop me!!
--Markles 17:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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. 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? --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. 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. 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. ~ Jeff Q (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—that statement needs evidence, or it is simply original research and not appropriate for Wikipedia. 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. 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. --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. --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. 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. 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.) --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. 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. --Barberio 21:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

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. --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. 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. --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. 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. 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 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. --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. 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:

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.

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. --Barberio 01:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
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.
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)
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. --Barberio 11:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
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.
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?
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?
Mateo SA | talk 13:06, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
This issue seems to be closed. Since Barberio continues to ignore me, I don't think there's anything further to say. Mateo SA | talk 16:16, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Curious Reader: I'm a couple months behind this topic, however I think I maybe able to clarify a part of it. If a Congressman has been Elected to the US.Senate, to succeed a Lameduck ,he/she wouldn't have to resign their Congressional Seat. Why? Because his/her Congressional term would expire anyways (Jan.3rd the following Year) ,when he/she would be sworn in as Senator (when the new Congress is sworn in).

Marbury v. Madison

I fail to see what is controversial about the declaration that Marbury was a special kind of judicial review, enforcing and citing the limits of Article III only. I know of no other case of judicial review of Acts of Congress before 1857. Since review of State law is founded on the "supreme law of the land" clause, this is a usual distinction. Could Mateo explain; and explain what he thinks needs citation other than the text of Marbury v. Madison, to which its article links? Septentrionalis 21:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

  • You need support for your conclusion that "Marbury was a special kind of judicial review"—that is your opinion about what Marbury did. Nothing in Marbury says that it is imposing a "special kind of judicial review", so, yes, you need something else than the text of Marbury to make that conclusion. Certainly you need to cite something else than Marbury. The various articles from authoritative references sources in this Answer.com search don't describe Marbury as a special type of review. The annotated U.S. Constitution at Findlaw does not do that either. Yes, Marbury was specifically about whether the Judiciary Act of 1789, which purportedly gave the Court authority over the Marbury commission, was constitutional. However, that does not necessarily mean it involved a "special kind" of judicial review. After all, Marbury struck down an act of Congress, which certainly seems to be an exercise of "the power to strike down laws on the grounds of unconstitutionality". That that law controlled the Court's power does not necessarily make the Court's action "special". That is an opinion that you need to back up with a source.
  • You may know of no other case of the court striking down federal law, but that is not sufficient source for your claim. Your failure to find such a case is original research and not appropriate for Wikipedia. It would only possibly be acceptable if you personally read through every case between Marbury and Dred Scott to see if the court struck down a federal law in any of those cases. You need to find an article or citation that says there have no such (federal) cases during that period. I certainly do not need to cite a source for removing a claim that you make.
Mateo SA | talk 22:20, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
The claim of fact on Dred is substantiated here, and I presume in the book summarized. It is in any case well known.
The assertion that Marbury is based on article III, and that other cases are not, I refer to the text of the decisions. If you prefer some other wording for the distinction, feel free. I will change to "particular". Septentrionalis 22:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I see the text read "specific". The inference from "specific" to "special" was unwarranted, but I have modified anyway, to avoid the possibility of confusion. Septentrionalis 22:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Never mind. You're not going to listen to any arguments. I might ask you to cite those cases you mentioned, as you asked me, but you are unlikely to see the purpose, or take the time. I'm tired of defending this article against editors' unsubstantiated claims, so I'm giving up. Hopefully someone else will try to get you to actually support your assertions. Mateo SA | talk 22:49, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Your only arguments are attacking "special kind" - which I did not write, or intend to imply. Would it make you happier if I examined three instances of (Federal) judicial review at random, and pointed out the distinction from Marbury? In fact, pick three, and I'll do it, when I have time. Septentrionalis 22:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Look at the first paragraph of this section. I'll repeat it here, with emphasis added:
I fail to see what is controversial about the declaration that Marbury was a special kind of judicial review, enforcing and citing the limits of Article III only. I know of no other case of judicial review of Acts of Congress before 1857. Since review of State law is founded on the "supreme law of the land" clause, this is a usual distinction. Could Mateo explain; and explain what he thinks needs citation other than the text of Marbury v. Madison, to which its article links? Septentrionalis 21:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Interesting that you apparently didn't think there was any difference between "special" and "specific" before I posted my response. I would appreciate if you would actually respond to the substance of my remarks and not use nitpicking red herrings to attack the way I'm arguing. The general point of my remark was that you made an assertion that the precedent set in Marbury was different from the general concept of judicial review (in that it was a "specific" type of judicial review). Maybe your assertion is true. I didn't know and I asked for you provide evidence to back up the assertion. But you didn't do that. You used pedantic arguments about the difference between "special" and "specific"—a difference that you yourself didn't notice—to avoid answering my question.
As for your condescending question about whether it "Would [] make [me] happier" if you picked three cases at random. What would have satisfied me is if you had done what Robert A West does below and provided a reference to a 3rd-party source backing up your assertion. Mateo SA | talk 17:39, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
It was not intended to be condescending, and I regret any appearance of condescension - it was intended to be a fair offer. However, if you agree that the present text is satisfactory, and Mr. West's source sufficient, can we leave this? Septentrionalis 18:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I haven't made any edits to that area since your last reversion and don't intend to do any more. Mateo SA | talk 18:20, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Pace, tace. The statement, "It was not until 1857 that the Supreme Court again invalidated an act of Congress In the notorious Dred Scott case," appears in Findlaw's discussion of the case on its 200th anniversary -- a reference in WP's article on Marbury v. Madison. The same source goes on to state, "Technically, one could describe the outcome in Marbury as a "defensive" maneuver--the Court claiming only enough power to protect itself from powers improperly conferred on it by Congress--and thus only a modest and limited charter of judicial review, under which each branch could protect itself from the unconstitutional actions of the other branches." I believe this is sufficient to support the entire passage at issue. Moreover, this is the conventional wisdom as I understand it (to be precise, what I was taught long-ago in 9th-grade civics, which is probably a good benchmark test on the CW), so I don't think a supporting footnote is needed. Robert A West 23:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Bills and resolutions

Can I sugest splitting Bills and resolutions section off into its own article, and then trimming it down. (As we did with the History section.) --Barberio 18:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

In the introduction section the last words should be "House of Representatives" rather than "House" as it currently is now. I don't know how to edit the top paragraph as there is no [edit] link in the top right hand side of the section like their is in every other sections. Cheers, Chris.

Hi, Chris. If you want to edit the entire page (or the top section), click on the "edit this page" tab all the way at the top. Although reading over those paragraphs, it looks as though "House" is fine. It says "House of Representatives" earlier in the paragraph, so we know what House we're talking about, and there's no need to be unnecessarily wordy. —Cleared as filed. 12:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States_Congress/Archive_1&oldid=1146910628"