-
‘The Old Man’s Tree’ and ‘The Boy’s Tree’
April 22, 2013 | 4 comments
-
Helen Keller, Anne Sullivan, and Assisted Suicide
January 17, 2013 | 19 comments
-
D-E-F-E-N-S-E
January 3, 2013 | 30 comments
-
The ‘Max Tax’ Amendment to the Constitution
December 21, 2012 | 68 comments
-
Obama as a Faded Poster
September 5, 2012 | 75 comments
Another Perspective
Time for a Congressional Conclave
How might we nudge this Congress and future Congresses to meet their obligations?
You no doubt have read of those periodic surveys of professors of American history who rank the presidents. If there were a survey that ranked the Congresses, with each Congress consisting of a two-year period, First through the current 112th, surely the First Congress of 1789 to 1791 would be ranked very high. Our First Congress:
• established the Departments of State (Foreign Affairs), Treasury, and War;
• passed the Judiciary Act of 1789 which among other things established the Office of the Attorney General, the Naturalization Act of 1790, the Patent Act of 1790, the Copyright Act of 1790, and the Indian Intercourse Act of 1790;
• established the (First) Bank of the United States;
• provided for the first census;
• proposed 12 amendments to the Constitution, 10 of which became the Bill of Rights and another became the 27th Amendment; and
• established the District of Columbia as the seat of the federal government.
The First Congress obviously understood the importance of having a functioning federal government. Would that the current 112th Congress understood the importance of having a functioning federal government!
How might we compel, at least nudge, this Congress, and future Congresses to meet their obligations rather than consistently kicking the can down the road? I suggest that Congress needs to adopt rules for a “congressional conclave.”
The word conclave (clave is from the Latin word for key) came into our vocabulary in the late 1300s to describe procedures governing papal elections that regularized the ad hoc procedures surrounding several papal elections in the 1200s. The people had become exasperated with long deadlocks in the election of a new pope — lasting two and even three years. They sequestered (by lock and key) the cardinal-electors until they elected a pope. This was done in 1216 by the Italian city of Perugia, in 1241 by the city of Rome, and in 1268 by the Italian city of Viterbo. In the last instance, sequestration was not enough to force a result. The city then withheld all food but bread and water. When even that was insufficient, they removed the roof!
I suggest that the Congress should adopt rules to sequester itself. I won’t say that it should sequester itself until it produces results such as passing a “Top Ten” or even a “Top Two” list of legislation, but I do say it should sequester itself for a defined period and with a defined agenda that reflects urgent national priorities (like passing an annual budget on time). The analogous state level legislative arrangements are short sessions or special sessions called by a governor.
Our federal legislators should be so busy attending to the priority business of the people that they should not leave Washington, D.C., for a conclave of, let’s say, 45 days. During this time, they would not leave Washington to raise funds, meet with constituents, or be with family — except in cases of illness or death.
Admittedly, for a senator to compile a $10 million campaign war chest, he or she needs to raise $30,000 per week for six years. Representatives have smaller and shorter goals. Nonetheless, fund-raising is about their future, not ours. It’s about the next election, not meeting current responsibilities resulting from the last election.
Neither should our federal legislators leave town during a conclave to chat with constituents. They already did a lot of that during their campaigns. They were elected to do the people’s business and they should do it!
By the early 1960s, jet travel made it possible for Representatives and Senators to travel every weekend to distant districts. At the same time, air-conditioning made it possible to extend congressional sessions throughout the summer so there was no effort to conclude congressional work by passing legislation before summer commenced. So, although Congress worked year round, it did less work each week.
Some new Representatives have declared that they are residents of their home districts, not Washington, D.C. They illustrate this point by bedding down in their congressional offices and returning to their home district every week for three- or four-day weekends. In February, 2001, the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress issued a report (RL30825), “House Schedule: Recent Practices and Proposed Options,” analyzing this work-home district schedule, and three others: a 5-day workweek, a 4-day workweek, and a schedule consisting of 3-weeks-on and 1-week-off. Each of these four schedules assumed, however, a need for our federal legislators to visit their home districts to raise funds, meet with constituents, or be with family. A conclave would suspend such travel for the duration of the conclave.
Congressional rules for a conclave could allow for hearings of course. And the rules could conceivably allow legislators to raise funds via phone calls and videoconferences and attending functions. And they could continue to meet constituents. The legislators would be on their honor to conduct this work in the District so they could focus on the agenda of the conclave. We may not be able to compel their presence for X number of days, but we could shame them into staying in the District just as Wisconsinites recently put the faces of the missing Democratic legislators on an Internet milk carton.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.3.11 @ 7:04AM
The Tea Party has the answer. It takes time.
Just keep knocking off the RINO's and liberals until you have a Constitutional Congress.
Grant Johnson| 3.3.11 @ 9:23AM
I fear this proposal has slightly the wrong tone. Far too often, pundits call for Congress to "do something". Far too often, our congressmen want to be seen as "doing something". Most of what they "do" is grow government to the destruction of liberty and free enterprise. We are mostly safer these days when congress does nothing.
That being said, locking congress in the Capital building with only bread and water until they cut spending to current revenue has some merit.
Al Adab| 3.3.11 @ 10:28AM
Grant,
That is correct. As long as we keep asking government to "do something" we are in danger. The Congressional responsibilties are few and well enumerated. Anything else is beyond the scope of their duty.
Might I suggest rather than a sequestered Congress, that we relocate them to one of the closed military bases around the country (Kansas, West Texas or some such) put them up in the barracks and expect them to get a budget out. Close the base to lobbyists and others and shorten the session to meet their limited goals. Instead of enjoying year round perks, they might get the idea of "Public Service" afterall.
JayDick| 3.3.11 @ 10:37AM
"Doing something" is indeed dangerous in many instances. However, there is a schedule already mandated by law for the budget and the appropriation acts that implement the budget. Unfortunately, the law laying out this schedule has no penalties for failure. Sequestration would be an appropriate penalty.
J.C.Eaton| 3.3.11 @ 10:40AM
Marq. Law '70?
Ryan| 3.3.11 @ 10:07AM
Interesting comments but I think they only point to a part of the vary large and real problem within politics today; fund raising. We need to set caps on funds needed to run for office and not allow politicians to go beyond that amount. It would limit the amount of influence Unions and Corporations have on them, and would limit the amount of time needed to run a campaign. Who known it might even allow for normal people to run for political office again.
Ryan| 3.3.11 @ 10:10AM
Agree 100% with the comments you made Grant. I know the previous congress I wish would have stayed away from "fixing" all of our problems. It would be nice though for congress to pass a law that mirrors a lot of canadian provinces, that being that congress cannot pass a budget that is not neutral or in the black.
J Losie| 3.3.11 @ 12:08PM
Establishing rules for a conclave under the generic rubric of "getting the nation's business done" is frought with unintended consequences. As in the 111th Congress (and previous commentors have mentioned), Congress will get a lot of business done that the nation doesn't want.
So what does Congress REALLY need to do every year? Establish a budget, first and foremost. Providing "advice and consent" is a distant second. Why not establish rules or a Constitutional Amendment that stipulates that Congress must pass a budget as its first order of business and cannot move on until the budget is signed (or overridden) into law? Admittedly there is a significant check-and-balance with such a proposal (if Congress had enough votes to repeal Obamacare, Obama could just keep vetoing the budget to prevent Congress from sending the repeal to him), but properly wielded, the gridlock could produce compromises in all sorts of legislation. Isn't that what the middle of the electorate really wants?
Conclave no, but forced to pass a budget yes.
Al Adab| 3.3.11 @ 12:18PM
It doesn't seem an amendment specifying duties would help when they overstep the Constitution every day already. The enumerated powers act, which would mandate a citation of article and section for every bill authorizing the power, might help. Still, as long as our Constitution is observed more in the breech we have trouble.
syd chaden| 3.3.11 @ 1:00PM
I worry any time that I read an article concerning how to "nudge" Congress to do something. We would have been so much better off if Congress had done nothing during the past ten years. The key problem now is to undo what Congress did do.
Louis Jenkins| 3.3.11 @ 1:34PM
Yes it might work, but how do you explain away the frenzied activity of the last lame duck congress?
gary siebel| 3.3.11 @ 2:41PM
What then, of the command to publish a journal of their proceedings from time to time? Congress is supposed to ALWAYS be open.
Apparently you are unaware that the saying, penned by Mark Twain, that, "In America there is no criminal class, except Congress," is based largely upon the actions of members of the very first Congress -- the one you praise so highly -- who. after agreeing to take on the war debts, hired fast ships so they could buy up war bonds at pennies on the dollar from destitute soldiers before the soldiers discovered they were getting ripped off. But of course, so many conservatives, and bankers, love thievery -- it's part of their philosophy that extols greed as if it were some sort of virtue.
Dixie Pixie| 3.3.11 @ 3:01PM
????A Congressional Conclave????
How about a rule that no Congressional business can be transacted unless each house have a quorum present in the room.
C-Span is famous for showing a near empty chamber as the House and Senate does its business.
It seems that Congress is only together on ceremonial or to vote on legislation.
The Committee System has fractured and splintered governmental control into factions and specialized voting blocks.
This allows one congressman to screw up a major sector of government without debate or supervision of Congress as a whole.
Barney Frank blowing up the financial sector is a perfect example.
Forcing the both Houses of Congress to act as a single body by conducting all business together in a single chamber will will force all members to work on all legislation in public rather than private.
Thus two thousand page bills that are written by who know who's will be a thing of the past.
PattyMor| 3.3.11 @ 3:07PM
How about just cutting the gov'ment down to its real Constitutional Limits. There is so much money and power in Washington, that it simply has become disfunctional.
TajSF| 3.3.11 @ 3:26PM
This solution should be tried in Wisconsin and all the states that will be risk of default. Their congress can't leave or go home until they fix their budget problems.
Dee See| 3.3.11 @ 9:20PM
interesting the only state to exercise its
constitutional right to have a state bank --is also the only
state now NOT facing financial meltdown,
North Dakota.
It's also the ONLY state slated for complete
're-wilding' in the UN Globalist blueprints
for eco-eugenics in the comign decades...
Jack| 4.7.11 @ 5:41PM
With the technology we have today, I would propose that they stay at home in district and teleconference instead. This would keep them under the watchful eye of the people they represent and would make them less accessible to the lobbyist. This would allow the citizen representatives to maintain their jobs and families and help to stymy the good ole boy system. Washington DC could see how long it can stay afloat without all the government money. It could become a nice museum with the president as caretaker.
Christian Louboutin | 6.23.11 @ 3:55AM
With the technology we have today, I would propose that they stay at home in district and teleconference instead. This would keep them under the watchful eye of the people they represent and would make them less accessible to the lobbyist.
العاب بنات | 4.11.12 @ 6:05PM
thank you ..cgood