And yet 92% of them will be re-elected. Hurray for party politics.
2,500 House members and a repeal of the 17th Amendment would work wonders in restoring the Republic.
The best government money can buy!
The Porkocracy of it all. Would CONgre$$ be missed? Would SCotUS be missed? They serve themselves well. They are worshipped by their own. They don’t have to compromise, just kvetch and play to the cameras.
Lest they forget, the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
Unfortunately, to free us from them, it may well take more than words to do it.
Good article. Too bad no one wants to address its substance.
A used car salesman has more credibility than the average Congress critter.
The main concern for who the president is is based on inexcusable, widespread ignorance of the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers imo.
More specifically, evidenced by the Constitution-ignoring politicians that they elect, most voters do not seem to understand that most federal domestic policy is based on stolen state powers imo.
Overzealous concern for who the president is based on the constitutionally undefined political parties fighting like dogs for control of those stolen powers, evidenced in this this thread by the Senate's 60 vote cloture rule.
That being said…
"The Constitution does say that each House shall make its own rules."
Yes, this is true.
"Article I, Section 5, Clause 2: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings [emphasis added], punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member."
But it remains that the rules that each House makes must not violate the Constitution. And with the Senate, there is a major constitutional problem imo with the post-17th Amendment ratification, 60 vote cloture rule.
The problem with this smoke-and-mirrors rule imo is that it gives majority senators a place to hide when they would vote oppositely to what voters (originally state legislatures) want concerning problems with the US Mail Service as a main example, especially in an election year.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;"
But more specifically, unlike the House, the delegates to the Constitution Convention expressly constitutionally guaranteed each senator ONE WHOLE VOTE, no supermajority votes except when they are expressly constitutionally required.
"Article I, Section 3, Clause 1: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have and each Senator shall have one Vote [emphasis added]."
In addition to violating the constitutionally express one vote guarantee for senators imo, consider that a possible outcome of a vote is a tie.
But it so happens that the delegates to the Con-Con recognized the possibility of tie votes and resolved it by giving the President of the Senate the power to make a deciding vote in case of a tie.
"Article I, Clause 3, Clause 4: The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided [emphasis added]."
However, the 60 vote supermajority vote rule effectively nullifies the power of the President of the Senate to break a possible tie.
Corrections, insights welcome.
Send "Orange Man Bad" federal and state government desperate Democrats home in November!
Supporting PDJT with a new patriot Congress and state government leaders that will promise to fully support his already excellent work for MAGA and stopping SARS-CoV-2 will effectively give fast-working Trump a "third term" in office imo.
I don’t see any problem with voting Republican ticket for 2020 elections.
Again, insights welcome.