Talk:United States Congress

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article United States Congress is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 22, 2005.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.
United States Congress is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
Peer review This Socsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

2004-2005 - /Archive 1


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Above law

Where do i put this in? --Striver 16:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. 
  • 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:

[edit] 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.[1]
  • 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)

[edit] Fenno

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

  1. ^ Arnold, R. Douglas (2004). "Forward", in Mayhew, David: Congress: The Electoral Connection, 2nd edition, Yale University Press, p. ix-x. 

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)