Tweet
Dave Weigel reports that some Republicans, miffed by certain advances made by Democrats in the lame duck sessions, plan to reintroduce the “End the Lame Duck Act,” legislation that would ban future lame duck sessions after Congressional elections. Here’s some of the bill:
(a) Mandatory Sine Die Adjournment- Except as provided in subsection (b), if the House of Representatives stands adjourned on the date of the regularly scheduled general election for Federal office during a Congress (beginning with the One Hundred Tenth Congress) pursuant to a concurrent resolution providing for the adjournment of the House, the House shall be considered to be adjourned sine die.
(b) Permitting Reassembly in Case of National Emergency- After the date described in subsection (a), the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Majority Leader of the Senate, or their respective designees, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, may notify the Members of the House and Senate, respectively, to reassemble if they determine that the existence of a national emergency warrants it.
Rep. Lynn Jenkins is spearheading this effort. I guess she really wanted the Bush tax cuts to expire, which was a certainty without a lame duck.
It’s important to explain why the lame duck session experienced the unusual productivity it did this year. The two main reasons are this: 1) Republicans successfully blocked so many bills, even ones with broad support, in the year leading up to the lame duck, that it left a lot of no-brainer legislation on the table for Democrats to mop up; 2) there’s an expected productivity at the end of a session, especially when dealing with expiring provisions. A Congress without a lame duck session would simply have more substantial activity prior to adjournment for the elections. And a Congress with functional rules, so that the minority cannot obstruct everything the majority tries to do, would not have so many legislation sitting around at the end of the session.
Jenkins’ bill, which received only 20 co-sponsors, is exceedingly unlikely to get passed. But it reflects the position of Republicans, to stamp out anything that smells like progress, even if they are attacking the symptoms and not the disease.
8 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Just wondering how this squares with your earlier comment about Jenkin’s evidently wanting the Bush tax cuts to expire. Seems to me, if Congress hadn’t had a lame duck session this year, it would have been a mixed bag:
Possibly no DADT repeal or new START ratification, but also no tax cut sellout and no SS withholding cut. With all due respect to the gay community, if something has to go, I’d trade no SS sellout for no DADT repeal.
The perspective of those who want the lame duck session deep-sixed is that the session was productive, and not in their favor. I’ve said on multiple occasions that the session was very mixed, and that DADT was essentially traded for the opportunity for Republicans to slash spending early next session. I’m not sure I totally agree that the next Congress wouldn’t have taken up some deal on the tax cuts, however. I would have liked to see how that played out, but I’m not sanguine about the perspective of the WH on it.
It would be unconstitutional. The Constitution determines the election date and when the next session begins. Moreover, no sitting Congress can bind by law or rule any future Congress.
So in principle, “representatives” of the people who were recently fired by the self-same people ought to continue to represent them?
Of course not.
Take the short-sighted blinders off and seize at the opportunity to advance representative government (in truth, a constitutional convention is needed).
If the right, in one of their short-sighted tantrums, wants to own-goal itself, help them.
Its OK with me, but they need to dock the Senators and representatives two months pay.
is a classic case of sour duck, which quacks both ways…
No shit! How much less do these lazy bastards want to work while supposedly doing the “people’s business”? I know they toil ceaselessly to fund raise but I really don’t care about that. Why not just cut out the middle man and let the Chamber of Commerce take their place?
Exactly. They were “hired” for a specific length of time and should be forced to work the full term, not make up reasons for them to do less. These self-same people also elected the out-going Critters too.
The two months after the election is the only period in a two year term that the a-holes aren’t fundraising and can actually do their jobs.
Let’s apply the same principle to POTUS. We just won’t have a POTUS for 2 1/2 months every four or eight years.