Talk:Powers of the United States Congress

Background
This is a subarticle of the WP article United States Congress. As of Sep 19 2010, the article is currently undergoing a revamp; the current draft of the revamp is in United States Congress/sandbox. The current version of the revamp (in the sandbox article) is too long and loads too slowly; as a result, the sandbox proposed-revamp article is being trimmed substantially and sub-articles (such as this one) are being spun off. Please see Talk:United States Congress for discussion on this subject. At present, the "external links" section was copied from the US Congress page but have been disabled since many may not apply; if editors would like to restore them, remove the disabling markup as necessary. I'll try to add pictures. Questions or comments put here on this talk page or else on my talk page at User talk:Tomwsulcer thanks. Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * As of Oct 2, 2010, the United States Congress article has been revamped, with links to subarticles such as this one. Many of the categories and links have been temporarily disabled, and can be re-enabled if they apply.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Photo
I question the photo of Randy Barnett on this page. How does a photo of a person who wants to repeal income taxes aid in the understanding of the powers of congress?99.90.236.170 (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Removed: Commentary on powers/false analogies
Since the subject is the Powers of the Congress, not commentary on whether they should have or do have those powers, I'm removing the following: There is vast authority over budgets, although analyst Eric Patashnik suggests that much of Congress's power to manage the budget has been lost when the entitlement state expanded since "entitlements were institutionally detached from Congress's ordinary legislative routine and rhythm."


 * Disagree this is "commentary" on whether Congress should have or should not have powers -- rather, it is a description of the powers that exist.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

And this one that is a false analogy: Another factor leading to less control over the budget was a general belief, according to Keynesian economics, that balanced budgets were not necessary, and that it wasn't important to balance the budget in any given year as long as that budgets tended to remain in balance over the long term.


 * Not sure what is meant by false analogy. That Congress has power over budgets, and that Keynesian economics influences that power, are relevant.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There are many things that influence the powers of the Congress via its members (e.g., religion). How is "Keynesian Economics" relevant to the *powers* of Congress? Does the US Code specify Keynesian Economics? &mdash; Safety Cap (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

And another commentary on the sixteenth amendment:

Georgetown constitutional scholar Randy Barnett argued for repeal of this amendment since it gives Congress "carte blanche" to do whatever it wants. Barnett doubted that efforts promoting tax simplification such as FairTax or implementation of two flat rates (14% and 28%) are unlikely to happen without a constitutional amendment, since lawmakers are loath to part with their taxing power.


 * This information is directly relevant to the subject of Congressional powers.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A person arguing for repeal of an amendment is relevant? That's concentrating on what _should be_ not _what is_. &mdash; Safety Cap (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

And commentary on the Executive's "powers" and "actions": Some contend that the presidency, acting under the doctrine of the unitary executive, has assumed important legislative and budgetary powers that should belong to Congress. Congressman Eric Cantor charged that presidents can appoint a "virtual army of 'czars' -- each wholly unaccountable to Congress yet tasked with spearheading major policy efforts for the White House". "Vesting such broad authority in the hands of people not subjected to Senate confirmation and congressional oversight poses a grave threat to our system of checks and balances," according to Cantor. Presidents have been accused of "trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not going through Congress at all." So-called signing statements are one way in which a president can "tip the balance of power between Congress and the White House a little more in favor of the executive branch," according to Washington Post staff writer Christopher Lee. Past presidents, including Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush have made public statements when signing congressional legislation about how they understand a bill or plan to execute it, and commentators, such as Dana Nelson, have described this practice as against the spirit of the Constitution. Columnist Charlie Savage wrote that there is some evidence that President Barack Obama intends to limit but not abandon this practice. During the George W. Bush presidency, administration officials argued for an "expansive view of presidential power," with requests for broader presidential power. Binyamin Appelbaum and David Cho wrote in the Washington Post that in 2009, a treasury secretary asked Congress for "unprecedented powers to initiate the seizure of non-bank financial companies, such as large insurers, investment firms and hedge funds, whose collapse would damage the broader economy." In 2008, critic George F. Will called the Capitol building a "tomb for the antiquated idea that the legislative branch matters." He wrote: "On Friday the president gave the two automakers access to money Congress explicitly did not authorize" and elaborated that this was more evidence of the "marginalization" of Congress. Will sees an "increasingly swollen executive branch" and "the eclipse of Congress" and said that this process has been continuing "for decades." &mdash;Safety Cap (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This is not an essay on Congress -- rather, it is an examination of what powers Congress does have. These reliable sources are suggesting that much congressional power has been usurped by the executive branch. It is all relevant to this article.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I would agree with you if the above specifically and concisely said as much. I agree that this is not an essay on Congress, but an article on the facts of which powers that body has. Again, not which powers some random person thinks it should or should not have, or which laws someone doesn't like. It is about the facts as they exist in the present.&mdash;Safety Cap (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I looked over your comments, and did a quick look-over of the article, and I am somewhat coming around to your position. This article was a spinoff from United States Congress, that is, a way to take some of the material out of the US Congress article (so it worked better as an overview article), that is, to trim it down a bit and make it more workable. This material came from that bigger article, and the name Powers of the United States Congress somewhat described what the material was about -- but not much thought was given to the article's title. So there may be somewhat of a mismatch at work. So I'll put your changes back in for the present, and maybe I'll get back to this sometime in the future, but it is good that you are creating a tighter fit between the article's title and its content. I continue to think that this article should be more than merely what the Constitution says are congressional powers, but that its real powers -- the influence it exerts -- as well as other forces limiting it (ie other branches of government, custom, past Supreme Court rulings, etc) -- I think these things should be addressed as well.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 05:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Another thing. A while back, I revamped United States Congress, perhaps writing or rewriting about 50% of it, although it has been changed since then. A helpful addition, in my view, was bringing in viewpoints from political scientists who study Congress, who tended to see it in a larger perspective than newspaper accounts; these views tended to make it less POV-ish. Still, if people such as yourself wish to improve this article, my advice is to not just see powers in a limited constitutional sense, but rather see the institution in its structural framework. To illustrate, if Powers of the United States Congress is considered constitutionally, one might paint a portrait of a powerhouse institution: can tax, regulate commerce, pass laws, ie broad powers etc etc. But if the subject is considered in a structural sense, one might come up with a deadlocked institution, unable to balance a budget, which has trouble with overseeing executive agencies. Its powers are considerably checked by other branches, sometimes by the Constitution, in other cases historical circumstances; for example, the Supreme Court can render its laws unconstitutional as we know, and the president can issue signing statements which can frame how a congressional law might be interpreted and enforced (not constitutional -- something that sprang up in the past 20 yrs). Lobbyists have inserted themselves between the public and legislators on many issues. And congresspersons have figured out generally how to keep themselves in office for life (90%+ who seek reelection are reelected) meaning that congressional power is somewhat limited by the institution's being out of touch with the American people. The result is an institution with a very low approval rating by the public, which doesn't seem to get much done, but which does (theoretically) have the ability to fix itself (hopefully).--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)