Advertisement

LJWorld.com weblogs In Simple Words

Common Sense Isn't: What is a Session?

Advertisement

If the hottest topic in the news is whether or not one person going into the senate chamber every 3 days constitutes the aforementioned body being "in session", then this country is in deep trouble.

If a significant number of people think that such actions really mean that the body (Senate) is "in session", then this country is in deep trouble.

I can define the current behavior of the the House and Senate as bipartisan and productive. That does not make it true.

Even Rush Limbaugh had an appropriate phrase "Symbolism over Substance". That was back when I considered myself to be a Republican, now I must force myself to capitalize House, Senate, and Republican (Democrat, too for that matter). I'm sure Rush is taking the side of symbolism now, though.

Not that I have an opinion, one way or the other on "recess appointments". Is it just me, or are they just making up the rules as they go along?

Oh, and the punch line?

This country is in deep trouble.

Comments

Benjamin Roberts 2 years, 11 months ago

The former Senator Barack Obama showed up in the Senate chambers 144 days during his term. Most of those were during the 304 days the Senate was in session prior to beginning his Presidential campaign. Yet, he accepted payment for the full 1478 days that he was listed as a member of the Senate.

I am not disagreeing with your point. However, there is that goose and gander proverb.

David Klamet 2 years, 11 months ago

My point was not a defense of President Obama, although I find him significantly less objectionable than all of the Republicans, and I agree with the things I he says, I do not see the kind of leadership that the country needs today.

My point is the way our government operates often descends from reasonable parliamentary procedure to arbitrary silly games meant to give the advantage to one side or the other. Democrats have certainly been guilty of similar shenanigans.

In the case you mention, is this case the rule for presidential candidates, or the exception? One of the "rules" to which I think we all agree is that if a certain behavior is accepted consistently, then a single person cannot be singled out.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.