I have a question?

[Warph]

I'd like to know why the 535 members of Congress have to congregate in Washington, D.C.  As Dick Morris and Eileen McGann made perfectly clear in "Fleeced," they don't do very much in the nation's capitol that they couldn't do just as well or just as badly if they stayed home in their bathrobes.  Half the time, the sessions are devoted to naming post offices and other equally earth-shattering events.

So far as I can tell, the actual motives are to allow senators and representatives to have fiefdoms both in Washington and in their own state or district; to make things more convenient for lobbyists – one-stop shopping, as it were; and to keep our representatives as far away as possible from their constituents.

I keep hearing commercials for teleconferencing systems and I think they're worth a try.  With my plan, there is even an advantage for the politicians because they wouldn't have to waste time and money flying back and forth.  What's more, they wouldn't have to spend all that extra dough sending their kids to private schools, thus ensuring that their offspring be spared having to attend public schools in Washington, D.C.  You know, those schools that politicians are always raving about when they're out seeking campaign contributions from the Teacher's Union, the ones where liberal candidates pose for photo ops during presidential campaigns.

So why do 535 members of Congress have to congregate in Washington, D.C.

[larryJ]

Good question.  Is there something in the constitution that requires them to meet in D.C.?  I seem to recall there was something about meeting at certain times of the year and in the nation's capital which was elsewhere before they set aside D.C.

Let me know what you find out.

Larryj

[Warph]

Maybe Waldo can shed some light on this.

[flintauqua]

Within the original construct of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I find only two clauses pertinent to this subject:

Article I, section 4 - "The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

Article I, section 8 - "The Congress shall have Power . . . To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States,"

There are of course the clauses relating to presentation of bills to the President for signature or veto, pocket vetoes, veto overrides, etc. that would necessitate the Legislative and Executive being in close proximity.

Charles

[Warph]

Within the original construct of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I find only two clauses pertinent to this subject:

Article I, section 4 - "The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

Article I, section 8 - "The Congress shall have Power . . . To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States,"

There are of course the clauses relating to presentation of bills to the President for signature or veto, pocket vetoes, veto overrides, etc. that would necessitate the Legislative and Executive being in close proximity.

Charles

So what's wrong with Obama sitting on his throne in Chicago with a telephone, computer and a fax machine if the Legislative and Executive branches need to get a hold of him... or for that matter, anyone that needed to get in touch.  Think of the money the tax payers could save.

[Diane Amberg]

Teleconferencing was tried some years ago and is still used on occasions, but was found to not be as effective as pressing the flesh. We are meeting with our local legislators at our downtown fire house later this month.They need to see the building and the equipment. It's not the same with a camera. For the same reason Pres. Bush went to New Orleans. If you never saw them you would not believe they were working, not just working the staff behind the scenes. ( they do a lot of it anyway)I'd like to see more campaigning done that way, but they all think there is an advantage to being live.

[W. Gray]

This might be a good one to write your Congressman about.

I do not think Washington, D.C. was even in existence when the finished Constitution went out for approval by the states.

I would agree with Diane. I never got much out of teleconferencing although it was introduced to cut down on TDY costs. I believe we used 36 inch TV monitors but there was only one static camera in each location. Many times, we could not make out who all the people on the other end were. It just was not the same as meeting person to person in a conference room. Maybe it might be different now with HD TV. Maybe not.

I have been away for so long now that I don't know if HD TV has been introduced or to what extent teleconferencing is still being used.

[flintauqua]

The citing of the Federal District on the Potomac was the result of a compromise worked out by Madison, Hamilton, and Jefferson.  I could quote something more scholarly, but I think wiki does the subject adequate justice:


James Madison, writing in the Federalist No. 43, also argued that the national capital needed to be distinct from the states, in order to provide for its own maintenance and safety.[11] The Constitution, however, does not select a specific site for the location of the new District. Proposals from the legislatures of Maryland, New Jersey, New York, and Virginia all offered territory for the location of the national capital. Northern states preferred a capital located in one of the nation's prominent cities, unsurprisingly, almost all of which were in the north. Conversely, Southern states preferred that the capital be located closer to their agricultural and slave-holding interests.[12] The selection of the area around the Potomac River for the new national capital was agreed upon between James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton had a proposal for the new federal government to take over debts accrued by the states during the Revolutionary War. However, by 1790, Southern states had largely repaid their overseas debts. Hamilton's proposal would effectively mean that Southern states would be forced to assume a share of Northern debt. Jefferson and Madison agreed to this proposal but in return lobbied for a federal capital located in the South.[13]

On December 23, 1788, the Maryland General Assembly passed an act, allowing it to cede land for the federal district. The Virginia General Assembly followed suit on December 3, 1789.[14] The signing of the federal Residence Act on July 6, 1790, mandated that the site for the permanent seat of government, "not exceeding ten miles square" (100 square miles), be located on the "river Potomack, at some place between the mouths of the Eastern-Branch and Connogochegue".[15][16] The "Eastern-Branch" is known today as the Anacostia River. The Connogocheque (Conococheague Creek) empties into the Potomac River upstream near Williamsport and Hagerstown, Maryland.) The Residence Act limited to the Maryland side of the Potomac River the location of land that commissioners appointed by the President could acquire for federal use.[15]

The Residence Act authorized the President to select the actual location of the site.[15] However, President George Washington wished to include the town of Alexandria within the federal district. To accomplish this, the boundaries of the federal district would need to encompass an area on the Potomac that was downstream of the mouth of the Eastern Branch.

The U.S. Congress amended the Residence Act in 1791 to permit Alexandria's inclusion in the federal district. However, some members of Congress had recognized that Washington and his family owned property in and near Alexandria, which was just seven miles (11 km) upstream from Mount Vernon, Washington's home and plantation. The amendment therefore contained a provision that prohibited the "erection of the public buildings otherwise than on the Maryland side of the river Potomac".[17][18]

The final site was just below the fall line on the Potomac, the furthest inland point navigable by boats. It included the ports of Georgetown and Alexandria. The process of establishing the federal district, however, faced other challenges in the form of strong objections from landowners such as David Burns who owned a large, 650-acre (260 ha) tract of land in the heart of the district.[17] On March 30, 1791, Burns and eighteen other key landowners relented and signed an agreement with Washington, where they would be compensated for any land taken for public use, half of remaining land would be distributed among the proprietors, and the other half to the public.[17]


Charles