NationStates Jolt Archive

I was reading through this article about how the Texas House speaker is refusing to step down despite unpopularity and the article mentioned this:
Craddick's third two-year term does not expire until the next legislative session convenes in January 2009, but discontent in the chamber is fueling a plot to force him out before the session ends Monday.

I wonder how a legislature can not meet for over a year and a half, so I go to wikipedia to check it out:
The Texas Constitution limits the regular session to 140 calendar days.

No wonder this country is so fux0red up. The politicians don't even do anything for most of their term. No wonder Bush thinks he has so much power and ignores Congress. He never had a legislature to worry about during his time as governor. Anyone else a bit surprised and annoyed by this?

Sources:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070526/ap_on_re_us/texas_legislature
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_legislature)

Out of interest, why would you want to limit a Legislature in that fashion? How does it ensure good government for Texas?

My guess is that it's an archaic provision so legislators didn't have to be dragged to Austin when they could be beating their slaves up.

Out of interest, why would you want to limit a Legislature in that fashion? How does it ensure good government for Texas?

Sel Appa is probably right. It's probably one of those 150 year old provisions designed for an agriculturally based economy and seeing as how no politician knows what the laws actually are, they don't bother updating them. And why would they? They are probably making good money for doing jack shit.

It was probably instituted when it took forever to cross the state, rather than just a few hours. Its obviously archaic and needs to be dealt with, but the root is historically obvious.

Sel Appa is probably right. It's probably one of those 150 year old provisions designed for an agriculturally based economy and seeing as how no politician knows what the laws actually are, they don't bother updating them. And why would they? They are probably making good money for doing jack shit.
I wish I could get a job where I could gerrymander my way into never getting fired, choose my own pay, and have my hours constitutionally limited. Texas, here I come!

Actually, it isn't really that hard to explain why the Texas Constitution puts such a strict time limit on the power of the state government. See, the Texas Constitution (like the Constitutions of every other Southern state) was written in this little period of American history known as Reconstruction (you might remember it from history class! :) ), where Northern-appointed state governments (with military support) passed laws that were designed to forcibly bring the South into the North's commerce- and industry-driven society. However, the South resisted this forced change so much that guerrilla warfare erupted under the banner of the Ku Klux Klan, and when the North finally pulled out the South removed all the the new laws and passed state Constitutions that limited the power of state governments so that said laws couldn't be passed again.

Seriously, take a look at Reconstruction and the South's response to it. The parallels to the Iraq occupation are remarkable. (Also keep in mind that it took ~100 years for the South to actually accept anything resembling Reconstruction reforms...)

No wonder this country is so fux0red up. The politicians don't even do anything for most of their term. No wonder Bush thinks he has so much power and ignores Congress. He never had a legislature to worry about during his time as governor. Anyone else a bit surprised and annoyed by this?

It gets worse. Texas has a habit of exporting its bad ideas (like TAAS/TAKS testing - er, the No Child Left Behind Act - and our Shrub-in-Chief) to the rest of the country (it's like California that way, but with more bad ideas).

Keeping that in mind, I now ask you to consider the fact that the last few Congresses (at least up to this year) have each spent fewer days in session than each Congress before it... :eek:

Keeping that in mind, I now ask you to consider the fact that the last few Congresses (at least up to this year) have each spent fewer days in session than each Congress before it... :eek:
Soon they will be getting paid tens of thousands of dollars to only come in for 20 days a year for "special sessions."

Soon they will be getting paid tens of thousands of dollars to only come in for 20 days a year for "special sessions."

Declared by the President of the United States, no less. :)

Of course, if Congress really wanted to follow the Texas example, they would only be called back in to Washington D.C. for one of two reasons:

1) Something really urgent comes up that simply can't be put off to the next regular session (the national equivalent of being forced to rewrite the school funding laws because a judge has ordered that funding be cutoff if they don't reform the funding system).

2) The President wants the Congress to pass a bill that it wouldn't or couldn't pass during the regular session, probably for partisan gain (the national equivalent of the DeLay-driven 2003 redistricting effort... a Constitutional Amendment outlawing gay marriage and/or abortion, perhaps?)

NSG should campaign for an amendment.

In New Mexico, the legislature convenes for 60 days. Most of the legislators are not professional politicians, and have "real lives" to get on with. Even with modern transport and mass communication, it is still inconvenient to take too much time off for government.

In New Mexico, the legislature convenes for 60 days. Most of the legislators are not professional politicians, and have "real lives" to get on with. Even with modern transport and mass communication, it is still inconvenient to take too much time off for government.

I love New Mexico and Texas. Hell first Oklahoma actually starts to enforce the immigration laws, and now New Mexico and Texas are restricting the powers of Gov. Co. by not doing anything. That's it, I'm moving to the South West.

The central question is this: is an efficient legislature a good thing?

Most of the last century would suggest that an efficient legislature is marginally better than an efficient Mafia, but not a good thing.

When legislatures are in session, hold on to your wallets, because they will pass bills which will tax, subsidise, prohibit, compel, and regulate every conceivable activity, from the way you measure the quantity of apples you sell, to what you can do with another consenting adult behind closed doors.

If the legislators are there, legislating all year around, then they have to think of something to do, they can't exactly sit in the chamber playing Mahjong. They will legislate.

The question of real lives is important. A legislature that is permanently in session is ipso facto populated by people out of touch with society.

For example, we have the Australian Labor Party telling us that a university educated ex-Public Servant with a multi-millionaire wife, backed by a bunch of lawyers, teachers, student politicians, and union hacks represent the working people of Australia. Some of them have never actually held a single private sector job.

A legislature that was in session for short times (and paid only during those times), would have to be populated by members who actually have lives on planet Earth. The only people who could be paid year-round would be those legislators also in the executive branch (Prime Ministers, and the like).

Sel Appa is right in saying that limiting them to 140 days is a bad thing, it is far too much time. Cut it down to 100.

As for emergency concerns, for such emergencies that absolutely require the legislature to be in session, I see nothing wrong with calling them for an emergency session. It is not an argument for keeping the idiots in the Chamber all the year around.

The only worthwhile argument for keeping the legislature in session all the year around is that if they're in there, they won't be imposing their "company" on their constituents.

"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session."

Sel Appa is right in saying that limiting them to 140 days is a bad thing, it is far too much time. Cut it down to 100.

I'm kind of proud of Georgia. We have sessions that last 40 days. Beginning in January, that usually means they're done in March. The advantage is that you do NOT have professional legislators, only part-timers that have to hold down a regular job, too.

That does two things. First, it makes becoming a legislator more accessible to all. One doesn't need to be financially independent to take the job. Second, holding another job tends to keep these guys more in touch with their constituents. I used to work with a fellow that was a Georgia State Representative. We never let up on how he could do better...

[edit]
Oh, and a Georgia legislative day runs from 10:00 am to 12:00 pm. Two hours, not 14.

I'm kind of proud of Georgia. We have sessions that last 40 days. Beginning in January, that usually means they're done in March. The advantage is that you do NOT have professional legislators, only part-timers that have to hold down a regular job, too.
You mean you have a system where you pay people to work in the government for almost no time and encourage them to make tons more money by having their own jobs, which also increases conflicts of interests and encourages corruption.

That does two things. First, it makes becoming a legislator more accessible to all.
How does that make sense? What is the turn around rate for state legislators? I don't see how making them not have to work at all prevents people from being career politicians or encourages more people to get into government. I wish I could get a job where I got paid sixteen grand a year and only allowed to do it for 40 days.

Second, holding another job tends to keep these guys more in touch with their constituents.
Yeah - themselves. It encourages putting themselves ahead of other people in government contract bids.

Oh, and a Georgia legislative day runs from 10:00 am to 12:00 pm. Two hours, not 14.
That's 14 hours not two. I think something got borked up there.

Lucky Texans.

The central question is this: is an efficient legislature a good thing?

Most of the last century would suggest that an efficient legislature is marginally better than an efficient Mafia, but not a good thing.

When legislatures are in session, hold on to your wallets, because they will pass bills which will tax, subsidise, prohibit, compel, and regulate every conceivable activity, from the way you measure the quantity of apples you sell, to what you can do with another consenting adult behind closed doors.

If the legislators are there, legislating all year around, then they have to think of something to do, they can't exactly sit in the chamber playing Mahjong. They will legislate.

The question of real lives is important. A legislature that is permanently in session is ipso facto populated by people out of touch with society.

For example, we have the Australian Labor Party telling us that a university educated ex-Public Servant with a multi-millionaire wife, backed by a bunch of lawyers, teachers, student politicians, and union hacks represent the working people of Australia. Some of them have never actually held a single private sector job.

A legislature that was in session for short times (and paid only during those times), would have to be populated by members who actually have lives on planet Earth. The only people who could be paid year-round would be those legislators also in the executive branch (Prime Ministers, and the like).

Sel Appa is right in saying that limiting them to 140 days is a bad thing, it is far too much time. Cut it down to 100.

As for emergency concerns, for such emergencies that absolutely require the legislature to be in session, I see nothing wrong with calling them for an emergency session. It is not an argument for keeping the idiots in the Chamber all the year around.

The only worthwhile argument for keeping the legislature in session all the year around is that if they're in there, they won't be imposing their "company" on their constituents.

"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session."

Is this supposed to be satire or something?

Is this supposed to be satire or something?

Are you blind or something? Since when have the lawmakers done any real good?

You mean you have a system where you pay people to work in the government for almost no time and encourage them to make tons more money by having their own jobs, which also increases conflicts of interests and encourages corruption.

No, what increases conflicts of interest, and corruption is not making politiicians have outside jobs, it is giving legislators more power. Also, a legislature that is hardly in session is not going to have the time to pass all this corrupt legislation. I'll point something out, shortening the legislative session must go hand in hand with severely reducing the powers of that legislature, limiting its ability to tax, subsidise, regulate, compel, and prohibit what ever is in the political interests of the legislators. If this is not done, then shortened sessions will merely result in massive backlogs.

How does that make sense? What is the turn around rate for state legislators? I don't see how making them not have to work at all prevents people from being career politicians or encourages more people to get into government. I wish I could get a job where I got paid sixteen grand a year and only allowed to do it for 40 days.

Pay them pro rata.

Yeah - themselves. It encourages putting themselves ahead of other people in government contract bids.

Nonsense. You're missing something vital, a legislation that is hardly in session is not going to have the time to do what you're discussing.

I'm kind of proud of Georgia. We have sessions that last 40 days. Beginning in January, that usually means they're done in March. The advantage is that you do NOT have professional legislators, only part-timers that have to hold down a regular job, too.

That is a really good point. I must confess that when I first read the OP, the whole thing sounded like a good idea to me. The government would be forced to give extensive thought to any flash-in-the-pan ideas, and would be discouraged from making more ridiculous laws.

You mean you have a system where you pay people to work in the government for almost no time and encourage them to make tons more money by having their own jobs, which also increases conflicts of interests and encourages corruption.


How does that make sense? What is the turn around rate for state legislators? I don't see how making them not have to work at all prevents people from being career politicians or encourages more people to get into government. I wish I could get a job where I got paid sixteen grand a year and only allowed to do it for 40 days.


Yeah - themselves. It encourages putting themselves ahead of other people in government contract bids.


That's 14 hours not two. I think something got borked up there.
Prove any of that happens.
12 pm is generally recognized to be noon. 12 am is generally recognized to be midnight. That's two hours, not 14. Committee work takes place after the legislative session completes.

That is a really good point. I must confess that when I first read the OP, the whole thing sounded like a good idea to me. The government would be forced to give extensive thought to any flash-in-the-pan ideas, and would be discouraged from making more ridiculous laws.
What's even better is that we have a 'cross-over' day, where anything not approved in either house dies. That's usually a late night, so all the unconsidered legislation that needs to be passed can be forwarded on to the other house of the legislature.

...I wonder what would happen if they linked the pay of politicians to vital statistics (such as unemployment and the average worker's pay in the state)...

...I wonder what would happen if they linked the pay of politicians to vital statistics (such as unemployment and the average worker's pay in the state)...
It is, in a binary sense. They get re-elected or turned out based on how the electorate sees their legislative work in relation to those vital statistics.

Only if they don't hit term limits and plan on running again. Bush could start a nuclear war that wipes out 90% of the population and risks nothing electionwise.

Prove any of that happens.
12 pm is generally recognized to be noon. 12 am is generally recognized to be midnight. That's two hours, not 14. Committee work takes place after the legislative session completes.

Ah yes, you are correct, my brain died on me. That just makes the job even better. They are being paid $200 an hour.

Prove any of that happens.
Prove bumblebees can't fly.

Ah yes, you are correct, my brain died on me. That just makes the job even better. They are being paid $200 an hour.


Prove bumblebees can't fly.

You need to remember that the legislators are on unpaid leaves of absence for the most part. $200 per hour is a little light for most lawyers, isn't it?

The bumblebee proof has been done. It was flawed.

The bumblebee proof has been done. It was flawed.
The point was you can prove whatever you want, it obviously happens.

And where is that turn over rate that proves the Georgia system discourages career politicians and encourages more average people to become legislators.