Explain to a non-American why it makes sense to change Congress every two years!

Yeah, but I assume that while you don't like that they're random unelected folk, you must surely like that the result is that they don't become 'career politicians.'

So everything in that post is negative. So when you say, "my intent was to compare and contrast all of these features of US government with the length of the term of office of our House officials", it seems that you're comparing and contrasting two negatives.

 

Sure, but there's still a new Senate every two years isn't there? How often do the seats remain the exact same?

 

Sorry, how do you explain Roe v Wade and Obergefel v Hodges?

 

So only bipartisan bills are important?

 

Is this normal in State legislatures? And does it bear resemblance to Federal?

 

I don't understand why Supreme Court decisions such as Roe v Wade and Obergefel v Hodges can't simply be sent through to Congress before they become the law of the land.

 

Cabinet Secretaries are a long way from career politicians. They never last longer than the president and almost always last less than that. It is ministers from Parliament that would most likely become career ministers.

 

About 1/3 of them come up for election each cycle. The names on the door remain the same far far too long. I support limit of a single term for all elected offices.

 

As I said, legislators and congresspeople pass laws and regulations and rules...... as often as they can, because that is what they do, state and federal (and local for that matter.)

 

Abortion and same sex marriage are not Constitutional or federal issues. The Constitution says nothing about either because it wasn't even a second thought by the framers; it, like many many other things were axiomatically state concerns. This does not mean that congress cannot weigh in and pass laws on things not authorized by the Constitution. They do that all the time, to wit the numerous bills and laws detailing abortion rights; in fact most laws passed by congress are about things not authorized by the Constitution, as are most regulations promulgated by the executive branch.

The Supreme Court could have passed on any ruling on abortion, same sex marriage, et al on the basis that it is not a Constitutional issue as opposed to a State issue. But then they would voluntarily give up some of their assumed power, and that ain't agonna happen. The Court extended their authority from the very beginning in Madison v. Mayberry, and it has been expanding ever since though they got their biggest loophole with the 14th amendment. (Incidentally, I personally think that the Court should be able to rule on the Constitutionally of laws and actions by the federal government, ala Madison v. Mayberry.)

 

How do you want me to explain them?

 

The point is the difficulty in passing legislation is intentional.

 

Because we do not need, or want a permanent political class in this country. The terms of congress are limited to 2 years because the intent was to ensure that a steady stream of new ideas made it to the congress. And, of course, when the governments was established here, folks didn't actually live that long.

 

Yes, so every two years there's a change, right?

 

Well if what you say is true, that "the executive and the legislature have checks against the judiciary", then those cases shouldn't exist. It seems to me that the executive and the legislature have precisely ZERO checks against the Judiciary. The whole thing seems completely FARCICAL!

 

The terms of CONGRESS are limited to two years? You mean specifically the House I assume?

 

Why?

 

yes.

 

Are you saying that there is a two year term LIMIT for the House? I thought that two years was just the minimum number of years that someone can serve for, but can be reelected.

 

Can't the executive "overturn bad legislation?"

 

Peaceful 'revolution' was built into the Constitution. Being able to control the purse strings every two years is a good idea. Not educating one's self and not voting is a bad idea.

 

So you mean that a someone cannot serve for longer than two years in the House?

 

Well if what you say is true, that "the executive and the legislature have checks against the judiciary", then those cases shouldn't exist if at the time of those cases, Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate, as I assume that Republicans consider those case to be totally unconstitutional.

 

What's the intent?

 

And yet, the Supreme Court has made decisions about abortion and same sex marriage. So something has gone terribly wrong.