The 14 Characteristics of Fascism - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 09-09-2006, 03:06 AM

We did the "14 Characteristics" here in Feb, 2005:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=83183

....and again in may, 2005....in my post here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...4&postcount=34
....well into this thread:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...24#post1790824

....it seems to me that we are more deeply into corporatism, than we were
at the turn of the century, and that history shows that the right is pretty repressive....and violently so.....against the left, but it probably wasn't much fun being a german or a soviet citizen who was critical of the government, in say.....1942?

Charlatan · 09-09-2006, 03:34 AM

OK folks. Can we have a return to civility?

The snide comments from both sides stop now.

You don't like someone's position, argue against it in a rational way. If you don't care to do that, USE THE FREAKING BACK BUTTON.

Anything less than civility will be dealt with...

Seaver · 09-09-2006, 07:35 AM

Thank you Host.

roachboy · 09-09-2006, 08:40 AM

ok then.

just to tie off one or two details as this thread twitches toward death....

1. the approach to law within the bush administration--it's preference for the state of emergency, its use of executive mechanisms to get around legislative actions, the establishment of a parallel extra-legal prison system based on assumptions rooted in the state of exception or emergency etc.---all of that is directly rooted in schmitt and amounts to a legal justification for dictatorship.

the present political situation is such that this legal theory is simply a position outlined by the executive branch that has not been shifted to anything more than a position outlined by the executive branch.

it is a dangerous legal philosophy for a branch within a democratic goverment to adopt because--if you actually read schmitt, that is if you actually know anything about the philosophy--which it would be good for discussion to be able to assume--it is probably the most anti-democratic position to be outlined in the last 100 years.

IF another attack or another war, say, were to happen in a context where the executive branch is using such a position to rationalize its positions, the consequences would be very bad indeed.

BUT--it has not happened, and with any good fortune, the bush administration will slide into the ash-heap of history without that happening.

SO--what the argument about legal theory amounts to is an argument about the potential for a type of fascism.

it is a real one, but it is potential.

the features outlined in the op--and apparently in other ops (thanks host) are in the main more general---they are features of petit bourgeois radical nationalism--which are recurrent aspects of extreme right ideology in the united states that have been around, in various forms, for some time.

the united states is a kind of jurassic park of outmoded nationalist-based ideology.

but given the sterling success of the bush administration, one would expect that one effect of the past 6 years will be the casting of this far-right radical nationalism back into the margins of political discourse.

2. seaver: had this thread not deteriorated into yet another example of the problems for having a civil debate concerned with questions of substance that are posed for tfp as a microcommunity by the particular folk who speak in the name of the right, i would have responded to your post above (somewhere) that the united states is not a fascist state

but that the ideology of the bush administration can be matched point for point with such an ideology. and their legal philosophy is a particular problem within that.

but so far, the system of checks has worked. it may have been working because the rightwing legislature is mostly concerned with protecting its turf as over against the executive rather than because there is a principled objection to the positions elaborated by the bush administration--but that does not matter functionally--it has worked so far.

3. it is in a general way a shame that the antiwar movement has trafficked in accusations about fascism in the unted states that is without any nuance, and so is little more than inflammatory nonsense.
the word has been ground to dust repeated before that, however.

but that crude use of the category does not change anything about the ideology articulated by the administration. it is a dangerous ideology.

i am surprised to see american conservatives defending an administration the legal philosophy of which amounts to an argument for dictatorship.
i would imagine that such arguments would contradict the libertarian aspects of conservative politics.
in fact, i would expect that most conservatives would find the idea of a far right dictatorship completely repellent and would oppose it once one was in place (were that to happen)
explicitly authoritarian politics seems a minority position, even in debates on tfp.

on the other hand, you can see from looking across threads at conservative arguments here that they can be tricked into endorsing such positions by the hysteria generated via the "war on terror"---you see it in the defenses mounted of the administration's extra-legal prison system, in the defenses mounted to the administration's use of torture---all of these are rooted in the logic of the state of emergency or state of exception--if you buy that, then anything goes.

but that is not the whole of conservative politial doctrine--it even runs counter to much of it.

so i am surprised to see the same folk arguing in a generall democratic direction in one type of thread, and in the opposite direction in other types of threads.

it make me wonder if the loyalty to the bush administration because they are a conservative administration blinds folk on the right to aspects of what that administration stands for.

you would think internal critiques would be possible, wouldn't you?

Charlatan · 09-09-2006, 03:08 PM

I agree with your assesment Roachboy... the checks seem to be working. It is disturbing, as you point out, how appealing the current administration's position is to many. That the current admin pulls many of the same levers as more traditionally fascist state would in order to get done, what they want to do within their short mandate of four to eight years.

Just to be clear for those reading at home, the US is not currently a fascist state. But the current admin, it is being argued, has dipped into the the "fascist toolbox". I suppose it could be argued that many administrations in the past have done this as well. It's just that this current admin has done it so well (i.e. to great effect) and so consistently.

Elphaba · 09-09-2006, 04:50 PM

Well said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

The force is strong with this one.

Learn much, I could, from him.

Baraka_Guru · 09-15-2006, 10:01 PM

Fascismo Americano? It's hard to say... things have changed since the forties, which is why it's erroneous to compare current American ideologies to those of German Nazis and Italian fascists.

I don't think fascism as we know it historically is the issue; I think the issue is a crisis of morality. After all, didn't fascism become rampant where nations lost their way?

Ustwo · 09-15-2006, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Fascismo Americano? It's hard to say... things have changed since the forties, which is why it's erroneous to compare current American ideologies to those of German Nazis and Italian fascists.

I don't think fascism as we know it historically is the issue; I think the issue is a crisis of morality. After all, didn't fascism become rampant where nations lost their way?

Now was this the 1940's before or after the Japanese internment camps?

Baraka_Guru · 09-15-2006, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Now was this the 1940's before or after the Japanese internment camps?

The Japanese internment began in 1942, and fascism took a bit of a nosedive in 1945, as did the internment camps. So I guess that means the forties just before and during the time of the camps.

Ustwo · 09-16-2006, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

The Japanese internment began in 1942, and fascism took a bit of a nosedive in 1945, as did the internment camps. So I guess that means the forties just before and during the time of the camps.

So this would be then before McCarthyism and J. Hoover?

My point is the US is no more oppressive or fascist now than before, if anything we are far less.

Baraka_Guru · 09-16-2006, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

So this would be then before McCarthyism and J. Hoover?

My point is the US is no more oppressive or fascist now than before, if anything we are far less.

I agree with you. My point is that we shouldn't compare Nazism and Italian fascism to U.S. ideologies... the conditions from which fascism sprang no longer exist. These right-wing ideologies have no influence in America, especially if we consider them unchanged ideas that have somehow survived into the 20th century; otherwise, all the social upheaval that happened in the sixties wouldn't have been possible.

If fascism (as it was known) is the case in the U.S., its citizens would have much greater difficulty ridiculing or criticizing the nation's leaders.

Cynthetiq · 09-16-2006, 06:23 PM

Living in Singapore, it very much fit these 14 points, but they hid behind a democratic face. The Marcos regime in the Philippines was also very much like that as well.

They fit those 14 points too but they carried it to the most extreme, and continued to do so for over a generation.

Living here in the US is NOTHING like living in those countries...our government changes over time over and over again. You too can participate in the process besides just voting.

pai mei · 01-13-2007, 12:34 AM

Old American Century Site - http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

A 14 minute film is here - http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...=fascism%2BUSA

The site is made as a reply to the "New American Century" site, it shows that "it's not fascism when we do it"
From the site :

Quote:

1.) Powerful and Continuing Nationalism: Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2.) Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights: Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3.) Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause: The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4.) Supremacy of the Military: Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5.) Rampant Sexism: The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

6.) Controlled Mass Media: Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7.) Obsession with National Security: Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses

8.) Religion and Government are Intertwined: Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9.) Corporate Power is Protected: The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10.) Labor Power is Suppressed: Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11.) Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts: Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

12.) Obsession with Crime and Punishment: Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations

13.) Rampant Cronyism and Corruption: Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections: Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

All these are explained and documented on the site. We have a picture of the extreme right wing - that thing that we do not know if we should fear or not

Wikipedia

Quote:

Fascism (IPA: [ˈfæː.ʃɪ.zm̩]) is a political ideology and mass movement that seeks to place the nation, defined in exclusive biological, cultural, and/or historical terms, above all other sources of loyalty, and to create a mobilized national community.[1] Many different characteristics are attributed to fascism by different scholars, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, authoritarianism, militarism, corporatism, collectivism[2], anti-liberalism, and anti-communism. For further elaboration, please refer to fascism and ideology.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...=fascism%2BUSA - a 14 min movie "America from freedom to fascism"

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

Quote:

"Less access than Kazakhstan. Fewer fail-safes than Venezuela. Not as simple Republic of Georgia. The 2004 Elections according to international observers.
As for electronic voting, Gould said he preferred Venezuela's system over the calculator-sized touchpads in Miami.

"Each electronic vote in Venezuela also produces a ticket that voters then drop into a ballot box," Gould said. "Unlike fully electronic systems, this gives a backup that can be used to counter claims of massive fraud."

As you can see international observers like the Venezuela voting system more

Seaver · 01-13-2007, 01:56 PM

I do believe we've already had this before.

pai mei · 01-13-2007, 04:36 PM

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...09&q=Olbermann
Habeas Corpus is gone. This is not some "conspiracy theory", it's the law.

Seaver · 01-13-2007, 07:24 PM

I mean on this forum your links have already been started as threads. Please do a search.

Charlatan · 01-13-2007, 08:12 PM

Merged with the Original Thread on this topic.

pai mei · 01-14-2007, 06:34 AM

Quote:

"Do you believe as Commander in Chief you have the authority to put the troops in there no matter what the Congress wants to do," 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley asks Bush in the short clip uploaded to the CBS News web site Friday night.

"I think I've got, in this situation, I do, yeah," Bush said.

"Now I fully understand they will," Bush continued, "they could try to stop me from doing it, but, uh, I've made my decision and we're going forward."

What is that thing called "Congress" ?

Ch'i · 01-14-2007, 09:53 AM

Quote:

The United States Congress
The United States Congress is the legislature of the United States federal government. It is bicameral, comprising the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House of Representatives has 435 voting members (plus non-voting delegates from American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the United States Virgin Islands), each representing a congressional district and serving a two-year term. Puerto Rico sends a non-voting resident commissioner who serves a four-year term. The Northern Mariana Islands are not represented. House seats are apportioned among the states on the basis of population. Each state has two Senators, regardless of population. There are 100 senators, serving staggered six-year terms. Every two years, approximately 1/3 of the Senate is elected. Both Senators and Representatives are chosen through direct election.
The United States Constitution vests all legislative powers of the federal government in the Congress. The powers of Congress are limited to those enumerated in the Constitution; all other powers are reserved to the states and the people. Through Acts of Congress, Congress may regulate interstate and foreign commerce, levy taxes, organize the federal courts, maintain the military, declare war, and exercise certain other "necessary and proper" powers.
The House and Senate are coequal houses. However, there are some special powers granted to one chamber only. The Senate's advice and consent is required to confirm presidential nominations to high-level executive and judicial positions, and for the ratification of treaties. Bills for raising revenue must originate in the House of Representatives, as well as any impeachment proceedings.
Congress meets in the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. The term, "Congress" may also refer to a particular meeting of the Congress, reckoned according to the terms of Representatives. The current 110th United States Congress first convened on January 4, 2007.

History of the United States Congress
The Congress of the United States has its roots from the First Continental Congress, a meeting of representatives of twelve of Great Britain's eighteen North American colonies, in the autumn of 1774. On 4 July 1776, the Second Continental Congress declared thirteen former colonies independent states, referring to them as the "United States of America." Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress was a unicameral body in which each state was equally represented, and in which each state had a veto over most action. The ineffectiveness of the federal government under the Articles led Congress to summon the Convention of 1787. Originally intended to revise the Articles of Confederation, it ended up writing a completely new constitution.
James Madison called for a bicameral Congress: the lower house elected directly by the people, and the upper house elected by the lower house. The smaller states, however, favored a unicameral Congress with equal representation for the states. Eventually, a compromise was reached; the House of Representatives to provide representation proportional by population, whereas the Senate would provide equal representation by states. In order to preserve further the authority of the states, it was provided that state legislatures, rather than the people, would elect senators.
The post Civil War Gilded Age was marked by Republican dominance of Congress. Senate elections were tainted by corruption, bribery and gridlock preventing the election of a senator. These issues were addressed by the Seventeenth Amendment (ratified in 1913), which provided for the direct election of senators.
The early twentieth century witnessed the rise of party leadership in both houses of Congress. In the House of Representatives, the office of Speaker became extremely powerful. Leaders in the Senate were somewhat less powerful; individual senators still retained much of their influence. In particular, committee chairmen remained particularly strong in both houses until the reforms of the 1970s.
During the long administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933–45), the Democratic Party controlled both houses of Congress. Both the Republicans and the Democrats were in control at various points during the next decade. However, after winning the elections of 1954, the Democratic Party was the majority party in both houses of Congress for most of the next forty years. The Republicans returned to a majority position, in both houses of Congress, in the election of 1994. The Republicans controlled both houses until 2006 except from 2001 to 2003 when the Democrats held the Senate. In 2006, the Democratic Party regained control of the House of Representatives, and the results of the Senate elections yielded a Senate makeup of 49 Republicans, 49 Democrats, and 2 independents. It is noted that in the 110th Congress, the Democratic voting bloc will have a 51-49 Senate majority because the two Senators who ran and were elected as Independents, Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernard Sanders of Vermont, have pledged to align themselves with the Democratic Party.

Powers
Military pallbearers carry the casket of former President Gerald R. Ford up the East Steps of the Capitol Building, December 30, 2006
Section 8 of Article One of the United States Constitution sets forth the powers of Congress. The most important powers are the powers to levy and collect taxes, borrow money, regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the states, coin money, establish post offices and post roads, issue patents and copyrights, fix standards of weights and measures, establish courts inferior to the Supreme Court, raise and maintain the armed forces, declare war, and "make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers".
There are additional powers other parts of the Constitution grant. For instance, Congress has the power to admit new states to the Union (Article Four). Other powers have been granted, or confirmed, by constitutional amendments.
Congress has the power to break deadlocks in the electoral college. If no presidential candidate achieves an electoral majority, the House may elect the President from the three candidates with the highest numbers of electoral votes. Similarly, if no vice presidential candidate achieves an electoral majority, the Senate may elect the Vice President from the two candidates with the highest numbers of electoral votes. Several of the members of the Constitutional Convention expected that, while George Washington would be overwhelmingly elected as first President under the Constitution, selection by the House would be the normal method after him.
The "necessary-and-proper" clause of the Constitution permits Congress to make "all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" its other powers and the rest of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has interpreted the necessary-and-proper clause broadly, which has permitted the Congress wide authority.
One of the foremost non-legislative functions of the Congress is the power to investigate and to oversee the executive branch. This power is usually delegated to committees—standing committees, special committees, select committees, or joint committees composed of members of both houses. Investigations are conducted to gather information on the need for future legislation, to test the effectiveness of laws already passed, and to inquire into the qualifications and performance of members and officials of the other branches. Committees may hold hearings, and, if necessary, compel individuals to testify by issuing subpoenas. Witnesses who refuse to testify may be cited for contempt of Congress, and those who testify falsely may be charged with perjury. Most committee hearings are open to the public; important hearings are widely reported in the mass media.
Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution places certain limits of congressional authority. For instance, Congress may not suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus (except in extreme cases of rebellion or invasion), pass bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, or grant titles of nobility. Several other restrictions are specified by constitutional amendments, especially the Bill of Rights. The last clause of the Bill of Rights, the Tenth Amendment, provides that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Checks and balances
The constitution provides certain checks and balances among the three branches of the federal government. The influence of Congress on the presidency has varied from one period to another; it depends largely on the leadership and the political influence of the President. The authors of the Constitution expected the greater power to lie with Congress and that is one reason they are described in Article One. Under the first half-dozen Presidents, power seems to have been evenly divided between the President and Congress, in part because early Presidents largely restricted their vetoes to claims of unconstitutionality.
Andrew Jackson (1829–37) dominated his Congresses; his successors were weaker men (excluding Abraham Lincoln (1861–65), and perhaps James K. Polk (1845–49) and Martin van Buren (1837–41)). Senators ruled, including Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, John C. Calhoun, Thomas Hart Benton, Stephen Douglas, and Thaddeus Stevens. The impeachment of Andrew Johnson completed this trend, making the presidency much less powerful than Congress. During the late nineteenth century, President Grover Cleveland aggressively attempted to restore the executive branch's power, vetoing over four hundred bills during his first term. The twentieth and twenty-first centuries have seen the rise of the power of the Presidency under Theodore Roosevelt (1901–09), Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921), Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933–45), Richard Nixon (1969–74), Ronald Reagan (1981–89), and George W. Bush (2001–) (see Imperial Presidency). In recent years, Congress has restricted the powers of the President with laws such as the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and the War Powers Resolution; nevertheless, the Presidency remains considerably more powerful than during the nineteenth century.
The Constitution empowers the House of Representatives to impeach federal officials (both executive and judicial) for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." The Senate is constitutionally empowered to try all impeachments. A simple majority in the House is required to impeach an official; however, a two-thirds majority in the Senate is required for conviction. A convicted official is automatically removed from office; in addition, the Senate may stipulate that the defendant be banned from holding office in the future. Impeachment proceedings may not inflict more than this; however, the party may face criminal penalties in a normal court of law. In the history of the United States, the House of Representatives has impeached sixteen officials, of whom seven were convicted. (Another resigned before the Senate could complete the trial). Only two Presidents of the United States have ever been impeached: Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1999. Both trials ended in acquittal; in Johnson's case, the Senate fell one vote short of the two-thirds majority required for conviction. In 1974, Richard Nixon resigned from office after impeachment proceedings in the House Judiciary Committee indicated he would eventually be removed from office.
The Constitution entrusts certain powers to the Senate alone. The President may only appoint Cabinet officials, judges, and other high officers with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. The Senate confirms most presidential nominees, but rejections are not uncommon. Furthermore, treaties negotiated by the President must be ratified by a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate to take effect. The House of Representatives has no formal role in either the appointment of federal officials or the ratification of treaties.
In 1803, the Supreme Court established judicial review of Federal legislation in Marbury v. Madison, holding, however, that Congress could not grant unconstitutional power to the Court itself. The Constitution does not explicitly state that the courts may exercise judicial review; however, the notion that courts could declare laws unconstitutional was envisioned by the founding fathers. Alexander Hamilton, for example, mentioned and expounded upon the doctrine in Federalist No. 78.

Legislative procedure
The House Financial Services committee meets. Committee members sit in the tiers of raised chairs, while those testifying and audience members sit below.

Term
Under the Twentieth Amendment, congressional terms begin at noon on January 3 of every odd-numbered year. It is conventional to refer to each Congress by the ordinal number of its term. Thus, the current Congress (whose term lasts from 2007 to 2009) is known as the "110th Congress"; the previous Congress (whose term lasted from 2005 to 2007) was the "109th Congress," and so forth. Each Congress has a term of two years.
At the beginning of each new term, the entire House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate (those who were chosen in the election the previous November) are sworn in. The oath taken is provided by statute: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God." The House of Representatives also elects a Speaker to preside over debates. The President pro tempore of the Senate, by contrast, holds office continuously; normally, a new President pro tempore is only elected if the previous one retires, or if there is a change in the majority party.
A term of Congress is divided into two "sessions," one for each year; Congress has occasionally also been called into an extra, (or special) session. (The Constitution requires Congress to meet at least once each year.) A new session commences on January 3 (or another date, if Congress so chooses) each year. Before the Twentieth Amendment, Congress met from the first Monday in December to April or May in the first session of their term (the "long session"); and from December to March 4 in the second "short session". (The new Congress would then meet for some days, for the inauguration, swearing in new members, and organization.)
The Constitution forbids either house from meeting any place outside the Capitol, or from adjourning for more than three days, without the consent of the other house. The provision was intended to prevent one house from thwarting legislative business simply by refusing to meet. To avoid obtaining consent during long recesses, the House or Senate may sometimes hold pro forma meetings, sometimes only minutes long, every three days. The consent of both bodies is required for Congress's final adjournment, or adjournment sine die, at the end of each congressional session. If the two houses cannot agree on a date, the Constitution permits the President to settle the dispute.

Joint session of the U.S. Congress
Joint Sessions of the United States Congress occur on special occasions that require a concurrent resolution from both House and Senate. These sessions include the counting of electoral votes following a Presidential election and the President's State of the Union address. Other meetings of both House and Senate are called Joint Meetings of Congress, held after unanimous consent agreements to recess and meet. Meetings of Congress for Presidential Inaugurations may also be Joint Sessions, if both House and Senate are in session at the time, otherwise they are formal joint gatherings.
At some time during the first two months of each session, the President customarily delivers the State of the Union Address, a speech in which he assesses the situation of the country and outlines his legislative proposals for the congressional session. The speech is modeled on the Speech from the Throne given by the British monarch, and is mandated by the Constitution of the United States--though it is not necessarily required to be delivered each year or in the customary manner. Thomas Jefferson discontinued the original practice of delivering the speech in person before both houses of Congress, deeming it too monarchical. Instead, Jefferson and his successors sent a written message to Congress each year. In 1913, President Woodrow Wilson reestablished the practice of personally attending to deliver the speech; few Presidents have deviated from this custom since.
Joint Sessions and Joint Meetings are traditionally presided over by the Speaker of the House. except for the joint session to count electoral votes for President, when the Constitution requires the President of the Senate to preside.

Bills and resolutions
A proposal may be introduced in Congress as a bill, a joint resolution, a concurrent resolution, or a simple resolution. Most legislative proposals are introduced as bills, but some are introduced as joint resolutions. There is little practical difference between the two, except that joint resolutions may include preambles but bills may not. Joint resolutions are the normal method used to propose a constitutional amendment or to declare war. On the other hand, concurrent resolutions (passed by both houses) and simple resolutions (passed by only one house) do not have the force of law. Instead, they serve to express the opinion of Congress, or to regulate procedure.
Members of Congress often introduce legislation at the behest of lobbyists. Lobbyists advocate the passage (or rejection) of bills affecting the interest of a particular group (such as a corporation or a labor union). In many cases, the lobbyists write legislation and submit it to a member for introduction. Congressional lobbyists are legally required to be registered in a central database, and are employed by political organizations, corporations, state governments, foreign governments, and numerous other groups. In 2005, there are almost 35,000 registered Congressional lobbyists, representing a doubling since 2000. Some of the most prominent lobbyists are ex-members of Congress, others are family members of sitting members. As an example, Harry Reid, Dennis Hastert, Tom DeLay, and Roy Blunt all have immediate family members who are (or were) lobbyists.
Bills (and other proposals) may be introduced by any member of either house. However, the Constitution provides that: "All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." As a result, the Senate does not have the power to initiate bills imposing taxes. Furthermore, the House of Representatives holds that the Senate does not have the power to originate appropriation bills, or bills authorizing the expenditure of federal funds. Historically, the Senate has disputed the interpretation advocated by the House. However, whenever the Senate originates an appropriations bill, the House simply refuses to consider it, thereby settling the dispute in practice. Although it cannot originate revenue and appropriation bills, the Senate retains the power to amend or reject them.
Each bill goes through several stages in each house. The first stage involves consideration by a committee. Most legislation is considered by standing committees, each of which has jurisdiction over a particular subject matter, such as Agriculture or Appropriations. The House has twenty standing committees; the Senate has sixteen. In some cases, bills may be sent to select committees, which tend to have more narrow jurisdictions than standing committees. Each standing and select committee is led by a chair (who belongs to the majority party) and a ranking member (who belongs to the minority party). Committees are permitted to hold hearings and collect evidence when considering bills. They may also amend the bill, but the full house holds the power to accept or reject committee amendments. After considering and debating a measure, the committee votes on whether it wishes to report the measure to the full house.
A decision not to report a bill amounts to a rejection of the proposal. Both houses provide for procedures under which the committee can be bypassed or overruled, but they are rarely used. If reported by the committee, the bill reaches the floor of the full house. The house may debate and amend the bill; the precise procedures used by the House of Representatives and the Senate differ. A final vote on the bill follows.
Central party discipline is not as strong in Congress as it is in parliamentary systems, and in the Senate it is weaker than in the House. However, the leadership does have certain powers to sway reluctant legislators to vote with the party. Party leaders derive most of their powers from the ability to fundraise, to control the flow of legislation, and to assign desirable positions; a rebel Congressman may be threatened with a cutoff of funds for his/her campaign, a reduction of pork for his/her district, thwarting of his/her pet legislation, and/or denial of a future committee chairmanship.
The party leadership may use the "catch and release" strategy in order to ensure the passage of important legislation with the support of reluctant members. The leaders "catch" a member, pressuring him or her to vote in favor of the legislation even if it is unpopular in the member's constituency. Then, if the bill has sufficient support to pass anyway, the member may be "released," that is, permitted to vote as he or she pleases. Hence, members may avoid alienating influential special interest groups, while remaining loyal to the party.
Once a bill is approved by one house, it is sent to the other, which may pass, reject, or amend it. In order for the bill to become law, both houses must agree to identical versions of the bill. If the second house amends the bill, then the differences between the two versions must be reconciled in a conference committee, an ad hoc committee that includes both senators and representatives. In many cases, conference committees have introduced substantial changes to bills and added unrequested spending, significantly departing from both the House and Senate versions. President Ronald Reagan once quipped, "If an orange and an apple went into conference consultations, it might come out a pear." If both houses agree to the version reported by the conference committee, the bill passes; otherwise, it fails.
After passage by both houses, a bill is submitted to the President. The President may choose to sign the bill, thereby making it law. The President may also choose to veto the bill, returning it to Congress with his or her objections. In such a case, the bill only becomes law if each house of Congress votes to override the veto with a two-thirds majority. Finally, the President may choose to take no action, neither signing nor vetoing the bill. In such a case, the Constitution states that the bill automatically becomes law after ten days (excluding Sundays). However, if Congress adjourns (ends a legislative session) during the ten day period, then the bill does not become law. Thus, the President may veto legislation passed at the end of a congressional session simply by ignoring it; the maneuver is known as a pocket veto, and cannot be overridden by the adjourned Congress.
Every Act of Congress or joint resolution begins with an enacting formula or resolving formula stipulated by law. These are:
Act of Congress: "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled."
Joint resolution: "Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled."

Quorum and voting
The Constitution specifies that a majority of members constitutes a quorum to do business in each house. The rules of each house provide that a quorum is assumed to be present unless a quorum call demonstrates the contrary. Representatives and senators rarely force the presence of a quorum by demanding quorum calls; thus, in most cases, debates continue even if a majority is not present.
Both houses use voice voting to decide most matters; members shout out "aye" or "no," and the presiding officer announces the result. The Constitution, however, requires a recorded vote on the demand of one-fifth of the members present. If the result of the voice vote is unclear, or if the matter is controversial, a recorded vote usually ensues. The Senate uses roll call votes; a clerk calls out the names of all the senators, each senator stating "aye" or "no" when his or her name is announced. The House reserves roll call votes for the most formal matters; normally, members vote by electronic device. In the case of a tie, the motion in question fails. In the Senate, the Vice President may (if present) cast the tiebreaking vote.

Privileges
Under the Constitution, members of both houses enjoy the privilege of being free from arrest in all cases, except for treason, felony, and breach of the peace. This immunity applies to members "during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same." The term "arrest" has been interpreted broadly, and includes any detention or delay in the course of law enforcement, including court summons and subpoenas. The rules of the House very strictly guard this privilege; a member may not waive the privilege on his or her own, but must seek the permission of the whole house to do so. Senate rules, on the other hand, are less strict, and permit individual senators to waive the privilege as they see fit.
The Constitution also guarantees absolute freedom of debate in both houses, providing, "for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place." Hence, a member of Congress may not be sued for slander because of remarks made in either house. However, each house has its own rules restricting offensive speeches, and may punish members who transgress them.
Obstructing the work of Congress is a crime under federal law, and is known as contempt of Congress. Each house of Congress has the power to cite individuals for contempt, but may not impose any punishment. Instead, after a house issues a contempt citation, the judicial system pursues the matter like a normal criminal case. If convicted in court, an individual found guilty of contempt of Congress may be imprisoned for up to one year.
Aside from benefits directly facilitating their legislative work, members enjoy a number of other perks. As of 2005 rank and file Congressmen received a salary of $158,100. Congressional leaders are paid more. Members are granted several free Capitol parking spaces and are exempt from parking tickets through the use of special license plates. Members of Congress enjoy such facilities as private gymnasiums, low cost barbers, and subsidized dining areas (although this may not be the case in the 110th Congress [1]). They are also able to substitute their signature for postage allowing them to send large quantities of mail at a reduced cost (franking).
Another privilege is the use of the Library of Congress. The Library's primary mission is to serve the Congress and its staff. To do this, the Congressional Research Service provides detailed, up-to-date and non-partisan research for Senators, Representatives, and their staff to help them carry out their functions as national servants.

Sources: Baker, Ross K. (2000). House and Senate, 3rd ed. New York: W. W. Norton. (Procedural, historical, and other information about both houses)

Michael Barone and Richard E. Cohen. The Almanac of American Politics, 2006 (2005), elaborate detail on every district and member; 1920 pages

Berg-Andersson, Richard E. (2001). Explanation of the types of Sessions of Congress (Term of Congress)

Berman, Daniel M. (1964). In Congress Assembled: The Legislative Process in the National Government. London: The Macmillan Company. (Legislative procedure)

Davidson, Roger H., and Walter J. Oleszek. (1998). Congress and Its Members, 6th ed. Washington DC: Congressional Quarterly. (Legislative procedure, informal practices, and other information)

Dennis Hastert, Tom Daschle, and David Silverberg. Congress for Dummies (2002)

Herrick, Rebekah. (2001). "Gender effects on job satisfaction in the House of Representatives." Women and Politics, 23 (4), 85–98.

Hunt, Richard. (1998). "Using the Records of Congress in the Classroom," OAH Magazine of History, 12 (Summer): 34–37.

Ann-Marie Imbornoni|Imbornoni, Ann-Marie, David Johnson, and Elissa Haney. (2005). "Famous Firsts by American Women."

Lee, Frances and Bruce Oppenheimer. (1999). Sizing Up the Senate: The Unequal Consequences of Equal Representation. University of Chicago Press: Chicago. (Equal representation in the Senate)
Rimmerman, Craig A. (1990). "Teaching Legislative Politics and Policy

Making." Political Science Teacher, 3 (Winter): 16–18.

Ritchie, Donald A. (1997). "What Makes a Successful Congressional Investigation." OAH Magazine of History, 11 (Spring): 6–8. (Congressional investigations and committee hearings)

Story, Joseph. (1891). Commentaries on the Constitution of the United
States. (2 vols). Boston: Brown & Little. (History, constitution, and general legislative procedure)

David R. Tarr and Ann O'Connor. Congress A to Z (CQ Congressional Quarterly) (4th 2003) 605pp

Wilson, Woodrow. (1885). Congressional Government. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Some information in this article has been provided by the Senate Historical Office.

pai mei · 02-04-2007, 01:04 PM

Thank's for the description. Bush also said :

Quote:

“I don’t give a goddamn,” Bush retorted. “I’m the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way.”

“Mr. President,” one aide in the meeting said. “There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution.”

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,” Bush screamed back. “It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

Here is a video about who and how controls the USA :

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...30277175242198

In the end it is the way people think (or not think) and their greed that leads to such results. The leaders are just a reflection of ourselves

pai mei · 06-06-2007, 02:21 PM

One man got arrested for asking a question to Giuliani's press secreatary :
http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/...ni_orders.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...ndictments.htm

Quote:

Since when do campaign operatives have the power to order state police to arrest someone on false charges or arbitrate who has the right to conduct journalism, a right guarded by the Constitution?

A warning to the press-- if candidates or police don't like your questions, you could be arrested for trespassing and even espionage in the new Orwellian America.

Quote:

Rudkowski was assaulted and questioned on who he was working for despite the fact that he hadn't even asked a question and was standing separately from Lepacek.

Lepacek was told that other eyewitnesses saw police stamp on one of the cameras as it lay on the floor.

Another eyewitness said that the entire arrest was clearly being directed by Secret Service, who were ordering the police to threaten anyone who asked questions about the incident with arrest.

Lepacek was later released on $400 bail but faces charges of criminal trespassing even though he had obtained a CNN press pass well in advance and the debate was a public event. State police have refused to hand back electronic equipment that they seized from the group.

CNN staff attempted to dissuade police from arresting Lepacek as he was led out into the parking lot but were ignored.

Then he was accused of spying because he was transmitting live on the internet from his camera

dksuddeth · 06-06-2007, 03:45 PM

nothing to see here...move along, subject.

pai mei · 06-10-2007, 10:17 AM

Who protects the Constitution is a terrorist these days, according to the FBI manual :

http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/20...ial_terrorist/

Quote:

The Phoenix FBI training manual tells would-be federales what to look for. Like:

Defenders of the U.S. Constitution against federal government and the UN
Groups of individuals engaging in para-military training
Those who make numerous references to the U.S. Constitution
Those who attempt to police the police
Lone individuals
Rebels

Willravel · 06-10-2007, 11:42 AM

pai mei, that's the scariest thing I've read in a long time. Thank you for posting it. If I had para-miliary training, I'd be on that list. I love my Constitution, and those who care to stomp on it are not Americans or patriots.

joshbaumgartner · 06-12-2007, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

pai mei, that's the scariest thing I've read in a long time. Thank you for posting it. If I had para-miliary training, I'd be on that list. I love my Constitution, and those who care to stomp on it are not Americans or patriots.

Here too... substitute military training for para-military and I fit the bill. Or does watching Red Dawn count as a para-military training course?

Regardless, general profiling is next to worthless because it has to be so broad, though it continues to be printed in all levels of law enforcement, whether to identify terrorists, gang members, sexual predators, or drivers without liability insurance. It wasn't long ago I was reading a similar list to identify dangerous individuals at the airport: if they walk too fast, walk too slow, walk too uptight, walk too casual, hide in crowds, walk alone, carry baggage, carry no baggage...and so on.

There are real threats out there and real criminals that have to be identified and stopped by the FBI and other agencies. In the case of paramilitaries, differentiating between those groups that are actually a danger, and those that are not is very difficult. I wouldn't be all that worried about the language of a training manual, especially without all the context of the other training provided which I hope would give an agent some more nuanced understanding of things. The proof is in the actions undertaken; and they should be accountable for their actions to the public they serve.

Josh

09-09-2006, 03:34 AM	#42 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	OK folks. Can we have a return to civility? The snide comments from both sides stop now. You don't like someone's position, argue against it in a rational way. If you don't care to do that, USE THE FREAKING BACK BUTTON. Anything less than civility will be dealt with... __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-09-2006, 07:35 AM	#43 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Thank you Host. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

09-09-2006, 08:40 AM	#44 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	ok then. just to tie off one or two details as this thread twitches toward death.... 1. the approach to law within the bush administration--it's preference for the state of emergency, its use of executive mechanisms to get around legislative actions, the establishment of a parallel extra-legal prison system based on assumptions rooted in the state of exception or emergency etc.---all of that is directly rooted in schmitt and amounts to a legal justification for dictatorship. the present political situation is such that this legal theory is simply a position outlined by the executive branch that has not been shifted to anything more than a position outlined by the executive branch. it is a dangerous legal philosophy for a branch within a democratic goverment to adopt because--if you actually read schmitt, that is if you actually know anything about the philosophy--which it would be good for discussion to be able to assume--it is probably the most anti-democratic position to be outlined in the last 100 years. IF another attack or another war, say, were to happen in a context where the executive branch is using such a position to rationalize its positions, the consequences would be very bad indeed. BUT--it has not happened, and with any good fortune, the bush administration will slide into the ash-heap of history without that happening. SO--what the argument about legal theory amounts to is an argument about the potential for a type of fascism. it is a real one, but it is potential. the features outlined in the op--and apparently in other ops (thanks host) are in the main more general---they are features of petit bourgeois radical nationalism--which are recurrent aspects of extreme right ideology in the united states that have been around, in various forms, for some time. the united states is a kind of jurassic park of outmoded nationalist-based ideology. but given the sterling success of the bush administration, one would expect that one effect of the past 6 years will be the casting of this far-right radical nationalism back into the margins of political discourse. 2. seaver: had this thread not deteriorated into yet another example of the problems for having a civil debate concerned with questions of substance that are posed for tfp as a microcommunity by the particular folk who speak in the name of the right, i would have responded to your post above (somewhere) that the united states is not a fascist state but that the ideology of the bush administration can be matched point for point with such an ideology. and their legal philosophy is a particular problem within that. but so far, the system of checks has worked. it may have been working because the rightwing legislature is mostly concerned with protecting its turf as over against the executive rather than because there is a principled objection to the positions elaborated by the bush administration--but that does not matter functionally--it has worked so far. 3. it is in a general way a shame that the antiwar movement has trafficked in accusations about fascism in the unted states that is without any nuance, and so is little more than inflammatory nonsense. the word has been ground to dust repeated before that, however. but that crude use of the category does not change anything about the ideology articulated by the administration. it is a dangerous ideology. i am surprised to see american conservatives defending an administration the legal philosophy of which amounts to an argument for dictatorship. i would imagine that such arguments would contradict the libertarian aspects of conservative politics. in fact, i would expect that most conservatives would find the idea of a far right dictatorship completely repellent and would oppose it once one was in place (were that to happen) explicitly authoritarian politics seems a minority position, even in debates on tfp. on the other hand, you can see from looking across threads at conservative arguments here that they can be tricked into endorsing such positions by the hysteria generated via the "war on terror"---you see it in the defenses mounted of the administration's extra-legal prison system, in the defenses mounted to the administration's use of torture---all of these are rooted in the logic of the state of emergency or state of exception--if you buy that, then anything goes. but that is not the whole of conservative politial doctrine--it even runs counter to much of it. so i am surprised to see the same folk arguing in a generall democratic direction in one type of thread, and in the opposite direction in other types of threads. it make me wonder if the loyalty to the bush administration because they are a conservative administration blinds folk on the right to aspects of what that administration stands for. you would think internal critiques would be possible, wouldn't you? __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

09-09-2006, 03:08 PM	#45 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I agree with your assesment Roachboy... the checks seem to be working. It is disturbing, as you point out, how appealing the current administration's position is to many. That the current admin pulls many of the same levers as more traditionally fascist state would in order to get done, what they want to do within their short mandate of four to eight years. Just to be clear for those reading at home, the US is not currently a fascist state. But the current admin, it is being argued, has dipped into the the "fascist toolbox". I suppose it could be argued that many administrations in the past have done this as well. It's just that this current admin has done it so well (i.e. to great effect) and so consistently. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

09-15-2006, 10:01 PM	#47 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Fascismo Americano? It's hard to say... things have changed since the forties, which is why it's erroneous to compare current American ideologies to those of German Nazis and Italian fascists. I don't think fascism as we know it historically is the issue; I think the issue is a crisis of morality. After all, didn't fascism become rampant where nations lost their way? __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

09-09-2006, 03:06 AM	#41 (permalink)
host Banned	We did the "14 Characteristics" here in Feb, 2005: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=83183 ....and again in may, 2005....in my post here: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...4&postcount=34 ....well into this thread: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...24#post1790824 ....it seems to me that we are more deeply into corporatism, than we were at the turn of the century, and that history shows that the right is pretty repressive....and violently so.....against the left, but it probably wasn't much fun being a german or a soviet citizen who was critical of the government, in say.....1942?

09-16-2006, 06:23 PM	#52 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	Living in Singapore, it very much fit these 14 points, but they hid behind a democratic face. The Marcos regime in the Philippines was also very much like that as well. They fit those 14 points too but they carried it to the most extreme, and continued to do so for over a generation. Living here in the US is NOTHING like living in those countries...our government changes over time over and over again. You too can participate in the process besides just voting. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

01-13-2007, 01:56 PM	#54 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	I do believe we've already had this before. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

01-13-2007, 04:36 PM	#55 (permalink)
pai mei Insane	http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...09&q=Olbermann Habeas Corpus is gone. This is not some "conspiracy theory", it's the law.

01-13-2007, 07:24 PM	#56 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	I mean on this forum your links have already been started as threads. Please do a search. __________________ "Smite the rocks with the rod of knowledge, and fountains of unstinted wealth will gush forth." - Ashbel Smith as he laid the first cornerstone of the University of Texas

01-13-2007, 08:12 PM	#57 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Merged with the Original Thread on this topic. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

06-06-2007, 03:45 PM	#62 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	nothing to see here...move along, subject. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

06-10-2007, 11:42 AM	#64 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	pai mei, that's the scariest thing I've read in a long time. Thank you for posting it. If I had para-miliary training, I'd be on that list. I love my Constitution, and those who care to stomp on it are not Americans or patriots.