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

It depends on what a president can get away with. Obama simply got away with changing a law, which only congress can constitutionally do, through an executive order that even he had said earlier was an unconstitutional action.

 

Our problem is that changing every two years doesn't give us fresh faces and ideas, the structure is such that we get the same old same old. However, there is nothing wrong with the structure of our system, we just need term limits, and a line item veto. Congress needs to go back to being a part time job.

 

Are you post tracking me?

 

So a President could theoretically change any law?

 

Not the entire House is changed every 2 years, only portions of it, by design.

 

I don't think it was. Travel times limited participation by most legislators. They mostly had day jobs and serving in Congress required sacrifice for many.

 

No.

 

The entire House could be emptied, but unfortunately never is.

 

Kind of, but only if he can get away with it. Anybody can successfully rob a bank if they can get away with it.

 

Well, kinda. The entire house is up for election every two years. The entire house is not changed every two years because of happenstance, not by design

 

It was neither the framers intent nor expectation that Representatives would make congress their career. They fully felt that going to congress would by personal necessity be a short term thing. They expected that most congressmen would be well-off entrepreneurs who could afford to spend some time in congress. It is why they did not constitutionalize an income tax, figuring if the only tax was on commerce and the like, the richer businessmen would be more reluctant to raise taxes predominately on themselves.

 

Is income tax illegal?

 

I can't see how a President could get away with simply changing a law.

 

And as for Obama changing immigration law?

 

Oh yeah, back before there were planes! So does that mean that Congress was empty half the time? It was probably the same in Australia.

 

Yeah, I didn't say "entire" but it changes.

 

You mean not enough fresh faces.

 

The problem I have with 2 year terms for congresspersons is that each and every congressperson has to spend half of his day fundraising, so we are only getting half the productive output with 2 year terms. I would favor 4 year terms.

If I were ever to run for office ( not going to, but IF ) I would only consider the senate, because they have 6 year terms, and the idea of spending every day fund raising isn't my idea of being a productive legislator.

 

Don't Senators need to fundraise too?

 

I'm not sure that a pardon is as significant as changing law.

Do you think that Biden should pardon all DACA recipients? They're not children by the way.

 

Even the mail was slow in young America but y'all had kangaroos to deliver yours.

 

Obama issued a lot or Executive Orders that had the authority of law but he didn't change the actual laws, just circumvented them. Trump issued orders to put them back on track and now Joe will Obama the hell out of them again.

 

It was until the 16th amendment passed in 1913. It was more than illegal, it was unconstitutional.

 

Maybe you could review Obama's executive order of 2012.

To be a little silly, your comment is a little like how anybody can rob a bank: you put on a mask, pull out a gun, point it at a teller and demand the money -- that's how. Ironically, although it was never directly challenged (because no challenger would have had standing?????) it was kind of indirectly quasi-challenged when Trump reversed Obama's DACA "law" and Trump's action was found to be illegal, albeit mostly on process grounds.

 

So a President could decide that murder laws will not be enforced?