Wrong

It has ended up being good. You see, the only real job Congress has to do as far as the United States of America is concerned is to assure the protection of the Constitution and to provide for the common defense.

Within it own boundaries (the ten-mile square area of the District of Columbia, its possessions, and federal property, such as military bases), it may legislate to its heart content and impose any laws it wishes on residents of these geographic areas.

But there in lies the problem with an active Congress passing crappy bill after crappy bill which invariably are in violation of the Constitution. See, the US Government has jurisdiction over federal lands and residents but not over the citizens of the 50 states, that is other than provided in Article I, Section 8, of the United States of America's Constitution.

As far as the 50 states are concerned, every law passed by Congress in violation of the Constitution can be ignored. But, because of having misled the public and using force to enforce invalid laws imposed on the citizens of the 50 states, most people aren’t aware of the separation between the federal government and the states. Because of this, thousands of unconstitutional laws are now in effect or, I should state, enforced as if they are in effect.

Since the government has been so tied up with Clinton, scandals of other (what a joke) "leaders", fighting between the parties and within the parties, trying to find potential candidates for the presidential race (Whew, what a bunch of (Quote) winners (unquote) the parties came up with) and other events involving their time, little legislation has made it through the House and Senate, let alone Clinton’s desk.

It seems to me that if the Congress had gone home and stayed there, along with the 106th doing the same, that this country would have done quite well. As a matter of fact, it has been in the best state of my lifetime, I believe, as far as unconstitutional laws NOT being passed. There is little inflation but, of ccourse, this could soon be messed up by the Federal Reserve Bank and that Greenspan guy.

Well, I used to be really angry at Congress for not taking care of business I thought should be taken care of, such as bribes done through campaign funding (both parties since the GOPers are just as bad as the Democrats on misuse of funds and illegal donations or just out and out bribes), protecting the Constitution, making everyone aware the IRS is a con on the American people, failing educational systems, out of control law enforcement agencies, attacks on American soil against Americans by federal troops (all agencies, not just the military), and others.

Then, however, I thought: My gosh, if they continue as they have been, perhaps we who push for the truth will have time to get all people of this nation united so as to force government to fulfill its duties of protecting the Constitution and the liberties of the people, while providing for the common defense.

It caused me to think that perhaps Congress should only convene once a year (originally, in Article I, Section 4, Clause 2 in December of each year but changed by Amendment XX to the 3rd day of January). But it does not state Congress stays in session nearly all year long.

Actually, my impression is the meeting should occur for as short as time as possible. Otherwise, why the "once a year" phrase? Wouldn’t the amendment have instead stated: '...for the year beginning on January 3rd of each year?'

If this were the case, then it would be much easier to control Congress and government as the representatives and senators were in their home states. Just think of how easy it would be for a few thousand to visit them at their state’s capitol rather than having to go all the way to another land, the District of Columbia.

See, all the duties outlined in the Constitution have been met with the exception of continued defense of the Constitution and common defense and a few others mentioned below. These do not require a nearly year-long convening of Congress as the defense of the Constitution could be completed in one hour or less.

Then, of course, the common defense of the 50 states is only necessary should the necessity arise as in the case of the potential of another country invading this nation with violent intent or some other event that could endanger the union of the States.

In other words, there isn’t any reason for Congress staying in session all year long available to one another for ‘behind-closed-doors’ and in ‘back-alley’ meetings arranging their subterfuges on the American people.

Highways are well-established, it cannot legally lay any direct tax on the people, there isn’t any reason to borrow with 8 trillion illegally available through the Federal Reserve, not including all other forms of tax, commerce with other nations is as regulated as it needs to be (except in their goal of developing one world government), naturalization laws are well-established as are means of establishing bankruptcy, coining money, and others such as those dealing with defense.

Also, it is readily apparent they wouldn’t have as much time to screw around as they currently do with activities that have nothing to do with their duties as outlined in the Constitution. Perhaps they would get the work done they are paid to do in short order if they knew they would be returned home immediately to face their constituents for holding up things.

I think a month of concerted effort would be enough. Of course, it means members of Congress would have to work diligently on only those duties they have the responsibility for, such as assuring the budget (a real budget, not the crap that is spread all over the American public) isn’t exceeded.

It means they might not be able to party, get drunk, use drugs, plan strategies of take over of this nation as easy as they now can, not mess around in illicit affairs as often as they now can, and, (please) stop the long, wordy what they consider to be ‘great oratory’ which generally boils down to a couple of sentences of content.

I suspect that at least 70 percent of congressional effort is spent in determining what is good for the party, whether it be the GOPers or Democrats. Arguments over this bill or that bill usually boil down to party politics and those arguments may last for days, weeks, months, or even years.

We could stop that nonsense and make the people we elect stick to the business at hand and force all issues to be bi-partisan or multi-partisan as I am certain more independents or other party members are soon going to be elected to congress. How, you might ask?

Simple. As a group made up of dozens of constituents, tell them face-to-face they will be put out of office the next election if any partisan politics hold up their designated functions. And, their salaries could be cut appropriately.

Now that would be a plus. After all, they would only meet once a year for perhaps a month which would lower their costs of living in D.C. considerably. This could, of course, amount to millions upon millions in savings annually, perhaps billions or trillions if we can keep them separated 11 months out of the year.

Well, just a few thoughts. But, if we run as well with the 107th Congress doing nothing or even less than the 106th and the 105th, then we have the answer as to whether or not the above is feasible.

And, while you think about it, think about this. If you had a person you sent to a meeting for a business you owned and the person did nothing they were supposed to do and only did what they weren’t supposed to do, what would you do - keep them on or replace them?