![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I felt that the section that said the House of Representatives was created by the Connecticut Compromise was poorly worded and reasoned. If you look at the calendar from the Constitutional Convention, a bicameral legislature was created well before the argument about Senate representation took place. It was voted early on that the lower house would have proportional representation too.
Finally, saying the House was created as a result of the Connecticut Compromise is confusing proximate and ultimate causation. There was always a consensus for a bicameral house. (The New Jersey Plan was really a bargaining position by the small states)luiyfliyfliyg
Also, it's dubious to say that the Founding Fathers wanted an equal vote Senate. The historical record demonstrates that, rather, they accepted an equal vote Senate. Prior to the publication of the NJ plan, the states actually voted for a Senate with proportional representation. When the states revoted on the issue, the states that voted for equality represented fewer people than the states that wanted per capita representation.
Moreover, no major Founding Father (Franklin, Hamilton, Madison, Washington) wanted equality either. See History of the United States Senate Dinopup 21:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I think the anonymous user's changes should be undone. He subtracted much from the article. 1/10/2005
This is from the article:
A member who wishes to give a one-minute speech is asked by the Speaker: "For what purpose does the gentleman [gentlewoman] from [state] arise?"
Is a Congresswoman actually called a "gentlewoman," and not a "lady"? That sounds strange. Funnyhat 05:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A quick check of the Congressional Record confirms that "gentlewoman" is indeed used. GreenLocust 05:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Anyone who's spent any time watching C-SPAN, the noncommercial television network that broadcasts proceedings of the House and the Senate, will recognize (however regretfully) that many members of Congress will also use the term "gentlelady," though "gentlewoman" is more common. I'd bet a fair amount of money that most female members of Congress avoid either term. — OtherDave 13:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Male representatives have been referred to as "gentleman" in floor debate forever, and "gentlewoman" is the closest female equivalent, however clunky or archaic it may sound. As a former staffer for a Congresswoman, I wish they'd go with "the Representative from..." for everyone. JTRH 01:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
"Gentle-Lady" is also common. Travis T. Cleveland ( talk) 00:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
In the House Rules Manual it gives some of the history of committees that I was considering adding. Should articles be put up under the name of former committees since abolished or should this information go under the present committees and redirects placed under the former names? PedanticallySpeaking 18:39, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
In 1973, House Speaker Carl Albert ,notified the Nation that ,should President Nixon resign before the confirmation of Vice President Ford. He (Albert) would not assume the Presidency ,but only the powers & duties as Acting president, until Ford was confirmed. Question: Constitionally (under the 1947 Act of Presidential Sucession),couldn't have the president pro-tempore of the Senate, assume the Presidency if Albert were reluctant. Further more ,if Nixon had resigned before Ford's confirmantion as VP, wouldn't have Ford's VP nomination expired?
My response: Constitutionally, thanks to the the 25th Amendment, we can have an "Acting President" instead of a President under certain circumstances. Albert wasn't reluctant to temporarily take on the powers and duties of the office, he was reluctant to take on the permanent office itself. As long as someone's performing the duties of the President, there would be no grounds for the President pro tem to move up the ladder.
But I don't think Speaker Albert set a "precedent" in any binding sense. If a similar situation had somehow occurred with Clinton and Gore (for example, if Clinton's impeachment had succeeded and Gore had somehow been unable to become President), I don't think Speaker Gingrich would have been at all reluctant to become President (not just Acting President), and the law would have been on his side.
Now the question about the possibility of Ford's nomination expiring is a fascinating one, and I have no idea as to the answer. -- JTRH 01:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we could include a small discussion of the fact that the House is not strictly an example of true proportional representation? (Meaning, each state is proportionally assigned representatives, and it is up to each state to decide who those are; the representatives need not be chosen proportional to party votes. For example, it is theoretically possible for say, in each Congressional district, for 55% of votes to go to Republican, and 45% to Democrat, yet in that case every member of the House would be Republican, despite 45% "proportional" Democratic representation. This is not just an academic issue -- consider Texas and the controversy over gerrymandering. 198.59.188.232 02:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
The House is not at ALL an example of proportional representation. The use of winner-take-all, single-member districts means that the losers get 0, and the results in one district have no bearing on the results in another district in the same state. So a state where the Republican won 55% of the vote in every district would indeed have an entirely Republican delegation, even though 45% of the voters supported Democrats. Single-member districts are required by Federal law, by the way; states used to be able to have some of their members chosen from districts and some at large, but that was abolished when it was determined to be a way to perpetuate discrimination against minorities. -- JTRH 01:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The article says:
As a non-american, i confess my knowledge of the US constitution is rather weak, but my reading of Article I, Section 2 ( Original Text) suggests that it is up to the State Legislatures to decide how the elections should be held - for example maybe Single Transferable Vote in multi-member constituencies, or any number of other voting systems. Is there a law that says that states must be divided into single-member districts (if so it should be cited)? Or should this sentence be changed to indicate that this merely reflects how it is done and has been done to date? – MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 15:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
On the English wikipedia there is an article with a list which shows the quantity of seats for each federal state in die House of Representatives based on the nationwide census since 1789. Unfortunality I can't find it any more. Could anybody give me the link so that I can insert the list in the German article US-Repräsentantenhaus? Because of my bad English it's very difficult for me to research myself. Thank you very much. 06.01.2006
Do members have designated seats, or just sit on the right or the left? Do members speak from their seats? Fishhead64 22:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I noticed the file 111USHouseStructure.png displays a nice graphical layout of the party representation of the House. This is great. However, the picture is backwards from the customary seating arrangement mentioned here; Republicans (red) are to the left of the Speaker and Democrats to the right (from the point of view of the Speaker) when it should really be the other way around. Shouldn't the colors in that picture be flipped horizontally to reflect the "real" layout of the House? 66.76.88.231 ( talk) 04:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I have added a bibliography that covers the institutional history and the main leaders over the last 200+ years. Users wanting to follow up will get a solid bibliography; page count gives an idea how much content is covered. I have evaluated each book against the reviews in the scholarly journals, and (except a couple popular items) all are considered solid works of scholarship. Rjensen 10:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Why is it that the Northern Mariana Islands is the only territory without a delegate or resident commissioner? The article mentions "legislation has been introduced by Rep. Richard Pombo of California that would allow them to," but why didn't that happen at the same time as the other territories? Шизомби 04:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
What happens if more than two parties are sitting in the House? for example back when the Whigs were around, or when the Dixiecrats had thier own party? Is there a second "Minority Party"? Is there a minimum number of seats required for such "official status"? please post the answer to my talk page as well if anyone know's. Pellaken 08:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I've just finished reading over the article, and I've noticed that a lot of the same information that is found in the United States Senate article is located here. What's up with that? It seems to me each article should have information specific to each house, and leave comparisons or information common to both houses in United States Congress. It seems to me some reorganization is needed here. -- Omaryak 23:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I changed the wording in the lead to read "the United States Constitution" becuase it is not named as such before the abbrviated version "the Constitution" is used. -- kralahome 15:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The article states:
“The bicameral Congress arose from the desire of the Founders to create a "house of the people" that would represent public opinion, balanced by a more deliberative Senate that would represent the governments of the individual states…”
This is popular patriot mythology but has little basis in fact. The US government system was based on those in place in the colonies before independence, which in turn were based on the British parliamentary system. The House of Representatives, like the House of Commons, was elected and had primary responsibility for fiscal matters, especially taxation. The Senate, which was appointed rather than elected for most of US history (until the seventeenth amendment), was based on the House of Lords and, like that house, was seen as the more senior of the two houses. The powers and responsibilities of the President are almost identical with those of the King in the early part of the 18th century.
A popular belief in the United States, based perhaps on the nonsense history put out by Hollywood, is that King George III was an absolute monarch, a “tyrant.” In fact, the King had been subordinate to Parliament for about 100 years before the Revolutionary War. - Kjb 18:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
"based perhaps on the nonsense history put out by Hollywood, is that King George III was an absolute monarch, a “tyrant.”" Hollywood? Give me a break; it's from the Declaration of Independance. And he was largly a tyrant. Travis T. Cleveland ( talk) 01:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It would be good to add something to the main article about the history of televising the proceedings of the House of Representatives. What year did it start? Who controls it? How has it changed the House?
Canada introduced television to the House of Commons in the fall of 1977. It is under the control of the Speaker, who ordered it to be "staid" - the cameras only focus on the person who has been given the floor by the Speaker; there are no "reaction shots" allowed. As to changes, up until the end of 1977, members rapped their desks as the form of applause; in 1978, the PC party changed to conventional applause (though a few diehards continued to rap their desks) and in a only a year or two, all parties did it that way. For a short time in 1977-78, the "shuffle" happened - PC members would move to fill seats behind the member speaking; Liberal members countered by fleeing the seats near the member speaking; members changed their tailors; PCs wore sunglasses against the bright lights until the party leader told them to cut it out (and not look like a Godfather convention).
So, what is the history of television in the US House, and, similar to the above effects on Canada's house, what sorts of changes came to members' conduct and attire? Who controls the cameras and is it as "staid" or are "reaction shots" or "split screens" between debaters allowed? GBC 18:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know if Sam Johnson is related to the Texas political family of Lyndon Johnson, whose brother, father and paternal grandfather were all named Sam or Samuel Johnson. TonyTheTiger 21:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
i dont think so, sams a common name, and johnson is a common last name. but maybe you should do some research. -- 68.23.165.15
What is the name of the items hanging on the wall that are on either side of the flag? They are gold in color. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abstrakone ( talk • contribs) 02:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
I was looking for the list of the bas reliefs depicting great lawmakers, such as the one mentionned in the Suleiman the Magnificent article, and I was surprise to see no description of the "house" proper. Can I find it somewhere else?-- SidiLemine 13:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Who put up the citation/footnotes tag? And why? JasonCNJ 20:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
There's just been an edit war over changing the data to reflect the election of Jackie Speier to fill the vacancy caused by Tom Lantos' death (CA 12). A vacancy is filled when the member-elect takes the oath of office, which Speier did this morning at 11:34 AM ET [1]. I just updated it to reflect that fact. Can we please establish a consensus that the chart doesn't get changed the minute the winner is declared in a special election, or at the very beginning of the calendar day when the swearing-in is scheduled (both of which happened in this case)? Thanks. JTRH ( talk) 15:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
In editing another article, it took me long time to figure out that a Speaker of the House article exists. Perhaps I'm just dense and/or unlucky, but several non-linked instances of Speaker in this article led me to initially believe that no such article existed. To remedy future oversights, I added a link in the Procedure section, but it was reverted by Loonymonkey ( talk · contribs) diff. The MOS suggests linking important terms once in each major section ( WP:Manual of Style (links)#Overlinking and underlinking: what's the best ratio?), and I believe this is a helpful link. I'm reverting. Noca2plus ( talk) 16:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
CHARLIE ROSE WAS NEVER A CONGRESSMAN. CAN SOMEONE PLEASE REMOVE THE PART ABOUT HIM, IT'S NOT TRUE. 81.191.43.101 ( talk) 21:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure the number of congressmen is 435, rather than 540? - Genedoug ( talk) 13:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
"The power to elect the Vice President in the case of an electoral college deadlock belongs to the Senate." in the case of a dead lock can the senate now choose someone other than the President elect's running mate to be the VP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.239.107 ( talk) 22:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Let's not dilute the language with neologisms reflecting lazy functional illiteracy. The word is "homogeneous". I also point out that the link, used in the first paragraph, displays a page of homog* words, none of which is "homogenous". 'nuf said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.99.73 ( talk) 19:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
If I read this article correctly, it is only in practice that the House holds exclusive power to initiate spending bills. The Senate has de jure power to initiate spending bills, but doesn't. They often begin working on their own version, then wait for the version that passes the House. Then, the Senate compares its version to the House's version and passes a compromise bill. Did I read it correctly? http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly32.asp Axeman ( talk) 01:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I assume it is the general population of america that votes for their election? Why is this not clearly explained? It seems to be assumed that the reader already knows this information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.237.146 ( talk) 00:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
California has 55 electoral votes, not 53 as it states in the introduction of the article.
This section of the article suggests that a the President may not veto a bill that has been passed with a two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress. This is not true, as it appears to conflate the process by which a bill is sent to the President with the process by which it becomes law notwithstanding the President's disapproval. The President may veto any bill, thus requiring both chambers to reconsider the bill and override the veto with the aforementioned majority. One can imagine a situation where a bill that originally passes with two-thirds majorities in both chambers does not command the same yea votes after a veto.
Review Section 7 of Article One of the United States Constitution for a description of the two separate steps. 24.149.110.84 ( talk) 13:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Ohio is shown on the map as having a tied (9-9) delegation between the parties. In actuality, Democrats have a 10-8 advantage in the 111th Congress, so Ohio should be colored light blue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.71.141 ( talk) 02:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC) rachel gissell rojas was here hha and what —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.37.6 ( talk) 21:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a statement here that I am uncomfortable with:
There is something about this that over-simplifies the slavery issue regarding the north/south arguments in the senate. There were not an equal number of states in the "north" as there were in the "south". Further, the divisions were largely economically driven-----I can't put my finger on it, but the statement I quote above doesn't seem to jive right. (According to Bruce Catton) Tgm1024 ( talk) 20:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Is it too early to install the "Slaughter Rule" in article which allows the House to pass legislation WITHOUT a vote? This is a rather new and compelling rule change which would be perfect in encyclopedic articles. If you do not know what the "Slaughter Rule" is just yet, you may need to wait until after it is passed just to see what's in it. This is the similar to finding out what is in the Health Care Bill. Nancy Pelosi: "We need to pass it so you can see what is in it" referring to the Health Care Bill. Bikeric ( talk) 20:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I have noticed over time that my edits on discussion pages always expand to a larger size than anything on the discussion page above. Most sections in the discussion page are a single comment and a single response. I see now that the discussion page is not meant for discussion, as I define it. This article is not the first to give me this impression. Is it Wiki etiquette to take the discussion from this page to a users talk page? That is fine with me. I ask this question because I do not want to leave what would appear to be "tagging" on a fine article. Help me help the cause to keep Wiki clean of unsightly additions where they are not required.
Bikeric (
talk)
02:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Is the number of representatives calculated by the population of voting aged people only, or are children included in the count?
I suppose it has been discussed before, but I didn't easily find the discussion which led to the decision for this wiki to term the United States House of Representatives as "the lower house of the bicameral legislature of the United States of America".
Professor, Dr. [what-was-his-name?] at Auburn, in a public administration masters course (circa '82 - '83) explained it this way: Our founding fathers wrote "All men are created equal" and then they set about writing a constitution that embodied that ideal and they specifically excluded the British idea of an upper, more noble "House of Lords" and a lower body of non-noble blooded commoners, the "House of Commons"..
having rejected the notion of Kings, Queens, Lords and peasants they instead instituted two *coequal* bodies, the House of Representatives and the Senate to form a Congress of equals who shared power with the other two branches of the government of "We the People".....not we the lords and peasants..
may i just change the first sentence to "The United States House of Representatives is one of two coequal bodies of the bicameral legislature of the United States of America, comprising the United States Congress together with the United States Senate." (and, make the other upper/lower repairs necessary on that page and others)?
or must we have a discussion?
note: i am aware that the internet has many cites which might be used to "prove" the USA's House is the lower of the two bodies...those sources do not make it so.
note 2: i am also aware that the wiki article in question uses the term "lower" several times--but each is incorrect...a fact i can't yet cite from the transcripts of the official discussions of the Constitutional Convention--those transcripts having never been recorded. Yes, Madison's Virginia plan (and other plans) _may_ have suggested the USA mirror the upper (in 'class' of membership) House of Lords and the lower class of the House of Commons, but all such were rejected in favor of "All men are created equal."
note 3: in the first congress the Senate met up the stairs and therefore over the House which was _directionally_ and/or _physically_ the "lower house"...today the House and Senate meet on the same physical level in the Capitol and calling it "lower" today is as correct as calling the Senate the "diminutive body" because it is less than one-quarter the size of the House of Representatives, or calling the House the "south house" since the Senate's chamber is in the north wing of the capitol building..
DenverD ( talk) 09:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The disscussion on gerrymandering is useful and an important part of the disscusion on the US congress. However, there is a line:
The legal gerrymandering of the House, combined with the institutionalized gerrymandering of the Senate and the Electoral College, have been criticized as being antithetical to democracy and representative government an tits an boobs.
I think if this statement is to remain, it should be better explained.
What is meant by "institutionalized gerrymandering?"
If this is commentary on the nature of the senate (each state having two seats) then perhaps it is inappropriate for the article.)
Summary of the 2 November 2004 United States House of Representatives election results
This graph reports that in 2002 there were 229 republican representatives, 204 democratic representatives and 1 indpendent one. These do not add up to 435.
Would it make sense to have a chronology (table and graphic?) showing which party controlled which house (and the Executive), from 1776 to the present? This seems like the kind of basic reference an encyclopedia should have. Maybe this already exists in piece-meal fashion, but I don't see it in one place. E.g.:
Year | Senate | House | President |
---|---|---|---|
1776 | Whig | Tory | Green |
1778 | Whig | Green | Green |
1780 | Democrat | Republican | Republican |
etc. |
If so, what's a good page name? "US Government - Party Control of"
The United States Legislateive branch of the government is the United States Congress. The United Staes Congress consists of 2 equal "houses", the House of Representatives, and the Senate. Both are the Congress. It is inaccurate to state that the legislative branch is made up of the Congress and the Senate. No need to cite some ivory tower expert... Just read the U.S. Constitution.
Barry 74.7.193.122 ( talk) 20:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
"Population per U.S. Representative allocated to each of the 50 states and DC"
Why does this graph include DC? Why doesn't it include other non-states, like Puerto Rico? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.70.63 ( talk) 14:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I think Boehner is now the Speaker of the House after the recent midterm elections. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 22:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
-> Agreed. You guys should NOT have changed the composition of the House because every incoming Congressman is still a Congressman-elect and HAS NOT been sworn in. Thats like saying Barack Obama was President on January 19, 2009 when he in fact was not -- George W. Bush was still President. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.247.75.176 (
talk)
01:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
A better source for salary information: http://www.house.gov/daily/salaries.htm
It confirms what the about.com page says, but is more reputable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelbraun ( talk • contribs) 14:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't be Boehner's circle at the center since he's the speaker? – HTD ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
The photograph caption in this section ("Member officials") states that Pelosi is still the speaker. For sake of currency, it should be updated to "Former Speaker..."
What are the rules that apply to the dissolution of the House of Representatives? Cs32en Talk to me 01:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Since the purpose of this article is primarily for readers outside the US, should we keep to the convention used outside the US, where blue is use to denote the conservative parties, (i.e. Republicans) while red is associated with left-leaning parties (i.e. Democrats - albeit a stretch to call them "left")? The association of the color red with conservatism is a rather recent media phenomenon in the US and could change at any time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.76.83 ( talk) 03:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The page currently states that there are 435 voting members and 6 non-voting members, for a grand total of 441. There are 242 in the Republican Party and 190 in the Democratic Party, which is only 432. Where do the other 9 members come from? Independent parties? If so, that should be noted. DanielDPeterson + talk 23:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Specific reguirements and benefits for representatives.
Please clear up rumors of life-long health benefits for serving one term in office. Can a member of congress have dual citizenship. If yes, are there any restrictions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.34.1 ( talk) 18:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Which one to use? Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Congressman vs. Representative. -- Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
If you'll pardon the lazy resort, the page has been improperly updated to reflect the results of the 2012 elections as if they had taken effect. Thus, in multiple places it says that there are 201 voting Democratic Members, whereas that won't be the case until the Members are sworn in in January, 2013, and the 113th Congress begins. (Some changes did occur already in cases where special elections elected Members to the remainder of the 112th.) Someone with more time and energy than I have may wish to remedy these errors. Czrisher ( talk) 21:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
It says at: /info/en/?search=United_States_House_of_Representatives#Daily_procedures "...Members' seats are arranged in the chamber in a semicircular pattern and are divided by a wide central aisle. By tradition, Democrats sit on the left of the center aisle, while Republicans sit on the right, as viewed from the presiding officer's chair...." The statement "...as viewed from the presiding officer's chair...." seems to be at odds with the diagram under "Structure" in the data box at the beginning of the article, which shows the Democrats on the left and the Republicans on the right as viewed from the FLOOR, looking TOWARD the presiding officer's chair. Wikifan2744 ( talk) 19:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Research now allows me to say that the answer to my question above is that the diagram under "Structure" in the data box at the beginning of the article is correct: the Democrats sit on the left and the Republicans sit on the right as viewed from the floor, looking toward the presiding officer's chair. The relevant evidence comes from http://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/House-Chamber/House-Floor/ which is: "Unlike the Members of the Senate, Members of the House have no assigned seats but are by tradition divided by party; Members of the Democratic Party sit to the Speaker's right and Members of the Republican Party sit to his left." Therefore, I will reverse in the article the words "left" and "right" in the current version of the sentence quoted in my earlier post. Wikifan2744 ( talk) 08:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
It has been my understanding that the "non-voting" House members from the five organized unincorporated U.S. territories and D.C. have the right to vote in Committee but not on the House floor. The article, however, states at the end of the Apportionment section that since 2011 they may no longer vote in Committee. The statement cites an NPR interview regarding the 2011 House rules changes in footnote [8] and H.R. 78 of the 110th Congress in footnote [9]. I'm assuming that the information in H.R. 78 is irrelevant since apparently the bill was never passed by the Senate. The NPR interview mentions the removal of the Delegates' and Resident Commissioner's voting rights on the House floor, but it makes no mention of their Committee voting rights. So either I need correction or the article needs either correction or a reference supporting the removal of the Delegates' and Resident Commissioner's Committee voting rights; please help.
HankW512 ( talk) 12:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
The statement "The major power of the House is to pass federal legislation that affects the entire country" is not the right statement. "Federal" has meaning in the context of the "Federal Principle" espoused by Madison in the Federalist Papers #51. However, is in not a "power" of Congress. The major power of the House is to "pass United States legislation. The U.S. Constitution nowhere mentions the term federal. The federal principle upon which it rests include the People, the United States and the States. The legislation that Congress passes is referred to in Article III, Section 2, as "the Laws of the United States. It is also not true that their legislation (effects) the entire country. Each piece of Legislation either only effects the specific places where that legislation touches, or the States who have volitionally opted into what is often called a "federal" benefit program. A better term might be that "the results of the legislation impact" the entire country. It ultimately has that effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.55.5 ( talk) 17:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
The diagram needs to be updated to show Rep. Boehner's seat, which has been vacated. MB298 ( talk) 03:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
United States House of Representatives. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
From what I understand this line, under "Membership, qualifications and apportionment" - > "Elections", is inaccurate: "By law, Representatives must be elected from single-member districts by plurality voting." Does anyone know of a federal law that mandates single member districts by plurality voting or is this referring to laws at the state-level requiring such structure? If it's the latter this is needs some clarification in the article.
I can't find anything regarding a federal law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.150.184.160 ( talk) 19:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
We say "Plurality" in American English. I changed the infobox to reflect that.
That statement seems to me like it would be misleading. The house and Senate have two very different responsibilities outside of approving bills, no? This article even says that the House is only refereed to as the lower chamber informally in the "Comparison to the Senate" section. There has to be a better word for this, no? Kude90 ( talk) 02:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
The sidebar states that there are five (5) vacant seats, however in the "Current Standing" section it states that there's four (4) vacant and one (1) independent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.190.27 ( talk) 22:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States House of Representatives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States House of Representatives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
There' currently 433 occupied seats in the House. A number which will be reducing to possible 431. We need the table updated. GoodDay ( talk) 16:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
PS: Make that currently 432. GoodDay ( talk) 00:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on United States House of Representatives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Just to let page editors know that there is not a page focusing on the chamber itself (see corresponding page United States Senate chamber). I "discovered" this while wondering if the page mentioned the artwork on the ceiling of the chamber, or artwork within it. I've put up a redirect but there really should be a good page on this topic. Thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Tomrtn ( talk · contribs) According to http://www.house.gov/representatives/ there are currently 238 Republican representatives, 193 Democratic representatives, and 4 vacant seats. UpperJeans ( talk) 10:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
it is November 9th, 2018 and the data of the most recent election are nto clearly visible. 37.99.60.232 ( talk) 05:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Due to 5 special elections held on November 6, the number changed immediately from 235-193 for Republicans to 236-197 for Republicans. GoodDay ( talk) 07:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
The honorary Pet Geren
Happened across this bill and feel it needs your support.Though it may be crossing religious with public school i don't see any harm in the lessons from this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:United_States_House_of_Representatives&action=edit§ion=new Sincerely Paul Kuegele — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3E80:72D0:3DA9:9BCE:D251:E5A2 ( talk) 17:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Justin Amash exit is on Twitter. Should we include that he is an independent on the infographic? also Bernie Sanders is currently an independent or a Democrat please decide and fix on Bernie Sanders wiki page. Manabimasu ( talk) 14:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
...still directs to this page. There is an article for the United States Senate chamber, but not for the House chamber. I'd like to read about it, so if anyone wants to pick up the topic, just letting editors know that it's open. Thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 03:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Bernie Saners is no longer an Independent. He is officially apart of the Democratic party, please fix it.... Infinity2323236 ( talk) 09:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Libertarian now, not independent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.105.63 ( talk) 00:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States House of Representatives has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Justin Amash, the only Independent member of the United States House of Representatives changed his party affiliation to the Libertarian Party. He announced on April 28, 2020, that he would form an exploratory committee for the Presidential election in 2020.
Source: thehill.com/homenews/campaign/495173-amash-launches-exploratory-committee-for-presidential-run JCaudill417 ( talk) 02:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States House of Representatives has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the independent member to a Libertarian. Justin Amash is now a member of the Libertarian Party. The graphic showing the chamber partisanship should include a gold circle instead of a gray one.
This has been confirmed by the chairman of the national Libertarian Party, Nicholas Sarwark. [1] AtlantanKnight7 ( talk) 02:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
@
AtlantanKnight7: Done, but you might want to post a request at
Commons:File talk:(116th) US House of Representatives.svg to change the graphic from gray to gold.
GoingBatty (
talk)
02:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Amash has joined the LP check this reference Justin Amash Formally Joins the Libertarian Party, Makes History--also https://reason.com/2020/04/29/justin-amash-becomes-the-first-libertarian-member-of-congress/ Tgmod ( talk) 12:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I have the ability to make the edit, but I wanted to consult with the talk page before doing so, as others have done the same. Though an announcement was made that he is seeking the Libertarian nomination, I can find no source stating that Amash officially registered as Libertarian. As such, he should remain listed as Independent until as source can be found. Metamorph985 ( talk) 05:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Update: See above, I have provided direct evidence in the form of a [link]( https://www.house.gov/representatives) and a [screenshot]( https://imgur.com/a/l2FraH6) that he has officially changed his party with the house clerk. Please revert, or allow users to make the appropriate updates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:6700:8E41:14A4:83AF:3D96:7121 ( talk) 23:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Justin Amash has announced that he will be a Libertarian member of Congress. I would imagine that the Clerk's office is not set up to process the change in the membership rolls at present. However, in order to avoid the same kind of back-and-forth that happened when Bernie Sanders sought the Democratic nomination for President while remaining an independent Senator, I'd like to make the following points: A statement of party affiliation in Congress is potentially (as in Bernie's case) a separate issue from seeking a party's nomination for another office, or an individual's voter registration (since some states have no party registration). Bernie Sanders did not become a Democratic Senator, he stayed an independent Senator who was a candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination. The fact that Amash has said he's joining the LP and running for the LP nomination does not automatically make him "a Libertarian member of Congress" until the House officially recognizes it. It's not really significant, because unlike his leaving the R's to become I, it doesn't affect the balance of power between the two parties. Just some thoughts. JTRH ( talk) 16:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
See above, I have provided direct evidence in the form of a [link]( https://www.house.gov/representatives) and a [screenshot]( https://imgur.com/a/l2FraH6) that he has officially changed his party with the house clerk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:6700:8E41:14A4:83AF:3D96:7121 ( talk) 23:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States House of Representatives has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "The president may veto a bill passed by the House and Senate. If he does, the bill does not become law unless each House, by a two-thirds vote, votes to override the veto." to "The president may veto a bill passed by the House and Senate. If he or she does, the bill does not become law unless each House, by a two-thirds vote, votes to override the veto." Amassy10 ( talk) 08:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States House of Representatives has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
198 Republicans Politicalfactjunkie2k20 ( talk) 20:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Fellow Republicans and conservatives:
I am a lifelong Republican who has supported Republican candidates, both State and Federal. Enough is enough from this clown we elected President. Time for us to back away from him and his policies. Since we do not have a Republican choice I am advocating either selecting another party's candidate or Don't vote for President. You Republican U.S. Legislators need to stay as far from Trump as posible or face being swept out if office with him.
YOU MUST PUT YOUR VOTERS FIRST, EVEN IF IT MEANS COLORING OUTSIDE THE PARTY LINES. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C48:717F:B0F1:C526:F972:2CD9:F396 ( talk) 13:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States House of Representatives has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the number of vacancies from 5 to 4 and the number of Republicans from 197 to 198 as Representative-elect Chris Jacobs was sworn in this morning. See clerk.house.gov. Tbesteditor ( talk) 15:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Is Justin Amash technically still a member of the minority caucus? He left the Republican party, but still chairs the Liberty Caucus. Specifically, he "caucus' with the Republicans", the exact terminology we use on the Senate page for Bernie Sanders and Angus King. Doesn't that mean he still has to succumb to the Minority Whip? I couldn't really find information on this, mainly because the rules regarding third parties and independents in congress are basically nonexistent. In my opinion, the graphic should show him as part of the Minority Caucus. KingWither ( talk) 17:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Members can caucus with whichever party they wish no matter what party(or none at all) they are from. He is part of the minority since independent members are not part of a party Infinity2323236 ( talk) 09:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
And now he just switched to the LP, or at least he announced he’s running for the LP nomination, which means he has to have LP membership. Should we change to reflect that? Somethingdiscrete ( talk) 02:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Infinity2323236:, @ Somethingdiscrete:, @ KingWither:, seeing as though this is a special circumstance, should he be placed with whichever side he votes more with? Regardless of whether its the minority or majority? - Navarre0107 ( talk) 00:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Paul Mitchell announced today that he is leaving the GOP over disgust with party leadership, announcing himself as an independent. Would it be appropriate to update the membership to reflect this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nekomancerjade ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
The print on this is unreadable to me, even when expanded. Can anythign be done? Jokem ( talk) 05:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Someone want to explain the table in this section to me??? From this table it would appear that 221-211=11 and 20+27=50. And what does 'Majority' mean and where does the number 11 come from (what happened to the other 39?)? Why is 'Working majority' in the table if there are zero of them?
I followed the 'source' link and it does not have any of these figures in it, so for the ones that aren't simply math, a (different) source needs to be added. ...And if you're going to put 'Source:' under a table, then actually write the source name out. Otherwise just enter your 'source' like a normal footnote (examples of proper use of 'Source:' can be found on the page '1993 Verdy Kawasaki season' - "Source: J.LEAGUE OFFICIAL RECORD & DATA 1994. ISBN 4-09-102309-6." - and on the page '2020 K League 2' - "Source: Official website of K League SOCCERWAY".) Niccast ( talk) 00:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States House of Representatives has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Claudia Tenney was certified as the winner of New York's 22nd congressional district race on Feb 5, 2021. Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
https://www.syracuse.com/politics/cny/2021/02/claudia-tenney-to-be-certified-as-winner-of-new-yorks-22nd-race.html
This brings the Republicans to 212 seats not 211. Please update.
Devinuren9 (
talk)
23:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. According to that linked article, there may be an appeal, and the House needs to vote to seat her, so the seat is still vacant. When she is seated in the House, then the Wikipedia article can be updated.
RudolfRed (
talk)
00:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)There is no explanation how these work (different for Senators) - can a link be added to the byelection article? This is protected so I cannot do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.30.115 ( talk) 07:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
United STates House of Representatives. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 26#United STates House of Representatives until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -
CHAMPION (
talk) (
contributions) (
logs)
02:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States House of Representatives has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The information on Congressional retirements is incorrect. The formula for calculating them changed in 2013 and no longer includes the 1.7% multiplier times years of service. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL30631.pdf Wrestlingterp ( talk) 15:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
I guess it was CA-25. Number of Republicans therefore increases to 209.
62.226.76.229 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States House of Representatives has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to edit the number of seats for Republicans and Vacant seats. With the seating of Mike Flood, there are currently 211 Republicans and 4 Vacant seats. The page currently is inaccurate as it says 210 Republicans and 5 Vacant seats. Someone needs to update this. Dxiedxig ( talk) 09:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States House of Representatives has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change (220) to (219) as the number of democratic members (to match the correct number 219) in the majority number directly above. 173.68.22.243 ( talk) 23:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I am a bit puzzled by the various "majorities" values in the chart, and in particular the state majorities. Is there an authoritative source that we can verify these from directly, rather than just hand-counting the List of current members of the United States House of Representatives?
More generally, I wonder if this constantly-changing information about the current composition of the body would be better addressed in the 117th United States Congress article (et seq.), which can also accommodate information on the stories behind the numbers. For example, that article can address the fact that Peltola hasn't yet been sworn in, which seems to have been the source of some well-intentioned but premature updates, and which would be an excessive level of detail here. Visviva ( talk) 00:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States House of Representatives has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On the bottom, there is a spot on the page where party representation in the House is shown. This spot says there are only 2 vacancies, but there are 3 vacancies now, with the resignation of Representative Ted Deutch of Florida. 206.246.7.180 ( talk) 13:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States House of Representatives has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The grate compromise is known amongst kids as the big daddy changing machine 162.201.166.18 ( talk) 23:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States House of Representatives has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Seven states have only one representative: Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming." This is false as of 10/11/2022. Montana now has 2 representatives. This line should be changed to: "Six states have only one representative: Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming." 192.222.131.25 ( talk) 18:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
{{reply to|Eyer}}
to your message.
19:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)As of the 3rd of January 2023, the 118th Congress has begun, and Republicans have taken control of the House of Representatives. Therefore, the color and maps detailing the composition of the House should be changed. AnthonyNVLe ( talk) 17:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
The 20th Amendment makes clear that the terms of the Representatives and Senators begin at noon on January 3. 2600:4040:2540:A100:3481:A236:8B5D:75D9 ( talk) 22:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
According to the U.S. Constitution, the members take office at noon Jan 3rd. Regardless of whether a SPEAKER is chosen. If you don't believe me, simply check the U.S. GOVERNMENT WEBSITE that shows thus (house.gov). Jpleden ( talk) 23:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States House of Representatives has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under “Salary and Benefits,” the second sentence of the second paragraph below the “Title” sub-heading reads:
“For example, Democratic House speaker Nancy Pelosi, who represents California's 12th congressional district within San Francisco, may be identified as "D–California," "D–California–12" or "D–San Francisco."“
“House speaker” should be replaced with “congresswoman.” Sirdatary ( talk) 19:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Fourth paragraph, first sentence: "The House is charged with the passage of federal legislation, known as bills; those of which that are also passed by the Senate are sent to the president for consideration." 24.161.74.101 ( talk) 21:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Did the new members of the US House during the 118th congress actually take office on January 3, 2023? There are many people on Wikipedia who say that the 20th Amendment guarantees that members take office on noon January 3, 2023. However, many prominent legal scholars and news sources (sourced below) say otherwise. The point of this RfC is to put the correct date as agreed to by members of the Wiki community. Bbraxtonlee ( talk) 03:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
FWIW, an IP has span edited the dates to January 7, 2023. The IP should get a consensus for that, first. GoodDay ( talk) 06:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Against January 3, 2023:
For January 3, 2023:
The plain text of the amendment states that terms end on January the 3rd, but not that new terms begin at the same time. It seems fair to consider all house members Representatives-elect until sworn in. Yilmaz1001 ( talk) 06:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
"Swearing in date" does not necessarily mean start date. There are some times where the new Congress convenes after January 3rd if the 3rd falls on a weekend. For example, the 114th Congress first convened on Tuesday January 6th (January 3rd was a Saturday that year). All the terms of the members of the 114th Congress still began on the 3rd that year, but the election of the Speaker and the swearing in of the members didn't happen until January 6th.
Also, the 20th amendment plainly states...
'...and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.'
The "and the terms of their successors shall then begin" clearly implies that every January 3rd shall be the beginning of the terms of the new members of Congress from there on out.
The "swearing in" is merely a formality required to exercise their powers of office as legislators. They are members of the House (as per the 20th amendment). They just can't exercise their powers of office (i.e., voting on legislation) until a Speaker gets elected so the House can set its agenda.
If you're going to pass an RFC that states that "swearing in date" = "start date", you're going to need to go through the members of every Congress where the new Congress decided to convene on a different date than the Constitution prescribes (January 3rd post-20th, and March 4th pre-20th) and manually adjust every member's "start date" for where the new Congress decided to delay the swearing in ceremonies and the election of the speaker for the new Congress Canuck89 (Chat with me) or visit my user page 17:51, January 4, 2023 (UTC)
Jefferson's Manual states that "a Member-elect becomes a Member from the very beginning of the term to which elected (I, 500), that he is as much an officer of the Government before taking the oath as afterwards (I, 185), and that his status is distinguished from that of a Member who has qualified (I, 183, 184)." [4] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/HMAN-112/pdf/HMAN-112-jeffersonman.pdf Muhibm0307 ( talk) 00:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
@ 47.205.116.13: has span edited the date to January 3, 2023, across the House member bios. GoodDay ( talk) 06:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
As of 2022, first-past-the-post or plurality voting is adopted in 46 states, ranked-choice or instant-runoff voting in two states (Alaska and Maine), and two-round system in two states (Georgia and Mississippi).
in the 2020 election write-up it is written that Forty-seven states used the first-past-the-post voting plurality system to elect their representatives. Instant-runoff voting was used in one state (Maine) and runoff system was used in two states (Georgia and Louisiana). so some discrepancy.. Ballotpedia website writes In Alaska, winners in congressional contests are determined via ranked-choice voting. [IRV] 68.150.209.131 ( talk) 16:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
The two Houses of Congress are equal, one is not superior to the other. The House of Representatives is not the "lower chamber" nor is the Senate the "upper chamber"
The United States House of Representatives represents The People in Congress, the Senate represents the States in Congress. Johnny Xavier ( talk) 04:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States House of Representatives has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Rhode Island’s 1st congressional seat became vacant yesterday. 24.46.59.173 ( talk) 20:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
His seat is vacant he resigned September 15 number of vacancies should be updated 67.220.0.231 ( talk) 13:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
With McCarthy’s ouster, should we add that Patrick McHenry of North Carolina will serve as Speaker Pro Tempore until a Speaker’s election is held? In the infobox, I mean. Technically, McHenry is Speaker. I’m not sure what the protocol is… Juneau Mike ( talk) 21:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States House of Representatives has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
When hovering over the name of current speaker Patrick McHenry in the box on the right, it shows "hhggg" as description. Wi8989 ( talk) 14:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Chris Stewart's vacant seat has been filled by Republican Celeste Maloy so the vacancy should be updated. The vacant seat page here Seniority in the United States House of Representatives has already been updated to reflect that there are no vacancies. Lancejco ( talk) 17:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
On December 1st, Representative of New York's Third District George Anthony Devolder Santos was expelled from the House of Representatives by a resolution vote, which ended in Yea - 311 v Nay - 113. 2.135.66.130 ( talk) 16:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
The history section gives a lot of coverage to Newt Gingrich’s criticism of the Democratic majority and his stated intentions with regards to good governance, but doesn’t cover the stark polarization that (I would argue was a big part of the Contract With America but more importantly) resulted, including multiple government shutdowns and the Clinton impeachment proceedings. I’m all for presenting a balanced view, but if you’re only presenting Gingrich as a champion of good governance, compromise, and bipartisanship, you’re failing to present his achievements in making the GOP more aggressive, combative, and polarized, which he believed would win them back the majority (which they did under his leadership). Perhaps a sentence could be added about the shutdowns and impeachment proceedings, which were both on a scale not seen any other time in the 20th century, and perhaps another sentence on what led to Gingrich’s resignation. 108.2.153.237 ( talk) 18:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States House of Representatives has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change House membership image to the following:
thumb|US House of Representatives Party Membership, January 1, 2024 Ryansnowden ( talk) 22:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States House of Representatives has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the number of total representatives present in the house to 435, and number of democrats to 213 please (Suozzi was inaugurated today). Tyrant15 ( talk) 00:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States House of Representatives has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The change needed is the number of vacant House Seats which should be three instead of four. The bubbles showing the house vacant seats is correct with three and the number of Republican seats is 219 and not 218. 219 + 213 + 3 = 435. 2600:1014:B138:E9D1:0:E:5A5:9401 ( talk) 10:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I felt that the section that said the House of Representatives was created by the Connecticut Compromise was poorly worded and reasoned. If you look at the calendar from the Constitutional Convention, a bicameral legislature was created well before the argument about Senate representation took place. It was voted early on that the lower house would have proportional representation too.
Finally, saying the House was created as a result of the Connecticut Compromise is confusing proximate and ultimate causation. There was always a consensus for a bicameral house. (The New Jersey Plan was really a bargaining position by the small states)luiyfliyfliyg
Also, it's dubious to say that the Founding Fathers wanted an equal vote Senate. The historical record demonstrates that, rather, they accepted an equal vote Senate. Prior to the publication of the NJ plan, the states actually voted for a Senate with proportional representation. When the states revoted on the issue, the states that voted for equality represented fewer people than the states that wanted per capita representation.
Moreover, no major Founding Father (Franklin, Hamilton, Madison, Washington) wanted equality either. See History of the United States Senate Dinopup 21:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I think the anonymous user's changes should be undone. He subtracted much from the article. 1/10/2005
This is from the article:
A member who wishes to give a one-minute speech is asked by the Speaker: "For what purpose does the gentleman [gentlewoman] from [state] arise?"
Is a Congresswoman actually called a "gentlewoman," and not a "lady"? That sounds strange. Funnyhat 05:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A quick check of the Congressional Record confirms that "gentlewoman" is indeed used. GreenLocust 05:46, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Anyone who's spent any time watching C-SPAN, the noncommercial television network that broadcasts proceedings of the House and the Senate, will recognize (however regretfully) that many members of Congress will also use the term "gentlelady," though "gentlewoman" is more common. I'd bet a fair amount of money that most female members of Congress avoid either term. — OtherDave 13:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Male representatives have been referred to as "gentleman" in floor debate forever, and "gentlewoman" is the closest female equivalent, however clunky or archaic it may sound. As a former staffer for a Congresswoman, I wish they'd go with "the Representative from..." for everyone. JTRH 01:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
"Gentle-Lady" is also common. Travis T. Cleveland ( talk) 00:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
In the House Rules Manual it gives some of the history of committees that I was considering adding. Should articles be put up under the name of former committees since abolished or should this information go under the present committees and redirects placed under the former names? PedanticallySpeaking 18:39, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
In 1973, House Speaker Carl Albert ,notified the Nation that ,should President Nixon resign before the confirmation of Vice President Ford. He (Albert) would not assume the Presidency ,but only the powers & duties as Acting president, until Ford was confirmed. Question: Constitionally (under the 1947 Act of Presidential Sucession),couldn't have the president pro-tempore of the Senate, assume the Presidency if Albert were reluctant. Further more ,if Nixon had resigned before Ford's confirmantion as VP, wouldn't have Ford's VP nomination expired?
My response: Constitutionally, thanks to the the 25th Amendment, we can have an "Acting President" instead of a President under certain circumstances. Albert wasn't reluctant to temporarily take on the powers and duties of the office, he was reluctant to take on the permanent office itself. As long as someone's performing the duties of the President, there would be no grounds for the President pro tem to move up the ladder.
But I don't think Speaker Albert set a "precedent" in any binding sense. If a similar situation had somehow occurred with Clinton and Gore (for example, if Clinton's impeachment had succeeded and Gore had somehow been unable to become President), I don't think Speaker Gingrich would have been at all reluctant to become President (not just Acting President), and the law would have been on his side.
Now the question about the possibility of Ford's nomination expiring is a fascinating one, and I have no idea as to the answer. -- JTRH 01:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe we could include a small discussion of the fact that the House is not strictly an example of true proportional representation? (Meaning, each state is proportionally assigned representatives, and it is up to each state to decide who those are; the representatives need not be chosen proportional to party votes. For example, it is theoretically possible for say, in each Congressional district, for 55% of votes to go to Republican, and 45% to Democrat, yet in that case every member of the House would be Republican, despite 45% "proportional" Democratic representation. This is not just an academic issue -- consider Texas and the controversy over gerrymandering. 198.59.188.232 02:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
The House is not at ALL an example of proportional representation. The use of winner-take-all, single-member districts means that the losers get 0, and the results in one district have no bearing on the results in another district in the same state. So a state where the Republican won 55% of the vote in every district would indeed have an entirely Republican delegation, even though 45% of the voters supported Democrats. Single-member districts are required by Federal law, by the way; states used to be able to have some of their members chosen from districts and some at large, but that was abolished when it was determined to be a way to perpetuate discrimination against minorities. -- JTRH 01:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The article says:
As a non-american, i confess my knowledge of the US constitution is rather weak, but my reading of Article I, Section 2 ( Original Text) suggests that it is up to the State Legislatures to decide how the elections should be held - for example maybe Single Transferable Vote in multi-member constituencies, or any number of other voting systems. Is there a law that says that states must be divided into single-member districts (if so it should be cited)? Or should this sentence be changed to indicate that this merely reflects how it is done and has been done to date? – MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 15:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
On the English wikipedia there is an article with a list which shows the quantity of seats for each federal state in die House of Representatives based on the nationwide census since 1789. Unfortunality I can't find it any more. Could anybody give me the link so that I can insert the list in the German article US-Repräsentantenhaus? Because of my bad English it's very difficult for me to research myself. Thank you very much. 06.01.2006
Do members have designated seats, or just sit on the right or the left? Do members speak from their seats? Fishhead64 22:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I noticed the file 111USHouseStructure.png displays a nice graphical layout of the party representation of the House. This is great. However, the picture is backwards from the customary seating arrangement mentioned here; Republicans (red) are to the left of the Speaker and Democrats to the right (from the point of view of the Speaker) when it should really be the other way around. Shouldn't the colors in that picture be flipped horizontally to reflect the "real" layout of the House? 66.76.88.231 ( talk) 04:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I have added a bibliography that covers the institutional history and the main leaders over the last 200+ years. Users wanting to follow up will get a solid bibliography; page count gives an idea how much content is covered. I have evaluated each book against the reviews in the scholarly journals, and (except a couple popular items) all are considered solid works of scholarship. Rjensen 10:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Why is it that the Northern Mariana Islands is the only territory without a delegate or resident commissioner? The article mentions "legislation has been introduced by Rep. Richard Pombo of California that would allow them to," but why didn't that happen at the same time as the other territories? Шизомби 04:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
What happens if more than two parties are sitting in the House? for example back when the Whigs were around, or when the Dixiecrats had thier own party? Is there a second "Minority Party"? Is there a minimum number of seats required for such "official status"? please post the answer to my talk page as well if anyone know's. Pellaken 08:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I've just finished reading over the article, and I've noticed that a lot of the same information that is found in the United States Senate article is located here. What's up with that? It seems to me each article should have information specific to each house, and leave comparisons or information common to both houses in United States Congress. It seems to me some reorganization is needed here. -- Omaryak 23:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I changed the wording in the lead to read "the United States Constitution" becuase it is not named as such before the abbrviated version "the Constitution" is used. -- kralahome 15:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
The article states:
“The bicameral Congress arose from the desire of the Founders to create a "house of the people" that would represent public opinion, balanced by a more deliberative Senate that would represent the governments of the individual states…”
This is popular patriot mythology but has little basis in fact. The US government system was based on those in place in the colonies before independence, which in turn were based on the British parliamentary system. The House of Representatives, like the House of Commons, was elected and had primary responsibility for fiscal matters, especially taxation. The Senate, which was appointed rather than elected for most of US history (until the seventeenth amendment), was based on the House of Lords and, like that house, was seen as the more senior of the two houses. The powers and responsibilities of the President are almost identical with those of the King in the early part of the 18th century.
A popular belief in the United States, based perhaps on the nonsense history put out by Hollywood, is that King George III was an absolute monarch, a “tyrant.” In fact, the King had been subordinate to Parliament for about 100 years before the Revolutionary War. - Kjb 18:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
"based perhaps on the nonsense history put out by Hollywood, is that King George III was an absolute monarch, a “tyrant.”" Hollywood? Give me a break; it's from the Declaration of Independance. And he was largly a tyrant. Travis T. Cleveland ( talk) 01:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
It would be good to add something to the main article about the history of televising the proceedings of the House of Representatives. What year did it start? Who controls it? How has it changed the House?
Canada introduced television to the House of Commons in the fall of 1977. It is under the control of the Speaker, who ordered it to be "staid" - the cameras only focus on the person who has been given the floor by the Speaker; there are no "reaction shots" allowed. As to changes, up until the end of 1977, members rapped their desks as the form of applause; in 1978, the PC party changed to conventional applause (though a few diehards continued to rap their desks) and in a only a year or two, all parties did it that way. For a short time in 1977-78, the "shuffle" happened - PC members would move to fill seats behind the member speaking; Liberal members countered by fleeing the seats near the member speaking; members changed their tailors; PCs wore sunglasses against the bright lights until the party leader told them to cut it out (and not look like a Godfather convention).
So, what is the history of television in the US House, and, similar to the above effects on Canada's house, what sorts of changes came to members' conduct and attire? Who controls the cameras and is it as "staid" or are "reaction shots" or "split screens" between debaters allowed? GBC 18:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone know if Sam Johnson is related to the Texas political family of Lyndon Johnson, whose brother, father and paternal grandfather were all named Sam or Samuel Johnson. TonyTheTiger 21:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
i dont think so, sams a common name, and johnson is a common last name. but maybe you should do some research. -- 68.23.165.15
What is the name of the items hanging on the wall that are on either side of the flag? They are gold in color. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abstrakone ( talk • contribs) 02:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC).
I was looking for the list of the bas reliefs depicting great lawmakers, such as the one mentionned in the Suleiman the Magnificent article, and I was surprise to see no description of the "house" proper. Can I find it somewhere else?-- SidiLemine 13:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Who put up the citation/footnotes tag? And why? JasonCNJ 20:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
There's just been an edit war over changing the data to reflect the election of Jackie Speier to fill the vacancy caused by Tom Lantos' death (CA 12). A vacancy is filled when the member-elect takes the oath of office, which Speier did this morning at 11:34 AM ET [1]. I just updated it to reflect that fact. Can we please establish a consensus that the chart doesn't get changed the minute the winner is declared in a special election, or at the very beginning of the calendar day when the swearing-in is scheduled (both of which happened in this case)? Thanks. JTRH ( talk) 15:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
In editing another article, it took me long time to figure out that a Speaker of the House article exists. Perhaps I'm just dense and/or unlucky, but several non-linked instances of Speaker in this article led me to initially believe that no such article existed. To remedy future oversights, I added a link in the Procedure section, but it was reverted by Loonymonkey ( talk · contribs) diff. The MOS suggests linking important terms once in each major section ( WP:Manual of Style (links)#Overlinking and underlinking: what's the best ratio?), and I believe this is a helpful link. I'm reverting. Noca2plus ( talk) 16:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
CHARLIE ROSE WAS NEVER A CONGRESSMAN. CAN SOMEONE PLEASE REMOVE THE PART ABOUT HIM, IT'S NOT TRUE. 81.191.43.101 ( talk) 21:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure the number of congressmen is 435, rather than 540? - Genedoug ( talk) 13:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
"The power to elect the Vice President in the case of an electoral college deadlock belongs to the Senate." in the case of a dead lock can the senate now choose someone other than the President elect's running mate to be the VP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.239.107 ( talk) 22:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Let's not dilute the language with neologisms reflecting lazy functional illiteracy. The word is "homogeneous". I also point out that the link, used in the first paragraph, displays a page of homog* words, none of which is "homogenous". 'nuf said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.99.73 ( talk) 19:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
If I read this article correctly, it is only in practice that the House holds exclusive power to initiate spending bills. The Senate has de jure power to initiate spending bills, but doesn't. They often begin working on their own version, then wait for the version that passes the House. Then, the Senate compares its version to the House's version and passes a compromise bill. Did I read it correctly? http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly32.asp Axeman ( talk) 01:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I assume it is the general population of america that votes for their election? Why is this not clearly explained? It seems to be assumed that the reader already knows this information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.134.237.146 ( talk) 00:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
California has 55 electoral votes, not 53 as it states in the introduction of the article.
This section of the article suggests that a the President may not veto a bill that has been passed with a two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress. This is not true, as it appears to conflate the process by which a bill is sent to the President with the process by which it becomes law notwithstanding the President's disapproval. The President may veto any bill, thus requiring both chambers to reconsider the bill and override the veto with the aforementioned majority. One can imagine a situation where a bill that originally passes with two-thirds majorities in both chambers does not command the same yea votes after a veto.
Review Section 7 of Article One of the United States Constitution for a description of the two separate steps. 24.149.110.84 ( talk) 13:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Ohio is shown on the map as having a tied (9-9) delegation between the parties. In actuality, Democrats have a 10-8 advantage in the 111th Congress, so Ohio should be colored light blue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.71.141 ( talk) 02:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC) rachel gissell rojas was here hha and what —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.235.37.6 ( talk) 21:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a statement here that I am uncomfortable with:
There is something about this that over-simplifies the slavery issue regarding the north/south arguments in the senate. There were not an equal number of states in the "north" as there were in the "south". Further, the divisions were largely economically driven-----I can't put my finger on it, but the statement I quote above doesn't seem to jive right. (According to Bruce Catton) Tgm1024 ( talk) 20:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Is it too early to install the "Slaughter Rule" in article which allows the House to pass legislation WITHOUT a vote? This is a rather new and compelling rule change which would be perfect in encyclopedic articles. If you do not know what the "Slaughter Rule" is just yet, you may need to wait until after it is passed just to see what's in it. This is the similar to finding out what is in the Health Care Bill. Nancy Pelosi: "We need to pass it so you can see what is in it" referring to the Health Care Bill. Bikeric ( talk) 20:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I have noticed over time that my edits on discussion pages always expand to a larger size than anything on the discussion page above. Most sections in the discussion page are a single comment and a single response. I see now that the discussion page is not meant for discussion, as I define it. This article is not the first to give me this impression. Is it Wiki etiquette to take the discussion from this page to a users talk page? That is fine with me. I ask this question because I do not want to leave what would appear to be "tagging" on a fine article. Help me help the cause to keep Wiki clean of unsightly additions where they are not required.
Bikeric (
talk)
02:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Is the number of representatives calculated by the population of voting aged people only, or are children included in the count?
I suppose it has been discussed before, but I didn't easily find the discussion which led to the decision for this wiki to term the United States House of Representatives as "the lower house of the bicameral legislature of the United States of America".
Professor, Dr. [what-was-his-name?] at Auburn, in a public administration masters course (circa '82 - '83) explained it this way: Our founding fathers wrote "All men are created equal" and then they set about writing a constitution that embodied that ideal and they specifically excluded the British idea of an upper, more noble "House of Lords" and a lower body of non-noble blooded commoners, the "House of Commons"..
having rejected the notion of Kings, Queens, Lords and peasants they instead instituted two *coequal* bodies, the House of Representatives and the Senate to form a Congress of equals who shared power with the other two branches of the government of "We the People".....not we the lords and peasants..
may i just change the first sentence to "The United States House of Representatives is one of two coequal bodies of the bicameral legislature of the United States of America, comprising the United States Congress together with the United States Senate." (and, make the other upper/lower repairs necessary on that page and others)?
or must we have a discussion?
note: i am aware that the internet has many cites which might be used to "prove" the USA's House is the lower of the two bodies...those sources do not make it so.
note 2: i am also aware that the wiki article in question uses the term "lower" several times--but each is incorrect...a fact i can't yet cite from the transcripts of the official discussions of the Constitutional Convention--those transcripts having never been recorded. Yes, Madison's Virginia plan (and other plans) _may_ have suggested the USA mirror the upper (in 'class' of membership) House of Lords and the lower class of the House of Commons, but all such were rejected in favor of "All men are created equal."
note 3: in the first congress the Senate met up the stairs and therefore over the House which was _directionally_ and/or _physically_ the "lower house"...today the House and Senate meet on the same physical level in the Capitol and calling it "lower" today is as correct as calling the Senate the "diminutive body" because it is less than one-quarter the size of the House of Representatives, or calling the House the "south house" since the Senate's chamber is in the north wing of the capitol building..
DenverD ( talk) 09:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
The disscussion on gerrymandering is useful and an important part of the disscusion on the US congress. However, there is a line:
The legal gerrymandering of the House, combined with the institutionalized gerrymandering of the Senate and the Electoral College, have been criticized as being antithetical to democracy and representative government an tits an boobs.
I think if this statement is to remain, it should be better explained.
What is meant by "institutionalized gerrymandering?"
If this is commentary on the nature of the senate (each state having two seats) then perhaps it is inappropriate for the article.)
Summary of the 2 November 2004 United States House of Representatives election results
This graph reports that in 2002 there were 229 republican representatives, 204 democratic representatives and 1 indpendent one. These do not add up to 435.
Would it make sense to have a chronology (table and graphic?) showing which party controlled which house (and the Executive), from 1776 to the present? This seems like the kind of basic reference an encyclopedia should have. Maybe this already exists in piece-meal fashion, but I don't see it in one place. E.g.:
Year | Senate | House | President |
---|---|---|---|
1776 | Whig | Tory | Green |
1778 | Whig | Green | Green |
1780 | Democrat | Republican | Republican |
etc. |
If so, what's a good page name? "US Government - Party Control of"
The United States Legislateive branch of the government is the United States Congress. The United Staes Congress consists of 2 equal "houses", the House of Representatives, and the Senate. Both are the Congress. It is inaccurate to state that the legislative branch is made up of the Congress and the Senate. No need to cite some ivory tower expert... Just read the U.S. Constitution.
Barry 74.7.193.122 ( talk) 20:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
"Population per U.S. Representative allocated to each of the 50 states and DC"
Why does this graph include DC? Why doesn't it include other non-states, like Puerto Rico? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.70.63 ( talk) 14:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I think Boehner is now the Speaker of the House after the recent midterm elections. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 22:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
-> Agreed. You guys should NOT have changed the composition of the House because every incoming Congressman is still a Congressman-elect and HAS NOT been sworn in. Thats like saying Barack Obama was President on January 19, 2009 when he in fact was not -- George W. Bush was still President. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
68.247.75.176 (
talk)
01:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
A better source for salary information: http://www.house.gov/daily/salaries.htm
It confirms what the about.com page says, but is more reputable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelbraun ( talk • contribs) 14:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't be Boehner's circle at the center since he's the speaker? – HTD ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
The photograph caption in this section ("Member officials") states that Pelosi is still the speaker. For sake of currency, it should be updated to "Former Speaker..."
What are the rules that apply to the dissolution of the House of Representatives? Cs32en Talk to me 01:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Since the purpose of this article is primarily for readers outside the US, should we keep to the convention used outside the US, where blue is use to denote the conservative parties, (i.e. Republicans) while red is associated with left-leaning parties (i.e. Democrats - albeit a stretch to call them "left")? The association of the color red with conservatism is a rather recent media phenomenon in the US and could change at any time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.77.76.83 ( talk) 03:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The page currently states that there are 435 voting members and 6 non-voting members, for a grand total of 441. There are 242 in the Republican Party and 190 in the Democratic Party, which is only 432. Where do the other 9 members come from? Independent parties? If so, that should be noted. DanielDPeterson + talk 23:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Specific reguirements and benefits for representatives.
Please clear up rumors of life-long health benefits for serving one term in office. Can a member of congress have dual citizenship. If yes, are there any restrictions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.34.1 ( talk) 18:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Which one to use? Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#Congressman vs. Representative. -- Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
If you'll pardon the lazy resort, the page has been improperly updated to reflect the results of the 2012 elections as if they had taken effect. Thus, in multiple places it says that there are 201 voting Democratic Members, whereas that won't be the case until the Members are sworn in in January, 2013, and the 113th Congress begins. (Some changes did occur already in cases where special elections elected Members to the remainder of the 112th.) Someone with more time and energy than I have may wish to remedy these errors. Czrisher ( talk) 21:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
It says at: /info/en/?search=United_States_House_of_Representatives#Daily_procedures "...Members' seats are arranged in the chamber in a semicircular pattern and are divided by a wide central aisle. By tradition, Democrats sit on the left of the center aisle, while Republicans sit on the right, as viewed from the presiding officer's chair...." The statement "...as viewed from the presiding officer's chair...." seems to be at odds with the diagram under "Structure" in the data box at the beginning of the article, which shows the Democrats on the left and the Republicans on the right as viewed from the FLOOR, looking TOWARD the presiding officer's chair. Wikifan2744 ( talk) 19:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Research now allows me to say that the answer to my question above is that the diagram under "Structure" in the data box at the beginning of the article is correct: the Democrats sit on the left and the Republicans sit on the right as viewed from the floor, looking toward the presiding officer's chair. The relevant evidence comes from http://history.house.gov/Exhibitions-and-Publications/House-Chamber/House-Floor/ which is: "Unlike the Members of the Senate, Members of the House have no assigned seats but are by tradition divided by party; Members of the Democratic Party sit to the Speaker's right and Members of the Republican Party sit to his left." Therefore, I will reverse in the article the words "left" and "right" in the current version of the sentence quoted in my earlier post. Wikifan2744 ( talk) 08:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
It has been my understanding that the "non-voting" House members from the five organized unincorporated U.S. territories and D.C. have the right to vote in Committee but not on the House floor. The article, however, states at the end of the Apportionment section that since 2011 they may no longer vote in Committee. The statement cites an NPR interview regarding the 2011 House rules changes in footnote [8] and H.R. 78 of the 110th Congress in footnote [9]. I'm assuming that the information in H.R. 78 is irrelevant since apparently the bill was never passed by the Senate. The NPR interview mentions the removal of the Delegates' and Resident Commissioner's voting rights on the House floor, but it makes no mention of their Committee voting rights. So either I need correction or the article needs either correction or a reference supporting the removal of the Delegates' and Resident Commissioner's Committee voting rights; please help.
HankW512 ( talk) 12:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
The statement "The major power of the House is to pass federal legislation that affects the entire country" is not the right statement. "Federal" has meaning in the context of the "Federal Principle" espoused by Madison in the Federalist Papers #51. However, is in not a "power" of Congress. The major power of the House is to "pass United States legislation. The U.S. Constitution nowhere mentions the term federal. The federal principle upon which it rests include the People, the United States and the States. The legislation that Congress passes is referred to in Article III, Section 2, as "the Laws of the United States. It is also not true that their legislation (effects) the entire country. Each piece of Legislation either only effects the specific places where that legislation touches, or the States who have volitionally opted into what is often called a "federal" benefit program. A better term might be that "the results of the legislation impact" the entire country. It ultimately has that effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.55.5 ( talk) 17:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
The diagram needs to be updated to show Rep. Boehner's seat, which has been vacated. MB298 ( talk) 03:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
United States House of Representatives. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
From what I understand this line, under "Membership, qualifications and apportionment" - > "Elections", is inaccurate: "By law, Representatives must be elected from single-member districts by plurality voting." Does anyone know of a federal law that mandates single member districts by plurality voting or is this referring to laws at the state-level requiring such structure? If it's the latter this is needs some clarification in the article.
I can't find anything regarding a federal law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.150.184.160 ( talk) 19:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
We say "Plurality" in American English. I changed the infobox to reflect that.
That statement seems to me like it would be misleading. The house and Senate have two very different responsibilities outside of approving bills, no? This article even says that the House is only refereed to as the lower chamber informally in the "Comparison to the Senate" section. There has to be a better word for this, no? Kude90 ( talk) 02:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
The sidebar states that there are five (5) vacant seats, however in the "Current Standing" section it states that there's four (4) vacant and one (1) independent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.190.27 ( talk) 22:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States House of Representatives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States House of Representatives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:27, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
There' currently 433 occupied seats in the House. A number which will be reducing to possible 431. We need the table updated. GoodDay ( talk) 16:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
PS: Make that currently 432. GoodDay ( talk) 00:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on United States House of Representatives. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Just to let page editors know that there is not a page focusing on the chamber itself (see corresponding page United States Senate chamber). I "discovered" this while wondering if the page mentioned the artwork on the ceiling of the chamber, or artwork within it. I've put up a redirect but there really should be a good page on this topic. Thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 14:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Tomrtn ( talk · contribs) According to http://www.house.gov/representatives/ there are currently 238 Republican representatives, 193 Democratic representatives, and 4 vacant seats. UpperJeans ( talk) 10:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
it is November 9th, 2018 and the data of the most recent election are nto clearly visible. 37.99.60.232 ( talk) 05:51, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Due to 5 special elections held on November 6, the number changed immediately from 235-193 for Republicans to 236-197 for Republicans. GoodDay ( talk) 07:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
The honorary Pet Geren
Happened across this bill and feel it needs your support.Though it may be crossing religious with public school i don't see any harm in the lessons from this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:United_States_House_of_Representatives&action=edit§ion=new Sincerely Paul Kuegele — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3E80:72D0:3DA9:9BCE:D251:E5A2 ( talk) 17:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Justin Amash exit is on Twitter. Should we include that he is an independent on the infographic? also Bernie Sanders is currently an independent or a Democrat please decide and fix on Bernie Sanders wiki page. Manabimasu ( talk) 14:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
...still directs to this page. There is an article for the United States Senate chamber, but not for the House chamber. I'd like to read about it, so if anyone wants to pick up the topic, just letting editors know that it's open. Thanks. Randy Kryn ( talk) 03:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Bernie Saners is no longer an Independent. He is officially apart of the Democratic party, please fix it.... Infinity2323236 ( talk) 09:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Libertarian now, not independent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.105.63 ( talk) 00:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States House of Representatives has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Justin Amash, the only Independent member of the United States House of Representatives changed his party affiliation to the Libertarian Party. He announced on April 28, 2020, that he would form an exploratory committee for the Presidential election in 2020.
Source: thehill.com/homenews/campaign/495173-amash-launches-exploratory-committee-for-presidential-run JCaudill417 ( talk) 02:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States House of Representatives has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the independent member to a Libertarian. Justin Amash is now a member of the Libertarian Party. The graphic showing the chamber partisanship should include a gold circle instead of a gray one.
This has been confirmed by the chairman of the national Libertarian Party, Nicholas Sarwark. [1] AtlantanKnight7 ( talk) 02:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
@
AtlantanKnight7: Done, but you might want to post a request at
Commons:File talk:(116th) US House of Representatives.svg to change the graphic from gray to gold.
GoingBatty (
talk)
02:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Amash has joined the LP check this reference Justin Amash Formally Joins the Libertarian Party, Makes History--also https://reason.com/2020/04/29/justin-amash-becomes-the-first-libertarian-member-of-congress/ Tgmod ( talk) 12:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I have the ability to make the edit, but I wanted to consult with the talk page before doing so, as others have done the same. Though an announcement was made that he is seeking the Libertarian nomination, I can find no source stating that Amash officially registered as Libertarian. As such, he should remain listed as Independent until as source can be found. Metamorph985 ( talk) 05:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Update: See above, I have provided direct evidence in the form of a [link]( https://www.house.gov/representatives) and a [screenshot]( https://imgur.com/a/l2FraH6) that he has officially changed his party with the house clerk. Please revert, or allow users to make the appropriate updates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:6700:8E41:14A4:83AF:3D96:7121 ( talk) 23:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Justin Amash has announced that he will be a Libertarian member of Congress. I would imagine that the Clerk's office is not set up to process the change in the membership rolls at present. However, in order to avoid the same kind of back-and-forth that happened when Bernie Sanders sought the Democratic nomination for President while remaining an independent Senator, I'd like to make the following points: A statement of party affiliation in Congress is potentially (as in Bernie's case) a separate issue from seeking a party's nomination for another office, or an individual's voter registration (since some states have no party registration). Bernie Sanders did not become a Democratic Senator, he stayed an independent Senator who was a candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination. The fact that Amash has said he's joining the LP and running for the LP nomination does not automatically make him "a Libertarian member of Congress" until the House officially recognizes it. It's not really significant, because unlike his leaving the R's to become I, it doesn't affect the balance of power between the two parties. Just some thoughts. JTRH ( talk) 16:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
See above, I have provided direct evidence in the form of a [link]( https://www.house.gov/representatives) and a [screenshot]( https://imgur.com/a/l2FraH6) that he has officially changed his party with the house clerk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:6700:8E41:14A4:83AF:3D96:7121 ( talk) 23:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States House of Representatives has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "The president may veto a bill passed by the House and Senate. If he does, the bill does not become law unless each House, by a two-thirds vote, votes to override the veto." to "The president may veto a bill passed by the House and Senate. If he or she does, the bill does not become law unless each House, by a two-thirds vote, votes to override the veto." Amassy10 ( talk) 08:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States House of Representatives has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
198 Republicans Politicalfactjunkie2k20 ( talk) 20:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Fellow Republicans and conservatives:
I am a lifelong Republican who has supported Republican candidates, both State and Federal. Enough is enough from this clown we elected President. Time for us to back away from him and his policies. Since we do not have a Republican choice I am advocating either selecting another party's candidate or Don't vote for President. You Republican U.S. Legislators need to stay as far from Trump as posible or face being swept out if office with him.
YOU MUST PUT YOUR VOTERS FIRST, EVEN IF IT MEANS COLORING OUTSIDE THE PARTY LINES. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C48:717F:B0F1:C526:F972:2CD9:F396 ( talk) 13:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States House of Representatives has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the number of vacancies from 5 to 4 and the number of Republicans from 197 to 198 as Representative-elect Chris Jacobs was sworn in this morning. See clerk.house.gov. Tbesteditor ( talk) 15:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Is Justin Amash technically still a member of the minority caucus? He left the Republican party, but still chairs the Liberty Caucus. Specifically, he "caucus' with the Republicans", the exact terminology we use on the Senate page for Bernie Sanders and Angus King. Doesn't that mean he still has to succumb to the Minority Whip? I couldn't really find information on this, mainly because the rules regarding third parties and independents in congress are basically nonexistent. In my opinion, the graphic should show him as part of the Minority Caucus. KingWither ( talk) 17:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Members can caucus with whichever party they wish no matter what party(or none at all) they are from. He is part of the minority since independent members are not part of a party Infinity2323236 ( talk) 09:49, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
And now he just switched to the LP, or at least he announced he’s running for the LP nomination, which means he has to have LP membership. Should we change to reflect that? Somethingdiscrete ( talk) 02:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Infinity2323236:, @ Somethingdiscrete:, @ KingWither:, seeing as though this is a special circumstance, should he be placed with whichever side he votes more with? Regardless of whether its the minority or majority? - Navarre0107 ( talk) 00:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Paul Mitchell announced today that he is leaving the GOP over disgust with party leadership, announcing himself as an independent. Would it be appropriate to update the membership to reflect this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nekomancerjade ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
The print on this is unreadable to me, even when expanded. Can anythign be done? Jokem ( talk) 05:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Someone want to explain the table in this section to me??? From this table it would appear that 221-211=11 and 20+27=50. And what does 'Majority' mean and where does the number 11 come from (what happened to the other 39?)? Why is 'Working majority' in the table if there are zero of them?
I followed the 'source' link and it does not have any of these figures in it, so for the ones that aren't simply math, a (different) source needs to be added. ...And if you're going to put 'Source:' under a table, then actually write the source name out. Otherwise just enter your 'source' like a normal footnote (examples of proper use of 'Source:' can be found on the page '1993 Verdy Kawasaki season' - "Source: J.LEAGUE OFFICIAL RECORD & DATA 1994. ISBN 4-09-102309-6." - and on the page '2020 K League 2' - "Source: Official website of K League SOCCERWAY".) Niccast ( talk) 00:39, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States House of Representatives has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Claudia Tenney was certified as the winner of New York's 22nd congressional district race on Feb 5, 2021. Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).
https://www.syracuse.com/politics/cny/2021/02/claudia-tenney-to-be-certified-as-winner-of-new-yorks-22nd-race.html
This brings the Republicans to 212 seats not 211. Please update.
Devinuren9 (
talk)
23:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. According to that linked article, there may be an appeal, and the House needs to vote to seat her, so the seat is still vacant. When she is seated in the House, then the Wikipedia article can be updated.
RudolfRed (
talk)
00:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)There is no explanation how these work (different for Senators) - can a link be added to the byelection article? This is protected so I cannot do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.30.115 ( talk) 07:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
United STates House of Representatives. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 26#United STates House of Representatives until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -
CHAMPION (
talk) (
contributions) (
logs)
02:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States House of Representatives has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The information on Congressional retirements is incorrect. The formula for calculating them changed in 2013 and no longer includes the 1.7% multiplier times years of service. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL30631.pdf Wrestlingterp ( talk) 15:16, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
I guess it was CA-25. Number of Republicans therefore increases to 209.
62.226.76.229 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States House of Representatives has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to edit the number of seats for Republicans and Vacant seats. With the seating of Mike Flood, there are currently 211 Republicans and 4 Vacant seats. The page currently is inaccurate as it says 210 Republicans and 5 Vacant seats. Someone needs to update this. Dxiedxig ( talk) 09:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States House of Representatives has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change (220) to (219) as the number of democratic members (to match the correct number 219) in the majority number directly above. 173.68.22.243 ( talk) 23:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I am a bit puzzled by the various "majorities" values in the chart, and in particular the state majorities. Is there an authoritative source that we can verify these from directly, rather than just hand-counting the List of current members of the United States House of Representatives?
More generally, I wonder if this constantly-changing information about the current composition of the body would be better addressed in the 117th United States Congress article (et seq.), which can also accommodate information on the stories behind the numbers. For example, that article can address the fact that Peltola hasn't yet been sworn in, which seems to have been the source of some well-intentioned but premature updates, and which would be an excessive level of detail here. Visviva ( talk) 00:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States House of Representatives has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
On the bottom, there is a spot on the page where party representation in the House is shown. This spot says there are only 2 vacancies, but there are 3 vacancies now, with the resignation of Representative Ted Deutch of Florida. 206.246.7.180 ( talk) 13:30, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States House of Representatives has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The grate compromise is known amongst kids as the big daddy changing machine 162.201.166.18 ( talk) 23:12, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States House of Representatives has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Seven states have only one representative: Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming." This is false as of 10/11/2022. Montana now has 2 representatives. This line should be changed to: "Six states have only one representative: Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming." 192.222.131.25 ( talk) 18:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
{{reply to|Eyer}}
to your message.
19:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)As of the 3rd of January 2023, the 118th Congress has begun, and Republicans have taken control of the House of Representatives. Therefore, the color and maps detailing the composition of the House should be changed. AnthonyNVLe ( talk) 17:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
The 20th Amendment makes clear that the terms of the Representatives and Senators begin at noon on January 3. 2600:4040:2540:A100:3481:A236:8B5D:75D9 ( talk) 22:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
According to the U.S. Constitution, the members take office at noon Jan 3rd. Regardless of whether a SPEAKER is chosen. If you don't believe me, simply check the U.S. GOVERNMENT WEBSITE that shows thus (house.gov). Jpleden ( talk) 23:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States House of Representatives has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under “Salary and Benefits,” the second sentence of the second paragraph below the “Title” sub-heading reads:
“For example, Democratic House speaker Nancy Pelosi, who represents California's 12th congressional district within San Francisco, may be identified as "D–California," "D–California–12" or "D–San Francisco."“
“House speaker” should be replaced with “congresswoman.” Sirdatary ( talk) 19:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Fourth paragraph, first sentence: "The House is charged with the passage of federal legislation, known as bills; those of which that are also passed by the Senate are sent to the president for consideration." 24.161.74.101 ( talk) 21:00, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Did the new members of the US House during the 118th congress actually take office on January 3, 2023? There are many people on Wikipedia who say that the 20th Amendment guarantees that members take office on noon January 3, 2023. However, many prominent legal scholars and news sources (sourced below) say otherwise. The point of this RfC is to put the correct date as agreed to by members of the Wiki community. Bbraxtonlee ( talk) 03:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
FWIW, an IP has span edited the dates to January 7, 2023. The IP should get a consensus for that, first. GoodDay ( talk) 06:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Against January 3, 2023:
For January 3, 2023:
The plain text of the amendment states that terms end on January the 3rd, but not that new terms begin at the same time. It seems fair to consider all house members Representatives-elect until sworn in. Yilmaz1001 ( talk) 06:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
"Swearing in date" does not necessarily mean start date. There are some times where the new Congress convenes after January 3rd if the 3rd falls on a weekend. For example, the 114th Congress first convened on Tuesday January 6th (January 3rd was a Saturday that year). All the terms of the members of the 114th Congress still began on the 3rd that year, but the election of the Speaker and the swearing in of the members didn't happen until January 6th.
Also, the 20th amendment plainly states...
'...and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.'
The "and the terms of their successors shall then begin" clearly implies that every January 3rd shall be the beginning of the terms of the new members of Congress from there on out.
The "swearing in" is merely a formality required to exercise their powers of office as legislators. They are members of the House (as per the 20th amendment). They just can't exercise their powers of office (i.e., voting on legislation) until a Speaker gets elected so the House can set its agenda.
If you're going to pass an RFC that states that "swearing in date" = "start date", you're going to need to go through the members of every Congress where the new Congress decided to convene on a different date than the Constitution prescribes (January 3rd post-20th, and March 4th pre-20th) and manually adjust every member's "start date" for where the new Congress decided to delay the swearing in ceremonies and the election of the speaker for the new Congress Canuck89 (Chat with me) or visit my user page 17:51, January 4, 2023 (UTC)
Jefferson's Manual states that "a Member-elect becomes a Member from the very beginning of the term to which elected (I, 500), that he is as much an officer of the Government before taking the oath as afterwards (I, 185), and that his status is distinguished from that of a Member who has qualified (I, 183, 184)." [4] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/HMAN-112/pdf/HMAN-112-jeffersonman.pdf Muhibm0307 ( talk) 00:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
@ 47.205.116.13: has span edited the date to January 3, 2023, across the House member bios. GoodDay ( talk) 06:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
As of 2022, first-past-the-post or plurality voting is adopted in 46 states, ranked-choice or instant-runoff voting in two states (Alaska and Maine), and two-round system in two states (Georgia and Mississippi).
in the 2020 election write-up it is written that Forty-seven states used the first-past-the-post voting plurality system to elect their representatives. Instant-runoff voting was used in one state (Maine) and runoff system was used in two states (Georgia and Louisiana). so some discrepancy.. Ballotpedia website writes In Alaska, winners in congressional contests are determined via ranked-choice voting. [IRV] 68.150.209.131 ( talk) 16:30, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
The two Houses of Congress are equal, one is not superior to the other. The House of Representatives is not the "lower chamber" nor is the Senate the "upper chamber"
The United States House of Representatives represents The People in Congress, the Senate represents the States in Congress. Johnny Xavier ( talk) 04:24, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States House of Representatives has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Rhode Island’s 1st congressional seat became vacant yesterday. 24.46.59.173 ( talk) 20:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
His seat is vacant he resigned September 15 number of vacancies should be updated 67.220.0.231 ( talk) 13:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
With McCarthy’s ouster, should we add that Patrick McHenry of North Carolina will serve as Speaker Pro Tempore until a Speaker’s election is held? In the infobox, I mean. Technically, McHenry is Speaker. I’m not sure what the protocol is… Juneau Mike ( talk) 21:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States House of Representatives has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
When hovering over the name of current speaker Patrick McHenry in the box on the right, it shows "hhggg" as description. Wi8989 ( talk) 14:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Chris Stewart's vacant seat has been filled by Republican Celeste Maloy so the vacancy should be updated. The vacant seat page here Seniority in the United States House of Representatives has already been updated to reflect that there are no vacancies. Lancejco ( talk) 17:59, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
On December 1st, Representative of New York's Third District George Anthony Devolder Santos was expelled from the House of Representatives by a resolution vote, which ended in Yea - 311 v Nay - 113. 2.135.66.130 ( talk) 16:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
The history section gives a lot of coverage to Newt Gingrich’s criticism of the Democratic majority and his stated intentions with regards to good governance, but doesn’t cover the stark polarization that (I would argue was a big part of the Contract With America but more importantly) resulted, including multiple government shutdowns and the Clinton impeachment proceedings. I’m all for presenting a balanced view, but if you’re only presenting Gingrich as a champion of good governance, compromise, and bipartisanship, you’re failing to present his achievements in making the GOP more aggressive, combative, and polarized, which he believed would win them back the majority (which they did under his leadership). Perhaps a sentence could be added about the shutdowns and impeachment proceedings, which were both on a scale not seen any other time in the 20th century, and perhaps another sentence on what led to Gingrich’s resignation. 108.2.153.237 ( talk) 18:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States House of Representatives has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change House membership image to the following:
thumb|US House of Representatives Party Membership, January 1, 2024 Ryansnowden ( talk) 22:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States House of Representatives has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the number of total representatives present in the house to 435, and number of democrats to 213 please (Suozzi was inaugurated today). Tyrant15 ( talk) 00:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States House of Representatives has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The change needed is the number of vacant House Seats which should be three instead of four. The bubbles showing the house vacant seats is correct with three and the number of Republican seats is 219 and not 218. 219 + 213 + 3 = 435. 2600:1014:B138:E9D1:0:E:5A5:9401 ( talk) 10:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)