Talk:109th United States Congress

message: === From List of Current United States Senators===
Favor:
* It's basically redundant.  Redundancy, in these cases, lead to errors.  --Mark Adler 18:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * Favor: No, the 109th is the current Congress. -- 19:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging

message: Favor:
* It's basically redundant.  Redundancy, in these cases, lead to errors.  --Mark Adler 18:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * Favor: No, the 109th is the current Congress. -- 19:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  From ''List of Current United States Senators''

message: Jimbo Wales has requested that we try to improve Joe Wilson (U.S. politician) for the reasons he stated on Talk:Joe Wilson (U.S. politician).  I put in a few hours but can't think of anything else, except a photo or two which we are unlikely to get permissions for over the weekend.  Please see if you can improve the article any further. --James S. 10:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please review [[Joe Wilson (U.S. politician)]] 

message: Is Bob Menendez a Senator or not? It says in 109th Congress article that he resigned on Jan. 17, but in the Bob Menendez article it says he is a Senator, appointed by Corzine. Jack Daw 21:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob Menendez 

message: The graphic showing percentage of party affiliation in the House by state needs to be fixed: whoever made it couldn't get Alabama and Mississippi straight.
* I have alerted the image's creator. —Markles 10:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  House Graphic 

message: It would be interesting to know which representatives and senators are new to Congress, perhaps by adding year of election next to names or something. Jack Daw 13:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but it will take a while.  There are also charts and tables that show this information.  Chadlupkes 19:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? Where? :D Jack Daw 13:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Members 

message: Would anyone object if I used the same template on representatives as there is on senators - in taking office, primarily? Jack Daw 19:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template on Reps 

message: This page had become much too big.  See Wikipedia:Article size.  It was 143 kilobytes.
So I moved the tables on members to List of current members of the United States House of Representatives and List of current United States Senators where they look a lot better and seem to fit better too.
This page is now 54 kilobytes.—Markles 13:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Size

message: Now that the 109th Congress is drawing to a close I think we need to add a picture of Comic Book Guy at the bottom, with a caption that reads "Worst. Congress. Ever."
Please see "Days in Session" for additional discussion on amending the "Major Events" section on the main page.Happysomeone 16:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposition

message: According to , it's clear that House meetings after an election (see 2004) are considered part of the 2nd session, not a new 3rd session. Also, from , it says "Congressional leaders discontinued the use of third sessions by the end of the 1930s. The ratification of the 20th Amendment in 1933, provided for Congress to assemble on or about the third day of January rather than the traditional March start date. Third sessions, which generally had run from December to March, no longer were necessary." Simon12 16:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot find any information about why the 110th Congress does not take office on the third day of January (today), but instead starts on the fourth.  Presumably this also means that the 109th Congress remains in office a day longer.  This lengthening of the term (due to Gerald Ford's death?  what else could it be, since today is not Sunday?) should be mentioned somewhere.--Bhuck 10:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:110th United States Congress for why Congress starts on Jan 4. Also, the Constitution says the old congress ends on Jan 3, regardless of when the new one starts. Again, see Talk:110th United States Congress for more details. Simon12 14:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No 3rd session 

message: It ended on December 9, not December 8.  I was watching the Senate on C-SPAN2 until at least 2 in the morning on December 9. Valadius 10:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This raises the issue of weather we want the ending dates of all sessions of congress on the wiki to be actual calendar dates (EST) or ending legislative dates. The legislative day doesn't end until congress adjorns, and so if they are still in session at 2 AM on the 9th, it's still the legislative day of the 8th. Jon 19:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that we should go with whatever the Senate Calendar decides to do.  In this case (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/calendars/dailysenate/2006/sc18de.pdf) they went with Dec. 9 meamemg 20:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of Second Session 

message: How long was this Congress in session. I ask because I heard (but wanted proof) it was the shortest Congress since the 'Do-Nothing Congress." True? Paul, in Saudi 14:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Days in Session?

message: Please merge any relevant content from [ Partisan mix of congressional delegations, 109th congress] per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Partisan mix of congressional delegations, 109th congress.  Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-02 08:16Z
:See this related comment. NoSeptember 00:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Partisan mix of congressional delegations, 109th congress]] 

message: The major pieces of legislation is missing the extenstion of the expiring portions of the VRA (most notably section 5 dealing with pre clearance section) from 2007 for 25 years to 2032. In addition the standards for preclearance were also changed to match the standards for section 2 dealing with racial gerrymandering challenges. Jon 19:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing VRA extension

message: On the eve of adjourning I recall several commentators (news anchors, reporters, editorials  and non-partisan policy analysts ) lambasting this session as equally bad, if not more so, as the 80th Congress for many of the same historical reasons. The same phrase, "Do-Nothing Congress," was used. As I've previously noted on the talk page, this pejorative is mentioned on the 80th Congress entry at the end of the "Major Legislation" section. Therefore, I propose a similar entry could be added noting this display of public displeasure with the 109th Congress. Comments? Happysomeone 21:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears a wikipedia user using the handle "Neutrality" as altered an edit I made to the "109th Congress" page and I am curious why. It appears the edit has 1) deleted or removed relevant information regarding and relating to the historic "Do-Nothing Congress" reference, 2) inserted an out-of-context POV quotation, tangentially related to one of the sources cited and 3) is incorrectly sourced. I would prefer to discuss changes before changes are made. Neutrality, if you're monitoring this, please repond. --Happysomeone (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, Markles, looks good.--63.236.113.134 (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The new "Do-Nothing Congress"?

message: Please see the discussion I started at Talk:110th United States Congress#Miscellaneous facts sections. —Markles 18:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  miscellaneous facts sections 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.newsobserver.com/politics/story/519951.html
** In 109th United States Congress on 2011-05-23 02:06:19, 404 Not Found
** In 109th United States Congress on 2011-05-31 22:24:24, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: I'm not sure if anybody is checking this page, but I went looking for info regarding the named law (109-435) on Wikipedia and found a reference in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Regulatory_Commission#Postal_Regulatory_Commission
However, when I went to find the same reference under the 109th Congress article (this one) there doesn't seem to be a reference to this law.  Is this an oversight, or is there some reason this isn't listed under the Major Legislation: Enacted section?
In case anybody's curious, this law seems to have caused a current political issue which is having an effect on postal service funding, which is why I went looking for information regarding the issue.  Have not yet found a wiki article related to this specific issue though.
Related Links:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr6407
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-109publ435/html/PLAW-109publ435.htm
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:H.R.6407:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:4:./temp/~c1090gUO0o::  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.254.159.67 (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  HR 6407 or PubL 109-435 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 109th United States Congress. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070901124217/http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Politics/AmericanPolitics/LegislativeStudies/?view=usa&ci=9780195174465 to http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Politics/AmericanPolitics/LegislativeStudies/?view=usa&ci=9780195174465
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 109th United States Congress. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090806224819/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/plaws/109publ.html to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/plaws/109publ.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:29, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified