Abstract
On December 21, 2010, Representative Paul Broun, a Republican member of the Tea Party Caucus, declared on the floor the United States House of Representatives that the Twentieth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from enacting legislation after the November elections. A day later, the chair of the House Tea Party Caucus, Representative Michele Bachmann, went on the Fox News Channel to repeat the charge. At the time, Congress was wrapping up one of its most productive postelection sessions. With a Democratic president in the White House and Republicans poised to take over the House in January 2011, Democratic members of the House and Senate returned after the elections to complete action on a series of measures. Sometimes working with minority Republicans and sometimes without them, members of the outgoing 111th Congress passed food safety legislation, extended both Bush-era tax cuts and unemployment benefits, repealed the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy for gays serving in the military, ratified the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia, and confirmed nineteen federal judges. Broun’s outburst came during floor debate over a research and education bill that he called “reckless” and depicted as “a perfect example of why we need to end lame duck legislation.”
Recommended Citation
Larson, Edward J.
(2012)
"The Constitutionality of Lame-Duck Lawmaking: The Text, History, Intent, and Original Meaning of the Twentieth Amendment,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 2012:
No.
2, Article 5.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol2012/iss2/5