Section 1.
The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, 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.
Section 2.
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.
-- Amendment XX
So the new beginning starts today. The Twentieth Amendment notes that the new term should begin January 3rd unless another date is set by law. Apparently, it so does, since my calendar suggests it is the Fourth. Thus, a cheery looking Vice President Cheney took his constitutional position as President (presiding officer) of the Senate. Sen. Byrd became the President pro tempore, most assuredly with some glee (pumping his shaking hand, firmly saying "I do, so help me God"). Like a former holder of this position, Sen. Thurmond, he also is now officially the old geezer of the body. And, we heard Cheney call Sen. Reid, "majority leader." His job done, a temporary presiding officer took the seat. Meanwhile, Pelosi was officially elected Speaker of the House, though a Republican alternative was offered.
I know the first 100 official hours, even without allowing House Republicans to hold up things, will be quite busy for members of Congress. Still, perhaps, this paper on congressional oversight authority would make good reading -- I know I want to check it out; the author is an old timer on this sort of thing, a leading authority on congressional matters. How appropriate that President Bush (nod to the NY Daily News) has given them something else to investigate (deemed by congressional scholar, Woodrow Wilson, as a core function) -- another signing statement, this time providing exceptions allowing his right to open mail. Ex parte Jackson (1877), notwithstanding.* Oh well. Such desire to underline claims of executive power rankles. But, it will only be for true emergencies. Just trust them.
Meanwhile, a sense of hope is present locally as well. Gov. Spitzer (D) has just taken power, after years of bland conservative leaning George Pataki, promising to take his crusading ways into the executive office. Thus, he started off with a set of executive orders, intending to deal with various ethical concerns. The legislature, much maligned, did not change ... so let's see if there is any friction there. Likewise, a few articles have focused on the first year in power of the female (and, lesser known, lesbian) speaker of the NYC council, and how she is working well with the Republican mayor. This has led to some grumbling (need more opposition!) but also praise for how much she has accomplished. Honestly, I do not pay too much attention to local government, but both bode well for the public good.
Religious Matters: Much has been said about the opposition in some quarters, including one of his fellow legislators, respecting the newly elected Muslim member (Keith Ellison) of Congress wanting to swear in on a Koran. It turns out that he has gotten a hold of Thomas Jefferson's copy for the private swearing ceremony (in the public one, the members just stand at their desks, surely a holy book can be nearby, and raise their hands). These people, Art. VI aside, rather there be a "religious test" and the rule be that only bibles be used. This is hypocritical, of course, if one does not believe in the Bible. BTW, there are two Buddhists in Congress ... what will they use?
[A quick search suggests one will use a Bible (tradition) and another, if anything, also a Bible. Buddhists, one notes, really has no "Bible" like holy book akin to a Koran or a Torah, one might say. BTW, during the official swearing in, Pelosi said "swear or affirm," and then made it somewhat besides the point by ending with "so help me God." So it goes.]
On that general subject, I favor a broad definition of "religion," one which is not necessarily tied to the generally understood meaning of "God." This makes sense since many have something that surely looks and feels like "religion," but a god has very little place in it, if one at all. See here, along with an ironically quite evangelistic (if not too surprising) promotion of an alternative viewpoint, and atheism in particular. The person is annoyed that I briefly referenced the literal definition of "atheist," noting the problems with such definitional approaches. If so, perhaps it should be pointed out that a narrow view of "religion," especially as referenced in the First Amendment, is a problem as well. The fact that my understanding is not quite the mainstream understanding of the term should not displease an atheist, a minority group in their own right not limited by "accepted creeds."
By the way, after announcing the constitutional and statutory significance of today's date (again, those who don't check, will miss the fact that the 20A speaks of January 3), there were two opening prayers (the second, a minister favored by Pelosi) in the House. This practice was upheld by Marsh v. Chambers (state legislative prayer), though Madison eventually noted his concern with the practice. Next, they all faced a gigantic American flag that hangs over the speaker's chair, and cited the Pledge. Appropriately, given the iconic nature of the thing, it now includes the phrase "under God." The addition was intended to underline that we were not "atheistic communists," but such ill-advised decisions do not really confirm the idea that religion and theism is necessarily the same thing.
BTW, and family matters are quite important in most religions, apparently the first day of Congress is a big "take your children to work day," since the House floor looked like a day care center of some sort. May they legislate in ways that protect the children and the rest of us as well.
---
* "The difficulty attending the subject arises, not from the want of power in Congress to prescribe regulations as to what shall constitute mail matter, but from the necessity of enforcing them consistently with rights reserved to the people, of far greater importance than the transportation of the mail.... The constitutional guaranty of the right of the people to be secure in their papers against unreasonable searches and seizures extends to their papers, thus closed against inspection, wherever they may be."