I find the concept of seniority in Congress an interesting one. It’s not a practice explicitly (or even implicitly) prescribed in the Constitution. Yet, for all intents and purposes, it’s quite conventional on Capitol Hill.
Just to reiterate the terminology, the seniority system is a practice of granting privileges in Congress to members who have served the longest. At first glance, it makes sense. There’s a saying that one must “earn your keep” – junior senators must do their time as the congressional “rookies” and climb the ranks until they achieve their own senior status. I never really considered the spectrum of a seniority system until it was highlighted in our textbook.
As pointed out by Losco/Baker, with the exception of the Rules …show more content…
The chair has very limited prior knowledge regarding global health as it relates to the continent. He must rely on experts to bring him up to speed while managing a busy schedule. While on the same committee is a junior senator, who spearheaded an AIDs/HIV prevention campaign, has considerable knowledge on the continent, and was formerly a Foreign Service officer in several African countries.
Who would you choose as chair?
While the likelihood of this scenario actually happening is minimal, this does beg the question on if seniority should still be enforced if other members are more acquainted or even experts on the committee topic.
Moreover, a disproportionate amount of power is given to more senior senators compared to junior senators. Senior senates, who are often incumbents, have the security derived from a safe district, while junior senators are more vulnerable to the changing political tides. When the honeymoon period between the president and the public ends, there is no guarantee junior senators will retain their position come midterms and may never even enjoy the perks of being a senior senator.
Thus, my questions to you all are – how do you feel about the seniority system in Congress? Should it be maintained? Or is it time for the seniority system to end? Why or why
Just to reiterate the terminology, the seniority system is a practice of granting privileges in Congress to members who have served the longest. At first glance, it makes sense. There’s a saying that one must “earn your keep” – junior senators must do their time as the congressional “rookies” and climb the ranks until they achieve their own senior status. I never really considered the spectrum of a seniority system until it was highlighted in our textbook.
As pointed out by Losco/Baker, with the exception of the Rules …show more content…
The chair has very limited prior knowledge regarding global health as it relates to the continent. He must rely on experts to bring him up to speed while managing a busy schedule. While on the same committee is a junior senator, who spearheaded an AIDs/HIV prevention campaign, has considerable knowledge on the continent, and was formerly a Foreign Service officer in several African countries.
Who would you choose as chair?
While the likelihood of this scenario actually happening is minimal, this does beg the question on if seniority should still be enforced if other members are more acquainted or even experts on the committee topic.
Moreover, a disproportionate amount of power is given to more senior senators compared to junior senators. Senior senates, who are often incumbents, have the security derived from a safe district, while junior senators are more vulnerable to the changing political tides. When the honeymoon period between the president and the public ends, there is no guarantee junior senators will retain their position come midterms and may never even enjoy the perks of being a senior senator.
Thus, my questions to you all are – how do you feel about the seniority system in Congress? Should it be maintained? Or is it time for the seniority system to end? Why or why