Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Powers of Senate vs. Powers of House
The House and Senate in many situations have similar powers which play off of eachother, such as in the creation of laws/bills. Either the Senate or the House can propose a bill, and each have equal opportunity to ammend and either support or shut down that bill and in this way, have very similar powers. In a way, the Senate overlooks and approves the actions of the House and gives them the OK, essentially the nod of approval of their actions. The Senate does, however, have few specific powers that House does not. The power of "advice and consent" in presidential appointments and treaty making, for example, is a power reserved to the Senate. Most Congressional powers, however, work out to be a balance between House and Senatorial influences so that neither can dominate in decision-making.
Organization of Congress
House Speaker- the chief officer of the House of Representatives and can influence agenda, legislations, and member positions
Majority Leader- the elected leader of the party that holds the majority of seats in the House or Senate. He is subordinate under the Speaker.
Minority Leader- the elected leader of the party that hold the minority seats in the House or Senate
Majority Whip- elected individual to relay voting information and line up the majority party members on votes
Minority Whip- elected individual to relay voting information and line up the minority party member on votes
Majority Leader- the elected leader of the party that holds the majority of seats in the House or Senate. He is subordinate under the Speaker.
Minority Leader- the elected leader of the party that hold the minority seats in the House or Senate
Majority Whip- elected individual to relay voting information and line up the majority party members on votes
Minority Whip- elected individual to relay voting information and line up the minority party member on votes
Monday, September 22, 2008
Representation and Gridlock
Identify several causes of gridlock. Is gridlock an appropriate representation of the will of the people, or is it the result of so many arcane rules that the Congress will never be effective?
Gridlock is usually a result of having a "divided government", in which one party occupies the Senate while the other occupies the executive office. When an issue arises, especially in a time of national crisis, quick action may sometime be required on behalf of the government. The question then is taken to the Senate, where a bicameral legislature must vote to approve a bill or law which is question. If the bill is proposed by the president, then a disagreeing Senate can start a filabuster, essentially killing the bill through inaction. The inverse can occur when the Senate sends a bill to the presidential office for approval, and the president may choose to veto the bill. Essentially, gridlock is this point in which both sides pursue their own interests and effectively bring a halt to progress.
There is no direct solution to gridlock, because first and foremost it is a result of the checks and balances, inherent to Republican government, which keep one power from becoming dominant. Without such a system there would be no end to the policies of specific branches. On the other hand, such limitations make passage of legislation in a time of crisis, when action is critical, very difficult to achieve. While these specific arguing sides may represent the respective people that they are associated with, the will of the people does not include a lack of action due to politics.
Gridlock is usually a result of having a "divided government", in which one party occupies the Senate while the other occupies the executive office. When an issue arises, especially in a time of national crisis, quick action may sometime be required on behalf of the government. The question then is taken to the Senate, where a bicameral legislature must vote to approve a bill or law which is question. If the bill is proposed by the president, then a disagreeing Senate can start a filabuster, essentially killing the bill through inaction. The inverse can occur when the Senate sends a bill to the presidential office for approval, and the president may choose to veto the bill. Essentially, gridlock is this point in which both sides pursue their own interests and effectively bring a halt to progress.
There is no direct solution to gridlock, because first and foremost it is a result of the checks and balances, inherent to Republican government, which keep one power from becoming dominant. Without such a system there would be no end to the policies of specific branches. On the other hand, such limitations make passage of legislation in a time of crisis, when action is critical, very difficult to achieve. While these specific arguing sides may represent the respective people that they are associated with, the will of the people does not include a lack of action due to politics.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Courts or legislatures?
Which branch or level of government had the greatest impact historically on desegregation? The Court's role in Brown is sometimes criticized for failing to address its limited enforcement power and generating an incredible backlash that actually worsened race relations. Is this criticism fair? Would pursuit of federal legilation have been a better strategy?
The Supreme Court, or the judicial branch, historically had the most impact on desegregation because they were the branch with the power to interpret laws and decide what actually constituted "segregation". Although these decisions cannot be enforced without the law-making legislative branch, the initial racial revolutions took place within the courts and their ability to change interpretations.
As for the Court's role in Brown, the racial issues of division and the incredible resistance which desegregation encountered cannot be placed upon the court itself. While the result of Brown only dealt with the educational sphere, it was the first step in a chain events in the revolution of civil rights. Ultimately, it was not the responsibility of the courts to deal with limited enforcement. The fact that many state governments could use delay tactics and deliberate disobeyance falls unto Congress to change; but these two branches work hand-in-hand, neither one being a "better choice" necessarily. The legislatures need Constitutional authority (from the courts) to pass a law, while the courts need legislative assistance and political support to implement orders. The relationship between the two, therefore, is one of checks and balances, as was intended, and the fault cannot fall upon one and not the other.
The Supreme Court, or the judicial branch, historically had the most impact on desegregation because they were the branch with the power to interpret laws and decide what actually constituted "segregation". Although these decisions cannot be enforced without the law-making legislative branch, the initial racial revolutions took place within the courts and their ability to change interpretations.
As for the Court's role in Brown, the racial issues of division and the incredible resistance which desegregation encountered cannot be placed upon the court itself. While the result of Brown only dealt with the educational sphere, it was the first step in a chain events in the revolution of civil rights. Ultimately, it was not the responsibility of the courts to deal with limited enforcement. The fact that many state governments could use delay tactics and deliberate disobeyance falls unto Congress to change; but these two branches work hand-in-hand, neither one being a "better choice" necessarily. The legislatures need Constitutional authority (from the courts) to pass a law, while the courts need legislative assistance and political support to implement orders. The relationship between the two, therefore, is one of checks and balances, as was intended, and the fault cannot fall upon one and not the other.
Friday, September 12, 2008
What is selective incorporation? Did American federalism support incorporation or slow it down? Why? Compare Barron v. Baltimore, Gitlow v. New York,
Selective incorporation=the ability of the Supreme Court to decide which parts of the Bill of Rights they will include in the interpretation of the 14th Ammendment for a specific case. Therefore depending on the case, the Court can decide apply one or more different Ammendments to the context of the case.
Federalism in a way slowed down incorporation because it took many years after the establishment of the 14th for incorporation to even be considered. Many cases took place in which the defendent argued against state's rights and their ability to infringe on the citizens, and in many cases, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state. Not until the acceptance of a citizen as being both of the STATE and the COUNTRY could the 14th be applied to civil liberties. In this way, federalism acted as a brief hindrance to this development of selective incorporation.
Federalism in a way slowed down incorporation because it took many years after the establishment of the 14th for incorporation to even be considered. Many cases took place in which the defendent argued against state's rights and their ability to infringe on the citizens, and in many cases, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state. Not until the acceptance of a citizen as being both of the STATE and the COUNTRY could the 14th be applied to civil liberties. In this way, federalism acted as a brief hindrance to this development of selective incorporation.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Federalism, mandates, and devolution
Identify and describe an unfunded mandate. Then compare the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act with devolution. Which strategy do you believe would be more effective at reducing unfunded mandates in actual practice? Why?
An unfunded mandate is, at a basic level, a federal order to state governments which requires various specific action, but which provides no money or funding for that action. Thereby it falls to the local government itself to pay for the implementation of this federal law or requirement, and essentially, to tax-payers themselves. Although there have been numerous proposals to deal with the problem between local and federal government power in these situations, the Unfunded Refor Act and the principle of devolution of power are the two primal suggested means to deal with this problem.
While both paths towards solving the unfunded mandate problem offer possible solutions, they are in fact very different in their approaches. The Unfunded Mandate Act, enacted on March 15, 1995, proposed varied procedures to prevent Congress from demanding actions of state government without alotting the proper funds. The act basically gives a ceiling cost for both local government and the private sector at which to analyze bills and ensure the accuracy of their costs. Areas in which these analyses are not performed are subject to judicial review. The theory of devolution, on the other hand, takes the approach of empowering the decisions of the central government to the state itself. In this case, the local governments would be able to decide how it allots its spending and have more control over these unfunded mandates. While one approach simply limits the central government, the other gives small amounts of its power to the states below it.
While analyzing which of these two methods is the more sound is difficult, the changes of modern politics must be taken into account. The Unfunded Mandate Act, while seemingly protective state governments from unfunded mandates, can actually be manipulated by modern politics in Congress. Should a bill not be analyzed as proposed, it will not be allowed to pass. By a majority vote, however, the bill can be kept alive and continuous "delaying strategies" can result in expensive mandates for states. Because of the way the Congress has evolved and representatives seem more and more to be representing themselves, rather than their state, this Bill could easily be manipulated and become less effective in fighting these mandates. As a result, the act of directly giving the states more say in the matter through devolution and more power to regulate their spending, the unfunded mandate problem could be much more effectively dealt with.
An unfunded mandate is, at a basic level, a federal order to state governments which requires various specific action, but which provides no money or funding for that action. Thereby it falls to the local government itself to pay for the implementation of this federal law or requirement, and essentially, to tax-payers themselves. Although there have been numerous proposals to deal with the problem between local and federal government power in these situations, the Unfunded Refor Act and the principle of devolution of power are the two primal suggested means to deal with this problem.
While both paths towards solving the unfunded mandate problem offer possible solutions, they are in fact very different in their approaches. The Unfunded Mandate Act, enacted on March 15, 1995, proposed varied procedures to prevent Congress from demanding actions of state government without alotting the proper funds. The act basically gives a ceiling cost for both local government and the private sector at which to analyze bills and ensure the accuracy of their costs. Areas in which these analyses are not performed are subject to judicial review. The theory of devolution, on the other hand, takes the approach of empowering the decisions of the central government to the state itself. In this case, the local governments would be able to decide how it allots its spending and have more control over these unfunded mandates. While one approach simply limits the central government, the other gives small amounts of its power to the states below it.
While analyzing which of these two methods is the more sound is difficult, the changes of modern politics must be taken into account. The Unfunded Mandate Act, while seemingly protective state governments from unfunded mandates, can actually be manipulated by modern politics in Congress. Should a bill not be analyzed as proposed, it will not be allowed to pass. By a majority vote, however, the bill can be kept alive and continuous "delaying strategies" can result in expensive mandates for states. Because of the way the Congress has evolved and representatives seem more and more to be representing themselves, rather than their state, this Bill could easily be manipulated and become less effective in fighting these mandates. As a result, the act of directly giving the states more say in the matter through devolution and more power to regulate their spending, the unfunded mandate problem could be much more effectively dealt with.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
