Foundations
Assigned TEXT
“Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.” Lord Acton
Understanding American government and politics involves a healthy respect for the past. Many of our
democratic institutions are rooted in historical traditions. Of course the essence of our government is found in
the words of the United States Constitution. In the next couple of weeks we will review these traditions
including the document that best defines the powers and limits of the United States government.
Why government at all?
The word “government” is derived from a Latin word that means, “to manage.” As societies grew more and
more complex governments were formed to help manage group norms. These norms are established in the form
of laws and public policies.
Throughout history there have been many different kinds of governments. The most common form relied on
unelected authoritarian rulers who governed by force. When assessing governments two critical words must be
considered – legitimacy and authority. Legitimacy relates to accepting one’s government while authority
relates to the power given to a government to fulfill its responsibilities.
In our English tradition the rule of law is, in part, rooted in the Magna Carta (1215). The king’s legitimate
power was found in a written document and not only in his arbitrary will. The Magna Carta heralded a new era
in government and politics. The king no longer ruled in isolation of his people.
In the Western tradition enlightenment thinkers dramatically challenged beliefs about government legitimacy.
John Locke, in the 17th century, no longer accepted the legitimacy of traditional monarchies. He wrote about
the importance of “the consent of the governed.” Also in the 17th century Thomas Hobbes favored strong
centralized leaders but saw legitimacy in a social contract with the people. Hobbes also wrote about the state of
nature where man was “solitary, poor, nasty and brutish.” A legitimate government with the necessary
authority is an essential safeguard for a civil society.
In addition to the continental enlightenment thinkers, the foundations of American government are also rooted
in our colonial experience. Protestant congregations were self-governing. The salutary neglect that
characterized the American experience when combined with the changing attitudes about legitimate government
authority on the continent provided the essential backdrop to understanding our Revolution in 1776.
The American Revolution was fought and won for the cause of liberty. Thomas Paine in Common Sense (1776)
called liberty “the cause of mankind.” Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence (1776) put in
writing an American promise to uphold equality for all. Government here would be a byproduct of the people.
All legitimacy and authority would be rooted in “the consent of the governed.” Our political institutions would
be self-governing. Such ideas were so revolutionary no long lasting model of government existed. Our first
attempt would fail.
The Articles of Confederation, the first governing charter of the United States, succeeded in ending the war with
England and proposing territorial rules for expansion but maintaining order it could not. There were a number
of fatal flaws built into the Articles. There was no executive branch. There was no judicial branch. A
1
unicameral Congress could not tax or regulate trade. The Articles of Confederation, understandably, created a
weak central government. Too weak as the United States government was unable to adequately deal with the
Shay’s Rebellion in Massachusetts. All that was gained in the American Revolution for the rights of man
looked to be on shaky ground.
Leaders from the across the new 13 States joined together in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 to make
amends. In the end they chose not to correct the Articles but to start over and write a brand new constitution.
Today their work still serves as our guiding document. In the new constitution our Founding Fathers addressed
both the strengths and weaknesses of their earlier experience.
Fundamentally our Founders maintained an essential commitment to a limited government. The United States
government would set boundaries as laid out in explicit formal expressed powers. The new government would
be comprised of three branches – the legislative, executive and judicial – all separate but responsible for
checking and balancing each other. This separation of powers not only limited government but fulfilled the
promise of our revolution. Ultimate legitimacy and authority is found in the people. Popular sovereignty could
only be safeguarded if government was limited. The Constitution diluted power even more by creating a
federal form of government. In this way power and authority would be shared between central, state and local
governments. In the end the rule of law would protect not only the liberty but also the equality of all.
History suggests that this new constitution was almost scuttled due to a dispute over representation between the
large and small states. Had it not been for compromise, the Great Compromise, the United States Constitution
would never have succeeded. Creating a two-house legislature placated both large and small states. Population
would dictate representation in the House of Representatives while the Senate would be made up of two
members per state. This bicameral Congress comprised of a House and Senate was just one compromise that
allowed for our new constitution to be ratified in 1789.
Ratification did not come easy. Nine of the thirteen states were required to ratify this new governing document
before it was empowered to serve the people. A series of essays, called the Federalist Papers, written by
proponents helped nudge the state legislatures toward ratification. Two of the most noted essays were
Federalist 10 and 51. Federalist 10, written by James Madison, addressed the need for a republican form of
government. It also assuaged the fear over dangerous factions controlling the government at large. Madison
argued that factions could never be abolished without removing personal liberty. A large republic, however,
could limit them. A large republic would make it unlikely that any one faction or special interest could control
the whole government. In doing so Madison was espousing a pluralist system. An elite class would not rule
here. Rather many competing groups would attempt to influence public policy. Pluralism would protect us
from an authoritarian government. Federalist 51 addressed the fear that a centralized government might
jeopardize individual freedom. “If men were angels,” Madison argued, “we would not need a government.”
Madison explained how the separation of powers and a system of checks and balances would protect personal
liberty. Nevertheless a strong but not too strong central government was essential to enjoying that liberty.
One more issue would need to be settled before the necessary number of states would sign on to this new
governing document. The framers would need to add a Bill of Rights. The members of the constitutional
convention argued that this new government would not be strong enough to imperil individual liberty. Their
arguments were insufficient. Assurances were made that a Bill of Rights would be added. The first ten
amendments, our Bill of Rights, were proposed and ratified by the first Congress and ratified by the states in
1791.
With the proposal and ratification of the U.S Constitution and the Bill of Rights some would say America had
completed its second revolution. The first brought independence and the promise of liberty. The second
2
established a workable government based on popular sovereignty but also protected order. That document still
serves us today. Let’s take a closer look at the United States Constitution.
The original U.S. Constitution was organized in 7 Articles or sections.
Article 1 describes and enumerates the powers given to our Legislative branch. The Legislative branch is often
called our first branch. Our bicameral Congress has three primary responsibilities: (1) make laws; (2) provide
oversight to the rest of the government; (3) represent their constituents through casework. Originally only the
House the Representatives was directly elected. At our founding Senators were appointed by their respective
state legislatures. The times, places and manner of all elections would be determined by each individual state.
Article 1, Section 8 enumerated the basic expressed powers given to our Congress. The most notable powers
given to the Legislative branch were the right to raise taxes, declare war, and to regulate interstate commerce.
The interstate commerce clause would prove to be the most frequently used provision to expand the power of
our central government. The most controversial power, however, is found in Article 1, Section 8, and clause 18.
Called the elastic clause, “the necessary and proper clause” empowers our legislative branch to pass any law
that is related to one of its expressed powers. Needless to say this provision has been used to extend the reach
of government whenever the vague language of the Constitution proved inadequate. In the end our Legislative
branch has been given “the power of the purse.” The United States Congress is responsible for collecting all
revenues necessary to cover the appropriations of our government according to the prepared budget.
Article 2 describes and enumerates the powers given to our executive branch. Though given “the power of the
sword,” our early presidents were considered relatively weak. Presidential authority was based more on
personality then the expressed powers found in the Constitution. That is why the Legislative branch
overshadowed many of our earliest presidents. Nevertheless the Constitution empowers the president to be
commander-in-chief, to appoint with the Advice and Consent of the Senate ambassadors, judges and other
officials of the Executive branch. Ultimately the president was empowered to faithfully execute the laws passed
by the legislative branch. As is still true, the original Constitution created an indirect means to elect our
president. Our Framers feared democracy as much as they feared monarchy. An Electoral College was created
to provide a filter between the direct votes of citizens and the selection of our chief executive. President’s can
be removed through impeachment. The House of Representatives can accuse the president of “high crimes and
misdemeanors” but only the Senate can hold the trial to remove him from office.
Article 3 describes the powers of the judicial branch. Alexander Hamilton called the judiciary “the least
dangerous branch.” The authority of the Supreme Court would grow as subsequent congresses gave it more and
more power. The Supreme Court was empowered to interpret what our laws mean.
Article 4 describes the relationship between the central government and the states. The Constitution guarantees
a republican form of government. The Full Faith and Credit clause assures that all states will respect the laws
of the land. This also includes the laws of other states. The Privileges and Immunities clause has also been
used to legally bind the state governments into one cohesive unit.
Article 5 describes the means by which the original constitution could be amended. The process may appear
straightforward and simple. As of today, however, our Constitution has only been amended 27 times. The most
common way to amend the Constitution is for a proposal to be made by 2/3s of Congress and then a ratification
vote by 3/4s of the state legislatures. Though never used as such, proposals can be made by national
conventions with ratification by state conventions.
Article 6 assured that the debts of the United States carried over from the Revolution would be honored and
paid.
3
Article 7 prescribed that 9 of the original 13 states would be required to ratify the new constitution.
Though the U.S. Constitution does not mention political parties two primary factions debated its merits. The
Federalists advocated for a stronger central government and pushed hardest for ratification. The AntiFederalists were suspicious of granting too much power to the new national government. The most significant
reservation was over a Bill of Rights.
The Federalists claimed that the essential civil liberties were already contained within the original constitution.
The Writ of Habeas Corpus, “show me the body,” protects all citizens from unlawful detention. Bills of
Attainder were prohibited. All citizens would be guaranteed a trial by a judiciary. Nor could citizens be
convicted through Ex Post Facto laws. One cannot apply law after the fact or retroactively. Federalists argued
that the central government with its limited powers would be unable to infringe upon personal liberty. AntiFederalists held out for the assurance that a Bill of Rights would be added.
Today our Bill of Rights is found in the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Below is a brief review
of our most cherished civil liberties:
Amendment 1: Freedom of Speech, Religion, Press, Assembly, Petition.
Note: The freedom of speech gets preferential treatment by the courts. It is our most sacred right. Yet even
freedom of speech has its limits. You are not free to lie or slander others nor can you write falsely which is
called libel. Likewise prior restraint or censorship of the press must pass over a high bar. Freedom of religion
is split into two separate protections. We have freedom from an establishment of religion. This protects us
from an official State religion. The Lemon Test prescribes the rules regarding any apparent cooperation
between church and state: (1) The government’s action must have a secular purpose; (2) The government’s
action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; (3) The government’s action
must not result in an “excessive entanglement” with religion. We also have the free exercise of religion. The
government cannot infringe upon our right to worship the way we please.
Amendment 2: The right to Bear Arms.
Amendment 3: Freedom from Quartering Troops in peace time.
Amendment 4: Freedom from unreasonable Searches and Seizures.
Amendment 5: Rights given to the accused including Due Process. All citizens would be free from selfincrimination. Eminent Domain – any taking of private property for public purposes must be accompanied by
just compensation.
Amendment 6: Rights of the Accused. All citizens would be guaranteed the right to an attorney, a speedy trial
and an impartial jury.
Amendment 7: Certain rights applied in criminal cases would be also be provided in civil law.
Amendment 8: Freedom from Cruel and Unusual Punishment.
4
Amendment 9: Rights given to the people. The enumerated rights contained within the constitution were not to
be considered exhaustive. Where other rights were found they belong to the people. [Note: the enumerated
powers are those powers that belong exclusively to the national government].
Amendment 10: Reserved Rights. Those rights not guaranteed or enumerated by the federal constitution would
be reserved to the States. The 10th Amendment further solidified the concept of federalism.
The Bill of Rights was added in fear of an all-powerful central government. Ironically these rights ultimately
extended the reach and authority of the federal government beyond anyone’s imagination. It was intended that
way. In fact, the Bill of Rights only protected our civil liberties from being infringed by the national
government. This was clearly defined by the Supreme Court in the case Barron v. Baltimore (1833). The court
made clear that the rights contained in the first ten amendments did not apply to the states. In other words, the
United States Congress could not violate your freedom of speech but the State of New York could. It would
take a number of generations before this confusion was remedied.
The extension of the Bill of Rights to the States is called the selective Incorporation Doctrine. It could not have
occurred without the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment guaranteed to all citizens in all of the States both
the due process of law and the equality of opportunity granted to all. Furthermore no State could abridge the
privileges or immunities given to citizens of the United States. It was not until 1925 in the case Gitlow v. New
York where the Supreme Court applied the language of the 14th Amendment into a State dispute. Today
virtually all of our civil liberties as guaranteed in the Bill of the Rights have been applied or incorporated to the
States. To summarize, little by little the Supreme Court applied or incorporated the Bill of Rights to the States
using the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
Ultimately the United States Supreme Court is empowered to interpret what our laws and privileges mean.
Throughout our history there have been a number of landmark court cases that have defined the meaning of our
rights. Below you will a few of the most important landmark cases:
Marbury v. Madison (1803) established judicial review. This empowered the court to rule on the
constitutionality of all laws including presidential action. Though rarely used in our early years hardly any
significant question in today’s political arena escapes the Court’s review and judgment.
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) established the supremacy of the national government. In this case the court
recognized the necessary and proper clause as authoritative when creating a national bank despite the
constitution’s silence on the matter. This case would have far reaching consequences in the battle between the
national government and the states.
Schenck v. U.S. (1919) was an early case defining the limits of our free speech. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
famously stated in his opinion, “…Free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater.”
The ruling precedent of this case established the clear and present danger standard.
Gitlow v. New York (1925) incorporated the free speech clause of the First Amendment. For the first time free
speech would be extended equally in all States through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) further established the reach of the First Amendment into symbolic speech.
Furthermore the Court recognized that students do not shed their rights “at the schoolhouse gate.” Most
importantly symbols on clothing and/or inaudible expressions are protected by the free speech clause of the
First Amendment.
5
Everson v. Board of Education (1947) defined for the first time the establishment clause of the First
Amendment. Justice Hugo Black stated that a “wall of separation” existed between church and state. This case
also incorporated the establishment clause. Using the due process clause of the 14th Amendment no state could
establish one religion over another.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961) incorporated the exclusionary rule using the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
The exclusionary rule disallows in court any illegally obtained evidence. The exclusionary rule provides a
safeguard for our 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) held that any suspect put in custody by authorities must be first informed of their
rights. The Miranda warning, hence, has become standard at the point of any legal detention – “You have the
right to remain silent. Anything can and will be used against you. You have the right to an attorney. If you
cannot afford an attorney one will be provided for you.”
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) incorporated the 6th Amendment’s right to attorney. Not only in federal cases but
also in all State and Local, as well, the government must provide legal counsel.
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) utilized the vague language of the 9th Amendment to establish the right to
privacy. Though not specifically mentioned in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights the right to privacy was later
extended to include a women’s right to choose an abortion in Roe v. Wade (1973). Few judicial opinions have
been more controversial.
In addition to the Bill of Rights we have amended the Constitution 17 more times for a total of 27 amendments.
Here are the most notable:
13th, 14th and 15th Amendments are referred to as the Civil War Amendments. The 13th freed the slaves. The
14th Amendment extended citizenship and the 15th granted African-American males the right to vote.
16th Amendment (1913) – established the federal income tax.
17th Amendment (1913) – established the direct election of U.S. Senators by popular vote.
19th Amendment (1919) – extended women’s suffrage.
22nd Amendment (1951) – limited presidents to two-terms.
24th Amendment (1964) – eliminated the poll tax.
26th Amendment (1971) – extended the right to vote to 18 – 20 year olds.
When looking at our foundations, liberty was not the only promise made during our Revolution. Equality as
well was an essential feature of our unique American experiment. Our record in extending equality to all has
been, as some have written, our “American dilemma.” Defending equality almost tore us apart during the
American Civil War. But as Lincoln wrote in his Gettysburg Address, we fought for “a new birth of freedom.”
We continue to fight. Our form of democratic-republicanism upholds majority rule while putting in place
protections for minority rights.
6
Our civil liberties are protected by the Bill of Rights. Civil rights guarantees equal protection under the law.
The 14th Amendment, more so then any other act of government, has advanced “due process” and “equal
protection” for all. Civil liberties limit government action while civil rights protect us from de jure acts of
segregation. The law cannot permit acts that deny equality to all.
The civil rights movement heralded the rights of Women and African-Americans. Subsequently it was
extended to Latinos. Today such civil rights are being waged on behalf of the LGBT community. Federalism
often delays and complicates the extension of civil rights. A limited government, like ours, is not fitted to make
dramatic changes in a hurry.
We can learn from the civil rights movements of the past on how best to pursue even greater equality in our
future. African-Americans following the Civil War found much of America to be unwelcoming. Grateful for
their freedom but Jim Crow laws segregated and relegated them to second-class citizens. Work was difficult to
find. They were not permitted to join in society as equal partners. Even the United States Supreme Court ruled
in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) that “separate but equal” was a tenable standard. De jure segregation, that is
segregation by law, was indeed constitutional.
The early civil right movement saw the courts as their battleground. Through litigation civil rights attorneys
could argue their case in court. Their greatest victory came in 1954 in the case Brown v. Board of Education.
Brown overturned the Plessy precedent by ruling that “separate was not equal.” Schools could no longer
segregate on the basis of race. This landmark decision set in motion an end to de jure segregation. The law of
the land would no longer permit a racially divided society. Its rationale was found in the due process and equal
protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. The national government was flexing its authority over the states.
With the courts solidly behind them, the civil rights movement turned to Congress. Political pressure combined
with a heavy dose of personal courage helped to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of
1965. These historic pieces of legislation extended equality even further. Segregation, discrimination and
prejudice would no longer be accepted. Voting rights would be protected. Rules to suppress black political
participation like literacy tests were outlawed. America was moving closer to its promise of equality for all.
Affirmative action programs were put in place to offer racial minorities a chance to catch up for past
discrimination. This preferential treatment has not gone unnoticed. The civil rights movement continues as the
fight for equality is not over.
African-Americans were not the only marginalized groups to win political victories in the wake of the civil
rights movement. One of the more notable victories occurred for women with Title IX of the Education
Amendments of 1972. This prohibited any form of discrimination on the basis of gender in any education
program or activity.
Today any program or activity that continues to discriminate must pass the “strict scrutiny test.” On occasion
our Supreme Court allows for instances of discrimination. For instance, women have usually been held out of
direct combat roles when serving in the military. Such discrimination has been permitted using the “strict
scrutiny” test. Increasingly our judiciary has been asked to extend due process not only procedurally but
substantively as well. Procedural due process assures fair and impartial treatment. Substantive due process
empowers the Court to identify those private choices that are beyond government restriction. Future civil rights
victories rest in the Court protecting these substantive rights.
Thomas Jefferson’s promissory note, recorded in our Declaration of Independence, claimed: “We hold these
truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.” Furthermore Lincoln fought to hold our Union together
7
by promising “a new birth of freedom.” As history has proved, freedom and equality do not come easy. There
is a cost to bear. Each generation must take on the example of our forefathers and stand up when called upon to
defend the principles we all hold dear.
James Madison wrote, “The very success of democracy depends upon the knowledge and skills of its citizens.”
In reviewing our foundations you are taking an important step in assuring that success. Throughout the
remaining weeks of this semester you will find three (3) primary meta-narratives that coexist today when
studying American government and politics. Look for examples as we progress through the semester. These
grand narratives are:
1. An ever-expanding and centralizing national government. The story of American government is a story of
federal aggrandizement.
2. The increasing democratization of the American polity. Traditional republicanism and its inherent elitism
have increasingly been transformed into a more pluralistic and populist democracy.
3. Our motto, E Pluribus Unum, under siege. The Unum is ever challenged by our Pluribus. Partisan politics
and an ever-increasing pluralistic culture apply constant tension threatening the foundations of our political
efficacy.
American foundations ultimately are built on hope. Ralph Waldo Emerson called “America a country built on
tomorrow.” We here at CitizenU agree. There is always room 2B a good citizen. No better time to start then
now. Soren Kierkegaard said, “Life is understood looking backwards but it must be lived looking forwards.”
When studying foundations our gaze upon the past is really an internal GPS helping us orient ourselves to the
future. Welcome aboard. You are all framers now.
Federalism
Assigned TEXT
“The health of a democratic society may be measured by the quality of functions performed by private citizens”
Alexis de Tocqueville, 1835
When looking back at history and the foundations of our political institutions we learn that a government is
necessary, albeit limited. The question back in 1776 as well as today is what should that government look like?
How strong should that government be? The debate continues on how to build a strong government but not too
strong. Ultimately our inalienable right to life, liberty and property is at stake.
Our Founding Fathers built a nation based upon principled law not men. Yet our democracy is sustained not
only by institutions but also by culture. Arguably a unique political culture existed here even before the
American Revolution took place. America’s political culture provides the essential base upon which our
governmental institutions stand.
Alexis de Tocqueville, a disinterested Frenchmen, said as much when visiting the United States in 1831. In
American Democracy (1835) he was impressed by our institutions but more so by “the manners and customs of
the people.” De Tocqueville observed in America a nation of joiners. He saw a civil society filled with an
abundance of social capital. James Madison, the Father of our Constitution, would have agreed. He said, “The
very success of democracy depends upon the knowledge and skills of its citizens.” As was true back in
8
revolutionary times so it is today. The American political culture is easily identified and equally important for
us to measure. In doing so we in no small way peer into our collective future.
By definition, politics is the means by which governmental decisions are made. In a democracy this means that
governmental decisions are made of, by and for the people. In any complex society there are a variety of ideas
and beliefs. This is called having a political ideology. There is no shortage of ideological diversity in the
United States. But we do share a unique political culture. Our national motto states this simply, E Pluribus
Unum, “from many, one.”
The American political culture has always shared certain common traits. From our beginnings we have valued
the rule of law, a limited government, individual liberty, equality of opportunity [not results] and a deep sense
of civic duty. Also somewhat unique is our work ethic. Many of these values were present in the Protestant
sub-culture of colonial America. Today these values are passed more evidently through both family structures
and educational institutions. Historically the mortar that holds this common culture together is our sense of
self-reliance and trust. Many political scientists lament that as we grow more and more dependent upon
government while trusting them less and less our American political culture is jeopardized.
The health of our democracy can be measured by looking at political efficacy. Efficacy relates to our belief that
we can affect our governmental institutions. Furthermore, efficacy measures our confidence in the
government’s ability to represent our wishes. Most political scientists would agree that a healthy democracy
couldn’t be sustained by declining political efficacy. It is for this reason that James Madison argued forcibly in
Federalist 10 for a pluralist political system. Factions would counter factions was his hope. Pluralist systems,
unlike elite systems, allow for many competing groups to influence public policy. Elite systems welcome only
the rich or the powerful to do so. Pluralist systems help to build high levels of political efficacy as all citizens
feel they too have a voice in their government. It also protects minority interests within a majority rule political
system. The Founders feared a tyranny of the majority.
Political efficacy is not the only cultural factor that attracts the attention of political scientists today. Many have
recognized a serious fissure between religious and secular Americans. This split has been labeled “the culture
war.” The debate between these orthodox and progressive Americans is over what kind of country we want to
live in? The orthodox desire a country based upon traditional moral values. Progressives favor more open and
libertarian policies. Compromise between these two groups is almost impossible. The outcome of this “culture
war “ is a polity divided on most issues. Political scientists worry that such a divide accentuates our pluribus
while forfeiting our unum. Such a recipe does not bode well for a healthy democracy.
The Founding Fathers were not immune to similar divides and differences of opinion. In fact, they built into the
constitution a means to encourage differences while still maintaining a unity for the purpose of protecting
individual liberty. They called it federalism. Federalism provided for the separation of power between
national, state and local governments. In essence they created dual sovereignty. Though the national
government was supreme, state and local governments had reserved powers that existed outside the reach of the
central government. Though federalism encouraged efficacy by placing significant political authority in the
hands of local officials, it also was seen as a natural safeguard to individual liberty.
The relationship between these sovereign governments has never been easy to navigate. The Supreme Court
serves as the ultimate arbitrator. Delegated powers are those given exclusively to the national government.
These would include the ability to go to war and negotiate foreign policy. Concurrent powers are those that are
shared between national and state governments. An example of a concurrent power would be health care.
9
National, state and local governments generally share health care costs. Reserved powers are given exclusively
to the state governments. Though there are fewer and fewer examples, many reserved powers today deal with
licenses and education policy. Remember it was the Tenth Amendment that codified in the Bill of Rights our
commitment to federalism.
The relationship between governments at all levels, however, should not be perceived of as a layer cake. Rather
our evolving federal model looks more like a marble cake. The duties and responsibilities of government at
every level is now most likely shared. When the national government appropriates money for new roads they
count on the local and state governments to oversee these shovel-ready projects. The money comes from
Washington but the details including the construction crews are hired at the local level.
Do not think that this cozy relationship between national, state and local governments exist without conflict.
The story of American government is a story of the aggrandizement of the national government. Over time the
national government has taken on more and more authority and power. This has been somewhat expected due
to the supremacy clause found in our constitution. The Supreme Court empowered the national government
even more in the case McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). In this case the court expounded upon the meaning of
the necessary and proper clause found in Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution. The particulars involved the
creation of a national bank. No such bank had been enumerated in the original text. Nevertheless the court
ruled in the national government’s favor. The court has also affirmed broad use of the commerce clause to
expand the reach of the national government. In fact, the commerce clause has been used more then any other
section of our constitution to expand the power of the national government.
Great tension exists today over the meaning of Article IV’ full faith and credit clause. This clause guarantees
that the privileges given in one state will be recognized in another. When it comes to driver’s licenses there is
little dispute. Today, however, such language hinders the advancement of same sex marriage. It should not be
forgotten that federalism best explains the root cause of the American Civil War and the subsequently difficult
narrative of extending full and complete civil rights to all. The differences between states and their racial
policies were given constitutional protection by the concept of federalism.
The federal government, our central authority, has grown significantly overtime. A part from its constitutional
authority expressed through congressional action and judicial fiat, the national government has used both sticks
and carrots to induce state government concessions.
Carrots have come in the form of grants. States agree to engage in federal activity in return for what appears to
be “free” money. Grants involve the distribution of federal money to state authorities in return for compliance
with federal demands. There are two types of grants. Categorical grants, offering much less discretion, require
the states to spend the money on specific projects. This might include the building of runways at airports or
other particular infrastructure projects. States prefer block grants. Block grants provide states money in broad
categories. A block grant might stipulate education as a project but each state can spend the money anyway it
wants as long as it is related t education. Another way national money has been used for state ends is through
the use of earmarks. Earmarks are provisions included in legislation that benefit particular localized projects.
Often seen as unfair and politically damaging, earmarks in recent years have fallen in their popularity.
Another way the federal government has enforced its wishes upon the states is through the use of sticks. Sticks
come in the form of mandates. Mandates require states to comply with federal standards. Mandates may or
may not include funding. An example of a federal mandate would be the law No Child Left Behind. NCLB
10
requires local school districts to comply with nationally based education standards. Where mandates conflict
with state standards the courts have generally sided with the national government. Federal preemptions allow
Congress to impose national priorities upon states through national legislation.
The aggrandizement of the national government has not gone unnoticed. Conservatives have traditionally been
the party of limiting the authority of the national government. Groups like the Tea Party and others have
organized around the goal of reducing the size of the federal government. This is not new. Republicans over
forty years ago called for a New Federalism. Another name for this is devolution. New Federalism or
devolution was an idea to shift power away from the national government and toward state governments. New
Federalism has often been called a return to states rights. New Federalism is an attempt to return to classical
federalism. This movement has had marginal success. Welfare reform during the 1990s returned much of the
authority over poverty programs to state initiatives. Furthermore conservatives favoring this New Federalism
have favored block grants. Attempts made to reduce the size of the federal government may have achieved
rhetorical success but little in the way of real reform.
Federalism has been one of our grandest experiments. It provided a hybrid between unitary and confederal
systems. The former put power exclusively in the hands of a central government while the latter provided for a
loose partnership of local governments. History proved both to be inadequate. What will history say about
federalism?
Federalism has proved to be highly effective in a number of ways. Its most obvious effect has been to increase
political activity. A decentralized federal system provides for broader choices, a more representative
government and a useful check on federal authority. Political efficacy is higher in federal systems. Federalism
creates laboratories of democracy. State and local governments can experiment on public policy like health
care for instance. If these experimental policies succeed at the local level the national government can adopt its
most salient features. Federalism also brings the government closer to the people. This usually builds greater
trust. Ironically, some political scientists have argued that by having more governmental units we have less
government intrusion in our lives. They check each other. For all of these reasons federalism appears to be a
success.
Federalism has its critics. Some say it encourages a race to the bottom. Without uniform policies and standards
there can exist unequal protections under the law. Certainly federalism is less efficient. There is duplication of
service. We have law enforcement agencies at each level of government. Often times they overlap. It is
argued that this is expensive and wasteful of taxpayer resources. Little evidence exists for the belief that local
governments are better at making policy decisions then centralized governments. And finally federalism allows
certain factions access to state and local governments that would not be possible in more centralized systems.
In this way certain elites and organized special interests can influence particular regions in ways that would not
ordinarily possible.
Although fundamentally protean, American federalism continues to serve as the best means to limit an
imperious national government. It is altogether possible that in the current political climate that one can claim
“the era of big government is over” (devolution) while at the same time recognizing the increasing
aggrandizement (centralization) of the national state.
11
Participation/Parties/Campaigns and Elections
Assigned TEXT
“Democracy is like blowing your nose –
you may not do it very well, but you ought to do it yourself.”
G.K. Chesterton
Roderick Hart has argued that democracy is threatened by hopelessness, aimlessness, contentedness, rigidity,
anomie and hegemony. Collectively these forces can cause a real drag on our political efficacy. In this unit we
will be assessing the strength of our democracy by looking at our critical linkage institutions. When our
American government and politics works, it does so because of a healthy relationship. Linkage institutions like
political parties and elections connect “we the people” to the government of our choosing. The result of
government acting unresponsively is a decline in political efficacy. But when the critical linkage institutions
like political parties and elections build a truly representative and responsive government our efficacy increases.
And when that happens our democracy remains strong.
Political hopelessness and aimlessness is assuaged by our ability to actively participate in our government. To
do so one must first formulate a clear set of ideas. A clear set of attitudes, opinions and ideas is called a
political ideology. Surprisingly our political ideology is formed at a young age. Here, family plays the biggest
role. The political orientations of our parents have an enormous impact on our worldview. So too do
demographic characteristics that often lay out of our control.
Certain demographic characteristics have a profound influence on our political attitudes. They are: gender,
age, religion, race, education, occupation, economic status and region. Together, along with parental
influences, we have a seemingly inherent political bent. These political dispositions align to certain labels used
in our democratic system to simplify and organize the citizenry. Political scientists have traditionally used a
political spectrum to simplify and provide clarity to the consequences of our civic opinions.
Before explaining the impact of demographic characteristics on our civic dispositions, let’s look at the essential
labels found on the American political spectrum.
The political right: The right side of the political spectrum is reserved for conservatives. The Republican Party
represents conservatives in our government. Conservatives tend to look back. They are fond of the glory days
of the past. Conservatives tend to hold traditional moral values. They approve of government intervention
when upholding these values. For instance, conservatives push the Republican Party to advocate against
abortion, drug use and sexual promiscuity. They do not, however, welcome government interference in private
business affairs. Conservatives speak loudly about market forces and the free flow of capital. Republican
policies support small business and lower taxes. On the right side of the political spectrum you find
conservatives who are supported by the Republican Party.
The political left: The left side of the political spectrum is reserved for liberals. The Democratic Party
represents liberals in our government. Liberals tend to look forward. Rather then relying upon old ideas, they
favor policy experimentation. This attitude affects their values. They oppose government intervention when it
comes to private choices. For instance, liberals push the Democratic Party to maintain a women’s right to
choose an abortion. Liberals do, however, advocate government intervention when it comes to the economy.
Often liberal Democrats are characterized as “the tax and spend” party. Democrats favor policies that
redistribute wealth across the economic base. On the left side of the political spectrum you find liberals who are
supported by the Democratic Party.
Learning to think politically is a process known as political socialization. As stated above, this typically does
not happen while contemplating deep thoughts in your room. According to political science data, demographic
characteristics jumpstart our engagement in the political process. Below you will learn about what the latest
data suggests about these characteristics. Check out if it is generally true for you. [Note: these are
12
generalizations and not absolute characterizations].
Gender: Men tend to be more conservative and therefore supporters of the Republican Party. Women, on the
other hand, are more liberal and side with Democrats. Can you guess why?
Age: The rule of thumb here is the older you are the more likely you are to be conservative.
Religion: Few demographic characteristics are as telling as this. Citizens who faithfully practice their religion
tend to be more conservative. Protestantism is the most conservative religion. Base Republicans tend to be
active Protestants. Often labeled the conservative right, these faithful Republican voters are called evangelicals.
Catholics, despite their conservative views on social issues, lean left on the political spectrum. Slim majorities
of Catholics still vote for the Democratic Party. Jews historically have overwhelmingly supported liberal
Democrats. The irreligious also side with Democrats.
Race: Caucasians as a group are most often found on the right side of the political spectrum. AfricanAmericans are the most reliable sub-group on the left. Ninety percent of all African-Americans vote
Democratic. Pacific Rim citizens, due to their religious and family traditions, tend to the right and the
Republican Party.
Education: The more educated you are the more likely you are to be conservative. The one exception would be
those citizens holding graduate degrees. Statistically college graduates narrowly vote Republican. Those with
less education narrowly vote Democratic.
Occupation: Education influences this demographic characteristic more then any other. Those occupations
requiring more education tend lean more to the conservative side. White-collar jobs lean Republican while
blue-collar jobs tend to be more Democratic. This means labor unions, a smaller and smaller percentage of our
total workforce, are reliable voters on the left.
Economic status: The Republican Party and its values tend to a appeal to the middle class. The Democratic
Party champions lower classes. The wealthy are more split in their political allegiances. Determining the
political persuasion of the wealthy depends upon other leading demographic ingredients.
Region: Democrats do better in urban environments while Republicans win more in suburban and rural areas.
Liberal Democrats dominate the Northeast. The South is SOLIDLY conservative and Republican. The West
coast now leans strongly liberal though the Plains are clearly conservative. Many of the fiercest political
battleground states now reside in the Midwest.
But what if certain demographic characteristics contradict each other? For instance, where on the spectrum
would I be if my religion pushed me right but my race pushed me left? These demographic tensions are called
crosscutting cleavages. There are no easy rules when it comes to reconciling cross cutting cleavages on the
political spectrum. Certain demographic characteristics, however, have greater influence. These would be
religion, race and education. Crosscutting cleavages remind us that labels can help us understand our politics
but they are not absolutely determinative. In the end your political views are a by-product not only of
demographic characteristics but life experiences that are truly unique. It has been said that zip code is destiny.
Though not completely accurate it is a helpful starting point when trying to understand American government
and politics.
Political data, such as we have learned above, is culled from scientifically collected public opinion polls. Public
opinion polls measure what “we the people” think at any given point. Yet not all polls are accurate
measurements of public opinion. There are certain cautionary steps we should take before accepting the
validity of a public opinion poll. Accurate polls are unbiased. Poll samples need to be random. A sufficient
sample size is also required. Perhaps most important is the margin of error. What is the range of results one
could expect if an infinite number were included in the poll? A +/- 4 margin of error is considered acceptable.
The way questions are worded in a poll is also important. Not unlike ideological labels public opinion polls
provide the political process an important short cut. They can be used improperly. Push polls, for instance, do
not measure opinion but rather attempt to shape opinion. Push polls are considered unethical.
13
In a representative government like ours it is absolutely necessary to know what the people want. First label
and group together like-minded citizens. Then collect opinions on the issues. Taken together these short cuts
enable our elected officials to properly represent the citizenry. When done properly our political efficacy is
strong. More importantly it demonstrates that our democracy works.
Once we understand the political socialization process and accept the importance of measuring public opinion
in scientific polls we have an important question to answer – now what? Democracy is a verb. With
comparatively high levels of political efficacy citizens in the United States act upon their beliefs. Though
voting is the highest form of political participation in the United States there are many more ways to
demonstrate our civic will.
Public opinion in our democracy is vital but it does not wield unfettered influence. Elites continue to exert a
disproportionate influence. Additionally, our constitution has put in to place many checks upon the influence of
public opinion. Originally only members of our House of Representatives were directly elected. The other
national offices were chosen by other means. Senators and federal judges were appointed; presidents chosen by
an electoral college. Nevertheless our political continues to grow more and more democratic. Practically
speaking this means that public opinion is growing more and more important.
Sheldon Wolin wrote, “The experience of democracy is not ultimately about winning but about deliberating and
acting together.” This kind of political participation takes on many different forms. You can write elected
officials, join a civic group or club, contribute campaign money, litigate (take someone to court), join a protest
movement or engage in political conversations. By far, however, the most common form of political
participation in America is voting.
Historically the qualifications to vote were determined by state and local governments. Early in our history
suffrage, the right to vote was restricted to male property owners. The franchise, another term for voting, has
been greatly expanded. The 15th Amendment (1870) extended the right to vote to African American males. The
19th Amendment (1920) gave women the right to vote. The 26th Amendment gave eighteen year olds and older
the right to vote. Other federal actions have been taken to make voting easier. The 24th Amendment (1964)
eliminated poll taxes. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 not only removed literacy tests as a voting barrier but
also gave federal oversight in Southern polling places. Despite the expansion of our democracy and the
increase in the number of people eligible to vote fewer and fewer Americans choose to.
Turnout rates are higher in most democracies around the world. Here in the United States voting turnout in
presidential elections rarely exceeds 60% of eligible citizens. In non-presidential years turnout is much lower.
Citizens who are white, older, college educated, with professional jobs tend to vote at higher rates. For this
reason conservative Republicans tend to focus on voting integrity. For instance, Republicans favor strict
registration laws that also require picture identification of all voters. In contrast, liberal Democrats look for
ways to make voting even easier. They are worried that their constituents, citizens less likely to vote, are
underrepresented. Democrats push for early voting, same-day registration and touch screen ballots.
Undoubtedly there are institutional barriers that do make voting more difficult.
An institutional barrier is a rule or law that prevents eligible adults from voting. One such barrier is the
citizenship requirement. Unless you are an American citizen you cannot vote. Registration requirements in
most states also make voting more difficult. Unless you have signed up in advance you are prohibited from
voting. Most states also prohibit, for a period of time, convicted felons from voting. Our federal election day is
always on a workday. This simple fact makes it difficult for many working Americans. Some complain that
here in America we have too many elections and that our ballots are too confusing. Voting turnout is low here
but perhaps there are common sense ways bring about change. Of course that is if we want more voters?
Voting and other forms of political participation are important linkage institutions. They connect “we the
people” to the government. The result is a healthy democracy. Another critical linkage institution in our
American political arena is political parties. Political parties have one primary goal and that is to win elections.
By winning elections political parties and their voters get to act upon their wishes because they now run the
government. The more successful political parties are the more likely it is for their issues to become public
14
policy. Despite not being mentioned in the U.S. Constitution and feared by the likes of George Washington and
James Madison, American democracy is unthinkable without political parties.
In addition to winning elections and staffing the government political parties hope to educate the public.
Political parties try to raise money to support candidates. They nominate candidates. In this way political
parties play an important function as a filter in our electoral process. By nominating candidates political party
prestige provides an important stamp of credibility. Political parties also provide a simple label for a broad
based coalition of voters. For this reason we have in America a two-party system.
There are two major political parties in the United States – Democrats and Republicans. Both are broad based
coalitions with the expressed purpose of attracting enough voters to win elections. Partisan identification is the
number one determining factor of a person’s vote. Partisan ID, however, is not as strong as it once was. More
and more Americans, now close to 40%, see themselves as independent voters. This is clear when looking at
the rise of split ticket voting. Many Americans on any single ballot will vote for candidates from both parties.
Remember Democrats represent liberals on the left side of the political spectrum. Democrats, although
malleable, traditionally advocate for progressive social policies. This requires bigger government. Although
government should serve as the referee in regulating economic policy Democrats believe social issues should be
left up to private choices. For these reasons base Democrats tend to be more secular and younger. The rank
and file of the Democratic Party approve of higher taxes on the rich, agree with a women’s right to choose an
abortion and see government as an important agent in assuring equality for all. Immigrant groups, African
Americans, young people and the working class clearly favor the Democratic Party.
Remember Republicans represent conservatives on the right side of the political spectrum. Republicans,
although malleable, traditionally advocate for stricter regulation when it comes to social policies. Republicans
believe in traditional moral values. Nevertheless they advocate for smaller government. Government should
practice a laissez-faire economic policy. For these reasons base Republicans tend to be more religious and older.
The rank and file of the Republican Party desire lower taxes for all, push for a right to life policy and see
government as an important agent upholding conservative values such as a traditional view of marriage. Older
Americans, rural Americans and white middle class professionals clearly favor the Republican Party.
We continue to have only two major parties for a couple of important reasons. The rules governing our
elections reinforce our two-party system. Elections outcomes here are usually determined by a plurality. This
means the most votes win. You do not need a majority to win in most elections, just more votes then your
opponent. With two parties, however, winners in plurality elections are guaranteed a mathematical majority.
This is also reflected in the Electoral College’s winner-take-all rule. More pragmatically, we have a two-party
system because our political parties do not hold on to rigid platforms. Favored issues and positions on public
policy shift over time. The parties want to attract voters. Holding on to dogmatic positions does not do this.
Most issues in America have a binary characteristic; they are either/or and yes/no positions. American
government is represented by a two-party system.
There are still minor parties who attempt to attract voters. Third parties are certainly allowed but they usually
are not effective. Plurality elections make it almost impossible for third party candidates to win. Minor parties
can play important roles. They often champion new issues. If these new issues resonate with voters they
generally do not propel a minor party but rather induce one of the two major parties to take it on as their own.
For example, when a minor party in the 1990s championed fiscal responsibility, an issue that gained wide
support, the Republican Party saw an opportunity and began to herald it in order to win elections more broadly.
In this way third parties are often compared to bees. Once they sting they die. So it is with minor parties. Once
a minor party gets noticed one of the two major parties begins to herald its cause making the third party’s
existence mute.
Political parties play an important function in our democracy even though our Founders were afraid of their
baneful effects. Political parties link the people to government. Political parties educate us and most
importantly they help choose our candidates. Political scientists, however, tell us that political parties have
grown weaker as mass media has given greater power to personal followings.
15
Throughout history political scientists have noted a phenomenon called realignment. Realignments occur when
a sizable identifiable groups switch their party affiliation. Usually realignments occur because of a critical
issue. The last realignment occurred in 1932. The economic hardships associated with the Great Depression
spurred African Americans to switch from the Party of Lincoln to the Democrats. Today, because of weakening
loyalties, realignments are unlikely to come about. Political scientists see greater probability for de-alignments.
Rather then switching from one party to another it is far more likely for voters to hold no single loyalty to one
party over another. If and when realignments do occur, political scientists call these critical elections.
When one political party holds the presidency and a majority of Congress we call that unified government.
When they are split, for instance a Republican president and a Democratic majority in Congress, we call that
divided government. The political party that holds the White House is said to be the party in power. Political
science is mixed on the advantages and disadvantages of divided government. With unified government blame
can be clearly attributed. Some suggest that more actually gets done in divided governments. Political parties
do more then win elections they collectively staff and run our government.
Political parties are not the only linkage institution. There are other linkage institutions that are important as
well. Another important linkage institution is political campaigns and elections.
The sine quo non of any democracy are free and fair publicly held elections. In our democracy national
elections are held every two years. Every four years we hold a presidential election. In presidential election
years there are also Congressional elections. Midterm elections are held two years into a president’s term.
These elections are reserved primarily for Congressional offices. State and local elections are held even more
frequently. Before elections are held there are political campaigns. Campaigns serve the purpose of
introducing candidates to the voters. They tend to be long, require large amounts of campaign finance and often
are characterized by nasty and negative television ads. Without campaigns, however, we would not be able to
accurately judge the character of our candidates.
The modern campaign has two important stages.
The first stage of any campaign is winning your political party’s nomination. Party candidates used to be
selected by the party bosses in small caucuses. Benefits were doled out by and for party loyalists. This was
called a spoils system. Everyday citizens were left out of the process. It did not take long for this to change.
As suffrage rights expanded voters demanded more and more power in voicing their candidate preferences.
This first manifested itself in political party conventions. These conventions were held so that many more
citizens could participate in the nominating process. In time, these conventions grew inadequate. Today the
modern nominating process is characterized by primary elections. A primary election is like any other election.
Primary ballots, however, do not choose winners but candidates. Primary elections invite all eligible voters to
participate in helping political parties choose their candidates. Most states hold closed primaries. Closed
primaries stipulate that only registered party members can participate. In open primaries any registered voter
can participate. Because most states hold closed primaries, and more and more Americans see themselves as
independent, turnout tends to be quite low [as low as 25% in many states]. Nevertheless this first stage in any
campaign is of utmost importance. In the first stage political parties nominate their candidates.
Primary election campaigns tend to be frontloaded. This means that the earliest primaries often carry the most
significance. The first primary has traditionally been held in New Hampshire. Because it is the first primary it
often establishes important momentum. Iowa, however, can still claim an important role. Iowa is one of the
few states that still hold a nominating caucus. Usually held just prior to the New Hampshire primary, the Iowa
caucus often can boast that it catapulted the frontrunner.
The second stage of any campaign is winning the general election. General election campaigns begin
immediately following a political parties national convention. Primary and caucus elections ultimately choose
delegates to a party’s national conventions. It is those delegates who cast the final tally that makes the
nomination official. Though primary election results make the national convention anti-climatic, these
assemblies provide an important showcase to both the party platform and its prized candidate. Slick images and
choreographed speeches at the national convention kick-off the general election campaign. In the end the
general election determines who will fill the government office at stake.
16
Winning primary and general elections require more than just candidates. The modern campaign today involves
an army of paid and volunteer staff. Presidential candidates rent office space in all fifty states. But most
importantly use all forms of media to run ads. Consequently, the modern campaign requires vast sums of
money.
The mother’s milk of politics is money. Democracy is not cheap. With escalating campaign costs the role of
money in politics has increasingly grown muddled at best. Traditionally politics has been perceived of as a
haven for fat cats. The perception that graft and corruption reign has always been close to the surface. The fear
of a plutocracy, a government by the rich, has prompted our Congress more recently to pass campaign finance
laws. These campaign finance laws were intended to assure a level playing field for all. They also emphasize
the importance of transparency. Full and complete disclosure allows media watchdogs to police the relationship
between our politicians and the moneyed class. These laws have been met by skepticism and suspicion.
The Federal Election Campaign Act [FECA] of 1971 was the first major piece of legislation that addressed
money in politics. In addition to creating the Federal Elections Commission [FEC] that regulates campaign
money this law put in place strict limits on both hard money and soft money. Hard money is money given
directly to a candidate’s campaign. This law limited that amount to $1,000. No single person could give more
than $1,000 to a candidate’s campaign. Soft money is money directed to the national political party. Though
unlimited, the party could only use soft money for issue advocacy and get out the vote efforts.
This opening salvo to campaign finance limits was challenged in the court case Buckley v. Valeo (1976). The
Supreme Court seemed to find valid arguments on both sides. The Court recognized that campaign money was
protected under the First Amendment’s free speech clause. Yet recognized the need for limits so as to assuage
the perception that money unfairly benefitted a few in our political process. Not too surprising this law did not
reduce money in the process nor did it reduce the perception of money’s corrupting influence.
The formation of political action committees (PACs) quickly became a loophole to circumvent these new
apparent limits. New money began to pore into thousands of PACs. These new PACs gave their newly raised
money to the candidates. In the end money had not been limited at all. It had only been redirected.
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act [BCRA] of 2002 was intended to address the apparent loopholes that
provided for big money influence. Hard money limits were actually increased to $2,000 and indexed to
inflation rates. Unlimited soft money was banned entirely. Often called by its nickname, McCain-Feingold
hoped to improve upon the intentions of the previous legislation. The Court upheld these new provisions in the
case McConnell v. FEC (2003). But again the result was the same. An unintended consequence was that
political parties grew weaker. It also spurred the growth of outside independent expenditures.
Outside independent expenditures took on the form of 527 groups. These independent groups cannot work
directly with the candidates nor can they funnel money to their respective campaigns. They can, however,
collect unlimited amounts of money and use it to run ads that promote political candidates and their positions.
Today these 527 groups have grown more and more significant to the political process. The Court in Citizens
United v. FEC (2010) has essentially endorsed these independent super PACs. Money, and we are talking about
a lot of money, continues to flow into our political system. In our recent presidential campaign over $1 billion
dollars was spent. Though some might say compared to our $6 billion spent annually on potato chips, electing a
president is worth it.
Other campaign finance reforms have been suggested. The most frequently mentioned reform is replacing the
current system of private money with publicly financed campaigns. This means that candidates would no
longer need to solicit money. The federal government would underwrite the expenses of all national campaigns.
A variation of this reform involves the federal government matching privately raised money. If a candidate
chooses to accept federal money for their campaign they also agree to abide by stricter limitations on how and
when that money is spent. Because most candidates can now raise more money then the federal government
provides, they often choose not to accept the federal matching funds.
Money has always been the mother’s milk of politics. For the foreseeable future, it still is.
17
Money alone, however, cannot get you elected. There are a number of critical elements to running a successful
political campaign. First you need to get mentioned. There has to be an acknowledgement by certain elites or a
collective mass of people that you are both qualified and desirable as a candidate. Image and likeability have a
lot to do with this and plays an important role in any successful campaign.
Once mentioned, you will need to create a formidable campaign organization. This starts with a handler.
Handlers are the brains behind any campaign. With a staff of media and marketing experts handlers attempt to
brand candidates like you would a product in the grocery store. This involves finding the right slogans and
messages. Critical to any candidate and campaign are running successful TV ads. Barnstorming across the
country involves a ground game. When running for president, an advance staff with resources must be in place
in all fifty states. Thousands of volunteers are needed to make calls, knock on doors, create posters and even
write speeches and press releases.
The modern campaign has also seen the necessity to debate your opponent. These debates usually are less
about what is said and more about how it is said. Journalists lob gotcha questions hoping for candidates to slip
up or make verbal mistakes. We watch for bloopers. Nevertheless these debates play an important role in
introducing candidates to a wider national audience.
National campaigns often look for what is called an October surprise. Despite all of the planning and scripted
activity some outside news event or unexpected crisis changes the dynamic of most campaigns. For President
Bush these surprises usually involved terrorist attacks and for candidate Obama the financial meltdown made it
more difficult for McCain to challenge. Lest we forget, in the end we the people vote. It is our vote that
legitimizes campaign activity. Slick ads and fancy images do not assure victory. In the end, the most votes is
the only way to win an election. This is easier said then done.
What conclusions can we make about the modern political campaign? They are much longer. They are far
more expensive. As noticed, they are much more democratic. Campaign professionals and consultants have
taken on a much more important role. The media covers campaigns more like a horse race. Emphasis is given
to who is in the lead according to the latest polling data. In depth coverage on the issues is unlikely. Political
parties have grown less important in the process. Regional blocs are more and more important. Republicans
count on the solid South for support while Democrats rely on coastal regions. And finally because turnout in
the primaries is characterized by base voters, a much smaller number, candidates tend to be far more ideological
then the average voter in the general election. Ironically, this means that our political process is far more
welcoming to more radical candidates on both sides of the political spectrum. It is for this reason that our
politics in Washington appears to be more polarized then what is actually believed in the heartland.
Voter turnout in elections remains low. In presidential years one hopes to exceed 50% of eligible voters in the
general election. Turnout in the primaries is much lower. Voter turnout in midterm elections rarely exceeds
40%. Today’s elections have too many under votes and over votes. Under votes are those who choose not to
vote. Over votes are those who have spoiled their ballots by improperly marking them.
When congressional elections are nationalized, meaning focused attention on a major issue, turnout tends to be
higher. So too is the rate of incumbent defeat. More often elections are localized focusing on local issues.
When this is so incumbent rates are quite high. Incumbency is the likelihood of winning reelection.
Incumbency rates in the House of Representatives often reach 90% though a little lower in the Senate. We may
hold our Congress in disregard but most tend to be reelected anyway. More then anything else this is due to
turnout in the primaries. Remember most of us stay home for this phase. The party base dominates primary
election turnout.
The Electoral College ultimately determines presidential elections. The people indirectly elect our president.
To win in the Electoral College a candidate must win a majority of the 538 electors. 270 electoral votes mean
you will be the next president. Electoral votes are allocated state by state. Most states have winner take all
rules. When a candidate receives the most votes in a state they then will receive all of that state’s electoral
votes. The number of electoral votes per state is the sum of their representation in Congress. If Illinois has 18
members in the U.S. House and 2 members in the U.S. Senate then Illinois receives 20 electoral votes. Though
18
one might imagine that the race is for the big states, holding regional blocs together like the solid South for
Republicans is a formidable hurdle for Democrats to overcome. Invariably most states are fairly predictable.
Presidential campaigns in the general election tend to focus on just a handful of bellwether states. Large
amounts of campaign resources are spent in ten or fewer states. This means that millions of Americans feel
somewhat left out of general election politics.
As a sign that our elections are growing more and more democratic, one should note the increasing number of
referendums. A referendum puts a public policy idea directly on the ballot. Essentially, a referendum makes
the voter a member of a large legislative branch. When voting on referendums voters get to directly decide a
legislative question. Referendums move us closer and closer to a direct democracy, something the founding
fathers were afraid of.
Political legitimacy in our political process relies on free and fair elections. Certain institutions help to link the
people to this process. These important linkage institutions are political parties, campaigns and elections. G.K.
Chesterton was right, “Democracy is like blowing your nose – you may not do it very well, but you ought to do
it yourself.”
Democracy is a verb.
The Judicial Branch
Assigned TEXT
How things have changed. At the time our constitution was ratified Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 78,
referred to the United States judiciary and its Supreme Court as “the least dangerous branch.” It did not take
long before Alexis de Tocqueville recognized that “scarcely any political question arises in the United States
that is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question.” Today the federal judiciary led by the United
States Supreme Court resolve our most vexing political quandaries. Our least dangerous branch has evolved
into our most potent political player.
And few Americans know much about the court. Read on and learn about the American judiciary.
The American judiciary is characterized as a dual court system. There are national courts and state courts. This
is due to federalism. Our emphasis here will be the national courts. There are also two types of law in this
country, criminal law and civil law. Criminal law is law between the state and an individual. An example of
criminal law would be an individual breaking the law by robbing a bank. Civil law is between two people. An
example of civil law would be one person sues another person for violating a contract. It can be said that we
live in a litigious society. We litigate, take people to court, for just about everything.
There are 94 District courts in the national or federal judiciary. District courts are the lowest trial courts.
District courts have what is called original jurisdiction. They hear a case for the first time. It should be noted
that most civil and criminal cases do not even make it to court. Most cases in our judicial system end in a
settlement or plea bargain. A plea bargain is a deal made between the plaintiff and the defendant in order to
bypass the need for a formal trial. In civil suits this involves an adequate financial settlement. In criminal cases
this usually involves pleading guilty to a lesser charge.
In addition there are 12 Appellate Courts. Appellate Courts, often called circuit courts, hear federal appeals. If
you lose in the District courts you can ask a higher court, an appellate court, to consider whether or not your
trial followed the law correctly. If you lose in an Appellate Court you can appeal to the highest court in the land
the United States Supreme Court. The only court mandated in the Constitution is the Supreme Court. The U.S.
Congress has the authority to create courts and to determine the number of justices on the Supreme Court. In
19
the U.S. Supreme Court, like all appellate courts, it is not a trial determining guilt or innocence. At stake is the
constitutionality of law.
The weapon that propelled the federal judiciary into the political limelight is judicial review. The precedent of
judicial review was established in the courts case Marbury v. Madison (1803). Chief Justice John Marshall
wrote famously, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department [the judicial branch] to say
what the law is.” In other words, the court would be the final arbiter in all-constitutional matters. The federal
judiciary has the authority to rule on the constitutionality of all government activity on a case-by-case basis.
This gives the federal judiciary tremendous power.
The Court’s power has also evolved over time due to certain key landmark precedents. In addition to the
Marbury, McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) established national supremacy. In the Fulton steamboat monopoly
case, Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), the court reinforced national supremacy by ruling broadly on the Constitution’s
commerce clause.
Today the most notable issues facing the court revolve around civil liberties and civil rights. Nevertheless there
are many other important issues that our court faces.
How do cases end up before the U.S. Supreme Court?
Cases that are heard in the U.S. Supreme Court must first show standing. Standing means that there is a
constitutional question at stake. The legal process also takes substantial resources. Money is often a hurdle to
overcome when considering an expensive appeal.
There are thousands of appeals made every year from Appellate Courts to the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet each
year the Supreme Court docket, or calendar, only provides time to review about 80 cases. The odds are not
good for your case being heard. The odds of your appeal being heard are improved if two lower court decisions
contradict. If the Supreme Court agrees to hear your appeal they grant a Writ of Certiorari. This is a Latin term
means “to make certain.” It takes four of the nine justices to grant a writ of certiorari. With only four justices
required to accept an appeal, we see another example of how our government protects the rights of minority
viewpoints. When the Supreme Court decides there is no further appeal. The decision is final.
Once your case has been granted certiorari the Supreme Court studies the critical briefs. These are the critical
arguments that were made in the previous court hearings. Here the increased power of the law clerks is felt
most. Each of the nine Supreme Court justices has at least two clerks who help weed through the complex legal
arguments. Each case is given time for an oral argument. Before all nine justices lawyers are given 30-minutes
to make their case. When the U.S. government is involved the Solicitor General makes the formal arguments.
Many think this stage is purely cathartic. The most important arguments are found in the legal briefs and in the
amicus briefs including law review articles. Supreme Court justices are influenced by legal elites. “Friends of
the court” write Amicus briefs. These are affected parties who are not formally connected to the case. After
oral arguments the Court meets to discuss the case. The Chief Justice guides the debate. In the end the Court
votes. All that is required is a simple majority to decided. The most frequent vote tally in most Court terms is
5-4. If there is a tie vote in the Supreme Court the previous court decision prevails.
A simple vote is enough. Once the Court has decided the outcome it is essential for the justices to write their
rationale in a formal opinion. There are four types of Court opinions:
20
Majority Opinion: This opinion, often called the Court opinion, establishes the rationale of the final Court
decision and represents the opinion of most of the judges.
Concurring Opinion: A judge writes this opinion from within the majority who holds a different legal position.
This judge agrees with the outcome but for different reasons.
Minority Opinion: This opinion, often called a dissenting opinion, is written to oppose the majority decision.
These judges disagree with the outcome of this case.
Per Curiam: This type of opinion is unsigned. Rarely used, a per curiam opinion is written when there is
overwhelming unanimity and no single judge wants to be highlighted as its author.
How do judges go about making their decisions?
The process of making a judicial decision is called jurisprudence. Ideally, we all wish to believe that “justice is
blind.” We hope that judges base their opinions upon what the law says and not on personal bias. There are
two primary schools of jurisprudence.
One school of jurisprudence is called judicial restraint. These strict constructionists attempt to reserve their
judgments to the original intent of the law. They often defer to the other branches and try to avoid making
politically explosive decisions. Today conservatives tend to consider themselves practicing judicial restraint.
Another school of jurisprudence is called judicial activism. Activist judges see themselves as the last resort for
the powerless. They are not afraid to see the constitution as living document. Furthermore when Congress
writes vague laws it is the Court, they say, that needs to clearly define the government’s intent. Today liberals
tend to support judicial activism.
Regardless of one’s jurisprudence, there is an expectation that the Court follows stare decisis. This is a Latin
phrase that means, “let the decision stand.” In our legal system court precedent is the basis by which other likeminded cases are decided. In this way we all receive equal justice.
When the court does deviate from precedent it can be accused of becoming a policy-making institution. Here
again we see why the court is no longer “the least dangerous branch.” The Court has evolved into an important
political force. It is for this reason that court appointments have become major political battlegrounds.
The constitutional process on paper seems simple enough. The president of the United States appoints and the
Senate confirms. Yet rarely is it this simple, especially when the president and the Senate majority are from
different political parties.
Presidents attempt to pack the court with judges who share his/her political bent. This usually involves
prospective judges passing a president’s litmus test. Every president typically has an issue or two that defines
their respective political party. For Republicans a litmus test issue might be holding a pro-life position.
Democratic presidents might demand prospective judges to hold broad commerce clause opinions. In either
case the opposing party always complains. The opposition reminds the American people that justice is
supposed to be blind. The Court is not supposed to reflect our political arena. It is for this reason that our
founders gave our Supreme Court judges life terms. They are appointed and not elected.
21
With all of this newfound power what checks the Court? One significant check on the Supreme Court is its lack
of enforcement. If court decisions deviate too far from national consensus the American public will simply not
follow the opinion. Impeachment is another check but rarely used and never used successfully on a Supreme
Court judge. Perhaps the most significant check on the Supreme Court is public opinion. The court is
apprehensive to lose its prestige by ruling in ways that dismiss what broad majorities hold. In this way the
Court is held in check.
Judicial review has empowered the court far beyond what the original constitution had intended. Used rarely at
first, judicial review is now used quite frequently. Some might think this activism would stir public opinion
against the court. On the contrary more and more Americans are not bothered by judicial activism. A powerful
court is no longer feared.
Former Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote, “We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what
the judges say it is.” This kind of court confidence might have surprised Alexander Hamilton but it does not
seem to bother you and I. The federal judiciary is no longer “the least dangerous branch.” It may be the most
dangerous. As we learn more about the dysfunctions of our political institutions perhaps a powerful court is just
what we need.
President
Assigned TEXTS
Politics will eventually be replaced by imagery. The politician will be only too happy to abdicate in favor of his
image, because the image will be much more powerful than he could ever be.” Marshall McLuhan
Today we introduce the American Presidency. In the modern era television has changed the way we watch and
learn about politics. TV has dramatically changed the office of president. To properly understand the modern
presidency students of politics must first understand today’s media. The media is another example of an
important linkage institution.
Freedom of the press, one of our most sacred rights, is guaranteed in the First Amendment. Famed newspaper
publisher Joseph Pulitzer underscored the reason for such reverence best. He wrote:
“Our Republic and its press will rise and fall together. An able, disinterested, public spirited press, with trained
intelligence to know the right and courage to do it can preserve that public virtue without which popular
government is a sham and mockery. A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as
base as itself. The power to mold the future of the republic will be in the hands of the journalists of future
generations.”
And how have journalists fared?
The relationship between journalists and politicians today is a love-hate relationship. Politicians love
journalists when their work assists in building positive public opinion. No modern campaign can be successful
without positive coverage in the press. Yet the love does not last long. Journalists love to expose faults. Soon
into any elective official’s term journalists begin to expose apparent weaknesses.
It is not uncommon, however, for every day common Americans to hold the media in contempt. The American
polity can often be heard saying – “Blame the media.”
22
There are many complaints against the media today. Many blame the media for today’s cynicism and lack of
civic engagement. The media has culpability in our low levels of trust it is argued. The media, it is alleged, no
longer takes seriously its obligation to make us knowledgeable about politics.
Allegations of media bias have grown popular. Political science tells us that a majority of the national press
leans toward the Democratic Party. Whether or not this affects their coverage is disputed. What is indisputable
is that journalism today has grown far beyond a public service. The modern mainstream media is big business.
Historically when the media wrote copy to merely sell papers it was called yellow journalism. The profitability
of sensational headlines and illustrations forever changed the role played by media in public affairs.
Freedom of press, like our other rights, has limits. The national government has not let journalists run
completely unfettered. The printed word, via newspapers and magazines, face the least limits. Television and
radio carry the most limits. Seeing that they use the airwaves, perceived as public property, the national
government has shown greater willingness to regulate. Whenever the government regulates or censors the press
they use the power of prior restraint. Often this requires either legislative action or a judicial order.
The courts have allowed prior restraint in cases where national security is at stake. This precedent was
established in the case New York Times v. United States (1971).
Historically the media was also limited by legislative action. The Fairness Doctrine and Equal Time provisions
affected the types of coverage “we the people” received. The Fairness Doctrine, no longer in effect, forced
media outlets to broadcast a variety of views. Equal Time laws specify the amount coverage heard.
The most important law passed affecting modern journalism has been the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
This provision has forced governments to be more transparent. Everyday citizens can now demand to see first
hand public documents. Hiding behind classified information has grown harder and harder for public servants.
Of course when we talk about the media we are talking about the means of mass communication. We are
talking about the way we receive the news. Examples would be newspapers, radio, television, and now the
Internet.
Newspapers certainly lack timeliness but still offer the most detailed coverage. Electronic media have
increasingly forced many print sources out of business. There is less and less competition today in the
newspaper world.
TV and Internet sources now flourish. Both mediums have dramatically changed our assumptions about the
news. With so many options to choose from we no longer accept these outlets to be fair and unbiased. We
choose the news sources that best feed our needs and wants. TV and Internet sources of news provide us
greater access. They provide more and more competition but most importantly create a means of two-way
communication between journalists and citizens. The elite no longer tell us what to watch. We now can choose
for ourselves. Citizen-journalism is now the norm.
These revolutionary changes have not affected the basic roles played by the media in today’s political arena.
Let’s look at these basic roles.
23
GATEKEEPER. The media serves as gatekeeper. The emphasis played by a headline or lead story push public
discourse. What we talk about everyday is in no small way a by-product of the national and local media
coverage.
SCOREKEEPER. The media today is characterized by horse-race journalism. Our cultural attention deficit has
impacted the way we learn about the news. Today’s media is less likely to cover stories in depth. Rather they
take short cuts by simply telling us who the winners and losers are. Analysis may be wanting but we know
more quickly the score of our most current campaigns.
WATCHDOG. This role has grown to be the single most important function of the media today. When serving
as our watchdog, we count on the media to expose political scandals. The media serves in this role the
important function of a check on our elected officials. Today’s media can be described as a junk-yard dog. The
most salacious of stories now gain the greatest audience. Muckraking has grown into our national pastime.
With the rise of visual media, the most prominent being TV and the Internet, our politics has forever been
changed. Image has trumped substance. No institution has been affected more then the office of president of
the United States.
Let’s look more closely at the modern presidency.
Presidential Qualities
To be a successful president one must possess certain essential qualities. Yet we must remember that to be a
successful president requires more than the skills one person can possess. The American presidency
encompasses a vast Executive Branch. It is more than one person.
Here is the essential flow chart of the Executive Branch. “The buck may stop” on the president’s desk but it
must pass through a large complex bureaucracy known as the Executive Branch.
President – Chief Executive
Vice President – few formal powers other then to preside over the Senate [presiding officer of the Senate has
one power, to break tie votes].
White House Office – these 100s of employees are the president’s closest friends and advisors who help him the
most with political and policy decisions. (Also includes the Executive Office).
Cabinet – made up of the Secretaries of the Executive Agencies [Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense,
Secretary of the Treasury, etc…] The Cabinet represents the 100,000s of executive branch employees who
enforce public policy. The Cabinet has grown weaker over time as each Secretary spends more time securing
the stability [and budget] of their Department rather than give-unfettered advice to the president.
Independent Agencies and Government Corporations – These executive branch functions lie outside of the
executive departments. Examples of independent agencies would be the CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] and
the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency]. Examples of government corporations would be AMTRAK and
the United States Post Office.
24
The Executive Branch of the United States employs close to 3 million workers. The vast majority of these
workers do not change every four years like the president. Many presidents complain that this unyielding
bureaucracy makes it difficult to get anything done.
With that in mind, what are essential qualities needed to be an effective president? Can one person truly bring
about change? Look at successful presidents for a hint. What can one person do to make a difference . . .
within a four year term no less?
Presidential Roles
Today in class we are learning about Presidential roles. The President of the United States has to wear many
hats. The President of the United States has to fulfill many different roles. What role do you think is most
important? How would you rank them?
Here is a list of the primary Presidential roles:
1. Chief Executive – the President oversees the vast powers of the United States government. Ultimately the
President takes responsibility for governing. When times are good the President receives praise but when they
are bad he is left with the blame. The President’s closest political and policy advisors are to be found in the
White House Office, sometimes called the Executive Office. Members of the White House Office are generally
drawn from the President’s campaign. As chief executive the President is called upon to make the final
decisions in all public policy matters facing the nation.
2. Commander-in-Chief – The constitution created a military that would be lead by a civilian. The Framers
hoped that such a set up might make war less common. The President of the United States, a civilian, is in
charge of our entire military. Congress DECLARES WAR but the President mobilizes troops at his command.
First strike capabilities are not checked or balanced by any other branch of government. The President of the
United States can launch a nuclear strike at any time, for any reason. He is the commander-in-chief.
3. Chief of Party – Chief of Party is an informal power. There is no mention of this role in the United States
Constitution. Though political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution, they undeniably play an important
role in our government. As Chief of Party the President oversees electoral strategies, issues, agendas and public
policy priorities. The President also plays a major role in raising campaign money for candidates from his
party. When the majority of Congress shares the same party as the President it is called a UNIFIED
GOVERNMENT. When the two are different it is called a DIVIDED GOVERNMENT.
4. Chief of State – This may be the President’s most esoteric role. Yet some would call it the most important.
This role is primarily ceremonial. As Chief of State the President serves as the embodiment of America. When
there are important occasions around the world to attend our President goes. When important visitors come to
America our President serves as host. When we honor our heroes the President awards them. If there is a
solemn event our President speaks to the nation to console us. Throughout history the King played this role.
We have no king. The stand in for Chief of State is our President. Our president is FIRST CITIZEN.
5. Chief Legislator – Though the Congress is given primary responsibility for writing laws our president serves
as Chief Legislator. The power of veto, the power to reject laws, is given solely to the president. Fewer than
4% of presidential vetoes are overridden. In addition the constitution requires the president to give annually a
State of the Union address. Often this is a legislative agenda for the year. Through his bully pulpit no single
person in our government is situated better to influence the legislative process then the president of the United
States.
25
6. Chief Diplomat – One of the clearest powers granted to the president is his authority in foreign policy.
Appointing ambassadors, receiving foreign guests and designing treaties with other nations is a fundamental
part of a president’s term. The State Department along with the Secretary of State completes much of this
work. However, the president conducts the highest levels of negotiations. The president makes agreements
with foreign powers. Formal treaties require Senate approval but executive agreements do not. As
globalization spreads more and more around the world the role of Chief Diplomat takes on greater and greater
importance.
Can you think of other examples? What role does President Obama perform best? What role is most important
in order to be reelected? What role is most important?
When looking at these roles it is hard to imagine that our Founders wanted a weak President. The Framers may
have feared monarchy as much as anarchy but they also understood the necessity of creating an energetic
President. This type of President had strict limits but could respond to national crises with imminent
effectiveness.
Presidential Powers
Is the President of the United States the most powerful person in the world or a pitiful helpless giant? In the
next couple of days we will analyze this question by looking at the President’s powers and contrast them to his
limits.
The history of the presidency is a history of aggrandizement. We all imagine today a president with far
reaching power. When looking at the constitution alone, however, we find a president with significant limits.
Here is a list of the president’s formal powers as found in Article 2 of the US Constitution:
Commander-in-Chief (Congress declares war); Make treaties (w/ Senate approval); Appoint ambassadors (w/
Senate confirmation); State of the Union Address; Convene special sessions of Congress (Truman was the last
to do this in 1948); Receive ambassadors; “Take care that the laws be executed.” [To this list many would add
the veto once rarely used but now played out more frequently. Fewer than 4% of all presidential vetoes are
overridden].
Not impressive by anyone’s standards. Yet today many would argue that the U.S. president is the most
powerful person in the world. Noted political scientist Richard Neustadt found the modern president’s power in
his ability to persuade. The unique position the president has to bargain and use his political resources has
made any chief executive extraordinarily powerful.
Today the president is powerful due to his ability to politic. This involves applying his influence to important
decisions. Logrolling involves trading votes. The prestige of the president applies tremendous pressure on
policy decision makers. In addition the president can muster up public opinion to support his agenda.
President’s can grab headlines to influence the national agenda. This unique ability to persuade has made ALL
presidents, not just the charismatic ones, truly powerful. No one has a bully pulpit like the president.
It should be added that certain powers exercised today by the president are also based upon tradition. These
powers are NOT found in the constitution but are routinely practiced today without any reservations. They
include:
26
Executive Orders – These domestic decrees carry the force of law but DO NOT require Congressional passage
or approval. The president can change and affect policy details through directives like these. Obama for
instance has changed details on various education and health care laws without any assistance from the other
branches.
Executive Agreements – These foreign policy decrees carry the force of treaties but DO NOT require the
Senate’s approval. The president can change and affect foreign policy without having to bother with the Senate.
Obama for instance has made numerous overtures in the Middle East without involving the other branches.
Executive Privilege – This privilege allows the president to seek candid and confidential advice without having
to disclose details to the general public. Despite promises of transparency all presidents utilize executive
privilege to keep many matters of importance outside the purview of the media.
We will now transition by looking at limits to this vast presidential power. Michael Novak has written, “If we
are to reform the presidency, the heart of the matter is the president’s power over REALITY, his symbolic
power. The social reality of the U.S. cannot be left to definition by one man alone.”
Presidential Limits
Hard to talk about limited government when looking at the modern president. The presidency has grown for a
number of reasons. One reason the presidency has grown is the increased importance of foreign policy. The
president is at the epicenter of American foreign policy decisions. Another reason for the growth of the
American presidency is the growth of the federal bureaucracy. Much of this growth has been a result of
economic crises. The federal government has built a larger more comprehensive safety net. The president
oversees these responsibilities. Do not discount the role technology has played. The president’s ability to use
the media to increase the power of the office should be noted.
Today’s powerful modern president, however, should not be seen as unchecked. There are still significant
limits on presidential power. Some would argue these checks have made the president “a pitiful helpless giant.”
Here are the primary checks:
Congress. Examples like the War Powers Act (1974) and the Budget Impoundment Act (1974) continue to
limit the president’s war making powers and his power over the budget.
Courts. Examples like US v. Nixon (1974) demonstrate how the courts can limit the president, in this case a
limit on executive privilege.
Federalism. The separation of powers between the national and state governments still impose significant limits
on a president’s reach of authority.
National Elections. The 22nd Amendment limits the president to 2 terms. Time becomes a serious limit to
presidential success.
Foreign governments. Crises over seas often side track domestic agendas. It is difficult to prepare for the
surprises each Administration faces in the area of foreign policy.
27
Media. Remember the relationship here is love-hate. The media often acts like a junk yard dog around the
president and his Administration.
Public Opinion. The biggest constraint on any president is public opinion. History suggests that most
presidents’ popularity declines while in office, except during reelection campaigns. What this means is that to
succeed in office most presidents better work fast and early. FDR was given a 100-day honeymoon. Modern
presidents rarely are treated as well.
Is the President of the United States the most powerful person of the world or a pitiful helpless giant?
Electoral College
Today in class we are learning about the Electoral College. The Electoral College is the INDIRECT way “we
the people” select our president.
As expressed in our Constitution the Electoral College reflects the Framers reluctance to put the office of
president in the hands of a direct vote. Mirroring CHECKS AND BALANCES the Electoral College allows the
people to vote for electors who then cast their vote for a president. The electors, however, are NOT bound by
the people’s votes. The electors serve as a filter supposedly protecting the nation from the whims of an
irrational mob.
The Electoral College also reflects FEDERALISM. The electors in the Electoral College are selected state-bystate. The total number of electors in each state is allocated by the total number of votes each state has in
Congress. Illinois, for example, has 18 representatives in the House and 2 in the Senate. Therefore Illinois will
receive 20 total electoral votes in the 2012 election. If you do the math that means there are 538 total electoral
votes in the Electoral College [435 members in the House, 100 members in the Senate plus the District of
Columbia is allotted 3 electors since the passage of the 23rd Amendment in 1961 for a total of 538].
To win in the Electoral College you must win a simple majority of the 538 electors. To win the presidential
election you must win 270 or more electoral votes. If no one candidate wins a majority in the Electoral College
the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES is constitutionally designated to choose the winner with each state
delegation receiving one vote.
One curious rule governing the Electoral College is winner-take-all. The candidate who wins the most votes in
any given state wins all of that state’s electoral votes. This winner-take-all rule affects campaign strategies.
Most campaigns will spend most of their time focusing on those few battleground states like Ohio and Florida.
This also affects the issues of a campaign. Candidates will focus on issues that resonate in the few battleground
states. The winner-take-all rule makes it especially hard for third parties to win. Third parties may score votes
but rarely enough to win a majority in any given state.
Why have we kept the Electoral College?
Certainly tradition helps explain why we do not get rid of the Electoral College. Passing a constitutional
amendment is not easy. Whereas there are many who complain about the Electoral College there is no clear
consensus on an alternative. Some small states think that the Electoral College benefits them. The battle
ground states would hate to lose the attention the current system gives them. Finally the Electoral College
reinforces our two-party system. After all, most people do not understand the Electoral College. It is difficult
to change something many do not know about.
28
Now that you know about the Electoral College, would you want to see it changed? How?
We also reviewed the following ideas:
MEDIA
Primary Roles: GATEKEEPER [agenda setter]/SCOREKEEPER [tell us who is winning]/WATCHDOG
[expose scandals]
Protected by 1st Amendment – however, the public airways are owned and operated by the Federal government.
Hence, TV and radio can and is regulated. Language and images are restricted.
FOIA – Freedom of Information Act: a law that allows citizens access to government information.
With the exponential growth of media sources (Internet) few expect objectivity anymore. Fair and balanced
coverage is no longer the standard.
PRESIDENT
Remember we now talk about presidential power as being INSTITUTIONALIZED. This means ANYONE
who is president is powerful. The presidency no longer requires a personality type to be powerful.
The greatest source of a president’s power lies outside of the Constitution. A president’s INFORMAL power is
greater than his FORMAL power. The greatest source of a president’s informal power lies in his ability to
POLITIC and PERSUADE.
Three critical informal powers held by today’s president:
1. Executive Orders – domestic decrees that DO NOT require congressional approval.
2. Executive Agreements – foreign decisions that DO NOT require Senate approval.
3. Executive Privilege – a president’s ability to keep secret meetings with advisors.
Review PRESIDENTIAL ROLES.
Executive Branch Organization
Due in part to the size and complexity of the United States and the needs of its people – the Federal
Bureaucracy has grown to a work force of close to 3 million people. Federal offices filled with executive
branch employees can be found in all 50 states and around the world.
The Federal Bureaucracy is characterized by its organization, specialization and expertise. Whereas once the
executive branch was staffed primarily by patronage appointments – that is by friends and patrons of the
president – the Civil Service Act of 1883 established the merit system. Today the vast majority of the Federal
Bureaucracy is made up of career civil servants.
29
The Federal Bureaucracy tends to be organized hierarchically. Underneath the President of the United States
and his White House staff and executive office are the Cabinet Departments.
Each Cabinet Department has a head, usually called a Secretary, with multiple levels and layers of
responsibility. The most noted Cabinet Departments are:
•
•
•
The State Department – responsible for foreign policy
The Treasury Department – responsible for monetary policy
The Department of Defense – responsible for national security
Yet other Cabinet Departments are growing in stature as federal priorities change:
•
•
The Department of Education is trying to reform public education in America
The Department of Health and Human Services is implementing many changes in the way health care
will be provided to millions of Americans.
In addition to the Cabinet Departments, the Federal Bureaucracy is also made up of Independent agencies like
NASA, the CIA and the EPA.
•
•
•
NASA, the National Aeronautic and Space Administration, studies and explores regions outside of our
atmosphere.
The CIA, the Central Intelligence Agency, gathers and interprets foreign intelligence in order to keep us
safe at home.
The EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, develops policies and programs to clean our
environment.
The Federal Bureaucracy is also made up of certain government corporations like the United States Postal
Service and Amtrak: one delivers our mail and the other delivers us to our destination via rail.
The Federal Bureaucracy is organized in order to deliver government services as efficiently as possible.
Considering the number of tasks and the diversity of constituents this is not always easy.
Let us review what we have learned. The Federal Bureaucracy transforms Federal policy into action. The
Federal Bureaucracy is characterized by its organization. The Federal Bureaucracy tends to be organized
hierarchically.
Points for review:
Political leaks to the media are most often INTENTIONAL – to help shape the coverage.
Members of the White Office, unlike the Cabinet, do not require Senate confirmation.
22nd Amendment limits presidents’ to 2 terms.
The line of succession is: president/vice president/Speaker of the House/President pro tempore of the
Senate/Secretary of State.
30
A signing statement is when a bill is signed into law but interpreted by the president differently then originally
intended by Congress. In this way the president controls the legislative process. These signing statements often
go unchecked. Signing statements are another example of an informal power.
APPROVAL RATINGS for presidents tend to go down during his 4-year term EXCEPT at election time.
Approval ratings stay higher during good economic times and periods of crisis [Americans look to the president
during crises for support]. When the economy is bad and foreign policy decisions go poorly approval ratings
plummet. Want to be a popular president? Ride good economic news, win short little wars and campaign for
reelection throughout your entire presidency. Above all else AVOID personal scandal. No surer way to lose
face than to get caught doing something you campaigned against.
Key Terms
Today in class we highlighted the important vocabulary related to the Executive Branch. The following words
are taken from our TENable list. Be prepared to define and state their significance. [Following each definition
are three separate words used to prompt your memory. Pneumonic devices like this help build real muscle
memory]
Review these definitions and the definitions to our previous word lists. In the end as Disraeli said, “With words
we govern men.”
Bully Pulpit
Whereas Congressional authority is given constitutional advantages, the vast reach of
Presidential power is found through political means. Though not always true, Theodore
Roosevelt in 1909 understood this when he said, “I suppose my critics will call that preaching
but I have got such a bully pulpit.” It should be noted, however, that in those days the word
“bully” meant “excellent,” “superb,” and “wonderful.” Roosevelt understood that the status
of President gave the office a unique position to persuade and therefore the ability to
accomplish great things. Regardless of personality, the American public looks to the President
for leadership, guidance and direction. We, more often than not, follow. Today the connotation
of “bully” is to be a “ruffian” or “intimidator.” In either case, whether a bully is a sweetheart
or a junk-yard dog, the President of the United States has gained by the nature of the office
great and grande power to advance an agenda that is difficult to impede.
Supreme Power/persuade the media/manipulate public opinion
Energetic President
Our Founding Fathers feared anarchy as much as they feared monarchy. Yet they had just fought against the
tyranny of King George of England. It was no surprise then that the new Constitution appeared to create a weak
chief executive. The office of President, however, was given access to great potential power. That potential is
found in the President’s unilateral ability to execute the laws and the power to exploit public opinion. No one
would deny that today’s Presidents appear quite powerful. The bigger question is would the Founding Fathers
be surprised?
Formal power = weak/informal power = strong/pitiful helpless giant
31
Bureaucracy
When government is asked to do something – and it is asked a lot – somebody has to do it. Democratic
governments have been instituted to serve the people. The Legislative Branch and their respective legislatures
respond to the needs of the people by writing laws. In our United States government Congress is responsible
for creating public policy. The Executive Branch is given the primary function to implement those policies.
The President of the United States and his staff execute the laws. This is no small task. The large arm of the
executive branch responsible for translating laws into action is called the Federal Bureaucracy. The Federal
Bureaucracy is the government means to a public policy end. When we want our government to do something,
it is the Federal Bureaucracy who is responsible for doing it. The Federal Bureaucracy transforms our wishes
into realities. The Federal Bureaucracy transforms Federal policy into action. Those individuals who transform
public policy into actionable services are Federal bureaucrats. As the action figures in our government they
come under frequent criticism and attack. Characterized by its hierarchical organization and specialization, the
ever-growing Federal Bureaucracy has been asked to address more and more. With its size comes inefficiency
and unresponsiveness making us wonder if we can live with it. One thing about the Federal Bureaucracy is
certain, however, we cannot live without it.
Executive branch workforce/enforce laws/independent authority
Impeachment
Impeachment proceedings provide the perfect civics lesson. Impeachments demonstrate our checks and
balances system. The House of Representatives is given the formal power to levy charges against an elected
official with a simple majority vote. The Senate tries the impeachment case and can vote to remove with a 2/3s
vote. Impeachments also teach the separation of power, federalism and partisanship. More importantly,
however, impeachments are often fueled by public opinion. Constitutional safeguards protect elected officials
from being removed on whim. Many over the years have been impeached by the House but few have been
removed by the Senate.
Check on President/House impeaches/Senate removes
Electoral Mandate
Presidential elections are in essence referendums for a particular direction. Candidates offer voters a choice.
What combination of policies do you wish for your future? The candidate who wins in the Electoral College
can claim more than victory in our quadrennial popularity contest. Winning the presidency also means
receiving a mandate to govern. More than choosing a winner voters endorse a particular program. Presidents
serve four year terms. Mandates may not last more than the first 100 days. Mandates, like public opinion, tend
to turn negative with time. For this reason most Presidents look to achieve something big early on in their first
term.
Large election victory/vote of public confidence/power to enact agenda
State of the Union Speech (SOTU)
The Constitution mandates that all Presidents provide Congress with an annual message. This State of the
Union speech often outlines an Administration’s priorities. For much of our history this message was sent via
the U.S. Postal Service. Since President Woodrow Wilson, however, the speech has been given live before a
32
combined Congressional audience. Today that audience has expanded to a global media spectacle. The State of
the Union address provides a good example of the President using his bully pulpit. Though the message was
intended for the Congress, today the State of the Union is as much about building allies with American public
opinion. The state of our union is now as much about politics as it is about governing.
Formal speech/national priorities/ultimate bully pulpit
Revolving Door
The federal bureaucracy has grown exponentially as more and more demands have been put upon our national
government. With it has grown the temptation for Federal officials to cash in their political ties and join private
companies who do business with government. Few can lobby the government better than those who once
walked the very halls as elected officials themselves. The revolving door between public service and private
interests often threatens the impartiality of public policy. Though laws have been written to mitigate the ill
effects of the revolving door loop holes still exist casting doubts upon the fairness and equity of government
programs.
Ex – government worker/hired by private firm/influence – lobby former friends
Coat tails
Coattails are achieved when a popular Presidential victory results in an across the board windfall for the new
President’s political party. It is plainly seen when one party wins overwhelmingly in a Presidential election.
Joined by large majorities in Congress can serve to help new Presidents achieve their agenda. Yet coattails are
at best an exception and not the rule. Evidence of coattails appears limited to history. It has not occurred in
recent elections. The absence of Presidential coattails would appear to reflect poorly on our political parties.
With the rise of independent voters and personal followings over partisan ID the word coattails just might be a
word to forget.
Popular President victory/influence Congressional elections/strengthens President’s party
Veto
Presidents do more than enforce the laws. They also play a vital role in the legislative process itself. Using
their power to bargain, Presidents can wield tremendous authority in shaping public policy. No better way to do
this than to use the Presidential veto. Though often seen as the means to reject a bill already passed by
Congress most Presidents use the veto as a means to mold the process itself. In the end if a veto is used it is
highly unlikely that the Congress can override it. The vast majorities of all vetoes are final. In this way
Presidents not only rule over the Executive Branch but now, some would say, over the Legislative Branch as
well.
Presidential power/reject legislation/almost impossible to override
Presidential Roles
If the Founding Fathers intended for a weak presidency it would be difficult to tell that from the various roles
played by today’s Chief Executive. In addition to serving as Chief Executive, overseeing the execution of all
federal laws, today’s Presidents also serve as as Commander in Chief; Chief of State; Chief Diplomat; Chief of
Party and Chief Legislator. These roles when combined certainly help project our President as one of our most
33
powerful individuals. At the same time broad expectations combined with institutional limits make it easy for
Presidents to be “pitiful helpless giants.”
Presidential hats/chief executive, party, state/commander-in-chief, chief diplomat
U.S. v. Nixon (1974)
In 1974 our Supreme Court weighed in on what some have called our greatest “constitutional crisis” in history.
President Richard Nixon faced numerous Articles of Impeachment due to his role in covering up various crimes
associated with his successful reelection bid in 1972. Nixon withheld critical evidence under the cover of
Executive Privilege. On principle, he argued that all Presidents required a certain protection from public
exposure of private conversations. The Court in U.S. vs. Nixon disagreed. The Court ruled that Executive
Privilege had limits. In the end the Court upheld that despite Nixon’s persistence otherwise, no one is above the
law - even the President of the U.S.
Court check on President/limit executive privilege/no one is above the law
The Federal Bureaucracy: One-Act Plays Done in Many Parts
Assigned TEXT
The federal bureaucracy is the group of government employees who are responsible for implementing public
policy. Bureaucrats often have considerable power because laws are written vaguely. This leaves great room
for interpretation. Often this results in government regulations that do not match the spirit or letter of the
original law. Bureaucrats can significantly influence public policy. This is especially true when both the
Congress and the president disagree on a policy.
The great paradox of the federal bureaucracy is that we need the federal government to enforce and implement
important laws but hold them in low regard for doing so inefficiently and wastefully. Inefficiency is
commonplace due to the inordinate amount of government red tape. Checks and balances put in place a
complex set of procedures.
Employees of the federal government, known as civil servants, are hired on the basis of their qualifications.
Few patronage positions remain. The spoils system may have strengthened political parties but it brought in
bureaucrats who lacked the proper experience. Today the federal bureaucracy employs over 2 million civil
servants. The federal bureaucracy grows in direct correlation to the expansion of public policy. The single
greatest example of this was during the New Deal.
Oversight of the federal bureaucracy is difficult because most elected officials lack expertise in the minutia of
public policy. Laws have been passed, however, to check the activity of bureaucrats. The Hatch Act was a
provision that prohibited civil servants from using government resources for political purposes.
There are many examples of the federal bureaucracy that you should be familiar with:
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) – helps the president monitor the federal budget.
Independent Agencies like the Federal Election Commission (FEC) – these are below but NOT subordinate to
the executive departments. They typically have a clear, specialized function. Independent agencies have been
created by the Congress to limit the president’s authority over them. Another example of this would be the
Security and Exchange Commission (SEC).
34
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) – regulates the public airwaves used for TV and radio.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) – regulates job safety.
Federal Reserve – Chaired by an appointee that serves 14 years, the Federal Reserve oversees government’s
monetary policy. This is NOT to be affected by presidential politics.
The federal bureaucracy implements public policy. Most can identify the three branches of government. Few
understand the government. Due to the bureaucracy’s great power many refer to it as a shadow government.
Economic Policy
The federal government and its bureaucracy try to help encourage positive economic activity. This includes
both monetary and fiscal policy. Of all the branches the judiciary plays the least role in our economy.
Our economy is best measured by looking at its output or Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The executive
department that oversees economic policy is the Treasury Department.
The Treasury Department, overseeing fiscal policy, produces currency, supervises national banks and collects
taxes paid to the United States. When government spending is equal to its revenues it is called a balanced
budget. When spending exceeds its revenue it is called a budget deficit. The total accumulation of money
borrowed by the government is called the federal debt.
Although the Treasury Department takes the lead in overseeing fiscal policy the president’s closest economic
advisors are found inside the White House Office – more specifically in the National Economic Council. The
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) also help the president.
The Federal Reserve, overseeing monetary policy, attempts to control inflation. Inflation is an increase in
consumer prices.
The politics governing the economy vary greatly though both parties support the system of capitalism.
Conservatives advocate supply-side economics. This position believes that lowering taxes stimulates economic
activity and investment. Liberals advocate Keynesian economics. This position believes the government
should pump deficit spending into the economy to stimulate growth.
Democrats typically represent labor while Republicans represent capital. In other words, liberals are workers
and conservatives are owners.
Democrats think they protect U.S. labor jobs by opposing free trade. Republicans favor free trade because they
claim it lowers prices.
The Congress receives help in its oversight of the economy by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The
Commerce committees in both House and Senate yield the most power over economic policies.
The large federal budget is made up primarily of mandatory spending. Because the entitlement programs,
Social Security and Medicare, make up a majority of the budget the Congress and the president have very little
discretionary spending to play with. This also makes it quite difficult to cut the budget. It is virtually
impossible to cut the entitlement programs. Programs like Social Security are called the “third rail” of politics.
35
They are untouchable due to the risk of making unpopular decisions. Medicare is government sponsored health
care for those over 65 years of age.
Social Policy
Republicans favor a social policy that favor market-based approaches like school vouchers. Schools,
conservatives argue, should be run like competitive businesses. Market-based solutions allow for individuals to
make choices rather then for the government to run organized programs.
Many social policies, however, are determined at the state level. Education, Medicaid and Welfare policies are
primarily controlled by state legislatures. Though many argue the lack of interest in social policy at the national
level is due to the fact that the poor do not vote. Furthermore few interest groups fight for the poor.
National welfare programs make up a small percentage of the federal budget.
Medicaid is government sponsored health care for the poor. Welfare is the word given to government
assistance to the poor. Welfare reform in the 1990s limited the number of years the poor could receive benefits.
This new limit was called the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).
The lack of a comprehensive social policy has increased over time the disparity between the rich and poor.
Many economists think this extreme economic inequality led to the recent financial meltdown.
To combat inequality Republicans favor job creation and lower taxes. Democrats increase funding for social
welfare programs paid for by increasing taxes on the rich.
Corporate welfare is a term used for those policies that assist businesses and corporations.
The national government took a larger lead in education policy during the Bush Administration with the policy
of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). This program increased national accountability and increased the reliance
upon test results when measuring school success.
One of the most active interest groups that promote social policy is the American Association of Retired
Persons (AARP). They represent the interests of the elderly. It is for this reason that government policy for the
aged is of more interest to our government then for college age citizens.
Foreign Policy
Foreign policy explains government action toward other nations. When the United States acts without any
support from its allies it is called unilateral action. When we work together with our allies it is called
multilateral action.
Historically the United States tended toward isolationism. This is a policy characterized by the avoidance of
foreign alliances. Ever since our participation in the World Wars, however, the United States has followed
internationalism. It is no longer possible to avoid working with allies around the world.
The U.S. Constitution gave the president the lead in developing foreign policy. Though the president has the
power of the sword, diplomacy is our preferred tactic. Diplomacy involves a wide variety of activity short of
36
military intervention. U.S. diplomacy also engages in foreign aid. This is when the U.S. government provides
money to other nations.
A popular means to attain our foreign policy goals is through the use of sanctions. Sanctions use economic
pressure to influence change. Another economic means of achieving our foreign policy ends is through the use
of tariffs. A tariff is a tax, or duty, on imported goods.
The International Monetary Fund assists countries around the world in managing their economic needs.
Foreign policy in recent years has been influenced greatly by the “clash of civilization” thesis. This thesis
suggested that the modern world is experiencing global terrorism motivated by hatred of the Western world.
CONGRESS
Assigned TEXTS
K STREET
INTEREST GROUPS try to influence public policy for a group of people with common concerns. Called by
many different names these SPECIAL INTERESTS or FACTIONS are organized to LOBBY at every entry
point of public policy. Remember James Madison in Federalist 10 said such activity was natural. Interest
groups have proliferated here because of social diversity, federalism, weak political parties and fragmented
institutions. Interest groups are more common here than in other democracies because of our unique American
political culture. Feelings of civic duty and high levels of political efficacy help to explain the large number of
interest groups in America. Interest groups are another example of a linkage institution.
Nevertheless a vast majority of Americans, close to 75%, believe interest groups have too much power and
authority over Washington DC. Perhaps because people with better then average incomes are the most likely to
join interest groups. Yet our PLURALISTIC political system allows for the free flow of competing interests.
Many of the largest lobbying firms have offices on K Street in Washington. For this reason interest groups are
often referred collectively as K STREET.
The act of influencing is called LOBBYING. A professional who works for any given interest group is called a
lobbyist. Though the FIRST AMENDMENT protects lobbying their behavior is closely regulated not unlike
campaign finance. All lobbyists must register with the government and file regular statements that itemize their
activity. In addition to money and gift limits there are restrictions on “revolving door” lobbying. The revolving
door describes those elected officials and bureaucrats who are hired by lobbying firms to influence their former
office. Nevertheless, many of our democratic values protect lobbyists against draconian restrictions.
Of course hiring a lobbyist is not the only way to influence policy. Through letter writing, demonstrating and
other like-minded activities anybody can play the role of an interest group. When everyday citizens participate
as an interest group this is called GRASSROOTS. When powerful interest groups orchestrate grass root
activity it is called ASTROTURFING. Too many of us are FREE RIDERS, we want to enjoy the privileges of
interest group activity without participating ourselves.
Interest Groups
Mother’s Milk
37
The primary means of influencing public officials begins with a noticeable campaign donation. When a
political system is governed by wealth it is called a plutocracy. There have been many attempts to limit and
regulate the role money plays in our political system. Substantiating substantive corruption is rare, but our
perception, as citizens, is that money significantly tarnishes the integrity of our political process. Congress has
routinely proposed finance limits and regulations. Presidents have willingly enforced these restrictions and the
Supreme Court typically has found little constitutional burden. Nevertheless, our perception of monies’
corrupting influence goes unabated. We look upon interest groups, lobbyists and “the special interests” with
great disdain. We often forget that these despicable folks are regular citizens just like us, organized under the
protection of the First Amendment’s right to petition our government. Perhaps our hopes of a government
which is lactose intolerant is misguided. Maybe mother’s do know best.
Money/essential to campaigns/empowers interests, those groups who organize
Minority Rights
One of our most cherished founding principles is that “all men are created equal.” For this reason the writers of
the Constitution were reluctant to place ultimate power in the hands of majorities. Popular sovereignty is
unmistakable but so too are the safeguards given to minority rights. For this reason individuals and groups of
all types have been empowered to influence public policy. Our government does not always act democratically.
Republican forms of government are empowered to make principled decisions that are in the best interests of all
of the people. Being popular is not always in our best interests.
Republican ideal, limits majority/empowers small groups/pluralism
Access Points
The First Amendment protects our right to petition the government. This means that “we the people” have the
right to influence public policy to our liking. In a federal system, like ours, there are numerous access points to
do this. In fact there are close to 90,000 total units of government in the United States. National, state and local
elected officials all have authority to make and implement law. This means there is no shortage of places for us
to affect change. These access points increase our efficacy but they also make government vulnerable to
corruption. Would we have it any other way?
Federalism promotes layers of government/many places to influence/government more easily corrupted
Efficacy
Political efficacy is a basic measurement important to all successful democratic polities. Political efficacy
measures how well the people understand their government. It also takes into account how responsive the
government is to the people. Polities with high levels of political efficacy are marked by increasing levels of
participation. This increases both the legitimacy and authority of the government. Unfortunately the contrary is
true as well. Low political efficacy is marked by declining participation. With a decline in legitimacy and
authority elected officials loose their vitality and ultimately their ability to govern. Democracy is unthinkable
without an electorate characterized by a certain standard of efficacy.
Internal = understand government/external = government is responsive/decline
527s
Campaign money, meant to influence elections, comes from a variety of sources. Much of it has been limited
and regulated by way of federal law. Independent expenditures are a new and popular way to fly under the
38
radar of these laws. Often called 527s, these relatively anonymous sources of unlimited campaign cash have
changed the way elections are funded. Critical to 527s is that they must be independent from a candidate’s
campaign. No coordination between the two is allowed. 527s can, however, advocate for a candidate through
the purchase of media and other message delivery systems. Without disclosure requirements this means that
many campaign images are funded by sources unknown.
Independent expenditures/Super PACs advocating for candidates/unlimited $ no disclosure
Interest Group Activity
Unfortunately MONEY all too often provides the currency of gaining access to our decision makers. It has
been said “the mother’s milk of politics” is money. Interest groups allocate money to candidates running for
office by creating PACS, political action committees. Ordinarily PACs face strict limits. Today, however, 527
groups or SUPER PACs can raise large sums of unlimited cash. 527 money cannot be given directly to
candidates. Clearly interest groups with lots of monetary resources are advantaged when trying to affect
election outcomes.
It is for this reason that people with above average incomes participate in interest groups more than others.
There are more interest groups that represent big business than any other sector in our economy.
There are many techniques that interest groups use to influence policy. They write policy proposals that later
are introduced as bills; they conduct important research; they testify before important Congressional
committees; use ballot initiatives; write amicus briefs; litigate by filing lawsuits; and they help candidates
campaign. Interest groups can affect litigation by writing amicus briefs. By far the single most important
commodity held by interest groups is INFORMATION. Notice making a lot of noise by demonstrating is not a
strategy used often. Flying under the radar actually works best. If public opinion is aroused the work of interest
groups can often be harder. This is why many interest groups try to remain BIPARTISAN. They want to
influence policy in both Democratic and Republican Administrations. Checking lobbyists from misrepresenting
facts is the fear of losing a particular Congressman’s trust and confidence. Without access interest groups
cannot influence.
Unlike political parties who want to WIN ELECTIONS, interest groups want to INFLUENCE POLICY.
Single Issue Voting
With the decline of political parties and partisan ID there has been a rise in single-issue voting. Interest groups
have found they can mobilize voters more efficiently when focusing them on one highly charged wedge issue.
Love may our ideal but fear causes us to act. Advocacy groups have discovered that by creating certain fears
with respect to a particular issue citizens will come out and vote with greater ferocity. Pandering to single-issue
interests may attract votes but it certainly does not make governing any easier. Remember at the core of any
interest group is their desire to affect public policy one issue at a time.
Votes/activists/motivated by one issue
K Street
39
“K Street” may be the most important road in all of the United States. “K Street” is where the most powerful go
to work. The kings and rulers of our democracy are headquartered on “K Street.” And who are these powerful?
They are the interest groups and advocacy groups whose corporate lodgings are found on this otherwise
nondescript Washington street. Fundamental to a democracy is the ability of the people to influence their
government. Those factions who can best organize parlay that into the most influence. “K Street” is open to all
of us but many important interests remain unrepresented. Many find the real estate rates on “K Street” too high
to play.
Metaphor for interest groups/DC street for lobbyists/influential proximity to Capitol Hill
Approval Ratings
The most valuable commodity that interest groups possess is information. Elected officials cannot act without
the appropriate know how. With so many complex issues facing our government the vested advocates and
respective interest groups are more than willing to provide the expertise required. Yet interest groups provide
more than just information about issues. They also publish approval ratings of various members of Congress.
This form of pressure raises both the attention and ire of politicians. Approval ratings can substantiate
popularity but they can also humble the mighty. Information, after all, is power.
Interest group strategy/manipulate Congress/manipulate public opinion
Lobbying
In order to climb Mt. Everest you will need to employ the services of a Sherpa. These mountain guides know
every trick and angle in order to make a successful ascent to Everest’s highest peak. If your goal is to affect
public policy at its highest peak you should be encouraged to hire the services of a lobbyist. Lobbyists are the
Sherpas to our American government. They possess the information, the know how and the expertise to guide
legislators and bureaucrats around complex issues. Employed by the special interests lobbyists assure that the
people’s wishes are represented by those elected to serve. Often, however, lobbyists are perceived as tricksters
and hustlers. Your view most likely will depend upon if your interests have been peaked.
Interest group/hired hand/influence government policy
Executive Order/Agreement
When debating the rise of presidential power and the growing influence of special interests one is bound to
intersect with executive orders and agreements. Both can be likened to a decree made by a king. Executive
Orders relate to domestic policy while Executive Agreements relate to foreign policy. Often seen as a unilateral
stroke of the pen, executive orders and agreements have the force of law yet do not require Congressional
approval. Strong and energetic presidents, it is argued, need the power to act without delay. Certain
circumstances would be hindered by the deliberative process. But what is hindered by a chief executive who is
able to bypass certain checks and balances?
Domestic decree/foreign policy idea/empowers President – national interests
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
One of the most important Court precedents in our history was rendered by the Warren Court back in 1954.
With their unanimous decision in the case Brown vs. Board of Education our High Court struck down the
“separate but equal” doctrine. Henceforth all public schools “with all deliberate speed” were ordered to
40
integrate. The practice of legally segregating schools came to an end. Though we would like to think that such
action came about from the top down. Yet it was not our government that initiated the Brown case. Rather the
NAACP, a group advocating for minority rights, successfully used the courts to gain influence and subsequently
equal rights for African Americans.
NAACP/use litigation/push agenda [to integrate schools]
Introducing Congress
BICAMERALISM best describes our legislative branch. The United States Congress is a two-house legislature.
There is the House of Representatives, based upon population, and the Senate where every state has two
members. The House was the only elected office that the Founders put in the hands of the people in a direct
election. Even to this day the House mirrors local interests far more than the Senate. The House is most
responsive to the public’s wishes. The Senate tends to focus more on broader national issues. Senators were not
directly elected until the passage of the 17th Amendment (1913). Due to its more prestigious six-year terms the
Senate is referred to as the Upper House.
Our bicameral legislature was divided for reasons other than compromising between big states and small states.
Each house represents the people, yet they also possess remarkably different responsibilities. The House,
modeled on the British House of Commons, represents the passions of the people. The Senate, modeled on the
British House of Lords, responds to these passions with reason. James Madison saw the Senate as an “anchor,”
a “necessary fence” against the “fickleness and passion” of the people. The Senate is to “cool” House
legislation just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea. Thomas Jefferson once expressed his doubts about the
usefulness of the Senate. “Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?” George Washington asked. “To
cool it,” Jefferson replied. “Even so,” Washington declared, “we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to
cool it.”
Today, with the advent of directly elected Senators and the 24/7 televised news cycle, it is more difficult to
discern between the passions of the House and the Senate. By not fulfilling their proper roles, our cups run
over. Who is going to clean up the mess?
The powers of Congress are found in Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Congress declares war;
collects taxes; regulates interstate commerce; and establishes courts. Broadly speaking, Congress makes laws;
conducts oversight of the entire government; and provides for constituent service.
If the president has the POWER OF THE SWORD, the Congress has the POWER OF THE PURSE. The
greatest power the Congress can wield is their control of the Federal budget.
House members serve 2-year terms. The Senate enjoys 6-year terms. One third of the Senate is up for
reelection every two years. In recent years our Congress has come to reflect the diversity of America more than
ever. The House of Representatives is much less male and much less white.
The American people have never held Congress in lower regard than today. Nevertheless, even though our
Congress has never been more representative today’s Congress looks more like America – it is less male and
less white. At last our Congress mirrors our demographic diversity. Most Americans have grown cynical
toward Congress. Many reformers have suggested term limits – limiting the length of time one can serve in
Congress. Most believe Congress is self serving and beholden to the special interests. That is not the half of it.
If Americans knew about gerrymandering our perception of Congress would be even lower.
41
Gerry-Rigging Elections?
GERRYMANDERING is a by-product of a practice mandated by the US Constitution that takes place every ten
years. Every ten years the U.S. must take a census to count accurately our population. Population determines
the number of representatives each state is allocated in the House of Representatives. Every ten years the
House is REAPPORTIONED. If one state’s population declines relative to another they may lose a seat in
Congress. An increase might mean adding a seat in the House. Once REAPPORTIONED, each state
congressional district must be redrawn to reflect the new population numbers. Remember in BAKER v. CARR
(1962) the Court ruled against MALAPPORTIONMENT. Each congressional district must have the same
population, “one man one vote.” Drawing new congressional districts is called REDISTRICTING. So far it
sounds quite innocent. It is far form it. When STATE LEGISLATURES REDISTRICT they intentionally draw
the lines to favor one political party over another. When they REDISTRICT to advantage an INCUMBENT
this is called GERRYMANDERING. To put it plainly, GERRYMANDERING is when elected officials all but
rig election outcomes BEFORE we the people vote. Gerrymandering gives a tremendous advantage to the
political party in power. It almost assures that party will hold on to voting majorities for another ten years.
Gerrymandering helps to explain why our Congress has grown more partisan and ideological.
Like other government institutions the formal powers of Congress are found in the United States constitution.
Article 1 details the primary powers of our legislative branch. Also like the other branches, many of the duties
and responsibilities of Congress have evolved with experience and certain new traditions. It is for this reason
that our Congress should be seen as more then a legislative branch. The United States Congress fulfills three
primary duties:
First: The United States Congress is a legislative branch. Here “we the people” make laws. Here “we the
people” rule. But this is not their only responsibility.
Second: The United States Congress is given the power of oversight. The U.S. Congress is empowered to
check the privileges and authority of the rest of the government. This is done through Congressional hearings
where information is solicited. It is done through formal investigations. But it is also done through the budget
process. The U.S. Congress controls the money collected and spent by our federal government. Congress can
cut spending, cut appropriations, to those agencies of government that abuse their power.
Third: The United States Congress is ultimately made up of members who are charged with representing their
constituents. Therefore, more and more time spent by members of Congress revolves around constituent
service. Constituents are the citizens who cast their votes for a member of Congress. Most members of
Congress spend a majority of their time helping their constituents. This is done through direct representation of
constituent interests but also by helping to resolve local concerns, coordinating services with state and local
governments and making personal appeals to assure veterans receive their pensions and seniors receive
promptly their Social Security benefits.
Congress
Cup and Saucer
Our bicameral legislature was divided for reasons other than compromising between big states and small states.
Each house represents the people, yet they also possess remarkably different responsibilities. The House,
modeled on the British House of Commons, represents the passions of the people. The Senate, modeled on the
42
British House of Lords, responds to these passions with reason. James Madison saw the Senate as an “anchor,”
a “necessary fence” against the “fickleness and passion” of the people. The Senate is to “cool” House
legislation just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea. Thomas Jefferson once expressed his doubts about the
usefulness of the Senate. “Why did you pour that coffee into your saucer?” George Washington asked. “To
cool it,” Jefferson replied. “Even so,” Washington declared, “we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to
cool it.”
Today, with the advent of directly elected Senators and the 24/7 televised news cycle, it is more difficult to
discern between the passions of the House and the Senate. By not fulfilling their proper roles, our cups run
over. Who is going to clean up the mess?
Cup – House, hot/Saucer – Senate, cool/Senate tempers House passions
Necessary and Proper Clause
There is a reason the necessary and proper clause has been dubbed the elastic clause. This constitutional
provision has allowed the Congress and subsequently the government of the United States to expand far beyond
what the Founders had envisioned. In all fairness, however, the Founders never could have imagined what our
world would be like today. It was for this reason they wrote into law a provision that would allow the
Constitution to be a living letter. Some argue it lives too gregariously. It is necessary and proper for “we the
people” to decide whether or not the Congress abuses its authority.
Informal Congressional power/expand government role/elastic clause
Amendment Process
Our Founding Fathers have often been deified by those who looked at their accomplishments. What they were
able to achieve at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 was truly remarkable. More remarkable was that they
did not believe the headlines. Our Founding Fathers understood their limitations. For this reason they included
within the Constitution the means to change it. The process also reflected their core beliefs. The amendment
process mirrors the separation of powers, checks and balances and federalism. Though imperfect our
Constitution continues to teach those willing to notice an enlightened civics lesson.
2/3 Congress proposes/3/4 States ratify/another example of Federalism
Constituent Service
Everyone knows that the duty of the legislative branch is to make laws. Few know, however, that much of the
time spent by legislators is devoted to constituent service. Constituents are those citizens who live in a
legislator’s district. In a representative government serving your constituents is certainly a good thing.
Constituent service is often criticized because it shares a lot in common with campaign activity. Members of
Congress serve their constituents, in part, to help their chances of being reelected. Incumbency rates, the
likelihood of being reelected, approach 90% in the House. Most of us may not know what Congress does in
Washington but we sure know what they are doing in our neighborhood. Good enough for most of us to say
“go back and keep on doing it.”
Congressman/serving prospective voters/incumbent advantage
Gerrymandering
43
Gerrymandering is another word, albeit pejorative, for redistricting in a way that favors one party over another.
Some have called it a gerry rigging of elections. The Constitution requires a census to be taken every ten years.
The new population numbers are used to reapportion the House of the Representatives. Remember the lower
house is based upon population. Reapportionment often means that some states gain representatives in
Congress while others lose representatives. The state legislatures are authorized to redraw their Congressional
district maps to reflect the new population numbers. Often this redistricting involves political choices. Lines
are drawn to pack partisan support guaranteeing almost certain electoral victory. This act of political
skullduggery is called gerrymandering.
Census – reapportion/State legislatures redistrict/lines drawn to benefit incumbent
Leadership in Congress
The LEADERSHIP of Congress is determined by strict party votes. The MAJORITY PARTY holds ALL of
the leadership positions.
The most important leadership positions in the House of Representatives are:
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE – As presiding officer the Speaker controls the calendar. The Speaker determines
the agenda of the House. The Speaker also makes committee assignments.
MAJORITY LEADER – The Majority Leader orchestrates the legislative process. When important bills are
introduced the Majority Leader is in charge of building a strategy to get it passed.
MAJORITY WHIP – The Majority Whip collects information and tries to induce members to vote in line with
the party leadership. No vote in Congress is held before the Whip informs the leadership of the probable
outcome. This allows the leadership to only hold a vote when they know they will win. WHIPs help build
coalitions of voters and serve as Congressional head counters.
The most important leadership positions in the Senate are:
MAJORITY LEADER – The Majority Leader in the Senate is the most important leader. The Majority Leader
orchestrates the legislative process. When important bills are introduced the Majority Leader is in charge of
building a strategy to get it passed.
MAJORITY WHIP – The Majority Whip collects information and tries to induce members to vote in line with
the party leadership. No vote in the Senate is held before the Whip informs the leadership of the probable
outcome. This allows the leadership to only hold a vote when they know they will win.
NOTE: The presiding officer in the Senate is the VICE PRESIDENT but has virtually no power. The Vice
President will appear in the Senate on the opening day and if a tie occurs in a vote. The VP breaks all tie votes.
In his absence the presiding officer becomes the PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE. This is more symbolic and
typically goes to the oldest member of the majority party.
Congress at work is Congress in committees
Congress at work, however, is CONGRESS IN COMMITTEE. Though the leadership of Congress receives the
lion share of the media attention – most of the power in Congress is found in the standing committees. Every
member of Congress is assigned to at least one STANDING COMMITTEE. Standing committees is where the
real work of Congress gets done. The majority party holds a majority of the votes in every committee. The
permanent committees study prospective laws. This allows members of Congress, over time, to become experts
in one area over another. For instance, a Congressman from Minnesota when assigned to the House Agriculture
44
Committee becomes an expert on agricultural issues. Of course this helps him back home with his constituents.
Another reason incumbency rates are so high. The DISTRIBUTIVE THEORY of legislative organization
argues that committee views are respected over what the whole House wants.
Certain standing committees are more important than others. The HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS Committee
handles all REVENUE BILLS. Taxes can only be changed by first going through this committee. The
APPROPRIATION Committee, in both the House and Senate, handles the way tax dollars are spent.
There are two other types of committees in Congress. Select committees work on a specific albeit temporary
issue. CONFERENCE COMMITTEES resolve differences between House and Senate versions of the same
bill.
Beyond committees Congress also is organized around specialized caucuses. These would be members who
organize around a particular interest or issue. Many are large and powerful like the Congressional Black
Caucus. Others are more silly like the Congressional Boating Caucus. Caucuses are just another means to
organize like-minded members to influence public policy.
Members of Congress also possess a large staff that helps them perform their duties. As Congressional staff
increases so too does the amount of work Congress performs. With help from staff more and more legislation
is proposed every year. This has made Congress much more individualistic. This DECENTRALIZED
Congress now provides greater access points for corrupt behavior.
Leadership
Amongst the electorate political parties may be weak but inside our Congress they have never been stronger.
The leadership structure inside the legislative branch is built upon the strength political parties. The political
party with the most seats wins all of the major leadership positions. This means that the majority party controls
the agenda of the legislative branch. If the leadership can adequately discipline its members a party agenda can
be pushed despite loud opposition. The most important leaders are the Speaker of the House and the Majority
Leader in the Senate. Throughout our history these leaders have wielded tremendous power. As one Speaker
used to say, “Go along and get along.”
Majority party/chief positions – committee chairs/partisan Congress
Logrolling
Logrolling is as old as politics itself. Logrolling is vote trading. I will support your bill if you support mine.
You scratch my back and I will scratch yours. One wonders if principle can be found anymore? Logrolling
also provides cover for legislators to do an interest groups’ bidding. Yet many would argue that without
logrolling even less would get done inside Congress. Logrolling serves as a practical lubricant to the legislative
process. Our Constitution was a byproduct of great compromises. Our form of government persists because of
even more great compromises. Let’s roll.
Congress/vote trading/do nothing v. do something
Franking
Franking has come to symbolize just another incumbent advantage. Franking gives members of Congress free
postage. Thought not to be used for campaign literature, it is often difficult to discern the difference. When
members of Congress freely send their constituents updates on their legislative accomplishments it certainly
advantages them when campaigning. Incumbency rates for current members of the House routinely hover
45
around 90%. Franking alone does not explain incumbency. Yet any way you look at franking it helps those in
office stay in office.
Free postage for Congress/campaign finance advantage/incumbent advantage
Incumbency
It is for this reason that INCUMBENCY rates in Congress are so high. Close to 90% of members in the House
seeking reelection win. Despite low approval ratings of Congress incumbency almost guarantees reelection.
Beyond the affects of gerrymandering, incumbents have many advantages. They have name recognition due to
free media attention. They have an easier time raising money. They have the FRANKING privilege [free
postage]. Most importantly, incumbents engage in CONSTITUENT SERVICE. Legislating takes up less and
less of Congress’ time. Members spend much of their time helping CONSTITUENTS back home in their
districts resolve local issues. Constituents are simply the citizens a member of Congress represents.
Occasionally incumbents lose. Every seat is not a “safe seat.” There are a few MARGINAL DISTRICTS.
Marginal districts are congressional districts where the winner receives less than 55% of the vote. Marginal
districts are competitive. Marginal districts are more likely when congressional districts are NATIONALIZED.
This means a national issue mobilizes voters throughout the country.
Legislative Process
As the saying goes, “Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.” Congressional rules make
the legislative process difficult to navigate. The vast majority of all proposed bills fail. This is no accident. A
limited government cannot be free to wield its power unfettered. The difficulty of the legislative process checks
Congress at every step. For a bill to pass it must move through both houses in exact form. The House limits
debate and is encumbered by strict rules. The Senate is more open but often requires a super majority vote due
to the filibuster. One senator can obstruct the entire process until 60 members end the filibuster with a cloture
vote. Gaining cloture is not easy. This helps to explain why the Senate often becomes the “skunk at the garden
party.”
House limits debate – Rules committee/Senate filibuster – unlimited debate/opposition holds advantage
Iron Triangle
Iron Triangles, or issue networks as they are now called, are not easy to understand. They are nevertheless the
keys to understanding how public policy is both made and sustained. Public policies are a byproduct of
relationships between Congressional committees, related interest groups and specific executive agencies.
Because all three groups share a particular interest they guard specific policies from outsiders. This makes it
nearly impossible to change specific government policies despite common sense objections. Iron Triangles
become entrenched in time and help explain why it is so difficult to reduce the size and scope of the national
government.
Issue networks/Congressional committee, executive agency, interest group/difficult to reform policy
Commerce Clause
The Constitution’s enumerated power to regulate all interstate commerce has been used to expand the size and
scope of the federal government. Congress uses this provision more than any other to justify its regulatory
46
perogative. In a recent Court argument a Justice asked if there were any limits to what could be regulated under
the commerce clause. Before the attorney could answer another Justice quipped, “Don’t give anything away
here. They might want to do it next.” Conservatives in recent years have tried to reign in the use of the
commerce clause. With little success, the commerce clause continues to be at the epicenter of political debate
over the role played by our government in our lives.
Constitutional provision/expands congressional power/regulates all forms of commerce
How a Bill becomes a LAW
The legislative branch is ultimately responsible to MAKE LAWS. The time taken in the legislative process
varies enormously. The complexity of the legislative process always gives the opponents an advantage. Only
members of Congress can introduce a bill or propose a piece of legislation. Bills must pass BOTH chambers of
Congress in order to become a law. Bills can originate in any chamber EXCEPT all REVENUE BILLS, laws
that affect taxes, MUST start in the House of Representatives. Remember we fought a revolution over “no
taxation without representation.”
Once a bill is introduced it is assigned to a committee where the bill is MARKED UP. Committees study, hold
hearings, and edit various details before voting on the bill. If the bill receives a majority vote in committee it is
passed on to the next step. Helping Congress in the early stages of legislation is the Congressional Budget
Office (CBO). This bipartisan agency scores the probable affect of proposed bills.
If the bill is defeated in committee, true for most, a member can call for a discharge petition. A discharge
petition allows members from the floor of each chamber to reject a committee decision and bring a bill to a
vote. Discharge petitions are highly unusual.
In the HOUSE [only] there is a RULES COMMITTEE. The Rules Committee determines if a bill on the
FLOOR will have an OPEN or CLOSED rule. An open rule means a bill CAN BE amended on the floor
debate. A closed rule means a bill CANNOT BE amended or changed during the floor debate.
Most bills in Congress involve the AUTHORIZATION of money. Authorizations set spending limits. Most
laws in Congress APPROPRIATE money. An appropriation is the amount of money that is actually spent.
Often appropriations are given inside large bills to small projects that affect only one congressional district.
These EARMARKS are used to persuade single members to vote for a more controversial bill. This “greasing
of the wheel” is often called a PORK BARREL PROJECT. Earmarks make up a small percentage of
Congressional spending but have come under serious criticism in recent years.
Floor debate and voting is dramatically different in the House and Senate. In the House the majority party
dominates floor activity. Debate is limited by time. If the leadership maintains party discipline, that is if they
stick together, the majority party in the House can pass everything they want.
The Senate floor is much different. There are no strict time limits. In fact, one member can stall or delay the
entire Senate calendar by filibustering. Today almost every bill in the Senate must overcome a FILIBUSTER.
To end a filibuster requires a CLOTURE VOTE. A cloture vote requires sixty (60) Senators to decide to end a
filibuster. Rarely does the majority party have 60 votes. This means that the minority party can obstruct just
about everything in the Senate.
If a bill were to pass both chambers of Congress it must go to a CONFERENCE COMMITTEE. A conference
committee reconciles the differences between the House and Senate versions of a bill.
47
When a bill passes Congress it still needs a president’s signature to become law. The president has 10 days to
act. If he does nothing in 10 days the bill becomes law automatically. A presidential VETO, however, ends it
all. Congress can override a veto with a 2/3’s majority vote. This is rare. Less than 4% of presidential vetoes
are overridden. Occasionally the president might use a pocket veto. A bill is pocket vetoed if the president
does not act and Congress adjourns within the 10-day limit. One thing is certain – the legislative process is
never routine. The process varies enormously. The opposition always has the advantage. As the legislative
process has grown more and more decentralized, with numerous hurdles and access points for officials to affect
outcomes, opportunities for corruption and obstruction have proliferated.
Choosing how to vote in Congress
There are three types of votes taken in Congress. When members vote as DELEGATES they cast votes that
best represent their constituents back home in their districts. When members vote as TRUSTEES they cast
votes that best represent their own individual conscience. When members vote as PARTISANS they cast votes
that best represent the wishes of their party. With the precision of today’s gerrymandering, members often can
play all three roles in any given vote. This is called being a POLITICO.
As Ben Franklin was leaving the constitutional convention one afternoon in September 1787, a young woman
approached him and asked, “Well, Dr. Franklin, what have you given us?” “A republic--if you can keep it,” was
his reply. Keeping the Republic requires that all of us labor vigilantly to ensure that the shared values of
scholarship, and artisanship, and citizenship are preserved.
Democracy is a verb.
Copyright CITIZENU and the 2 Teachers
48