PSC 260

the Senate

- has 100 members - have 6 year terms, and the terms of these members are staggered, - ⅓ of the senate is elected every 2 years. - Under the original Constitution, Senators were elected by state legislators that changes in the 20th century and because of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, - Senators are not elected by the American people. Get members based on representation of each state, - 2 senators per state, which makes 100 total members.

4th era

- in this 4th era, it wouldn't be that dissimilar to the 1st era of the courts history, there's question about national government authority vs. state government authority. - the court has involved itself in limiting the power of the federal government now and shifting power back towards the state government Examples of 4th era cases: - a. U.S. v. Lopez (1995) - b. National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012) These cases identify limits and restraints around the power of the federal government to pass policies and then leaving discretion to the state government on those kinds of questions and it reflects more of the conservative tilt to the Supreme court.

How A Bill Becomes A Law

1. A bill is introduced to Congress: 2. Bill gets referred to a full committee that has full jurisdiction over them 3. then gets sent to a subcommittee that has a specialized subject matter, has speciality focus that the legislation is about. - MOST BILLS DIE HERE. NO MEMBERS TAKE INTEREST IN THEM OR WORK ON THEM. 4. Bills that do get worked on(this work is happening at the sub committee levels) members of the subcommittee will then hold hearings, call in experts , call in people affected by a particular form of policy to try to gain information about what are the pros/cons of passing this piece of legislation/creating this program; what would the impact be? So they call in people who have expertise and knowledge about that particular topic. - where bills get marked up 5. the committee then recommends that the House a a whole, Senate as a whole, considers that piece of legislation in the House or Representatives. This is the step where rules committee would take action and decide how long are we going to debate this bill, who's going to speak about the bill, can you offer amendments on the floor to this piece of legislation. 6. In the Senate it's a much more informal process where they place the bill on the calendar, on the Senate calendar. 7. all of the members of that chamber will get together and debate that piece of legislation , speak on the floor, and then finally there will be a vote in order for a bill to be passed into law, a majority of the house and a majority of the Senate have to agree to that piece of legislation and then it goes onto the president to deal with. - if the house or rep and senate pass different versions of the same bill, then the bill goes a conference committee, includes members of the House and the Senate, they try to hammer out a compromise, if they are successful at that then they submit it to the House and the Senate to vote on, and again, if the majority supports it then it goes onto the President. 8. When the President gets a piece of legislation, he has 10 days to consider what to do with that piece of legislation; - If the President signs that bill then it eventually becomes a law , If the president vetoes the bill then it does not become a law,it is possible for Congress to override the veto but it requires 2/3 of the house, and ⅔ of the senate.

2 kinds of representation in Congress

1. Agency representation 2. Descriptive representation-

The Committee System

1. Both the House and the Senate have full, standing committees. - The large committees all focused usually on a fairly board area of policy or various kinds of issues; but they have a policy focus. 2. In each one of those full standing committees, Each of those is broken up into even more highly specialized subcommittees. When members are first elected, either to the House or to the Senate, they usually com in for the first time with a sense of what committee they'd like to work on, they tell those preferences to the leaders in the House or Rep. and the senate and the leaders try to give them their top choices.

limits to the court's effect on U.S. government

1. Court is Reactive - must wait for right case to reach them (wait for somebody to sue somebody else) and appeal the case up to their level, to address laws and executive actions that are potentially unconstitutional. The court does not just, every time Congress passes a law, immediately review it to see if its constitutional or not. 2. Dominant only in a few policy spheres- that we view the court as being the dominant voice on or having a significant amount of influence over. 3. Can't enforce own decisions- The Supreme Court can make rulings but they can't actually enforce their own decisions. a. Ex. Worcester v. Georgia (1832)

why do we have committees?

1. Division of labor - this is how Congress gets most of their work done, through committees. Where most legislation is being crafted, amended. Etc. Committees are useful because they help with division of labor, they help make Congress more efficient. - Congress would be more slow moving if everyone focused on them. Instead when a piece of legislation is sent to the House of Rep its sent to a committee(a smaller subset of members of the House) who work on the particular piece of legislation Dividing up the work makes Congress more efficient. 2. Allows for specialization- allows members to concentrate on a particular topic, to develop a specialization, to help them craft better laws. No way for one member to be an expert for each piece of legislation so instead, what happens is that members of congress serve on handful of committees and they may develop more knowledge or expertise that they can then bring to the legislative process so that then can be useful for laws to be crafted by people who know that policy very well.

Characteristics of the modern presidency:

1. FDR popularized the office, Develops a new relationship with the American people/public. (ex: fireside chats) 2. institutional expansion- the executive branch starts to change to allow the President to have more staff members, more advisors, more people working in the executive branch to help him to carry out these goals. (ex: The creation of the executive office of the President, gave the President personal advisors, personal staff members, who are going to help him to manage the national government. ) 2. Presidents expected to have a legislative program- If presidents today said they had no plans and simply reacted to whatever Congress came up with, this would be viewed as completely inappropriate. (ex: FDR and democrats come up with the New Deal, and a campaign with this trying to confront the Great Depression with new government programs, government spending, government regulations) 4. perception that President is responsible for the economy, even though it might not necessarily be their fault. 5. International leadership & increased authority with regard to war In the post-cold war era Presidents have been the center of international leadership particularly important in foreign policy and in terms of diplomacy and they have gained far more authority and more of a free-hand when it comes to war powers - the President through his actions has brought these wars into existence, has been responsible for deciding that the country goes to war. Congress has largely given up their authority over that kind of decision.

2. The unexpected development of Congress

1. House of Rep. tends toward gradual, incremental change- instead of the House passing laws quickly, like the Framers thought, the House tends to favor the same gradual incremental change that the Framers associated with the Senate. - There are times where the House can pass bills very quickly, but most of the time it's more of a slow process, - because that trend of sectionalism is still strong, it's still difficult for different members of Congress who represent vastly different parts of the country to come to a common course of agreement on policies, and we still see that today. 2. Senate an active institution tied to public opinion- enate is much more popular, they are closely connected with their constituents. They don't have the kind of free hand, total disregard for what's popular that the Framers thought they were going to have. Part of that is because they are elected directly by the public, unlike what the Constitution originally called for. The Senate is just as active as the House of Rep and in a lot of ways is concerned with what the people back at home want. 3. Still, Senate can be a brake on quick legislative action (ex: filibuster)

Functions of Congress as an institution

1. Make laws & create policy - congress is the branch that creates the laws. 2. Representation-members of congress are supposed to articulate the interest of the people back home in the legislative body; 3. Oversight of government execution of the law- remember: separation of powers, the executive branch carries out the law and oversight means that Congress checks up on the executive branch to make sure they are carrying out the law the way Congress first intended. 4. Educating the public- bring awareness to issues that maybe Americans are not aware or concerned about. Congress lets them know about specific issues 5. Constituent service- every member of Congress in their home offices, back in their state, will typically have staff members that are solely dedicated to Constituent service. Constituent are all the people who live in a members district,

Limits on presidential power

1. Must deal with existing policies, treaties, and alliances. - So when a President comes into the actual position of being President, does not inherit a completely clean slate, that they can do whatever they want, instead the President inherits a government in being, there are all kinds of laws and policies, and programs that are going to remain in effect and the President still has to carry out those policies and programs. - Even if they don't particularly agree with the policies. 2. Made promises on the campaign trail that have to be fulfilled. - President can't turn his back on those promises that he made, they have to be honored, 3. Checks by Congress: can prevent the president from taking action by either doing things proactively or by refusing to act. - Example: today with Trump trying to build a wall, but in order for that wall to be built, Congress must appropriate money for it. Its reliant on Congress's action. - Congress can refuse to confirm Presidential nominees for the Supreme Court or for Cabinet positions. - They can refuse to consent to treaties - Congress can even override a Presidential veto, 4. C. Checks by the Federal Judiciary/Supreme Court - the courts rule on the constitutionality of Presidential actions just like of laws Congress passes - can overturn Presidential actions or force presidents to act in particular ways based on their readings of the constitution. - the court is not a very effective check on Presidential power in the midst of a crisis/ emergency Example: Ex Parte Milligan (1866)

Choosing supreme court justices

1. Nominated by the President; he president will take several things into consideration when deciding who it is that they are going to nominate to the Supreme Court. One of the reasons why Presidents take this process so seriously about who they are nominating to the Supreme Court is because it is a chance to have an impact over policy long after you have left office. 2. Confirmed by the Senate; The president doesn't get to unilaterally decide who sits on the Supreme Court because the person that he nominates has to be confirmed by the Senate. ;he Senate take that confirmation process really seriously these go through an extensive background check with the FBI about anything you've ever done in your life is checked by Senators And other agencies in the federal government. They evaluate them on the basis of their policy views in the presidents political standing.

Process by which supreme court cases are heard

1. Parties submit written briefs, attorneys on either side Of the court case will submit written briefs to the Supreme Court justices. 2. Oral arguments; very short, when the lawyers will appear before the Supreme Court justices and the justices get to ask them questions and a lot of times through those questions the justices are debating each other or making their views on the case known. 3. Meet in conference to discuss case; but to be honest there probably is not a whole lot of to be discussed on the case. 4. Majority opinion written by one justice; This is the official court ruling. This is the force of the court behind that ruling, that is the courts declaration on that particular ruling in this particular case. 5. Concurring opinions; if you are a supreme court justice who has a different perspective than the majority, you are still able to write an opinion on a particular case, justices might write a concurring opinion- which is when you agree with the direction of the court ruling but for different reasons 6. Dissenting opinions- written by a justice who disagrees with the majority, as a kind of privilege of being a Supreme Court justice that even though you're saying something that does not have the force of the court behind it, you still gets articulate why you disagree

3 PERSPECTIVES OF THE PRESIDENT:

1. Personality- varies/ makes each president unique 2. Constitutional - continuity, all presents face same powers 3. Modern Presidency-

Explaining Justices' Decisions

1. Precedent, "stare decisis" - means that courts look to past, similar issues to guide their decisions. The past decisions are known as precedent. Precedent is a legal principle or rule that is created by a court decision. This decision becomes an example, or authority, for judges deciding similar issues later. 2. The wider political environment; justices are a bit isolated from public opinion they are really kept from popular passion and what the public wants, this is the way they get into their positions in the first place. 3. Judicial activism approach: The supreme court justice uses their job as trying to promote justice, to correct mistakes or injustices that have been brought about by the other branches of government or by state government. 4. Judicial restraint approach: By contrast an approach of judicial restraint would say that the role of the Supreme Court justices is largely to defer to policymaking, people in government who are elected by the public, and that as part of not being elected to their positions that judicial appointees should really constrain themselves in terms of imposing policy on the country. Sometimes the advocates of judicial restraint make the point that judges, Supreme Court justices, shouldn't be involved in making a law, that should be the job of the Congress, state legislatures, ; a. Defer to elected policymakers. b. Judges shouldn't make the law. 5. Original intent approach: a. means that a judge Interprets the Constitution according to what its writers originally had in mind when they wrote the constitution.

sources of presidential power: Where are the points which presidents draw their authority

1. Presidents can rarely command others to do things. Neustadt points out that for most Presidents most of the time, it's rare that they are able to force other people to do things or to command other people to do things. 2. Instead, must convince public that what the president wants is also in their best interest 3. More about bargaining & negotiation, persuading

jobs of supreme court justices

1. Ruling on cases; they determine the cases that they are going to hear. the court has control over their agenda, they get to decide what cases to hear and they operate through "the rule of 4," - of the nine justices on the Supreme Court at least four of them have to decide to hear a case and if four of them say yes then it comes before the Supreme Court.

Leadership in Congress: Senate

1. Senate Majority Leader- 2. Senate Minority Leader- 3. E. Senate Whips 4. F. Senate's Presiding Officers: a. vice president=president of Senate There's less concentration of power/leadership in the Senate, because the Senate is designed to give each particular member more power and more authority, that rule of the filibuster is one of the best examples of this, of how much power a single member or an ordinary member of the Senate can have;

How Congress Organizes Itself

1. The Committee System

Leadership in Congress: House of Representatives

1. The Speaker of the House (House of Representatives) 2. Majority Leader (assists speaker of the house) 3. Majority Whip- assist the Speaker of the House; Republicans 4. Minority Leader-

Presidency

1. VERY High expectations of the President/office that Americans tend to have Americans expect presidents to be symbols of the nation 2. Almost impossible to live up to 3. Evident in approval ratings of presidents over time

Senate's presiding officers

1. Vice-President = Constitution also gives the Vice President a role as the "president of Senate." - Most of the time the Vice President doesn't go to the Senate, does not participate in debates, negotiations, but there's a crucial time when the Vice President is called to the Senate because they can breaks a tie. 2. President pro tempore - This is usually a member a member of the Majority party who has served the longest period of time in the senate

all the points when a bill can die:

1. when referred to a committee, it dies and no one touches it or members do work on it but they cant get a majority to support it do it dies. 2. The house and senate can vote down a piece of legislation 3. The president can veto a piece of legislation -Most of the time it end in failure not success

How Congress would ideally operate

1.Congress Should Hear from a wide variety of voices in drafting legislation.- broad spectrum of people who may be affected by a particular policy or not; but what they think is in the best interests of the country. 2. Members should have clear and objective information about the impact of past policies/bills and analysis of what's likely to happen/effects of bills they are considering. 3. Members should have enough time to study major legislation and hear debate around a policy before voting on it.

Who might the president have to persuade?

A lot of groups subject to this persuasion: 1. The American people 2. Congress 3. His own administration- Sometimes a President has to convince them of the virtue of his ideas 4. International actors, in some of their interactions with other leaders around the world, they may be trying to take concrete action maybe to deal with some sort of national security crisis or a global economic problem.

filibuster examples

Accounts of legislators : - getting up and reading the phone bill for a couple of hours, - reading Shakespeare plays - giving out old family recipes

Second Source of Presidential Power:

B. Executive Prerogative- very old concept in political theory it comes from John Locke(British Political Theorist 1632-1704) a source of ideas that the Framers used in the Constitution. 1. Power of executive to act without law, or against the law, for the public good. 2. this power is often upheld in times of national crisis. When the United States has been in the midst of a major crisis or a major emergency and Presidents have asserted this idea of executive prerogative or try to make use of its legitimacy that has often been upheld in that crisis context. 3. Likely challenged in non-emergency scenarios. Example:. Nixon & Watergate Scandal, - Nixon

Recent changes to filibuster rules

Can still use a filibuster for pieces of legislation, but can no longer can use it on Supreme Court nominees.

3 national institutions part of the U.S government

Congress President Supreme Court

ways congress acts like the Framers anticipated

Congress to a certain extent, still does operate in ways that the Framers anticipated such as the ability for: Senate to be a break on rapid action. (ex: filibuster)

House of Representatives

Currently, though not at the start of the country, has 435 members; - each member serves for a 2(two) years term before being subject to reelection -they are elected directly by the public(this is stated in the Constitution as well) -States get representatives allocated to them based on their population

Senate Minority Leader

Democrats today, Chuck Schumer.; - because individual Senators have so much power and because you need 60 votes to pass most pieces of legislation, the Senate Majority Leader has to consult with the opposition party and this goes through the Senate Minority Leader. 1. Can be influential, Senate Minority Leader must consult with opposition.; Spokesperson for the minority party with regards to the President. Sometimes the president is the same party as the minority party, 2. Deals with president. We sometimes see conversation back and forth, not alway friendly 3. Watchdog over majority party.- The minority leader is also a watchdog of the Majority party, if they are passing a piece of legislation that minority party doesnt think will be in the public interest, and the Minority Leader thinks the Majority are abusing authority, the Minority leader will try to publicize this whenever possible - like minority leader in theHouse of Rep, they want to win back senate

Comparison between Demographic and Agency Representation:

Demographic representation: advocates of descriptive representation would say that a middle class Asian American woman would be best represented by a middle class Asian American female of Congress, that person would be like them in key demographic ways. Agency Representation: would say that you don't have to share those characteristics, instead a for instance, elderly white male member of Congress can very well represent a district that it made up of a majority of Hispanic Americans because even though that elderly white male member of Congress is not himself Hispanic, he wants to represent the views of Hispanic constituents within that locality, because he wants them to vote for him in subsequent elections, there's this tie of accountability that people in the district are going to make sure that he's articulating their interests even though he personally does not share the characteristics/experience of being Hispanic- American.

Lyndon Johnson treatments

How Lyndon Johnson interacted with his political colleagues - he was tall, had a strong Texas accent, and salty language; - known for bringing people into his office, who he wanted to vote a particular way or take a particular political action, and he would lean over them, invade their personal space(sometimes touching them), - basically physically intimidate them, and also offer them complements at the same time, to bring them along to his point of view on the positive side. While alternately with those complements, threatening them and intimidating them, trying to scare them to do what he wanted. People who were subjected to this treatment said they would leave Johnson's office willing to do whatever it was that he asked for. -This is an example of Johnson exerting influence through his personal skills/personality of who he was and how he acted.

Congress' Design

How the Framers structured Congress: a. Bicameralism: the framers choose to have a Congress that is made up of TWO chambers: - Senate - House of Rep. b. Sectionalism- members of the House and Senate represent geographic locality: - House of Representatives: represent typically a portion of the state - Senators: represent an entire state unlike other countries we have locally based representatives. Some other countries for instance, elect representatives from national lists, which meant people wouldn't be so concerned in Congress about what's going on at the local level.

what happens if the Supreme court says something is unconstitutional?

If the Supreme Court determines that any of those things (Presidential action, laws Congress make, etc.) conflicts with the Constitution they can strike it down as: - Unconstitutional and thus that law or action become NULL or VOID, it no longer has any kind of legal standing. - This power is very important to the Supreme court and one that the court largely claims for itself.

Ex Parte Milligan (1866)

Involved Milligan, an individual during the Civil war, who'd been convicted under a military tribunal, part of that process that Lincoln instituted during the civil war. - Milligan was accused of trying to release rebel prisoners and get them go back to the Confederate army, so he was sentenced to hanging as a result of this. - He appealed this and eventually his conviction went to the Supreme Court and the supreme court set a really important precedent on that case that: citizens/civilians couldn't be tried by military courts with normal civilian courts open, even if they were far from the fighting - So Milligan that he had been tried by military tribunal even when the civilian courts were open and available to him. - this is a court case where the Supreme Court overturned an action that the Lincoln administration had taken, overturned that use of military tribunal - But note that this is 1866, the timing of the case is after the Civil war is over, Lincoln is dead, so in the moment the Supreme Court wasn't intervening on the behalf of those individuals who were imprisoned without sufficient evidence for holding them. - So on the one hand, this important precedent that might constrain Presidential action moving forward but not necessarily at the time

filibuster

Is an internal rule to the Senate, ONLY in the Senate and allows for a single senator to kill a piece of legislation, prevent a piece of legislation from coming to a vote, to derail a piece of legislation they can talk about ANY TOPIC that they want they just can't leave the floor of the Senate or the FILIBUSTER STOPS. Senator peaking without limitations, basically "talking a bill to death.", DOES NOT have to be just a single person, can be a GROUP of SENATORS. But they basically prevent a vote on a Bill by continuing the debate indefinitely. The way the senate is set up really empowers individual Senators to exert power and authority over the legislative process, and that has resulted in this. Senators can get up and hold the floor and speak on a topic or anything they want until the time for voting on a Bill has passed, they prevent the rest of the Senate from considering a particular piece of legislation

The Federal Court System

Made up of: 1. Federal District Courts 2. Court of Appeals (actions on Trump administration travel ban) 3. U.S. Supreme Court

Committee assignments

Members make their preferences known to leadership, hopefully get at least one of their top choices.

role of the supreme court in the policy process

Not elected, lifetime tenure 1. Independent from parties and politicians. 2. Insulated from public opinion (1989)

2nd era

Problems/examples include; child labor, people being asked to work in unsafe labor conditions, being asked to work too many hours, not having any protection if they were injured at work or they could no longer work, etc.) - b. Struck down many early New Deal programs as unconstitutional. - c. FDR's court packing plan; Put it as something that's in the best interest of the Supreme Court, he says let's lighten your workload by letting me appoint a new Supreme Court Justice for every sitting Justice over the age of 70. Although he's casting this as something to try to help the Supreme Court, really his plan is to appoint New Deal loyalists to pack the Supreme Court with people who are going to find the New Deal to be Constitutional.

The Constitutional Presidency

Provides Examples of Presidential powers that all presidents have drawn on the Constitution for their authority and their consistency while in office. Example: 1. Hamilton: presidency capable of "energy."- the framers had an intention of developing/ structuring the Presidency to achieve a particular effect. Alexander Hamilton is one of the Framers who is especially influential in shaping the presidency and shaping Presidential powers. One of the things that Hamilton said about the Presidency is that it was key to bringing energy to the Federal Government and when Hamilton talked about energy what he meant by that is swift, quick, and decisive action that a President could be capable of acting very quickly particularly if the United States found itself in the middle of a crisis or an emergency. 2. Presidential powers can be quite disruptive to American politics. Ex: president vetoing law - the specific powers that were granted to the Presidency in the Constitution, have proved capable of allowing the President to be a very disruptive force in America politics, 3. Sources of power for the president in the Constitution? Some of this has changed overtime with differing interpretations of the Constitution 4. subject to checks from the other branches. Examples: Article 2, lays out the powers that the president has: - commander in chief, - President is able to wage war, but only Congress can declare war; this is an example of a check from the other branches of government, shared authority - state of union

Nixon & Watergate Scandal

Some political operatives attempt to break into the democratic party's, national headquarters, the democratic party was the opposition party to President Nixon, he was a republican, and in the course of trying to break into the democratic parties headquarters, and the goal of burglary was to wire-tap into their phone so they could spy on them. The burglars get caught, they were not particularly good at their jobs, and Nixon's committee to reelect the President, which had the acronym of creep, was involved in paying hush money to the burglars that they'd remain silent about the Nixon reelection campaign, and the administration's involvement in planning the burglary and trying to cover it up afterwards. Congress and the courts start an investigation about what happened in the watergate scandal before those connections between the administration and the events at watergate come to light, as part of that investigation, and its discovered that President Nixon has been tape recording most of his conversations in the oval office. - So then the investigators ask him to hand over these tapes and Nixon refused on the basis of executive privilege,

Personality/Psychological Characteristics of Presidents

Something that makes every President different, unique, distinct. 1. Office held by just 1 person- 1 person holds power for the Presidency at a given time because its just 1 person, in contrast to Congress or the Supreme Court there's often a lot of focus on what is that person like, what's their personality? What are their psychological traits, how might that impact the job that they do as president? 2. Public fascination with the president's character there are more biographies written about presidents than any other political figure. Americans and scholars really focus on who is this individual? who is holding this tremendous amount of power in our executive office? 3. Help voters predict what someone will be like in office? There is actually a field within political science called political psychology, and some of the people who work in that field actually set themselves to psychoanalyzing presidential candidates and presidents, they try to accertate: what their character is, what their psychological make up is, as a means for helping voters make a prediction about what it means to elect that person into office, what kind of a decision that they would make on key questions or events that might befall on the country.

Record of LONGEST FILIBUSTER

Strom Thurmond-- spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes against a 1957 civil rights bill. Reportedly he visited a scene room to dehydrate himself so he wouldn't pass out. Back then this is how you would have to hold the floor.

Presidential power not checked by other branches

The President has the power to pardon individuals and this is one of the rare powers in the Constitution that is actually UNCHECKED largely by the other branches of government that. - The President can pardon people for crimes, can erase their conviction, can commute their sentences.

3rd era

Trace back to the 1940's leading up to the present day; during this time period many of the courts most consequential rulings were on the topics of civil liberties and civil rights; . - More controversy over Supreme Court nominations in this era - Because people often have a lot of feelings, emotions, and strong sentiments that are tied into issues related to civil rights and and liberties, there's often a lot of debate and concern about who are the individuals who might take a new seat on the Supreme Court examples: - . Brown v. Board of Education (1954) - b. Roe v. Wade (1973) - c. Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

U.S. v. Nixon (1974)

a. Nixon claimed executive privilege (president can withhold information from Congress and the courts) had virtually no limits. -Challenges to Nixon's claims ends up in the Supreme Courts in 1974, and they issue a unanimous ruling (sticking together to ensure that President Nixon will comply with their ruling) Court ruled: executive privilege exists, but it doesn't extend to allowing the president to withhold information from a criminal investigation, which is what they argued Nixon was doing. So he had to turn over the tapes, some were erased, it became clear that he was going to be impeached and removed from office and so he removed himself as President. This example is a case in which there's a lot of push from the other branches of government when presidents try to assert a lot of authority in cases where there's not BIG crisis (Likely challenged in non-emergency scenarios.)

Committee preferences are shaped by:

a. Their constituency- people who live in their district/state, those individuals back home may be affected by a particular form of policy or the economy might be setup in a particular way to mean that that member of Congress wants to be well positioned to bring these benefits back home to the residents of their state/district. Example: If you represent a very rural area, where there's a lot of farming, you might want to be on an agricultural committee because that's where you can impact the policy that drives the economy back home. b. Their policy goals and interests of members of Congress- maybe they ran for office because they are passionate about a sphere of policies or certain kinds of politics. - A Policy doesn't necessarily have to occur in the Senators district/area for them to choose a particular committee. They might just be passionate about it Ex: Senator Ted Kennedy form Mass was very concerned about health care policies c. Their future political ambitions - where the Senators see themselves in the future, there are some members who are ambitious; Maybe members in the house want to run for senator one day or a senator wants to run for President; they will position themselves in the most powerful committees in congress

Framers thoughts on Congress design

a.) Bicameralism: Things like how often members have to go back to the electorate to stay in office or a ⅓ of the Senate being re elected every two years, all of that is intentional. The Framers thought that a very popular but unwise legislation might fly through the House of Rep. - But once those bills got to the senate, the senate would take a step back and carefully calculate whether or not that legislation was actually in the public's interest, that they would be a stop on unwise action by the members of congress. - Framers thought of the Senate as a national chaperone to keep an eye on policy making and make sure that it was actually in the common good bc At 6 years this gives them more of a distance from the public. - Members of the Senate, according to the Framers design, don't have to worry as much about what's popular in a given moment, they can really think about what's in the interest of the country as a whole b.) b. Sectionalism - The Framers also thought sectionalism was going to be useful as a feature because of the geographic diversity of the United States as a whole.

Congress

aka "the first branch"- writers of the Constitution thought that Congress was going to be the most POWERFUL BRANCH of the national government. So they refer to it was the "first Branch" (That's why there's so many checks on Congress's power because whenever the Framers granted authority, they also wanted to make sure that it could be held in constraint. )

1st Era

begins during the early period of America's existence under the Constitution and continuing through up to the Civil War. examples: a. McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) b. Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

case related to the election of 1800, and a shifting balance of power between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. Point in American government, in which Thomas Jefferson wins control of the Presidency, democratic-republicans wins majorities in Congress. Previously those institutions had been controlled by the Federalist Party, so theres a major shift. - President John Adams the United States 2nd President is in office and he's about to leave office, turning over most of the power the Federalists to their rivals, Democratic-Republican Party(Thomas Jefferson). At the very end of Adams Presidency, Federalists pass a law, The Federal Judiciary Act of 1801, that created a whole bunch of new Federal judge positions that Adams got to appoint as President. Idea here is that the Federalists recognized they lost control of Congress/Presidency. So at least if they can put into place, Federalist judges who share their political affiliation, at least they have some kind of hold on the political system. But, Adams is really up against it in signing these commissions at the end of his Presidency, giving people these Federalist judge positions and because he's signing them in the late hours, the end of his Presidency, they fail to be delivered. In fact, what was supposed to happen is that the secretary of State (at the time under Adams) was supposed to deliver those commissions. The Secretary of State is John Marshall, and Adams had also just appointed him to be the Chief justice of the Supreme Court. So Marshall, though he's still working as secretary of State, he fails to deliver these commissions and they just end up sitting on a desk. Marshalls is a negligent individual, who did not deliver those commissions so people could get their judge jobs. At this point, when Marbury v Madison is being argued, Marshall is the Chief Justice of the United States, so he's been installed on the Supreme Court that going to hear this case. Marbury is one of those individuals who didn't get his judge job because his commision wasn't properly delivered. So he sued James Madison, who was the new Secretary of State(under Thomas Jefferson), to force that commission to be delivered, to try to get that job that he had been promised. Ruling in this case: Court ruled that they the court didn't have the power to force the president to deliver those appointment papers because the section of the law giving them this power was considered unconstitutional(counter to the constitution). CASE IS VOIDED.

descriptive representation

counter theory, says that people are best represented by those who share certain key demographic characteristics with their constituents and that could relate to. - Such as gender, race, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, education. Etc. - see Congress as a "mirror of the people."

Courts history

divided into 4 eras: 1st Era: Many of cases involving national vs. state authority; era important for maintaining sovereignty 2nd era: 2nd Era: Runs from the post-civil war era-the 1930's; this is a time period in which the court was addressing cases dealing with National government regulation of the economy. 3rd era: Civil Liberties & Civil Rights 4th Era? Questioned if we are in this era; Shift toward limiting the national government's authority, more power to the states.;

Why is Marbury v. Madison (1803) important

for the first time, John Marshall, the Chief Justice is Claiming the power of judicial review for the Court itself because the constitution is very vague on the courts powers. 1. Marshall for the first time, is saying this is a power that the Supreme Court has to review Congresses laws and deem them constitutional or unconstitutional, to either uphold them and maintain them or in declaring them unconstitutional to be able to strike them down. - This is essential for the Supreme Court, because without that, they really don't have other sources of power.if they don't have this power of judicial review, they HAVE NOTHING. 2. For the first time, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Marshall is establishing a kind of non-partisan identity

Separation of powers

fundamental powers of government being divided between the three branches of the federal government 1. judicial (court system) 2. executive(President) 3. legislative (Congress- House of Rep/Senate)

Senate Majority Leader

generally has fewer formal powers than the Speaker of the House, but that doesnt mean a senate majority leader chosen by the majority party doesn't have ways of accomplishing his political goals. - Relies on personal skills to lead their Senators. & Relies today on negotiation & deal-making with their fellow Senators because it's so difficult to pass a piece of legislation through the Senate - If you need 60 votes and you're the Senate majority leader that means you're going to need to reach out to the minority party or be compromising with members within your own political party.

Senate Whips

job is to: - Keep party together - Organize floor activities - especially procedural for activities - count votes, back sure theres 60 votes/senators that promote a bill, to make sure a filibuster won't derail a piece of legislation, that they have the votes for a vote of cloture. ex: Republicans right now, have a narrow majority in that body, so it makes counting votes incredibly important, they need to know what each Republican is voting because they cant afford to lose more than 1 or 2 votes when it comes to a lot of policies being brought up

Way to end a filibuster

known as a Vote of cloture, can be used to end a filibuster, requires 60 votes out of 100 senators, often difficult, rare for one political party to get 60 votes. So its difficult to stop a filibuster once one has been threatened on a piece of legislation.

Federal District Courts

lowest level of the Federal Court System, -most federal cases begin in district court. - They are divided geographically, there are dozens across the country. - Many of the cases are heard either by a single judge, a small panel of judges, juries hear testimonies for these cases.

Lyndon B. Johnson

many who study that era say that Lyndon B. Johnson was probably the most powerful/influential Senate Majority Leader to ever serve. John F. Kennedy's Vice President but eventually became President when he was assassinated, before he was V.P he was the Senate Majority Leader for a period of time - This makes clear how Senate Majority Leaders have an impact over the process. - Majority Leaders Today don't have as much influence as Johnson did before,

Constituent service

means helping them with things that they might need, related to government and this may be something that some of you may have experienced actually contacting your local congressional office to try to get help with something, - things people may contact Congress about: 1. Passport questions 2. Social security issues 3. Immigration issues - different than contacting a member of Congress to urge them to vote one way or another on a piece of legislation, instead you're asking them for aid or support. - This helps members of Congress for reelection, thats why its important for them to be very attentive to the people who live in their state.

Court of Appeals

mid tier level ; This level can have an impact on policy. - Most of the cases at the court of appeals level are decided by a three judge panel. Not by juries - Different circuits across the country often get reputations for being a little bit more conservative or liberal depending on which of the circuits that you're talking about. EXAMPLE: actions on Trump administration travel ban-LINK: show some of the recent court decisions about the Trump Administration travel ban and circuits that have pushed back against the travel band because it goes against Freedom of Religion)

The Speaker of the House (House of Representatives)

much more formal than Senate Majority Leader

is congress still considered the first branch?

now see president as first branch. - Arguments that we've become more Presidency centered, that although the Framers thought American government was going to run through Congress, we see in more recent decades the power has turned over to the President as the First Branch in U.S Government.

How Congress operates in reality

public has a low evaluation of Congress 1. Legislation Congress often considers often reflects the wishes of those most interested in that policy. 2. Lobbyists and special interest groups with a lot of resources have a lot of influence over the legislative process. - Members of Congress often hear from the people who have the most at stake, with regard to a given issue. Lobbyists push heavily for their interest groups perspective in the legislative process, they gain access to members of congress at the most decisive moments; they might be in the room when committees/subcommittees are actually writing legislation; those bills might not come to reflect the wishes of Americans as a whole, or the country as a whole but instead to reflect the views of a narrow special interest groups. The information interest groups provide contribute to this as well. 3. Not enough time for sufficient deliberation/debate that you would think is ideal; members of Congress engage in longer legislative sessions than decades ago; they have to raise money for the campaign, they often go home every single weekend to connect with people in their district, to show they still are concerned with what's happening at the local level. All of this means there's very little time to listen to debates, to really study legislative issues, they don't have enough time

C. Miroff, "The Presidential Spectacle"

spectacle implies a distinction between the roles of performers and audience. A spectacle does not permit the audience to interrupt the action and redirect its meaning. Spectators can become absorbed in a spectacle or can find it unconvincing, but they cannot become performers. A spectacle is not designed for mass participation; it is not a democratic event. -The mass media have become the principal vehicle for presidential spectacle. Focusing more of their coverage on presidents than on any other person or institution in American life, Ex: Bush in 2003 Obama in 2011 and 2017 Trump in Puerto Rico

judicial review

the ability for the Supreme Court to review: -federal laws - laws that Congress passes - actions that are taken by the President - State laws as well and in order to determine whether or not they're constitutional. They question: if they are in line with the basic tenets in the Constitution or do they conflict with them

limits the court can have on the president

the supreme court would prefer to wait till things calm down following an emergency, to assert themselves on policy processes and place limits on the President. In the midst of a crisis the supreme court gives the president a relatively free hand. Example: this may be seen with the travel bans that the courts have stopped to prevent these policies from going into effect.

Agency representation

this concept is when Legislators act as agents for constituents & for their people's interests. - Even if they don't share their demographic characteristics

Modern Presidency

this is a theory in political science that the Presidency transformed into a fundamentally different institution beginning in the mid 20th century Ex: 1. 19th century presidency more of a "chief clerk."- says something about how most presidents during the 18th century conducted themselves. Many say that presidents during this time period acted more of a chief clerk figure; this argument is that for most of the Presidents who served in the 1800's largely just carried out the will of Congress like a chief clerk would, that they didn't have a lot of their own independent impact on the political system 2. Beginning in the 20th century (particularly under FDR), office transforms into the "modern presidency."

Congress as a "mirror of the people"

this is one of the criticisms that the anti-federalists have levied against the Constitution way back at the founding of the country, they thought Congress was too small and that would mean that people would be elected to Congress from very large election districts and that would privilege more elite members of society, people who already have a name recognition or the money to get elected to that office. Anti- federalists, argue that Congress should be a mirror of the people, it should look like America, it should have all different kinds of occupations and social classes in it. the anti -federalists were probably not thinking about Congress needing to be a mirror of the people in terms of gender, sexual orientation, or race, it was a very different time period than now.

supreme court's role

to interpret the law, say what the law means. ; The fundamental/primary power of the Supreme Court in U.S. government is the power of Judicial Review. - and in order to determine whether or not they're constitutional.

U.S. Supreme Court

top level of federal court system; the Supreme Court has discretion over which cases that they're going to hear. They exercise a lot of control. - The U.S. Supreme Court can address cases that appeal to them from the other two levels of the Federal Court, from State Supreme Courts(within the state court system, if you don't like a ruling there you can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court), - Cases where the Supreme court has original jurisdiction = a case goes to them immediately example: if two states are suing each other they go to the Supreme Court or if foreign diplomats are involved.

executive privilege

very old theory cited by President Washington that allows the President to withhold information from Congress and the courts. - The idea here is that it is a means of the President maintaining independence from Congress, built up on the separation of powers that Nixon doesn't have to turn in the tapes.

Filibuster today

what's more typical is for a Senator to just threat to do a filibuster, Sometimes a Senator may even put a hold on a piece of legislation which indicates if it came to the floor, that you would filibuster it, and effectively that threat causes that bill to die, its silently filibustered. BEcause you no longer have to get up and actually speak to kill a bill, it has become far more common for senators to use this threat to use a filibuster to kill a piece of legislation.

how judicial activism and judicial restraint differ from each other

with a judicial activist approach. To say that when the framers were around, abortion policies wasn't an issue in their time; So as society evolves and this has become A policy sphere, Policy concern in the Country as a whole, that you might read into that Original document, the bill of rights, this implies it right to privacy because that creates greater equality in the country as a whole that would be according to the majority in Roe v.Wade in the supreme court. By contrast, the judicial restraint approach would say are the words right to privacy in the constitution?, no then that's not the right of the Supreme Court to assert it exists in that it certainly would not be the job of the Supreme Court to legalize abortion at the national level on the basis of that interpretation that that would be justices imposing their policy preferences on the public as a whole based on the loose reading of the constitution , That is not valid.