AP Gov Unit 5A

Why has it been argued that Congress contributes to the fragmentation of policy making

It has been argued that Congress, like other federal mechanisms (including federalism, the separation of powers, and checks and balances), contributes to the fragmentation of policy making because it divides the government's policy making systems further. It does this in a couple of ways. Since Congress is a bicameral legislature, it divides policy making into two separate chambers: the house and the senate. Each chamber develops and maintains its own policy views and tactics. It also divides policy making into committees, each with a focus on a different topic and a different policy-making purpose. Further, these groups are divided into smaller subcommittees who have even more specified policy making jobs. Finally, the nature of Congress as a whole as an institution where policy is debated so thoroughly and to such an extent that bills are rarely ever passed causes a fragmentation in people's beliefs that contributes to the fragmentation of the policy made and the policy making itself.

president pro tempore

The president pro tempore presides over the Senate when the Vice President is absent, which is a lot of the time. It is traditionally the most senior member of the party.

Clinton v. New York City (1996)

This case consolidates two separate challenges to the constitutionality of two cancellations, made by President William J. Clinton, under the Line Item Veto Act. In the first, the City of New York, two hospital associations, a hospital, and two health care unions, challenged the President's cancellation of a provision in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 which relinquished the Federal Government's ability to recoup nearly $2.6 billion in taxes levied against Medicaid providers by the State of New York. In the second, the Snake River farmer's cooperative and one of its individual members challenged the President's cancellation of a provision of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. The provision permitted some food refiners and processors to defer recognition of their capital gains in exchange for selling their stock to eligible farmers' cooperatives. After a district court held the Act unconstitutional, the Supreme Court granted certiorari on expedited appeal. Did the President's ability to selectively cancel individual portions of bills, under the Line Item Veto Act, violate the Presentment Clause of Article I? Decision: The decision was yes. In a 6-to-3 decision the Court first established that both the City of New York, and its affiliates, and the farmers' cooperative suffered sufficiently immediate and concrete injuries to sustain their standing to challenge the President's actions. The Court then explained that under the Presentment Clause, legislation that passes both Houses of Congress must either be entirely approved (i.e. signed) or rejected (i.e. vetoed) by the President. The Court held that by canceling only selected portions of the bills at issue, under authority granted him by the Act, the President in effect "amended" the laws before him. Such discretion, the Court concluded, violated the "finely wrought" legislative procedures of Article I as envisioned by the Framers. Importance: The Court ruled that the line-item veto is unconstitutional.

27th Amendment

"No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened." The 27th amendment deals with pay raises or decreases for members of Congress. Changes to Congressional pay must take effect after the next term of office for the representatives. This means that another election would have had to occur before the pay raises can take effect. Its provision fulfilled Madison's belief that Congress should not be permitted to vote itself pay raises arbitrarily without constituents being able to register their approval or disapproval.

16th Amendment

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." It establishes Congress's power to impose a federal income tax. It allows the Congress to levy an income tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on the United States Census.

New Deal Legislation (1933-1939) that created the following

(Identify the Act, its purpose, & overall result of New Deal legislation for the power of the federal government.): The result of New Deal legislation was a redefined idea about the power of the federal government. It convinced the majority of ordinary Americans that the government not only could, but should intervene in the economy as well as protect and provide direct support for American citizens. **Social Security The Social Security Act was signed into law by President Roosevelt on August 14,1935. In addition to several provisions for general welfare, the new Act created a social insurance program designed to pay retired workers age 65 or older a continuing income after retirement. **Securities and Exchange Commission To bring order out of chaos, Congress passed three major acts creating the Securities and Exchange Commission,SEC,and defining its responsibilities. The Securities Act of 1933 required public corporations to register their stock sales and distribution and make regular financial disclosures. The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 created the SEC to regulate exchanges, brokers, and over-the-counter markets, as well as to monitor the required financial disclosures. The 1935 Public Utility Holding Company Act did away with holding companies more than twice removed from the utilities whose stocks they held. This "death sentence" ended the practice of using holding companies to obscure the intertwined ownership of public utility companies. Further, the act authorized the SEC to break up any unnecessarily large utility combinations into smaller, geographically based companies and to set up federal commissions to regulate utility rates and financial practices. Tennessee Valley Authority The TVA, or Tennessee Valley Authority, was established in 1933 as one of President Roosevelt's Depression-era New Deal programs, providing jobs and electricity to the rural Tennessee River Valley—an area that spans seven states in the South. The TVA was envisioned as a federally-owned electric utility and regional economic development agency. It still exists today as the nation's largest public power provider.

census

A census is an official count or survey of a population, typically recording various details of individuals. It is a valuable tool for understanding demographic changes. The constitution requires that the government conduct an "actual enumeration" of the population every ten years. In the United States, redistricting in state legislatures is based off of the decennial census.

congressional district

A congressional district is an electoral constituency that elects a single member of a congress. A congressional district is based on population, which, in the United States, is taken using a census every ten years. In the United States, a congressional district is one of a fixed number of districts into which a state is divided, each district selecting one member to the national House of Representatives.

discharge petition

A discharge petition is used to bring a bill to the floor when it has died, or been pigeonholed in a committee. It's a motion to force a bill to the floor that has been bottled up in a committee.

filibuster

A filibuster is a delaying tactic used by the Senate members to kill a bill and consists of either speaking indefinitely or offering dilatory motions and amendments.

legislative veto

A legislative veto is a method by which Congress delegates authority to the executive branch while retaining oversight power. It says that either house of Congress may block a proposed executive action and was declared unconstitutional.

line-item veto

A line-item veto is the presidential power to strike, or remove, specific items from a spending bill without vetoing the entire package and was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Clinton v. City of New York (1998).

poison pill (or killer) amendment

A poison pill (or killer) amendment is an addition to a bill that opponents add that makes original supporters withdraw their support and is used to kill the bill, or decrease its chances.

quorum

A quorum is the minimum number of members of an assembly or society that must be present at any of its meetings to make the proceedings of that meeting valid. Article I, section 5 of the Constitution requires that a quorum (51 senators) be present for the Senate to conduct business. Often, fewer than 51 senators are present on the floor, but the Senate presumes a quorum unless a roll call vote or quorum call suggests otherwise. A quorum in the House of Representatives is when a majority of the Members are present. When there are no vacancies in the membership, a quorum is 218. When one or more seats are vacant, because of deaths or resignations, the quorum is reduced accordingly.

sponsor (a bill)

A sponsor is a person who introduces the bill to the floor for debate and voting; usually a member of the committee that the bill comes from. A sponsor in the United States Congress is the first member of the House or Senate to be listed among the potentially numerous lawmakers who introduce a bill for consideration. Committees are occasionally identified as sponsors of legislation as well. A sponsor is also sometimes called a "primary sponsor."

standing committee

A standing committee is a permanent committee based on subject matter that handles different policy areas. They are considered most important and propose bills by reporting them out to the full house or full senate. House members serve on two committees (unless one of them is exclusive). Each senator can serve on two major and one minor standing committees.

subcommittee

All committees with 20 members are forced to have at least 4 subcommittees. Their job is to consider specified matters and report back to the full committee.

bicameral

Bicameral is a way of saying that something has two branches or chambers. The United States Congress is bicameral because it is divided into the House of Representatives and the Senate.

cloture

Cloture is used in the Senate, it's a motion to end debate and has to be voted on by a minimum of 60 members.

conference committee

Conference committees have the job of resolving differences between the House and Senate versions of a bill, so that they can be voted on and made law.

Congress

Congress is the first branch of the United States Government (the Legislative Branch) because it was Article 1 in the Constitution. Congress is the national legislature that makes the laws and was intended to be the most important branch in our representative democracy. The powers of Congress include levying taxes, borrowing money, regulating Congress, deciding requirements for citizenship, making monetary policy, establishing a postal system, establishing federal courts below the Supreme Court, declaring war, raising an army and a navy, calling up state militias, and making all laws that shall be necessary and proper for executing the other powers of Congress.

In what ways does Congress promote and encourage factionalism (strong party divisions)

Congress members are largely influenced in their voting decisions by their party preference, and sometimes vote on an issue solely because it is characteristic of their party. This causes certain issues and responses to these issues to lie only in certain parties, and further causes polarization in the party's ideologies. In turn, the people are caused to fall further into specific parties depending on the issues and ideas they support. This causes factions and party divisions to strengthen.

oversight power

Congressional oversight is oversight by the United States Congress over the Executive Branch, including the numerous U.S. federal agencies. Congressional oversight includes the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation. Congress is charged with the responsibility of knowing how executive departments and agencies are carrying out their laws. Congressional committees can hold departments or agency heads responsible for failure to appropriately follow the law.

earmarks

Earmarks are one way incumbents have advantage. They are provisions in bills that benefit a particular group.

What is Gerrymandering and why is it considered by many to be a structural barrier to popular sovereignty

Gerrymandering is when a political party controlling the state government draws a district's boundaries to gain an advantage in elections. It results in districts that have very irregular shapes. It also results in wasted vote syndrome, where the person's vote doesn't contribute to helping their candidate win. This diminishes popular sovereignty, or the influence of voting, and is harmful to society.

gerrymandering

Gerrymandering is where a political party that controls the state government draws a district's boundaries to gain advantage in the next elections and causes oddly shaped districts.

Shaw v. Reno (1993) & Miller v. Johnson (1995)

In Shaw v. Reno, the U.S. Attorney General rejected a North Carolina congressional reapportionment plan because the plan created only one black-majority district. North Carolina submitted a second plan creating two black-majority districts. One of these districts was, in parts, no wider than the interstate road along which it stretched. Five North Carolina residents challenged the constitutionality of this unusually shaped district, alleging that its only purpose was to secure the election of additional black representatives. After a three-judge District Court ruled that they failed to state a constitutional claim, the residents appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. The question was did the North Carolina residents' claim, that the State created a racially gerrymandered district, raise a valid constitutional issue under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause? In Miller v. Johnson, between 1980 and 1990, only one of Georgia's ten congressional districts was majority-black. According to the 1990 decennial census, Georgia's black population of 27% entitled blacks to an additional eleventh congressional seat, prompting Georgia's General Assembly to re-draw the state's congressional districts. After the Justice Department refused pre-clearance of several of the Assembly's proposed new districts, the Assembly was finally successful in creating an additional majority-black district through the forming of an eleventh district. This district, however, was called a "geographic monstrosity" because it extended 6,784.2 square miles from Atlanta to the Atlantic Ocean. In short, "the social, political, and economic makeup of the Eleventh District tells a tale of disparity, not community." The question was is racial gerrymandering of the congressional redistricting process a violation of the Equal Protection Clause? Decision: In Shaw v. Reno the decision was yes. The Court held that although North Carolina's reapportionment plan was racially neutral on its face, the resulting district shape was bizarre enough to suggest that it constituted an effort to separate voters into different districts based on race. The unusual district, while perhaps created by noble intentions, seemed to exceed what was reasonably necessary to avoid racial imbalances. After concluding that the residents' claim did give rise to an equal protection challenge, the Court remanded - adding that in the absence of contradictory evidence, the District Court would have to decide whether or not some compelling governmental interest justified North Carolina's plan. In Miller v. Johnson the decision was yes. In some instances, a reapportionment plan may be so highly irregular and bizarre in shape that it rationally cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to segregate voters based on race. Importance: Miller v. Johnson found that applying the rule laid down in Shaw v. Reno requires strict scrutiny whenever race is the "overriding, predominant force" in the redistricting process.

Baker v. Carr (1962)

In Tennessee, while people flocked to cities like Memphis, the legislative districts stayed the same. Although more people were voting in urban areas, they still had the same amount of political representation as rural districts with significantly fewer residents. In 1960, roughly two-thirds of Tennessee's representatives were being elected by one-third of the state's population. A group of urban voters including Memphis resident Charles Baker sued Tennessee Secretary of State Joseph Carr for more equal representation. Did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment? Decision: State reapportionment claims are justiciable in federal court. In a 6-2 decision, Justice William Brennan wrote for the majority that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause was valid grounds to bring a reapportionment lawsuit. The decision explored the nature of "political questions" and the appropriateness of Court action in them, the Court held that there were no such questions to be answered in this case and that legislative apportionment was a justiciable issue. In his opinion, Justice Brennan provided past examples in which the Court had intervened to correct constitutional violations in matters pertaining to state administration and the officers through whom state affairs are conducted. Brennan concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection issues which Baker and others raised in this case merited judicial evaluation. Importance: Baker v. Carr established the right of federal courts to review redistricting issues, which had previously been termed "political questions" outside the courts' jurisdiction. The Court's willingness to address legislative reapportionment in this Tennessee case paved the way for the "one man, one vote" standard of American representative democracy. This decision opened the floodgates for similar lawsuits that redrew election maps around the country.

INS v. Chadha (1983)

In one section of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Congress authorized either House of Congress to invalidate and suspend deportation rulings of the United States Attorney General. Chadha had stayed in the U.S. past his visa deadline. Though Chadha conceded that he was deportable, an immigration judge suspended his deportation. The House of Representatives voted without debate or recorded vote to deport Chadha. This case was decided together with United States House of Representatives v. Chadha and United States Senate v. Chadha. Did the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allowed a one-House veto of executive actions, violate the separation of powers doctrine? Decision: The Court held that the particular section of the Act in question did violate the Constitution. Recounting the debates of the Constitutional Convention over issues of bicameralism and separation of powers, Chief Justice Burger concluded that even though the Act would have enhanced governmental efficiency, it violated the "explicit constitutional standards" regarding lawmaking and congressional authority. Importance: The Court found that the one-house legislative veto violated the constitutional separation of powers.

Wesberry v. Sanders (1963)

James P. Wesberry, Jr. filed a suit against the Governor of Georgia, Carl E. Sanders, protesting the state's apportionment scheme. The Fifth Congressional District, of which Wesberry was a member, had a population two to three times larger than some of the other districts in the state. Wesberry claimed this system diluted his right to vote compared to other Georgia residents. Did Georgia's congressional districts violate the Fourteenth Amendment or deprive citizens of the full benefit of their right to vote? Decision: The Court held that Georgia's apportionment scheme grossly discriminated against voters in the Fifth Congressional District. Because a single congressman had to represent two to three times as many people as were represented by congressmen in other districts, the Georgia statute contracted the value of some votes and expanded the value of others. Importance: This decision requires each state to draw its U.S. Congressional districts so that they are approximately equal in population.

joint committee

Joint committees are made out of House and Senate members and have a job similar to those on select committees. They are set up to conduct business between the houses and to help focus public attention on major issues. Some joint committees handle routine matters, such as supervising the Library of Congress.

logrolling

Logrolling is a way that members of Congress are able to get certain projects passed quickly. It's when legislators support a proposed favor by another in return for support in his or her bill. It's an arrangement in which two or more members of Congress agree in advance to support each other's bills.

Why did the Supreme Court strike down majority-minority congressional districts

Majority-minority districts were used to help minorities get better representation in their districts. They consist of taking minorities from nearby districts and combining them into one, so that this district votes in whichever way the minority pleases (this is usually Democrat, since minorities, especially African Americans, vote overwhelmingly democrat). The idea was that these minority districts would vote in this way and that minorities would be better represented. But in reality, what happened was that the minority votes from the district surrounding the one that was overwhelmingly composed of minorities were lost and the surrounding districts voted Republican. This increases the number of Republican-voting districts, which is contrary to the majority-minority congressional district's goal - to increase the representation of minorities' beliefs.

Why would members of Congress vote against meaningful campaign finance reform

Members of Congress might vote against meaningful campaign finance reform if it would stop them from getting elected easier. For example, a member might vote not to decrease campaign contributions because they benefit greatly from these contributions. The members of Congress can be more elite than the rest of the population and would benefit from the involvement of money in politics because it would help them get elected (through self funded or outside-funded) campaigns.

Why would members of the Senate engage in a filibuster

Members of the Senate would engage in a filibuster if the bill that was being passed was highly disagreeable to them and they wanted to kill it. For example, many white men (wrongly) engaged in filibusters to stop the advancement of the civil rights movement. They disagreed that people should have equal rights, and used their individual power to stop the bills that made this possible from becoming laws.

Why do most citizens hate Congress but love their representatives

Most citizens hate Congress but love their representation for two reasons. First, because Congress was designed to be a slow and cautious institution, where change is slow and progress is hard to come about. This causes many people to dislike Congress as a whole. But, because of casework, pork barrel, and earmarks, citizens are inclined to favor their own representatives for the benefits they receive.

U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton (1995)

On November 3, 1992, Arkansas voters adopted Amendment 73 to their State Constitution. The "Term Limitation Amendment," in addition to limiting terms of elected officials within the Arkansas state government, also provided that any person who served three or more terms as a member of the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas would be ineligible for re-election as a US Representative from Arkansas. Similarly, the Amendment provided that any person who served two or more terms as a member of the United States Senate from Arkansas would be ineligible for re-election as a US Senator from Arkansas. Can states alter those qualifications for the U.S. Congress that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution? Decision: The decision was no. The Constitution prohibits States from adopting Congressional qualifications in addition to those enumerated in the Constitution. A state congressional term limits amendment is unconstitutional if it has the likely effect of handicapping a class of candidates and "has the sole purpose of creating additional qualifications indirectly." Importance: The decision said that "...allowing individual States to craft their own congressional qualifications would erode the structure designed by the Framers to form a 'more perfect Union.'"

How does politics enter into the nomination process for independent agencies and the judiciary

Politics enter into the nomination process for independent agencies and the judiciary in a number of ways. Depending on who the president, nominator, or nominee is and the time in history, the impact of politics varies, but through all nominations, the presence of politics is a constant variable. With judges, especially, politics play a large role because they serve life terms and, depending on the political party of the nominator, the judge appointed will be of that specific party. However, usually, these nominations don't have many controversial stances because they have to be approved. The nominator would have to take this into consideration and choose the candidate that would best further his or her goals without risking anything. The same would be true for any nominations for independent agencies. As a nominator is deciding, they are influenced by many outside events, people, and ideas, all of whose politics are intruding on the process of finding the nominee. Coercion, manipulation, and bribery or false promises could all play a highly political role in this process.

pork barrel

Pork barrel is an incumbency advantage that allows incumbents to do federal projects and grants that benefit their congressional district or state. Pork-barrel legislation is the passing of public laws to appropriate money to special local projects using federal money.

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (1996) (aka The Welfare Reform Act)

President Clinton signed into law "The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193)," a comprehensive bipartisan welfare reform plan that will dramatically change the nation's welfare system into one that requires work in exchange for time-limited assistance. The law contains strong work requirements, a performance bonus to reward states for moving welfare recipients into jobs, state maintenance of effort requirements, comprehensive child support enforcement, and supports for families moving from welfare to work -- including increased funding for child care and guaranteed medical coverage.

reapportionment

Reapportionment is when states gain or lose seats as a result or redistricting. Districts may be "cracked," where a line is drawn to divide a group, or "packed," where a group is put into a single district.

redistricting

Redistricting means changing the district boundaries for House elections, so that the population represented is roughly equal between districts. It is conducted by state legislators and based on the decennial census. States may gain or lose seats, called reapportionment.

select committee (aka special committee, aka ad hoc committee)

Select committees are created temporarily for a specific purpose, often to study a particular issue. They usually do not draft legislation. Some, like the select committees to investigate the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, are obviously intended to have limited lives. Others, like the Select Committee on Aging and the Select Committee on Indian Affairs, have existed for a number of years actually produce legislation. Sometimes long-standing select committees eventually become standing committees.

Which house of Congress is considered the upper house and why

Senate is considered the upper house of Congress. However, the two chambers of Congress are granted roughly equal powers. The house formally designated as the upper house is usually smaller and often has more restricted power than the lower house. Overall, it is considered the upper house because it has stricter qualifications than the house, more prestige, a longer term of office, and has been a stepping stone to higher political office

senatorial courtesy

Senatorial courtesy is an unwritten tradition whereby nominations for state-level federal judicial posts are not confirmed if they are opposed by a senator from the state in which the nominee will serve. The tradition also applies to courts of appeal when there is opposition from the nominee's state senator.

Which house of Congress is more strict and which is more loose in its procedures

Since the House of Representatives is larger, it has stricter and more formal proceedings. The senate is much smaller, and therefore has less strict rules and is more informal (because more leeway comes from its large numbers).

Majority leader (House & Senate)

Speaker's chief lieutenant in the House and the most important officer in the Senate. He or she is responsible for managing the floor.

Age Discrimination in Employment Act (1967)

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) protects certain applicants and employees 40 years of age and older from discrimination on the basis of age in hiring, promotion, discharge, compensation, or terms, conditions or privileges of employment. It does not protect workers under the age of 40, although some states have laws that protect younger workers from age discrimination. It is not illegal for an employer or other covered entity to favor an older worker over a younger one, even if both workers are age 40 or older.

Espionage Act (1917) and Sedition Act (1918)

The Espionage Act essentially made it a crime for any person to convey information intended to interfere with the U.S. armed forces prosecution of the war effort or to promote the success of the country's enemies. Anyone found guilty of such acts would be subject to a fine of $10,000 and a prison sentence of 20 years. The Espionage Act was reinforced by the Sedition Act of the following year, which imposed similarly harsh penalties on anyone found guilty of making false statements that interfered with the prosecution of the war; insulting or abusing the U.S. government, the flag, the Constitution or the military; agitating against the production of necessary war materials; or advocating, teaching or defending any of these acts. Both pieces of legislation were aimed at socialists, pacifists and other anti-war activists during World War I and were used to punishing effect in the years immediately following the war. One of the most famous activists arrested during this period, labor leader Eugene V. Debs, was sentenced to 10 years in prison for a speech he made in 1918 in Canton, Ohio, criticizing the Espionage Act. Debs appealed the decision, and the case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court, where the court upheld his conviction. Though Debs' sentence was commuted in 1921 when the Sedition Act was repealed by Congress, major portions of the Espionage Act remain part of United States law to the present day.

Shelby County v. Holder (2013)

The Fourteenth Amendment protects every person's right to due process of law. The Fifteenth Amendment protects citizens from having their right to vote abridged or denied due to "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." The Tenth Amendment reserves all rights not granted to the federal government to the individual states. Article Four of the Constitution guarantees the right of self-government for each state. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was enacted as a response to the nearly century-long history of voting discrimination. Section 5 prohibits eligible districts from enacting changes to their election laws and procedures without gaining official authorization. Section 4(b) defines the eligible districts as ones that had a voting test in place as of November 1, 1964 and less than 50% turnout for the 1964 presidential election. Such districts must prove to the Attorney General or a three-judge panel of a Washington, D.C. district court that the change "neither has the purpose nor will have the effect" of negatively impacting any individual's right to vote based on race or minority status. Section 5 was originally enacted for five years, but has been continually renewed since that time. Shelby County, Alabama, filed suit in district court and sought both a declaratory judgment that Section 5 and Section 4(b) are unconstitutional and a permanent injunction against their enforcement. The district court upheld the constitutionality of the Sections and granted summary judgment for the Attorney General. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that Congress did not exceed its powers by reauthorizing Section 5 and that Section 4(b) is still relevant to the issue of voting discrimination. Does the renewal of Section 5 of the Voter Rights Act under the constraints of Section 4(b) exceed Congress' authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, and therefore violate the Tenth Amendment and Article Four of the Constitution? Decision: The decision was yes. Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. delivered the opinion of the 5-4 majority. The Court held that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act imposes current burdens that are no longer responsive to the current conditions in the voting districts in question. Although the constraints this section places on specific states made sense in the 1960s and 1970s, they do not any longer and now represent an unconstitutional violation of the power to regulate elections that the Constitution reserves for the states. The Court also held that the formula for determining whether changes to a state's voting procedure should be federally reviewed is now outdated and does not reflect the changes that have occurred in the last 50 years in narrowing the voting turnout gap in the states in question. In his concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional in addition to Section 4. He wrote that the blatant discrimination against certain voters that Section 5 was intended to prohibit is no longer evident. Without such extraordinary circumstances, Congress cannot constitutionally justify placing the burden of Section 5 on the states in question. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissent in which she argued that Congress' power to enforce the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments encompasses legislative action such as the Voting Rights Act. The legislative history and text of the Amendments as well as previous judicial precedent support Congress' authority to enact legislation that specifically targets potential state abuses. However, Congress does not have unlimited authority but must show that the means taken rationally advance a legitimate objective, as is the case with the Voting Rights Act. The evidence Congress gathered to determine whether to renew the Voting Rights Act sufficiently proved that there was still a current need to justify the burdens placed on the states in question. She also argued that, by holding Section 4 unconstitutional, the majority's opinion makes it impossible to effectively enforce Section 5. Justice Stephen G. Breyer, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and Justice Elena Kagan joined in the dissent.

**Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act (1985) & Balanced Budget Act (1987)

The Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 and the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act of 1987 (both often known as Gramm-Rudman) were the first binding spending constraints on the federal budget. Passage of this Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act was spurred by concern over large and growing federal deficits during the 1980s and the inability of Congress and the administration to raise taxes or cut spending sufficiently to resolve the problem. The act specified a schedule of gradually declining deficit targets leading to a balanced budget in 1991. It also specified that if the administration and Congress were unable to reach agreement on a budget deficit that came within $10 billion of the targets specified in the bill, automatic and across-the-board spending reductions would be implemented in all programs except social security, interest payments on the national debt, and certain low-income entitlements. The 1987 law, which was signed by President Reagan on September 29, 1987, moved sequestration authority from the office of the Comptroller General to the White House OMB, thus assigning the power to execute the law to the executive branch. The 1987 law also increased the public debt limit and the delayed by two years the deadline for passing a balanced budget.

**Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (1964)

The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution authorized President Lyndon Johnson to "take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression" by the communist government of North Vietnam. It was passed by the U.S. Congress after an alleged attack on two U.S. naval destroyers stationed off the coast of Vietnam. The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution effectively launched America's full-scale involvement in the Vietnam War.

Why is the House Rules Committee so important

The House Rules Committee is an exclusive committee in Congress. It is like the "traffic cop." It is a powerful committee in the House of Representatives because it creates a rule for each bill to be debated on the floor. The rule establishes the time and extent of debate and amendments that can be offered. So, the Rules Committee is able to decide the importance of each bill. Strict limitation on the duration of debates is performed by the Committee. So, it can decide to what extent a bill can be debated. Also, it has lots of power because it is not charged with only any one specific area of policy.

House Rules Committee

The House Rules Committee is like the "traffic cop." It assigns bills (or doesn't assign bills) to committees. It is a powerful committee in the House of Representatives that creates a rule for each bill to be debated on the floor. The rule establishes the time and extent of debate and amendments that can be offered. A debate on a bill is regulated by the House rules committee. It is in charge of determining under what rule bills come to the floor. Strict limitation on the duration of debates is performed by the Committee. It is not charged with only any one specific area of policy. This committee is referred to as 'an arm of the leadership' and 'traffic cop of Congress.'

House Ways and Means Committee

The House Ways and Means Committee has the job of developing tax bills or, along with the Senate Finance Committee, writes the tax codes, subject to the approval of Congress as a whole.

House of Representatives

The House of Representatives is the upper chamber or Congress. It has 435 members, two year terms, the leader is the speaker of the House, it has complex rules, a formal atmosphere, five calendars to schedule bills, and the membership is determined by the population. Most of the work is done in committees, it sets its own salaries, has the franking privilege, has majority and minority party/floor leaders who make sure their party's bills are supported and passed. It also has majority and minority whips who assist the party/floor leaders and its members cannot be arrested while carrying out legislative duties.

Immigration Act (1924)

The Immigration Act of 1924 limited the number of immigrants allowed entry into the United States through a national origins quota. The quota provided immigration visas to two percent of the total number of people of each nationality in the United States as of the 1890 national census. It completely excluded immigrants from Asia. The new quota calculations included large numbers of people of British descent whose families had long resided in the United States. As a result, the percentage of visas available to individuals from the British Isles and Western Europe increased, but newer immigration from other areas like Southern and Eastern Europe was limited. The 1924 Immigration Act also included a provision excluding from entry any alien who by virtue of race or nationality was ineligible for citizenship. Existing nationality laws dating from 1790 and 1870 excluded people of Asian lineage from naturalizing. As a result, the 1924 Act meant that even Asians not previously prevented from immigrating - the Japanese in particular - would no longer be admitted to the United States. In all of its parts, the most basic purpose of the 1924 Immigration Act was to preserve the ideal of U.S. homogeneity. Congress revised the Act in 1952.

Senate

The Senate is the lower chamber of Congress. It has 100 members, six year terms, the leader is the vice president or the president pro tempore, it has few rules and an informal atmosphere, it's relaxed, has two calendars to schedule bills, and the membership is determined by equality (2 per state). A member has the right to filibuster in order to modify r kill a bill, and the members can vote for cloture. Most of the work is done in committees, it sets its own salaries, has the franking privilege, has majority and minority party/floor leaders who make sure their party's bills are supported and passed. It also has majority and minority whips who assist the party/floor leaders and its members cannot be arrested while carrying out legislative duties.

Sherman Antitrust Act (1890)

The Sherman Antitrust Act is a landmark federal statute in the history of United States antitrust law passed by Congress in 1890 under the presidency of Benjamin Harrison. Among the things it did were it (Section 1) prohibits all restraints of trade, including price-fixing, bid-rigging, and market allocation agreements and (Section 2) prohibits monopolization. It was the first federal action against monopolies. It was signed into law by Harrison and was extensively used by Theodore Roosevelt for trust-busting. However, it was initially misused against labor unions.

Trustee Model

The Trustee Model says that delegates, or members of Congress, should consider the will of the people but act in ways they believe are best, or follow their consciences, for the long term benefit of the nation.

Patriot Act (2001)

The USA Patriot Act is an antiterrorism law enacted by the U.S. Congress in October 2001, at the request of then-President George W. Bush in response to the terrorist attacks that took place on Sept. 11. The law gave new powers to the U.S. Department of Justice, the National Security Agency and other federal agencies on domestic and international surveillance of electronic communications; it also removed legal barriers that had blocked law enforcement, intelligence and defense agencies from sharing information about potential terrorist threats and coordinating efforts to respond to them. But the Patriot Act raised concerns among civil liberties groups and other critics surrounding the data privacy rights of U.S. citizens -- concerns that were heightened significantly in 2013, when NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked information showing that the agency was using the law to justify the bulk collection of data about millions of phone calls.

**War Powers Act (1973)

The War Powers Act is a congressional resolution designed to limit the U.S. president's ability to initiate or escalate military actions abroad. Among other restrictions, the law requires that presidents notify Congress after deploying the armed forces and limits how long units can remain engaged without congressional approval. Enacted in 1973 with the goal of avoiding another lengthy conflict such as the Vietnam War, its effectiveness has been repeatedly questioned throughout its history, and several presidents have been accused of failing to comply with its regulations.

Delegate Model

The delegate model of representation is a model of a representative democracy. In this model, constituents elect their representatives as delegates for their constituency. These delegates act only as a mouthpiece for the wishes of their constituency, and have no autonomy from the constituency. It says that legislators should adhere to the will of their constituents.

Freedom of Information Act (1966)

The freedom of information act was a law passed in 1966 that requires federal executive branch and regulatory agencies to make information available to journalists, scholars, and the public unless it falls into one of several confidential categories. It generally provides any person with the statutory right, enforceable in court, to obtain access to Government information in executive branch agency records. This right to access is limited when such information is protected from disclosure by one of FOIA's nine statutory exemptions.

What impact has the high cost of campaigning had on the legislative process

The high cost of campaigning, especially in the Senate, but also in the House of Representatives, and the continuous campaigning process, all limit the people who even attempt to campaign to richer and more privileged people. This cuts people of lower income (who tend to be of certain races or demographics or minorities) from running and prohibits them from having a voice. When only wealthier people are elected, it prevents certain things from happening in the legislative process. For instance, programs that take money from the upper class are less likely to be voted on because those people in office would be the ones negatively impacted by the legislation. As a whole, because of the high cost of campaigning, the wealthy people are benefited and the poor people continue to be trapped in the same positions.

Minority leader (House & Senate)

The leader of the minority party who speaks for the party in dealing with the majority.

What are the powers of the leaders in the House and Senate

The leaders in the House and Senate have an incredible amount of power. The Speaker of the House is at the top of the leadership hierarchy. The Speaker is second in succession to the presidency and is the only officer of the House mentioned specifically in the Constitution. The Speaker's official duties include referring bills to committees, appointing members to select and conference committees, counting and announcing all votes on legislation, and signing all bills passed by the House. He rarely participates in floor debates or votes on bills. The Speaker also is the leader of his or her political party in the House. In this capacity, the Speaker oversees the party's committee assignments, sets the agenda of activities in the House, and bestows rewards on faithful party members, such as committee leadership positions. In addition to these formal responsibilities, the Speaker has significant power to control the legislative agenda in the House. The Rules Committee, through which all bills must pass, functions as an arm of the Speaker. The Speaker appoints members of the Rules Committee who can be relied on to do his or her bidding. The Republicans and Democrats elect floor leaders who coordinate legislative initiatives and serve as the chief spokespersons for their parties on the House floor. These positions are held by experienced legislators who have earned the respect of their colleagues. Floor leaders actively work at attracting media coverage to promote their party's agenda. The leadership offices all have their own press secretaries. The House majority leader is second to the Speaker in the majority party hierarchy. Working with the Speaker, he is responsible for setting the annual legislative agenda, scheduling legislation for consideration, and coordinating committee activity. He operates behind the scenes to ensure that the party gets the votes it needs to pass legislation. He consults with members and urges them to support the majority party and works with congressional leaders and the president, when the two are of the same party, to build coalitions. The majority leader monitors the floor carefully when bills are debated to keep his party members abreast of any key developments. The House minority leader is the party with the fewest members' nominee for Speaker. She is the head of her party in the House and receives significant media coverage. She articulates the minority party's policies and rallies members to court the media and publicly take on the policies of the majority party. She devises tactics that will place the minority party in the best position for influencing legislation by developing alternatives to legislative proposals supported by the majority. Members of Congress from the Republican and Democratic parties elect whips who are responsible for encouraging party loyalty and discipline in the House. Aided by extensive networks of deputies and assistants, whips make sure that the lines of communication between leaders and members remain open. The senate is officially led by the Vice President (who is replaced by the president pro tempore, or most senior member of the majority party), but really lead by the majority leader. The Senate majority leader, who is elected by the majority party, is the most influential member of the Senate. He is responsible for managing the business of the Senate by setting the schedule and overseeing floor activity. He is entitled to the right of first recognition, whereby the presiding officer allows him to speak on the floor before other senators. This right gives him a strategic advantage when trying to pass or defeat legislation, as he can seek to limit debate and amendments. The Senate minority leader is the head of the opposing party. He works closely with the majority leader on scheduling. He confers regularly with members of his party to develop tactics for promoting their interests in the Senate. Senate whips (assistant floor leaders) are referred to as assistant floor leaders, as they fill in when the majority and minority leaders are absent from the floor. Like their House counterparts, Senate whips are charged with devising a party strategy for passing legislation, keeping their party unified on votes, and building coalitions. The Senate whip network is not as extensive as its House counterpart. The greater intimacy of relationships in the Senate makes it easier for floor leaders to know how members will vote without relying on whip counts.

Why does Congress continue to maintain the seniority system

The seniority system has been used by Congress for multiple reasons. Though some argue that the seniority rule is flawed because it ignores ability, rewards solely length of service, and works to discourage younger members, Congress has continued to use the seniority system for the following reasons. Using the seniority system encourages the development of expertise in committees of a certain area. By giving those members who have served longest on a particular topic benefits, they are motivated to develop and invest in the particular skill. It also encourages those people who are able to be continually elected (because the people vote for and appreciate them) to continue running for office.

Speaker of the House

The speaker of the house is the presiding officer in the hOuse of Representatives, normally the Speaker is the leader of the majority party. He or she appoints rules committee, assigns bills to committees, may recommend leaders but cannot appoint. Also, he takes over as president in the case that the President and VP die..

Why do congressional incumbents have an advantage over challengers

They have the advantage in advertising because the goal is to be visible to voters, and incumbents take frequent trips home and use newsletters and they have the franking privilege. They also claim credit through casework (providing help to individual constituents), pork barrel (federal projects and grants that benefit a congressional district or state), and earmarks (provisions in bills that benefit a particular group). They also portray themselves as dedicated, hard working individuals and occasionally take a partisan stand on an issue. They often have weak opponents, inexperienced in politics (though not necessarily in government) and are mostly unorganized and underfunded or self-funded.

pigeonhole (Senate)

When a bill is pigeonholed it is killed in a committee. To pigeonhole means to set a congressional bill aside in committee without considering it. Pigeonholing is the process by which a Congressional Committee chairperson can kill a bill assigned to his/her committee simply by ignoring it, such as not scheduling it for hearings or for a markup session