Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The role of the Senate and House of Representatives
How politics shift in america
How politics shift in america
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The role of the Senate and House of Representatives
In this essay I will explore whether or not members of congress are still doing their job or just trying to keep their good reputation with their constituents for re-election time. The question of whether or not members of congress are doing their job effectively has been a great topic of controversy. Being a member of congress has turned into a long term struggle of constantly working towards reelection and trying to balance keeping their districts happy and still being a part of major legislature. Is there a way for members of congress to keep their district happy and still manage the bigger issues they are expected to deal with? Most Americans will complain that they are not happy and that their representatives are not doing their job in …show more content…
Hamilton provides an inside look at how congress really works and clears up popular misconception that make members of congress look like wasteful bickering crooks that support gridlock and are only concerned with the needs of interest groups and lobbyists. Hamilton argues that Congress has changed for the better throughout the years and that they are held at higher standards than they were before. Hamilton states that Congress is not only working at keeping the public happy but that have recently become faced with a lot more issues than before, they are not only more issues but more complicated and technical that are very high risk policies that take a long time to produce a decision (Hamilton, 1988, 65). Hamilton states that Congress is a system in which the viewpoints of everyone are taken into account and make sure there is a consensus when it comes to defining decisions. Even though many of us acknowledge that lobbyist and special interest groups play an essential role in the law making party, Congress is making an effort to make sure that everyone’s voice is heard. Congress is making sure that the balance of power is distributed properly. In recent years, there has been a decline in mega-lobbies and interest groups so that not only the wealthy powerful get their voice heard, but the everyday american people get an opinion in things that affect them as well. In Gary Lee’s article, The NRA Has Lost some Firepower, we can see that interest groups are beginning to have less of an influence on larger political decisions (Hamilton, 1988, 65). For example, the National Rifle Association’s defeat in the battle over the “Brady bill” and their war towards trying to revamp Medicaid was a great loss for lobbyists and
The excerpt “Congress: The Electoral Connection” written by David Mayhew centers around the fundamental arguments that discusses how members of congress are self-interested for reelection. Mayhew further elaborates on his idea by discussing the electoral activities that congress members devote their time into and resource from, which are advertising, credit-claiming, and position taking. Mayhew’s excerpt further examines the framework in how congress operates which contributes to the explanation of how and why congress partakes in the certain electoral activities.
Members of congress have three specific goals. The one that seems to be the most important
Monitoring and sanctions are the more costly of oversight functions and the least likely to be used; they also do not ensure that the noncompliance problem will end. (McCubbins, Noll and Weingast 1987) This follows with McCubbins and Schwartz who theorize that members of congress do not neglect monitoring and their oversight functions but that they prefer the fire-alarm policing in which citizens tend to alert them to problems because it allows them to also do their legislative work (1984). Monitoring along with its economic costs also has political costs if an action that an agency takes in its noncompliance creates a new political interest then by sanctioning them members can incur political costs that would not have otherwise been present with proper anticipation and prevention. (McCubbins, Noll and Weingast 1987) Anticipatory prevention of noncompliance is a form of latent control that congress can exercise that is more effective; Calvert, McCubbins and Weingast develop a theory that includes this finding, “Latent oversight is, by definition, never observed; but its role in implementing political control over the agency is in principle just as important as that of active control (Calvert, McCubbins and Weingast, 1989).” This often occurs when the agent fears sanction in the case of this theory developed the veto, this point would
In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton argued that the Judicial Branch is the “least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution" and that it is “beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power” since it has “neither force nor will, but merely judgment.” [*] While it is true that Hamilton wrote the Federalist Papers as propaganda to garner support for the Constitution by convincing New Yorkers that it would not take away their rights and liberties, it is also true that Article III of the Constitution was deliberately vague about the powers of the Judicial Branch to allow future generations to decide what exactly those powers should be. In the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, established the Court’s power of judicial review. However, as Jill Lepore, Harvard professor of American History, argued, “This was such an astonishing thing to do that the Court didn’t declare another federal law unconstitutional for fifty-four years” after declaring the Judicial Act of 1789 unconstitutional in Marbury v. Madison. [*Jill Lepore] Alexander Hamilton was incorrect in his assertion that the Judicial Branch is the least dangerous to political rights and the weakest of the three government branches because judicial review has made the Supreme Court more powerful than he had anticipated. From 1803 to today, the controversial practice of judicial activism in the Supreme Court has grown—as exemplified by the differing decisions in Minor v. Happersett and United States v. Virginia—which, in effect, has increased the power of the Supreme Court to boundaries beyond those that Alexander Hamilton stated in Federalist 78.
Most individuals with a general background knowledge of the United States Federal Government system are aware that in order for a bill to become a law, it must first pass a majority vote in Congress. There is, however, a very important step in the legislative process that sometimes goes unnoticed. The committee system of the legislation process ensures that the appropriate attention is given to each bill introduced to Congress. Each member of both chambers are assigned to committees and subcommittees, and are expected to become subject matter experts in their respective roles as committee members.
In conclusion, even though some of the Congress processes and its structure seem to be made to slow things down and to reduce effectiveness, they exist to, as discussed in class, protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. After all, one of the main objectives of having a government is to create a balanced society, and to reduce the chances of having social convulsion and anarchy.
In today’s governmental system, it is rare when two cabinet members who serve together have opposing opinions on political and economical views. But this was the case when George Washington was president of the United States in the 1790s. Choosing Thomas Jefferson to be the head of the Department of State, as well as turning to Alexander Hamilton, and appointing him as Secretary of the Treasury (Henretta et al 195). These two men were extremely intelligent, Thomas Jefferson was the author of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and Alexander Hamilton served as Washington’s secretary and advisor during the Revolution as well as being the leading person of the Constitution (Johnson165). Washington having known about these two men, wanted them to work as his cabinet with the mindset that they would accomplish great things, little did he know, these men supported two different political views.
...o keep their jobs, Congress members must please the majority of a state and in the nation. Citizens are the people who help campaign and vote to re-elect you or have someone take your job. Members when voting must remember that and consider voting in favor of what the majority in their state wants even if he or she disagrees. If they do not listen to state residents who are the voters, this can lead to someone sitting down in their former seat.
...ilities of Congress is that minorities and factions exist: dissent takes place, not disagreements. Verbal brawls take place rather than actual argumentation, and that is what kills democracy. That is why things never get done.
The Constitution gives powers to Congress in order to execute its many responsibilities. These responsibilities are necessary and proper for carrying out its policies such as, imposing taxes and regulating interstate commerce. The constitution has 435 members in the House and 100 more in Senate. Congress faces issues with action problems and the solution to correcting these collective problems are at the expense of the incentive members. The Cabinet, President, state and federal courts, political groups, media, etc. all have input when determining a political decision in the United States. Open arrangement is an objective arranged strategy that the legislature follows in managing an issue or issue in the nation. Open approaches are focused around law; however numerous individuals other than officials set them. People, gatherings, and even government organizations that don 't follow strategies can be punished. This confounded procedure has been concluded with an anticipated arrangement of steps.
In conclusion, Congressional representatives should be limited to serving two terms. Limiting the terms of career politicians will promote fresh ideas and reduce the possibility of decisions being made for self-interest. It is in our Country’s best interest that our legislator’s decisions are equitable and that compromises are not made to ensure their own or their parties stay in office.
The United States of America has engaged in the battle known as political polarization since before its foundation in 1776. From the uprising against the powerful British nation to the political issues of today, Americans continue to debate about proper ideology and attempt to choose a side that closely aligns with their personal beliefs. From decade to decade, Americans struggle to determine a proper course of action regarding the country as a whole and will often become divided on important issues. Conflicts between supporters of slavery and abolitionists, between agriculturalists and industrialists, and between industrial workers and capitalists have fueled the divide. At the Congressional level there tends to be a more prevalent display of polarization and is often the blame of Congress’ inefficiency. James Madison intentionally designed Congress to be inefficient by instating a bicameral legislation. Ambition would counter ambition and prevent majority tyranny. George Washington advised against political parties that would contribute to polarization and misrepresentation in his Farewell Address of 1796. Washington warns, “One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of other districts.” Today, the struggle to increase power between political parties results in techniques to gain even the smallest marginal gains. To truly understand political polarization, we must examine data collected through a variety of means, the effects of rapidly changing technology, and observe what techniques are used to create such a polarized political system.
Many Americans in today's society will find it difficult to answer the question of what Congress exactly does and why it exists. Others simply don't care and see Congress as a failed system where nothing gets done. Lee Hamilton, in his book Why Congress Works and Why you Should Care, proves these people wrong and gives an insider's look at what Congress actually does do and how it affects every American each day.
These pluralistic interest groups are free to operate and lobby in the political arena, fighting against the majority and other competing factions for voice in Congress. With the influence of multiple factions operating throughout the political system, a balance of power is created (Kernell 2000, 429). This is much like the international theory of sovereign states balancing each other’s power to create a political system that focuses on stability, yet is always in a constant flux of power. With this in mind, special interest groups are constantly contending for power by raising money, campaigning, and lobbying in Congress. When a special interest group is threatened by a competing policy, the group will organize efforts to balance, or transcend the power of the competing group.
In our countries government, Congress plays a major role in decision making. They’re primary role is to pass laws. These laws start off as bills. Bills can only be introduced by members of Congress. Although these bills only come from Congressman, there are many people who influence these bills. Such as the president, regular citizens, offices in the executive branch, and many others. The bills right off the bat do not have a very good chance of passage. Only one out of every ten bills even gets any attention at all. This is because they must go through many tests and hearings before they even have a chance of landing on the president’s desk. These steps in a bill becoming a law are very important, and make sure that all bills passed into law are the best of the best.