Political conflicts regarding oversight are becoming a common occurrence in Washington, but have you stepped back and analyzed why this is? These unnecessary strangle hold on the democratic process are due to a few common practices, party politics, a deference to the Executive Branch, and prioritizing voter concerns with wasteful government spending. Some cause more problems than others, but overall these are the three biggest causes. Party politics prevents Congressmen and Senators alike from rearing off the path of their political party stance. We also see voters own ignorance as a big part of the government waste problem. Many like to complain about problems in our laws, but then are supportive of the laws when they go through Congress. This makes it very easy to pass laws with waste because they know the general population most of the time will let it slide. If your party holds the presidency, but that president does something that is unconstitutional that party will most likely stand its ground supporting the president. While the Executive Branch is an office that deserves respect, respect cannot get in the way of the Constitution and the laws of the land. No one is above the law, especially people in high office if anything they should be held more accountable due to their importance in American life. Congressional oversight is a major part of the checks and balances system, and if these major problems continue to occur we will see more and more people abuse the American democratic process. As long as there has been a two party system there has been party politics. This phenomena by definition is a Congressmen (Be him or her Democrat or Republican) is so loyal to the party that they will vote for those bills, or resolutions, or whatever just because their party supports it. This becomes problematic when you want to express what is best for your constituents, but may not be what the party is pushing for. This makes a very lazy Congress no matter the party, bills can go through that are not what are best for his or her distract but for the good of the party. Out of the three factors, this is the one that hinders Congressional oversight the least. While this is a problem it doesn’t hit the factor of oversight hindrance as much as the other two. This practice is becoming more common every year, and because of that it’s almost unheard of for Democrats or Republicans to vote outside of their party lines.
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
To summarize, the congressional committee system is a double-edged sword. It ensures that appropriate attention is given to each bill, but it can be easily corrupted by partisan influence. Surely, though, the advantages far outweigh the consequences. Committees are an integral part of the law-making process. They help to expedite the process of passing laws and ensure that only relevant issues are brought to the chambers of Congress for consideration.
As seen quite often in the Obama administration, legislation gets stuck and lost in Congress due to the polarization of the parties in recent years. In Obama’s case, he has frequently threatened to go around the House and Senate if they could not reach an agreement or would shoot down his plans. Cato’s Pilon points out, however, that the hurdles of Congress are no mistake. Pilot states that the framer’s of the Constitution knew what they were doing, and this was intended to keep the checks and balances as well as accountability to the public (Lyons,
Stemming from a loose interpretation of the Constitution – and specifically the necessary and proper clause -- congressional oversight is one of many enumerated powers bestowed upon Congress per Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. As the legislative body, Congress is charged with overseeing the inner workings of the Executive Branch and its federal agencies as a part of a system of checks and balances. However, as previously mentioned, this power is one of the implied powers of Congress, thus making it very difficult for many to delineate rightful oversight from reckless meandering. In the Constitution, for example, there is no singular mention of a definitive power such as “congressional oversight.” Consequently, there is no clear set of goals or practices through which Congress can oversee the executive branch. This is where things can become slightly tricky, however.
With a new nation facing overwhelming difficulties, George Washington faced the challenges of being the first president to run, shape, and build the foundations of the newly formed United States. Washington came into office with the country in heavy debt, and an empty treasury. With the issues President George Washington was facing, he proved to be a paragon leader.
...nd executive branches have yet to realize that neither reshuffling power nor changing rules is the answer. It is pointless to take a process that needs to be restructured and add new layers to it. Despite the many changes, its use as a political tool has remained. It is an instrument of control and subject to the politics of the President and Congress.
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.
Yes, I think Congress has too much power. Because under the constitution, Congress has the most important power and that is to make/change laws. (The powers of Congress-http://www.ushistory.org/gov/6a.asp) In this paper I will explain to you how Congress has too much power by, it being split into two large bicameral legislatures, they have the power of impeachment, and they have the power to approve the spending of federal money.
American politics is often defined by a continuing power conflict between the executive and the legislative branches of the government. This struggle for political power between the two stronger branches of the three is inherent in the Constitution, itself. The concepts of separation of powers and checks and balances ensure that the branches of government will remain in conflict and provide a balance that keeps the entire government under control. As it was first established, the executive branch was much smaller and weaker than as we know it today. Consequently, the legislative branch was unquestionably dominant. Over the course of history, the executive branch grew in both size and power to the point where it occasionally overtook the legislative and today rivals the legislative in a much closer political battle. Today both branches have major factors that contribute to their power, but on the whole the legislative remains the lastingly dominant branch.
There are only a few things keeping the Legislative branch from getting out of control and that is its size and the implied powers that they have given to the other branches. Currently the United States congress is comprised of two houses, The Senate, and The House of Representatives. In which the senate is made up of one hundred people, fifty from each state. And the House of Representatives is made up of four hundred and sixty five publicly elected officials. With so many conflicting ideologies, because of geography and other factors, it is hard to please enough people to sway into deci...
There is much debate in the United States whether or not there is polarization between our two dominate political parties. Presidential election results have shown that there is a division between the states; a battle between the Democratic blue states and the Republican red states. And what is striking is that the “colors” of these states do not change. Red stays red, and blue stays blue. Chapter 11 of Fault Lines gives differing views of polarization. James Wilson, a political science professor at Pepperdine University in California, suggests that polarization is indeed relevant in modern society and that it will eventually cause the downfall of America. On the contrast, Morris Fiorina, a political science professor at Stanford University, argues that polarization is nothing but a myth, something that Americans should not be concerned with. John Judis, a senior editor at The New Republic, gives insight on a driving force of polarization; the Tea Party Movement. Through this paper I will highlight the chief factors given by Wilson and Judis which contribute to polarization in the United States, and will consider what factors Fiorina may agree with.
1. In your opinion, which ancient political practice, protective or developmental republicanism, has had the greatest impact on our liberal democratic practice?
Throughout the semester we have visited numerous sites in Washington, D.C., along with learned about various scandals throughout the history of D.C. However 2 scandals I believe show a lot about Washington, D.C. are President Kennedy’s sex scandal and The Octagon house scandal. D.C. has been the center for scandals since the beginning of time, whether that is President Kennedy and his mistresses or John Tayloe supposedly pushing his two daughters down the stairs when they wanted to marry men their father did not approve of. These scandals show how D.C. is full of secrets, corruption, sex, and how the culture of D.C has changed from scandal to scandal.
Washington seemed to be always urging our country towards neutrality; this can be seen on more than one occasion. In 1789, the French Revolution sent shock waves across the Atlantic. Both sides the French as well as the English urged us to join their side; presenting us with reasons of why. The nation was split many wanted to join French; explaining they helped us in our time of need so we should repay them, also many agreed with the idea of democracy. However, many also sided with England explaining they were our mother country at one point in time; we also depended on England economically. The decision was based on what Washington felt being he was President; Washington decided neutrality. This wasn’t the first time that Washington chose
The American Political System The American political system is a federal system, which consists of