Turnitin Turnitin Originality Report Processed on: 28-Sep-2014 9:10 AM CDT ID: 457514591 Word Count: 615 Submitted: 1 Similarity Index 34% Internet Sources: 34% Publications: 2% Student Papers: N/A Similarity by Source 19% match (Internet from 04-Oct-2012) http://westchesterteaparty.org/educateyourself/constitutionalcorner.html 9% match (Internet from 15-Feb-2014) http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/separation-of-powers-an- overview.aspx 4% match (Internet from 16-Sep-2013) http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_sepp.html 2% match (Internet from 10-Sep-2012) http://www.homeworkaholic.com/node/23?page=11 Running head: DISCUSSION QUESTION Discussion question Student’s Name University Affiliation Discussion question Explain how the Constitution provides for a system of separation of powers and checks and balances. There is no place in the Constitution that contains an express order to protect the boundaries of separation of power and it also does not specifically direct on the maintenance of checks and balances system. Nonetheless, does it give the powers to adjudicate, legislate and execute to the three separate power branches (Daniel, 1997). Separation of powers refers to the dividing of the responsibilities of the government into separate branches in order to limit any branch from carrying out the core responsibilities of another branch. The intension of this is to avoid power concentrations and offer for checks and balances. The constitution of the United States intentionally inefficient. The Separation of Powers planned by those who frame the Constitution was intended to do one main thing which is to avoid the majority from ruling with dictatorship. Based on the experience of those who framed the constitution avoided giving any new government branch too much http://www.turnitin.com/newreport.asp?r=40.0227210383992&svr=6&session-id=e504b74d591c97834ab2b8870136be42&lang=en_us&oid=457514591&sv=2 http://westchesterteaparty.org/educateyourself/constitutionalcorner.html http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/separation-of-powers-an-overview.aspx http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/separation-of-powers-an-overview.aspx http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_sepp.html http://www.homeworkaholic.com/node/23?page=11 javascript:void(0); javascript:void(0); javascript:void(0); javascript:void(0); javascript:void(0); javascript:void(0); javascript:void(0); javascript:void(0); javascript:void(0); javascript:void(0); javascript:void(0); javascript:void(0); javascript:void(0); javascript:void(0); javascript:void(0); javascript:void(0); javascript:void(0); javascript:void(0); javascript:void(0); javascript:void(0); javascript:void(0); javascript:void(0); javascript:void(0); javascript:void(0); javascript:void(0); javascript:void(0); Turnitin power. The separation of powers provides a shared power system called the checks and balances. In the constitution, three branches are c ...

1. Turnitin
Turnitin Originality Report
Processed on: 28-Sep-2014 9:10 AM CDT
ID: 457514591
Word Count: 615
Submitted: 1
Similarity Index
34%
Internet Sources: 34%
Publications: 2%
Student Papers: N/A
Similarity by Source
19% match (Internet from
04-Oct-2012)
http://westchesterteaparty.org/educateyourself/constitutionalcor
ner.html
9% match (Internet from 15-Feb-2014)
http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-
legislatures/separation-of-powers-an-
overview.aspx
4% match (Internet from 16-Sep-2013)
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_sepp.html

2. 2% match (Internet from 10-Sep-2012)
http://www.homeworkaholic.com/node/23?page=11
Running head: DISCUSSION QUESTION Discussion question
Student’s Name
University Affiliation Discussion question Explain how the
Constitution provides for a
system of separation of powers and checks and balances. There
is no place in the
Constitution that contains an express order to protect the
boundaries of separation of
power and it also does not specifically direct on the
maintenance of checks and balances
system. Nonetheless, does it give the powers to adjudicate,
legislate and execute to the
three separate power branches (Daniel, 1997). Separation of
powers refers to the
dividing of the responsibilities of the government into separate
branches in order to
limit any branch from carrying out the core responsibilities of
another branch. The
intension of this is to avoid power concentrations and offer for
checks and balances. The
constitution of the United States intentionally inefficient. The
Separation of Powers
planned by those who frame the Constitution was intended to
do one main thing which
is to avoid the majority from ruling with dictatorship. Based on
the experience of those
who framed the constitution avoided giving any new
government branch too much
http://www.turnitin.com/newreport.asp?r=40.0227210383992&s
vr=6&session-
id=e504b74d591c97834ab2b8870136be42&lang=en_us&oid=45

3. 7514591&sv=2
http://westchesterteaparty.org/educateyourself/constitutionalcor
ner.html
http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-
legislatures/separation-of-powers-an-overview.aspx
http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-
legislatures/separation-of-powers-an-overview.aspx
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_sepp.html
http://www.homeworkaholic.com/node/23?page=11
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);

4. Turnitin
power. The separation of powers provides a shared power
system called the checks and
balances. In the constitution, three branches are created. One is
the legislative which
comprises of the house of senate. The other branch is the
executive which comprises of
the president and his deputy and their departments. Finally the
other branch is the
judiciary which consists of the Supreme Court and federal
courts. Every branch has
certain powers and each one of these powers is limited and is
checked by another
branch. For instance, the President selects the judges and the
secretaries of the
departments. However these appointments must be approved by
the senate. A law can
be passed by the congress but the president can vet to the law.
A law can be ruled
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court but the states and the
congress can amend that
particular law in the constitution. All of these checks and
balances, however, are
inefficient. But that's by design rather than by accident. By
forcing the various branches
to be accountable to the others, no one branch can usurp
enough power to become
dominant. The executive has the following powers; pardon
power, commander in chief
of the military, ensuring that all the laws are carried out,
making treaties, appointing of
judges and other officials and vetting power over all the bills.
The legislature has the
powers of impeaching the president, overriding a presidential

5. veto, establishing all lower
federal courts and passing all the federal laws. the has powers
of declaring any executive
act or law to be unconstitutional, and powers of trying federal
cases and interpreting the
laws of the nation into those cases. However all these powers
and responsibilities must
be checked by another body to provide checks and balances.
For instance the judiciary
checks on the legislature on the judicial review, checks that the
seats are held on a good
behavior and that compensation cannot be diminished. The
judiciary also checks on the
executive that the chief justice sits as the senate president
incase of a presidential
impeachment and also checks on the judicial review. The
executive checks on the
judiciary on pardon power and power to choose judges. The
executive also checks on the
legislature on veto power, recess appointments just to mention
but a few of the checks
and balances provided by the constitution. References Daniel,
H. (1997). Constitutional
law. Lawyers Cooperative Publishing, Albany, NY. James, B.,
Peltason, W. & Thomas,
C. (1984) Government by the people. Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ. Minnesota:
Minnesota House Research (2005). Separation of Powers: When
Statutes and Court rules
conflict. Retrieved on September 27, 2014 from:
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/ss/ssseppw.pdf 1
DISCUSSION QUESTION
2 DISCUSSION QUESTION 2 DISCUSSION QUESTION 2
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);

6. javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);

7. javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);
javascript:void(0);Local DiskTurnitin
Lesson 4: The Presidency
“Being a President is like riding a tiger. A man has to keep on
riding or be swallowed."
-President Harry Truman
Expected Outcomes
To appreciate the process of becoming president; to understand
the powers and constraints of the office; and to comprehend the
logic and criticisms behind executive privilege and unitary
executive theory.
Overview
Ironically, the United States was founded upon the rejection of
one-person rule (the King of England), and yet Americans often
expect so much of presidents, holding them accountable for the
nation’s economic performance - when a president’s ability to
influence the economy is extremely limited.
The presidency of the United States combines various domestic
and international responsibilities, and in the age of nuclear
weapons, the Oval Office of the White House office has been
described as the most powerful office in the world, both in
reality and symbolically. The president acts as the leader of the
party, a chief legislator, chief diplomat, a Commander-in-Chief,
and a crisis manager. In modern times, Franklin Delano
Roosevelt best reflects the heightened profile of the presidency,
as he led the nation through both the Great Depression and
World War II.
It is possible to view the entire history of the United States
through the window of the White House. The kinds of
presidents the U.S. has experienced, with their personal and
partisan orientations, have often reflected upon the country as a
whole. Some presidential events – such as the assassination of

8. John F. Kennedy – became a part of every Americans’
individual life story, and everyone who remembers that day also
remembers exactly where he or she was when they learned of
the assassination in Dallas.
It is useful to divide up American history into dominant themes,
and to group presidents together who faced similar
circumstances. It is important to know the succession of
presidents from 1961 onwards, as well as their party affiliations
(D) for Democratic and (R) for Republican.
Early Republic and the Formation of National Government
1789-1829
George Washington
John Adams
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
James Monroe
John Quincy Adams
Jacksonian Democracy and Westward Expansion 1829-1853
Andrew Jackson
Martin Van Buren
William Harrison
John Tyler
James Polk
Zachary Taylor
Millard Fillmore
Sectional Conflict and Reconstruction 1853-1881
Franklin Pierce
James Buchanan
Abraham Lincoln
Andrew Johnson
Ulysses Grant
Rutherford Hayes
The Gilded Age, Industrialization and Urbanization 1881-1897
James Garfield
Chester Arthur

9. Grover Cleveland
Benjamin Harrison
Grover Cleveland
The Progressive Era and Becoming a World Power 1897-1921
William McKinley
Theodore Roosevelt
William Taft
Woodrow Wilson
The Great Depression & World Conflict 1921-1961
Warren Harding
Calvin Coolidge
Herbert Hoover
Franklin Roosevelt
Harry Truman
Dwight Eisenhower
Social Change & Soviet Relations 1961-1989
John Kennedy (D)
Lyndon Johnson (D)
Richard Nixon (R)
Gerald Ford (R)
Jimmy Carter (D)
Ronald Reagan (R)
Economic Globalization and Domestic Political Polarization
1989-
George H. W. Bush (R)
Bill Clinton (D)
George W. Bush (R)
Barack Obama (D)
While it is possible to categorize presidents in this way, it is
also conceivable that there are political cycles of alternation
between Democratic and Republican presidents. Political
scientist Arthur Schlesinger, for example, proposed that there
are national cycles between conservatism (a preference for order
and tradition) and liberalism (a preference for change and
personal liberty). Schlesinger further claimed that conservatism
was about “private interest” and economic growth while

10. liberalism was about “public purpose” and social responsibility.
Presidents simply fit into these larger national movements. Most
(but not all) Republicans advance private interest; and most (but
not all) Democrats advance public purpose. This can be called
the “Schlesinger cycle.”
Another political scientist, James Barber, considered the
influence of a president’s personality on his performance in the
White House. Barber found repeating patterns of common
elements relating to character, worldview, style, approach to
dealing with power, and expectations.
Based on these findings, Barber concluded that presidents were
either “active” or “passive.” For example, John Kennedy and
Lyndon Johnson were highly active; Calvin Coolidge and
Ronald Reagan were highly passive. Interestingly enough,
passive presidents often did better in approval ratings.
Barber also analyzed the emotional attitudes of presidents
toward their work. Some presidents were “positive” and others
were “negative.” Franklin Roosevelt and Reagan, for example,
were presidents who enjoyed their work. FDR and Reagan left
office with rather high approval ratings and were treated
favorably by historians. However, Thomas Jefferson and
Richard Nixon had negative feelings towards the job, with more
mixed results.
Barber developed four repeating categories into which he was
able to place all presidents: those like FDR who actively
pursued their work and had positive feelings about their efforts
(active/positives); those like Nixon who actively pursued the
job but had negative feelings about it (active/negatives); those
like Reagan who were passive about the job but enjoyed it
(passive/positives); and, finally, those who followed the pattern
of Thomas Jefferson -- who both was passive and did not enjoy
the work (passive/negatives).
Interestingly, the category of presidents who proved
troublesome and unpopular under Barber's analysis is that of
those who turned out to be active/negative.

11. Barber placed Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Lyndon
Johnson and Richard Nixon in this class of active/negatives.
Scholars taking up where Barber left off (Barber recently died)
have classified Pres. George W. Bush as active/negative,
perhaps one reason for the steady decline he experienced in his
approval ratings over his years in office. Still other political
scientists consider economic factors – such as the Stock Market
– as critical in determining the overall performance and
approval rating of a president. If true, a president’s personal
characteristics have little to do with overall approval ratings.
Clearly, the presidency is one of the most studied institutions in
American government, and generations of political scientists
have studied the presidency in order to better understand where
then country has been where it is, and where it is going.
It is vital to an understanding of the presidency to consider
written documents and first-hand texts from the presidents
themselves. Below, two documents have been selected that
attest to the power of the office: the first, by Andrew Jackson,
led to the tragedy of the forced removal of Native Americans
from their homelands; the second, by Abraham Lincoln, led to
the formal freedom of African-Americans, who had been held in
slavery.
Andrew Jackson's Seventh Annual Message to Congress,
Excerpt
December 7, 1835
On Indian Removal
The plan of removing the aboriginal people who yet remain
within the settled portions of the United States to the country
west of the Mississippi River approaches its consummation…
All preceding experiments for the improvement of the Indians
have failed. It seems now to be an established fact they cannot
live in contact with a civilized community and prosper. Ages of
fruitless endeavors have at length brought us to knowledge of
this principle of intercommunication with them… Many have
already removed and others are preparing to go, and with the
exception of two small bands living in Ohio and Indiana, not

12. exceeding 1,500 persons, and of the Cherokees, all the tribes on
the east side of the Mississippi, and extending from Lake
Michigan to Florida, have entered into engagements which will
lead to their transplantation.
The plan for their removal and reestablishment is founded upon
the knowledge we have gained of their character and habits, and
has been dictated by a spirit of enlarged liberality.
Such are the arrangements for the physical comfort and for the
moral improvement of the Indians. The necessary measures for
their political advancement and for their separation from our
citizens have not been neglected. The pledge of the United
States has been given by Congress that the country destined for
the residence of this people shall be forever "secured and
guaranteed to them." A country west of Missouri and Arkansas
has been assigned to them, into which the white settlements are
not to be pushed…
Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, Excerpts
January 1, 1863
That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one
thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as
slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people
whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States,
shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the
Executive Government of the United States, including the
military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and
maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts
to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may
make for their actual freedom.
"That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid,
by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any,
in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in
rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State,
or the people thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith,
represented in the Congress of the United States by members
chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified

13. voters of such State shall have participated, shall, in the
absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed
conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are
not then in rebellion against the United States."
Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United
States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-
Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of
actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of
the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for
suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in
the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-
three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly
proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the
day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and
parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this
day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard,
Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James
Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St.
Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans)
Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North
Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties
designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley,
Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann,
and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth),
and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if
this proclamation were not issued.
And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do
order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said
designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward
shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United
States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will
recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.
And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to
abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defense; and
I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor

14. faithfully for reasonable wages.
And I further declare and make known, that such persons of
suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the
United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other
places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.
And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice,
warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke
the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of
Almighty God. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand
and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the City of Washington, this first day of January, in the
year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty three,
and of the Independence of the United States of America.
Audio/Video Archives
Modern presidents provide political scientists and historians
with a more complete picture of their presidencies. Their
speeches were often recorded on tape, and their actions were
also captured on film and video, sometimes to their dismay.
The links below are windows into the modern presidency during
important turning points, during key moment in time. It is
important to visit each link. However, due to the length of some
lengths, do not feel that you must listen or watch the entire
piece. Some presidents might gain your attention more than
others. You might consider leaving these windows open while
continuing to read the text in this unit.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Fireside Chat, 1940 (Video)Dwight
Eisenhower: Warning of “Military-Industrial Complex,” 1961
(Audio)John F. Kennedy: Inaugural Address, 1961
(Video)Lyndon Baines Johnson: Report on Vietnam and
Decision Not to Seek Re-Election, 1968 (Audio) – Note: Scroll
to the very end to hear his decision.
Richard Nixon: Remarks on Departure from White House,
1974Jimmy Carter, Inaugural Address, 1979 (Video)Ronald
Reagan: First Inaugural Address, 1981 (Video)Remarks on
Soviet “Evil Empire” (Audio/Real Player)George H. W. Bush:

15. Announcing Ground War Against Iraq, 1991 (Video)Bill
Clinton: Remarks on Impeachment, 1998 (Audio)George W.
Bush: “With us or against us” speech, 2001
George W. Bush: “With us or against us” speech, 2001 Part 2
It is time to examine more closely the office of the Presidency
as outlined by the U.S. Constitution.
Scope and Limits of Executive Power
The Presidency of the United States, which constitutes the
Executive Branch of government, is described in Article II of
the Constitution, and Section 1 is largely concerned with the
requirements of the office.
Section 1 - The President
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the
United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,
shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any
Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to
the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident
within the United States.
Section 2 outlines his basic powers and responsibilities, which
include being “Commander in Chief.”
Some constitutional scholars claim that congressional
“authorization” of the use of force with a “joint resolution”
does not meet the standard of a full vote to declare war as
outlined by the Constitution. (The U.S. has not “declared war”
since Pearl Harbor during World War II nor is likely to any time
in the future.)
Maintaining civilian control over the military is an important
feature of a democratic republic, and it further maintains a clear
line of authority and hierarchy during a conflict.
Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon
Power, Appointments
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and
Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several
States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer
in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating

16. to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have
Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the
United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the
Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators
present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the
Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors,
other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme
Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose
Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which
shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest
the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper,
in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of
Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may
happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting
Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next
Session.
Section 3 includes that the president must give updates on the
“State of the Union” to Congress - without specifying how
often. Tradition now compels the President to give an annual
speech in January or February.
Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of
the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration
such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he
may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or
either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with
Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to
such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive
Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that
the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the
Officers of the United States.
Section 4 explains the conditions for removing a president from
office – for “impeachment.” Complete removal from the office

17. requires an impeachment by the House of Representatives and a
conviction in a trial by the Senate.
Section 4 – Disqualification
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the
United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment
for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes
and Misdemeanors.
After FDR’s long tenure as president, the Republican Congress
sponsored a constitutional amendment (ratified by more than
3/4ths of the states) to prevent any other president from
installing himself in the White House for decades, perpetually
getting re-elected to 4-year terms.
Amendment XXII
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the
President more than twice, and no person who has held the
office of President, or acted as President, for more than two
years of a term to which some other person was elected
President shall be elected to the office of the President more
than once.
The above information describes the clear and incontrovertible
duties and responsibilities of the presidency. Over time, many
of these duties and responsibilities have been
compartmentalized. At first, there was only the Department of
State and Treasury, but American government became more
complex over time, and today the president’s cabinet includes
the following:
The White House Administration, The Cabinet
The structure and process behind much of the Executive Branch
is fairly established. There are other areas of presidential
power, however, which have traditionally been subject to
debate.
Controversies Regarding the Executive Branch
The presidency is central to the debate surrounding the
separation of powers. To what extent can a president act without

18. congressional oversight? Can a president deploy troops overseas
without a congressional declaration of, or authorization for,
war? What should be the threshold for removing a president
from office, or impeachment?
Executive Privilege and Impeachments
The pressures of the presidency visit upon all its occupants –
Democrats and Republicans. Sometimes, personal and political
situations emerge that test the limits of the constitution. For
most Americans over the age of 40, the Watergate scandal
remains one of the most memorable events of American politics.
Beforehand, the public and the press had an enormous amount
of respect for the office of the president; afterwards, there was
much less. More importantly, the Watergate scandal raised all
kinds of constitutional questions. First, we must examine the
timeline of the scandal itself. President Richard Nixon had
always been a controversial figure. As a politician, he had been
close to Eugene McCarthy during the interrogation of suspected
communists (almost none turned out to be real communists) in
the hearings of the House Un-American Activities Committee.
Richard Nixon had also stood in stark contrast to his democratic
challengers, especially to George McGovern, the democratic
candidate for president in 1972. Nixon was portrayed as a
tougher, law-and-order president, a hawk who would not
capitulate to Communist China, the Soviet Union or Vietnam.
After running on a “peace with honor” campaign to end the
Vietnam War, President Nixon and his Secretary of State, Henry
Kissinger, actually expanded the war by heavily bombing
Cambodia, with disastrous results as it turned out (as the
genocidal Khmer Rouge regime rose out of the ashes). The
Nixon-Kissinger foreign policy was extremely controversial
both at home and abroad.
The 1972 election for president was a heated one. The
Committee to Re-Elect the President (CREEP) apparently
decided to “get the dirt” on the Democratic candidate, George
McGovern, possibly exposing his psychological profile (back
then, few people went to therapy, so those that did were

19. suspect).
CREEP hired five men to burglarize the Democratic Party
headquarters at the Watergate Complex on June 17, 1972, but
they were caught. President Nixon’s subsequent behavior - his
cover-up of the burglary and refusal to turn over evidence – led
to Congressional hearings. Congress demanded that Nixon turn
over hours of secretly-recorded tapes. Nixon refused, citing
“executive privilege.” This means that, especially according to
presidents, the executive branch is immune to certain
encroachments by Congress and the judiciary – particularly
when the president has to protect national security. According
to President Nixon, “Under the doctrine of the separation of
powers, the manner in which the president personally exercises
his assigned executive powers is not subject to questioning by
another branch of government.”
President Nixon and Congress came head to head. The issue
went before the Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon
(1974). Nixon lost in an 8 – 0 decision (William Rehnquist, a
close friend of Nixon and recently appointed to the Court,
abstained).
US v. Nixon (1974)
Question
Is the President's right to safeguard certain information, using
his "executive privilege" confidentiality power, entirely immune
from judicial review?
Conclusion
No. The Court held that neither the doctrine of separation of
powers, nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-
level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute,
unqualified, presidential privilege. The Court granted that there
was a limited executive privilege in areas of military or
diplomatic affairs, but gave preference to "the fundamental
demands of due process of law in the fair administration of
justice." Therefore, the president must obey the subpoena and
produce the tapes and documents. Nixon resigned shortly after
the release of the tapes.

20. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1974/1974_73_1766/
Chief Justice Burger delivered the opinion:
"Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or
sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept
the argument that even the very important interest in
confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly
diminished by production of such material for in camera
inspection with all the protection that a district court will be
obliged to provide…"
A week after Nixon lost the case, the House Judiciary
Committee to issue three articles of impeachment on July 30,
1974. The document indicted Nixon for illegal wiretapping,
misuse of the CIA, perjury, bribery, obstruction of justice, and
other abuses of executive power.
“In all of this,” the Articles of Impeachment summarize,
“Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as
president and subversive of constitutional government, to the
great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the
manifest injury of the people of the United States.”
Impeachment appeared inevitable, and Nixon resigned
beforehand on Aug. 9, 1974.
Impeachment had also appeared inevitable a century earlier, in
1868, when the United States House of Representatives issued
eleven articles of impeachment against President Andrew
Johnson for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Why?
The reasons were mostly political. Johnson had not supported
the Radical Republicans and their reconstruction plan for the
South. Congress tried to reduce his power through the Command
of Army and Tenure of Office Acts. In 1868, Johnson was
accused of violating the Tenure of Office Act and was
impeached by the House. At the Senate trial he was acquitted by
one vote.
Another president, Bill Clinton, was impeached in 1998, when
the House Judiciary Committee introduced four articles of

21. impeachment, two of which were approved by the entire House.
The Senate did not convict Clinton, however, and he remained
in office.
How did this crisis come to be? Monica Lewinsky was a White
House intern who became romantically involved with President
Clinton. Lewinsky recounted a sexual involvement with
President Clinton to Linda Tripp, who was recording these
conversations (unknowingly to Lewinsky). Tripp later turned
over the tapes to Kenneth Starr, an independent prosecutor.
Clinton denied having sexual intercourse with Lewinsky while
under oath in an unrelated trial. In a nationally televised clip
from a White House news conference, Clinton claimed “I did
not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”
However, there was some evidence that the Clinton-Lewinsky
affair did involve some kind of sexual activity, which led to the
perjury charge.
Under pressure from Starr, and in light of a dress owned by
Lewinsky with Clinton’s DNA on it, Clinton apologized for
misleading the American people. Clinton was impeached by the
House of Representatives for perjury, but he was not removed
from office by the Senate – even though it was controlled by
Republicans. President Clinton’s impeachment case also raised
questions for the popular culture: Should a president’s private
life be part of his public life? Some people think that how a
president behaves in his private life has direct implication for
how he comports himself as president. Others feel that what
happens behind closed doors should not matter in terms of
public or political life.
In short, just two presidents were impeached by the House (but,
not convicted by the Senate), and just one was on the verge of
impeachment (President Richard Nixon), when he resigned.
After all, it is difficult to carry out a complete impeachment and
conviction. Removing a president from office requires two
steps:
· A formal accusation, or impeachment, by the House of
Representatives.

22. · A trial and conviction by the Senate. Impeachment requires a
majority vote of the House; conviction is more difficult,
requiring a two-thirds vote by the Senate.
In any case, that the House of Representatives impeached
President Clinton for perjury relating to a sexual matter
certainly lowered the cultural and political threshold for
impeachment.
Unitary Executive Theory
President George W. Bush has raised several constitutional
questions regarding presidential authority. After 9/11, Congress
granted the president the power to punish those responsible for
the attacks. It passed a Joint Resolution to enable the president
to fight the War on Terror.
Three controversies have emerged, however. Was this
Authorization broad enough - or are the powers of the executive
branch wide enough - to allow President Bush to do the
following:
· Detain terror suspects for an unlimited period, in Guantanamo
for instance, without formal charges?
· Operate secret jails in foreign countries?
· Extradite terror suspects to countries knowing the suspects
will be tortured?
· Conduct electronic surveillance of Americans without a
warrant?
The Bush administration cited the principles of Unitary
Executive Theory, and said yes, despite what members of
Congress said, the president’s wartime powers granted him that
authority. Besides, from 2001 to 2006, the Congress was firmly
behind President Bush’s policies, even passing the Military
Commissions Act making it easier to suspend habeas corpus
(where the government must account for a person’s detention)
in the event of a national emergency.
Bush administration officials and their supporters also pointed
out that the war on terror necessarily involved strategies and
practices that did not have to be employed in previous wars,
before the threat of terrorism.

23. Lastly, many conservatives point out that no new terrorist
attacks have taken place on American soil since 9/11, which
may have attributed to the strong leadership exercised by the
president.
Unitary Executive Theory is more than a political fashion,
however. Supreme Court Justices Samuel Alito and John
Roberts, among others, are widely considered to be principle
backers of Unitary Executive Theory. The theory relies on the
Vesting Clause of Article II which states “The executive Power
shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”
Proponents of a unitary executive use this language along with
the Take Care Clause: "[The President] shall take care that the
laws be faithfully executed..." to argue that the Constitution
creates a "hierarchical, unified executive department under the
direct control of the President."
Unitary Executive Theory argues for strict limits to the power
of Congress to divest the President of control of the Executive
Branch – especially during wartime. Proponents of the theory
argue that the president possesses all of the executive power,
and can therefore control subordinate officers and agencies of
the executive branch.
President Bush exercised his powers under this theory, first and
foremost, by directing the Pentagon and intelligence agencies to
conduct detentions and domestic surveillance in manners that
they had not before – and without congressional oversight.
Second, President Bush issued many “signing statements” to
laws passed by Congress. Past presidents issued such statements
to indicate their reservation to the laws (without vetoing them),
but the Bush administration made it clear that it reserved the
right not to adhere to the letter of the law as stated. There was
an ongoing controversy concerning the extensive use of signing
statements to modify the meaning of laws. The Bush
administration defended their interpretation of “signing
statements” while the American Bar Association described them
as “contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional system of
separation of powers. ”The American Civil Liberties Union and

24. People for the American Way have also been opposed to the
Bush administration’s interpretation of its own powers. Finally,
prominent writers like Bob Woodward, a Washington Post
reporter who broke the Watergate story, condemned the Bush
administration as resurrecting the authoritarian “Imperial
Presidency” of the Nixon era.
Critics of the Bush administration argued that there are no real
constitutional or historical grounds for concentrating so much
power into the hands of a president, even in a time of war
(although President Abraham Lincoln did centralize power
around the White House during the Civil War and suspended
habeas corpus several times). The possibility of excessive
executive power is deeply emotional because it resurrects what
some Americans see as a basic instinct to counter tyranny
(stemming from the American Revolution of 1776). As a result,
many of the objections to Unitary Executive Theory tend to be
rather strident.
Again, defenders of the Bush administration point to both the
Vesting Clause in the Constitution and to the new realities of
the War on terror. Unitary Executive Theory will continue to be
controversial, reflecting the complex relationship Americans
have with the presidency.
Conclusion
Perhaps Americans are unrealistic in their attitudes regarding
the presidency. Many people expect too much from a president,
and this invariably leads to disappointment. Many people are
also quick to blame a president when things go badly –
especially the economy, which is almost completely beyond any
president’s influence. Yet, the presidency is a good barometer
of the mood of the country. Who becomes president - and why -
says a lot about the historic direction of the nation. It is fitting
to conclude with a portrait of an American President: Teddy
Roosevelt, one of the few men larger than the office of the
presidency.
Teddy Roosevelt was President of the United States from 1901
to 1909, and he was a complex figure. He was a “progressive”

25. Republican who put Main Street before Wall Street, an explorer
of the Dakota Badlands, a cowboy and a “rough rider” who led a
charge up San Juan Hill during the Spanish-American War. He
was also a Police Commissioner in New York City - and yet he
was comfortable in the highest intellectual circles. In fact, with
a photographic memory, Teddy Roosevelt could read a poem in
French and, years later, repeat it back to you. He devoured
several books a day.
Teddy Roosevelt oversaw the greatest engineering feat of
mankind, the Panama Canal. His trip to Panama was the first
trip abroad for a U.S. president in office. And yet, he knew that
to build the canal also meant compromising on some of
America’s ideals, and he pursued a policy of “gunboat
diplomacy” in Latin America. “Speak softly and carry a big
stick,” he said. Ironically, but deservedly, Teddy Roosevelt was
the first American to be awarded the Nobel Prize, winning its
Peace Prize in 1906, for negotiating the peace in the Russo-
Japanese War. Oddly, Teddy Roosevelt was only 5 feet 8 inches
tall, but in real life and in photographs he seemed big. A larger
than life figure, Roosevelt overcame immense personal
challenges. His mother and his wife died on the same day – only
two days after the birth of his first child.
Famous Quotes by Teddy Roosevelt
“A man who has never gone to school may steal from a freight
car; but if he has a university education, he may steal the whole
railroad.”
“A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a
college education.”
“Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.”
“I took the Canal Zone and let Congress debate; and while the
debate goes on, the canal does also.”
“We can have no "50-50" allegiance in this country. Either a
man is an American and nothing else, or he is not an American
at all.”
“Speak softly and carry a big stick.”
“No man is above the law, and no man is below it.”

26. “To announce that there must be no criticism of the president,
or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not
only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the
American public.”
_id1401:_id1410
viewsectionStude
Top of Form
Lesson 3: Congress
Expected Outcomes
To understand the structure and process of the Legislative
Branch, and to be familiar with both sides of the debate
surrounding electronic voting and other controversies.
Overview
The US Constitution provides for "separation of powers" and
"checks and balances," but it is still fair to claim that the
Founding Fathers anticipated that Congress would be the branch
that gave clearest voice to the diverse opinions and aspirations
of voters.
That's partly why its duties and responsibilities are included in
Article I of the Constitution. The principal architect of the US
Constitution, James Madison, made this clear in The Federalist

27. Papers #51:
"But it is not possible to give to each department an equal
power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative
authority necessarily predominates."
James Madison also feared excessive power in the Congress,
which is why he and others settled on the proposal for a
"bicameral" legislative branch: a House of Representatives and
a Senate. For a bill to become a law, it would have to pass both
houses of Congress, which is difficult.
As James Madison continued:
"The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature
into different branches; and to render them, by different modes
of election and different principles of action, as little connected
with each other as the nature of their common functions and
their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even
be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still
further precautions."
While Madison and others were acutely aware of the potential
tyranny of a single despot, king or even president, they were
also cautious about the concept of "direct democracy,"
suspecting that Congress might become a vehicle for "tyranny
of the majority." In such a tyranny, a majority would begin to
restrict the rights of individuals and minorities.
A Joint Session of Congress
As James Madison wrote in The Federalist #10:
“A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischief of
faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority,
and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the
weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been
found incompatible with personal security or the rights of
property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as
they have been violent in their deaths.”
He saw direct democracy as a danger to individual rights and
advocated a representative democracy (also called a republic),
in order to protect what he viewed as individual liberty from
majority rule, or from the effects of such inequality within

28. society.
"The tyranny of the Legislature is really the danger most to be
feared, and will continue to be so for many years to come. The
tyranny of the executive power will come in its turn, but at a
more distant period."
-Thomas Jefferson
Alexis de Tocqueville, in Democracy in America, also raised
the problem of an overly-strong legislature in the 1840s:
"The legislature is, of all political institutions, the one which is
most easily swayed by the wishes of the majority. The
Americans determined that the members of the legislature
should be elected by the people immediately, and for a very
brief term, in order to subject them, not only to the general
convictions, but even to the daily passion, of their constituents.
The members of both houses are taken from the same class in
society, and are nominated in the same manner; so that the
modifications of the legislative bodies are almost as rapid and
quite as irresistible as those of a single assembly. It is to a
legislature thus constituted that almost all the authority of the
government has been entrusted.
But whilst the law increased the strength of those authorities
which of themselves were strong, it enfeebled more and more
those which were naturally weak. It deprived the representatives
of the executive of all stability and independence, and by
subjecting them completely to the caprices of the legislature; it
robbed them of the slender influence which the nature of a
democratic government might have allowed them to retain. In
several States the judicial power was also submitted to the
elective discretion of the majority, and in all of them its
existence was made to depend on the pleasure of the legislative
authority, since the representatives were empowered annually to
regulate the stipend of the judges."
The US Congress is "bicameral," as mentioned above, meaning
it has two chambers. The upper chamber is the Senate, and it is
more powerful because it has the final authority on the budget,
foreign treaties and other matters. Today, each of the 50 states

29. has two senators who serve renewable terms of 6 years. In a
sense, this arrangement gives the smaller states extraordinary
and disproportionate power in the Senate. Wyoming, with fewer
than one million people, has the same number of senators as
California, with over 38 million people.
The lower chamber is the House of Representatives. Each of the
50 states has a different number of representatives, depending
upon their relative population, and this is determined in the
national census conducted every 10 years. There are 435
representatives who serve renewable terms of 2 years, with
California having the most, while small states like Vermont or
Wyoming have just one.
Congress is especially relevant today because of the
polarization of the American public – of its apparent division
into conservative and liberal voting blocs. While some scholars
downplay this division, partisan politics and the culture wars
have figured prominently in the campaigns and elections from
1994 onward. The presidential election of 2000 was the closest
ever, and issues of transparency and fairness arose in that
election.
For these reasons, issues of electronic voting and redistricting
have become more important in Congress. A small difference in
the shape or size of a legislative district at the state level can
change the outcome of national politics – as can, for some
critics, whether or not a district employs electronic voting
machines. Some of these controversies are addressed below. It
is important to point out that Congress is normally held in low
regard by American popular opinion and today many if not most
people hold negative opinions about Congress.
"Reader, suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a
member of Congress. But I repeat myself."
-Mark Twain
Scope and Limits of Legislative Power
What Congress is supposed to do – and what it is not supposed
to do – is spelled out in Article I of the US Constitution.

30. Article I, section 8, provides a clear enumeration of the duties
and responsibilities of Congress.
Article I. Section 8.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties,
imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the
common defense and general welfare of the United States; but
all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the
United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the
several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws
on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin,
and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities
and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing
for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to
their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the
high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make
rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to
that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and
naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of
the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia,
and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the

31. service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively,
the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the
militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over
such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by
cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress,
become the seat of the government of the United States, and to
exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent
of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the
erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other
needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for
carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other
powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the
United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
The "necessary and proper clause" mentioned at the end of end
of Section 8 keeps Congress occupied; passing new legislation
that is theoretically both "necessary" and "proper" to fulfill its
duties. How is all this "work" accomplished?
How a Bill Becomes Law
Introduction of Bills. Bills can begin in either the House or the
Senate. Different versions of a bill can begin in both chambers
concurrently.
· Bills can only be introduced by members of Congress.
· Many bills originate in the Executive Branch and are
introduced by a congressional sponsor.
· New bills are numbered and sent to the appropriate committee.
Committee Action. The bill comes under its most intense
scrutiny while in committee, and most bills die in committee.
· The bill is considered either by the full committee or a
subcommittee
· The committee may order a "clean bill," with a new number, to
be introduced.
Floor Action. Next, the bill appears before the entire House or
Senate. The two chambers have different procedures for floor
debate.

32. House:
· The House Rules Committee regulates debate for each bill,
issuing the "rule" for the bill.
· Members can speak on a bill for a set period of time, as
specified in the "rule."
· To speed debate on some bills, the House meets as the
Committee of the Whole, which has different rules for floor
debate. The Committee of the Whole can amend a bill, but
cannot pass it.
Senate:
· Senate debate is unlimited. However, today, only the
indication that a senator is willing to hold an unlimited debate
is enough to prevent a bill from receiving an up-or-down vote
(no actual time on the Senate floor). This is known as a
filibuster.
· A filibuster may be closed by unanimous consent (which is
very unlikely), or by invoking "cloture," which requires a three-
fifths vote of Senators present. If all 100 Senators are present,
then 60 votes are required to invoke cloture.
· Successful filibusters effectively kills a bill. Today, almost
every bill in the Senate requires 60 votes to end a filibuster so
the bill can receive an up-or-down floor vote.
Second Chamber. Once one chamber has voted to pass a bill, the
other chamber may:
· Pass it with the language intact.
· Refer it to a committee for scrutiny or alteration.
· Reject the entire bill, informing the other chamber of its
actions, or
· Ignore the bill, while working on its own version of the
legislation.
Conference. When the two chambers pass differing versions of
similar legislation, the bill goes to a conference committee to
reconcile the differences. A conference committee is convened
as necessary. Its members consist of equal members from both
political parties. Once the conference committee has crafted a
compromise bill, both the House and Senate need to pass it

33. again as it is (with no further changes) before it is sent to the
president for signature.
The President. The Speaker of the House and the President of
the Senate both sign the approved bill and send it to the
president, who then has four options.
· If the president signs and dates the bill, it becomes law.
· If Congress is in session, and the president does not sign the
bill within 10 days, the bill becomes law without his signature.
· The president may "veto" the bill. The bill then goes back to
Congress for a veto override vote. In order to override the
president's veto, there must be a 2/3 vote in the House and a 2/3
vote in the Senate. (A 2/3 vote by Congress, overall, is not
sufficient.
· If Congress adjourns within 10 days of giving the bill to the
president, and he does not sign it, the bill dies. This is called a
"pocket veto."
Due to the high volume and complexity of legislation, Congress
divides its tasks among approximately 250 committees and sub-
committees. The House and Senate each have their own
committee system, which are similar. The list below offers a
sense of how Congress divides its responsibilities into various
spheres of activity.
SENATE:
HOUSE:
Standing Committees
Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry
Appropriations
Armed Services
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
Budget
Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Energy and Natural Resources
Environment and Public Works
Finance
Foreign Relations

34. Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Judiciary
Rules and Administration
Small Business and Entrepreneurship
Veterans Affairs
Special, Select, and Other Committees
Indian Affairs
Select Committee on Ethics
Select Committee on Intelligence
Special Committee on Aging
Joint Committees
Joint Committee on Printing
Joint Committee on Taxation
Joint Committee on the Library
Joint Economic Committee
Standing Committees
Agriculture
Appropriations
Armed Services
Budget
Economic
Education
Energy and Commerce
Government Reform
Homeland Security
House Administration
International Relations
Judiciary
Resources
Rules
Science
Small Business
Standards of Official Conduct
Transportation and Infrastructure
Veterans' Affairs

35. Ways and Means
Special, Select, and Other Committees
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to
Hurricane Katrina
Joint Committees
Joint Committee on Printing
Joint Committee on Taxation
As with many organizations Congress has developed its own
terminology over the years, some of it similar to legislative
bodies around the world.
Congressional Glossary of Terms
Amendment - A proposal to change the language of a bill, can
be offered in Committee or on the Floor.
Bill - A legislative proposal introduced by a member of
Congress. Bills are designated as HR (House of
Representatives) or S (Senate) according to the body in which
they are introduced, and assigned numbers according to the
order in which they are introduced. Most bills are public bills,
dealing with general issues. Private bills deal with individual
claims against the government, such as immigration cases and
land disputes.
Budget Committees - A committee in each chamber that
coordinates spending legislation and formulates the overall
congressional budget.
Cloture - The procedure by which a filibuster can be ended in
the Senate. Cloture requires the signatures of 16 Senators and
the votes of three- fifths of the Senate (60 Senators).
Concurrent Resolution - A statement of opinion approved by a
simple majority in the House and Senate but is not sent to the
President for approval.

36. Conference Committee - A special committee formed to
reconcile differences between differing versions of a bill passed
by the Senate and House. Conference committee members, or
conferees, are appointed from the bill's sponsoring committees
in each chamber.
Filibuster - A time-delaying tactic associated only with the
Senate and used by a minority in an effort to delay, modify or
defeat a bill or amendment that probably would pass if voted on
directly. The most common method is to take advantage of the
Senate's rules permitting unlimited debate.
Hearing - House and Senate Committee session in which
testimony regarding legislation is taken from interested parties.
Joint Committee - A committee composed of both House and
Senate members.
Joint Resolution - A statement of opinion approved by a simple
majority in the House and Senate and sent to the President for
approval to have the force of law.
Line Item Veto Act - Gave the President authority to cancel
discretionary spending, items of new direct spending, and
limited tax benefits, which may only be overridden by a two-
thirds vote in Congress. Ruled unconstitutional in 1996.
Majority Leader - The leading spokesperson and legislative
strategist for the party in control of either the House or the
Senate.
Majority Whip - The assistant majority leader in the House or
Senate.
Minority Leader - The leading spokesperson and legislative
strategist for the minority party in either the House or Senate.

37. Minority Whip - The assistant minority leader in either House
or Senate.
Omnibus Bill - A bill containing several separate but related
items. Usually used for must-pass issues such as the federal
budget. The key for this type of bill is reconciliation, meaning
it must receive a floor vote in both chambers of Congress (ie, no
Senate filibuster).
Override a Veto - A procedure that Congress may enact when
the president refuses to sign a bill into law. Requires a two-
thirds vote in each chamber. If this vote occurs, the bill then
becomes law over the president's objections.
Quorum - The required minimum number of members present
for the House or Senate to conduct official business (51 in the
Senate, 218 in the House). Both chambers usually assume a
quorum is present even if it is not.
Reconciliation - A rule applied by the leaders of Congress to a
bill that must be passed, such as the federal budget. This rule
limits debate in both chambers. This is important in that the
Senate filibuster cannot be implemented for this bill (usually
applied to an omnibus bill).
Rider - An amendment, usually not germane, which its sponsor
hopes to get through more easily by including it in other
legislation.
Rule - The instructions on the time and substance of debate on a
House bill, which are attached to the bill when reported out to
the floor by the House Rules Committee
To learn more about Congress and the US Government, please
reference Thomas (ie, Library of Congress).

38. Of all the procedures mentioned above, the "filibuster" is one of
the most dramatic. Strom Thurmond (D-SC) set a record in 1957
by filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for 24 hours and
18 minutes, although the bill ultimately passed. Thurmond
broke the previous record of 22 hours and 26 minutes set by
Wayne Morse (I-OR) in 1953.
Controversies Regarding the Legislative Branch
In the past several decades, several interesting controversies
have surfaced which address Congress. Some of these
controversies ebb and flow; that is, they appear to recede only
to resurface a few years later. This section examines several
debates relevant to Congress: term limits, electronic voting and
pork-barrel spending.
Term Limits
In the 1980s and 1990s, an increasing number of Americans
began to question their system of legislative representation.
Under the US Constitution, representatives both at the state and
federal level reserved the right to keep running (usually
winning).
Why is this bad? Many citizens felt that long-term politicians,
or incumbents, enjoy too much of an advantage over
challengers, who are often younger and hold fresher ideas.
Would not the legislative process be enhanced, they asked, with
a more rapid turnover of representatives?
Many critics of the present system also argued that established
politicians tend to develop political machines that become
corrupt. They learn all the tricks of the trade, and indeed the
largest "pork-barrel" projects tend to be sponsored by seasoned
politicians.
Simultaneously, social spending and entitlements continue to
rise. Many advocates of term limits hold their views for fiscal
reasons, thinking that entrenched politicians are simply too
eager to spend. Alexis de Tocqueville, a Frenchman who
traveled widely in the US in the 1840s, and who wrote
Democracy in America, said something interesting.
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress

39. discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money"
-Alexis de Tocqueville
For reasons of fiscal restraint and concern over corruption,
residents of several states attempted to restrict the time that
their representatives can serve in Congress. The concept is
called "term limits."
Some states, like Arkansas, even passed legislation for term
limits. After much debate in the media and in the courtroom of
public opinion, the entire issue went to the US Supreme Court
in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995). The Court ruled
against term limits, at least for state-elected representatives at
the federal level in Washington, D.C.
Justice Stevens delivered the opinion:
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995)
… Term limits, like any other qualification for office,
unquestionably restrict the ability of voters to vote for whom
they wish. On the other hand, such limits may provide for the
infusion of fresh ideas and new perspectives, and may decrease
the likelihood that representatives will lose touch with their
constituents. It is not our province to resolve this longstanding
debate.
We are, however, firmly convinced that allowing the several
States to adopt term limits for congressional service would
effect a fundamental change in the constitutional framework.
Any such change must come not by legislation adopted either by
Congress or by an individual State, but rather--as have other
important changes in the electoral process [n.50] --through the
Amendment procedures set forth in Article V…
In the absence of a properly passed constitutional amendment,
allowing individual States to craft their own qualifications for
Congress would thus erode the structure envisioned by the
Framers, a structure that was designed, in the words of the
Preamble to our Constitution, to form a "more perfect Union."
The dissent was written by Justice Clarence Thomas:
Nothing in the Constitution deprives the people of each State of
the power to prescribe eligibility requirements for the

40. candidates who seek to represent them in Congress. The
Constitution is simply silent on this question. And where the
Constitution is silent, it raises no bar to action by the States or
the people.
Because the majority fundamentally misunderstands the notion
of "reserved" powers, I start with some first principles.
Contrary to the majority's suggestion, the people of the States
need not point to any affirmative grant of power in the
Constitution in order to prescribe qualifications for their
representatives in Congress or to authorize their elected state
legislators to do so.
Our system of government rests on one overriding principle: all
power stems from the consent of the people. To phrase the
principle in this way, however, is to be imprecise about
something important to the notion of "reserved" powers. The
ultimate source of the Constitution's authority is the consent of
the people of each individual State, not the consent of the
undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole…
For now, the issue of term limits in Washington DC has been
more or less settled, but the motivations and interests advancing
term limits remain.
Electronic Voting
Technology often improves out lives, but does it improve our
electoral system? Electronic voting is increasingly being used in
all kinds of elections, including those for Congress. Moreover,
if national standards or restrictions emerge surrounding this
issue, it will more likely than not emerge within Congress.
Electronic voting is a hotly-debated question. There are two
articles below. The first supports the concept of electronic
voting, claiming that it is fair, efficient and economical. The
second article is radically opposed to e-voting, claiming that it
gives corporations and dominant political parties a "backup
option" to steal an election.
The Case for Electronic VotingExcerpt from Wired News, the
Case for Electronic Voting

41. Farhad Manjoo
Townsend, who is the registrar of voters in Riverside County,
decided to spend $14 million earlier this year to make Riverside
an all-electronic voting county.
At the time, she said, not everyone was thrilled about the idea.
Some of her colleagues thought the touch-screen voting
machines might be too complicated for voters, and that the
whole upgrade might be too expensive. Nobody is questioning
Townsend's decision anymore.
The deployment of electronic voting equipment in Riverside
was a long-time in coming. "The idea came two years ago, after
California's 1998 gubernatorial primary," Townsend said.
That year, Riverside spent $1.4 million to print a ballot for each
of the county's registered voters -- about 600,000. Only about
half of the voters showed up at the polls, and "we had to throw
out the rest of the ballots," Townsend said.
A more significant problem than the cost, though, was the error-
rate of the county's punch-card system. "In Florida now, they're
talking about the problems with 'overvoting'" -- people voting
for more than one candidate -- "but this isn't a new thing. I'd see
voters all the time making that mistake," she said. Townsend
thought there had to be a better way. And she found it, she said,
in Sequoia Pacific Voting Equipment's AVC Edge touch-screen
system.
The new voting machines were first tested in a few small city
races, and Townsend said the touch system had two things going
for it: It was easy to use, and it eliminated errors.
The public liked it too, Townsend said. "For the city races, we
had a 99 percent approval rating of the new systems. The
comments were mostly, 'We've finally stepped into the 21st
century,' and 'Why has it taken so long for this?'"
"The election business is slow-moving," said Paul Terwilliger,
an engineer at Sequoia Pacific Voting Equipment. But now,
after Florida, "electronic voting is certainly going to explode,"
he said.
And a lot of firms, both traditional and startup, are jockeying

42. into position for a possible financial windfall.
One such traditional company that has started producing
electronic systems is Hart InterCivic, which this year tested its
eSlate voting system in a few counties across the country.
The eSlate resembles an "an oversized palm-pilot, about the size
of a legal-sized sheet of paper," said Michelle Shafer, a
spokeswoman for Hart. Unlike the Riverside County systems,
the eSlates don't use a touch-screen. "You vote by turning a
wheel on the bottom, and you make a selection by pressing a
button," she said…
Everyone who tried the system in Arizona liked it, and more
than 80 percent said they would prefer to vote using such
electronic terminals...
Many conservative libertarians and progressive populists,
however, take issue with electronic voting, seeing a sinister
aspect in the new technology.
Electronic Voting is Fraudulent. V Citizens, excerpts.
Secrecy in government has taken a new turn. Elections are now
secret from voters. Black-box voting employs touch-screen
machines that often produce no printed receipt. Without a paper
trail, a legitimate recount is impossible. It's a virtual vote. And
that's the point, actually.
Electronic voting is "secret" because citizens curious about
how, exactly, electronic votes are counted are barred from
analyzing protected software. It's private property. And when
states and counties demand access to the software codes the e-
voting companies simply pull up stakes and move to other
markets. The companies involved in black-box voting include
Diebold, Election Systems & Software, and Sequoia, and the
large investors in these companies include defense contractors
Northrup-Grumman and Lockheed-Martin.
Many Americans, particularly in Ohio, remain suspicious that
Ohio forced 800,000 voters to cast "virtual votes," giving them
no other option. (Bush won that deciding state by just 150,000
votes.)
Controversy has always surrounded e-voting because it is

43. widely viewed as vulnerable to fraud, hackers, malfunctions and
power outages. Perhaps its most unique feature, however, is that
e-voting is "virtual" in the full sense of the word: votes hover in
cyberspace, not as matter but as energy, quarks akimbo. Then,
sometime later, a private company decides to retrieve the votes
from a private server - all of the votes, some of the votes, or
none of the votes. You will never know.
A question arises: Why can't Halliburton get a no-bid contract
to run paperless elections on secret software, off of private
servers, and then be in charge of actually counting the votes?
Because another Party-backed company, Diebold, already got it.
Elections in America are increasingly privatized, paperless and
virtual. Instead of marching, citizen-turned-consumers will
register their political will, like drones, on a touch-screen pad.
Eventually, the issue of electronic voting will probably reach
either the US Supreme Court, and the issue will be settled one
way or another. Clearly, the debate over electronic voting is just
beginning.
Citizen complaints about the lack of personal and professional
ethics in Congress date to the 18th century – and these
complaints cut across party lines - but the 21st century
witnessed new kinds of grievances. For example, the Congress
of 2000 – 2006 was commonly criticized for its frequent use of
"doublethink" to describe the distortion of language for the
purpose of political propaganda. Six examples stand out.
· "The National Uniformity for Food Act" actually prohibited
states like California from maintaining strict health standards,
and it replaced these strong state standards with weaker federal
standards. This was a favor to the food industry.
· "Thee Clear Skies Act" actually allowed for more pollution
and contamination than the legislation it was designed to
replace.
· "The Healthy Forests Initiative" was actually written by the
timber industry and allowed for more logging on public lands. It
weakened environmental regulations and limited the judicial
review of abuses in the industry.

44. · "The Data Quality Act" prevented the federal government from
disseminating warnings about products if industries could
produce, with its own self-generated "science," countervailing
data.
· "Project Bioshield Act" prevents victims of toxic vaccinations
from suing pharmaceutical companies, even if the vaccine
maker engaged in fraud at the outset. This was a favor to the
pharmaceutical industries.
· "Middle Class Tax Cuts" actually provided very modest tax
reductions for the middle class. It was principally designed to
substantially reduce the taxes of the wealthy, which is a strategy
favored by many economists as a method to stimulate the
economy. (The problem is the name of the legislation).
Not too much changed in 2006, however. The new Congress did
not eliminate pork-barrel spending or corporate welfare. In
2007, Congress loaded up an "emergency" budget with more
than $20 billion in pork for members' districts. This included
money for peanut storage in Georgia; spinach growers in
California; and office space for the lawmakers themselves.
Campaign Finance Reform
For some Americans, Congress has unfortunately become "the
best Congress money can buy." Numerous citizen-action groups,
with a handful of congressmen, are advancing a new
proposition, namely that a candidate for office be prohibited
from accepting private money and that campaigns be financed
from public money. Other similar proposals include more
accountability, more transparency and a restriction on lobbyists.
One moderate proposal actually became law: the Bipartisan
Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain-
Feingold Act). This regulates the financing of political
campaigns, and it was designed to address the increased role of
in campaign financing of "soft money" (donations made directly
to political parties by corporations, unions, or well-healed
individuals).
Campaign-finance reform would theoretically restore
accountability, honesty and civic-mindedness to Congress.

45. Representatives and Senators would no longer be "bought and
paid for." However, there are constitutional issues involved.
Does campaign-finance reform restrict an individual's First
Amendment right of freedom of association and freedom of
political expression? After all, donating to a campaign has long
been recognized as a form of political expression, and any ban
on this has constitutional implications.
Actually, this debate reached the US Supreme Court, and it was
brought by the California State Democratic Party and the
National Rifle Association, who argued that the legislation was
an unconstitutional infringement on their First Amendment
rights. The US Supreme Court ruled in favor of almost all of the
McCain-Feingold Act in McConnell v. Federal Election
Commission (2003).
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003)
Question
1. Does the "soft money" ban of the Campaign Finance Reform
Act of 2002 exceed Congress's authority to regulate elections
under Article 1, Section 4 of the United States Constitution
and/or violate the First Amendment's protection of the freedom
to speak?
2. Do regulations of the source, content, or timing of political
advertising in the Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002
violate the First Amendment's free speech clause?
Conclusion
With a few exceptions, the Court answered "no" to both
questions in a 5-to-4 decision written by Justices Sandra Day
O'Connor and John Paul Stevens. Because the regulations dealt
mostly with soft-money contributions that were used to register
voters and increase attendance at the polls, not with campaign
expenditures (which are more explicitly a statement of political
values and therefore deserve more protection), the Court held
that the restriction on free speech was minimal. It then found
that the restriction was justified by the government's legitimate
interest in preventing "both the actual corruption threatened by
large financial contributions and... the appearance of

46. corruption" that might result from those contributions.
In response to challenges that the law was too broad and
unnecessarily regulated conduct that had not been shown to
cause corruption (such as advertisements paid for by
corporations or unions), the Court found that such regulation
was necessary to prevent the groups from circumventing the
law. Justices O'Connor and Stevens wrote that "money, like
water, will always find an outlet" and that the government was
therefore justified in taking steps to prevent schemes developed
to get around the contribution limits.
The Court also rejected the argument that Congress had
exceeded its authority to regulate elections under Article I,
Section 4 of the Constitution. The Court found that the law only
affected state elections in which federal candidates were
involved and also that it did not prevent states from creating
separate election laws for state and local elections.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_02_1674/
In summary, a very limited and modest version of campaign-
finance reform has been found to be constitutional, but it
remains to be seen if further restrictions on political donations
would pass the same test. In fact, it did not. In 2010, the US
Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v FEC that campaign
contributions were protected under the 1st Amendment right to
free speech.
Pork Barrel Spending and Corruption
"Pork" is used to describe Congressional spending that
represents thinly-disguised favors and kickbacks for friends and
supporters. Each year, Congress must approve a new budget to
finance the workings of the U.S. government, and each year
many congressmen add items to that budget which are of
questionable merit.
Consider, for example, the famous "Bridge to Nowhere." The
bridge in Alaska would connect the town of Ketchikan
(population 8,900) with its airport on the Island of Gravina
(population 50) at a cost to federal taxpayers of $320 million,

47. by way of three separate earmarks in a highway bill. At present,
a ferry service runs to the island, but some in the town complain
about its wait (15 to 30 minutes) and fee ($6 per car).
Congressional Staff
Each member of Congress is authorized to have a staff of
professioinals working for them paid for by taxpayers. These
staffers are usually young people or old-timiers with lots of
experience. Each has a specific area of expertise that they keep
abeast of for their member of Congress. As such, it is not likely
that any bill, omnibus or otherwise, would come up for a vote,
and the member of Congress not have a staffer who knows
everything that is in it. So, where members of Congress come
and go, some staffers persist for the long term ensuring
corporate memery for Congress. Many famous people were once
congressional staffers, to include Lawrence O'Donnell, George
Tenet, and Chris Matthews.
Conclusion
Congress is the branch of government closest to the people.
With eery Representative facing an election in two-year
intervals, it is the first branch of government to feel the impact
of popular will.
Paradoxically, Americans often hold Congress in low regard but
then, in times of crisis, turn to Congress as a solution to solve
pressing problems.
Top of Form

48. THE NATIONIn Wartime, Who Has the Power?
By JEFFREY ROSEN
Published: March 4, 2007
WASHINGTON
The Constitution seems relatively clear. The president is the
commander in chief, and he has the power to deploy troops and
to direct military strategy. Congress has the power to declare
war and can use its control over the purse to end a war. But it
has no say over how the war is actually prosecuted.
That poses a problem for Congress, as it debates the course of
the Iraq war. Democratic proposals to check President Bush’s
increasing unpopular war range from Senator Barack Obama’s
“phased redeployment” of all combat troops out of Iraq by
March 3, 2008, to Representative John Murtha’s attempts to
impose specific standards for the training and equipping of
troops.
Regardless of how these proposals fare politically, they raise
serious constitutional questions that could affect not only the
conduct of the Iraq war, but also the balance of power between
Congress and the president in wartime.
Legal scholars — both critics and supporters of the Iraq war —
say that if Congress tries to manage the deployment and
withdrawal of troops without cutting funds, the
president’s powers as commander in chief would be encroached,
perhaps leading to a constitutional confrontation of historic
proportions.
“If there were to be a binding resolution that said troops had to
go from 120,000 to 80,000 by April 15, Congress would be, in
my view, transgressing on the conduct of a military campaign,”
says Samuel Issacharoff, a law professor at New York

49. University. “Congress can’t tell the president to charge up the
east side of the hill rather than the west, which is the definition
of the president’s military authority.”
So how, exactly, can Congress assert power over the war,
beyond its ability simply to pull the plug on its financing?
History suggests that Congress has found ways of checking the
president in the past without encroaching on his power as
commander in chief. And, history suggests, as well, that neither
side is that eager for a constitutional showdown.
There is little dispute that Congress could, if it had the political
will, end the war in Iraq tomorrow by using its power over
appropriations to cut off funds to the troops. “Congress could
easily check the president,” says W. Taylor Reveley III, the
dean of William and Mary School of Law and author of “War
Powers of the President and Congress.”
“If Iraq continues to go badly or if it looks like the president
might actually use force in Iran, I can easily see Congress
passing something like the Cambodian or Vietnam spending
cutoffs, which would force the setting of a timetable for
withdrawal that was pretty brisk,” he said.
If Congress used its appropriations power in this way, even the
most vigorous defenders of executive power agree, President
Bush would have to acquiesce. “He would have to comply, and
he would comply,” says John Yoo, the University of California
at Berkeley law professor who, as a Bush administration
official, defended the president’s authority to act unilaterally.
According to Professor Yoo, Congress could immediately cut
funds, or could order a phased withdrawal by authorizing a
fixed amount of money each month for specified numbers of
troops.

50. “The idea that the funding tool is too blunt is a view held by
people who have never worked in Congress,” he says. “It can be
a scalpel as well as a baseball bat.”
The problem is not that Congress lacks the constitutional power
to cut off funds, but that it may lack the political will to do so.
“I think it’s inconceivable that Congress will cut off
appropriations, because no one wants to leave people on the
field without support,” says Michael Gerhardt of the University
of North Carolina Law School.
Congress, however, has other cudgels. During the War of 1812,
Federalist critics of President James Madison forced the
resignation of his secretary of war, and, decades later, the
House passed a resolution censuring President James Polk for
unconstitutionally beginning a war with Mexico.
During the Civil War, Congressional Republicans wanted
Lincoln to fire Gen. George B. McClellan and prosecute the war
more aggressively. But they never tried to control actual troop
movements. Instead, Congress tried to shame the Union generals
into fighting by hauling them repeatedly before Congressional
committees.
“It bordered on harassment, and Lincoln resisted some of the
excesses, but even then, Congress never tried to issue orders
about the deployment of troops,” says Professor Issacharoff.
Congress, of course, could assert itself in similar ways today,
according to Professor Gerhardt. “Congress is entitled to have
oversight hearings to see how well things are going, and to
figure out where we should go from here,” he says.
Changes in technology also make it easier for Congress to
micromanage military decisions if it chooses to do so. “In the
19th century, simply to send a command and find out what
happened in the battle took weeks,” says Professor Issacharoff.

51. “So neither Congress nor the president could micromanage.
Now you can have battlefield commanders in a speakerphone in
the well of Congress — you could have 535 generals shouting
instructions.”
Congress would also be perfectly competent to examine civil
liberties questions, like the restoration of habeas corpus for
detainees held at Guantánamo Bay. It could pass resolutions
opposing the war effort over Republican opposition, as
Democrats have proposed to do. It could demand compliance
with international norms about how the war is conducted.
But let’s say Congress passed a binding resolution that reduced
troop levels without actually cutting off funds. What then?
“What’s likely to happen is that Congress will assert its power,
and the executive will resist through delay, redeployment of
troops elsewhere or simply disregarding Congress,” Professor
Issacharoff says. “It will never be presented to a court, because
when both branches are involved in disputes about war and
claim overlapping powers, the courts tend to back down.”
Dean Reveley agrees. “These disputes about the powers of the
president and Congress in wartime are waged with almost
theological passion and conviction and the Supreme Court
rarely intervenes, which is why war powers are still so murky,”
he says. “Every time we’ve gotten involved in an unpopular
war, which has been all our wars except the two World Wars,
there has been an enormous amount of bickering between the
president and Congress when it didn’t come out the way we
wanted. Sometimes presidents have acted, Congress said ‘Don’t
do that,’ and the president acceded, as in Vietnam. But mostly
Congress has stood on the sidelines and complained.”
In other words, a constitutional crisis may not be the inevitable
outcome.
“I think this will be resolved politically, as it has been in the

52. past, and either the president or Congress will back down,”
Professor Issacharoff says. “My sense is that it’s more likely to
be Congress, because nobody wants to assume responsibility for
managing a disaster.”
Even if President Bush wins a constitutional confrontation,
Congress may react by asserting its powers against future
presidents. “Congress will be much more careful in the future
about authorizing force without restrictions on presidential
power,” says Jack Goldsmith of Harvard Law School. “Every
action on each side tends to provoke a counterreaction, which is
probably what James Madison wanted.”
Bottom of Form
Bottom of Form
_id1476:_id1484
viewsectionStude
typeEditor
false
_id1476:_id1487
viewsectionStude
typeEditor

53. false
Top of Form
WEEK 2: POLITICAL PARTICIPATION
Part 1: Political Opinion and Political Parties
Lesson 2, Part 1: Political Opinion and Political Parties
"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart;
and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no
brains.”
-Winston Churchill
Expected Outcomes
To understand the philosophical differences between
conservative, liberal, populist and libertarian cultures; to
comprehend the impact of race and gender on political opinion;
and to evaluate the differences between the Republican and
Democratic parties.
Overview
Opinion is the driving force of politics, and this unit examines
how opinion acts upon the structures and processes of
government (which were described and analyzed in the first part
of this course).
When a critical mass of citizens feels strongly about an issue,
they pressure Congress to pass laws favorable to their opinion
or they vote a president in or out. Controversial topics in
American society today include:
· Abortion
· Stem-Cell Research
· Death Penalty

54. · Welfare
· Gun Control
· Patriot Act
· Guantanamo
· Deficit Spending
· Illegal Immigration
· Same-sex Marriage
· Marijuana
The Spectrum of Opinion: Liberal, Conservative, Populist and
Libertarian
The United States has four political cultures: Conservative,
Liberal, Populist and Libertarian, with the first two being the
most dominant.
Conservatives, who today tend to affiliate with the Republican
Party, also tend to prefer order; and liberals, who tend to
affiliate with the Democratic Party, tend to prefer equality, but
there are much more profound differences to be explored below.
Again, the United States is primarily characterized by a
spectrum of opinion ranging from liberal on the left to
conservative on the right. Traditionally, most people were in the
middle, but in recent decades there has been a polarization of
opinion. Today, liberals are very liberal and conservatives are
very conservative, with fewer people occupying the middle
ground.
Conservative Thought
Conservatives prefer that the government stay out of the
economy as much as possible. They see government regulation
as interference. Also, conservatives believe that the overall
economy performs best when industry and management is given
wide latitude. Specifically, these views pertain to “economic
conservatism."
In this same line of thinking, economic conservatives place

55. little faith in affirmative action programs to lift up the lives of
the poor and of minorities; they prefer to contribute to a culture
of hard work and sacrifice. For this reason, conservatives tend
to support standardized testing in schools and performance-
based pay for teachers.
Most conservatives also believe in a strong moral order, which
means that the government must frame culture, regulating
individual behavior: drug addiction, homosexuality and other
forms of behavior that oppose traditional morality. One reason
for this is that most conservatives (but not all) also self-identify
themselves as Christians or with related terms: evangelicals,
born-again Christians, fundamentalists or Dominionists. Most
Christians would point out that the Bible is clear regarding
matters of personal and sexual morality.
“Conservative” justices of the Supreme Court who practice
“judicial restraint” believe that the U.S. Constitution should be
considered: 1) as literally as possible; and, 2) with the “original
intent” of the signers. This tends to advance the concept of
“States’ rights.”
The criticism often made against conservatives is that they have
a reflexive tendency towards authoritarianism and protecting the
powerful against the powerless; that the States’ rights argument
is a thinly-disguised excuse to perpetuate race and class
imbalances; that conservative judges are in fact “activist” when
it comes to imposing conservative morality (like prohibiting
States from legalizing medical marijuana); and that the
Founding Fathers never intended the Constitution to be
fossilized in the 18th century.
Liberal Thought
Liberals (left-wing) want to government to intervene in the
economy in order to produce a leveling of social differences and
to help the disadvantaged – not just the poor or minority groups,

56. but also the disabled, the uninsured, illegal immigrants and
other classes of people. Liberals have also been in favor of
heavy government regulation of industry in order to protect the
environment, and the “global warming” issue is high on the
agenda.
Liberals tend to not want the government to interfere in
personal matters. They approve of government in the corporate
boardroom, but not in the private bedroom. Many liberals wish
to see the legalization of same-sex marriage, and they do not
want the government to censor “obscene” material in the media.
Liberals also tend to favor the Roe v. Wade decision that allows
abortion. Perhaps paradoxically, liberals tend to favor the
legalization of drugs (in order to treat the drug problem as a
medical one), but the near criminalization of tobacco.
Liberals are also wary of any “excessive entanglement” between
Church and State, and share Thomas Jefferson’s preference for a
“wall of separation.” This philosophy originally emerged from
the “Enlightenment” era and its populist reaction to perceived
abuses by the alliance between Church and Crown – an alliance
which had been cemented by the “Divine Right of Kings.”
Some liberals wish to repeal the Second Amendment, with its
right to bear arms, and others even reject the interpretation of
the right to bear arms as extending to private citizens.
“Liberal” justices who advocate or practice “judicial activism”
or “active liberty” believe that the Constitution should be a
living document, a flexible text that needs to adapt to the times.
The Constitution, they believe, needs to allow for the expansion
and growth of individual liberty and minority rights.
There are, however, two additional political philosophies in the
United States: populism and libertarianism. While nor
dominant, they sometimes emerge in third parties or

57. movements.
Populist
Populists tend to come from the Upper Midwest, where small
farmers needed government protection against the abuses of
railroad monopolies, and where industrial workers’ unions
depended upon government to take their side in negotiations
with industry. Populists prefer government intervention in the
economy in order to prevent abuses of power and monopoly
capitalism.
While both right-wing and left-wing populists tend to be
“economic populists,” “conservative populists” are moralistic in
social and sexual matters while “progressive populists” are
more libertarian. Populists of both stripes are strongest in
Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan.
Libertarians
Libertarians tend to favor a reduced role of the government in
both the economy and in the culture. They agree with
conservatives in economic and financial matters; they agree
with liberals in cultural matters, even to the point of allowing
for gambling and prostitution (in Nevada). Libertarians are
strongest in Nevada and Montana.
Simply put, and as a generalization, conservatives want small
government in the economy and big government in the culture.
Liberals want small government in the culture and big
government in the economy. Libertarians want small
government in both spheres; populists want large government in
both spheres.
It has been said that Americans are now tending to gravitate
toward holding either quite liberal or quite conservative views
on the above issues. Fewer people, apparently, occupy the
political center than before, but the degree of political distance

58. between one side and another, or “polarization” in American
society is difficult to measure, and some political scientists
wonder if we are more divided today than a generation ago.
Generally speaking, the more passionate one’s opinions are the
more active one will participate in politics. Abortion is an
emotional issue that creates much activity among “pro-life” and
“pro-choice” citizens. Aside from the normal way of
participating in politics – voting – these activists join
demonstrations, make telephone calls and use the courts to
advance their cause.
Clearly, polarization is evident today in Congress. Republican
and Democratic members of Congress are not in agreement
regarding numerous issues, such as health care, and many other
issues. One reason for the political polarization in the U.S. is
that the Cold War is over. For 50 years, having a common
enemy (the USSR) unified Republicans and Democrats on many
basic issues. While the global war on terror provided a short-
term sense of unity, and political rivalries today are intense.
Many members of Congress take their political cues from
opinion polls, which measure how people feel about the issues
listed above. Pollsters fan out across the country to ask people a
few questions as they conduct their daily business. Other
pollsters use the telephone or Internet, asking people for a few
minutes of their time.
But, how do people actually form their political opinions?
One’s family is an important factor. A father or mother’s
political orientation is often passed down to children at the
kitchen table. Teachers and peers also play a role. Increasingly,
mass media and cable news (like Fox or CNN) help shape
peoples’ ideas. These ideas – and the people who hold them –
end up affiliating with rival political parties and political
cultures.

59. It is useful to point out that reasonable and principled people
can hold either liberal and/or conservative views.
Unfortunately, the media and the campaign trail have given
way, recently, to a “demonization” of one side or another. Radio
“shock jocks” on the left or right ignore that the Declaration of
Independence and the U.S. Constitution contain both liberal and
conservative principles.
As a final thought, conservative economic policies are largely
responsible for the dynamism and innovation which animate the
American economy; and liberal policies are responsible for
ending child labor in the United States, providing wheelchair
ramps for the disabled and launching “Head Start.” Both
philosophies have contributed to the betterment of the nation.
The Demographics of Opinion
“Demographics” refers to the study of populations and, in this
case, how different population groups exhibit different political
opinions and voting patterns.
Gender and Opinion
On many issues, there is not much difference between the
opinions of men and women, but regarding military
intervention, for example, men are considerably more pro-
intervention and pro-military than women. In greater numbers
than men, women tend to back diplomatic solutions to
international problems, even if such approaches do not appear
to produce immediate results.
On other issues, there is a surprising disparity of opinion.
Throughout the 1970s, for example, more men than women (as a
percentage) were actually in favor of the Equal Rights
Amendment (or ERA) which would have changed the U.S.
Constitution to eliminate any separate treatment based on
gender. Conservative groups, religious organizations and