1. James Madison argued that even though one could not eliminate the causes of faction, one could reduce its effects by fragmenting political power. Explain how the system created by the Constitution was designed to prevent a single faction from dominating the political system.
Madison argues in No 10 argues that factions are essential to a democracy even though he very much disliked them. He had 2 choices: 1) eliminate the cause of factions or, 2) limit their influence in the political system. The easiest and most obvious way to do that was the 1st Amendment which was only amended to the Constitution after it was ratified. This amendment among others, was already being discussed before ratification and it was the only promise Madison could make to the big government fearing anti-federalists. The primary reason behind the free speech clause in the first amendment was to ensure that no one faction or person could dominate everyone else. Everyone in the so called republic had their own voice and thus, their own interests. In a large republic, Madison argues, the political system can not be dominated by one faction or subject. Their was simply too many different competing interests who all wanted different things, no one interest group or faction could dominate the others because the other factions would also fighting for their own reasons. Bear with me; this may sound a bit redundant but it is absolutely essential in understanding why the Constitution was written the way it was by Madison. This eventually lead to a widely accepted political theory called pluralism, which simply states that the mere existence of many diverse and competing interests means that no interest group could dominate.
What about factions in federal government? It had to be just big enough to properly manage the country yet it could not trample the rights of individuals. Madison too had a solution for this. He drew upon the enlightenment thinkers ideas and implemented a system of checks and balances Amon the three branches of government; legislative(write the law), executive(enforce it), and judicial(interpret it). No single branch/faction could dominate the other via checks and balances. Congress passes a bill, sends it to the POTUS; he vetoes, Congress overrides and passes it anyway. SCOTUS can declare the same law unconstitutional. He also implemented a slow legislative process so Congress and POTUS can actually talk and discuss the bill they want to pass and see if it really is right for the people. This red tape would help insure that the political process would come to a slow crawl to ensure that one party or faction could not pass whatever they pleased. Wr can see this through the numbers Madison mandated (2/3, 3/5, 3/4) for bills or others policy issues to br accepted/passed. These are but a few examples of how Madison wrote the Constitution the way it is now to ensure that the system could not become tyrannical with one interest group or faction dominating.
2. The modern presidency is much more of a “popular” presidency than the writers of the U.S. Constitution envisioned. Explain why and how you believe this change has occurred. Discuss the implications of these developments for the role of the presidency as well as the possible dangers the writers of the Constitution feared.
In it's infancy, United States endured many hardships because of a weak federal government. The founding fathers were really scared of a powerful presidency/leadership after seeing first hand the effects of one from Britain. Before they passed the Constitution they implemented the Articles of Confederation which failed miserably because the President had basically no power at all. This had to be changed but they were still afraid of what a powerful ruler could do. Under the Constitution they gave the president expanded powers with safeguards in place to ensure he didnt abuse them. People looked no further than their local and state government to listen to their concerns and woes. This form of government is called confederate (I beleive). The United States wasn't really "united" in the true sense of the the word.
The birth of the modern presidency really came to light with Lincoln. Everyone looked up to him as the protector of the North and savior of the Union. He took presidential power to heights that would frighten the founding fathers. He used them for good however, and the popularity only increased after him, with Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, and it sort of peaked with FDR. FDR was really the one who made the presidency what it is today. Everyone looked up to him for guidance during the Great Depression and World War 2. He delivered like no other President. The two term limit was just common knowledge for Presidents until FDR. Congress amended the Constitution to create term limits after FDR died. After FDR, the Presidency slowly deteriorated in popularity, with the exception of JFK, Reagan and Obama, it reached its lowest point during the Watergate. The presidency has certainly changed and for the better at that. Presidents can guide in times of crisis and prosper in times of peace.
3. Describe the primary motivations that shape congressional behavior. How do these motivations influence how Congress performs its core functions? Give examples. In what ways do they have a positive and/or negative impact? Give examples.
The most important motivation that determines how Congress votes is public opinion. If the public is aware of a certain bill going through Congress, via attention from the media, Congress will vote with the people. If not, their are basically two choices that Congress members have. Thy can vote along party lines. If he public is not aware of certain bills going through Congress, which they usually aren't, Congress members will vote along party lines. Democrats vote for leftist bills, Republicans oppose and vice versa. If party lines don't really play a part of how the bill will pass, members can vote differently. They can vote based on constituents in their districts, this is delegate voting. Voting based on your beliefs and nothing else, is voting as a trustee. These two schools of thought are in constant controversy, but most members, if public opinion and party lines are irrelevant, will vote with a combination of delegate and trustee. Voting in a way that makes their constituents and conscience happy. As mentioned above, lobbyists and re election can also play a huge rule in how members vote.
4. Describe four of the roles played by the president in our political system. How do each of these roles enhance the power of the president? What difficulties do presidents face in each one?
The points mentioned above are correct so I will merely draw upon them.
Chief of State – Serves as the ceremonial head of government at public functions. This gives a lot of media attention to the President. The President has to balance the event at hand with his agenda, which sometimes isn't the easiest thing to do (Tucson-->gun control)
Chief Executive – Oversees the operation of government agencies; appoints cabinet members, agency heads, and other officials; and sees that laws are properly enforced. Usually the President fires all previous administration officials and replaces them with people more sympathetic to their party and concerns. In theory, the Senate is supposed to approve or refuse the POTUS's appointments, but in modern politics the Senate always approves the Presidents appointments which is a practice known as Senatorial Courtesy. One exception however, this can sometimes be difficult with appointing Supreme Court Justices.
Commander-in-Chief – Heads the military branches. This is the most powerful power if the Presidency, because even though the President doesn't go to war himself, he can deploy military branches all around the world. Congress severely limited this power with the passage of the War Powers Resolution, which was passed by a pissed off Congress during Vietnam.
Chief Diplomat – Represents the country in foreign affairs. (Important in treaties, and ally work. This gives president power to discuss foregin ordeals. If president doesnt give a good impression to other top countries, US may get a bad look) Sometimes the Senate can reject official treaties with the US which is very difficult for the President(why we didn't join League of Nations after WWI). President has sidetracked this with creating informal treaties with foreign nations, which don't require Senate approval.
Chief Legislator – Initiates possible legislation and works with Congress to achieve the administration’s goals. (These laws help govern the people. President needs to be sure that these laws are approriate, if he fails, well public complains). If he vetoes a Congressional bill, he can be overridden by Congress with a 2/3 vote. Laws he passes can also be declared unconstitutional(health care bill). He can also passes executive orders which don't require Congressional approval.
Chief of Party – Heads chosen political party, Republicans vs democrats.....
Bully Pulpit - POTUS can use his power and popularity to talk to the people. Instead of taking his case to Congress in private he can make speeches or release statements which creates public pressure for Congress to do whatever he wants done.
Excuse the typo's wrote it on my phone
If I might suggest, do an essay on the first topic, it's the most engaging and interesting.
And do multiple people need this assignment??? Same class?
This post was edited by sikhawk on Oct 19 2011 12:32pm