2/21 Why the rise in party unity? Why the increasing ideological divergence between Democrats and Republicans?

- Large part of the answer is disappearance of Conservative Democrats in the South (and of the so-called Conservative Coalition) - What happened to those conservative southern Democratseither became Republicans or have been replaced by republicans - Conditional party government (Rohde and Aldrich) ideological homogeneity within each party, but ideological divergence between the partiesmembers willing to grant power to party leaders What are the differences between House and Senate? In the house (relative to the Senate): - Party leaders tend to be stronger - Greater specialization - More limits on floor debate and amendment (no rules committee in the senate and the possibility of a senate filibuster unless a unanimous consent agreement (UCA); invoking cloture can bring a filibuster to an end, but requires 60 senators so an effective working majority in senate is actually 60 members (60%)). - 2 year terms relative to 6 year terms. What does the job of being president entail? How powerful can/should the president be? - FDR was the pivotal transition from a traditional presidency to a modern presidency Clinton Rossiters presidential roles: Constitutional roles: - Chief of state ceremonial, symbolic - Chief Executive chief administrator - Chief Legislator - Chief Diplomat - Commander-in-chief Extra-constitutional roles: - Chief of political party - Manager of the economy - Voice of the people - Protector of peace (domestic tranquility, i.e. Hurricane Katrina) - World leader

3.2.11 Criticisms of Barber - Too subjective? - More than 2 dimensions? - External events and conditions more important than personality? - Like Neustadt, reflects bias toward activist, liberal presidents? Supreme Court - Judicial review: power of the supreme court to declare laws of Congress and actions of the President un-Constitutional - Marbury v. Madison (1803): Supreme Court case where Chief Justice Marshall claimed the power of judicial review for the Supreme Court (note: brief outline of the case posted under course library in BB) WHO should interpret the Constitution? 1. Judicial supremacy: courts should have the final say (dominant view in U.S.) - Separation of powers requires? - Individual and minority rights need protection from the majority? - (Brown v. Board, Roe v. Wade) 2. Coordinate construction: meaning of Constitution is/should be found in dialogue among the 3 branches. - Court makes mistakes (i.e. Plessy (1896)) - Too much power for un-democratic institution? - Un-elected elite cant safeguard liberty and minority rights. - Court is institutionally weak and cant enforce its decisions: relies on President and executive branch. HOW should the Court interpret the Constitution? 1. Strict constructionist view: justices should confine themselves to literal language of the Constitution and original intent of the Framers - Constitution and it meaning should be stable and unchanging - Difficulties with the fact that language and words arent self-defining - Whose intent? - What about modern issues? Post-Framers amendments? 2. Judicial activist view (loose construction): justices should/must promote those principles and rights they believe underlie an evolving Constitution - Its meaning must evolve and changeliving document