Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 14

Political Science 1

We The People 7th ed.

Thomas E. Patterson PowerPoint By Diane Feibel, Ed.D.

Adapted by Som Chounlamountry, MA for ITV Political Science 1

Chapter 11
THE CONGRESS: Balancing National & Local Interests



Congress is responsible for making laws, creating the budget, and oversight.
Most of the work is done in committees


Confirmation of Appointments Impeachment of PresidentHOUSE Removal of PresidentSENATE Major Issues: Iraq, The Financial Crisis, Healthcare Reform


ARTICLE 1; Section 8
[1] 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; [2] To borrow money on the credit of the United States; [3] To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; [4] To establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;


Som Chounlamountry professorsom@gmail.com


Political Science 1

ARTICLE 1; Section 8
[5] To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures; [6] To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States; [7] To establish post offices and post roads; [8] 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;

ARTICLE 1; Section 8
[9] To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court; [10] To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas and offenses against the law of nations; [11] To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; [12] To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; [13] To provide and maintain a navy; [14] To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

ARTICLE 1; Section 8
[15] To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions; [16] To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the 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; [17] 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;


[18] 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.




Som Chounlamountry professorsom@gmail.com


Political Science 1


CONGRESS RE-ELECTION RATE REhttp://one-simplehttp://one-simple-idea.com/CongressMakeUp_1855_2008.htm




Congress as a Career: Election to Congress

Using Incumbency to Stay in Congress
Constituency Pork Barrel Projects Service Strategy Open-Seat Election
100% 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% House Senate


Chart: Reelection Rates, 2002

Som Chounlamountry professorsom@gmail.com


Political Science 1

HARRY REID, SENATE MAJORITY LEADER The Nevada Democrat - described as a tough player - has stressed the need for bi-partisan co-operation. "We're going to lead an open government. And we're going to deliver results. From Iraq to the economy, Americans want change," Mr Reid has said. He has said that his party will work with Republicans to "bring oversight and accountability'' to the war and is has also said he will consider supporting a short-term increase in US troops in Iraq.

JOE BIDEN, CHAIRMAN, SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE Although Mr Biden voted in support of invading Iraq, he has since become critical of US conduct of the war, calling for a change of course. His plan involves splitting Iraq into autonomous regions and withdrawing US forces. He has also said he wants to focus on North Korea, Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Mr Biden, from Delaware, has been a Democratic presidential candidate in the past and still harbours ambitions for the White House.

CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN, SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE Carl Levin voted against invading Iraq in 2002 Mr Levin is one of the Democratic opponents of the Iraq war who voted against the invasion in 2002. He favours a change of course and beginning a reduction in US troop numbers there by the end of the year. He has promised to make Iraq and the conflict in Afghanistan his committee's top priorities. Mr Levin is considered likely to hold hearings into the conduct of the war in Iraq.

Democrat Nancy Pelosi House Speaker


NANCY PELOSI, HOUSE SPEAKER The representative from San Francisco will become the first female speaker of the House, which makes her second in line after the vice-president to succeed the president, if it becomes necessary.

Profile of Nancy Pelosi Ms Pelosi has promised to work with President George W Bush and the Republicans wherever possible. But she has said she expects Mr Bush to make a change of direction in Iraq. She has also said House Democrats will push ahead with the rest of their agenda, including funding embryonic stem cell research, imposing a national cap on carbon dioxide emissions and cutting interest rates on student loans. She has played down talk of attempting to impeach Mr Bush over the war in Iraq.

CHARLES RANGEL, CHAIRMAN, HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE wants to end tax cuts for wealthy Americans Mr Rangel is expected to close tax breaks that encourage US companies to move jobs overseas. He has said he wants to work with Republicans to show that "expanded trade doesn't always have to mean the loss of good-paying jobs". Mr Rangel is expected to push for more emphasis on environmental and labour issues in trade agreements. He wants to simplify the tax code to eventually repeal Bush administration tax cuts for the very wealthy.

Som Chounlamountry professorsom@gmail.com


Political Science 1


The Struggle for Equality

Womens Legal and Political Gains Gender gap Job-Related Issues: Family Leave, Comparable Worth and Sexual Harassment Chart: Percent of legislative seats held by women
45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Sweden U.S. Germany Japan

Men and Women in the 110th Congress

While the partisan composition of the Congress is fairly close to that of the electorate, there are larger disparities between the Congress and the general citizenry in term of sex and race. In the House, there are currently 365 men and 70 women. In the Senate, there are 16 women and 84 men. Currently, whites comprise % of the membership of the House and 94% of the membership of the Senate. The racial composition of the House is summarized in the table below.

Racial Composition--110th Congress Composition--110

U.S. House White Black Hispanic Asian 364 40 23 5 U.S. Senate 94 1 3 2

How a Bill Becomes Law Filibuster
Definition History

Senate Leadership House Leadership Iraq War Funding


Som Chounlamountry professorsom@gmail.com


Political Science 1


How A Bill Becomes Law

Committee Hearings and Decisions From Committee to the Floor
House Rules Committee
Determines how the bill will be debated



http://congress.indiana.edu/media/video/f acts_of_congress/filibuster.mov

Filibuster (Unlimited debate) Cloture (60 Senators can limit debate to 30 hours) Rider (Senate Only)

Leadership and Floor Action Conference Committee and the President

Law Veto

'I'm not filibustering. I'm teaching.'


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGx-EHvZIgc http://corporate.cq.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=221


Review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs and policy implementation


Why Does Congress Need to Do Oversight? Ensure executive compliance with legislative intent. Improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and economy of governmental operations. Evaluate program performance. Prevent executive encroachment on legislative prerogatives and powers. Investigate alleged instances of poor administration, arbitrary http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx5r0JmhDvY and capricious behavior, abuse, waste, dishonesty, and fraud. Assess an agency or official's ability to manage and carry out program objectives. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsrv3Na8dW8 Review and determine federal financial priorities. Ensure that executive policies reflect the public interest. Protect individual rights and liberties. Review agency rule-making processes. Acquire information useful in future policymaking. http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/comm_gp_cong_oversig ht.htm

John G. Roberts Jr. at his Senate confirmation hearing in 2005.

Confirmation Hearing for Dr. Condoleezza Rice

Som Chounlamountry professorsom@gmail.com


Political Science 1

NPR News Special Coverage of the Impeachment Inquiry of President Bill Clinton Clinton Says He's "Profoundly Sorry" Copyright 1998 Reuters Limited Live Coverage Join NPR on-the-air and online for live coverage when the full House debates the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Read the articles of impeachment. Archived Coverage Saturday, December 12, 1998 Listen as Rep. Bill Delahunt, D-Mass., discusses the hearings with NPR's Neal Conan and Nina Totenberg. Listen to NPR analysis prior to Saturday's debate. Listen to the morning debate. Listen to NPR's Neal Conan, Nina Totenberg and Daniel Schorr. Listen to the debate and vote on the fourth article of impeachment. Listen to the debate and vote on censure. Listen as the committee wraps up their discussion. Check out our online report.


On Saturday, July 27, 1973, the House Judiciary Committee approved its first article of impeachment charging President Nixon with obstruction of justice. Six of the Committee's 17 Republicans joined all 21 Democrats in voting for the article. The following Monday the Committee approved its second article charging Nixon with abuse of power. The next day, the third and final article, contempt of Congress, was approved. http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/ impeachments/nixon.htm

On Article 1, the charge of perjury, 55 senators, including 10 Republicans and all 45 Democrats voted not guilty. On Article 3, obstruction of justice, the Senate split evenly, 50 for and 50 against the President. http://www.historyplace.co m/unitedstates/impeachmen ts/clinton.htm

On Friday, August 9, Nixon resigned the presidency and avoided the likely prospect of losing the impeachment vote in the full House and a subsequent trial in the Senate.

TRIAL & REMOVAL2/3rd REMOVAL SENATE On March 16, 1868 a crucial vote occurred on
Article 11 concerning Johnson's overall behavior toward Congress. A straw poll indicated the Senate was one vote shy of the necessary two thirds (36 votes out of a total of 54 Senators) needed for conviction. Johnson's fate rested upon the single undecided vote of a young Radical Republican named Edmund G. Ross. Despite monumental pressure from fellow Radicals and dire warnings that a vote for acquittal would end his political career, Ross stood up at the appropriate moment and quietly announced "not guilty," effectively



President Andrew Johnson was 1 vote away!

ending the impeachment trial. http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/imp eachments/johnson.htm



"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation with Iraq?"
Approve % ALL adults Republicans Democrats Independents 24 58 5 19 Disapprove % 71 34 93 74 Unsure % 5 8 2 7

Mr. Som Chounlamountry, MA

Som Chounlamountry professorsom@gmail.com


Political Science 1


Baghdad: Mapping the violence

Baghdad: Mapping the violence http://news.b bc.co.uk/2/sh ared/spl/hi/in _depth/bagh dad_navigato r/

OPTION #1: Immediate U.S. Withdrawal OPTION #2: Increasing troops OPTION #3: Use of diplomacy







Som Chounlamountry professorsom@gmail.com


Political Science 1

BANKS AFFECTED BY THE GLOBAL CRISIS 2008 http://news.bbc .co.uk/2/hi/bus iness/7644238. stm





What it Means to You How the health-care package passed by the House will affect your coverage. How the House voted How House members voted on the final package. Sort the votes How the Senate voted. Sphere of Influence A breakdown of 41 health care lobbyists connected to the Finance Committee. What's in the bill Ways different people and businesses would be impacted.

We The People 7th ed.

Thomas E. Patterson PowerPoint By Diane Feibel, Ed.D.

Chapter 14
The Federal Judicial System: Applying the Law

Adapted by Som Chounlamountry, MA for ITV Political Science 1


Som Chounlamountry professorsom@gmail.com


Political Science 1



Chief Justice: John G. Roberts, Jr. Associate Justices: John Paul Stevens Antonin Scalia Anthony M. Kennedy Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen G. Breyer Samuel A. Alito, Jr. Sonia Sotomayor

The Federal Judicial System


The Federal Judicial System

Other Federal Courts
U.S. District Courts (90) Judges appointed by Pres. With consent of Senate U.S. Courts of Appeals (no juries; 12 circuits) Special U.S. Courts

United States Courts of Appeals

The 94 U.S. judicial districts are organized into 12 regional circuits, each of which has a United States court of appeals. A court of appeals hears appeals from the district courts located within its circuit, as well as appeals from decisions of federal administrative agencies. In addition, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has nationwide jurisdiction to hear appeals in specialized cases, such as those involving patent laws and cases decided by the Court of International Trade and the Court of Federal Claims.

The State Courts

Elective Offices (most states) Merit Plan (governor select from short list by the judicial selection commission)

Som Chounlamountry professorsom@gmail.com



Political Science 1



Federal Court Appointees

The Selection of Supreme Court Justices and Federal Judges
Supreme Court Nominees (20% rejected) Lower-Court Nominees (attorney general screening)
Senatorial Courtesy (The senator has a say if the senator is in the same party as the pres.)

The Nature of Judicial Decision Making

The Constraints of the Facts The Constraints of the Laws
The Constitution and Its Interpretation Statutes, Administrative Laws, and Their Interpretation (criminal, civil legislation) Legal Precedents (Previous Rulings) and Their Interpretation (precedents and the philosophy of stare decisis to stand by things that have been settled

Justices and Judges as Political Officials

The Role of Partisanship Other Characteristics of Judicial Appointees

Judicial Review
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) is a landmark case in United States law wherein the U.S. Supreme Court established judicial review as a legitimate power of the Court on constitutional grounds. The Court ruled that it had the power to declare a statute void that it considered repugnant to the Constitution. Chief Justice John Marshall, in Marbury, legally established the judiciaryand in particular, the Supreme Courtas an equal partner among the three branches of the American federal government.

Relevant law
U.S. Const. art. III, 2 "In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases [within the judicial power of the United States], the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Judiciary Act of 1789, 13 "The Supreme Court shall also have appellate jursidiction from the circuit courts and courts of the several states, in the cases herein after provided for; and shall have power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts...and writs of mandamus...to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States."

The issue
In the Presidential election of 1800, Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams, becoming the third U.S. President. Although the election was decided on February 17, 1801, Jefferson did not take office until March 4, 1801. Until that time, Adams and the Federalist-controlled U.S. Congress were still in power. Congress passed a new Judiciary Act, creating a number of new courts to be controlled by Federalists. On March 2, Adams appointed 42 Federalists to these courts while sitting as a lame duck less than a week before the end of his term. The following day, on March 3, the judges were approved by the Senate. One of these "Midnight Judges" was William Marbury, appointed to a position as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia. At noon, Adams left office and Jefferson was inaugurated as President. There are two ways the Supreme Court can hear a case: (1) filing directly in the Supreme Court; or (2) filing in some lower court, such as a district court, and appealing all the way up to the Supreme Court. The first is an exercise of the Court's original jurisdiction; the second is appellate jurisdiction. Because Marbury filed his petition for the writ of mandamus directly in the Supreme Court, the Court needed to be able to exercise original jurisdiction over the case in order to have the power to hear it. However, the Constitution specifically enumerates in Art. III what types of cases the Supreme Court can hear under its original jurisdiction. The problem is that most legal scholars agree that Marbury's case doesn't fit under any of those types of cases. Marbury's argument is that in the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over petitions for writs of mandamus. This raises several issues that Marshall has to address: Does Art. III of the Constitution create a "floor" for original jurisdiction, that Congress can add to, or does it create an exhaustive list that Congress can't modify at all? If Art. III's original jurisdiction is an exhaustive list, but Congress tries to modify it anyway, who wins that conflict, Congress or the Constitution? And, more importantly, who is supposed to decide who wins? In his answer to this last question, Marshall creates the notion of judicial review.

Som Chounlamountry professorsom@gmail.com



Political Science 1

In analyzing the third question, Marshall first examines the Judiciary Act and determines that the Act purports to give the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over writs of mandamus. Marshall then looks to Art. III of the Constitution, which defines the Supreme Court's original and appellate jurisdictions (see Relevant Law above). Legal Scholars generally agree that Art. III enumerates certain cases over which the Supreme Court may exercise original jurisdiction, and Marbury's case does not fit under any of them. Marbury argues, however, that the Constitution was only intended to set a floor for original jurisdiction that Congress could add to. Marshall disagrees and holds that Congress does not have the power to modify the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction. Consequently, Marshall finds that the Constitution and the Judiciary Act conflict.

This conflict raises the important question of what happens when an Act of Congress conflicts with the Constitution. Marshall answers that Acts of Congress that conflict with the Constitution are not law and the Courts are bound instead to follow the Constitution, creating the principle of judicial review. In support of this position Marshall looks to the nature of the written Constitution--there would be no point of having a written Constitution if the government could just ignore it. "To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?" Marshall also argues that the very nature of the judicial function requires the Courts to make this determination. Since it is the Court's duty to decide cases, the Courts have to be able to decide what law applies to each case. Therefore, if two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide which law applies. Finally, Marshall points to the judge's oath requiring them to uphold the Constitution, and to the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which lists the "Constitution" before the "laws of the United States."

Opinions Brilliances
The opinion's brilliance lies in the way it simultaneously asserted the Court's power to hold acts of Congress unconstitutional and yet avoided a direct confrontation with the President. By giving up the power of original jurisdiction in cases not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, it seized the power of judicial review. Politically, Jefferson was forced into a corner: either agree with the ruling and use it as a justification to continue denying the Midnight Judges their commissions, or disagree with the very ruling that legitimized his action. However, there is some debate about whether Marshall was actually trying to avoid direct conflict with the President.

The decision
The decision was rendered on February 24, 1803, in a unanimous 4-0 decision.3 Chief Justice Marshall wrote the opinion of the court. Marshall presents the case as raising three distinct questions: Did Marbury have a right to the appointment? Do the laws of the country give Marbury a legal remedy? Is asking the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus the correct legal remedy?
Marshall quickly answers the first two questions affirmatively. Marshall finds that the failure to deliver the commission was "violative of a vested legal right."



Political Influences on Judicial Decisions

Outside Influences on Court Decisions
Brown 1954 With all deliberate speed Court tailored its ruling to gain popular support or dampen public resistence

Judicial Power and Democratic Government

The Debate over the Proper Role of the Judiciary
The Doctrine of Judicial Restraint respectful to
precedent and should defer the judgment of the legislatures

Strict Constructionism: apply a narrow interpretation of the law Loose Constructionism: apply an expansive interpretation of the law

Compliance Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

The Doctrine of Judicial Activism courts should

develop new legal principles,even if this action places them in conflict with policy decision of elected officials.

Inside Influences: The Justices Own Political Beliefs

The Judiciarys Proper Role: A Question of Competing Values

Som Chounlamountry professorsom@gmail.com



Political Science 1

Judicial review
The power of the federal courts to overturn or limit the enforcement of Federal or state laws or regulations that the judges determine have violated the Federal constitution. The term also covers the power of the Federal courts to overturn or limit the enforcement of state laws or regulations that the judges determine are in direct conflict with Federal laws or regulations regarding a specific subject matter where the Federal constitution gives primary jurisdiction to the Federal government. Also the power of state courts to overturn or limit the enforcement of state laws or regulations that the judges determine have violated either the Federal constitution or the constitution of their own state.

Judicial activism
The view that the Supreme Court justices (and even other lower-ranking judges as well) can and should creatively (re)interpret the texts of the Constitution and the laws in order to serve the judges' own considered estimates of the vital needs of contemporary society when the elected "political" branches of the Federal government and/or the various state governments seem to them to be failing to meet these needs. On such a view, judges should not hesitate to go beyond their traditional role as interpreters of the Constitution and laws given to them by others in order to assume a role as independent policy makers or independent "trustees" on behalf of society.

Judicial restraint
The view that the Supreme Court (and other lesser courts) should not read the judges' own philosophies or policy preferences into the constitution and laws and should whenever reasonably possible construe the law so as to avoid second guessing the policy decisions made by other governmental institutions such as Congress, the President and state governments within their constitutional spheres of authority. On such a view, judges have no popular mandate to act as policy makers and should defer to the decisions of the elected "political" branches of the Federal government and of the states in matters of policy making so long as these policymakers stay within the limits of their powers as defined by the US Constitution and the constitutions of the several states.

Supreme Court Justices

Frequently-Asked-Questions Why is it so widely expected that President Bush will nominate one or more justices to the High Court? This is one of the longest periods of stability, without a vacancy on the Court, in history. It has been nearly 8 years since the a justice stepped down - it has been 180 years since the court has gone this long with a new member. The speculation also arises from the number of justices near what is generally thought of as retirement age: Justice John Paul Stevens (80). Justices Ginsburg and Stevens have battled cancer. The more cynical political analysis posits that several of the Justices who were appointed by Republican presidents have awaited the return of the White House to G.O.P. hands before thinking of offering resignations.

Supreme Court Justices

What is the process for making a Supreme Court nomination? Unlike federal district court judgeships, where proposed nominees often traditionally originate from members of Congress, the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice is very much driven by the President and senior White House staff, with input and legwork from the Department of Justice. Starting from a "short list" of desirable or plausible candidates, staff analyze past judicial decisions, writings, speeches, employment history, and other information to develop a profile of a candidate and to identify any potential obstacles to their successful confirmation. What is the role of the Senate? Under Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution, the role of the Senate is to provide its advice and consent to a nomination. Key Senators, particularly those on the Senate Judiciary Committee, typically are consulted in advance by the White House about the merits of potential nominees. After a nomination is made, it is assigned to the Judiciary Committee. The Committee holds a public hearing and a subsequent vote is taken to report the nomination to the full Senate. A majority vote of the Senate is required to confirm a nominee.


Marbury v. Madison (1803) Established principle of judicial review McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) Strengthened national power over states Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) Decided that slaves were property and not citizens Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) Established the separate but equal doctrine Gitlow v. New York (1925) Protected free expression from state action by Fourteenth Amendment Brown v. Topeka Board of Education (1954) Abolished the separate but equal doctrine and banned segregation in public schools Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) Decided that states must provide an attorney for poor defendants accused of committing felonies Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Decided that the police must inform suspects of their rights when they are arrested Roe v. Wade (1973) Decided that women have full freedom to choose abortion during the first three months of pregnancy under the right of privacy Bush v. Gore (2000) Decided that a Florida manual recount would violate the Fourteenth Amendment

Som Chounlamountry professorsom@gmail.com



Political Science 1

Exploring the US Supreme Courts Cases

Oyez.org is database and a comprehensive online guide to the Supreme Court of the United States. It contains biographical information of both incumbent and historical justices of the United States Supreme Court, in addition to details of most Supreme Court cases. Notably, the website has original sound files of oral arguments and oral announcements of recent cases. Search for Roe v. Wade. One of the result should be a podcast. Listen Jerry Goldman talks about "Roe v. Wade". Roe v. Wade - Roe Podcast and Download MP3 File (6025913 bytes).

Som Chounlamountry professorsom@gmail.com