Introduction+to+GOVT+2302


 * Introduction to GOVT 2302**

Here are power points for this week's readings, use this as your primary source of information for the assessment questions. Please make sure you can not only open this, but can open the links within the slides. If you cannot, let me know soon:



Also look through these. They were put together for the GOVT 2305 class, but they apply here as well.

The notes below are supplemental, but not necessary for the assessment.

Though there is no requirement that students take 2301 prior to taking 2302, I will assume that you have. 2301 introduces key concepts that this class build upon, so certain things will just make more sense if you've taken 2302. Even if you've taken 2301, there's a reasonable chance that you have forgotten these things, so this opening section focuses on the concepts covered in 2301 that are most important for this class. After reading the material below, you should be able to answer questions on the following:

- The unalienable rights - The differences between democracies and republics - Initiative elections - The nature of legislative, executive and judicial powers - The purpose of the system of separated powers - Examples of checks and balances - The definition of federalism - The difference between the delegated, reserved and implied powers - The purpose of the Bill of Rights. - Substantive and procedural freedoms - The impact of the Fourteenth Amendment - The nature of the elections to each of the institutions established in the Constitution - The impact of political parties on the governing process - The impact of interests groups on the governing process - How Congress and the President use the media to shape public opinion

Here are some terms and phrases you should be comfortable with. Again, be prepared to answer questions that ask you to define them, or use them in some intelligible way.


 * [|government]. ([|wikipedia] )
 * [|authority].
 * [|constitution].
 * [|politics].
 * [|unalienable rights].
 * [|popular sovereignty].
 * [|consent of the governed].
 * [|tyranny].
 * [|autocracy].
 * [|oligarchy].
 * [|democracy].
 * [|tyranny of the majority].
 * [|factions].
 * [|Jacksonian Democracy].
 * [|republic].
 * [|legislature].
 * [|executive].
 * [|judiciary].
 * [|separated powers].
 * [|checks and balances].
 * [|general elections].
 * [|electoral college].
 * [|primary elections].
 * [|political parties].
 * [|federalism].
 * [|enumerated powers].
 * [|implied powers].
 * [|reserved powers].
 * [|Bill of Rights].
 * [|civil liberties].
 * [|public opinion].
 * [|ideology].
 * [|liberalism].
 * [|conservatism].
 * [|freedom of the press].
 * [|interest groups].
 * [|civil rights].


 * American government rests on the idea that governments must secure the unalienable rights of the individual, and its actions must be consented to by the governed.**

This is the statement articulated in the Declaration of Independence, and it was meant to provide a theoretically just argument in favor of revolution. Rather than being a movement pushed by hotheads out for narrow self-interest (which was probably true for some participants), the revolution represented instead another step in the march towards the establishment of free societies based on political equality. The actions of government should be oriented towards securing the unalienable rights which include, but are not limited to, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.


 * Rather than being a direct or pure democracy, the structure of government created an indirect relationship between the people and government, meaning that it was designed to be a republic, but since the country's founding, democracy has expanded considerably.**

This is a key point, and it helps us understand why government is often unresponsive to the immediate pressing interests of the populace, its designed that way. Democratic government were not held in high regard by many of the founders. Not only could it allow participation by people who had not demonstrated the ability to make good decisions (property ownership was taken to be an indication of the ability to self - govern) pure democracy was prone to mob rule. This was due to the fact that these democracies allowed small groups of people the ability to get together and decide and implement policy matters immediately. Passionate, angry crowds could then control events. This was a danger to be avoided. When the passionate mob was a majority, then there would be no mechanism in place to resist its inevitable urge to tyrannize the minority. Since a complete inability for the general population to participate at all in government could lead to rebellion, some connection could be allowed, but this had to be limited. A representative democracy -- a republic -- where people could vote for elected leaders who were then held accountable in periodic elections was considered to be the most effective way to both allow for popular participation but limit its potential for instability.

The basic difference between a republic and a democracy is the existence in the former of institutions designed to act as filters for some of the more heated and passionate preferences of the population. These institutions are our three branches of government. There is an elitist element to this structure as well. The individuals most likely to be able to get elected or appointed to these institutions were likely to be members of the social or political elite. Those further down the social order were unlikely to attain influence. Again, this was by design because its was assumed that those who were well placed had the education and the personal virtuous qualities necessary to rule well. The poorly educated and poorly bred democratic multitudes would be a source of instability and injustice. Property rights restrictions, among many others, were seen as an effective way to ensure rule by the best and brightest. But democracy grew over American history nevertheless.

Much of this expansion was due to the unique circumstances made available by the large land mass to the west. Those who were shut out from influence in the east could simply move west. With them moved the conviction that the scope of political participation ought to expand, and it did so, albeit fitfully. The states established after the ratification of the constitution tended to not have the same limits on the ability of the people to influence government. The design of the Texas governmental system is an example. There are far more institutions that where members are elected by the general population. This allows for greater control of elected public policy by the majority. In many states, though not in Texas, democratic participation has gone even further. Beginning in the late 19th Century, due to the efforts of the Progressives, many states adopted initiative, referendum, and recall elections as mechanisms where the population could have a direct say in public policy. The initiative election, for example, allows voters to collect signatures for petitions to place an item on the ballot where it can be voted for up or down by the electorate. This allows for the public to bypass the legislative branch completely. Supporters argue that these elections provide opportunities for the public to pass needed legislation that the legislature refuses to consider, but opponents maintain that these elections make reasonable debate about public issues impossible, and tend to be controlled by well funded interests that can organize the petition drives and public relations campaigns necessary to pass these items.


 * The first three articles of the Constitution are the embodiment of the system of separated powers, and a significant component of the constitutional design of the three branches concerns their powers over each other**.

Along with individual liberty and federalism, the separated powers is the most distinct feature of the American political system. The very concept begins with the idea that there are three distinct things that governments do, they make laws, they implement laws, and they adjudicate, or interpret the law. According to James Madison, the combination of legislative, executive and judicial power in the hands of one person or institution is the very definition of tyranny. If the person who implements the law can also determine what the law is and how it will be interpreted, there is every reason to believe that the government will be arbitrary and abusive. The separation of powers is designed to prevent this from occurring. The separation of the three distinct powers of government into three separate institutions is accomplished, as we will see, in the opening sections of each of the first three articles of the Constitution in the vesting clauses.

In Article One, the legislative power is vested in a Congress which is divided into a House of Representatives and a Senate. The legislative power refers to the power to pass laws, specifically statutory law. Congress is the most democratic branch, meaning that it is most susceptible to the preferences of the majority. An unchecked Congress can then be a vehicle through which the tyranny of the majority can be expressed. So the law making power must be checked, and it is the other two branches. The president can veto bills presented by Congress, and the judiciary can declare the law to be unconstitutional is it interprets it as being beyond the limits of what is allowed by the Constitution.

In Article Two, the executive power is vested in a President. It is the only power that is specifically given to one person. In Texas, the legislative power is plural, meaning that it is vested in a handful of separate institutions. To have executive power means that one has the power to implement, or oversee the implementation of the laws. This is most effectively done by vesting the power in one person, but it raises the possibility that that person can use the power abusively. The executive, more then the other institutions, has the capability to be abusive since the office contains the coercive power of the military and police. Legislative checks on executive power begin with law making itself, which can curtail the limits of executive activity, and the power of oversight, which allows Congress the ability to investigate the actions of the executive. The judiciary has the same check on the executive as it has on the legislature, judicial review. Actions performed by the executive branch have to comply with the Constitution, specifically the procedural restrictions placed on it in the Bill of Rights.

In Article Three, the judicial power is vested in a Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may ordain and establish. The judicial power refers to adjudication, the ability to resolve disputes between parties in a legal case. Often this involves the interpretation of the law, which is what we generally say is what the courts do. Since this can involve questions about what the Constitution means, the power of the courts can be considerable, at least in theory. It is up to the courts to clarify Constitutional language. The weight of this responsibility, as well as the general requirement that the courts be as neutral as possible in disputes involving litigants, led to the belief that the federal courts had to be composed of individuals who had necessary qualifications for the job. They had to be highly educated. The only way to ensure that this would be the case was to appoint, not elect, people to the judiciary.


 * The U.S. Constitution contains within it conflicts regarding the relative powers of the national and state governments. These are the delegated, implied and reserved powers). These struggles have continued over the course of American history**.

Federalism is also one of the distinct features of American government. Government operates at the national, state and local level. Constitutionally, only two have status, the national and the state. Local governments are considered to operate with the approval of the state, under a charter. Recall that state government precedes the national government in American history. The Declaration of Independence uses the plural to describe the new country (ies), and the states clearly dominate the national government under the Articles of Confederation. But in the interest of creating a solid union capable of solving common problems, national institutions were created in the Constitution, and the laws of the national government were stated to be supreme over those of the states. But the Constitution also creates at least three basic categories of powers which define, or at least attempts to define, the relationship between the national and state governments.

A delegated power is a power that is clearly written in the language of the Constitution. The term enumerated is also used. These are found primarily in Article One Section 8 of the Constitution. The section begins with the phrase " Congress shall have Power To" and then lists a series of subjects that Congress can pass laws on. Generally these are commercial and military powers, which were the two key types of powers that the Federalist wanted established on the national level.

A reserved power is a power left to the states. According to the language of the 10th Amendment, any power not delegated to the national government, nor restricted to the states, is reserved to the states. These are generally held to fall under the category of police powers, laws concerning the health, safety, welfare and morals of a community.

The two above seem clear enough, but complications emerge under the implied powers. These were powers that Alexander Hamilton claimed existed that allowed the national government to go beyond the simple written language of the Constitution and do things that related to those powers. There are two specific sources of implied powers. They are called the elastic clauses: the necessary and proper clause, and the commerce clause. This is the most controversial of the powers because it has allowed for the expansion in national powers over the course of American history. When we discuss the expanded power of the executive branch, we discuss how national power has expanded and how reinterpretations of the Constitutional language facilitated this expansion.


 * The Bill of Rights established, first, clear limits on the substantive and procedural powers of the national government, and these were applied to the states through the 14th Amendment**.

The last of the distinct principles embedded in the Constitution is individual liberty. Participants in the Philadelphia Convention thought that the system of checks and balances and delegated powers were sufficient to ensure that government would not trample on the rights of citizens. The Anti-Federalists, who opposed the idea of a new Constitution, demanded that a Bill of Rights be added to the document in exchange for their reluctant support for ratification. Most states had bills of rights, as would Texas years later. The purpose of a bill of rights is to clearly outline certain areas where the government either could not act (to say something is a right is to say that government cannot rule on it) or that they had to abide by certain procedures if they were to act against a person. These fall into two categories, substantive and procedural.

Substantive liberties are those related to the actions of a legislative body. Specifically a substantive liberty establishes what a legislature cannot pass a law on. The First Amendment famously lists six items it cannot pass laws about: establishment of religion, free exercise of religion, speech, press, peaceful assembly and the right to petition. The Second and Third Amendments also establish substantive freedoms, the right to bear arms and freedoms from troops being quartered in one's home, respectively.

Procedural liberties refer to the process by which laws, especially criminal laws, are carried out. They are contained in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eights. These apply specifically to the executive and judicial branches and place conditions on how they can search suspects, take people to trial, conduct trials and punish those convicted of crimes.

Generally the Bill of Rights is enforced in the judiciary, and can result in the Supreme Court using its power of judicial review to declare a law passed by a legislative body, or an action by the executive or judiciary unconstitutional.

The Fourteenth Amendment marked a significant transition in the impact of the Bill of Rights because prior to its ratification, it only protected people from the actions of the national government. This is the significance of the opening phrase "Congress shall make no law." States were free to do so, until the Fourteenth Amendment established that people born in the United States were citizens of the United States and their privileges and immunities could not be denied by the states. This meant that the freedoms listed in the Bill of Rights that protected people from the national government, now applied to the states as well.


 * Elections are intended to ensure that the actions of government are kept in check by the electorate, but this impact is muted by the different terms of office and different electoral mechanisms**.

In a democracy, public policy is supposed to follow public opinion, but this only happens when there is some mechanism that connects the two. Elections are that mechanism. When people go to the polls, they have the opportunity as a group to change the composition of an elected institution, and staff it with people more likely to put in place policies they agree to. But the system of separated powers is also designed to minimize the immediate, direct impact that the population can have on policy. At no time is there an opportunity for the voters to sweep all elected officials out of power. Any change that can occur will be incremental at best. This is part of the deliberate design of the Constitution and it includes distinct electoral mechanisms and different term lengths.

The United States House of Representatives is designed to be the people's branch. It was meant to be the institution that connected the national government with the people who had up until then, only thought of themselves as citizens of their respective states. Members are elected by the general population (suffrage was to be decided by the states) for two year terms. This is intended to connected representatives closely to the preferences of the general population. As the institution has evolved, each of the 435 members is elected from one of the 435 districts across the country. As a result the members are intended to be attuned to local concerns.

The United States Senate can be best thought of as the states' branch. Until the 19th Amendment established that Senators were popularly elected, state legislatures selected Senators. This meant that the Senate was responsive to the interests of the states, as defined by the state government and the interests within it, not the people of the state. Terms lengths for the Senators are six years, which gives them a greater ability to make long decisions that might upset the short terms interests held by the people. The institution as a whole is insulated from the general population with overlapping terms. Senators are divided into three classes, containing one-third of the Senators, and each class is elected separately. As a result, two-thirds of the Senate is immune from the preferences of the population.

The President is the only institution connected to the electorate of the entire country. The office has a four year term, so the office is completely immune from public pressures in every other national election. The President is also elected by an electoral college, an institution that does not have the function it was originally intended to have. The only purpose of the electoral college is to elect the President, it is dissolved after it votes.

The members of the national judiciary, including the Supreme Court, are appointed, so they have no constituency in an electoral sense. The appointment - confirmation process is designed to ensure that only individuals with the intellectual ability to adjudicate properly will be admitted, but more importantly, it is intended to ensure judicial independence. Service during good behavior is intended to underscore independence.

In fact each of the electoral schemes is intended to enhance the autonomy of each of these institutions.


 * Political parties dominate the political process, and condition the internal actions of Congress and to a lesser extent, the Presidency**.

Political parties -- while not mentioned in the Constitution, and even opposed by George Washington -- developed very quickly in the early years of the American Republic. They evolved principally within Congress as ways to organize the actions of members of Congress who shared common viewpoints. These viewpoints tended to divide into either support of the administration, as spearheaded by Alexander Hamilton, or opposition to it, under the guidance of Thomas Jefferson. Some of the earliest and longest lasting institutions in Congress are party causes, notably the Democratic Caucus, which claims to be a direct descendant of the Democratic-Republican Caucus.

The evolution of Congress has occurred hand in hand with the evolution of American political parties. Currently political parties are considered to be the dominant entities in Congress, and have effectively come to dominate the other institutions -- the constitutional officers and standing committees -- in each chamber. At the beginning of each Congress, members of each political party meet in closed door caucuses in order to vote on their leaders, who in turn dominate constitutionally established offices, like the House Speaker, and others like standing committee chairmanships. Beyond those, the bulk of offices are party positions such as floor leaders, whips, policy and steering committees and reelection committees.

Some argue that parties have become essential components of the governing process and are the only entity that can overcome the inertia built into the system of checks and balances. In order for anything to really get done, one party has to occupy both Congress and the Presidency. This way they will not simply use their powers over each other to stop actions from going forward. Instead they will cooperate, allow legislation to be passed, and then allow the public to evaluate whether the legislation was successful. The public can then cast meaningful votes for or against the party in power. Despite Washington's warnings, parties may be the only effective mechanism in place for actually establishing public policy.


 * Though the U.S. is a pluralistic democracy, meaning that groups -- more accurately interest groups -- are able to compete for influence, not all groups in society are equally able to organize and influence government. Key mechanisms for doing so are lobbying, agency capture and the submission of amicus briefs. Small cohesive, well financed groups are better able to do so than broad based, less affluent interests**.

One of the key freedoms established in the Bill of Rights is the freedom to peacefully assemble and petition government for a redress of grievances. This has two components, the first is the right of association, meaning that you can form into groups. The second is that these groups can then be used to attempt to take a complaint -- a grievance -- to a governmental institution. This is a crucially important freedom. Without the ability to take a complaint to government officials -- be they legislative, executive, or judicial -- all other rights are essentially meaningless. The right is historically important as well. King George III's refusal to hear the grievances of the colonists led to their decision to declare independence. Since then, any effort to limit the ability of people to lobby members of Congress, or to influence the conduct of executive agencies, or take a law suit forward in court, has had a despotic tinge to it. Whatever entity can prevent a group from having its interests heard can use that power to establish a tyrannical system. So like or not, the involvement of interest groups in the daily workings of government at the national, state and local level is not only constitutional, but perhaps necessary. As we discuss each of the three branches in detail, we will cover how interest groups influence the behavior of each.

The right has a dark side to it, however. Groupings of individuals are not always peaceful, or out for the greater good. Federalist #10 justifies the indirect nature of American democracy due to its ability to "break and control the violence of factions [interest groups]." A large diverse country with multiple overlapping interests will lead to the development of multiple groups competing with each other for influence. James Madison, the author of Federalist #10, seemingly assumed that the simply existence of an interest would translate into an organized group that would be able to petition for the groups interests. A more modern take on this assumption is that it is naive. Interests do not automatically translate into action. Some force -- a political entrepreneur -- has to appear and turn the interest into an effective political movement. There may be, for example, a common interest shared by workers to be paid more and have better working conditions, but this shared interest does not turn into an organized labor union until a leadership emerges that makes it happen. The same exists for business interests, social, moral, and religious organizations and the many other groups that exist in American society. The problem is, not all interests in society are equally successful in developing a strong organized groups.

Blame lies with the free rider problem, which is the tendency we all have to not work for a group goal if we feel that we benefit from the result even if exert no effort towards it. Given the option, we will free ride on the work of others. But if everyone has that same attitude, if everyone chooses to free ride, nothing gets done; there are no benefits for anyone. The strongest interest groups, the ones that are best able lobby effectively, are those that can offer potential members the strongest incentives to join up, or contribute, or to fly to Washington to lobby for their cause. A shared interest that cannot provide a similar incentive will not have the same ability to influence policymakers. Though we all have the freedom to influence public policy, we do not all have the same means to do so. As a consequence, policy tends to be biased in favor of smaller cohesive wealthy interests.

As we cover the legislative and executive branches especially, we will investigate the manner in which organized interests have become integrated into the governing system, as well as the very design of the these institutions. We will focus specifically on the development of tightly interwoven networks of interests called iron triangles, or issue networks.


 * Since democracies rest on the consent of the governed, it is vitally important for governmental institutions to mobilize public opinion behind them**. **In order to do so governmental institutions actively use the media to promote their policy proposals**.

In a democracy, public policy is supposed to follow shifts in public opinion. Often however, it happens in reverse. Public policy proposals are offered and public opinion campaigns are developed that attempt to mobilize public opinion behind those proposals. Often these efforts begin in the elections that lead to candidates acquiring public office. Members of Congress and the White House use a variety of means for evaluating the nature of public opinion and determining strategies for manipulating it. The White House has an Office of Communications that coordinates how the President presents issues to the general population. These strategies have grown more sophisticated as the media environment has evolved.

The growth of mass media, radio and television specifically, has even had an impact on the constitutional order. Through the bulk of the nineteenth century, the legislative branch was considered to be the most powerful branch in government, not just because it had the ability to set in motion the actions of government, but because its members were most likely to be able to connect with the general population. The birth of radio and television allowed the President to make a similar connection with the population and has allowed that branch a greater ability to set the government's agenda.


 * Past Written Assignments**

1. The concept of an unalienable right is a bit vague. Begin by defining what an unalienable right is (you may wish to review how it is articulated in the Declaration of Independence). Next, look through recent news stories and find examples of conflicts regarding what might be considered to be unalienable rights. Supporters of universal health care like to argue that health should be considered to be such a right. Detail the conflict and describe how the American governmental system is is handling the dispute. 2. The United States is a federal republic, meaning that both the national and state governments possess sovereign power over public policy. This leads to conflict however since it is very difficult for there to be two sovereign entities. At the end of the day one has to dominate. Get comfortable -- or reacquainted -- with the idea of sovereignty, then review the news and detail a current area of conflict. Health care, education, environmental, and immigration policies -- among many others -- are all useful areas to look. 3. The system of separated powers is enforced by the checks and balances. You may wish to re-read Federalist #51 in order to review how this works. Again, using current news events, find examples of each of the three branches checking the other. 4. Among the First Amendment freedoms is the right to petition government. Interest groups do this all the time when they lobby. The current dispute over health care has brought interest groups out of the wood work. Review recent news stories about the dispute and state what interest groups are involved in the process and what they are attempting to accomplish.