8
Evolution of Congress

Evolution of Congress. Intentions of Founders Fear of excessive power in single institution Fear of mob rule by majority Concern over representation Solution

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Evolution of Congress. Intentions of Founders Fear of excessive power in single institution Fear of mob rule by majority Concern over representation Solution

Evolution of Congress

Page 2: Evolution of Congress. Intentions of Founders Fear of excessive power in single institution Fear of mob rule by majority Concern over representation Solution

Intentions of Founders

Fear of excessive power in single institution

Fear of mob rule by majority

Concern over representation

Solution to these concerns: bicameralism 1. Creation of “upper house” in which senators elected by

state legislatures rather than people. 2. Representation concern settled by equal representation in

the Senate and proportional in the House

Belief that Congress would be dominant branch

Page 3: Evolution of Congress. Intentions of Founders Fear of excessive power in single institution Fear of mob rule by majority Concern over representation Solution

Conflict Over Distribution of Power

Basic Conflict: centralization v. decentralization

Centralization allows Congress to act quickly under several conditions (at expense of constituents) Strong central leadership w/ authority over rank and file Restrictions on debate Few opportunities for stalling tactics Minimal committee interference A streamlined legislative process Opportunity to conduct business w/ minimal public scrutiny

Page 4: Evolution of Congress. Intentions of Founders Fear of excessive power in single institution Fear of mob rule by majority Concern over representation Solution

Conflict (Cont’d)

DecentralizationWeak central leadershipFew restrictions on debateNumerous opportunities for stalling tacticsPowerful committee influenceComplicated legislative processClose public scrutiny

Page 5: Evolution of Congress. Intentions of Founders Fear of excessive power in single institution Fear of mob rule by majority Concern over representation Solution

Developments in the Senate

The Senate is a more naturally decentralized and informal body Fewer members, fewer formal rules Lack of Speaker Lack of strong Rules Committee

Democratization of Senate: passage of the 17th Amendment---> direct election of Senators

Concern over length of debate allowed on floor Use of fillibusters In 1917, Senate provided means to kill fillibusters: 3/5 vote for

cloture

Page 6: Evolution of Congress. Intentions of Founders Fear of excessive power in single institution Fear of mob rule by majority Concern over representation Solution

Recent Developments: Use of the 1st days

Election of 104th Cong.----Republican “Contract w/ America” (12 items voted on in first 100 Days)

Under Newt Gingrich (104th) some senior Republicans passed over for young, aggressive members

Under Gingrich, House adopts term limits for committee chairmen

Speaker Pelosi’s “Hundred Hours of Cong.” (2007) (minimum wage, embryonic stem cell research, implementation of

9/11 commission recommendations, cuttting of oil/gas tax breaks, cutting of student loans, allow Medicare to negotiate drug price discounts)

Page 7: Evolution of Congress. Intentions of Founders Fear of excessive power in single institution Fear of mob rule by majority Concern over representation Solution

Organizing Congress: Rules and Norms Filibuster: Unlimited debate in Senate use to avoid voting

on legislation or confirmation

Cloture: Rule declaring the end of a debate in the Senate. Three-fifths of the Senate necessary.

Hold: Senator indicates that he or she will use delaying tactics to prevent a final vote. Can be overruled by three-

fifths majority. (60 votes)

Page 8: Evolution of Congress. Intentions of Founders Fear of excessive power in single institution Fear of mob rule by majority Concern over representation Solution

Recent Developments (Cont’d)

Filibuster Issue has become controversialRepublicans complain that democrats use

of filibuster to block judicial nominations/appts is unprecedented (under Bush), but now Democrats are complaining

The facts: 79 nominees blocked under Obama; 68 total prior to Obama presidency for a total of 147