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 Democrats…either became

Republicans or have been replaced by republicans

- 

Conditional party government (Rohde and Aldrich) – ideological homogeneity

within each party, but ideological divergence between the parties…members

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 Rossiter’s 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 can’t safeguard liberty and minority rights.

- Court is institutionally weak and can’t 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 aren’t 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 change…”living document”