American Government Discussion
Outline
Why
are we here learning about government, politics, and law?
It’s generally agreed THE most important question as a human being
is “what is the meaning of life.” Really
what this is asking is "how am I to live?" or, "What is the best
way to live?” But the question “how am I
to live?” means, unless your alone and
isolated on a deserted island, "how am I to live with other people?". This question is usually answered by
religious and ethical philosophy. BUT
deciding how to live together necessarily means asking "what rules
should we live by?": That is, how should our society be structured? What
laws should we have? Who should have power to enforce those laws? What
limitations will there be on such enforcement (that is, what rights will people
have against arbitrary enforcement of the laws?) etc. So HIGHLY inter-related with religious and
ethical philosophy is the question "what government and laws" should
we have? Questions of government,
politics, and law are only one step (if that) removed from the deepest and most
important religious, moral, and ethical questions known to humanity.
***Thus, an understanding of
government, law and politics through the study of them all under the heading of
“political science” is FUNDAMENTALLY necessary in deciding how we should live together
as a human beings.
Moreover, education in
civics and government is essential for democracy to exist and succeed. Without
an informed electorate, democratic decisions will be based on ignorance or
emotions. Demagogues (leaders who manipulate public opinion through
lies and psychological tactics merely for their own political purposes and
advantage) will be able to convince the voting public to go along with them
(e.g. Hitler). So any democracy needs
its citizens to be informed about the powers of government, limits on powers of
government, how government works, how laws are made, what laws there are, what
the true political facts are, etc.
Otherwise, the democracy is either not a true democracy (uninformed
people will not be making genuine political choices) or it is a fragile democracy
(demagogues will be able to easily manipulate the public opinion in harmful
ways, especially by eliminating democracy, freedom, equality, etc.—again, see
Hitler).
POLITICS: “Who gets
what, when, and how.” Decisions over how
to allocate scarce resources.
Technically, politics is everywhere, not just in government—family,
office, school; Roommates—loud music, parties, dirty clothes, smoking, having
overnight guests. BUT power in society
is MOSTLY in hands of government, and so
“political
science”
studies “political power” whereas the field of sociology studies power in other
places: e.g. power in relationships, in families, in the workplace, in
organizations, etc.
WHY must POLITICAL questions (questions of power) be decided (in families,
workplace, society, etc.)?:
a. scarcity of resources (jobs, money,
health care, housing, food, land, clean water, even life
But if EVERYONE agreed on how to
use those resources, there would be no conflict, and hence, no politics. But what happens is:
b.
differences in values and priorities
what to do with those scarce resources—i.e. logging jobs versus wildlife
preservation, rights of pregnant women versus rights of fetus, health care from
government private insurance, rights of majorities versus rights of minorities
c. insistence
that one’s values and priorities dominate over others.
"Government"—is the institutions
and rules that regulate the inhabitants of a particular geographic area
ALL governments have ability to coerce obedience to its rules (fines, police,
courts, prisons, military) –that is, to force obedience to law.
e.g.
National Government, state government, local government, even school
government. If no ability to coerce, its
NOT a government.
and
in fact, government has a monopoly on the “legitimate” use of force—i.e.ONLY
entity that can force adults to obedience; i.e. no private slavery, yet
government can “legitimately” coerce you to do as it says.
Q: So why have Government? (What’s the purpose?) i.e. why not leave these
disputes in hands of private, peaceful decisionmaking
There
are several reasons people have offered throughout the years, but by far the
most commonly given reason, the most basic reason, is:
to Maintain Order: Ideally, to Prevent
violent crimes against people and property, b/c fights over scarce resources
(and other things)
so government and laws resolves conflict through
peaceful means.
____________________________________________________________
Philosophical background
to the American Revolution and the Constitution:
To understand today, you need
to understand where we came from. This
is NECESSARY to understand the DoI, and the Constitution.
OLD view of where governments
get their power and authority: up to and during middle ages, "divine
right of kings"—from Romans 13: 1-2
“"Everyone must submit
himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that
which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by
God." – NIV; god granted the king (and king's family) authority to
rule, so you couldn't disagree with king because that would be to disagree with
god. That’s HERESY/BLASPHEMY.
John Locke (English Philosopher) Two Treatises on Government
(1690) ***NOT first one to think of all these concepts, but developed them most
fully, presented most clearly and forcefully: Treatise One: Spends entire treatise rejecting divine right
theory.
Treatise Two: State of nature=pre-society
anarchy. People were born with
god-given, inalienable natural rights—life, liberty, property,
but state of nature left those rights unprotected. Government would protect life, liberty, and
property—so people enter into a "social contract"--mutually
agree to government (a “Civil Society”) for own mutual advantage
and protection; ONLY reason government exists is to protect your natural
rights: legitimate government power is
based on consent of the governed (popular sovereignty) because
the creator must be greater than the creation; thus, people have right to
change government if rulers break the social contract by interfering
with natural rights rather than protecting natural rights. (people are then free to withdraw their consent
from the current government (abolish the current government) and put in new
government.
Social Contract theory: No government (anarchy, "State of nature")
but have natural rightsà but violence between individuals (insecure protection for natural
rights)à so people form
"social contract"; "Civil Society" (government) to protect
rightsàpopular sovereignty
(people are supreme, so the only legitimate power comes from consent of
governed)à right to abolish
government (if govt. breaks social contract and infringes on natural rights)
***I.E.
choose freedom over order because people can be trusted more than government.
NOTE that is a RADICAL idea. It directly repudiates divine right theory based on Romans
13:1-2, saying part of the Christian New Testament is absolutely false. AND calls into question the authority of
every ruler then existing on the planet, saying everyone one of them is
illegitimate.
E.G. Mayflower Compact first
example of social contract by Europeans in
American
American colonies were not given any representation
or voting rights in the English parliament, yet they were taxed and otherwise
economically exploited by
At first the colonists hoped
for negotiation to end the fighting, so it was really a “war for
representation” and not a “war for independence” but eventually the colonists gave up hope and
called for independence 1776; publicly announced on July 4 (Declaration of
Independence was sort of like a press release).
This was a RADICAL idea at the time because such a thing had
never been done before. This challenged the authority of EVERY national
government then existing on the planet... So they needed to philosophically
justify this to the world.
***The Declaration of
“We hold these truths to be
self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and
the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are
instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is
the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new
Government . . .” (without citing him; i.e. plagiarism.);
Then
DoI gives a detailed list how
***DoI
is so important NOT because it’s historical (which it is) but because of
philosophical principles and applications in it....
***The Declaration of
And
the entire rest of the world governments were on the side of
Q: What government did new
1.Who rules? (based on Number of rulers)
a.
Autocracy--rule by one (e.g.
monarchy=royalty (king/queen); dictator) (Alexander Hamilton wanted a
monarchy.)
b.
Oligarchy--rule by elite few (e.g aristocracy=rule by best, plutocracy=rule by wealthy, theocracy=rule by religious rulers; e.g.
c.
***Democracy--rule by people (many/everyone (in theory))
2. Central/regional
govt? 3 types of government based on division of power between
national/central govt. and regional (subnational) govts:
a. Unitary government--
b. Confederal government--UN,
Confederate States of
c. Federal
government--US,
Articles of Confederation(1777-89)--"confederation" was first Social contract of U.S. Was also
first “constitution” they just didn’t call it that.
BUT AoC created only VERY WEAK
national government:
*(1) no power to tax--had to ASK states to give it
money, and couldn't pay Revolutionary War debts
*(2) couldn't regulate interstate or foreign
commerce, and had no power over states, so states imposed tariffs against each
other, states had conflicting business regulations, refused to order citizens
to pay debts to non-citizens, states could create own money if wanted, states
could make foreign commerce treaties.
The
*(3)
no ability to raise an army to protect against British, Spanish, or even
pirates.
(4) states could make foreign treaties or break US
treaties
(5) no independent, executive leader position
(6) no courts.
(7) decisions had to be by supermajority (9/13
states)
(8) couldn't amend without unanimous agreement of 13
states.
NOTE: not until late 1781 that Revolutionary War
was won by the
BUT delegates soon realized
the Articles of Confederation were hopelessly beyond repair, and needed a WHOLE
NEW social contract. A few delegates
disagreed and left the convention out of protest, and later made public
statements and writings in protest. But
most agreed, and made:
***Second Social Contract of
SO WHY did we bother to learn
AoC? Because almost everything that was put into the Constitution was based on
the failures of the AoC. So learning
about the AoC tells us LOTS about the intent behind the Constitution, and
disagreement over the intentions STILL is big in politics today.—Both sides of
issues surrounding the President, Congress, Supreme Court, powers of State
governments, ALMOST ALWAYS refer to “intentions” of the framers and ratifiers
of the Constitution (original intent or original understanding).
KEY ELEMENTS OF CONSTITUTION: DIFFERED from AoC:
1.***MORE
power was given to the national government than AoC (tax, regulate commerce,
have an army, )
2.
FEDERAL system
3.
legislature AND added executive and judicial branches Article I: Legislature;
Article II: Executive; Article III: Courts
4.
Amendments: Easier to do (will look at
in more detail when we look at Bill of Rights)
From the records of the
debates during the Constitutional Convention, we know that the delegates pushed
their own agendas, and
EVERYTHING in the Constitution
was a political compromise; it was not “divinely inspired” and no “magic formula”
was used. Like hot dogs: you really
don’t want to know how they’re made. It
looks and tastes good from the outside, but it was made through a lot of
down-and-dirty political haggling in the mud.
But: 3 BIG Compromises: these were the toughest agreements
to reach and biggest fights were over these issues: national power over states, big versus small
states, and slavery. 2 of these almost caused convention to break up.
ISSUE 1: A. All agreed
the national government needed some additional
power over the States, but how much more?
Options: (1) UNITARY abolish
the states and have a unitary system (
(2) National POLICE POWER (from VERB “to
police” (to oversee): like a blanket grant of power;
keep
the states but let nat’l govt. make whatever laws it wants
(3)
E.G. could say states get education,
crime, and health care, national government gets all others.
(4) FEW FEDERAL POWERS,
E.G. could say national government
gets military, interstate commerce, states get all others.
(5)
STATES NEGATIVE FEDS let states "negative" (Veto) national laws –this would be the return of
confederalism.
They chose number 4: 1-3 too
strong; 5 return to confederalism, and that failed. So 4: just enough additional national power
to create federalism.
Why is this important? Because (as we shall see) National government
has evolved to have the police power (#2) and this is still considered highly
controversial and is highly debated in politics. Again, notice the difference: If a teachers leaves
class for a few minutes and says “do whatever you want” you have the police
power. If the teacher say “you can study
readings or compare notes together, but that’s all” you have enumerated powers.
This was now a FEDERAL form of
government – powers are divided between national and state governments, but
national govt supreme. Thus, theory of Limited Government: national government is limited in its powers,
less is better philosophy towards government.
ISSUE 2: How states should
be represented in national legislature?
Must keep in mind that early
loyalties were to states, not “
A.
B. Virginia Plan (by Edmund
Randolph) –large states wanted representation in legislature in proportion to
population, thought unfair that small states should get disproportionate vote
and decide how large state’s tax money gets spent.
C. "Great Compromise" (aka Connecticut Compromise)--BICAMERAL
(2-chamber) legislature--HOUSE (population) and Senate (states—2 votes); Laws
must be passed by BOTH chambers, BUT “All Bills for raising Revenue shall
originate in the House of Representatives.” A 1. s. 7
Congress= House + Senate
ISSUE 3. What to do about
Slavery? : Delegates BITTERLY DIVIDED
over slavery—convention almost broke up.
A. HOW
TO COUNT SLAVES IN THE POPULATION (FOR
DETERMINING REPRESENTATION IN HOUSE OF REPS)
1.
Slave states wanted to count slaves in apportioning seats in House of Rep;
otherwise, North had larger free population and could out-vote South on
regulating or outlawing slavery, so south was ADAMANT about counting slaves;
1790
data: Southern states: slaves were 33%
of population; VA 42%, SC 43%.
2.
Non-slave states wanted slaves not be counted—hypocritical that slaves
are property yet get counted as people; gave Southern whites disproportionately
(and thus unfair) large vote;
3.
"3/5 Compromise": each slave counts as 3/5 of a person in determining
how many FREE WHITE representatives each Southern State receives “and direct
taxes). NO RIGHTS given to slaves—e.g. NOT 3/5 vote by the slave. NOTICE
that this encouraged, rewarded the South
for having MORE slaves—more slaves=more representation Southern states would
receive in the House of Reps.
B. Escaped slaves?—Fugitive Slave Clause Article IV, Section 2. South didn’t want slaves to have a reason to
escape to North, so insisted on requirement that North would have to return any
escaped slaves: “No Person held to
Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another,
shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such
Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such
Service or Labour may be due.” Note it
only says “claim” and not “evidence” or “proof.” This led to many (hundreds? thousands?) of free
blacks being taken into slavery on false claims. See Solomon Northup, Twelve Years a Slave.
C. SLAVERY REGULATION?—Can Congress regulate slavery as “commerce” according
to the Constitution’s Commerce Clause? North: Congress should have power to regulate
slavery. South: Congress should not have power to regulate
slavery. Compromise: No laws could restrict IMPORT of slaves until
1808 (20 year's time had passed). I.E.
INTERNATIONAL slave trade could be banned after 1808. This would give South 20 years to bring in
enough slaves to continue slave trade without capturing new slaves.
“The Migration or
Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think
proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one
thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such
Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.” Art. I, sec. 9 Basically, they were unable to reach a
compromise, and realized the U.S. would split up if they tried to force a deal
then, so they put the issue off for twenty years for the next generation of
leaders to deal with in the future and hopefully come up with a good compromise
then (of course, that never happened, as we eventually had the Civil War.)
*** Constitutional delegates
avoided using term "slave" or "slavery," in Constitution,
because realized it's unseemliness. Instead, used terms like “free and . . .
other persons” or “persons held to service or labor.” or “importation of
persons.” ARTICLE I, SECTIONS 2, 9
Now that we have looked at some of the big
compromises, including slavery, this makes it a good place/time to talk about:
INCONSISTENCY OF THE
FRAMERS: The American
founders were human beings, and like all human beings, they were not
perfect. Like everyone else then and
now, they often had mixed motives, had to reach political compromises given
what was reasonably feasible at the time, and thus did not always apply their
moral ideals consistently. Thus, on the
one hand they were political geniuses and established a nation based on the great
ideals of freedom and equality. On the other hand, the founders did not live
their lives completely consistent with those ideals. For example, Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the
Declaration of Independence and said “all men are created equal,” owned many slaves
and never freed them, not even in his will upon death. There are some course readings that
illustrate this inconsistency mostly from the perspective of those at the time
(late 1700’s and early 1800’s) who wanted equal treatment for themselves.
1. Deleted paragraph of Declaration of
Independence—criticized King for slave trade; removed because of realized
hypocrisy
2. Petition by slaves to
3. Benjamin Banneker’s letter to Thomas Jefferson
(and reply)—blacks are as intelligent as whites, and deserve equality
4. Frederick Douglass: What to a Slave is the Fourth
of July—total hypocrisy of white “Christian” majority.
5. Abigail Adam’s correspondence with husband John
Adams—John Adams scoffs at Abigail’s request for women’s rights
6.
7. Words of Chief Joseph—leader of Nez Perce Nation,
speech to Congress: peace treaties repeatedly broken by
8. Trail of Tears—Cherokee Nation driven from the
South at gunpoint; thousands died.
9. John Adams letter—showing his disdain for giving
vote to poor (white) men; comparing them to women and children.
It’s important to note,
though, that the American founders understood when they established the
principles of democratic liberty and equality, that the
“It may be argued that there are certain conditions
that make necessities and impose them upon us, and to the extent that a
necessity is imposed upon a man he must submit to it. I think that was the
condition in which we found ourselves when we established this Government. We
had slaves among us, we could not get our Constitution unless we permitted them
to remain in slavery, we could not secure the good we did secure if we grasped
for more; and having by necessity submitted to that much, it does not destroy
the principle that is the charter of our liberties. Let the charter remain as
our standard.” A. Lincoln, 7th Lincoln-Douglass Debate,
See also,
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ratification Debate: At the end of the summer of
1787, the Constitution was just a proposal, and had to be debated publicly and
ratified by state conventions if it was going to take effect. Those who wanted strong central government,
and thought the proposed Constitution added the right amount of additional power
to the national government compared to the Articles of Confederation, supported
the Constitution, and adopted the name "FEDERALISTS" to imply
they wanted a true division of powers between the states and the national
government.
The “ANTI-FEDERALISTS” opposed
the constitution, arguing that TOO MUCH additional power had been given to the
new national government in the proposed Constitution. In reality “federalists”
were more like "unitarians" than "federalists" and
Anti-federalists were really "confederalists" So really was
“unitarians" versus the "Confederalists."
Anti-federalist arguments--"Brutus," and "The Federal
Farmer" “Cato,” “An Old Whig,” but many others: COMMON THEME: national
government would be too powerful:
standing armies would oppress; Congressional power to set own times of
elections would let it take permanent control by cancelling elections; the
president might serve for life and become like a king; supreme court would have
final say over interpretation of laws with no power to stop them;
"necessary and proper" clause would lead to national power and
elimination of state sovereignty.
Federalist Papers: mostly James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, a little from John Jay
("PUBLIUS") responded to Anti-federalist arguments. They systematically argued in a series of 85
papers that constitution was best possible constitution. BETTER ORGANIZED THAN ANTI- Federalists, and
wrote more completely, systematically, in favor of Constitution. According to proposed, Constitution, 9/13
states were needed to ratify the Constitution—to make it take effect as the new
social contract.
Federalists NARROWLY won
ratification (formal adoption) of the new Constitution—came down to a handful
of votes in a couple state conventions, and once the 9 state threshold was
reached, the rest joined so that they wouldn’t be left out, as they knew they
couldn’t make it on their own. Last
state ratified in 1789. BUT there were
several MAJOR issues that were debated, ***WHICH ARE STILL MAJOR ISSUES
DEBATED TODAY.......*** THAT”S WHY WE”RE GOING TO STUDY THEM.... ***AND as we’ll see, many people today think
the Anti-federalists turned out to be correct on many points... (or that the
future showed both the Feds. and Anti-feds. were partly correct.
In other words, as is the
situation in most cases, the truth between different sides is somewhere in the
middle.
PREAMBLE to the
Constitution: incorporates Locke’s social contract theory:
basically declares that the Constitution is a social contract.
popular sovereignty: “We the
People, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice and
ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the
general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of
America.”: Constitution is social
contract formed by people for their own mutual protection benefit, so people
are sovereign/supreme over govt., not other way around.
Rule of Law: if people are sovereign/supreme, then even government
must follow the law. I.E. govt. is UNDER
the law, not ABOVE the law.
***If the
NATURE OF DEMOCRACY
1. TWO KINDS OF
DEMOCRACY classified by who is
making (voting on) the proposed laws.
a. PARTICIPATORY/DIRECT/PURE--ALL meet to decide—e.g. state REFERENDUMs (mostly
in Western states) where public votes on proposed laws listed on the ballot
during regular elections; New England town hall meetings (over 1,000
small towns in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode
Island).
b. REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY (REPUBLIC)--elect representatives who meet to decide on, vote on,
make laws.
Why? Infeasible to have all people meet in one
place if too large of a group... Thomas Paine, Common Sense—people on island
meet first all together; then as too many, elect representatives to meet.
Why is this an issue? A
democracy of such a large scale (both size and population) had NEVER been
attempted in the history of the world, and many people said it could NOT be
done. So this was a serious argument against
forming the
Brutus No. 1 Brutus had
several objections in No. 1, but one was very powerful so
Big Republicàtoo many peopleàtoo many interestsà no agreementà GRIDLOCK (a grinding halt, paralysis, which is BAD)
i.e. representatives will be pulled in a thousand
different directions at once, and not be able to agree on anything.
A. FACTION=group whose interest is adverse to
the community; Group that acts in own selfish interest, “just looking out for
themselves” rather than what’s in the common/public/society’s best interest.
(TODAY: SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS/Parties)
Thus, factions are DANGEROUS b/c if get control of
govt., will make laws that are corrupt and oppress/abuse people.
B. Controlling Factions: How do you create a
government that controls factions (minimizes their danger?)
1. Remove Causes (eliminate their
existence) (like withholding water and sunlight from a weed)
a. Remove all
liberty, thus faction’s can’t form (freedom of association). --Remedy worse
than the problem.
b. Make everyone’s
interest equal—then factions have no reason to exist. –Impossible.
2. Limit Effects (because removing
their causes is not a viable option), so minimize their danger.
a. Protection against
minority factions: majority outvotes
minority
b. Protection against majority
factions: direct democracy is no protection, as majority faction could outvote
minorities. so
you need Republic, because
i.
representatives are wise, benelovent and will not vote as factions want.
ii.
BUT there a SMALL republic is easy to take over, so a LARGE republic is
better.
1. fewer reps per population, so smaller proportion of
reps will be the VERY wisest/best
2.
harder to manipulate elections with such large area
***3.
so many diverse interests, can’t unify into a majority faction (no ONE group
can take control) THIS IS THEORY OF PLURALISM.... ***One of the key
principles of American democracy:
competing groups balance each other out, no one group is able to gain
control, and thus liberty is protected because the only laws that can passed
are laws that everyone agrees is good.
***THUS< GRIDLOCK IS GOOD.......***
This theory of pluralism which explains American democracy is so closely
tied to Madison, this theory of U.S. democracy is often referred to as MADISONIAN
DEMOCRACY.
Notice it’s a THEORY, because
it hasn’t and doesn’t always work in practice (witness American history for
examples—e.g. slavery, segregation, genocide of Native Americans, putting
Japanese Americans in concentration camps during WWII, oppression of women,
discrimination against gays and lesbians, etc.)
James Madison, Vices of the Political System of the 
Papers
9:350--51 :
“3. Where
slavery exists the republican Theory becomes still more fallacious.”
NOTICE: Both Madison and Brutus agree that the
OVERALL STRUCTURE OF THE
Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances (READ:
MONTESQUIEU, Federalist 51)
Locke’s
theory justified the EXISTENCE of government, Montesqieu’s theory justified the
STRUCTURE of government.
Baron de Montesqieu—French political philosopher, “On the Spirit of Laws”
1748
ANY AND ALL government is
dangerous: “every man invested with power is apt to abuse it” Government is
humans, and humans are at root selfish—“Power corrupts, and absolute power
corrupts absolutely” i.e. Can’t trust anyone...
all humans selfishàgovernment is humansàall government corruptàall government dangerous
SO
how minimize risk? i.e. how can you
build the structure of government to minimize the risk that selfish rulers will
abuse power?
1. Divide government functions into legislative,
executive, and judicial subunits/divisions/BRANCHES This is SEPARATION OF
POWERS: major functions of government are placed in different branches of
overall government.; AND
2. give each a check on each one another: executive “rejects” legislature’s laws,
legislature “impeaches” executive, and legislature is two bodies, one for
people and one for “nobles.” This is CHECKS
AND BALANCES: government branches in
a system of SoP have built-in ability to block or influence actions of other
branches (sub-units/divisions) of government ***DO NOT confuse SoP with
C+B—they’re highly related, but different concepts. SoP can exist without C+B, but C+B is
addition to SoP. (like a hat can rest on a person’s head, but can’t float on
its own)
AMERICAN SoP/C&B: Framers agreed in part with BOTH Hobbes AND Locke:
didn’t trust EITHER people OR govt...
So, framers of Constitution
feared masses, AND government (after experience with
Separation of Powers:
1. Article I: Legislature (bicameral CONGRESS)—makes
laws, "enumerated
powers"--levy taxes, coin money, regulate interstate commerce, raise army,
and "implied powers"--do anything "necessary and proper"
(necessary and proper clause a.k.a. the elastic clause) to execute its
authority.
2. Article II: Executive (THE PRESIDENT)—enforces
laws, Commander-in-chief of military,
negotiates and signs treaties
3. Article III: Judiciary (THE SUPREME COURT)—interpret
laws (federal laws and Constitution)
Checks & Balances:
President vetoes bills passed by Congress and nominates Supreme
Court judges
Congress: overrides vetoes, creates courts, House
impeaches President and judges, Senate tries impeachments (2/3 vote to
convict), confirms Supreme court judges, confirms executive appointments,
ratifies treaties (2/3 vote to ratify); because bicameral, each chamber can
block other chamber’s proposed laws
Supreme Court reviews acts of President and Congress
JUDICIAL REVIEW: ability of a court to
declare actions by other branches of government unconstitutional (and hence
void). IMPLIED by Supremacy Clause (more on this later when we focus on
the Supreme Court in more detail)
***SoP/C&B chooses liberty
OVER efficiency—I.E. framers of Constitution KNOWLINGLY INTENTIONALLY
CONSCIOUSLY PURPOSESLY DELIBERATELY CREATED INEFFICIENT GOVERNMENT to
maximize protection of liberty....
FUNDAMENTAL...
Compare to
So, TODAY, our government IS
inefficient. People OFTEN complain our
***FUNDAMENTAL foundations of
Constitutional DEMOCRACY Prior to 1787,
political thinkers believed you could not have democracy (rule by the people)
AND the Rule of Law, because the uneducated, impulsive masses would act
irrationally and quickly and impose arbitrary TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY. Philosophers like Hobbes argu ed in Leviathan
that government need to be be strongly authoritative, ruling with iron fist, to
control masses. Framers of U.S.
Constitution didn’t trust either people OR government. In other words, they
agreed with Hobbes, Locke, Montesqieu about human nature being untrustworthy.
So, THIS IS THE POINT OF OUR CONSTITUTION: TO LIMIT THE POWERS OF GOVERNMENT. Philosophy of LIMITED GOVERNMENT. If you don’t care how much power the
government has or what it does, you don’t need any piece of paper. The very reason to write things down is to
put both substantive and procedural limitations on the powers of
government.
SO, framers of U.S.
Constitution created complex,
inefficient system of government that made it hard for masses OR government
(either by non-virtuous masses or by non-virtuous minority) to impose tyranny: Government of enumerated powers, Separation
of Powers, Checks and Balances,
bicameral legislature,
federalism, a large-sized Republic (representative rather than direct
democracy), a Bill of Rights, separation of church and state, staggered
elections, etc. As explained in
After
ANTIFEDERALISTS said this was too inefficient, OR that too much
power was given to the branches to interfere or override other branches.
Fed 51 (Hamilton OR Madison): “If men were angels, no
government would be necessary.” But if men could control men, government must
control itself. So, divide government
into offices legislature—2 branches, executive “negative” over legislature, and
federal system divided between states and central/national government. Also, in larger republic, more diverse
interests (factions) so that majority coalition is rare.
NOTE: The required Ninth state
ratified the Constitution in 1789, so the Constitution officially took effect
1789. Now that we’ve looked at it’s
beginnings, we’ll look at it’s components in much more depth and detail:
federalism, the bill of rights, and the branches of government.
FEDERALISM: (READ: Federalist 45, 46 Anti-federalists
(Brutus, An Old Whig (“Where Then is the Restraint”))
Inter-governmental relations between
LEVELS not ARENAS of government
RECALL:
Compromise of New Constitution was FEDERAL system of government
1.
National Government of ENUMERATED Powers (tax, commerce, armies,
but also with IMPLIED powers from the Nec. and Proper
Clause in Article I, sec. 8)
and Constitution and Federal law is SUPREME over states
(Supremacy clause)
2.
State governments of RESERVED powers (10th Amendment).
Q. So why not just rid
of states? –i.e., What was basic purpose in having power
divided between 2 levels? Why federal, not unitary govt?
1.
liberty: part of system of checks and
balances—factions less likely to control BOTH state and fed govts, thus hard
for them to become oppressive, so federalism preserves liberty-- feared a
strong federal government would oppress the states (like England had done) so
wanted to give central government only limited powers
2. public good: thought states would better
address local matters—states are LABORATORIES OF DEMOCRACY
big experiment, can make 50 attempts at education
reform; see what works and what doesn’t, then other states adopt.
BUT Anti-federalists argued
that Constitution would go TOO FAR and let federal govt. become more like
unitary govt. . .
Brutus No. 1, An Old Whig: Anti-fed arguments focused on:
1. Necessary and Proper clause as dangerously expanding federal power over
states (would let Congress declare that ANYTHING is “necessary and
proper.” 2. Federal law is SUPREME under
Supremacy Clause
***Thus,
1+2=3: federal government could
practically abolish states and states couldn’t stop that.
EVOLUTION OF FEDERALISM (***ever greater federal power
(balance of power increasing to federal, lessening to states)
1787 Federalism Compromise: give Congress list of specific powers, ("ENUMERATED
POWERS") but broad limits to those powers (Article I,
section 8)
1. TAX: -"to lay and collect
taxes . . ."
2. SPEND: -"to provide for the
common Defence and general Welfare of the
3. COMMERCE: COMMERCE CLAUSE
-" to regulate Commerce with
foreign Nations, and among the several States"
4. RAISE ARMIES:-"to raise and
support Armies"
5. IMPLIED POWERS: NECESSARY AND
PROPER CLAUSE (like a catchall provision)
-"to make all Laws which shall
be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing Powers"
6. SUPREMACY OVER STATE GOVERNMENTS: SUPREMACY
CLAUSE (Art. VI)
-ART. VI: "This Constitution,
and the laws of the
7. 10th Amendment
of Bill of Rights (ratified 1791) said:
"The powers not delegated to the
E.g. health care, education, criminal law,
contract law, tort law, property rights, family law (marriage, divorce, child
custody/support), environment, regulating local and state businesses,
employment and labor law, etc.
Evolution
of federal power Diagram (tiny circles on top, big circles on bottomàhuge circle on top, tiny circles on bottom)
1. CIVIL WAR (1861-1865)
victory by North destroyed South’s theory that we were a confederal system of
government in which states could secede (leave) the
2. GREAT DEPRESSION: Until the Great Depression, state and federal
governments had separate and distinct
powers/ policy areas; no overlap); Supreme said Court said Congress was
supreme, but in limited policy areas (e.g. no employment, health, environ.,
educ., crime, family, etc.)
a. GREAT DEPRESSION (1929-1941)
economy was so bad, states couldn’t cope; people wanted national government to
take action,
b. Elected FDR (1932)
who promised action; Congress passed NEW DEAL
c. BUT Sup.
AND Commerce Clause
only allowed direct interstate commerce, not local state activities that just
indirectly affected interstate commerce.
i.e. Congress had no sword (Commerce Clause), and
even if it did, the states had a shield (10th Am.)
d. SO, FDR came up with "COURT-PACKING PLAN"—1937
appoint NEW ADDITIONAL justices to supreme court.
e. CPP opposed by public +
Congress, BUT only weeks later, Court said 10th Amendment
meaningless, did NOT act as any legal barrier.
f. BUT if fed. govt. is
enumerated powers, where power to enact NEW DEAL? National govt. argued, and sup. crt.
accepted, under COMMERCE CLAUSE, because ALL HUMAN ACTIVITY (EVERYTHING) effects
the economy in some small way.
g. Obamacare U.S.S.C. tax
ruling (2012): anything you don’t do can be taxed.
g. Thus, today with a FEW TINY
TECHNICAL exceptions, fed. govt. has POLICE POWER under Commerce Clause
and Tax Clause
h. Since 1937 New Deal laws still today—e.g. HUGE budget
items: Medicare, Social Security to help people with economic security --U.S. now JOINTLY regulates in areas that
used to be ONLY state areas—employment, health care, environment, education,
crime, etc. Now LOTS fed laws. LOTS.
Some say good, some say bad. Same arguments that Feds and Anti-feds
argued.
i. PREEMPTION: federal law (“X”) pre-empts
(overrides/supersedes) any inconsistent state law (“not-X”) (either expressly
inconsistent or impliedly inconsistent) by action of the Supremacy Clause—e.g
environmental rules, medical marijuana, doctor-assisted suicide
But besides the federal
government doing something directly, it can also make the state do it
4. REVENUE SHARING—when
the national government gives money to state and local governments. Recall in the New Deal, the states couldn’t
handle the problems of the depression.
The federal government began to share it’s money with the states, but
this REALLY increased in the 1960’s and 1970’s.
Fed. Govt. gives tax money to states and cities. citizensàcities, states, fed govt; fed govt.à state govt. and cities.
TODAY: varies by state and
year, but roughly 25%. Cities: combined
from Fed, state govt.: roughly 33%
GRANTS-IN-AID name for specific revenue sharing program (specific
money for specific purpose). Usually
just “federal grant.” TWO
BASIC TYPES:
1. BLOCK grants (few or no restrictions) 1995 Crime
bill-money to police departments
2. CATEGORICAL grants (many conditions/restrictions) e.g. 1995 Crime
bill--money to hire police officers
SO WHY does revenue sharing increase federal power?
categorical grants have SPENDING CONDITIONS—state can’t take money unless
agree to them, and states can NOT afford not to take the money... e.g. Louisiana was the last state to hold out
against raising the drinking age to 21 (tourism is a big part of New Orleans,
especially the French Quarter and Bourbon Street/Mardi Gras), BUT highway funds
in Louisiana are DESPARATELY needed.
SD v. Dole(1987) . -no
highway funds unless 21 drinking age (1984) Sup. Crt said states are free to
decline $ if they want.
-no highway funds
unless 55 m.p.h. speed limit (repealed 1997)
-no highway funds
unless .08 BAC (blood alcohol content) 2000
-no medicare/medicaid
money unless state programs meets satisfaction of Dept. of Health and Human
Services
***NEVER been a SINGLE example of ANY state that’s
been able to hold out in the long run against ANY spending condition.
5. UNFUNDED MANDATES:
Congress tells the states they have to do something, yet provides no money to
help them do it. (because its politically and financially convenient for
Congress). Examples:
-Americans with
Disabilities Act--remodeling of state/local govt. bldgs.
-pollution controls
(municipal drinking water purity) (Clean Water Drinking Act?)
-Motor Voter (voter
registration at driver's license or welfare offices)
-No Child Left Behind
(school testing and student performance requirements)
--Homeland Security
(police, firefighter, hospital emergency response preparedness)
6. SUMMARY: TODAY
A.
Federal Government ALMOST has the POLICE POWER (instead of enumerated
powers) under COMMERCE CLAUSE
don’t need rest of enumerated
powers in Art. I, sec. 8 because ALL HUMAN ACTIVITY AFFECTS THE ECONOMY
Remember
B. Supremacy clause—PRE-EMPTION (superseding
of state laws) EITHER express OR IMPLIED... e.g. medical marijuana
C.
Anything fed. govt. can’t do directly, it achieves by coercing states
using CONDITIONS ON REVENUE SHARING, or
by imposing unfunded mandates.
D. 10th
Amendment essentially
meaningless/useless today; Supreme Court has said the states have no legal
protection in the Constitution from the national govt.; the ONLY thing that
protects the states is the political process; i.e. if they have political support
from the people or not.
***** What does all this
evolution of
***EXAM 1 COVERAGE ENDS
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________
***EXAM 2 COVERAGE
BEGINS
Civil Liberties/Civil
Rights Main text of the Constitution
listed/enumerated the powers of the government (Article I, section 8). Most constitutions also have a Bill of
Rights lists powers that government
does NOT have; i.e., list of things people can do free from GOVERNMENT
interference. LIMITS on government
power. Bill of Rights applies only to
GOVERNMENT, NOT TO PRIVATE individuals, business, schools, organizations, etc.
–can kick anyone out of your house you want because you don’t like their
beliefs, what they’re saying, etc.
***Because a Bill of Rights is limitations on GOVERNMENT, BoR DOES NOT
APPLY TO PRIVATE ACTION (persons, business, private university, churches, etc.... You can kick anyone out of your home if you
don’t like their opinion, their race, their religion, and it does NOT violate
the Constitution. Also, legislatures are
free to make laws that bar private discrimination (in education, employment,
housing).
BIGGEST WEAKNESS of proposed
Constitution was no BoR-- stumbling block to ratification of the
constitution: Federalists didn’t want to
open up the drafting process again, so they pushed for ratification AS IS
without a BoR. This meant any BoR would have to be amendments.
BRUTUS No.2: A. ALL
GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE BILL OF RIGHTS:
1.When social contract was formed, individuals didn’t
surrender all of their “natural rights.”
2. Surrender of all rights is unnecessary for
government to operate, AND
3. Reservation of rights needed to
prevent against tendency of all rulers to abuse power for selfish gain by
oppressing people
B. (Response to
Federalist 84:
His main argument: a Bill of
rights is DANGEROUS, because listing some rights implies lack of other rights
(i.e. Congress DID have power)
e.g. I say "you have a right to use blue or
black pen on exams" directly implies you don’t have a right to use red
pen.
Several states likely would
NOT ratify w/o BoR, so Federalists reached a bargain/compromise with some (NOT
ALL) of anti-federalists: Federalists promised that if anti-federalists
supported ratifying the constitution, FIRST thing new U.S. government would do
would be to send a proposed Bill of Rights to the states (as amendments). Even though ultimate votes in many states were
razor-thin victories, enough anti-federalists were convinced to support the
Constitution that Constitution was ratified (9/13). And even many of the states (VA, NY, NC, RI)
listed in their ratification declarations certain basic rights of the people; especially
the freedom of the press and a right of conscience (religious liberty).
RECALL
that Amendments: (modification/revision) 2-step process, each
step having two alternatives, so 4 different ways total:
1.
Formal proposal: 2/3 Congress (both
chambers) OR 2/3 States call single
national convention which proposes amendment,
2.
Ratification: ¾ states legislatures OR 3/4 states in separate, individual
conventions approve the proposal.
Always used: 2/3 congress,
then ¾ states. EXCEPT 21st
Amendment (repeal of prohibition), which was 2/3 Congress, ¾ state Conventions
In 220 years, thousands of
amendments proposed, only 27 amendments made it through process. ***AND, given 10 amendments were added by
1791, there have been only 17 amendments in over 200 years... Thus, amending the Constitution is a VERY
politically difficult process. Recent
failures: equal rights amendment, school prayer amendment, flag burning
amendment, balanced budget amendment, campaign finance amendment, electoral
college amendment.
17 rights were proposed by
Madison (natural rights including right to revolt because power derived from
people; strict separation of powers); Congress passed 12 (#
constituents/representative; congressional pay); states approved 10 (arbitrary
number): BILL OF RIGHTS (1791).
1st AMENDMENT: "Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress
of grievances." ***ABSOLUTELY
NECESSARY FOR DEMOCRACY TO FUNCTION...
Can’t have democracy without freedom of speech.
Most important right in a
democracy—without ability to discuss public policy issues, or debate
effectiveness of government leaders, citizenry can't make informed choices, and
thus can't reasonably exercise right of vote.
Can't self-govern if can’t discuss how you should be governed
2nd Amendment—“right to bear
arms”—highly debated today; historical evidence highly mixed but consider the
“Dissent of the Pennsylvania Minority” (who disagree with their state’s ratification
of the U.S. Constitution because, among other things, it had no bill of rights,
and proposed a bill of rights that included the following: “That the people have a right to bear arms
for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for
the purpose of killing game.” Supreme
Court ruled it an individual right in 2008 case, D.C. v. Heller.
3rd Amendment—“no quartering
soldiers”—
4th through 8th Amendments—rights
of criminally accused/criminal suspects, which together make up the large
majority of all the rights in the bill of rights. These includes right against unreasonable
searches, seizures, right against self-incrimination, right to jury trial,
right against cruel and unusual punishment.
Why? Because one aspect of
tyrannical governments is arbitrary arrest, imprisonment, torture, execution,
etc. without charges, evidence, trials, etc. . . . THUS, all these rights are
meant to protect ALL people, not just actual criminals... They protect the INNOCENT from having their
privacy invaded, or being wrongly convicted of a crime. And these rights say
they apply to “people” (all people within U.S. Territory), NOT just citizens.
9th Amendment Concern (ala
I.E. “PEOPLE HAVE OTHER RIGHTS (than Ams. 1-8); WE
JUST HAVEN”T LISTED THEM ALL.”
BUT 9th Amendment has been interpreted as
Only
handful of NON-listed rights, Supreme Court has said they exist in the 14th
Amendement:
14th
Am. Privileges and Immunities Clause: “No state shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
14th
Am. Due Process Clause“nor shall
any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law” FAMILIAL PRIVACY (limited to intimate decisions involving sex,
procreation, childrearing, and heterosexual marriage, and the right to refuse
unwanted medical treatment, including life-sustaining nutrition and
hydration)—i.e. you can choose who and whether to marry, whether to have
children (either have kids or not have kids using contraception or abortion)
and then raise your kids as you want—private schools, subjects learned.—i.e.
familial privacy; freedom of choice involving family matters —HIGHLY
controversial—what is “privacy”? what does it include? Should it be narrower/broader than what
Supreme Court has said? e,g, gay
marriage?
10th AMENDMENT of Bill of Rights
(ratified 1791) said: "The powers
not delegated to the
BUT 10th Am. interpreted as having ALMOST
NO substantive meaning, ALMOST NO substantive limitation against fed. govt.
ORIGINALLY Bill of Rights
applied only to NATIONAL govt; 14th Amendment (1868) applied BoR to
states (and all state sub-units) as well, although the Supreme Court didn’t
actually do this until the middle of the 1900’s. Now, 14th Amendment “incorporates”
most of Bill of Rights.
Freedom of SPEECH: Recall: most
important right in a democracy because absolutely necessary for democracy to
function...
Why free speech? Why is it something
we want to protect?
1. DEMOCRACY—we’ve already seen, how can you govern
yourselves unless you can discuss and debate policies. so Free speech is
NECESSARY for democracy to function.
2. TRUTH—MARKETPLACE OF IDEAS; people “buy”
correct or better ideas; can’t know if truth unless it competes freely
but this means you must allow “false”
“bad” or “evil” ideas to compete, or else you can’t be sure that you’re
“buying” the
better belief.
i.e. can’t make fully informed choice without fully hearing both/all sides.
E.g. can’t choose X unless you can fully and freely compare it to Y and Z. else
it’s NOT a free decision. i.e. “choose” with only one choice is NOT a choice.
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to
the death your right to say it.” Francis M. Voltaire, French Philosopher,
1694-1778.
Outline of how the Supreme
Court has interpreted and applied the First Amendment’s Free Speech
Clause—absolute if read literally:
“Congress shall make NO law abridging the freedom of
speech . . “ so what is freedom of speech?
TWO ways government can
regulate speech:
A. METHOD of communication—Time, Place, and Manner
regulations is easy—no loudspeakers at night in a residential; no nudity on
broadcast TV during daytime (when children are probably watching); no yelling
political speeches in university classrooms when class is in session. TPM
regulations must be “reasonable” with exceptions that go beyond the scope of
this course.
B. CONENT of communication--Difficult and Controversial: 1st Am. is worded in absolute,
so how has Supreme Court addressed content?:
Can be viewed as concentric rings of protection:
1. strong protection: political and religious
beliefs and opinions, no matter how hated, is highly protected core of
free speech, almost absolute: “No such thing as a false idea.” (Gertz v.
Welch). Govt. must show “compelling” or
“necessary” reason to restrict.
2.
intermediate protection—commercial speech, symbolic speech (conduct that
communicates a message; like school dress codes the regulate your clothing,
hair, jewelry; burning something in
protest, wearing a colored armband).
government must show “important” or “substantial” reason to restrict.
3.
little or no protection—threats, advocacy of violence, fighting words,
defamation, obscenity (extremely hard-core pornography).
why
are these not protected? Because they all have little to communicate regarding
“ideas.” hate speech can be prohibited
ONLY if it’s also fighting words; vulgarity can’t be prohibited because it’s
necessary to convey IDEAS themselves (e.g. depth of emotion involved).
As can be seen, CONTENT
DISCRIMINATION (topic/subject matter) is sometimes allowed (depending on
circumstances, such as government property (like prison, government workplace,
building or even public school classroom), broadcast media, school assignments)
BUT VIEWPOINT
DISCRIMINATION (view/position) is ALMOST NEVER ALLOWED
Example of Freedom of
Speech:
_________________________
Separation of Church and State: Also one of key foundations of American Government contained in First Amendment: minimizing involvement between government and religion. Notice: it’s not “no involvement” because that’s impossible: humans will vote, or exercise political leadership, etc. based on their religious beliefs. So a “total” separation of church and state is impossible.
First Amendment: “Congress
shall make no law respecting an Establishment of Religion, or prohibiting the
Free Exercise thereof.” Two sides of same coin:
Government can not interfere with religion EITHER WAY: by prohibiting
it, or requiring it. Basically
establishes government neutrality
towards religions.
Why minimize involvement between government and
religion? That is, Framers wanted to
separate church and state, but why?
Negative historical experience in
1. Protect minority religions and religious
believers—so majority religion can’t use government to oppress minority,
this leaves religious believers free to practice their own religion free from
coercion which would force them to violate their
religious conscience. – religious majorities had implemented laws that
discriminated, fined, imprisoned, or even killed religious minorities.
-e.g. Protecting religious minorities
was view of Thomas Jefferson, and many others.
2. Protect religious people from each other—i.e.
prevent violent social conflict otherwise could lead to severe political divisiveness,
bigotry, and persecution between different factions, even if no
majority—sectarian differences fragment society and lead to civil war even
(like former Yugoslavia; Lebanon). no religious civil war, which might occur if
religious groups think they can use the power of government to establish their
religion over all “the unbelievers.”
- e.g. view of preventing religious
civil war was view of James Madison—see his Memorial and Remonstrance
3. Protect religion in general from the
corrupting influence of government—corrupt worldly influence from control by,
or dependency on, government -e.g.
view of Roger Williams, evangelical minister in mid 1600’s, but many others as
well.
***In sum, avoiding government involvement with
religion is meant to PROTECT religion in general, religious minorities, and
religious believers in general; i.e. meant to PROTECT AND NURTURE RELIGIOUS
The
Overview: There is a currently a great deal of public
misunderstanding regarding the religious views of the founders of the
1. disestablishment The established Protestant Christian churches in the
American colonies and very first state
Constitutions were the Anglican Church, along with the Congregationalists
(Puritans). A broad coalition of persecuted
minority religious groups wanted disestablishment
of any official religion so that they could have equal religious
themselves. Thus, evangelical
Protestants at the time (Presbyterians, Methodists, and especially Baptists,
who were regularly beaten), Catholics (who were hated by most Protestants),
Jews, Providentialists (believers in one god who guides and helps us in this
life), and deists (believers in one god who does not get involved in human
affairs until the afterlife) all joined together to support disestablishment. Providentialism and deism were relatively
popular religions at the time, especially among the educated class. This coalition of minority religious groups
wanted to remain united in their effort at disestablishment, so they tried to
focus on their COMMON, SHARED
religious beliefs:
--there is one god (the term for belief in one god is
theism)
--moral goodness comes from and is defined by this
god, such as principles of honesty, peace, caring, respect for elders, etc.
--this god is also on the side of liberty and
democracy, not monarchy or tyranny
--that in the afterlife, this god will judge us
(individually and collectively as nations) for our sins against what god is on
the side of.
As this coalition of many
different believers in god (pluralistic
theism) became a majority and won political victories for disestablishment
in the 1770’s, 80’s and 90’s, they changed their state constitutions to
prohibit any religion from being the established state religion.
2.
3. the Constitution: Similarly, there was quite a political struggle to
ratify the Constitution. It barely
passed. To gain as much support as
political support possible, the writers of the Constitution continued to apply
disestablishment principles by not connecting the
4. Public speeches by Presidents and official
NOTE this was not a “strict”
separation of church and state, because it was permissible and expected that
public officials would promote the COMMON, SHARED theistic religious beliefs
listed above in an inclusive way, but that public officials should AVOID taking
a position on which religion or religions or denominations among that broad
theistic coalition was the “better” or “best” or “true” denomination or religion.
The entirety of
Best direct statement at the time: The 1797 Treaty
of Tripoli, part of the Barbary Treaties (Treaty of Peace and
Friendship) ratified unanimously by the U.S. Senate and signed by Pres. John
Adams in 1797, and published in major U.S. newspapers without any public
controversy says “. . .the government of the United States of America is not in
any sense founded on the Christian religion . . .” (italics added). And according to the
Note: One common reply by supporters of the “Christian
Nation” argument is that the phrase “the separation of church and state” is not
in the Constitution. But remember from our course so far: NONE of the key terms that define the U.S.
national system of government are in the Constitution : neither the terms “checks and balances” nor “separation of
powers” nor “bill of rights” nor “enumerated powers” nor “limited government” nor “federalism” nor
“representative democracy” nor even the word “democracy” are found anywhere in
the U.S. Constitution. There is not even a “right to vote” listed in the
Constitution. These are all just
shorthand terms used to describe the basic fundamental structures that were put
into the Constitution.
Since our founding period, we as a nation have
continued this neutral theistic pluralism when we do connect the
The FIRST
AMENDMENT and religious liberty today:
So what are your rights today? Basically (this is oversimplifying things a
bit and there are some relatively minor exceptions), the Supreme Court
currently rules that together the Free
Exercise Clause and the Establishment
Clause requires the government to be mostly neutral between different religions, and between religion
and non-religion. So the Supreme Court
has broadened the equality of religious liberty beyond mere theism, to include
essentially any type of religious belief, or no belief at all. You can believe anything you want, and the
only limitation on how you can practice your religion is that you must comply
otherwise with religiously neutral laws (e.g. You can’t commit human sacrifice
because that violations murder statutes).
__________________________________________________
Civil Rights—Freedom
from ARBITRARY (unjustified) Discrimination; i.e. a right to equality
The government “discriminates”
all the time in most policies and laws—e.g. only families with lower incomes
qualify for government-provided student loans.
People with more money are being “discriminated against” by government. Only more intelligent people are admitted as
public university students, so less intelligent people are being “discriminated
against” by government. Government
hires the most qualified workers for jobs, so less qualified workers are being
“discriminated against” by government.
But the question is whether treating people differently is justified
and reasonable or is it instead arbitrary and unjustified. Certain types of discrimination have
historically been based on nothing more than irrational fears and prejudices,
negative stereotypes, and bigotry and hatred.
Among these types are race, sex, and sexual orientation.
RACE: Arguably the MOST
IMPORTANT POLICY ISSUE IN AMERICAN HISTORY—1787 Constitutional convention, territorial expansion tensions, civil
war, Jim Crow laws, civil rights
movement, today: affirmative action, legislative redistricting; most of social
welfare, education and criminal justice policy is entangled with issues
relating to race.
Must understand background of
Civil War: remember Congress did ban the international slave trade in 1808,
which the Constitution allowed.
But, they didn’t want the
number of slaves decrease, or else Southern whites would get less votes in the
House of Representatives (remember: under the Constitution, each slave counted
as 3/5 of a person) and free blacks would of course add political opposition to
slavery. So most Southern states (all but SC and LA) made it ILLEGAL to educate
your slaves, give them property, OR TO FREE THEM (call “manumission”); even
forbidden for free blacks to own guns.
So even if you WANTED to free your slaves and help them obtain financial
independence by giving them money and educating them, you were FORBIDDEN BY LAW
to do so. This kept political power and
voting strength in the hands of Southern whites. Read Frederick Douglass’ Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass.
But slave states needed to
keep power in Congress to block attempts at restricting or abolishing slavery,
needed number of slave states to always equal number of
Compromise of 1850 (1850) –Texas Slave, California Free, New Mexico and
Utah territories created but neutral on slavery, end slavery in D.C. but enact
a Fugitive Slave Law which toughened enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Clause
of the Constitution.
Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854)---With let each state decide; “Bleeding Kansas”
mini-civil war within
Dred Scott v. Sanford—(1856) slaves not citizens of U.S. or states; NOT PART OF SOCIAL CONTRACT.... states can’t make them citizens, slaves are
"property" and fed government can't make them citizens and thus take
away your property, so slaves can be brought into all states and territories.
***NO POLITICAL/LEGAL COMPROMISE IS POSSIBLE—SLAVERY MUST BE ALLOWED TO EXIST
EVERYWHERE in U.S.; ACCELERATED CIVIL
WAR ONSET, because no the ONLY way to stop slavery is by war. No other option possible. Generally agreed it’s the worst Supreme Court
decision ever, because (a) said blacks are property, not humans, and (b) forced
civil war to occur.
The North openly refused to
recognize Dred Scott; didn’t allow slavery to spread to spread to territories;
wouldn’t obey fugitive slave clause and refused to return escaped slaves;
helped slaves escape through the “underground railroad.” The “abolition”
movement to abolish slavery was gaining support in the North, and published
newspapers, and elected officials who had anti-slavery views.
Tensions were very high
between the North and South, with the South already threatening to leave the
Southern states then seceded
and formed Confederate States of America by Feb. 1862, Southern states issued
“declarations of secession” justifying why the were seceding (leaving) the U.S.
They argued that the North had violated the South’s “constitutional rights” to
“property.” (i.e. slaves) —by outlawing slavery in territories, refusing to
return escaped slaves, trying to have slavery be abolished, helping slaves
escape (through the Underground Railroad), etc.
See the Southern Address (by Southern members of Congress), Jefferson Davis’ Farewell Address, State
Declarations of Secession (e.g. Texas Declaration of Secession: “We hold as
undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the
confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for
themselves and their posterity . . . That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be
entitled to equal civil and political rights”), CSA President Jefferson
Davis’s inaugural speech to the CSA Congress.
See perhaps most clearly, Confederate States of
“The new [Confederate] constitution has put
at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar
institution -- African slavery as it exists amongst us -- the proper status of
the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late
rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated
this, as the "rock upon which the old
The Civil War began 1861. Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation
in 1863, which technically only freed slaves in “areas still in rebellion” by a
deadline; so it wouldn’t have freed slaves in border states (e.g. Kentucky,
Missouri) and not in any Southern States that surrendered by the deadline. But after the deadline came and went without
any Southern States surrendering,
Note in
See James McPherson’s Battle Cry of Freedom, or Ken Burns’ PBS
video series, The Civil War.
Civil War was fought from
1861-1865;
13th
Amendment (1865): “Neither slavery not
involuntary servitude . . . shall exist within the
Then, South implemented “BLACK CODES” denying
right to vote, and imposing harsher criminal sentences on blacks (why?
white-only juries, white-only judges, with white-only witnesses allowed could
convict any political activist). So,
North passed 2 more Amendments.
14th
Amendment (1868): “no state shall deny
to any person the EQUAL PROTECTION of the laws.” ALMOST ALL modern constitutional civil rights
flow from the Equal Protection CLAUSE.
15th
Amendment (1870): “the right to vote
shall not be denied on account of race”. Although seemingly redundant with the
14th Amendment, supporters argued it was better to be safe than
sorry, given the Southern white’s past attempts at evading the Constitution.
THUS,
13, 14, 15th Ams. “Civil War Amendments” Almost all modern
constitutional civil rights come from EP Clause of 14th Am.
Reconstruction 1866-1877—at first, North (through military
occupation) made states respect rights of former slaves through enforcement of
the 13, 14, and 15th Am..
They had to rebuild, or ”reconstruct” the South which had been
devastated from the war, but rebuilt not just physically but also politically
and legally. Because the now free black
population was so large, (1870 census:
entire South: 34%; MS: 55%, SC: 57%).
Then, without Northern
enforcement of equality, Southern whites first needed to retake political power
again—the only way they could do that, given that blacks had so many voters and
representatives, was by stopping blacks from voting. But since they didn’t have
the political power to do that legally, they turned to terrorism: KKK (Ku Klux Klan) and other para-military
white supremacist groups murdered thousands of black leaders and political
activists, or even citizens if they exercised their right to vote. Black votes dropped substantially, so voting
whites were able to retake political power.
So the Southern whites had retaken power through outvoting fearful
blacks who were threatened, beaten, or even killed if they voted. And since the white plantation owners had
mostly been given back their land, and the free blacks were given none, former
slaves had to go back to work as sharecroppers, often on the very same
plantations where they had been slaves.
Once whites took back
political power in the South, they
bypassed the 14th and 15th Amendments, through 1.
segregation, and 2. voting discrimination.
This solidified and perpetuated rule by white supremacy. This lasted for almost a century (until the
1960’s) when segregation and voting discrimination was finally outlawed.
1. VOTING DISCRIMATION: South Bypassed
the 15th Amendment: SOUTH
DENIED BLACKS THE RIGHT TO VOTE, by:
(a) violence—lynchings, beatings, arson to homes, etc,
led by the KKK (Ku Klux Klan). scared blacks into not voting.
THEN once whites outvoted blacks and retook control,
they made it legally difficult for blacks to vote:
a. poll taxes—had to pay a tax to vote (free
blacks of course had been former slaves, so had no savings to pay. There had been a proposal to give each former
slave 40 acres and a mule to become self-sufficient, but the plan was
politically defeated, and the large plantations were given back to their white
owners. Thus, free blacks were forced to
be sharecroppers with little income, renting land from the very same whites who
had been their former owners. White
majority in the South either (a) didn’t care about poor whites, or (b)
selectively enforced the poll tax only against blacks.
b. literacy tests—same
enforcement as poll taxes. Remember law
had made it a crime to give any education to slaves, so
most
free blacks could not yet read. For
those that could, different tests given to different races. Or, the test might
be VERY difficult to pass even for whites (e.g.
c. Grandfather Clause (
d. One-Race party Primaries:
Democratic Party in the South refused to let blacks take part in any party
conventions, nominations, or primary elections
e. racial GERRYMANDERING:
manipulating voting district boundaries to maximize your chance of
winning. I.e. redrawing legislative
districts (after each census “reapportionment”) to (usually) dilute a voting
group’s strength.
In other words, rigging the voting
district boundaries so that you will win, and your opponent will lose (at least
more likely).
South engaged in racial
gerrymandering, e.g. splitting up concentrations of black voters into
majority-white voting districts.
And
note that besides these legal means, whites continued to use death threats,
lynchings, and other violent terrorism continued against blacks if you tried to
vote or become politically active.
After these voting
discrimination laws and practices were implemented, there was NOT ONE black
elected official in the entire South, and the voting rate by blacks plummeted
to .2% (not two percent, but
point-two-percent.) But slowly, these discriminatory laws were eliminated over
the fierce objections by white southern governments and white southerners:
1915:
1948:
24th Amendment (1964): outlawed
poll taxes
Voting
Rights Act of 1965--outlawed literacy
tests; 1982 Section 2 Amendments to the
1965 Voting Rights Act-- prohibits any practice or procedure (e.g. such as redistricting),
regardless of intent, that results in voting discrimination. This had the effect of outlawing racial
gerrymandering.
Note the end of the Civil War
was 1865; the Voting Rights Act was 1965.
So the South had 100 years after the Civil War of the continued rule of
“white supremacy.”
But even then, as civil rights groups attempted to
get blacks to register and vote, whites resorted to terrorism: assasinations (Mississippi NAACP leader
Medgar Evers in 1963; 3 Mississippi freedom riders in 1963 (made into the film
“Mississippi Burning”); MLK Memphis
1968; bombings of black churches, one which killed several children in
Birmingham in ; firebombing of Greyhound bus that carried both whites and
blacks; thousands beaten by white citizens and/or white police.) So again, federal troops, federal agents from
the FBI, federal
2. Racial SEGREGATION: South
bypassed the 14th Amendment: "Jim
Crow" Laws (SEGREGATION) (legally forced physical
separation/isolation) segregating whites and blacks in just about EVERY
possible public place—neighborhoods, schools, restaurants, theatres,
courtrooms, trains, busses, hospitals, hotels, churches, restrooms, water
fountains, parks, swimming pools, beaches, the military, jails, prisons,
cemeteries, even Bibles used to take oaths in court. And private businesses (shops, restaurants,
etc.) segregated as well. Interracial
daters were not only ostracized but often violently beaten; interracial
marriage received a long prison term.
White homeowners were forbidden by law from selling their homes to a
“noncaucasion.” This is all VERY similar
to what Germans did to Jews in the 1930’s; that is, up to the point where
Germans began outright extermination of the Jews.
Plessy v.
See the film “The Help” for a
mild portrayal of segregation in Jackson, Missisippi at the start of the Civil
Rights era.
See the Film “Something the
Lord Made” for a portrayal of racial prejudice in general during this time.
This became the SEPARATE BUT EQUAL
doctrine
DISSENT: Justice Harlan---“True intent and
meaning” of civil war amendments would protect civil rights of freedom an
citizenship, prohibits even "badges of slavery." “Our constitution is colorblind, and
neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.”
In reality,
the “equal” part of “separate but equal”
was never anywhere near equal, but this fact was ignored by the Supreme Court
for decades.
Eventually, in
the late 1940’s and early 1950’s, the Supreme Court started to strictly enforce
the “equal” part of “separate but equal”—requiring equal funding for school
buildings, teacher salaries, textbooks, course offerings, lab supplies, busses,
extracurricular activities, etc. But
what of INTANGIBLE things that you can not put a numeric measure on?
Brown v. Board of Education (1954) (Brown I) Unanimous 9-0
8-year old black girl denied enrollment in
BUT Southern whites hated this ruling. They openly (AND VIOLENTLY) resisted
it—Southern governors, legislatures, school boards, police departments, and
judges all refused.
EX:
1957 Governor of Arkansas used state national guard troops (with guns.)
to stop black children from going to school.
So President Eisenhower had to send over 1,000 troops from the 101st
Airborne division and 10,000 national guard troops(.) to
EX:
1962, Governor of Mississippi refused to stop whites from violent
rioting (which included two deaths) against admission of first black student,
James Meredith, to University of Mississippi.
So President Kennedy had to send
White school districts did everything to avoid the
ruling—redraw attendance zones, tear down schools, build new schools in different
neighborhoods, or simply close entire school districts! (Like in
Martin Luther King “I Have a Dream” speech, 1963 was
instantly recognized as being one of the greatest speeches in U.S. history,
most historians and scholars consider this speech and his actions makes King a
“founder” of the U.S. as much as Madison, Hamilton, Jefferson, etc.
Notice his metaphor is that “freedom and equality” was
a “promissory note” but which is a “bad check” when blacks try to cash it, as
it comes back “marked “’insufficient funds.’”
I.e. the American Experiment in equality and freedom is STILL ongoing
and trying to achieve its goals...
Korematsu v. U.S. 1944—Americans of Japanese ancestry and Japanese resident
aliens were forced into “relocation centers” away from West coast (like NV, UT
because of panic over sabotage for a possible Japanese invasion of the west
coast. Half of the interned people were
children. Barbed wire fences, guard towers, cramped group barracks,
most in the middle of deserts with harsh winters and hot summers etc. Lost jobs, homes, everything. Japanese American challenged. Court said "military urgency"
required deference to Congress and military, even though racial classification
is subject to “highest scrutiny.”
DISSENT: “concentration camps.”;
blatantly racist and unconstitutional
*Fred Korematsu Born in
*Eventually, Civil Liberties Act of 1988: President
Reagan signed, formal apology and $20,000 per person interned, for a total of
$1.25 Billion.
Why tell you about this case? TheAmerican philosopher George Santayana
(1863-1952) said: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to
repeat it" (from "Life of Reason I"). So let’s remember, so that we won’t repeat
it. See the film “The Siege” for a
fictional more modern possibility.
***Today, 14th Amendment Equal Protection
Clause prohibits almost all race discrimination by government—the government
must show some COMPELLING reason—it’s necessary to treat people
differently—e.g. affirmative action.
Congress also has outlawed many types of private
discrimination:
A. Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as
amended) (42 USC sex. 2000) prohibits discrimination in places of public
accommodation because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Places
of public accommodation are businesses:
shops, restaurants, hotels, movie theaters, etc.
B. Title VII prohibits
racial discrimination in employment—e.g. hiring, promotion, wages. and
prohibits “hostile work environment” because of a person’s race otherwise a
business could just treat a person so badly until they quit, in a way to
otherwise get around the law.
C. Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair
Housing Act), prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of
dwellings, based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial
status (e.g. single unwed mothers, etc.), and handicap (disability).]]]
SEX discrimination—
Historically, at time of constitution, women in general had fewer legal rights
of men: couldn’t vote, serve on juries, have many professions—e.g. doctor,
lawyer, judge, clergy, elected official, etc.
Married women, however, basically lost their separate legal identity
under "coverture."
Wife's identity was "covered" by the husband, and thus
couldn't contract, own property, inherit, even be held responsible for own
torts or crimes—everything flowed to and from husband. He could even "discipline" wife as
if a child. In practical legal effect,
it was as if the wife was a child of the husband; the property of the husband,
and couldn’t divorce him except under extreme abuse or extreme infidelity; even
rape of your wife was not a crime (i.e. husband had a “right” to sexual
relations with his wife). The loss of
the women’s identify to her husband was symbolized by losing her family name
and becoming merely “Mrs. Smith” (the wife of Smith.)
Unmarried
women had more rights than married women, but not a lot:couldn’t vote, have
many professions—e.g. doctor, lawyer, etc.
In 1850's,
19th Amendment (1920): Women
received the right to vote, BUT women still not fully social or legal equals:
STILL prohibited from voting and from many professions, received much lower
wages for same job, limited marriage and divorce rights, marital rape
exception, etc.
Throughout 1960’s and 1970’s, Supreme Court started
applying Equal Protection Clause to protect women, but the Court almost always
upheld the different (lesser) treatment of women. Because of this, women’s rights groups worked
to amend the Constitution:
EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT:
Section 1.
Equality of Rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the
Section 2. The
Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the
provisions of this article.
Section 3.
This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
It passed Congress in passed in the above form in 1972,
but with a 7 year deadline. An extension
was given, but it was not ratified by the necessary thirty-eight states by the
July 1982 deadline. It was ratified by only thirty-five states. So the ERA
never passed.
FACTS: Woman denied admission to
all-male military college, Virginia Military Institute (VMI). VA said women couldn’t handle rigor.
Held: "exceedingly persuasive
justification" needed. Here,
alleged policy of diversity in higher education opportunities contrary to
history of state's intended exclusion of women from higher ed. Govt also says interest in maintaining unique
atmosphere of physical training, absence of privacy, and
"adversative" approach. No
evidence that women can't handle these if they want to. Separate women's
military college doesn't offer same atmosphere, prestige, resources, etc., so
women wouldn't have access to equal education. (
There’s not much sex discrimination that is
allowed by law now—military combat positions, e.g. selective service
registration, infantry, tank and submarine crews, different ages of sexual
consent, abortion regulations, separate bathroom facilities, etc. Also limited
gender affirmative action.
Congress
has also outlawed PRIVATE Discrimination:
Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 also
now prohibits employment discrimination
on the basis of sex (hiring, promotion, wages), including the prohibition of
sexual harrassment, because it’s a hostile work environment that can force
someone to quit, which would otherwise get around the law.
Title IX prohibits educational
discrimination, which includes disparate sports teams ratios—e.g. teams,
members, spending.]]]
3.
ALL OTHER classes/categories of
people: the law must be rationally/reasonably related to a legitimate/valid
government purpose/interest ). ALMOST
ALL laws survive minimal scrutiny.
*mental disability--(zoning ordinance
restricting home for mentally disabled not okay)
-most
job and academic rewards based at least in part on mental ability . . .
*intelligence—public university admissions
and government employment
*age-- (mandatory retirement age for state
police okay) Mass. Brd. Of Retir’t v. Murgia (1976), voting, juries, alcohol, marry,
drive, soc. sec.
*weight, strength—military, police,
firefighters requirements for strength, weight, endurance
*wealth--school financing (San Antonio
Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriquez (1973)), medicaid, food stamps, most student
loans, tax rates
Sexual orientation--Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) said states
could criminalize homosexual sodomy (gay sex) (5-4 vote).
Romer v. Evans (1992) said state can’t eliminate gays and lesbians from
protection of the laws.
Lawrence v. Texas (2003) Court overruled Bowers v. Hardwick
(1986) and said “emerging understanding” that homosexual are entitled to some
bask civil rights-to be free to engage in sexual or romantic relations between
consenting adults of their choosing, free from it being made a crime. But used Due Process Clause, NOT Equal
Protection Clause, so it’s an open question regarding the Equal Protection
Clause—i.e. what about child custody?
Adoption? Inheritance? Taxes?
Health insurance? Housing discrimination? Employment discrimination? Marriage? Etc.
Private Discrimination: Not Congress, but Hundreds of Cities and many states
(e.g.
__________________________
Psychologically, all forms of arbitrary discrimination are based on an
irrational fear or misunderstanding of the unfamiliar or unknown:
Xenophobia, a Greek term, literally means “fear of strangers” but
it is defined as “An irrational or unreasonable fear, distrust, or hatred of
strangers, foreigners, or anything perceived as foreign or different.” Scientists have discovered at least three
significant explanations for xenophobia:
1. Low Self-Esteem. Most commonly, a person with low or lacking self-esteem is able to
manufacture a (false) sense of “self-esteem” by making a comparative judgment
that “I am better than that other person and therefore I have self-worth.” This
is comparative self-worth, rather than an absolute worth which would say “all
people are equally valuable as human beings because we are human beings.” For example, white supremacists try to make
themselves feel better about themselves by believing that other races are
inferior. In fact, this was a primary
argument in the American South during the U.S. Civil War to get
non-slave-owning whites to fight for slavery: slavery meant that whites were
“better than” blacks, and the ending of slavery would mean that poor whites
were now “at the bottom” of the comparative worth scale. The solution here is to try to reach out to
people who hate others and help them see that they do NOT need to hate others
in order to feel good about themselves, and in fact they will feel better about
themselves when they understand that ALL people EQUALLY have INHERENT worth as
human beings. Of course there is no
guarantee a prejudiced bigot will listen to you. All one can do is try.
2. Scapegoating. Often, people with problems, especially
social problems like unemployment, look for “someone” or “something” to blame,
and this often can translate into blaming some “group.” This is called “scapegoating” when you
falsely blame an individual or group and assign them all the responsibility for
some bad thing occurring, when they might have been only a small part, or none
at all, of the cause.
3. Indoctrination. Also, many children are raised
in families, neighborhoods, or communities (or even nations) where prejudicial
stereotypes are taught. So children grow
up to become adults who “hate” that “other” group (nationality, religion, race,
sexuality, etc.) that is somehow different.
It’s mere indoctrination, without any rational basis, but children grow
up conforming to the surrounding social norms without questioning them.
See the film “American History
X” for examples of all three of these.
____________________________________________________________________
CONGRESS (Article I)
Constitution establishes
a bicameral (two-chamber) legislature
called CONGRESS. (SENATE and HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES).
1. Major Differences in composition:
HOUSE: representation by population, minimum 1 per state,
435 total—2 year terms but no limit on number of term; 25 years old
populist
institution (respond to will of people)
Federalist 52: House 2-year terms because
constant elections will keep a close connection between representatives and the
people.
SENATE: representation by states, 2 per state, total
100—6-year (staggered) terms but no limit on number of terms; 30 years old
:aristocratic (respond more to
elites) ***Constitution originally had Senators elected by state legislatures;
wanted Senate to be an aristocracy isolated from, and a check against, rapid
changes in public mood; so elite chose
the elite. 17th Amendment in
1913 changed to popular elections for Senators (as part of Progressive-era
reforms which favored democratic participation)
Federalist 62: Senate 6-year terms because:
a. check against other chamber of legislature
b. check against people: long terms means
representatives will be free from sudden, intense passions of factions (masses)
in elections
c. good policy: long terms means experience in public
policy and making laws, so better and wiser laws
d. govt. stability: long terms means stability in
government, especially for relations with foreign governments
Aristocratic nature of Senate
(moreso than House) is still true today.
2. Major differences in powers between House
and Senate (Checks/ Balances; review CaB diagram in your notes):
HOUSE: a.
originate bills that "raise revenues" (TAX) b/c will affect state
proportionate to population
b. pass a bill of impeachment (of President,
other executive officials, or federal judge)
SENATE – a.
Try a case of impeachment (once House has accused federal official of
wrongdoing by passing bill of impeachment)
takes 2/3 vote to
convict (remove federal official from office)
b.
-ratify treaties signed by president by 2/3 vote. President can negotiate, but doesn’t matter.
EX:
c.
-approve high-level executive nominees and federal judges nominated by the
President by majority vote
3. Major powers in relation to other branches (two
chambers together as CONGRESS; review history of federalism in your notes):
Article I, section 8: tax, spend, regulate commerce,
raise and regulate military, necessary and proper laws
Today, Supreme Court has ALMOST given POLICE POWER to
Congress through the Commerce Clause. 1 Sup. Crt. justice away.]]]
4. Functions (common to
both House and Senate)
a. lawmaking-actually only function
expressly listed in Constitution, but LEASE done; rest are inherent/implied or
have developed.
b. investigation—inherent
power in ANY legislature: learn what problems exist and their solutions, to
make best laws
this is what Congress spends a
majority of it’s time doing—e.g. post 9-11 investigations into EVERYTHING
relating to 9-11
c. oversight of
executive branch agencies—(subset of investigation, but done so much it’s
treated as adifferent category)-- make sure the agencies are doing their
job—making proper regulations, enforcing proper laws, spending money properly,
etc.
d. client service/casework—help
citizens with problems (usually with bureaucracy—e.g. social security check
didn’t come) (this is most often what
legislative staff does, sometimes more than all other legislative functions put
together, because good PR and gets votes.)
5. Organization Congress is
535 people, needs to run smoothly/efficiently, so two structures (internal
organizations) that help coordinate:
b. political party organization i.e.
Dem/Rep: Why? someone needs to coordinate functioning of
House and Senate, and parties have arranged these, even though no mention in
Constitution of parties. Party in charge
of a chamber controls what procedure regarding which bills are voted on, how
long the debate is on those bills, committee assignments, etc. There are dozens
of party positions, but here are some of the main party leadership positions:
House: Speaker
of the House: position created by Constitution. LOTS of power in House.
Majority Leader: elected by the House members
from the political party with the most seats in the House
Minority
Leader:
elected by the House members from the political party in the House minority
Senate: President Constitution says V.P is president of
Senate, but Constitution says Senate should choose:.
President Pro Tempore : Temporary
President in the V.P.’s Absence (chosen by majority party).
little power, but Constitution says VP of U.S. decides
vote if tie in Senate, but ties are rare.
Majority Leader: elected by Senate members from the political party with the most seats
in the Senate; LOTS of power in Senate.
Minority
Leader: elected by Senate members from the party in
the Senate minority
(Presidential Chain-of-Command: Pres., VP,
Speaker of the House, President pro Tempore, then Cabinet Secretaries in order
of Dept’s creation.)
a.
Committee structure:
Constitution doesn’t mention, but VAST MAJORITY of work of Congress is
done here
—investigation, oversight, drafting, etc.
i. Standing Committees and subcommittees:
permanent committees in EACH of the House and Senate based on policy
areas—like education, health care, foreign policy, energy, the environment,
etc. Since 2 chambers, duplicate committees)— created on first day of first
Congress in 1789. Why? (1) efficiency (delegate workload and spread
workload around) and (2) they allow policy expertise in a policy area (which
also is efficient and more effective). They become top
subcommittees
committees are subdivided into subcommittees, also based on policy area. Again, efficient and effective.
EX: Committee
on Energy might have subcommittees on Oil, Natural Gas, Nuclear, Solar, Coal,
etc.
Legislative (Lawmaking) Process (How a Bill becomes a Law) (How a Law is Made) (see
flowchart) (SUPER-CONDENSED VERSION...)
BIG
FLOWCHART ON BOARD
BILL (proposed law) Introduced (sponsored) by Legislator in
either House or Senateàassigned committeeà assigned subcommitteeà investigated, amended
and voted on in subcommitteeà investigated, amended and voted on in committee,
conclusions and recommendations sent to full chamberàamended
and voted on in full chamberà sent to other chamber (same process
repeats.)à [conference committee (if H&S version not identical)
then back to H&S for yes/no vote]àpresidentà law
if signs or if veto, back to H&Sà law
if 2/3 override in H&S.
THREATS to veto are common, actualVETOS UNCOMMON, OVERRIDES
of vetoes are RARE. If no veto or
signature in ten days, automatically becomes law UNLESS Congressional term
expires, then NOT law =POCKET VETO .
One other
thing worth noting: in the House, 435
people, so speakers and debate have STRICT and short time limits. BUT Senate has NO limits.
Filibuster—Senator continues to speak in order to block vote on
legislation. Rarely done; threat is more
common. Southern Senators tried to
filibuster Civil Rights legislation in the 1960’s. Watch the classic Jimmy Stewart Movie, Mr.
Smith goes to
*** Only a
tiny handful of bills ever make it through this process to become law. Vast majority die in committee. Also, both parties use procedural
technicalities all the time that are part of parliamentary procedure to stall
or block legislation.
Modern Congress:
Practically ALL modern
scholars who study Congress and who observe what it’s members do agree that the
#1 priority of members of Congress, which takes priority over EVERYTHING else,
is getting RE-ELECTED. Why? Without that, you can’t get help the public
by making laws, you can’t get fame, power, prestige, money, etc. Everything flows from actually being a member
of Congress, so STAYING one is TOP priority.
This means EVERYTHING a member
of Congress does takes getting re-elected in mind: public speaking, news
interviews, news events, mailings, advertising, client service, taking popular
stands on issue and avoiding controversial stands. ESPECIALLY SPENDING MONEY...
AND provide benefits under “entitlement” programs—Social
Security, Medicare, etc. Thus, the budget ALMOST NEVER gets cut, and
lawmakers of BOTH parties continue to support bigger, more complex federal
government (despite what they say). AND PORK
BARREL spending (money allocated to a specific voting district, rather
than as part of a general spending program across the country)
e.g Federal Helium Reserve
(for military blimps), in
_______________________________________________________
PRESIDENT (Article II)
What is the President? Primary, individual elected
leader of the
HOW chosen? ELECTORAL COLLEGE; Almost all elected leaders in the
How removed? IMPEACHMENT: for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes
and misdemeanors” serious crime OR abuse
of power, or neglect of duty (e.g. do nothing but play golf all the time).
House majority passes bill of impeachment, Senate tries case of impeachment,
2/3 vote convicts (removes from office).
Basically, it’s a political definition, not a legal one, of any serious wrongdoing. So for example, Pres. Bill Clinton was
“impeached” by the House (the House made an allegation of wrongdoing), but the
Senate did not convict him in the trial they conducted of those allegations, so
What are the president's powers? (Article II)
1. executive: a.
administrative chief (nominate head of cabinet depts. and ind. agencies) over
fed. gov. agencies, hiring, property,
b.
commander-in-chief of the military—civilian always in charge of military
(framers feared strong military—almost didn’t have one)
c.
chief ambassador-- main representative of
SO, to help these 3 executive
roles, president can:
(i) nominate top administrators, civilian leaders
of military, and ambassadors; AND
(ii).
issue “EXECUTIVE ORDERS” relating to management of personnel and property (e.g.
aff. action, national parks), military policy (e.g. troop, ship, plane
locations), and foreign relations.
2. legislative: propose laws,
veto laws, call Congress into special session, required to inform Congress of
“state of the union” (originally a mere
formality, but now in the age of mass media, it’s been turned into a huge
public relations media event).
3. judicial: a. nominate
federal judges, which many people argue is the most powerful power by the
president, because supreme court rulings can affect the basic structure and
powers of government, as well as the rights of the people, for decades or even
centuries.
b.
pardon persons of FEDERAL crimes, EX: Pres. Ford pardoned former Pres. Nixon.
How much power was president EXPECTED to have?
Anti-Federalist (Cato) (and BRUTUS)—President would be King:
power to veto laws, as commander in chief, and to pardon crimes would let
president use military to take over, pardon criminals who supported him, and
block (veto) legislatures from stopping him.
Federalist 70 (
--Don’t
want weak PLURAL EXECUTIVE (council/committee/group);
rather a UNITARY
EXECUTIVE
(one person): unity, duration (4 years), power (can act quickly and decisively)
--unity
would allow president to engage in decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch
(haste) rather than disputes, gridlock, info leaks, and delay
--unity
also allows both blame and accountability (know exactly who to give blame or
reward to), unlike a council would
***
the actual, full extent of the constitutional power of the president is one of
the great yet-unanswered questions of our constitution.
How much actual, real power DOES the president today
have in practice?
Foreign policy: lots: commander-in-chief of military, also
President establishes official
Domestic Policy:
very little. Congress makes laws, not
the president. Federal Reserve has big influence over the economy. All president can do is ask other institutions
like Congress to do things like change taxes, health care, education, etc.
A near total consensus among
Presidential scholars today, that the president has little real power acting
individually; what the president must do is PERSUADE others (Congress, U.S.
public, other world leaders, UN) to go along.
SO what makes a president persuasive? POPULARITY.
So, What is the source of the President's popularity? Presidential APPROVAL/POPULARITY:
***1. ECONOMY: HIGH correlation, even though
LITTLE-TO-NO influence over economy... (Like sitting in a rowboat on the
pacific ocean) Human nature wants to assign responsibility (blame or reward),
rather than accepting as complex, or that it “just happens.”
2. RALLY-ROUND-THE-FLAG EFFECT
(National tragedies or crisis—e.g. WAR: Bush Sr. around 90 just as Gulf War
won; WTC/pentagon attack, Bush Jr. above 90% within days after attack—record
high for ANY president since measured.)
3. HONEYMOON
PERIOD (first 100 days after take office)—people (even opposition) give new
pres. benefit of doubt; “wait & see”
Thus, this period is key for a
president to pass laws the president wants—100 days to pass president’s agenda.
NOTE: SCANDALS unpredictable. Sometimes devastating (Nixon &
Watergate), sometimes little to no effect (Clinton & Lewinsky)
****EXAM 2 Coverage ends***
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
***FINAL EXAM COVERAGE BEGINS
BUREAUCRACY: people that administer the functions of an organization (either govt.
like UL or private corp. like MacDonalds)
Federal Bureaucracy: Congress creates and funds programs (
FUNCTION/PURPOSE: (WHY have?)--Congress DELEGATES some of their
lawmaking powers and responsibilities to agencies--efficiency, expertise, avoid
political accountability. So what is the extent of the power delegated?
Organization of executive branch (President is only the
tip of the iceburg.)
President, Vice President, Executive Office of the
President: direct support staff for President (advisors, office help, etc.)
15 CABINET
departments—MAJOR departments organized by policy area, (Ag. Commerce. Defense,
Educ., Energy, HHS, HUD, Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transp. Treasury, VA,
Office of Homeland Security) heads
(secretaries) appointed by Pres/senate confirms.
AND
Hundreds of "independent agencies” nominated by president
and confirmed by Congress for a FIXED term in office, or appointed by
bipartisan commissions (EPA, FBI, CIA, EEOC, FCC, Federal Reserve Board, NASA,
OSHA, SEC, FAA, IRS, FEC, NTSB, NLRB and government corporations--Postal
Service, Amtrack) Congress/Press thought
important to keep these somewhat free from politics
-e.g. Federal Reserve Board main agency for managing
the
President directs, but only
few top positions appointed--rest of 3 Million are CIVIL SERVICE: NOT elected, not appointed, but instead hired
by qualifications, fired only if incompetent.
EX: post office, social security office, etc.
Power: 1. IMPLEMENT Congressional statutes at their
discretion (within Congressional statutory authorization and direction of
President)
EX: IRS implements tax rates sets by
Congress, collects taxes, makes sure people pay, etc.
2.
Make ADMINISTRATIVE RULES/REGULATIONS which have force of
LAW (e.g. EPA rules; IRS tax
regulations, NTSB train and auto safety, OSHA safety guidelines, FAA airport
and airplane security—no knife blades, boxcutters, etc.)
BUT
limits to this power because (a) Congressional laws override regulations; (b)
president can direct (c) judicial oversight/review.
And USSC says ONLY if Congress has CLEARLY defined
the scope of the agency authority (i.e. what rules it can make).
MODERN EVALUATIONS: LOTS of debate about bigger
v. smaller government, more efficient government, etc.
1. BENEFITS: Pro: HELP
PEOPLE: medicare, medicaid, social security, student loans, food stamps,
unemployment comp, disability.
Con: WASTE, FRAUD, ABUSE—doesn’t solve problems; people
abuse + commit fraud, unneeded (crop subsidies), can’t afford.
2. REGULATIONS: Pro:
HEALTH AND SAFETY: consumer products, transportation safety, environmental
cleanliness, workplace safety.
Cons: A.
Excessively BURDENSOME—complex, confusing, costly for businesses (EPA, OSHA);
hinders productivity, profits.
____________________________________________________________________________
JUDICIAL BRANCH (Article III) Basic function/purpose: Interpret laws; i.e. resolve
disputes over laws, such as U.S. Constitution.
(Federal
Judiciary)” What does the Constitution
say about Federal Courts?
A.
REQUIRES ALL fed. judges nominated by pres., confirmed by Senate, serve during
“good behavior” (which means life terms; i.e. until you die or retire) UNLESS
IMPEACHED for “bad” behavior: serious crimes, bribery/corruption, abuse of
power, neglect of duty
B.
Gives fed. courts jurisdiction only over FEDERAL LAW (statutes, treaties,
Const., regulations) (except “diversity” jurisdiction)
C.
Creates SUPREME COURT, but gives Congress power to create federal courts other
than SUPREME COURT. So . . .
ORGANIZATION of Federal
Courts: (What system has Congress
created?)
Federal District Courts—trial courts, minimum one per state, geographic area,
91 total,
Federal Circuit Courts
of Appeal— appeals from Dist.
Crts, geographic jurisdiction. of several states, 11 + DC
Supreme Court over almost all cases appealed to it (Fed Crts.
App AND State Sup. Crts IF FED. Law involved).
e.g. 2000 Presidential election,
>7,000 cases/yr; accept
about <100. USSC’s own rule, for
Supreme Court to hear appeal, 4/9 justices must agree to hear it.
Handful ORIGINAL
JURISDICTION, listed in Constitution—e.g disputes between states, dispute
between states and foreign governments, etc
How does the Supreme
Court decide its cases?
9 justices (arbitrary odd number
so no ties), majority vote decides.
Power/Function/Role:
1. Under separation of powers,
all courts INTERPRET laws. Not that
controversial. BUT what IS controversial
is #2:
2. Power of JUDICIAL
REVIEW: power to declare actions by other branches of government void if
they conflict with the Constitution.
Judicial Review is NOT listed in constitution, but USSC said in Marbury
v. Madison (1809) IS a logical
inference, implied by the Supremacy Clause and fact that Supreme Court applies
the Constitution. Judicial Review is
basically giving courts power to make sure government doesn’t violate social
contract with people. Today, ALL U.S.
courts have power.
Debate between
Federalists and Anti-federalists surrounding Court was over the power of
judicial review: (a new concept
at the time.)
Federalist 78: (
1. Supreme Court is “LEAST
DANGEROUS BRANCH”. Why? no power of the purse (like Congress); no power
of sword (like President).
EX: USSC ruled in favor of Cherokee Indians in
lawsuit to prevent government from taking their land; Pres. Jackson refused to
enforce it.
EX: USSC ruled
Federalist 81 (
Brutus responds: 1. With
life terms and no review of Court’s judicial review, Court will impose own
interp. of law and be unstoppable. 2.
Impeachment is useless check, because it applies to criminal wrongdoing
(federal judges serve during “GOOD BEHAVIOR.”)
Brutus
was accurate; only a handful of federal judges have ever been impeached (less
than 10 in the entire history of the
EX: 2000 presidential Election, Bush v. Gore—half
of country was furious with the supreme court for deciding the election, but
nothing happened to them.
How is judicial review
today? 2 main views how judicial review should be
exercised: (what the proper ROLE of judges/courts should be):
Judicial
Activism: judicial review frequent,
because courts should ensure justice and fairness, if arguable violation
of Constitution.
Justice is more important than
following the exact letter of the law; should be no hesitation to use judicial
review.
Judicial review is simply
enforcement of the terms of our social contract (the Constitution). It makes sure our elected leaders act
within the limits of their powers and do not abuse power.
Judicial Restraint: judicial review rare,
because courts should uphold democratically-made laws unless blatant
violation of Const.;
i.e. should be used rarely, avoided
if at all possible, and thus used only when absolutely necessary, as a last
resort.
Role of courts is to interpret laws,
NOT make laws. Activism is “judicial
legislation” and antidemocratic because it overturns
the decisions of the democratically elected branches of government, who
represent the will of the people.
Counter-arg: it IS the role of USSC to enforce the
BoR and Const., enacted by the democratic majority, against majority tyranny.
1. Activism is increasing in
past decades by BOTH liberals and conservatives judges.
2. ONLY WAY for Congress to
override Supreme Court’s exercise of judicial review would be
(a)
amend Constitution—always threatened, but almost never done—recall, only 17
amendments in over 200 years (since BoR)
(b)
impeach judges—almost never done—less than 10 federal judges EVER impeached in
history, because of serious crime.
THEREFORE Supreme Court can do
what it wants, and no one can stop them.
EX: Brown v. Board of Education; Roe v. Wade; 2000 Pres. Election—1/2 country was OUTRAGED,
but no amendments, no impeachment.
Modern Evaluations of
the Supreme Court: (What factors influence judges when they vote (including
judicial review.)
Political science studies show
clear, consistent evidence that USSC votes based on political ideology
(liberal-conservative) and judicial philosophy (activism-restraint). Note there are at least two different
ideologies and two different judicial philosophies, which means judges can be
any one of at least four different combinations (e.g. make 2-by-2 table and
see). Thus, there is no necessary
logical connection between any particular political ideology and any particular
judicial philosophy.
Disputed, unclear, inconsistent,
or minimal evidence that Supreme Court reacts to Congress, Pres, Public opinion,
interest groups, or other factors.
POLITICAL BEHAVIOR How people
act/behave within a political system (within the constraints of the social
contract)
***DRAWING:
Socializationàopinionizationà participationàrepresentation.
SOCIALIZATION (the
learning process by which people acquire beliefs): ALL human learning is socialization; here political
socialization.
Agents of
(Political) Socialization –that is, sources of information/influence. (family,
peers, religion, historical events, life cycle, education, media) how they
socialize you is by giving you information.
But what about OPINIONS, INTERESTS, VALUES???
Parents: raise you to
be conservative, most likely you’ll be conservative. Raises you to be liberal, most likely you’ll
be liberal. And most likely what your
mother teaches you, rather than your father.
Friends: “Chicken and
egg” question: Do you like people who
agree with you, or do you decide to agree with the people you like. Probably a little of both: you seek out like-minded individuals, and
then those friends reinforce your beliefs.
Religion: family and
location where you’re born largely determines your religion: E.g. If you’re born in
BUT CONSISTENT evidence found regarding life cycle, education, and media:
Life cycle: marry, kids, career and income, house and mortgageà conservativism
(more at stake in community, want to preserve those interestsàwant safety, stability, securityàlaw and order, lower
taxes, to preserve family and wealth
Education age
< 14: (elementary school) blind,
unquestioning patriotism and obedience to authority (parents,
teachers, ministers, police, govt. leaders, etc.) i.e. you don’t question them,
you love your country and you obey authority.
NO questioning or criticism.
age > 14:
(high school, + especially college) more education = more liberal. why?
2 views (no clear answer):
a. Liberals claim: enlightenment:
political awareness, sophistication and tolerance (which makes one more
liberal).
b. Conservatives
claim: indoctrination by liberal college faculty (70+ % of social
science faculty are liberal)
Social
sciences and humanities are where politics would be discussed more, not
physics, math, etc.
Media: ***BIGGEST Agent of Socialization. continues
throughout adult life Ideal role in Democracy?:
A. "Mirror"
role: mirror reality (“all the news that’s fit to print”) pass on bare
facts, without imposing any subjective interpretation
---Just facts;
no commentary, opinions, analysis, editorializing, etc.; like a mirror doesn’t
tell you whether you’re looking good or bad, healthy or sick, it just shows you
what you look like, and you judge your own appearance.
B. "Watchdog" role:
investigative journalism, keep eye on politicians/govt., act as safeguard of
public liberty against corruption/abuse
also political
commentators/analysts fulfull this role. like another “check” in the system of
“checks and balances.”
This is the dominant
philosophical view of the media by our founders and the Supreme Court and 1st
Amendment.
--facts + opinions
PROBLEM: one person’s watchdog role is another person’s
political bias. Bias affects not only
HOW you cover news, but WHAT news you cover.
EX: MSNBC liberal,
FOX conservative. Vastly different
stories covered, and vast difference in how the same stories are covered.
THUS, in any media outlet, you’re getting a HIGHLY
incomplete, and possibly very biased, version of the news. Thus, the only way to get a more accurate,
complete version of the news is from a large VARIETY of news sources, from
differing political biases, and from both inside and outside the U.S. (like the
CBC or BBC).
What do people think and believe: The nature of our political opinions,
beliefs, and attitudes.
PUBLIC OPINION: Preferences of adult population on matters relating to govt. and
politics; NOT entertainment, sports, consumer products.
OPINION POLL/SURVEY measures public opinion. Common examples: pres approval, pre-election
predictions, exit polls, etc.
Political Parties, Candidates,
interest groups use. SO: How can you
know if you can trust the results?
A. Sample: group you
measure (asked questions). Must be RANDOM
Otherwise, biased sample (e.g. women, wealthy, younger,
living in
B. Question Wording NO perfect
way to word poll question—best you can try as best as you can: simple, clear,
UNBIASED.
e.g. abortion: “right to control our own bodies” v.
“right to murder unborn babies”; “health care issue”” or “health care crisis”
Ideology –TOTAL SET OF POLITICAL BELIEFS (the
sum of all your opinions), not necessarily having consistent underlying
principles, but often they do, and many people would argue one’s political
opinions should have consistent underlying principles.
1.
Traditional (mistaken and incomplete) view of ideology: a ONE-dimensional
“left-right” ideological spectrum only, something like:
Very Liberal
---------Liberal-----------Moderate/”Middle-of-the-Road”
--------Conservative--------Very Conservative
The terms
“left” or “left-wing” are often used for liberalism, and “right” or
“right-wing” are often used for conservatism, because in the 1700’s in England,
the liberal party was seated in the left wing of the chamber of the English
Parliament, and the conservative party was seated in the right wing of the same
chamber. The slang terms stuck. Thus:
Left-wing ideology = liberalism (the primary
liberal, left-wing
Right-wing ideology =conservatism
(the primary conservative, right-wing
BUT
really there are TWO dimensions of political ideology:
1. personal/idividual/moral/social
liberty: i.e. what is the proper role of government in regulating our
personal moral decisions?
2. Economic liberty: i.e. what is the proper role of government in
regularing our economic decisions and relationships?
So what
do the general labels “liberal” and “conservative” mean?
NOTE: these
labels are mere stereotypes that grossly oversimplify things, but here is what
journalists and politicians and citizens usually mean when they use the general
terms “liberal” or “conservative”:
LIBERALS
generall DO favor moral liberty but do NOT favor economic liberty. In other words, liberals generally do NOT
want government to regulate issues of personal morality, but DO want government involvement in the
economic issues and thus enforcement of social and economic equality (both
equality of opportunity and equality of result through taxation and
redistribution of wealth).
CONSERVATIVES are the opposite of liberals: they generally do NOT favor moral liberty,
but DO favor economic liberty. In other
words, conservatives generally DO want the government to regulate issues of
personal morality but do NOT want government regulation of economic
issues: they favor a “free-market”
economy and equality of opportunity but NOT government-forced equality of
result (e.g. redistribution of wealth).
E.g: COMPARE common examples of both personal and
economic issues:
personal liberty: E.G. Flag burning, pornography, abortion, euthanasia and
doctor assisted suicide, drugs, gays and lesbian rights
Liberals
generally want little or no government regulation of these issues; but
conservatives do.
economic liberty: minimum
wage, working hours, workplace safety, the environment, taxes, social welfare,
affirmative action
Conservatives
generally want little or no government regulation of these issues, but liberals
do
NOTE there ARE issue
exceptions that don’t fit this pattern—e.g. guns: liberals want heavy government regulation of
individual gun ownship, but conservatives want little government regulation of
individual gun ownership .
AND
many individuals don’t fit these molds.
These are just the GENERAL policy positions of “liberalism” and “conservatism.”
2.
BUT: There is a MUCH more complete and
accurate understanding of ideology: Ideology is really TWO
dimensions:
a. liberty that variously goes by the terms of
personal/individual/social/moral (one
can either favor or disfavor this liberty)
b. economic liberty (one
can either favor or disfavor this liberty)
3. This means there are FOUR
possible basic political ideologies (2 x 2 combinations plus a fifth in the
middle):
a. left-liberalism (from the root word “liber”
which meant “free” in ancient Greek) is what we traditionally know as
“liberalism” (also “progressivism”
from the root word “progress.”): liberals/progressives want wants government
regulation of economic issues, which includes some redistribution of wealth,
and the elimination of all forms of discrimination, so as to achieve what they
call “social (or economic) justice.” But they want little government regulation of
personal morality. The extreme form of
left-liberalism is called socialism/communism/Marxism, which
believes there should be no such thing as “private property”; instead
everything should be owned in common by the people (that is, the government)
and government should decide all wages, prices, type and number of goods
produced, etc.) but yet people should be allowed total freedom to do what one chooses in
matters of personal morality.
Political parties: Left-liberal
ideology: Democratic Party. Socialist-leaning ideology: Green Party, Socialist Worker’s Party.
b. right-conservativism (from the root word
“conserve” meaning “preserve” or “safeguard”) is what we traditionally know as
“conservatism”: conservatives want
government to preserve traditional moral order, but want little government
regulation of economic issues, which econmically is know as capitalism
or “free market” economics.
There is no general term for the extreme form of right-conserviativsm,
although one type of extreme form is theocracy (rule by religious
leaders), which argues there should be no such thing as “rights” when it comes
to personal morality because we should follow god’s commandments regarding what
is right and wrong; another extreme type is laissez faire
economics, which argues there should be absolutely no government regulation of
economic issues. There is no general
term for the extreme form of right-conservatism because one can support
theocracy without laissez faire economics, or one can support laissez faire
economics without a theocracy.
Political Parties: Right-conservative
ideology: Republican Party. Far-right-leaning ideology: Constitution Party
c.
libertarianism (from the
root word “liberty” meaning freedom) wants little government regulation of
either personal or economic issues; generally all they want is a police force
and military to prevent violence against persons or property, and just enough
taxes to pay for that those things, but that is all government should do.
Another term often used for libertarianism is individualism,
because the individual’s choices should almost always outweigh what society
acting through government wants to tell the individual what to do. The extreme form of libertarianism is anarchism,
which argues NO government should exist whatsover; to anarchists the term
“legitimate government” is an oxymoron, as being ruled by others (even by a
democratic majority) is simply a lesser degree of slavery than direct
“ownership” by a master.
Political Parties: Libertarian
ideology: Libertarian Party. Anarchist
ideology: there are no political parties
that represent an anarchist ideology, because they do not believe any form of
government is legitimate, and forming a political party to work within any
political system would be implicitly recognizing the legitimacy that political
system.
d. The fourth ideology, which is the opposite of the
libertarian ideology, unfortunately goes by a variety of names because no
generally-agreed upon term has yet been adopted by people who believe in this
ideology. The most common terms used by
its believers are communitarianism, although many other terms might be used instead.. This ideology believes the collective rights
and interests of the community (the majority of people) should outweigh the
rights of individuals, in both economic and moral issues. Or, if the interests of the “nation”
overrules individual rights, it is called nationalism. The extreme form of communitarianism and
nationalism is fascism, which worships the government and
“people” over any contrary individuals that would go against it. Fascism is also known as nazism,
because “Nazi” was the short term for the political party of Adolf Hitler (the
National Socialist Party, or “Natzionalsocialismus” party). “The state is a means to an end. Its end
lies in the preservation and advancement of a community of physically and
psychically identical homogeneous creatures.” Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf [in other words, any
physical or psychological “differences” in people must be eliminated; thus
“individual rights” do not exist].
Political parties: Communitarianism: One sub-group of the Reform Party; Fascism:
American Nazi Party.
e. Centrism
(from the root word “center” meaning “middle”) is placed in-between the
other ideologies. Centrism generally
supports a mixture or balance between individual freedoms, a free market
econmy, but also “reasonable” government regulations of personal and economic
issues. This ideology has also been
called pragmatism, from the word “pragmatic” meaning “practical,” which takes a flexible
“whatever works” approach to policy issues, rather than adopting rigid
ideological stands on issues of either personal or economic issues. Because centrism is by definition a
“middle-of-the-road” ideology, there is no extreme form of it.
Political Parties: Centrism: One sub-group of the Reform Party; the
Natural Law Party.
4. Note that each ideology
is driven by what it sees as the HIGHEST Goal of government:
left-liberalism: creating social and economic justice
right-conservatism: fostering personal morality
libertarianism: preserving
liberty and freedom
communitarianism: establishing order in society
centrism: achieving practical solutions (that
is, a balance of freedom and order in both personal and economic issues).
Concepts that cut across
or transcend ideology:
5. Patriotism can exist with any of the ideologies; patriotism
simply means “love of country.” But
patriotism is like the love of a parent for a child; it encourages good
behavior but recognizes, acknowledges, and corrects bad or unhealthy
behavior. Too many people unfortunately
confuse patriotism with nationalism, which is a quasi-religious
blind worship of the “nation” which usually then includes a blind,
unquestioning obedience to the government and government officials. Thus, to a true patriot, criticism of
government leaders or government policy shows a great love of country, because
it is like a parent using “tough love” to discipline a misbehaving child. A nationalist, on the other hand, cannot
tolerate criticism of government leaders or government policies, because to the
nationalist, that is akin to criticizing god (who is never wrong). So a nationalist will use the slogan “Love it
or leave it” but the patriot can respond with “Love it by improving it” or
“Improve it or lose it.”
6. View of human nature:
a. Idealism or Utopianism: ONLY anarchism
assumes people are inherently good or at least NOT dangerous, or have the POTENTIAL
to be non-dangerous if properly educated, and can all voluntarily live in
peaceful harmony and co-existence, and thus no government is (or will
ultimately be) needed to control them or to impose any moral or economic order. This may or may not be correct, but this
theory is usually referred to as an “idealistic” or “utopian” view of human
nature.
b. Realism: ALL ideologies and philosophies of government
other than anarchism ASSUME PEOPLE ARE EITHER INHERENTLY BAD OR AT LEAST
DANGEROUS; that is, people are irrational, driven by petty instincts, easily
manipulated, etc. This is usually called a “realistic” view of human
nature. Thus, government is needed to
control people, to impose order (either personal moral order or economic
justice and order). Thus, the question
becomes what “order” is necessary; i.e., what morality/ethics/virtue should
(must) be imposed on citizens by government.
Ideally, believers in all the various ideologies would argue that
morality should be TAUGHT through education so that government can have an
easier time governing; that is, the fewer people who act non-morally, the
easier time government will have imposing order on the few remaining
non-ethical people. But whether morality
is taught first or imposed later, the question of “what is
moral/ethical/virtuous” thus necessarily becomes of the highest importance.
7. Since the question of
morality/ethics is so important, what are the possible answers to that
question?
A. Fixed moral absolutes (universalism): moral
truths true everywhere at all time, for all people.
iv. absolutism or dogmatism is the extreme form of universalism: an absolute, uncompromising
belief, usually without adequate evidence or consideration, and most
importantly, not admitting to the slightest possibility of being even partly
mistaken There are certain
“fundamental” truths, and the opposition is not just totally wrong, but
therefore evil and must be eliminated. A
person can be libertarian, left-liberal, right-conservative, communitarian, or
their extreme versions and not be dogmatic about it, but absolutists tend to be
extremist in their ideology: E.g. militant anarchists, militant communists, or
militant fascists; religious cults or religious fundamentalists
that want to impose theocracy: e.g. Islamic fundamentalism, Christian
fundamentalism, Jewish fundamentalism, etc.:
NOTE that a person can be deeply
religious, but still be open to the possibility that someone who disagrees
might possess part (or even all) of the actual truth, so being deeply religious
is NOT the same thing as religious fundamentalism. Example of fascist dogmatism: “I considered it my special duty to extract
from the extensive but vague contents of a general world view the ideas which
were essential and give them a more or less dogmatic form . . .” Adolf Hitler,
Mein Kampf
B. moral relativism: all morality is
arbitrary. Again, considered in detail
by philosophy courses in ethics, but main alternatives are:
ii. nihilism (amoralism) is the extreme
form of moral relativism: because all morality is arbitrary, there is no such
thing as “morality” (“a-moralism” means “no-moralism”) and there’s nothing
worth believing in (“Nihilism” comes from Latin “nihil” meaning “nothing” so
“nihilism” basically means “nothing-ism.”
In it’s mild form, nihilism would be apathy or indifference towards
questions of morality, ethics, ideology.
A stronger form of nihilism would result in a belief that existence is
futile and meaningless. At the extreme,
nihilism would display even outright hostility to society’s attempts to create
and impose morality: the institutions of government, religion, education, and
even the family should be destroyed.
Best modern example: hard-core versions of punk rock movement (which is
NOT to say that all punk-rock fans are nihilists).
Note
that A nihilist could masquerade as one of the other ideologies, simply for his
or her own selfish gain (financial or political). This is what many people have suggested
about Hitler, that he was a nihilist that used fascism to manipulate the masses
for his own personal glorification.
Also
note that if you do NOT believe these questions of ideology, ethics, and
morality are important, or do not believe that these questions should guide our
lives, then you are in fact a nihilist...
It may be a mild form of nihilism, but it is still leaning towards
nihilism.
NOTE
1:
A person can be a libertarian, left-liberal, right-conservative, or
communitarian, while adopting any of the forms of universalism or relativism.
In other words, believing either universalism or relativism does not lead every
such believer to adopt the same ideology.
For example, even people of the same religion can disagree about which
ideology their religion requires them to adopt.
As merely one example, there are Christian individuals and groups that
are left-liberal, right-conservative, libertarian, communitarian, centrist, and
even anarchist or fascist.
NOTE
2.
A person can strongly believe individual people should ideally act with
certain standards of personal morality or with certain standards in economic
relationships (or both) without believing that it is government’s role to
require people to live up to those standards.
For example, a person can be deeply religious, intensely believing their
god asks and expects and commands individuals to strictly follow standards of
personal and economic conduct, but yet also believe their god also wants
everyone to voluntary choose whether or not to live by those standards through
a decision of their own free will without any coercion by government. So, as merely one example, a person could be
deeply religious, yet be an anarchist.
8. The question of “who
rules” is separate from ideology and virtue; I.E. a democracy could be based on a libertarian,
left-liberal, right-conservative, or communitarian ideology. Or, an elite group
(aristocracy or oligarchy) or an individual (monarchy or even a dictatorship)
could enact laws based on any of the ideologies as well. So, whether power/rule is in the hands of
one, a few, or the many, the laws enacted will depend on the conception of
virtue/right-and-wrong/ideology held by that one, few, or many that are in
charge.
_________
Knowledge of politics:
VERY low percent e.g. <50% can name Vice President, <10% can name Chief
Justice of U.S. Supreme Court.
Interest of politics: VERY low percent
Efficacy (internal and external): how effective one feels in
influencing government (can they “make a difference” if tried): low
Trust in political institutions: was high <1963,
then JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcom X, Warren Commission, Vietnam, Watergate; low since
that era; BUT BOOST after 9-11-2001.
Tolerance--
willingness to grant basic civil liberties to people whose views you dislike or
even hate. HIGH in abstract (80-90%)
BUT LOW in
practice—e.g. let make speech, work as teacher, have book in library, etc.:
Citizens: LOW: 33%
PARTICIPATION:
Conventional participation: political activity that
lawfully uses the existing democratic system (working within the accepted
democratic process). Active: join political party, join interest group,
vote, write letter to editor, contact representative, work on a campaigns,
engage in community activities, lobbying, etc. Passive: follow political news.
Conformity and OBEDIENCE:
Unconventional behavior:--work external to political
system--challenging/defying existing political
institutions/processes/systems/structures:
Why? feel
alienated from politics and society, no sense of external efficacy in political
system, so need to go outside system
Peaceful: Civil
Disobedience: intentional but peaceful, nonviolent
resistance/disobedience to a law (extreme form:
Pacifism—violence should never be used, even in self
defense or to resist violence against innocent people) e.g. Buddha, Jesus, Gandhi)
(You
do NOT resist arrest or punishment for breaking the law)-Gandhi SEE THE MOVIE
E.G. Henry David Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1849)
(refused to pay taxes and was jailed)
Civil
Rights Movement: Martin Luther King: Letter from Birmingham Jail (1963) marched
against discrimination and was jailed
Civil
Rights Movement began when Rosa Parks refused to yield seat to a white person
on a bus in
Violent: Terrorism. (US.: OK city bombing, anti-abortion, IRA, WTC
attack, Palestinians against
Current
United
States Department of Defense:
the "calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to
coerce or intimidate governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are
generally political, religious, or ideological."
OBEDIENCE:
And
yet, too much obedience can cause a huge problem. Example:
WWII Nazi
Obedience and conformity: To what degree do people blindly obey authority for
no reason other than that an authority figure says they should do something?
1. Degree of obedience:
Stanley Milgram 1960-63 "Obedience to Authority" Told subjects they were testing the effect of
negative stimulus (a shock) on memory retention of a learner in the room on the
other side of the wall. Every time the “learner” got a wrong answer, the
“teacher” was to give a higher level electrical shock to the learner. The voltage dial said “Danger: Severe Shock”
at 375 volts. The learner actor began to
cry out at 150 volts “Experiment. Let me
out of here.” I won’t be in the
experiment anymore. I refuse to go
on.” At 180 volts “I can’t stand the
pain.” AT 300 volts, after an agonizing
scream, he shouted he would no longer answer the questions. At 315 volts, there was just an agonizing
scream. After 330 volts, there was
silence from him (no scream, which indicated he was either unconscious or
dead.) The experimenter simply told the
teacher “The experiment must continue.”
The earliest anyone stopped was at 300 volts, and 65% went all the way
to 450 volts. All around the world this
was repeated, with similar or higher results.
Highest was
2. Why such a high degree of obedience? Debated for
thousands of years: evolution? Created
by god with free will but a sinful nature?
Merely bad upbringing? Nature or
nurture, or both? Regardless why we’re this way, humans are in general
dangerous to each other!
3. But what if you point out to people their harmful
behavior (harmful obedience or conformity)?
Psychological
principle: “cognitive dissonance” (mental disharmony) created whenever
we have two inconsistent, conflicting beliefs.
Such as:
1. “I’m a good person.” Or 1. I’m a smart person.
2. “My behavior is bad.” 2. My behavior is foolish.
This creates cognitive dissonance: mental disharmony. There are two alternatives to avoid cognitive
dissonance: Change one’s behavior, or change one’s belief that the behavior is
bad. Which is easier? Behavioral studies show most people simply
change their belief that there behavior is bad into their behavior is okay or
even good!. If a person changes their
behavior, they still must suffer several negative consequences: Guilt over harm caused by their behavior in
the past, embarassment, humiliation, and loss of self esteem for engaging in
the bad behavior, and loss of the benefit of that behavior (e.g physical
pleasure, psychological security, a lavish lifestyle, etc.) BUT,
If one gives up the belief the behavior is bad, there is NO negative
consequence. So, one simply changes
one’s belief that the behavior is bad, through many possible easily-made
rationalizations. “I’m not hurting
anyone” or “I’m not hurting anyone but myself” or “It’s my right to do that” or
“It’s really not that bad” or “you’re exaggerating the risk” or “other
people don’t think it’s bad” or “everyone else does it” or “my leaders say its okay” etc. etc.,
etc. This rationalization reduces or
eliminates cognitive dissonance. This
helps explain why the German people went along with Nazism and its oppression
of Jews, or why Southern Whites enslaved and then segregated African Americans,
etc.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Participation: JOIN PARTIES Ideology often
but not always leads to joining a particular political party. Often there’s a political need for a party to
get support, so it appeals to a group—says it will support a group, if the
group supports it in return.
Historically, there have been 4 key divisions within societies. Why important to know? B/c STILL huge basis
of political party differences today all around the world AND
a. ethnicity: center-periphery (dominant v.
minority ethnic group)
b. religion: church-state (religion v.
religion, religion v. nonreligion)
c. geography:
Land-industry (rural v. urban, region v. region)
d. socio-economic class: owners-workers
(business v. unions, rich v. poor)
Democrats Republicans
Minorities whites
Catholics, Jews evangelical
protestants
Urban centers suburbs,
rural areas
New England,
Unions business
owners/execs
Working class upper
class
2 PARTY SYSTEM—All other democracies have a multi-party (more than two-party) system.
WHY do we have only 2 major political parties?
History of 3P: single
issue/leader (e.g. Reform Party, Ross Perot); other 2 parties "steal"
platform. Why 2-party monopoly (i.e. DUOPOLY):
1. MAINLY "winner-take-all"
elections, (single member districts with plurality winner) in Congress, states,
localities, UNLIKE Proportional Representation (PR): (multi-member
district with at-large representatives) Almost every other democracy gives
representation by % of vote: most established democracies, all former Soviet
states, recently freed South Africa, even Japan and New Zealand adopted
recently (1993) Mixed system: England, Germany (half parliament by individual
district, half by PR) "Mixed Member System"
Participation : Join SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS tries to influence public
policy —i.e. influence law by supporting parties or candidates but do NOT
provide candidates for political office themselves (that’s what political
parties do). Also, whereas political parties adopt and fight for policies
across a broad range of issues, special interest groups focus their efforts on
one narrow policy area (hence the term, a “special” interest).
A
few of the biggest/most powerful interest groups:
1. American Association for Retired Persons—AARP
–-about 40 million members;
2. National Rifle Association—NRA—about 4 million
members.
3. Labor unions (National Education Association (NEA)—3
million members; AFSCME (state and local govt. workers 1.4 million)
4. Umbrella business organizations (U.S. Chamber of
Commerce—official 300,000 business, but also 3 million local members of local
and state Chambers of Commerce.
Participation: VOTING in
ELECTIONS
HISTORY of VOTING RIGHTS Late 1700's: only white property-owning males could
vote. I.E. it was a democracy in name,
but a plutocracy in practice. We’ve
already looked at how right to vote was expanded first to non-property-owning
white males, then to black males, then to women in general. ALSO: 26th
Amendment (1971) 18-year-olds. So,
almost none of you (if any) could legally vote when the Constitution was first
adopted. So understand that most people
take the right to vote for granted; don’t realize long, difficult political
battles to gain the right.
HOW do
people vote? (Voting Determinants)
Presidential Elections: A.***Party (biggest determinant by far--usually core of
37-43 percent for each party)
B. Swing voters (remaining 20% undecided voters):
1. Most swing
voters are unsophisticated (i.e. don’t compare multiple issue positions): ***Economy ("right track")
"retrospective voting"—verdict on peace and prosperity ***most often the deciding determinant in
Pres elections, unless there's some other BIG crisis or scandal like WWII,
Vietnam, Watergate, or Iran Hostage Crisis, EVEN THOUGH ALMOST NO INFLUENCE BY
PRESIDENT ON ECONOMY. Like a president
in a rowboat on the ocean, claiming credit for calm sea (but denying blame when
the sea is rough).
HOW MUCH DO PEOPLE
PARTICIPATE:
Conventional Participation: levels ***VERY LOW in
Voting Turnout:
(whether to vote): Most common method of
participation, and so most commonly studied by political scientists. Relatively low turnout compared to most
industrial democracies.
Presidential elections: LOW in
MUCH less in other
elections—midterm 40%, primaries 30%, state/local <20%, some local elections
are less than 10% (e.g. local judge election)
***WHY care? b/c if democracy is rule by people, but most
people aren’t voting, then it’s rule by a relatively elite few, which is oligarchy. Of adult voters, if half vote, and half who
vote pick the winning candidate, then only 1/4 or less of the adult population
is picking our leaders.
Q: So WHY is VOTING turnout
so low? Education in U.S has
increased, voting rights extended to all citizens, but STILL low.
And lower compared to most democracies, especially
much lower compared to most European democracies. Why?
Obstacles unique to U.S.: no requirement to vote, polling on workdays,
polls close too soon, polls close in East before West, primary outcomes often
pre-decided, registration is a hassle, no mail-in ballot option, too many
elections (state, local, national, primaries, etc.); 2-party system limits
choices/no clear differences, 2 parties “race to the middle” toward MEDIAN
VOTER so no real choice, divided government in our separation of powers weakens
clear accountability
Q: But why is ALL
Political Participation Low? (BESIDES the unique
Americans USED TO
participate a lot by joining groups. Memberships down: fraternal orgs (Kiwanis, elks, moose), MOST church
membership, labor unions, volunteer associations, bowling leagues, bridge clubs
even political participation like voting, parties. Why not anymore? AND education and income have increased in
Robert Putnam: Bowling Alone (2000): "Social
capital"= feelings of personal connection to your community; i.e. social trust/connection/involvement with
other people that encourages cooperation for mutual benefit. This is developed by group activities,
because you build a personal connection to, stake in, the community.: if I
TRUST you'll do your part, and I care about you, then I'm more likely to do my
part (even feel it as a duty) which reduce collective action/free rider
problem. SOCIAL capital has declined in
last 100 years. WHY??? Best Explanation: technological
transformation of leisure ALMOST ALL leisure activities of 100 years
ago, and other aspects of society, are less inter-personal today—that is, they
involve MUCH less person-to-person human interaction...
Old Form New
Equivalent
neighborhood
park drive to state park
Neighborhood bar drive to bar/nightclub
Town square news TV, radio
Meet to chat e-mail and internet
chat
Neighborhood
restaurant fast-food, drive-thru,
home delivery
Go to local concert buy, listen to CD
Go to play/theatre watch movies, watch TV, rent
videos
Watch/play sports watch on TV
Outdoor exercise home exercise machines
Interactive games computer/video games
Walk to corner store drive to distant mall, shop on
internet
Sit on Front porch no front porch, inside
air-conditioning
Drive in open buggy sit inside sealed window
air-conditioned car.
Go to local bank ATM machine
Live in same town relocate often
Work in same town commute to work in other town
Work in office Work from home via
computer
Technologyà lack of personal interactionàlack of trust/personal connection/"social
capital"àlack of social/political participation
Thus,
technology brings enormous benefits, BUT at enormous costs as well . . . How fix the problem? No simple or easy solution . . . And thus the
big question: Can democracy survive the
continued growth of technology?. Do the
costs outweigh the benefits? Should be
all go back to pre-industrial technology?
Like the Amish have maintained? Movie: The Village?
The
point is, technology brings us great benefits in medicine, communication,
transportation, etc. BUT at a GREAT
COST. (See also Neal Postman, Amusing
Ourselves to Death). Is technology more
harmful than beneficial.?
REPRESENTATION—what are RESULTS of participation,
especially ELECTIONS?
ELECTIONS: Function in
representative democracy: elect leaders to enact voter-preferred policies (which confers
legitimacy on govt.)
This
should be obvious—no one is going to vote for someone who they think is going
to do the opposite of what you want.
BUT Congressional policy (laws) match preferences of public only about 2/3 of
time. (i.e. 1/3 is NOT what public
wants.) WHY NOT 100%?
1. Represenatives have different views of
Representation i.e. what their proper role is as a representative. (Data: )
DELEGATE: act as represented wants, regardless
whether in their best interest or not.
Arrogant to presume know better than public.
TRUSTEE: act in interest of represented,
regardless of what they want.
Irresponsible to do what you know is mistake/bad/wrong.
POLITICO: sometimes one, sometimes the
other. Do what public wants, unless
REALLY bad/wrong. MOST politicians.
2. In party primary elections, where
the parties pick their own candidates who will late compete against other
parties’ candidates in the final general election, voters tend to be die-hard party
members, more extreme ideologues than general public. So in the general election, you tend to have
a very liberal Democrat candidate versus a very conservative Republican
candidate; thus whoever gets elected, they are out-of-the-mainstream, and so
will tend to support policies a majority of the public is against. Classic example: March 2005, Republican Congress and Pres. Bush
got involved to stop the withdrawal of a feeding tube from a permanently
comatose women in
3. Interest
groups: most of your campaign money comes not from ordinary
citizen-voters, but from big donors like interest groups. So you’ll tend to vote in favor of where the
money comes from, because without big money, you can’t get re-elected.
What
influences floor vote? On
what do legislators base their votes?
Kingdon:
"How did you go about making up your mind on the ____ bill? Percent of legislators who mentioned ____ as
influential:
1. Colleagues in
Congress 40%
2. Voting Constituency 37%
3. Interest Groups 31%
4. Presidential
Administration 25%
5. Party Leaders in Congress 10%]]]
4. DIVIDED GOVERNMENT (Divided Party Government)— RECALL: candidate-centered, not party-centered
campaigns. If so, then statistically,
we’d expect near randomness in party control of House, Senate, and Pres. Thus,
½ *
½ * ½ = 1/8
of time we would expected unified government.
(In fact vast majority of last 40 years have been divided
government). But if President and
Congress (one or both chambers) controlled by different parties, who do you
blame? Thus, lack of accountability. (And
both parties know this, so allows them to play the blame game and avoid
accountability.) e.g. national debt. Each party blames the other, Congress and
Pres. blame each other, when BOTH Democrats and Republicans, Presidents and
Congresses have ALL been equally responsible.
5. INCUMBENT
ADVANTAGE—Incumbent
is person already elected and serving in office, running for re-election (in a
democracy).
Incumbents always have a big
advantage. WHY?
a. ***campaign contributions BIGGEST
FACTOR:
FEC 2004 Congressional campaign data: Incumbents: 1.1 Billion, challengers; 160
million. 7 times advantage.
Why?
Already proven winner, and can already directly influence public policy;
large majority of $ from industry PACS
Most political scientists who have done studies on the financing of campaigns
say money is the number #1 influence in winning an election—whichever candidate
has more money, usually wins. So if you
have the money, you can ignore what voters want, because all you have to do to
win is outspend your opponent. Thus,
winning elections is ALL about money and nothing but money.
2000 elections: spending under 500:000 odds
zero. under 1 million, odds were 24:1.
1-1.5 M odds 15:1. Over 1.5 million, still 3:1.
b. name recognition—obviously, they have been
in the news for several years (.e.g. Eddie Murphy in The Distinguished
Gentleman).
c. media coverage--free, and can manufacture
it by granting interviews, having press conferences, announcing law proposals,
etc.
There are other advantages (such as gaining support
from doing favors for voters) but money is the biggest one by far.
SOLUTION TO INCUMBENT
ADVANTAGE: TERM LIMITS? (by law, limit
elected officials to number of terms in office)
Both sides in favor and against term limits want same
goal: prevent corruption, abuse of
power, and poor representation by legislators. BUT two sides differ whether
term limits would be the solution or the cause of corruption and
abuse of power, and poor representation.
But, U.S. Supreme Court has ruled term limits would violate the
Constitution, because no limit is put on the terms. So amendment would be needed.
What has our Congressional
representation—i.e. the political ambitions and policies of Congress--resulted
in?
THE NATIONAL DEBT (NOTE: these figures are changing so rapidly (in a
bad way) that these class notes can not constantly keep up with the worsening
figures, so keep in mind current financial figures are worse than what you are
reading.)
WHAT is it?
Deficit is amount budget is short in a given year; i.e. you
spend more than you take in as revenue.
Debt is cumulative total debt owed (i.e total of current
and all past deficits). Always been a little debt, it got bigger during WWII
and then wasn’t so much a problem until 1980’s. Currently over 16 trillion
dollars, and rapidly rising (by more than a trillion per year).
Who owns the debt?: --4 trillion held by “public” i.e. citizens,
but mostly big businesses, domestic and foreign investors (big
--several
trillion held by
WHERE does the debt come
from? Congress and
Presidents want to get re-elected. This means promising NEW and HIGHER benefits
in social welfare programs while at the same time NOT raising taxes or even
CUTTING taxes—which means always more borrowing and more debt is needed.
Entitlement programs—Social Security and Medicare—pay out far more benefits
than they take in through tax revenues.
AND military spending: since 2004,
WHY is the debt problem
getting worse?
BUDGET: 1. Entitlement
programs: social security, Medicare, Medicaid) about 50% of the annual federal
budget. UNFUNDED liabilities in coming
decades, according to Boards of Trustees of Social Security and Medicare—over 100 Trillion.
How bad is the problem? Currently 100% debt-to-GDP ratio.
Congressional Budget Office
estimates: 768% debt-to GDP in future if
nothing done to fix social security and medicare.
What if we can’t afford the interest payments anymore? As the debt
increases, more and more of the federal budget MUST go to pay the interest on
the debt. At some point, problem will
get so bad, interest payments will threaten to take up entire budget. Possible solutions:
1.
Default/declare bankruptcy. Government can NOT just ignore the interest
payments; this would mean the government would default on it’s loans; and
everyone the
EX:
--This is what some South American countries did in 1970’s—e.g.
But
the
2.
Print currency: print TRILLIONS of dollars of new money to pay
the debt. Problem: If you add more
money, then inflation of prices occurs. Print off LOTS more money, and hyperinflation
occurs. EVERTHING costs a lot more, and
quickly costs more. Businesses can’t
afford to raise wages to match, but then no one can buy much of anything, so
many businesses go bankrupt, millions lose their jobs.
EX:
--American Revolutionary War, Continental Congress printed so much money; the
Continental Dollar became worthless.
--Also
Confederate States of
—like
the old
AND
can’t just fix wages and prices, as people and merchants realize the money is
worthless, they’ll turn to OTHER nation’s
currencies (Pound, Yen, Euro, Yuan, Swiss Frank), or precious metals, thereby
spiraling the existing money into worthlessness; also severe shortages
result—e.g. everyone tries to buy all of a store’s food supply before the price
increases.
CURE: re-value the currency; declare old currency
worthless, and start over with new bills with limited supply. Lots of people—anyone with the old money--
loses out big-time this way! You still
have economic depression.
3.
MUCH higher taxes OR BIG spending cuts OR BOTH. This is called AUSTERITY. But much
higher taxes and big spending cuts will cripple the economy—imagine all your
taxes are doubled at the same time social security, medicare, and defense
payments are cut in half—that’s a whole lot of people with far less income. So again, MASSIVE economic problem—maybe even
another Great Depression.
4.*** The BEST (least bad) solution is to do
something NOW rather than put it off. BUT Congress refuses because it wants to
get re-elected, so it won’t raise taxes or cut spending. So basically, the current generation is
enjoying all this borrowing and spending, and sticking the next generation with
the big problem.
When will this reach a
crisis? Even experts aren’t sure,
BUT it’s starting to look really bad in the next 10-20 years, as the Baby Boom
generation retires and so the costs of Social Security and Medicare start going
way higher. And the problem will
accelerate as the U.S. government has a harder time borrowing, the interest it
pays will have to be higher in order to get people, banks, or nations to loan
it money, and thus interest payments will increase, which means we’ll have to borrow
more to pay that interest, and a negative feedback loop will thus be created.
This is called a debt spiral.
What are possible
SOLUTIONs?
1. BALANCED BUDGET
AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution would require Congress to balance the
annual budget. BUT Balanced budget
amendment to the U.S. Constitution passed in the House but failed in the Senate
in 1997. This goes against re-election chances.
2. Short of a balanced budget
amendment, Congress could cap borrowing as a percent of the economy—e.g cap
debt at 20% of the economy. But again, this would handcuff politicians who want
re-election.
3. Reform current spending
programs:
a.
Entitlement programs: Social Security and Medicare-make them means tested,
raise the retirement, lower benefits, trust funds held.
b.
Defense Spending—cut costly and obsolete programs, nuclear triad; defense of
Europe and
BUT these are all politically dangerous for any
candidate or official to support. The public and elected officials want
benefits and re-election NOW; so leave it for someone else to deal with when it
reaches a crisis proportion.
So
the current generations are enjoying all this borrowing and spending, and
sticking the next generations with a massive problem, because a majority of
people and politicians at the moment refuse to deal with the problem.
WHEN YOU
BOIL IT ALL DOWN:
4 most common views of power in
1. Democratic Pluralism: Robert Dahl: Who
Governs? Policy made by different groups that dominate each policy area
(e.g. loggers and environmentalists decide national forest policy) BUT no ONE group dominates MANY
or ALL policy areas. Thus, diverse
people and interests govern.—ala
AND basic rights of minorities
are protected against majority decisions of the majority, because majority
isn’t always right/good.
If aliens from outer space
came down and asked? "The American Creed" "Habits of the Heart"—Alexis de
Tocqueville]
All things we’ve looked at during the
semester:
1. Democracy (self government) with popular
sovereignty—elections, majority rule
2.
Limited Government--Separation of Powers, Checks and Balances, Federalism,
Enumerated Powers, Sep. of Church and State
3.
Pluralism (diversity of groups)--Ethnic, religious, economic, regional, etc.
4. Equality (of opportunity) (both political and
economic)—Equal Protection Clause
5.
Freedom/Liberty --Bill of Rights
2. Majoritarianism: policy made by majority: universal participation, political equality (of vote),
majority rule. Over the long enough time
period, the majority eventually gets its way (e.g. first slavery, but then the
end of slavery; women’s rights, etc.).
3. ELITISM: policy is made
by a few individuals or organizations that make up a relatively small percent
of the overall population, because of either
wealth/power/interest/motivation. Thus,
on paper, in theory we’re a democracy, but in reality we’re an OLIGARCHY. (rule
by elite few) and actually a PLUTOCRACY (rule by wealthy)—e.g. big
corporations, wealthy individuals, government leaders, political party leaders,
large and powerful interest groups.
a. Elitism (negative view): C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite: Elitism is a bad (democracy is good,
oligarchy is bad). Why? because government policy either neglects or oppresses
the masses. But more than just that . .
.
1.
political participants are elites: --older, educated, high income people
(formerly white males) more involved in politics.
65-74 voting turnout twice that
of 24-35; advanced or professional
degree three times that of high school;
2.
elites in public choose elites representatives—again, Congress 2000: 40%
lawyers and 25% millionaires, and
2000: House 86%
white, Senate 97% white, House 85% Men, Senate 97% Men.
2002 Half of 62 entering Members of Congress were
millionaires, compared with less than 1% of population.
I.e. white male millionaire lawyers
3. elite representatives guarantee their own lock on
power: 2-party system, incumbent advantage.
4.
policy enacted by representatives favors elites—lower tax rates on rich,
corporate subsidies, low wages for workers, etc.
V.O.
Key, The Responsible Electorate, American public is competent to participate in
politics—they manage to reach meaningful decisions
Thus, we are oligarchic-plutocratic-democratic
hybrid.
b. ELITISM (positive view): Thomas Dye and Harmon Zeigler: The Irony of
Democracy; Walter Lippmann, the
Phantom Public (The American
public is incompetent to participate in politics—no interest, awareness,
tolerance, etc.) classical political philosophy: Plato’s Republic;
Socrates, Aristotle only “the best” (i.e. the wisest) are fit to rule:
Yes,
Elitism exists but it is GOOD that our nation is run by elites (that is, is an
oligarchy).
WHY?,
because the MASSES of common, ordinary citizens are politically unaware,
uninterested, uninvolved, intolerant, uneducated,etc. The are INCAPABLE of governing themselves,
and don’t bother to do it even if they could, and we don’t want ignorant,
uneducated masses to rule.
ELITES,
however, elites ARE politically aware, interested, involved, tolerant, educated
etc. Thus, they rule our nation much
better than the masses could or do. In
other words, elites are caretakers of the
Note that elections are an aristocratic
institution: we vote for “the best” to
govern. This presumes some are “better”
rulers than others. Otherwise,
democratic rulers would be chosen by lottery. e.g. like jury service is a civic
duty for all today; Ancient Athens, Greece democracy: all free male adults were
selected by lottery to govern in the Senate.
Thus, we are an
aristocratic-democratic hybrid.
Note: this view that elitism is good is
controversial, and relatively few people adopt this view. BUT it has a long
history—Alexander Hamilton and some few other framers of the Constitution did
not trust the masses;
***If both forms of elitism
are partially correct, then our nation is an aristocratic-oligarchic- plutocratic-democratic
hybrid..
Also
note that
the framers of the Constitution intentionally created what is called a “mixed
regime.” Where elements of
different types of regimes are blended together:
Rule
by one (Autocracy): the President
Rule
by a few (Oligarchy/aristocracy): the U.S. Senate (remember the U.S. Senate was originally
appointed by state legislatures)
Rule
by many (Democracy): U.S. House of Representatives
Also recall the lawmaking process for federal laws:
House + Senate + President = Law
So then, one could argue that in
our
Democracy + Oligarchy +
Autocracy = Law.
The
point is that our system is not 100% anything, it is a mixture of many
different types of political rule.
So the American Experiment is
not only ongoing, it will ALWAYS remain ongoing as long as there is a
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
***Don’t forget the final exam
is partly cumulative! See the final exam
review guide for details. J