Category Archives: US POLITICAL SYSTEM-SPAS
Cabinet Recruitement Member
THE RECRUITMENT OF CABINET MEMBER
In deciding upon a single man rather than a collective executive the founding father ensured that the American cabinet would become a subordinate advisory body to the President rather than the main organ of executive decision making. The constitution does not mention the cabinet by name at all and its existence rests purely on convention. The document merely says that The President may require the advice in writing of the principle officer in its department about their respective duties. Unlike the British cabinet, American departmental secretaries are the president’s subordinate and or not colleges with whom he has work for many years in legislatures. The concepts of responsibility do not exist; cabinet members owe their loyalty to the President individually. Moreover, being a cabinet secretary is not necessarily seen as the pinnacle of a political career as it is in the British system[1].
Appointment of the cabinet
The selection of the heads of the executive department one of the first action a President – elect takes before his inauguration, and it therefore receive great public attention as the choices give an early indication of the style and tone to fill the top posts in his government. The individual do not necessarily have to be in the same party as himself and there is no need for the appointees to have held any political posts before. Many cabinet secretaries are selected for their specialist expertise or administrative capabilities and may well have previously worked in industry, commerce or the academic world.
The qualification of cabinet recruitment is including the senate approval of cabinet appointment which is normally given after committee hearings. Some of example in which the cabinet nominees from president have not been given passed by senate approval is when president Bush suffered a severe setback when john tower became the first cabinet nominee to be rejected since the senate rejected Lewis Strauss as Eisenhower’s commerce secretary in 1959. This means that there are some limitations on presidential choice. First, many members of congress are not prepare to give up their seat and seniority in the legislature to take a temporary job in the executive branch, although president Clinton was able to persuade a number of senior members of congress to join his cabinet in 1993[2].
The use of the cabinet
Each president can use the cabinet as he likes; he can call it frequently in formal meetings, such as Dwight Eisenhower favored, or he can have only irregular meeting, work with fuzzy lines of responsibility, and deal with department heads on an individual basis as John F. Kennedy preferred. For example, there is the difference presidency is that Reagan has used his system so that the cabinet member are feel closer to him than they do to their department. And he gives them a lot of opportunity to remember that. This means president often pick their closest adviser from person familiar to them or highly recommended by those who are. Positions less close to the president such as cabinet members are mainly held by strangers. As President Reagan articulated some guidelines he used to select top governmental personal.
“My basic rule is that I want people who do not want a job in government. I want people who are already successful that they would regard a government job as a step down, and not step up. I do not want empire builders; I want people who will be the first to tell me if their jobs are unnecessary. Out there in the private sector there are an awful lot of brains and talent in people who have not learned all the things you cannot do. (We will have) a new restructuring of the presidential cabinet that will make cabinet officer the managers of the national administration – not captives of the bureaucracy or special interest in departments that they are supposed to direct[3].”
The advantages and disadvantages of recruitment system
The American method of staffing the administration is based on the unique tradition of the presidency: position of party patronage existing alongside a large prominent bureaucracy appointed on the basis of competitive examination. This piecemeal evolution has, of course led to problems, but at the same time the system recruitment has proved to be functional within the diffuse executive branch.
The president is able to receive political advice from people he trust and who are committed to the administration programs. He is able to influence policy making and execution by appointing senior advisers and some middle management position in each department. On the other hand, it can be argued that the system of recruitment causes friction between the permanent civil servant and the “outsiders” who are immediately placed in senior position while knowing little or nothing practical working of the department.
CONCLUSION
The process of it is a sub-process, related to every point to the American political system as a whole, and revealing something of reactive nature of the Cabinet as an institution. The process finds its underlying consistency in the fundamental pluralism of American Politics. Until such time as the basic contours of the system change, Cabinet appointment will continue to frustrate those who seek a neatly rational scheme of selection to which they can apply equally well-structured systems prediction and judgment.
REFERENCES
Baumgartner, Frank R. 1998. Basic Interest: The Imprtance of Groups in Politics and in Political Science. New Jersey : Princeton University Press
Grant, Alan. 2004. The American Political Process. New York : Routledge Publishing
Keefe, William., Henry Abraham., William Flanigan., Charles Jones., Morris Ogul., John Spanier. 1983. American Democracy: Intstitution, Politics, and Policies. Illinois: The Dorsey Press
[1] Grant, 2004. p. 219.
[2] Grant, 2004. p.220.
[3] Keef, 1983. p.350
US CONGRESS and The Committee System
To understand the committee system is, in very large part, to understand Congress as a whole. Power of congress is dispersed and scattered in twenty two standing committees in the Hose, fifteen in the Senate, and seven major joint committees (on which members of both the House and Senate it), and further dispersed into a proliferating network of subcommittees (today, well over two hundred)[1]. Each major standing committee enjoys jurisdiction over a particular subject matter (these usually parallel the executive departments: justice, interior, commerce, labor, etc); a sizable professional staff to help it in its work; and a history of general deference from other congressional committees in its area of jurisdiction[2]. The basis of the committee system, then, has traditionally been found in subject matter specialization and in seniority, qualifications which, while understandable in some respects, fragment, decentralize both houses of Congress. The implications of such distribution of power were and are serious. Especially for a bill to become law, it has always been necessary to first gain the approval of powerful and strategically located chairmen scattered in various committees. A single legislative proposal, for instance, might have to clear at least three committees in its own chamber. To say nothing of the other chamber, as well as the “conference committee” to work out any disparities between versions of bills coming out of each house of Congress. The ability of congress to formulate and successfully complete legislative work on importantn pieces of national policy, whether related energy, the environment, the economy, or foreign policy, is thus limited, but the same is not necessarily the case for legislation related to congressional “pork barrel”, in which a condition when virtually all members of Congress have something to gain[3]. As the bicameral system in US Congress in which power is divided between House and Senate, there has created a multitude of power generates the background reasion of committee establishment. Additionally, private interest-groups, and mostly representing business have been better able to penetrate and to form cozy relationships with subsections of Congress and raise the necessity of committee and subcomittee creation. Those committees are known as:
- Standing Committee
Permanent committees established under the standing rules of the Senate and specializing in the consideration of particular subject areas. There are currently 16 standing committees.
- Select Committee
A committee established by the Senate for a limited time period to perform a particular study or investigation. These committees might be given or denied authority to report legislation to the Senate.
- Joint Committee
Committees including membership from both houses of Congress. Joint committees are usually established with narrow jurisdictions and normally lack authority to report legislation. Chairmanship usually alternates between the House and Senate members from Congress to Congress.
- Subcommittee
Subunit of a committee established for the purpose of dividing the committee’s workload. Recommendations of a subcommittee must be approved by the full committee before being reported to the Senate.
- Conference Committee
A temporary, ad hoc panel composed of House and Senate conference which is formed for the purpose of reconciling differences in legislation that has passed both chambers. Conference committees are usually convened to resolve bicameral differences on major and controversial legislation[4].
CONCLUSION
Congress is an institution with bicameral system in which to bridge differences between senate and houses, then commitees are established based on specific roles they play.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
www.senate.gov/reference/glosary_term/conference_committee.htm
Cipto, Bambang. 2004. Politik dan Pemerintahan Amerika.
Greenberg, Edward. 1983. The American Political System: A Radical Approach. University of Colorado
commerce.senate.gov (US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation)
[1] Greenberg, Edward. 1983. The Political American System: ARadical Approach. P. 313
[2] Greenberg, Edward. 1983. The Political American System: A Radical Approach. P. 314
[3] Fiorina. Congress. P. 42
[4] www.senate.gov/reference/
Mass Media Influencing in US Foreign Policy
INTRODUCTION
The mass media and communication process have become very significant elements in the politics of US foreign policy. More importanly mass media has become the forth pillar in the US democracy. Besides, US mass media has high relative freedom other than its democracy partners. Two accounts for this: (1) people have greater need for information about national and international affaris and (2) communications revolution makes it possible to rapidly communicate events and information instantly anywher. General importance of mass media is people will always rely on the sources of events and informations from radio television, internet of newspaper before they eventually shape and voice their opinion publicly. The american public, both mass and elite publics have become dependent on the news media for information and uneestanding of national and international affairs. In many ways, media coverage today is better than ever before. However, regardless the rapid development of mass media throughout US, Americans have less attention on international affairs in which they are more interested with issues concerning domestic issues about their own government. But above sentence does not close the possibilities of American on thinking and shaping their opinion in international affairs. Then, this makes the US media’s concern on international affairs is partially pays greater attention to the countries which are economically affluent, politically powerful and culturally similar to the United States. As an exact example, there is one foreign affair devoted cable television spesifically raises discussion about foreign affair on nation-state issues, it’s CNN—Cable News Network that has already had covered on more thatn 120 countries in the world. The influence of mass media can be vary according to the aspects or issues where lots of audiences or viewers are interested to hear, listen nor read. Those can be concerning about health, social security, financial and others, but we are going to focus our discussion on how mass media will help to give affect on foreign policy decision making.
Foreign policy decision making can be influenced by the action takes based on what is delivered by the mass media.
Most of american media focus on the local and national news with little attention given to international news. There is indirect approach as media seeks to influence foreign policy that is using pblication and broadcastst to try and change the beliefs and policy preferences of mass and or elite audiences. There are two historical examples in which mass media can lead to influencing foreign policy.
First, Foreign policy decision making is also influenced by the actions the public takes based on what is represented by the media, or just the simple influence the media itself has on the government. An example of this is the “CNN effect”, a phenomenon where the broadcasts of cable news organizations spur the action of the U.S. government and foreign policy officials. The term was coined in response to the footage of starving children in Somalia, which weighed highly on officials and prompted them to send military aid there. Then the footage of Somalis dragging the dead body of an American soldier though the streets was aired, and this represented a case that led to withdrawal. Here it is admitted that foreign policy officials often learn of trouble spots abroad from cable channel coverage. With this at hand, one can assume that, if it is in the media’s interest, it can be used in various forms, such as convincing propaganda, to directly influence foreign policy. The media, whether by choice or by accident, influences the public, and in the U.S., the public plays a large part in the election of foreign officials, although it is indirect. After the initial success of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, with a quick defeat of the Iraqi military and the capture of Saddam Hussein, the public was bombarded with images of fallen soldiers. A gradual shift of public support of the ensued as the media relayed the “facts” about the conflict. When the notion that the war was not proving successful spread, a public effort against the war began. Protests rang out in Washington, and some officials were forced to speak against the war in order to keep their popularity. A resistance to the war in Iraq erupted, and the foreign policy decision making was strongly influenced. The original reason for entering the war, the search for Weapons of Mass Destruction, transitioned to the claim that terrorist groups that threatened national security were operational within Iraq. They also made a hard case for the freedom of the Iraqi people, stating that if the U.S. was to withdraw its forces, Iraq would once again fall into the hands of a regime ruled by another dictator. As exemplified here, the government was forced to change its foreign relations with Iraq to counter opposition to the Iraq War, as a result of the public reaction from what was disclosed by the media. (2) it will be talking about the lack of exact information provided by mass media could lead to the failure of foreign policy needed to solve the international problems in the extent of international relations in making a more peaceful world. The example is the failure of the media to fully report on the genocide that claimed esetimated 800,000 lives in Rwanda during 100-day periond in 1994, made it easy for Western governments to ignore the ciris that they preferred not to acknowledge untill long after it ended.[1]
CONCLUSION
Therefore, we can assume that mass media has played critical role in shaping public opinion and then become a political actors in which they cover area to influence foreign policy. Due to Americans are deendent on the media as source of information—national and internationl affairs, news media have a major impact on public knowledge in the politics of US foreign policy. Therefore, mass media has become the desireable access form competing groups of interests in influencing and controlling nor shaping public opinion as well as to arrange foreign policy.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
newsflavor.com
Carrauthers, Susan. 2000. The Media at War. New York: St. Martin’s Press
[1] Carruthers, Susan. 2000. Media at War published by St. Martin’s Press
Interest Group: Influencing in Foreign Policy
INTEREST GROUP: INFLUENCING IN FOREIGN POLICY
INTRODUCTION
The definition of interest group in US history narates as the organizationas that seek to influence the public policy in which many variety of organizations can be assumed as interest groups. Interest groups then defined as groups range from large, mass-membership organizations such as the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), to labor unios, such as the United Auto Workers (UAW), to large corporations such as Exxon Mobile. Interest group activity is something in which they they engage in order to protect their primary activities, such as making and selling a product or service. Another distinction that can be made between interest groups that exist to promote a particular cause such as the National Rifle Association in which exists primarily to oppose gun control and interest groups such as corporations that may become involved in a wide range of pulic policies such as taxation, environmental protection, and trade policy that affects their interests.
Interest groups have been long thought to be central to American politics. The writers of Federalist Papers especially in Numbers 10 and 51 cast their arguments in favor of the Constitution in large part on how it would both facilitate and restrain interest-group activity. In the thought of American History, different types of interest groups have been brought to prominent as the products of socioeconomic changer, social movements, and government policies. For instance, the recurring economic crises of American agriculture from the alte nieteenth century onward prompted the creation of a succession of agricultural interest group: the Grange, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and the National Farmer’s Union. The major social movements of the late twentieth century also left an impac in which civil rights groups came to prominence in the 1960’s, folowed by groups representing women (especially the National Organization for Women—NOW). Business interest groups, seeking to counter the influence of unions and public-interest groups, set the pace in terms of fund-raising and organization in the 1980’s and 1990s. While some of these interest groups have since seen their influence decline, all retain an important presence in American politics today. The interest-group landscape thus reflects a complex geology in which, different interest groups are created by a variety forces.
Interest groups have used a wide array of tactics over the yearrs, ranging from campaigning in elections to bribery. The most obvious tactics used today are lobbying and making campaign contribution. All major interest group such as the American Federation of Labor-Congress Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), the Business Roundtable, and individual companies such as Exxon Mobile or DuPont employ professionals whose job is to persuade legislators and executive-branch officials of the wisdom and justice of the group’s case. Most studies of lobbyist have condluded that the most effective lobbyist are those who have established with whom they deal[1].
In spite of the the ubiquity, a debate has raged throughout American history about whether interest groups are an aird or a barrier to the practice of democracy. Defenders of interest groups aregued that they are both a central aspect of democratic politics and an aid to good government. The Bill of Rights protects the right of the people to petition theri government and interest groups exists to do just that. The clash of interest between interest groups aids policymakers by prviding more and better information for making policy decisions. However, interest groups also have dominates a policy area to the disadvantage of the public as a whole. Second, it is feared that the interest group system distorts democary because the resources required to be effective attract members and money; the large corporations that they confront can easily command the resources they need to staf a Washington office for their lobbyist, to creat a PAC, or to make soft money contribution.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
[1] Most lobbyists feel that they are more likely to gain a hearing for their arguments if their interest group makes campaign contributions to the politicians with whom they deal. Since 1974, campaign contributions made directly to candidates (known as hard money) must be made through Political Action Committee (PACs) that are linked to the interest group but legally separated from its general funds. Contributions are limited to a maximum of $5,000 for each election (primary and general) and must be reported to the Federal Election Commission (FEC.) It was hoped that the combination of limiting contributions considerably and publicizing them would prevent abuses. In the late twentieth century, however, interest groups were allowed to make unlimited contributions through parties to candidates. This “soft money” could come directly from the interest group’s general funds and need not have been raised explicitly for political purposes.
Party Organization and Financing
INTRODUCTION
PARTY ORGANIZATION and ITS FINANCING[1]
As taken from “US Political & Organization”: the naration of party organization comprises of National party, State party and local party: district and county committee. Compared to National party and State party, local party generally doesn’t play important role even in a regional level. In fact, local party aren’t having a functional and essential role. The status of political party can be vary. Political party in United States isn’t literally private organization as well as not fully governmental organization. The exact term used to define the status of political party in US: public institution that is not dependent because their moving is shaped by rules which is made by state legislature. State has authority in establishing political party including specific points: determination about political party, their citizenship how to become a political party membership, and when primary election will be held. In other word, US political party is not fully capable to manage themself as in another democratic nations. This due to the fact that US has experienced which is: state constitution has made possible for state government to fully manage the activity of political party in their own region. There are two reasons why state government inclined to fully control the activity of political party in their region, those are: first, in the early independence there was suspiciousness to the high raising phenomena of political party so that state doesn’t want political party become political power which then outraging—threatening the power of state. Second,after civil war, political parties has been the source of corruption and colution so that makes states inclined to fully control the its life. Political party in US is independent without legitimate membership as parties in Europe. Party is more dependent to its party activist without relying on full support from its member. Organization party in US is more like called as an “election machine” which means as an organization will be very active prior to election.
NATIONAL PARTY
Organization party in the national extent hosted in Washington DC. National party consists of representative from county distincitve from another. The phenomena is, its leader (national chair person) is not fully recognized by public. If related party is ruling in White House, then its leader plays as if he were representative of president as if he were a famous political figure. He plays the interconnectedness between president and congress in which president needs national party leader to contact congress. On the contrary, if related party is not ruling in White House, then its leader will have more significant rule than any ex-president nor lost president candidate. An opposition party leader can easily promote and undergo policy without having adjusted to the present administrative. National party has several ultimate functions: experimenting function, public relation, financing collector and national conferention. Experiment function: done by national party as the preparation to president election nor legistalature election. This makes national party possible to recognize the election pattern done in certain level society and to identify variables related with the election. Public relation function: is closely related with experiment function. This improve what the party has from the result of specific actions so that can help politician appearance. Finance (fund) collector (accumulation): needed to manage party organization in the national, state and local extent. For example, concerning the expansion of Democratic party encourages collector to accumulate huge amount of money. Those fund dedicated to support prior to democratic election process. The specific note for a good fund collector during 1980 was Bill Brock, he was defended by Ronald Reagan as republican leader. The last function is, national conferention: this function places party as the only organization which has the most authority to determine president candidates and party vision.
STATE PARTY
State party appeared as the model of party leadership. If a party has significantly in rule in certain state, generally an elected governor will be coming from that significant party in which a party leader will establish good cooperation with the elected governor. In fact, a party leader usually an old friend of elected govenor. This condition usually promotes good relationship among them. The financing will be easily conducted and managed because the relationship between executive power and certain political party is well got along. On the contrary, if both parties are in opposition side, then state will be ruled by a leader of state party which is more independent. Both parties will have to find another methods to accumulate donation for its financing. Consequently, leader parties usually will be more both self-sufficient and influential to the state. Besides, state party can appear based on the party system in each state. The party system in state basically distinguished one to another, some states party has significant role in political succesion, particularly on the strong reqruitment of legislature candidate.
COUNTY COMMITTEE
The County Committee is composed of all the district committee members in the county. Except in Philadelphia where it is called a city committee, every county has a county committee for each major party. The county chairperson is usually elected by the committee members at a formal meeting. In some counties the chairperson is elected directly by the voters at the primary election. The county chairperson’s influence is strong when decisions are made about nominees, endorsements, appointments, election issues, and campaign strategies.
DISTRICT COMMITTEE
The District Committee of each party is composed of two people from each recinct (the election district or precinct is the geographical area in which all voters use the same polling place). Committee members serve for two years and are elected at primary elections in even-numbered years. These two committee members are responsible for keeping in touch with party members in their precinct, for registering new residents in their party, and for getting their party members out to vote. In some areas of the state several election district combine to make up a ward. The ward committee for each party is made up of all the district committee members in that ward. These committee members elect a ward chairperson. If there is no ward, the next level of party organization above the district committee is the city, township, or borough committee. All district committee members are part of one of these committees. They are also members of the county committee.
FINANCE
Fund-raising is a major function of party committees at all levels. Party committees and committees organized to work only for particular candidates are faced with the constant need to raise funds to conduct campaigns. Methods of raising money include mail solicitation, personal contact, bake sales,and receptions and dinners for which tickets are sold. Under Pennsylvania law, which applies to candidates running for local and statewide
office, there are no limits on either campaign expenditures or contributions. Candidates or political committees receiving more than $200 in contributions must file financial reports listing the name, address and occupation of each contributor. A report of all receipts and expenditures must be filed with the state Bureau of Elections prior to the election and a final report must be filed after the election. Candidates for local officers who do not intend to receive or spend more than $200 may simply sign an affidavit to that effect. Campaign expense reporting forms are available from either the county board of elections or the Bureau of Elections. Corporations, associations and unions are prohibited from making political contributions; however, these groups may
form political action committees (PAC’s) through which they may contribute. Political action committees operate under the same reporting rules as other political committees. Candidates in Pennsylvania who are running for national officer must conform to federal laws that limit the amount of money that may
be received from an individual.
CONCLUSION
US party organization comprises of different arrangement of paties consisting of national party located in US capital city and at the lower level: state party and local party. The most two significants in US party organization is national and state party. Both are conducting different techniques in funding their action and promote their candidate either to run for president or state legislature.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
——-. 2005. US Political and Government.
www.palw.org: the League Women Voters in Pennsylvania.
[1] You may vote for candidates in the primary only if you listed a party affiliation when you registered to vote.
Alexander Hamilton
Brief introduction
Alexander Hamilton born in 1755 in British West Indies, served in the Revolutionary army as lieutenant-colonel, an aide to George Washington. His povital roles were defining the governmental mechanisms for managing national economy, his career in military aspects and his contribution to the Constitution. Although he had become one iconic figure shaping American Revolution, but yet Hamilton’s image in the American consciousness remains cloudy and vaguely negative.
Hamilton’s contribution
He is not Jefferson and Lincoln like who is able to capture and remain as the great great American founding father. Hamilton emphasized self-interes as the prime mover of human affairs, Jefferson exalted the ability of humankind to realize virtuous ideals; Hamilton championed strong government, Jefferson championed the individual; Hamilton issued the Report on Manufactures, Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence; he concerned himself with the intricacies of finance and federal power; Jefferson foinded the University of Virginia and invented the dumbwaiter.
Above all, Hamilton was a staunch opponent of the institution. His vision of the United States as a global power stabilized by capilaism proved prophetic.
Hamilton as A Revolutionary Soldier
At first, Hamilton sympathized with the British and thus makes him not appreciate the demands of American patriots. But later, he then defended the Boston Tea Party and attempted to bind colonies and Britain treated equal. As the prove, British Parlianment and King didn’t cede any significant degree. The battle of Lexington then was the evidence for the colonies that there would be no piece between colonies and British. Soon after that, Hamilton enrolled New York militia and in 1775 accepted an appointment as captain of the New York Artillery Company. Because of his achievement as Washington aide-de-camp, he was increasingly repected by New York political leaders who admired his valued and eloquence proximity to Washington and detailed knowledge of the course of the war.
One proposal hamilton supported, as the British pressed the war in the South; was for the American Army to enlist slaves there as they had ocasionally done in the North. But the idea struck to the heart of many whites’ fears of black rebellion. As the consequence, the proposal never managed to overcome the strnuous objections of Southern legislatures, but it reveals the striking distance between Hamilton and Jefferson on the question of slavery.
During a war years, nonetheless, Hamilton acquired a wide reputation as a brave soldies, a gentleman of refined sentimenst, a writer and rhetorician of redoubtale nted and a man of supreme confindence who seemed to have a solution for every problem to be perfectly willing to distinguish his own views from his superiors, including Washington.
Federalist
As a New York delegate to the Constituional Conventiona, Hamilton initially had to compete with Robers yates and John Lansinf, jr. Hamilton’s role in the framing and ratification of the Constitution was a curious one. He didn’t prove to be a particularly distinguished or influential delegate at the Conviention—many members thought his proposals went too far in strengthening the central government. The ideas Hamilton presented on June 18, 1787, after approximately a month of peripheral involvement, included some shockers: state governors would be appoionted by the President; the President and Senators would hold office for life; and the Congress would retain exclusive authority to make all the laws of the country. Thus to say that Hamilton tried to put American into monarchy. The second major distinguishing feature of Hamilton’s political philosophy was its emphasis on enegetic government: he belived that the government should be proactive in economic and military affairs, have the power to supersede the lower governments (as at the state level), and be able to exercise authority directly on the people.
Secretary of the Treasury
Hamilton is best known for this tenure as the Secretary of the Treasure for his vision centralized on the most essential things resolving american financial problem after its revolution. Those are: Govermern must: promote the public good; Actively encourage manufacturing; Responsible for country’s debt:$50 million debt; Standardize&control the currency system through national bank; Link the interest of wealthy citizens with the gov’s success and most importantly, maintain friendly ties with Britain
CONCLUSION
Although he has been acquianted with wide reputations, his fame nver reached the critical mass of Washington’s or Jefferson’s. Hamilton, shortly, is a clear headed economic wizard with a suspiciously positive attitude toward Britain. Therefore, as the conclusion of best explaination why is that Hamilton has limited the reach of his image in the American consciousness was, has to do with his beliefs regarding his countryment.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
virginia.edu
Continental Congress I and II
US SOCIAL AND POLITIC: Continental Congress I and II
Continental Congress I and II
Congress Britain responded to The Boston Tea Party in 1774 by passing several laws that became known in America as the Intolerable Acts. The law closed Boston Harbour until Bostonians paid for the destroyed tea. Another law restricted the activities of the Massachusetts legislature and gave added powers to the post of governor of Massachusetts.Those powers in effect made him a dictator. In response to these actions and laws, several committees of colonists called for a convention of delegates from the colonies to organize resistance to the Intolerable Acts. The convention was later to be called the Continental Congress. Shortly, the idea of such meeting was advanced a year earlier by Benjamin Franklin, but failed to gain much support until after the Port of Boston was closed in response to the Boston Tea Party. Furthermore, Continental Congress is the central governing body of the American colonies prior to and during the American Revolution and also the first government of the United States until the establishment of the U.S. Constitution in 1789. The Continental Congress followed in the steps of earlier, brief colony-wide gatherings to discuss shared issues of importance, as the Albany Congress of 1754 and the Stamp Act Congress of 1765 had done. In Philadelphia, delegates from 13 colonies (except Georgia[1]) gathered from 5 September to 26 October 1774 to discuss possible responses to British actions that threatened their rights.
Continental Congress I
The First Continental Congress met in Philadelphia from Sept. 5 to Oct. 26, 1774, to protest the Intolerable Acts. Representatives attended from all the colonies except Georgia. The leaders included Samuel Adams and John Adams of Massachusetts and George Washington and Patrick Henry of Virginia. The Congress voted to cut off colonial trade with Great Britain unless Parliament abolished the Intolerable Acts. It approved resolutions advising the colonies to begin training their citizens for war. They also attempted to define America’s rights, place limits on Parliament’s power, and agree on tactics for resisting the aggressive acts of the English Government. It also set up the Continental Association to enforce an embargo against England. By the time the first meeting of the Continental Congress ended, hostilities had begun between Britain and the colonies.
The First Continental Congress was regarded as a success by both the general public and the delegates. The latter, despite heated and frequent disagreements, had come to understand the problems and aspirations of people living in other colonies.
Continental Congress II
The Second Continental Congress established the militia as the Continental Army to represent the thirteen states. They also elected George Washington as Commander in Chief of the Continental Army. A committee that included Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin drafted the Declaration of Independence.
The Congress negotiated with foreign nations, established a postal system, borrowed money to support the army, and printed currency known as continentals. However, the government’s poor finances led to the expression not worth a continental. Since the Continental Congress lacked any formal constitution, in 1777 a committee drafted a charter for a more permanent form of government. The Articles of Confederation were ratified in 1781, at which time the Continental Congress became The United States in Congress Assembled.
The Second Continental Congress Parliament did not remove the objectionable laws, and delegates from all thirteen colonies met in Philadelphia in May 1775 to consider their options. This gathering, known as the Second Continental Congress, faced greater difficulties, for reconciliation now seemed even more remote: armed conflict between British troops and American militiamen had occurred the preceding month at Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts. Rebel troops now gathered outside of Boston, where the British army had retreated, and Congress moved to support the patriots, assumed authority over the provincial militiamen, and at the same time named George Washington commander in chief of continental military forces (15 June 1775). For the next six years Congress guided the course of the war, dispatched ambassadors to seek alliances and financial support, and functioned as the de facto national government. Just as the Committees of Correspondence and Safety or provincial assemblies had already done assuming control of local and state government affairs with no charter or grant of authority at first, other than the people’s tacit consent Congress took over the day-to-day business of governing Americans on a national level, while representing American interests in international relations as well.
Governing was one thing; independence was another. Nearly a year passed after the events of Lexington and Concord and military conflict with Britain before Congress abandoned hope of reconciliation and moved toward independence. Congress’s most well known actions occurred 2 July 1776, when Congress voted in favor of independence from Britain, and on 4 July 1776, when it formally adopted Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence.
Military men would have voted for independence much sooner than Congress did. The rapport between Congress and its Continental Army and officers was never strong, in part because Congress weakly funded and heavily dependent on French foreign aid could not provide the army with sufficient material goods or munitions to prosecute the war effort fully. Soldiers and commanders alike thought that it was Congress’s intent to “starve the army at pleasure” through denying it much needed supplies. The army’s inability to stop the British from advancing forced Congress to relocate repeatedly, from Philadelphia (1775-1776) to Baltimore (1776-1777), then back to Philadelphia, Lancaster, and York Pennsylvania (all in 1777), and finally back to Philadelphia (1778-1781) before the war’s end. Congress’s peripatetic movement, combined with its repeated turnover in personnel, meant that its actions often seemed slow or ill-informed to outsiders. The prestige of Congress was never very high, and many politicians appointed to Congress stayed only briefly before returning to their home states and local political affairs.
THE ARTICLES OF CONFIDERATION
After declaring independence, Congress next moved to create a permanent government structure that could coordinate the new states’ national activities. Using a plan drafted by Congress member John Dickinson and his committee of thirteen, Congress adopted confederation as its preferred style of government. Ultimately, the Articles of Confederation resolved many of these issues by relying on past practices as the Continental Congress had permitted each state a single vote, so too the new Articles Congress would allocate each state one vote. Indeed, the very structure of the Articles government drew its inspiration from the Continental Congress, having only a unicameral legislature and no executive or judiciary to conduct business, and continuing to depend on states to fund Congress through requisition requests, rather than direct taxation. It took nearly four years, from November 1777 to March 1781, for all thirteen states to ratify the proposed Articles of Confederation. Once ratified, Congress became the country’s legitimate government until it was replaced by the US Constitution.
CONCLUSION
Congress of the United Colonies, informally referred to as the Continental Congress in historical studies, was a body of delegates, elected by the various American colonies during the summer of 1774, which first assembled in September 1774 in Philadelphia, PA, and again in May 1775 in the same city. In the period of the U.S. War of Independence, this body spoke and acted collectively for the people of the colony-states that later became the United States of America.The term Continental Congress most specifically refers to the bodies that met in 1774 and 1775-81 and respectively designated as the First Continental Congress and the Second Continental Congress. The first U.S. constitution, Articles of Confederation, ratified in March 1781, placed Congress on a constitutional basis, legalizing the powers it had exercised since 1775. To underline this distinction, the post-Articles Congress is often referred to as the Congress of the Confederation, or the Confederation Congress. This Congress continued to function under the Articles until the new Congress, elected under the present Constitution, met in 1789. However, all official documents of both Continental Congress and Confederation Congress were issued on behalf of the Congress.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
americanrevolution.com
ushistoryencyclopedia.com
ushistory.com
archontology.org
[1] ushistory.com: Twelve of the 13 colonies sent delegates. Georgia decided against roiling the waters; they were facing attacks from the restive Creek on their borders and desperately needed the support of regular British soldiers.
Federalism and Democaracy
Federalism
Due to the fear of a strong government, reminiscent of King George III of Britain while American had established a weak central government based on Articles of Confideration, delegates representing the people met together on the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1787 to establish a new form of government. They then established a federal republic which is a system of government based on federalism. Under federalism, power is shared between two separate entities: the national government and the state government. The powers of the federal government are established by the United States Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. Neither the national nor state governments can violate its provisions. The U.S. Supreme Court has the final say over interpreting constitutional provisions.
The Power of Federalism: the power of national government
The federal government is known as a limited government. Its powers are restricted to those explicitly (directly) stated in the Constitution. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution is the main source of the federal government’s explicit powers. Some examples include, the power to regulate interstate commerce, establish an army and navy, and print and coin money.
Implied power: Implied powers are those not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but that are necessary for the government to function. For instance, the federal government has the implied power to charter a bank because it has the explicit power to regulate trade, coin money, collect taxes, etc.
Exclusive power: Some powers of the federal government are exclusive. Only the federal government may exercise them. Only the federal government may print money or raise an army. Other powers of the federal government are concurrent. They may be exercised by both the federal and state governments, e.g., both may collect taxes.
Bill of Right restriction: Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights place restrictions on the power of the federal government.
The Power of State Government
Power of state government includes any powers that the Constitution does not give to the federal government nor explicitly prohibit the states from exercising belong to the state governments. Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution provides a list of powers which the states may not exercise. For example, the states may not tax goods that are transported from one state to another. Each state also has its own Constitution which establishes that State’s government and lists rights that the state government may not violate (they usually are called Bills of Rights and parallel the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights). These constitutions are the supreme law of the land in each state. State laws usually have the most direct impact on people’s lives. They touch upon such diverse subjects as traffic regulations, insurance, and the requirements for marriage. Article IV of the U.S. Constitution regulates the relations of the states to each another, e.g., the Full Faith and Credit clause requires the states to respect each other’s laws. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates (applies) most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights, to the states. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the states from treating people differently without legal justification
Democracy
In the simplest sense, democracy is rule by the ruled. In a democratic political system, government power is legitimized by the consent of the governed. Consent is expressed in a variety of forms, including annual election of government leaders and citizen participation in governing processes. The roots of American democratic culture can be traced to the direct election of many colonial legislatures, as well as the practice of democratic governance in many localities. The American Revolution was animated by the idea that the colonists were defending the principle of democratic self-rule and that the American struggle was analogous to the English Parliament’s struggle against the monarchy.
The formal mechanisms of democracy can vary, however, with direct democracy at one pole and representative democracy at the other. Direct democracy allows for unmediated citizen deliberation and decision making on public matters; representative democracy permits citizens to elect representatives who act on their behalf. American democracy is representative in design and function, yet it is clearly influenced by the ideology of direct democracy.
Democracy and the American Party System
The development of democracy is closely related to changes in the American party system. The competition between political parties to win offices often generates interest among the electorate in politics and government policies.
The Civil War shifted the party system. Party politics became extremely sectionalized, with Democrats dominating offices in the South and many urban areas elsewhere, and the Republicans consistently winning elections in the East and West. After the election of 1896 Republicans dominated national politics until 1932. Sectionalism and weak competition had the effect of lowering voter turnout as well as general interest in politics. The Great Depression sparked a Democratic Party revival that pulled union members and Roman Catholics, among other groups, into a greater habit of voting and democratic participation than they had practiced previously. In the later decades of the twentieth century party loyalty among the electorate began to wane. Many analysts associated the decline in voter turnout with the loosening of ties between citizens and political parties.
Core Democratic Characteristics
Two Forms of Democracy: direct & representative
Democracies fall into two basic categories, direct and representative. In a direct democracy, citizens, without the intermediary of elected or appointed officials, can participate in making public decisions.
Majority Rule and Minority Rights
All democracies are systems in which citizens freely make political decisions by majority rule. In a democratic society, majority rule must be coupled with guarantees of individual human rights that, in turn, serve to protect the rights of minorities and dissenters – whether ethnic, religious, or simply the losers in political debate. The rights of minorities do not depend upon the good will of the majority and cannot be eliminated by majority vote. The rights of minorities are protected because democratic laws and institutions protect the rights of all citizens.
Pluralism and Democratic Society
In a democracy, government is only one thread in the social fabric of many and varied public and private institutions, legal forums, political parties, organizations, and associations. This diversity is called pluralism, and it assumes that the many organized groups and institutions in a democratic society do not depend upon government for their existence, legitimacy, or authority. Most democratic societies have thousands of private organizations, some local, some national. Many of them serve a mediating role between individuals and society’s complex social and governmental institutions, filling roles not given to the government and offering individuals opportunities to become part of their society without being in government.
In an authoritarian society, virtually all such organizations would be controlled, licensed, watched, or otherwise accountable to the government. In a democracy, the powers of the government are, by law, clearly defined and sharply limited. As a result, private organizations are largely free of government control. In this busy private realm of democratic society, citizens can explore the possibilities of peaceful self-fulfillment and the responsibilities of belonging to a community – free of the potentially heavy hand of the state or the demand that they adhere to views held by those with influence or power, or by the majority.
CONCLUSION
Federalism is know as the central American government established against the fear of strong Britain government. It shapes american government into two entities in which power is shared between national government and state government. The power of federalism covers the certain powers carried out by national government: implied and exclusive power that are the extension of bill of rights as known as US Constitution. While state government gains power that includes any power that constitution gives the federal government for exercising state laws to regulate.
Democracy is government in which power and civic responsibility are exercised by all adult citizens, directly, or through their freely elected representatives. Democracy rests upon the principles of majority rule and individual rights. Democracies guard against all-powerful central governments and decentralize government to regional and local levels, understanding that all levels of government must be as accessible and responsive to the people as possible. Democracies understand that one of their prime functions is to protect such basic human rights as freedom of speech and religion; the right to equal protection under law; and the opportunity to organize and participate fully in the political, economic, and cultural life of society. Democracies conduct regular free and fair elections open to citizens of voting age. Citizens in a democracy have not only rights, but also the responsibility to participate in the political system that, in turn, protects their rights and freedoms.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
uscourts.gov
Continental congress I and II
US SOCIAL AND POLITIC: Continental Congress I and II
Continental Congress I and II
Congress Britain responded to The Boston Tea Party in 1774 by passing several laws that became known in America as the Intolerable Acts. The law closed Boston Harbour until Bostonians paid for the destroyed tea. Another law restricted the activities of the Massachusetts legislature and gave added powers to the post of governor of Massachusetts.Those powers in effect made him a dictator. In response to these actions and laws, several committees of colonists called for a convention of delegates from the colonies to organize resistance to the Intolerable Acts. The convention was later to be called the Continental Congress. Shortly, the idea of such meeting was advanced a year earlier by Benjamin Franklin, but failed to gain much support until after the Port of Boston was closed in response to the Boston Tea Party. Furthermore, Continental Congress is the central governing body of the American colonies prior to and during the American Revolution and also the first government of the United States until the establishment of the U.S. Constitution in 1789. The Continental Congress followed in the steps of earlier, brief colony-wide gatherings to discuss shared issues of importance, as the Albany Congress of 1754 and the Stamp Act Congress of 1765 had done. In Philadelphia, delegates from 13 colonies (except Georgia[1]) gathered from 5 September to 26 October 1774 to discuss possible responses to British actions that threatened their rights.
Continental Congress I
The First Continental Congress met in Philadelphia from Sept. 5 to Oct. 26, 1774, to protest the Intolerable Acts. Representatives attended from all the colonies except Georgia. The leaders included Samuel Adams and John Adams of Massachusetts and George Washington and Patrick Henry of Virginia. The Congress voted to cut off colonial trade with Great Britain unless Parliament abolished the Intolerable Acts. It approved resolutions advising the colonies to begin training their citizens for war. They also attempted to define America’s rights, place limits on Parliament’s power, and agree on tactics for resisting the aggressive acts of the English Government. It also set up the Continental Association to enforce an embargo against England. By the time the first meeting of the Continental Congress ended, hostilities had begun between Britain and the colonies.
The First Continental Congress was regarded as a success by both the general public and the delegates. The latter, despite heated and frequent disagreements, had come to understand the problems and aspirations of people living in other colonies.
Continental Congress II
The Second Continental Congress established the militia as the Continental Army to represent the thirteen states. They also elected George Washington as Commander in Chief of the Continental Army. A committee that included Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin drafted the Declaration of Independence.
The Congress negotiated with foreign nations, established a postal system, borrowed money to support the army, and printed currency known as continentals. However, the government’s poor finances led to the expression not worth a continental. Since the Continental Congress lacked any formal constitution, in 1777 a committee drafted a charter for a more permanent form of government. The Articles of Confederation were ratified in 1781, at which time the Continental Congress became The United States in Congress Assembled.
The Second Continental Congress Parliament did not remove the objectionable laws, and delegates from all thirteen colonies met in Philadelphia in May 1775 to consider their options. This gathering, known as the Second Continental Congress, faced greater difficulties, for reconciliation now seemed even more remote: armed conflict between British troops and American militiamen had occurred the preceding month at Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts. Rebel troops now gathered outside of Boston, where the British army had retreated, and Congress moved to support the patriots, assumed authority over the provincial militiamen, and at the same time named George Washington commander in chief of continental military forces (15 June 1775). For the next six years Congress guided the course of the war, dispatched ambassadors to seek alliances and financial support, and functioned as the de facto national government. Just as the Committees of Correspondence and Safety or provincial assemblies had already done assuming control of local and state government affairs with no charter or grant of authority at first, other than the people’s tacit consent Congress took over the day-to-day business of governing Americans on a national level, while representing American interests in international relations as well.
Governing was one thing; independence was another. Nearly a year passed after the events of Lexington and Concord and military conflict with Britain before Congress abandoned hope of reconciliation and moved toward independence. Congress’s most well known actions occurred 2 July 1776, when Congress voted in favor of independence from Britain, and on 4 July 1776, when it formally adopted Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence.
Military men would have voted for independence much sooner than Congress did. The rapport between Congress and its Continental Army and officers was never strong, in part because Congress weakly funded and heavily dependent on French foreign aid could not provide the army with sufficient material goods or munitions to prosecute the war effort fully. Soldiers and commanders alike thought that it was Congress’s intent to “starve the army at pleasure” through denying it much needed supplies. The army’s inability to stop the British from advancing forced Congress to relocate repeatedly, from Philadelphia (1775-1776) to Baltimore (1776-1777), then back to Philadelphia, Lancaster, and York Pennsylvania (all in 1777), and finally back to Philadelphia (1778-1781) before the war’s end. Congress’s peripatetic movement, combined with its repeated turnover in personnel, meant that its actions often seemed slow or ill-informed to outsiders. The prestige of Congress was never very high, and many politicians appointed to Congress stayed only briefly before returning to their home states and local political affairs.
THE ARTICLES OF CONFIDERATION
After declaring independence, Congress next moved to create a permanent government structure that could coordinate the new states’ national activities. Using a plan drafted by Congress member John Dickinson and his committee of thirteen, Congress adopted confederation as its preferred style of government. Ultimately, the Articles of Confederation resolved many of these issues by relying on past practices as the Continental Congress had permitted each state a single vote, so too the new Articles Congress would allocate each state one vote. Indeed, the very structure of the Articles government drew its inspiration from the Continental Congress, having only a unicameral legislature and no executive or judiciary to conduct business, and continuing to depend on states to fund Congress through requisition requests, rather than direct taxation. It took nearly four years, from November 1777 to March 1781, for all thirteen states to ratify the proposed Articles of Confederation. Once ratified, Congress became the country’s legitimate government until it was replaced by the US Constitution.
CONCLUSION
Congress of the United Colonies, informally referred to as the Continental Congress in historical studies, was a body of delegates, elected by the various American colonies during the summer of 1774, which first assembled in September 1774 in Philadelphia, PA, and again in May 1775 in the same city. In the period of the U.S. War of Independence, this body spoke and acted collectively for the people of the colony-states that later became the United States of America.The term Continental Congress most specifically refers to the bodies that met in 1774 and 1775-81 and respectively designated as the First Continental Congress and the Second Continental Congress. The first U.S. constitution, Articles of Confederation, ratified in March 1781, placed Congress on a constitutional basis, legalizing the powers it had exercised since 1775. To underline this distinction, the post-Articles Congress is often referred to as the Congress of the Confederation, or the Confederation Congress. This Congress continued to function under the Articles until the new Congress, elected under the present Constitution, met in 1789. However, all official documents of both Continental Congress and Confederation Congress were issued on behalf of the Congress.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
americanrevolution.com
ushistoryencyclopedia.com
ushistory.com
archontology.org
[1] ushistory.com: Twelve of the 13 colonies sent delegates. Georgia decided against roiling the waters; they were facing attacks from the restive Creek on their borders and desperately needed the support of regular British soldiers.
