Blog Archives
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/
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.
Essay menjelang UTS
AMERICAN POLITICAL SYSTEM: THE FRAMEWORK OF AMERICAN PARTY POLITIC
American Political Process examines both the formal institutions of government and organisations such as political parties and pressure groups. It analyses how these bodies interact in the making of public policy in the United States in order to provide an understanding of contemporary American politics.
Political scientists have frequently emphasised that democratic government in a modern industrial society would not be possible without political parties. Parties are not simply appendages of representative government; they are central to its effectiveness and play a positive role in it. They are organised attempts to select candidates for official positions, promote certain goals and objectives, and gain government power. The Constitution of the United States does not mention these informal institutions and George Washington warned against the ‘baneful effects of the spirit of party’. Since that time an American political culture has developed which has traditionally been suspicious of strong parties and concentrations of authority, but political parties have been an integral and essential part of the American political system since its early days. In examining the workings of the three branches of the federal government, we have already seen the importance of
party for an understanding of American politics. American political parties have to operate within a very diverse society and a federal system of government; they have therefore tended to be broadly based coalitions of interests organised in a decentralised way rather than tightly disciplined hierarchical structures. American parties have traditionally been rather weak organisations compared to their counterparts in European democracies. American political scientists have often been concerned that this weakness has adversely affected the ability of parties to perform some of the key functions that they normally fulfil and, what is more, they have been organisations in decline, making them even less relevant to the American political system in recent decades. In this chapter we shall examine some of the characteristics of American parties and the party system, and investigate how far these concerns are justified.
The structure of American parties
A number of diffuse elements make up what is usually known as the American party ‘organisation’. Discussion of political parties can be complicated by the fact that they generally do not have fee-paying or card-carrying members. We therefore have to distinguishbetween the vast array of people with different sorts of connection and relationship tothe Democratic or Republican parties. Parties comprise the following groups:
1 The party’s voting support. Every election there are millions of Americans who vote regularly or sporadically for one of the parties’ candidates. These people, therefore, include both hard-core supporters and ‘independents’ who have decided to vote for the party in that specific year.
2 Registered party supporters. In identifying on a regular basis with one of the major parties, millions of voters are prepared to register themselves on the electoral list as ‘Democrats’ or ‘Republicans’ where state laws allow them to do so. Although they pay no subscription to the party, these registered supporters are the closest to being party ‘members’. In return for this public expression of support, they usually receive the right to participate in the selection of party candidates in primary elections.
3 Party activists. A much smaller number of Americans regularly play an active role in party politics. These people provide the voluntary labour at elections to mobilise voters, contribute money to campaigns, and may hold local committee positions. Party activists may also attend party conventions as delegates.
4 Party leaders outside government. In both parties there are leadership positions at local and state level as well as within the national organisation which are sought by the most dedicated activists. These leaders are often referred to as the party ‘professionals’ and they often exert considerable influence over the party’s administration and finance.
5 Party leaders holding government positions. For many Americans political parties are, in practice, the government office-holders who carry the party label at elections. The President is, of course, the national leader of one of the parties and the parties have their own leaders in each congressional chamber but there are also many important Governors and Congressmen who are seen as the party leaders within their own states and who can exercise control over the running of state and local parties. What is more, the voters’ image of the parties is, to a large extent, shaped by the personalities of its best-known political and governmental leaders. Political parties are often subject to very detailed regulation of their affairs by state laws, mostly originating from the Progressive era at the beginning of the twentieth century when there was considerable concern about political corruption.
CONCLUSION
To understand the working of any political system it is important to gain an appreciation of a nation’s political culture – that is, the citizens’ collection of beliefs and attitudes towards government and their feelings about their own place within the system. The political culture of the United States has a number of distinctive features which have evolved as a result of its particular historical development. The term ‘American exceptionalism’ has been coined to emphasise the peculiar and unique characteristics of the nation’s culture and society that set it apart from other liberal democracies. The introductory survey in this chapter has pointed out the importance of the belief in the freedom of the individual and the suspicion and distrust of government control. Together these may be said to have given rise to an anti-authority political culture that has underpinned such movements as those opposing gun control and expressing hostility to taxation on the basis that it will be used wastefully by inefficient government bureaucracy. There has been a marked decline in trust in the federal government since the 1960s. Some of this may be accounted for by the upheavals and discontent following the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal and the more adversarial role taken by the media since that time. However, the failure of government to deal effectively with major social problems and to meet public expectations have also played their part. Many surveys have demonstrated this trend. A Washington Post-ABC News poll in August 1997, for example, found that three-quarters of Americans distrusted the federal government despite the nation enjoying a prosperous economy at the time. The crisis following the 11 September attacks led, at least temporarily, to more people expressing confidence in the national government and backing measures to give it more power to protect the nation from further terrorist assaults. Americans have usually had a sense of optimism and confidence in the nation’s future which has been accompanied by a belief that individuals can succeed in America by their own efforts. A lack of deference and a relatively high degree of social equality have been associated with social and geographical mobility. A strong belief in equality of opportunity has coexisted with a substantial degree of economic inequality and lack of support for a socialist movement. A firm commitment to democracy and representative government has been counterbalanced by restraints on majoritarianism and a powerful appointed judiciary that can override the decisions of the elected branches. Finally, the esteem in which the Constitution and the rule of law are held has led to a society in which recourse to the courts to settle disputes and protect rights is commonplace.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
——-. 2005. US Political and Government.
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.
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.
