What are the powers of the federal courts?

This fact sheet outlines the relationship between the Australian Parliament and federal courts, including the separation of powers, sources of law and key High Court of Australia cases that have impacted on the powers of the Australian Parliament.

The Australian Constitution outlines how the power to make and manage Australian law is divided between the Australian Parliament, the Executive – the Australian Government – and the Judiciary. This division is based on the principle of the 'separation of powers'.

Under this principle:

• the Australian Parliament has the power to make laws for all Australians.
• the High Court of Australia and other federal courts have the power to interpret laws made by Parliament and judge if laws are consistent – valid – with the Constitution.

The Parliament and the Judiciary are independent of each other. This allows each to keep a check on the actions of the other. However, the Parliament, Executive and Judiciary are not completely separate; for example, the Parliament can create Federal courts and the Executive appoints High Court judges.

The Australian Parliament has the right to make, amend or repeal any law within the limits of the Constitution. The Judiciary cannot challenge or review this right of the Australian Parliament. Parliament’s law-making power takes precedence over that of the Judiciary; statute laws made by Parliament override judge-made law—common law. This is called parliamentary supremacy.

Sources of law

Significant High Court of Australia cases which have impacted the powers of the Australian Parliament

The High Court of Australia interprets the Australian Constitution and settles disputes about its meaning. High Court judgements can have far reaching consequences. They can check Parliament’s powers or expand it, or confirm the power of the Parliament to make laws in specific areas.

Parliamentary Education Office

This diagram shows the hierarchy of courts in Australia. At the top is the High Court of Australia. Underneath this court are:

• State/territory courts
  • Supreme court
  • Intermediate courts (county/district courts)
  • Lower courts (local/magistrates court)
• Federal courts
  • Federal court/family court
• Federal magistrates court

Parliamentary Education Office (peo.gov.au)

This diagram illustrates the separation of powers in the Australian system of government. The Parliament (represented by an icon of Australian Parliament House) has the power to make and change law. The Executive (represented by a group of people) has the power to put law into action. The Judiciary (represented by an icon of a scale) has the power to make judgements on law. The three groups—Parliament, Executive and Judiciary—are connected.

Not everyone agrees on how much power the judicial branch should have. After all, federal judges and justices are appointed, not elected. As most Americans believe in democracy, shouldn't elected officials run the country?

On the other hand, perhaps American government would be fairer if judges had even more power. Because they do not have to worry about reelection, they are relieved of the outside pressure of public opinion.

After all, the majority is not always right. It is no accident that the Founders provided for elected officials in the legislature and appointed officials in the judiciary. They believed that freedom, equality, and justice are best achieved by a balance between the two branches of government.

Checks on Judicial Power

The president and Congress have some control of the judiciary with their power to appoint and confirm appointments of judges and justices. Congress also may impeach judges (only seven have actually been removed from office), alter the organization of the federal court system, and amend the Constitution.

Congress can also get around a court ruling by passing a slightly different law than one previously declared unconstitutional.

Courts also have limited power to implement the decisions that they make. For example, if the president or another member of the executive branch chooses to ignore a ruling, there is very little that the federal courts can do about it.

For example, the Supreme Court ruled against the removal of the Cherokee from their native lands in 1831. President Andrew Jackson disagreed. He proceeded with the removal of the Cherokee, and the Supreme Court was powerless to enforce its decision.

The Power of the Courts

The federal courts' most important power is that of judicial review, the authority to interpret the Constitution. When federal judges rule that laws or government actions violate the spirit of the Constitution, they profoundly shape public policy. For example, federal judges have declared over 100 federal laws unconstitutional.

Another measure of the Supreme Court's power is its ability to overrule itself. In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka that schools segregated by race were unconstitutional. This reversed the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision that upheld the doctrine of "separate but equal."

For the most part, though, federal courts do have a great deal of respect for previous decisions. A very strong precedent called stare decisis ("let the decision stand") directs judges to be cautious about overturning decisions made by past courts.

	An act of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void.... It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is.John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison (1803) Words which, ordinarily and in many places, would be within the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment, may become subject to prohibition when of such a nature and used in such circumstances as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils which Congress has a right to prevent. The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done.Oliver Wendell Holmes, Schenck v. the United States (1919) The judgments below, except that, in the Delaware case, are accordingly reversed, and the cases are remanded to the District Courts to take such proceedings and enter such orders and decrees consistent with this opinion as are necessary and proper to admit to public schools on a racially nondiscriminatory basis with all deliberate speed the parties to these cases.Earl Warren, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1955) I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material [pornography] ...[B]ut I know it when I see it.Potter Stewart, Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964) Charles Evans Hughes was first appointed to the Supreme Court in 1910, but left the Court to run for president in 1916. He was reappointed to the Supreme Court as Chief Justice in 1930.

Judicial Activism versus Judicial Restraint

The lack of agreement regarding the policy making power of courts is reflected in the debate over judicial activism versus judicial restraint. Judicial activists believe that the federal courts must correct injustices that are perpetuated or ignored by the other branches.

For example, minority rights have often been ignored partly because majorities impose their will on legislators. Prayers in public schools support the beliefs of the majority but ignore the rights of the minority. The Constitution is often loosely interpreted to meet the issues of the present. In the words of former Justice Charles Evans Hughes, "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is."

Supporters of judicial restraint point out that appointed judges are immune to public opinion, and if they abandon their role as careful and cautious interpreters of the Constitution, they become unelected legislators. According to Justice Antonin Scalia, "The Constitution is not an empty bottle....It is like a statute, and the meaning doesn't change."

Despite the debate over what constitutes the appropriate amount of judicial power, the United States federal courts remain the most powerful judicial system in world history. Their power is enhanced by life terms for judges and justices, and they play a major role in promoting the core American values of freedom, equality, and justice.

QUIZ TIME: The Judicial Branch

Page 2

Legendary Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said that a Supreme Court Justice should be a "combination of Justinian, Jesus Christ, and John Marshall."

Why are venerable former justices sources of guidance in understanding necessary qualities for federal judges?

The Constitution is silent on judicial qualifications. It meticulously outlines qualifications for the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the presidency, but it does not give any advice for judicial appointments other than stating that justices should exhibit "good behavior." As a result, selections are governed primarily by tradition.

The Nomination Process

The Constitution provides broad parameters for the judicial nomination process. It gives the responsibility for nominating federal judges and justices to the president. It also requires nominations to be confirmed by the Senate. First, look at the numbers.

More than 600 judges sit on district courts, almost 200 judges sit on courts of appeals, and 9 justices make up the Supreme Court. Because all federal judges have life terms, no single president will make all of these appointments.

But many vacancies do occur during a president's term of office. Appointing judges, then, could be a full-time job. A president relies on many sources to recommend appropriate nominees for judicial posts.

Recommendations often come from the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, members of Congress, sitting judges and justices, and the American Bar Association. Some judicial hopefuls even nominate themselves.

A special, very powerful tradition for recommending district judges is called senatorial courtesy. According to this practice, the senators from the state in which the vacancy occurs actually make the decision. A senator of the same political party as the President sends a nomination to the president, who almost always follows the recommendation. To ignore it would be a great affront to the senator, as well as an invitation for conflict between the president and the Senate.

Selection Criteria

Presidents must consider many factors in making their choices for federal judgeships:

• Experience — Most nominees have had substantial judicial or governmental experience, either on the state or federal level. Many have law degrees or some other form of higher education.
• Political ideology — Presidents usually appoint judges who seem to have a similar political ideology to their own. In other words, a president with a liberal ideology will usually appoint liberals to the courts. Likewise, conservative presidents tend to appoint conservatives.
• Party and personal loyalties — A remarkably high percentage of a resident's appointees belong to the president's political party. Although political favoritism is less common today than it was a few decades ago, presidents still appoint friends and loyal supporters to federal judgeships.
• Ethnicity and gender — Until relatively recently, almost all federal judges were white males. Today, however, ethnicity and gender are important criteria for appointing judges. In 1967, Lyndon Johnson appointed the first African American Supreme Court justice, Thurgood Marshall. In 1981, Ronald Reagan appointed the first woman to the Supreme Court, Sandra Day O'Connor. All recent presidents have appointed African Americans, Latinos, members of other ethnic minority groups, and women to district courts and courts of appeal.

Because federal judges and Supreme Court justices serve for life, a president's nomination decisions are in many ways his or her most important legacy. Many of these appointments will serve long after a president's term of office ends. Whether or not the results are a "combination of Justinian, Jesus Christ, and John Marshall," these choices can have an impact on generations to come.

Page 3

The justices are somehow different from other well-known figures in government. They dress in long black robes. They almost never appear on magazine covers, and they seem to stay on the court forever. They announce their decisions periodically, then disappear into their "Marble Palace."

In anger, President Franklin Roosevelt once called them "nine old men." What connections do they have to real-world government and politics, and what work do they do? The power of the Court is reflected in the work it does, and its decisions often shape policy as profoundly as any law passed by Congress or any action taken by the president.

The Power of Choice

The Court receives about 7,000 petitions every year. It has almost complete control over which cases it will hear. The justices choose about 90 percent of their 100 to 120 cases by writ of certiorari, an order to send up a case record from a lower court.

Typically, the justices discuss any cases one of them has recommended from earlier readings. The Rule of Four governs their choices: if four justices vote to hear a case, all nine agree to it.

How do they choose their cases? Generally, the Court considers only cases that have far-reaching implications beyond the two parties involved in the dispute. For example, a case in which a student sues an assistant principal for searching a locker may shape the privacy rights of all students in public schools. The court also tends to hear cases in which two lower courts have reached conflicting decisions. And it tends to look closely at lower court decisions that contradict earlier Supreme Court decisions.

Hearing and Deciding a Case

Hearings begin in October every year, and the last cases are usually heard in June. The justices receive briefs, or summaries of arguments, from the lawyers ahead of time. Often they receive amici curiae, or briefs prepared by interest groups or government agencies that support one side or the other. The hearings are open to the public and are strictly timed. Each side has 30 minutes to present its case, and the justices typically ask questions and even debate one another during the allotted time.

After the public hearing the justices meet together privately to discuss the case. They share their opinions, debate the issues, and eventually come to a conclusion. Each justice takes a side individually, and because there are nine justices (an uneven number), one side always wins.

Announcing and Implementing a Decision

When the Court announces a decision, the individual justice's opinions are revealed. A unanimous decision (9-0) indicates that the justices were in total agreement. This vote is rare because the cases that have been chosen are the tough ones. Decisions are usually split 6-3, 7-2, or 5-4.

Along with the decisions, the justices release explanations for each side. A majority opinion is prepared (usually by the senior justice on that side), and the justices whose point of view did not prevail release a dissenting opinion. A justice who agrees with the majority decision but reaches the same conclusion for different reasons sometimes presents a concurring opinion.

The power of the Court to implement its decisions is limited. For example, in the famous 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the justices ruled that racial segregation (separate but equal) in public places is unconstitutional. But, it took many years for school districts to desegregate.

The Court has no means (such as an army) to force implementation. Instead, it must count on the executive and legislative branches to back its decisions. In the Civil Rights Movement, the Court led the way, but the other branches had to follow before real change could take place.

Despite the Supreme Court's limitations in implementing decisions, the justices often set policies that lead to real social change. So even though justices don't do a great deal of their work in public, and most Americans don't have a good sense of what they do, their decisions are very important. The Supreme Court has real power in the American political system.

Page 4

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. -Article III, Section 1, The Constitution of the United States

Notice that, according to the Constitution, Congress creates courts.

By implication, Congress also has the power to reorganize and even dismantle the court system. This clause provides one of many examples of the checks and balances in the Constitution, but it also reveals the Founders' intent to grant greater powers to the legislative branch than to the judicial.

The fact that most of the basic court structure has changed little since it was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789 is an indication that Congress does not readily use this power. The relative independence of the court system, as well as the evolutionary power of the judicial branch, has been generally respected by members of subsequent Congresses.

Constitutional Courts

Courts established by the Judiciary Act of 1789 are called constitutional courts because they are mentioned in Article III (they are the "inferior courts" in the quote above).

Legislative Courts

Those latter courts are referred to as "legislative courts." For example, by the early 20th century, Congress had set up the U.S. territorial courts to hear federal cases in the territories that the United States began acquiring during the late 1800s. Judges for legislative courts are also appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, but they serve fixed, limited terms.

The Judicial Circuits

The federal court system is divided into 12 geographic circuits. For example, Circuit One includes the New England states of Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts. Circuit Nine includes seven states in the far western part of the country. Originally, each state in each circuit was to have one district court, where all federal cases from the state originated.

Over time, as the population grew, additional district courts were added. Today, a total of 94 district courts exist; they are staffed by more than 600 judges. Some circuits have more than others, based on population, but each circuit still has only one court of appeals. Cases not settled in the courts of appeal may be appealed further, but only to the Supreme Court.

District Courts and Courts of Appeals

Most cases that deal with federal questions or offenses begin in district courts, which are almost always granted original jurisdiction. District courts hear appeals cases only in the rare case of a constitutional question that may arise in state courts. About 80 percent of all federal cases are heard in district courts, and most of them end there. The number of judges assigned to district courts varies from two to twenty-eight, depending on caseloads and population.

Courts of Appeal

By the late 19th century, so many people were appealing their cases to the Supreme Court that Congress created another type of constitutional court, the courts of appeals. Today, along with 12 courts of appeals (one for each circuit), a thirteenth court, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, hears cases that deal with patents, contracts, and financial claims against the federal government.

Courts of appeals never hear cases on original jurisdiction, and most appeals come from district courts within their circuits. They do sometimes hear cases from decisions of federal regulatory agencies as well.

Appeals courts have no juries, and panels of judges (usually three) decide the cases. Their decisions are almost always final. Their decisions may be appealed only to the Supreme Court, and because the Court is able to hear only a very small percentage of them, almost no cases go further than the appeals courts.

Thus, even though the Founders surely intended that Congress hold a great deal of power over the judicial branch, in reality the basic organization of federal courts has remained basically the same throughout U.S. history. Congress has created new courts and reorganized others, and the system has grown increasingly complex. The courts have a great deal of independence, however, and they have established the judicial branch as a strong coequal to Congress and the president.

Page 5

The Constitution painstakingly defines the structure and functions of the legislative (Congressional) branch of the government. It clearly (although less thoroughly) addresses the responsibilities and powers of the president.

But, it treats the judicial branch almost as an afterthought. Article III specifically creates only one court (the Supreme Court), allows judges to serve for life and to receive compensation, broadly outlines original and appellate jurisdiction, and outlines the trial procedure for and limitations of congressional power against those accused of treason.

That's all.

Marshall Marshals the Court

The framers of the Constitution were clearly more interested in their experiment with legislative government than in the creation of a judicial system. Had it not been for John Marshall, the third chief justice of the Supreme Court, the judicial branch might well have developed into a weak, ineffective check on the legislature and the presidency.

But Marshall changed everything by interpreting a power "implied" by Article III. Judicial review, or the power of the courts to overturn a law, was the vehicle he used to create the most powerful judicial branch in the history of the world.

Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Officer during good Behaviour, and shall at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority, — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction, — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States, — [between a State and Citizens of another State;](1) between Citizens of different States, — between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, [and between a State or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.] (2)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury, and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3.Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

The power of judicial review may be traced to the famous 1803 court case of Marbury v. Madison. The election of 1800 gave that the presidency to an opposing political party for the first time. Fearing that the newly elected Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic Republican, would undo his policies, Federalist president John Adams, sought to "pack" the courts with Federalist judges. He worked feverishly on the judicial appointments until the very end of his presidency. When he left office, several of the orders were left on the secretary of state's desk, waiting to be delivered.

The new secretary of state, James Madison, saw what Adams was up to, and refused to carry out the commissions. William Marbury, a Federalist whose commission was not delivered, sued Madison and demanded that the Supreme Court force Madison to act. Marbury's demand was based on the writ of mandamus, a power given to the Court by the Judiciary Act of 1789 to command actions by officials of the executive branch.

Chief Justice Marshall faced a huge dilemma. What if he commanded Madison to deliver the commissions and the secretary of state ignored his command? What could Marshall do to enforce the decision? The Court had no army, nor any other means to back up the command. If Marshall did nothing, the quarrel could spill over to Congress and tear the new country apart before it even got off the ground.

The Writ StuffA writ is a written court order requiring a party to perform or cease to perform a given act.

Marshall's decision was to declare the writ of mandamus unconstitutional, claiming that Congress had passed a law "repugnant to the Constitution." He declared that because Article III did not grant the judicial branch the power of the writ of mandamus, and so the Supreme Court was unable to order Madison to act. Of course, Jefferson and Madison were happy with the decision, and the crisis passed, with only a disgruntled prospective justice (Marbury) to protest.

	The constitution is either a superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.... Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and, consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.... It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other the courts must decide on the operation of each. So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison (1803)

The Supreme Court Gets the Final Word

No one seemed to understand the grand implications of what Marshall had done: he had created the power of judicial review. This established the precedent that only the federal courts could interpret the Constitution. This power has given federal judges the final word in settling virtually every major issue that has challenged the government in American history.

Today, the judicial branch not only provides strong checks and balances to the executive and legislative branches, it possesses a tremendous amount of policy-making power in its own right. This power rests more on the precedent (a principle that later justices followed) of judicial review set by Marshall in 1803 than on the provisions of the Constitution.

Page 6

"See you in court!"

"You can't do that. I know my rights!"

"I'm going to take this all the way to the Supreme Court!"

These cliché sentences reflect a core American belief: citizens of the United States can seek redress through the judicial system.

But how do courts protect citizen rights?

How does a case even get to the Supreme Court? How are basic rights preserved? Where do citizens go when freedoms, rights, or equality is threatened? Does justice prevail?

Throughout history, the American people have gone to the courts, seeking justice. The court system, then, is a cornerstone of democracy in the United States.

Justice Is Blind

Congress passes laws, and the president and the executive branch make recommendations and set policy. According to American ideals, judges often make impartial and wise decisions that elected officials find difficult to make.

Members of Congress, state governors, and the president must always worry about elections and popular opinion. As a result, they may lose sight of the need to preserve American values, and they sometimes set hasty or unjust policies.

Under the guidance of constitutional principles, the courts serve as watchdogs for the other branches of government. Without the justice system, democracy might easily veer off course.

Is Justice Blind?

But in reality, does the American justice system uphold these ideals? There are plenty of stories about innocent people held in prison and even prisoners executed for crimes they did not commit. Judicial critics abound. Some protest that the wealthy or the well-connected receive preferential treatment in courts.

Other critics of the judicial system cite statistics they believe to be evidence of racial and social discrimination. For example, a disproportionate number of prisoners are young, African American, and male.

Legal defense lawyers for the poor are sometimes criticized for being incompetent or apathetic. Cases in both federal and state courts are often backed up for years, making a mockery of "the right to a speedy public trial" as guaranteed by Amendment VI of the Bill of Rights.

Congress and the president are often at loggerheads over appointments of federal judges. Because the Republicans don't like a Democratic president's nominees (and vice versa), judgeships stay vacant for months, sometimes years.

Judge for Yourself

Yet despite all these criticisms, courts remain powerful protectors of freedoms.

Freedom of speech has been protected, whether the speaker has been a critic of unjust government policy or a burner of the American flag.

Segregation of public facilities ended partly because brave people took their cases to court. Freedom of religion interpretations have banned involuntary school prayer, preserving the separation of church and state, while stirring up criticisms that the Judeo-Christian heritage on which the nation was founded is slowly being eroded.

Although the wheels of justice often grind slowly, judges' decisions are usually the final word in interpreting basic constitutional principles. Almost from its beginning, the American judicial system has played a major role in defining and preserving freedom, equality, and justice.

Don't believe it? Read on and judge for yourself.

Page 7

Since 1980, virtually every presidential election included a debate over the size of the federal government. Americans who believed the bureaucracy had become too large, too expensive, and too powerful were becoming more numerous, and as a result many politicians began to demand reform.

Bureaucracies move slowly. One hand doesn't always know what the other is doing. Federal employees have so much job security that there is little fear of being fired for incompetence. There are so many agencies organized in such confusing ways.

How can the ordinary citizen feel connected to government when everything is so impersonal? Public criticism of bureaucratic inefficiency is commonplace. In response, many people, including most Presidents, have tried to reform and reorganize the bureaucracy.

The Merit System and the Hatch Act

The merit system tries to ensure that the best-qualified people get government jobs and that party politics is limited. In 1939, Congress passed the Hatch Act, which required employees, once they were hired, to have as little to do with political parties as possible. The Hatch Act forbids employees from engaging in many party activities. For example, they could not run for public office or raise funds for a party or candidate, nor could they become officers in a political organization or a delegate to a party convention.

In the early 1970s some bureaucrats complained that their First Amendment rights were being violated. The issue made its way to the Supreme Court, where the justices ruled that the Hatch Act did not put unreasonable restrictions on employees' rights. However, in 1993 Congress softened the Hatch Act by making many forms of participation in politics permissible. Federal bureaucrats still cannot run as candidates in elections, but they may be active in party politics.

Requiring Accountability

One criticism of our merit-based bureaucracy is that once a person is employed there are no requirements that he or she be held accountable for their work. Since they no longer lose their jobs when a new President takes office, some criticize that they become complacent and inflexible. Some suggestions for making civil servants more accountable for their work include the following:

• Limiting appointments to 6-12 years. After the appointment expires, the bureaucrat would then have to go through reexamination and their performance would be reviewed for possible rehire.
• Making it easier to fire a bureaucrat. Civil service rules that are meant to protect workers from partisan politics have made it difficult to fire anyone for poor performance. Reformers want to remove those rules.
• Rotating professionals between agencies and from outside. Reformers believe that this practice would bring "new blood" to agencies and encourage workers to get a broader view of government service.

Cutting "Red Tape"

One common complaint about bureaucracy is that "red tape" — the maze of government rules, regulations, and paperwork — makes government so overwhelming to citizens that many people try to avoid any contact. Filling out forms, standing in line, and being put on hold on the telephone all have resulted in many people being discouraged from ever applying for benefits they rightfully deserve.

In response, Presidents of the 20th century offered no fewer than eleven major reorganizations of the federal bureaucracy. The latest was the National Performance Review, conducted by Vice President Al Gore in 1993. The NPR report contained many horror stories about useless red tape for both citizens and government officials themselves. The NPR called for less centralized management, more employee initiative, fewer rules, and more emphasis on customer satisfaction. As of the year 2000, few of the recommendations have been followed.

One reason that it is so hard to reform the bureaucracy is that it has two masters — the President and Congress. Especially during periods of divided government, one branch can be suspicious that the other is trying to gain control. As a result, one branch or the other resists reform. Finding the practical solutions that have bipartisan support is a difficult process, largely because the system of checks and balances is not particularly efficient. Nevertheless, bureaucratic reform is often attempted by the President and Congress. Meanwhile, the red tape remains rather sticky.

Page 8

The image of the faceless federal employee is completely false.

The 4 million Americans who work for the federal government have many faces and do many jobs. For starters, over 1.4 million are in military service. Overall, they represent much more of a cross section of the American population than do members of Congress or federal judges. About 43% are women, and 28% represent minority groups.

Surprising Facts

Many other misconceptions exist about federal employees. Consider the following:

• Only about 10% of civilian employees work in the Washington, D.C. area. Postal workers and forest rangers live and work across the country, for example. California alone has more federal employees than does the District of Columbia.
• About 30% of the civilian employees work for the army, the navy, the air force, or some other defense agency.
• Even though bureaucrats work at a variety of jobs, most are white-collar workers like secretaries, clerks, lawyers, inspectors, and engineers.
• The number of federal employees per 100 people in the United States population has actually decreased from over 14 per 100 in the early 1970s to a little over 10 per 100 by the late 1990s.

What Do Bureaucrats Do?

Most people think that bureaucrats only follow orders. They carry out the decisions that the President or members of Congress make. Of course, anyone who works in the executive branch is there to implement decisions, but the reality of their work is more complicated. The power of the bureaucracy depends on how much discretionary authority it is granted.

Congress passes laws, but it cannot follow through on all the little decisions that have to be made as the law is translated into action. Bureaucrats, then, may make policies and choose actions that are not spelled out in advance by laws.

Congress delegates substantial authority to administrative agencies in several areas:

1. Paying subsidies — government support money — to farmers, veterans, scientists, schools, universities, and hospitals
2. Transferring money to state and local governments for grants-in-aid, such as highway building, city improvements, or educational programs.
3. Devising and enforcing regulations, such as who owns television stations, what safety features automobiles have, and what kinds of scientific research will be specially encouraged.

About 90% of all federal bureaucrats are hired under regulations of the civil service system. Most of them take a written examination administered by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and they meet selection criteria, such as training, education levels, or prior experience. Some of them take special tests and meet special criteria, such as postal employees, FBI agents, CIA intelligence officers, foreign-service officers, and doctors in the Public Health Service.

The variety of people who work for the federal bureaucracy is greater than most people realize. They may do scientific research, clerk in welfare offices, decide burn policies for national forests, or do undercover intelligence work. They are all a part of the process whereby the government fulfills the many expectations that Americans have for it today.

Page 9

Even the experts can't agree on the total number of federal government agencies, commissions, and departments.

Most estimates suggest there are probably more than 2,000 of these. They each have an area of specialization — some much broader than others — but their duties often overlap, making administration more difficult. To complicate things even more, many agencies have counterparts at the state and local level. Its size, complexity, and overlapping responsibilities leave the federal bureaucracy open to constant attempts to reorganize and streamline.

Congress has the power to create, organize, and disband all federal agencies. Most of them are under the control of the President, although few of them actually have direct contact with the White House. So, the bureaucracy has two masters — Congress and the President. The bureaucracy generally falls into four broad types: Cabinet departments, government corporations, independent agencies, and regulatory commissions

The Cabinet Departments

The 15 Cabinet departments are each headed by a Secretary who sits on the President's Cabinet. The exception is the Justice Department, which is headed by the Attorney General, who is also a member of the President's Cabinet. The Secretaries are responsible for directing the department's policy and for overseeing its operation. Cabinet secretaries are usually torn between their responsibilities as presidential advisers and heads of their departments.

Each has a special area of policy, although their responsibilities are still very broad. The organization of each is quite complex, but they have some things in common. All Secretaries have a Deputy or Undersecretary, as well as a host of Assistant Secretaries, who all direct major programs within the department.

Most departments are divided into bureaus, divisions, and sections. For example, the FBI lies within the domain of the Justice Department, and the Secret Service is currently within the Treasury Departmeny agency, but soon to be moved under the auspices of the Department of Homeland Security .

Government Corporations

Government corporations do not belong to any department — they stand on their own. Probably the best-known government corporations are the United States Postal Service and Amtrak. They are different from other agencies in that they are businesses created by Congress, and they charge fees for their services. Like any other business, government corporations have private competition — such as Federal Express and United Parcel Service — and sometimes state competition — such as the New Jersey Transit Authority.

Independent Agencies

Independent agencies closely resemble Cabinet departments, but they are smaller and less complex. Generally, they have narrower areas of responsibility than do Cabinet departments. Most of these agencies are not free from presidential control and are independent only in the sense that they are not part of a department.

Congress creates them as separate agencies for many reasons, practical as well as symbolic. For example, when the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was established, many members of Congress assumed that it would be a part of the Department of Defense. However, it is an independent agency because the space program has many other purposes than the defense of the nation.

Regulatory Agencies

These agencies regulate important parts of the economy, making rules for large industries and businesses that affect the interests of the public. Because regulatory commissions are "watchdogs" that by their very nature need to operate independently, they are not part of a department, and the President does not directly control most of them. Each commission has from 5 to 11 members appointed by the President, but the President cannot remove them for the length of their terms in office.

Examples of these commissions are the Securities and Exchange Commission, which regulates the stock market, brokers, and investment practices. Another well-known commission is the Federal Reserve Board that governs the nation's monetary policy. The Environmental Protection Agency serves as a guardian over the nation's environment, making and enforcing standards for the industrial and commercial sectors.

With over 2,000 different agencies, the federal bureaucracy is almost certain to run into problems with organization, overlapping responsibilities, and efficiency. Almost every recent President has come into office determined to refashion and trim the bureaucracy. However, none has been able to make more than minor adjustments. Well-established agencies have lives of their own, and are difficult to change. Besides, the country has large, complex, needs requiring special attention. A large bureaucracy is a part of the government's attempt to meet those needs.

Page 10

The original bureaucracy of the federal government consisted only of employees from three small departments — State, Treasury, and War. The executive branch employs today almost three million people. Not only have the numbers of bureaucrats grown, but also the methods and standards for hiring and promoting people have changed dramatically.

Patronage

George Washington promised to hire only people "as shall be the best qualified." Still, most of his employees belonged to the budding Federalist Party — the party toward which Washington leaned. When Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson became President, he dismissed many of the Federalists and filled their jobs with members from his party. With this action, he began a long tradition of filling government positions through patronage, a system of rewarding friends and political allies in exchange for their support.

Andrew Jackson is regarded as the President who entrenched the patronage, or "spoils" system. Following the old saying, "to the victor go the spoils," he brought a whole new group of "Jacksonian Democrats" into office. Jackson argued that the spoils system brought greater rotation in office. He thought it was healthy to clear out the government workers who had worked for predecessors, lest they become corrupt.

During the 1800s, while more and more federal employees were landing their jobs through patronage, the bureaucracy was growing rapidly as new demands were placed on government. As the country expanded westward new agencies were needed to manage the land and its settlement. And as people moved into the new areas, a greatly expanded Post Office was necessary. The Civil War sparked the creation of thousands of government jobs and new departments to handle the demands of warfare. After the war, the Industrial Revolution encouraged economic growth and more government agencies to regulate the expanding economy.

The Pendleton Act

The spoils tradition was diluted in 1881 when Charles Guiteau, a disappointed office seeker, killed President James Garfield because he was not granted a government job. After Garfield's assassination, Congress passed the Pendleton Act, which created a merit-based federal civil service. It was meant to replace patronage with the principle of federal employment on the basis of open, competitive exams. The Pendleton Act created a three-member Civil Service Commission to administer this new merit system. At first only about 10 percent of federal employees were members of the civil service. Today, about 85 to 90 percent take this exam.

Growth in the 20th Century

In reaction to the excesses of Gilded Age millionaires, many Americans demanded that the government regulate business and industry. As a result, a group of independent regulatory commissions emerged as the 20th century dawned. The first of these agencies was the Interstate Commerce Commission, set up in 1887 to monitor abuses in the railroad industry. Reform movements of the early 20th century demanded that government regulate child labor, food processing and packaging, and working and living conditions for the laboring classes.

The largest growth of the bureaucracy in American history came between 1933 and 1945. Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal meant bigger government, since agencies were needed to administer his many programs. With the American entry into World War II in 1941, the needs of the war elevated the number of federal agencies and employees even more. During those 12 Roosevelt years, the total number of federal employees increased from a little over half a million in 1933 to an all time high of more than 3.5 million in 1945.

After World War II ended in 1945, the total number of federal employees decreased significantly, but still has remained at levels between about 2.5 and 3 million. Contrary to popular opinion, the federal bureaucracy did not grow in numbers significantly during the last half of the 20th century. Federal bureaucrats did, however, greatly increase their influence.

Page 11

Red tape. Paper pushers. Bean counters. Vast, cookie-cutter buildings with fluorescent lighting and thousands of file cabinets.

These are the images that come to mind when many Americans think of government bureaucracy. A bureaucrat is someone who works in administrative capacity for the government. How important are bureaucrats and their government agencies in actually running the United States government? According to some, they are the real government — the ones behind the scenes who go to work when the politicians are enjoying the spotlight.

Max Weber's Bureaucracy

Max Weber, a German sociologist was one of the first people in modern times to think seriously about the importance of bureaucracy. The term actually comes from the French word "bureau," a reference to the small desks that the king's representatives set up in towns as they traveled across the country on king's business. So bureaucracy literally means "government with a small desk."

Weber wrote about Germany during the early 20th century, when developing capitalism was spawning more and more large businesses. The changing economic scene had important implications for government. Weber saw bureaucracy as a rational way for complex businesses and governments to organize. He did not see them as necessary evils, but as the best organizational response to a changing society.

According to Weber, model bureaucracies have the following characteristics:

• A chain of command that is hierarchical; the top bureaucrat has ultimate control, and authority flows from the top down
• A clear division of labor in which every individual has a specialized job
• Clearly written, well-established formal rules that all people in the organization follow
• A clearly defined set of goals that all people in the organization strive toward
• Merit-based hiring and promotion; no granting of jobs to friends or family unless they are the best qualified
• Job performance that is judged by productivity, or how much work an individual gets done

Weber emphasized the importance of the bureaucracy in getting things done and believed that a well-organized, rational bureaucracy is the secret behind the successful operation of modern societies.

The Iron Triangle

Observers of the modern American government often point to an iron triangle that best demonstrates who really does the work of government. The iron triangle, sometimes called a subgovernment, consists of interest groups, members of congressional subcommittees, and agency bureaucrats.

According to the theory, agencies and departments usually keep close contacts with interest group lobbyists who want to influence their actions. Interest groups may provide valuable statistics to government agencies, and they are motivated to have their point of view heard. Both lobbyists and bureaucrats value contact with congressional subcommittees that shape the laws that govern their interests. Working together, these three groups set most government policies.

An example of such an iron triangle would be the American Association for Retired People (AARP), the House Subcommittee on Aging, and the Social Security Administration all working together to set government policy on Social Security.

Advisers, bookkeepers, secretaries. So, it is not only the famous people — the President, the Chief of Staff, the Speaker of the House, or the Senate Majority Leader — who make the real decisions in government. Often, the real players in government are the agency bureaucrats — the people behind the scenes.

Page 12

Harry S Truman — man of the people. John F. Kennedy — bold, articulate leader with a great deal of charisma. Richard Nixon — introspective President with a deep knowledge of and interest in foreign policy. Each person who has held the office of President has brought to it a unique style. Each style reflects a President's character.

Barber's Research

James Barber published a well-known study of presidential character in which he studied personalities in order to predict presidential performance. Barber believes that Presidents can be categorized as having "positive" or "negative" attitudes, and as being "active" or "passive." His findings indicate that "positive active" Presidents are more successful than passive/negative ones. For example, Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt had positive active personalities. According to Barber, their personalities cause them to approach the presidency with enthusiasm and a drive to lead and succeed.

This research is controversial, but it is based on the assumption that presidential character and personality are extremely important in determining how successful a President is in office.

Rating the Presidents

Most Americans have their own ideas about which Presidents deserve to be called great, and which ones were failures. Historians even get into the ratings game, with Harvard professor Arthur M. Schlesinger starting the modern game with his invitation to 55 prominent historians to rate the Presidents. Although the lists have varied over the years, some Presidents consistently rate at the top. Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Franklin Roosevelt have locked up the top three spots in nearly every ranking survey. Others with high scores are Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Harry Truman. Usually near the bottom are James Buchanan, Ulysses Grant, and Warren Harding. Historians are reluctant to rank modern Presidents, because not enough time has passed to assess their legacies.

Some common leadership qualities that good Presidents appear to have are the following:

• A strong vision for the country's future


Thomas Jefferson's advice to a child encouraged good character, although his own character is sometimes questioned. His ownership of the slaves listed here seems to contradict his statement that "all men are created equal," leading some modern critics to call him hypocritical.
• An ability to put their own times in the perspective of history
• Effective communication skills
• The courage to make unpopular decisions
• Crisis management skills
• Character and integrity
• Wise appointments
• An ability to work with Congress

All Americans have different ideas about the importance that character plays in the job performance of the President. Considering all of the hats that a President must wear, perhaps the symbolic role that the President plays is most affected by character. Presidents must somehow symbolize what American citizens believe to be the essence of their country. They must represent what is valued now and in the past. But even more importantly, they embody the direction of America's future.

Page 13

Just what exactly does the President do all day?

The evolving power and enlarging scope of responsibilities have made the modern presidency a very big job. Some even say that it is impossible for one person to handle it all.

Presidents as Crisis Managers

The Constitutional power as "Commander in Chief" has evolved into the very important modern role of "crisis manager." In the 20th century, as the United States gained world leadership powers, the President has become a key player in international crises. In the case of war — such as the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Persian Gulf War — or less famous regional conflicts — such as those in Kosovo, Somalia, or Haiti — the President must go into "emergency mode" and concentrate on the immediate problem. Domestically, crises may occur — such as urban riots, hurricanes, or forest fires — that require the President to schedule time to coordinate government responses to the situation.

Presidents as Symbols and Administrators

More than anyone else, the President symbolizes the country — its people and its beliefs. In this role, a President performs many ceremonial duties, such as receiving foreign dignitaries, throwing the first baseball of the season, and walking on red carpets while waving to crowds. These actions are not trivial. Strong Presidents must exude confidence, not just in themselves, but in the American people as well. The best ones have had an intangible charisma that engendered public confidence.

As leader of the executive branch, the President is primarily responsible for seeing that the work of government is done. A famous sign sat on President Harry Truman's desk, "The buck stops here." The responsibility to administer and execute the laws of the land squarely rests on the President's shoulders.

The president must therefore recruit and appoint many people to top government jobs. Cabinet members, many sub-Cabinet positions, federal judges including Supreme Court Justices, ambassadors, top military leaders, and heads of independent government agencies are all appointments filled by the President. Even though nominees are subject to consent by the Senate, the fact that Presidents control more than 4,000 appointments to government service makes this responsibility an important one.

Presidents as Agenda Setters

Setting a political agenda has been a role that has grown in recent years. The founders clearly intended that Congress take the lead in setting priorities and determining policies. Today, Presidents have plans for Social Security, welfare programs, taxes, inflation, and public education. In foreign policy, they often act first, and then consult Congress. Virtually all recent Presidents regularly recommend legislation to Congress.

Strong Presidents have used the State of the Union address, given yearly at the start of each congressional session, to set an agenda. Modern Presidents now use the media to bring attention to their proposals and to place pressure on legislators. A President may threaten a veto before the bill gets to the Oval Office. This action lets legislators know the President's agenda and pressures them to rethink bills that they know will be vetoed.

Can any one person hope to be able to successfully hold the President's job? The great author John Steinbeck commented, " We give the President more work than a man can do, more responsibility than a man should take, more pressure than a man can bear." Yet, recent Presidents somehow have managed to endure — although the job has exacted a tremendous toll on each of them.

Page 14

The founders feared the masses. Cautious about granting powers to the general voting public, they created a safety valve against popular will. The American people do not technically elect their President. Electors do.

Selection

According to the Constitution, the President serves a four-year term of office. The 22nd Amendment further requires that a President may not be elected more than twice, nor serve more than a total of ten years. The Constitution also created an electoral college to select the President.

Some of the founders wanted to select a President by popular vote, but others did not want to put that much power into the hands of the voters. Others believed that Congress should select the President, but then, what would happen to separation of powers and checks and balances? So they compromised and created a special body of electors to be selected by the states. The number of electors would be equal to the sum of a states Senators and Representatives, so that large states would have more electors than the small ones.

Today many people believe that the Electoral College is out of date and that Presidents should be chosen by direct election, just as members of Congress are selected. By convention, state electors vote for the candidate that the people select in the general election, but they are not necessarily bound to do so.

The Electoral College also adds one nettlesome wrinkle — it is possible for a President to win more of the popular vote and lose the election. For example, if the Republican candidate gets even one more vote than the Democrat, all the state's electoral votes go to the Republican. Therefore, if a candidate wins a number of states with large electoral college members by small pluralities and carries enough states with small electoral college members to gain the necessary 270 electoral college votes, it is possible for a candidate to receive less popular votes than an opponent, and yet win the Presidential election. Five presidents — John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, George W. Bush and Donald Trump — have been elected in this fashion.

Succession

The Constitution originally said little about presidential succession. It only specified that powers and duties should "devolve on the Vice President." Numerous succession situations over the years have shaped the current policy, defined in the 25th Amendment, adopted in 1967.

Section 1.

In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

What happens when the presidency is vacated before an election? The Vice President becomes President, and then selects a Vice President that must be confirmed by both houses of Congress. What if something should happen to the President and Vice President at the same time? Then the Speaker of the House takes the presidency, and the President pro tempore of the Senate becomes Vice President. The line of succession then goes to the Cabinet members, in the order of their creation.

The Vice President

What does the Vice President do? The only given constitutional duty is to preside over the Senate, a job with virtually no power since the Vice President can only vote in the event of a tie. Indeed, the nation's first Vice President, John Adams, called the post "the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived."

The President, then, has almost total control over what the Vice President does. If he chooses to give him many responsibilities, The Vice President can have a significant amount of power if the President is willing to delegate it.

In recent years Presidents have given their Vice Presidents more and more to do. They have headed commissions and organized major projects. The Vice President often makes goodwill missions and attends ceremonies and celebrations. If the President regularly asks for advice, then the Vice President has some real, though indirect, power.

This dependency on the President has made it very difficult for a Vice President to successfully run for President. Only twice in American history has a seated Vice President been elected to the presidency. In 1837, Vice President Martin Van Buren succeeded Andrew Jackson, and in 1989, Vice President George Bush succeeded Ronald Reagan. In neither case, did they win reelection.

Page 15

Just as the power of the presidency has grown tremendously in recent years, so have the numbers of people that surround the executive branch. George Washington began his first term with only one aide — his nephew — who he paid out of his own pocket.

Today many advisors in the White House office, the Cabinet, and the Executive Office assist the President. The Vice President and the First Lady also have large staffs that complement all the President's aides.

The Cabinet

The informal advisory body known as the Cabinet is not mentioned in the Constitution. The founders had discussed the idea of some form of national executive council, and George Washington appointed four Cabinet members (Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of War, and the Attorney General) shortly after his inauguration.

By custom, each member of this advisory group heads a major department, so that their loyalties are almost always split.

Cabinet members must provide good advice to the President. But, they also must promote the well-being of their departments, sometimes at the expense of other Cabinet departments.

Cabinet members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. They may be dismissed at any time.

The size of the President's Cabinet has increased over the years as Presidents have recognized demands for services and governmental action. As the size of the Cabinet and their respective departments have grown, Presidents have come to rely more heavily on members of the Executive Office and the White House Staff.

POSITION	YEAR CREATED
Secretary of State	1789
Secretary of the Treasury	1789
Secretary of War (Defense)	1789; 1947 (name changed in 1947)
Attorney General	1789
Cabinet members and members of the White House staff often undergo rigorous screening before their appointments.
Secretary of the Interior	1849
Secretary of Agriculture	1862 (elevated to Cabinet in 1889)
Secretary of Commerce	1903
Secretary of Labor	1913
Secretary of Health and Human Services	1953
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development	1965
Secretary of Transportation	1966
Secretary of Energy	1977
Secretary of Education	1979
Secretary of Veterans' Affairs	1989
Secretary of Homeland Security	2002

The Executive Office

Franklin Roosevelt created the Executive Office of the President in 1939 to administer his New Deal programs. Today it consists of several advisory agencies that have worked closely with Presidents, particularly in recent years. The advisers in the Executive Office play key roles in advancing the President's agenda. Three of the most important agencies include the following:

• The National Security Council advises the President on American military affairs and foreign policy. The NSC consists of the President, the Vice President, and the Secretaries of State and Defense. The President's National Security Adviser runs the staff of the NSC and also advises the President.
• The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is the largest office in the EOP, and it has the job of preparing the national budget that the President proposes to Congress every year.
• The National Economic Council helps the President with economic planning. The council consists of three leading economists and is assisted by about 60 other economists, attorneys, and political scientists. The NEC is the President's major source of advice and information about the nation's economy.

The White House Office

White House Office staff members are not subject to Senate confirmation, nor do they have divided loyalties. They serve the President as an "inner circle" of most trusted advisers. Many have offices in the West Wing of the White House, and they often compete for space as close as possible to the President's Oval Office. Their titles include Special Assistant, Counsel, Aide, and Press Secretary.

Staff members gather information, write reports, give advice, lobby lawmakers, and present the President's views to the media. The Chief of Staff is usually particularly influential as the director of all the operations of the White House Office.

The job of presiding over the nation's government requires many assistants and administrators. Some people have criticized recent Presidents for having such a large staff in the executive offices. Recent Presidents have tried to cut back, but they generally have found that this large, complex country would be difficult to run without them.

Page 16

Section 1.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

As Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, the President is responsible for the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. Here, President Clinton reviews troops at the Fort Myer base in Virginia.

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

[The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall choose from them by Ballot the Vice President.]*

*Changed by the Twelfth Amendment.

The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

[In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.]*

*Changed by the Twenty-fifth Amendment.

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.''

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by Law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section 3.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Section 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Page 17

Research indicates that the first person that most American children remember beyond their immediate circle of family and friends is the President of the United States.

Who is this person that creates such a strong impression on children, arguably the most powerful individual in the world today? The founders certainly did not intend to create such a powerful presidency. They saw the presidency as a "necessary evil," or an executive to carry out and coordinate decisions made by Congress. What is the nature of the modern presidency, this office so powerful and yet so limited?

Presidential Qualities

The presidency was created in the image of George Washington, the man everyone believed would first occupy the office. Washington's personality shaped the expectation that the President should be wise, moderate, dignified, and nonpartisan. Of course, the President could not be all-powerful like the king of England. This person had to be sensitive to treading on individual rights and liberties. But especially for the fledgling nation, strong leadership was necessary.

And so the paradox was created with the new nation. Americans want a strong leader, but they also want someone who understands the anti-government, anti-authority streak that is part of being an American. It is not at all surprising, then, that Americans quibble about how much power the President should have. When Presidents take charge and try to run the country, they are often criticized as aggressive and dictatorial. If they let Congress take the lead, they are seen as weak and ineffective.

Great Expectations

Americans set very high expectations for our Presidents. They want someone who provides a sense of purpose, and who represents all the hopes and dreams of Americans. Yet the President must also pay close attention to practical matters, such as jobs, peace, and prosperity. The President must be tough, decisive, and competent. Because of these great expectations, most modern Presidents have come up short.

Perhaps this situation happens partly because the modern media has brought Americans "closer" to Presidents, making them seem more human than before. They are seen with their families in their personal lives. Newspapers report who cuts their hair and how much it costs. Their lives are investigated in the most minute detail for scandal. This demystifying of the presidency, as well as the general increase in mistrust of government in recent years, makes being President a tough job.

Gridlock

Even today, Congress limits the President's powers. Gridlock, or inaction, occurs when the President wants one thing and Congress wants another. Just as the Constitution ensures that the lawmaking process in Congress is not easily seized by the power of a few people, it also places checks on the power of both Congress and the President. This balance is the primary reason for gridlock — an inefficiency that many critics see as a major fault in American government.

Few individuals are willing to endure the hardships of a campaign. Even fewer are willing to open even the most private aspects of their lives to public scrutiny. Some say that the burdens placed on presidential aspirants make the job undesirable to many qualified candidates. But for those who survive the process, the opportunity for true leadership awaits.

Page 18

Creating legislation is what the business of Congress is all about. Ideas for laws come from many places — ordinary citizens, the president, offices of the executive branch, state legislatures and governors, congressional staff, and of course the members of Congress themselves.

Constitutional provisions, whose primary purposes are to create obstacles, govern the process that a bill goes through before it becomes law. The founders believed that efficiency was the hallmark of oppressive government, and they wanted to be sure that laws that actually passed all the hurdles were the well considered result of inspection by many eyes.

Before a bill becomes a law it must pass both houses of Congress and signed into law by the President. It may begin its journey at any time, but it must be passed during the same congressional session of its proposal, a period of one year. If it does not complete the process, it is dropped, and can only be revived through reintroduction and going through the whole process again. Not surprisingly, less that 10% of proposed bills actually become laws.

There are many opportunities to kill a bill before it becomes law. In each house, a bill must survive three stages:

When bills are marked up, in Congress, they may be changed to sneak in unapproved spending or overspending on programs. The spending is called "pork" and the tactic, "pork barreling."
1. Committee consideration — New bills are sent to standing committees by subject matter. For example, bills on farm subsidies generally go to the Agriculture Committee. Bills that propose tax changes would go to the House Ways and Means Committee. Since the volume of bills is so large, most bills today are sent directly to subcommittee. Most bills — about 90% — die in committee or subcommittee, where they are pigeonholed, or simply forgotten and never discussed. If a bill survives, hearings are set up in which various experts, government officials, or lobbyists present their points of view to committee members. After the hearings, the bill is marked up, or revised, until the committee is ready to send it to the floor.


The filibuster king Strom Thurmond kept the Senate floor for over one day, with only one brief bathroom break.
2. Floor debate — In the House only, a bill goes from committee to a special Rules Committee that sets time limits on debate and rules for adding amendments. If time limits are short and no amendments are allowed from the floor, the powerful rules committee is said to have imposed a "gag rule." Rules for debate on the Senate floor are much looser, with Senators being allowed to talk as much about each bill as they like. No restrictions on amendments are allowed in the Senate. This lack of rules has led to an occasional filibuster in which a senator literally talks a bill to death. Filibusters are prohibited in the House. Both houses require a quorum (majority) of its members to be present for a vote. Passage of a bill generally requires a majority vote by the members present.
3. Conference committees — Most bills that pass the first two stages do not need to go to conference committee, but those that are controversial, particularly important, or complex often do. A conference committee is formed to merge two versions of a bill — one from the House and one from the Senate — when the two houses cannot readily agree on alterations. The members are chosen from the standing committees that sponsored the bill who come up with a compromise. The revised bill then must go back to the floors of each house and be passed by both houses before it can be sent to the President for signing.

Many people criticize Congress for its inefficiency and the length of time that it takes for laws to be passed and enacted. Although the process is long and difficult, the founders intentionally set it up that way. Some modern critics believe that the system is arcane and simply too slow for a fast-paced country like the United States. A process in which only a few people were responsible for making laws certainly would be more efficient. But of course it wouldn't be very democratic. The many hurdles that bills must face help to ensure that those that survive are not just passed on a whim, but are well considered and deliberate.

Page 19

A paunchy, older, silver-haired man with no facial hair wearing an ill-fitting dark suit. This is the image evoked in the minds of many Americans when they try to picture a Representative or Senator. This stereotype is actually grounded in truth, although the makeup of Congress has changed a great deal in the past few decades.

Personal Characteristics

Senators and Representatives come from all parts of the United States, but they do not reflect a true cross section of America. Overall, members of Congress tend to be older, wealthier, and better educated than those they represent. Nearly half of them are lawyers, and a large number come from business, banking, and education. Most of them are married with children, and about 60% are Protestants. Nearly all went to college, and many have advanced degrees as well.

However, this mix has changed considerably in recent years. For example, the 106th Congress (1999-2001) had 58 female Representatives and 9 female Senators. Although this does not reflect the ratio of the general population, it represents big increases over past years. The number of African American Representatives has also increased significantly, and there is a growing number of Representatives from other ethnic minorities.

Incumbency

For the first 50 years after the ratification of the Constitution, Representatives and Senators usually only served for short periods of time. Travel was difficult, and before air-conditioning and the massive swamp-draining that improved the comfort of Washington, D.C., the nation's capital was a pretty miserable town. Most served one or two terms and returned home to take local or state level office. Perhaps they had been rewarded with a federal judgeship. Today many Representatives and Senators are reelected as incumbents repeatedly.

As career politicians, members actually live in two worlds. They must work with party leaders, colleagues, and lobbyists in Washington, as well as maintaining contact with their constituents at home. Most travel back to their home districts many times during the year. They give speeches, have meetings, discuss problems, and observe with their own eyes the needs of their district or state. Most have staffs in both places, and no matter which place they are, they must keep up with what is going on in the other.

Pay and Perks

How well are members of Congress paid?. Of course, the best part is that they get to set their own salaries. In the year 2021, the basic yearly salary for members of Congress was $174,000. Congressional leaders, like the Speaker of the House and the Majority and Minority leaders, get more.

So members of Congress are among the top 1% of the nation's wage earners. However, they are prohibited by law from supplementing their income through honoraria or paid speaking engagements. Also, legislators have expenses that most people do not have — two homes, entertainment of constituents, and campaign debt. And then of course, they do have some pretty big responsibilities.

Members of Congress are sometimes criticized for the number of perquisites — or perks — that they receive. For example, each member has an office, a large expense account, generous travel allowances, pension plans, and low-cost health coverage. They even have free postal service, a perk known as the franking privilege.

They come from all over the country. They still tend to be older white males, and most of them have been in office for a number of years already. They are well paid, but they have a great many important responsibilities. The calling of public service certainly has its benefits, but political life generates headaches that many Americans would just as soon do without.

Page 20

Bills begin and end their lives in committees, whether they are passed into law or not. Hearings from interest groups and agency bureaucrats are held at the committee and subcommittee level, and committee members play key roles in floor debate about the bills that they foster.

Committees help to organize the most important work of Congress — considering, shaping, and passing laws to govern the nation. 8,000 or so bills go to committee annually. Fewer than 10% of those bills make it out for consideration on the floor.

Types of Committees

There are four types of congressional committees:

1. Standing committees, which continue from one Congress to the next, are probably the most important type because they consider and shape the vast majority of proposed laws. Standing committees can be combined or discontinued but most of them have been around for many years. Standing committees also conduct investigations, such as the Senate Banking Committee's investigation of President Bill Clinton's Whitewater investments.
2. Select committees are temporarily formed for specific purposes, often to study a particular issue. They usually do not draft legislation. Some, like the select committees to investigate the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, are obviously intended to have limited lives. Others, like the Select Committee on Aging and the Select Committee on Indian Affairs, have existed for a number of years actually produce legislation. Sometimes long-standing select committees eventually become standing committees.


Most standing committees, such as the House Committee on Small Business, have their own websites and monthly journals to disseminate information to the people.
3. Joint committees have similar purposes as select committees, but they are made up of members from both the House and the Senate. They are set up to conduct business between the houses and to help focus public attention on major issues. Some joint committees handle routine matters, such as supervising the Library of Congress.


A select committee of Congress was established to investigate the assassination of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
4. Conference committees are specially created when the House and the Senate need to reconcile different versions of the same bill. A conference committee is made up of members from the House and Senate committees that originally considered the bill. Once the committee agrees on a compromise, the revised bill is returned to both houses of Congress for their approval.

Committee Assignments

After each congressional election, political parties assign newly elected Representatives and Senators to standing committees. They consider a member's own wishes in making the assignments, but they also assess the needs of the committees, in terms of region of the country, personalities, and party connections.

Since the House has 435 members, most Representatives only serve on one or two committees. On the other hand, Senators often serve on several committees and subcommittees. Committee assignment is one of the most important decisions for a new member's future work in Congress. Usually, members seek appointment on committees that will allow them to serve their districts or state the most directly. However, a members from a "safe" district — where his or her reelection is not in jeopardy — and who wants to be a leader in Congress, may want to be named to a powerful committee, such as Foreign Relations, Judiciary, or the House Ways and Means. There they are more likely to come into contact with current leaders and perhaps even gain some media attention.

Standing Committees of Congress (as of 2021)

Page 21

Is walking the plank dangerous? Certainly, for a pirate. But for a politician, it may be prudent.

Partisanship — or fierce loyalty to one's political party — generally is not admired in the United States today. Many people today call themselves independent voters, and bickering between the parties in Congress is often condemned. But parties are very important in both the House of Representatives and the Senate today. Even though political parties do not play as big a role in elections as they once did, they still provide the basic organization of leadership in Congress.

After each legislative election the party that wins the most representatives is designated the "majority" in each house, and the other party is called the "minority." These designations are significant because the majority party holds the most significant leadership positions, such as Speaker of the House. Usually, the same party holds both houses, but occasionally they are split. For example, from 1983-1985, the House majority was Democratic and the Senate majority was Republican.

At the beginning of each new Congress, the members of each party gather in special meetings to talk party policy and themes and to select their leaders by majority vote. Democrats call their meeting a "caucus," and the Republicans call theirs a "conference." Next, when each house convenes in its first session, Congressional leaders, such as the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader in the Senate, are selected. And even though the whole house votes for its leaders, the majority party makes the real selections ahead of time behind the scenes when they select party leaders.

House Leadership

Because the House has 435 members to the Senate's 100, House leaders tend to have more power over their membership than do Senate leaders. With 435 people trying to make decisions together, their sheer numbers require leaders to coordinate the lawmaking process. Political parties choose all top leadersip positions.

Speaker of the House. The Speaker is the most powerful member of the House of Representatives, and arguably, the most influential single legislator in both houses. Always a member of the majority party, the speaker's influence depends partly on strength of personality and respect of colleagues, but also on several important powers.

The Speaker:

• presides over proceedings on the House floor
• influences which bills go to which committees
• influences committee assignments for new members
• appoints the party's other leaders

• rules on questions of parliamentary procedure

The majority leader usually the second ranking member of the majority party, is the party leader on the floor. Often hand-picked by the Speaker, the majority leader helps plan the party's legislative program. Many Speakers came to their positions by serving as majority leader first.

The minority leader heads and organizes the minority party. Because the party has less voting power than the majority party has, this person's influence is usually limited. If the minority party succeeds in the next congressional election, the minority leader could well be the next Speaker.

Senate Leadership

The Senate leadership is characterized by its highest positions actually having very little power. By Constitutional provision, the president of the Senate is the Vice President of the United States, who only can cast a vote in case of a tie. The Vice President rarely sits with the Senate, so a President pro tempore is selected to take his place. This role too is largely ceremonial, so the chair is often passed to a junior Senator.

The floor leaders are the real leaders in the Senate, although they generally have less power than do leaders in the House. The majority leader is usually the most influential person in the Senate. He has the privilege of beginning debates on legislation, and he usually influences choices for committee assignments. He shares his power with the minority leader, who leads the other party. Usually the two leaders cooperate to some extent, but the leader of the majority party always has the upper hand.

The major leadership positions — Speaker of the House, and majority and minority leaders in both houses — are based almost exclusively on party membership. Does this system encourage party loyalty above all else in members of Congress who want to get ahead? If that is the case, the impatience that Americans have with "partisan politics" is understandable.

Page 22

Section 1. All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of freePersons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all otherPersons [Modified by Amendment XIV]. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least oneRepresentative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to choose three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

The Senate shall choose their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December [Modified by Amendment XX], unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may intheir Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

Continuance in Office.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take

Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

And To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Page 23

The Congress makes laws.

Despite promises made by presidential candidates, the President has no direct power to pass any legislation. This very important power lies solely with the House of Representatives and the Senate.

The People's Influence

• Constituents' Views. Members of Congress often visit their home districts and states to keep in touch with their constituents' views. They also read their mail, keep in touch with local and state political leaders, and meet with their constituents in Washington. Some pay more attention than others, but they all have to consider the views of the folks back home. Completely ignoring one's constituency would be foolhardy if the politician hoped at all to be reelected.
• Party Views. Congress is organized primarily along party lines, so party membership is an important determinant of a member's vote. Each party develops its own version of many important bills, and party leaders actively pressure members to vote according to party views. It is not surprising that Representatives and Senators vote along party lines about three-fourths of the time.
• Personal Views. What if a Representative or Senator seriously disagrees with the views of his constituents on a particular issue? How should he or she vote? Those who believe that personal views are most important argue that the people vote for candidates whose judgment they trust. If the people disagree with their decisions, they can always vote them out of office.

The Nature of Democratic Discourse

Gridlock can occur when the legislative branch of Congress and the executive branch of the President are led by different political parties. Coming to agreement on new legislation during these periods of divided government can prove difficult. American voters can become frustrated by the inability of their leaders to move forward.

Yet this expectation for a smoothly running government contradicts the very nature of democratic discourse. How can representatives resolve the differences if they do not discuss them, argue about them, and eventually take sides on a solution? The nature of democratic discourse is to hear from everyone, hammer out compromises, and make decisions based on the process.

Voters may think of their own Representatives or Senators as good people fighting the corruption and selfish greed of the others. Incumbent candidates often encourage this thinking like by claiming to have "saved" the district from disaster through their good works. It helps them win elections.

Page 24

Not since television has an innovation had the potential to impact politics greater than the Internet. With more and more Americans getting wired, the ability to reach millions of voters will be a lure which no politician can resist.

In the year 2000, the Internet has not eclipsed the influence of newspapers, radio, or television. However, cyberspace has an advantage over the older news sources. The Internet is an interactive medium, allowing citizens to send information as well as receive it — in real time.

In 1996, all major presidential candidates developed websites to support their campaigns. Newsgroups have been created to cover the entire political spectrum. Interest groups have reached new audiences on the World Wide Web, creating the potential for an even greater influence in Washington. Fringe organizations on the far left and the far right have used the relatively unregulated medium — free from profit motive or government control — to broaden the support networks.

Given its interactive capabilities, why not let citizens vote directly online? Two states already experimented with this in the presidential primaries in the 2000 contest. A voter could register online, and later cast his or her vote into cyberspace.

The original idea of direct democracy was to let all citizens vote on all issues. With a nation as large as the United States, it became unfeasible to assemble the citizenry for such direct involvement to take place. The Internet could turn that impossibility into a reality. Rather than letting the Senate and House of Representatives to vote on an issue, why not create a national referendum and permit Americans to voice their opinions in an online vote? Supporters and opponents of a bill could post information pertinent to the issue on a web page. Debate could take place informally in chat rooms. Optimists point to the potential of the Internet to create a more democratic America.

Use of the Internet in this fashion has critics as well. Fears of a malicious hacker breaking into a voting site and shutting it down or tampering with the results have led most states to proceed cautiously. A technological gap still exists between connected Americans and those without the financial means to own a computer or pay for Internet service.

Some intellectuals question the expertise of the average American to cast important votes on policy matters. Until these questions get resolved, the use of the Internet in the political arena remains mostly potential. But at the dawn of the 21st century, even the naysayers see the revolutionary changes on the horizon introduced by this exciting new medium.

Page 25

"I view this as a mini-series that has to be told over four nights." -Andy Card Co-chair of the 2000 Republican Convention

Does the media primarily report politics, or does it shape political events? The quote above certainly reflects the power of the media to determine the course of major political events. The purpose of a political party convention is to formally nominate a presidential candidate, but of course the party wants to win votes in the general election. When politicians play to the media, does the media then control politics? Many people today criticize television, radio, newspapers, magazines, and the Internet for unfairly using their power as a major link between citizens and their government. Do the media fairly explore issues, or do they impose their own positions?

The influence of the media is increased by the fact that campaigns today have become more focused on the individual than on the party. In order to win primaries, individual candidates seek media attention to gain attention from voters. As a result, do voters hold political power, or has the media simply replaced political parties as the primary force behind candidate selection?

The Political Influence of the Media

The media can shape government and politics in many ways. Here are a few:

1. By influencing political opinions of voters. Not surprisingly, the voting behavior of people who are actively interested in politics is probably not changed by the media. Committed Democrats and Republicans selectively learn what they want to from media sources. However, the media can sway people who are uncommitted or have no strong opinion in the first place. Since these voters often decide elections results, the power of media in elections can be substantial.

2. By determining the behavior of candidates and officials. Many good politicians have learned that they can succeed — in getting elected and in getting things done — if they know how to use the media. President Franklin Roosevelt was famous for his "fireside chats," in which he soothed the pain of economic depression and war by talking to citizens over the radio. President Ronald Reagan's skills as a film and television actor enabled him to communicate very effectively with American voters. Government officials and candidates for office carefully stage media events and photo opportunities. Critics believe that too much attention is focused on how politicians look and come across on camera, rather than on how good a job they are doing in public service.

3. By setting the public agenda. Most Americans learn about social issues from print or electronic media. The fact that the media focuses on some issues and ignores others can help set what gets done in government. Media sources have often been accused of emphasizing scandal and high-interest issues at the expense of duller but more important political problems. The government's priorities can be rearranged as a result.

The media clearly has a great deal of power in American politics today. Is that a good or a bad thing for government? From one point of view, the media abuse their power, especially since they are driven by profit motive to give people what they want, not necessarily what they need. On the other hand, perhaps the media serves as an important player in a modern "checks and balances" system. Reporters function as "watchdogs" to be sure that Presidents, Representatives, and Justices do not abuse their powers. The media in turn is checked by government regulations, by skilled politicians, and by the people's own good judgment.

Page 26

Actually, there are three major types of interest groups. Animal rights groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals(PETA) and environmental interest groups such as Greenpeace usually organize as public-interest groups. These groups claim to work not for self interest but for the best interest of the public.

Underpaid professional workers may organize as groups. Lawyers belong to the American Bar Association, doctors belong to the American Medical Association, and teachers belong to the National Education Association or the American Federation of Teachers. Labor unions such as the AFL-CIO and the Teamsters' Union to protect workers in factories or businesses.

The most common type of interest group is formed around businesses, corporations, and trade associations. Part of their reputation for power is based on the fact that they represent about half of all interest groups in Washington. People who criticize interest groups for having undue power in government believe that the business groups get special privileges for people who already have more wealth and power than ordinary citizens. For example, the oil and tobacco industries each have interest groups who promote their respective interests on Capitol Hill.

How Interest Groups Work

Interest groups send representatives to state capitals and to Washington, D.C. to put pressure on members of Congress and other policymakers. They engage in lobbying, or the organized process of influencing legislation or policy. Lobbying can take many forms. Interest groups can testify in congressional hearings. For example, several years ago, when Congress was considering discrimination in private clubs, representatives of the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts appeared in hearings to try to persuade Congress to allow each one to remain a single-sex organization. Lobbyists also contact government officials directly or informally, present research results and technical information, talk with people from the press and the media, and sometimes even help to draft legislation.

Why should the politicians listen? Interest groups also actively involve themselves in political campaigns. This electioneering is intended to help elect candidates who favor their positions or to defeat those who oppose them. It is generally conducted by political action committees (PACs), who serve as special political arms for the interest groups.

The number of PACs has grown rapidly since the early 1970s, when campaign finance reform laws were passed that restricted individual contributions to campaigns. PACs have changed the face of American elections. They have contributors who write checks to them specifically for the purpose of campaign donations. For example, if a person wants to support candidates who oppose gun control, he or she can contribute to the PAC that represents the National Rifle Association. The PAC, then, will make direct contributions to individual campaigns of selected candidates.

Do interest groups corrupt government by "buying" influence? Critics believe that they do because more money comes from businesses and corporations than from any other source. This, they contend, gives them a connection to government that ordinary people do not have. From another point of view, everyone is free to form and join interest groups. So many exist that there is literally a group for everyone. These multiple contacts make the American democracy stronger, because they give the opportunity for all Americans to have better access to their government.