Jordan Sylar Article Summaries

Stalemate

Because of the way the legislative system is set up with a bicameral legislature and and separation of power, gridlock is inevitable and has existed from the beginning. Differing policy views, even within the same party, contribute to gridlock and result in delays and conflict when it comes to policy making. Gridlock is viewed differently depending on the person. Despite the way that it frustrates many Americans, Jefferson thought that a small amount of delay was helpful. Gridlock can be a tool that is used by legislators to strategically pass or stall a bill. Ultimately, gridlock is the result of the way the legislature is set up, as well as the differing agendas among the elected officials in the legislative branch.

The Imperial Presidency

A large amount of presidents have attempted broaden the President’s powers outside of those listed in The Constitution. Many have compared this extension of power to that of a king’s, hence the title “Imperial Presidency.” The main area that this shift of power can be seen in is the President’s wartime powers or powers in times of crisis. The justification used is that the president needs the ability to act quickly, and the results are things like FDR’s New Deal or The Cuban Missile Crisis under Kennedy. An example of a president who took his power too far and received backlash is Nixon during the Watergate scandal. As presidents continue to create their own power, corruption increases and they support the title of “Imperial” that Schlesinger has given them.

Pursuit of Justice

The President is explicitly given the power to nominate Supreme Court Justices, and the Senate’s job is to confirm the nomination. These are both significant powers and they require that the President the Senate can agree and work together. The President usually nominates someone with similar views and party affiliations, as they are supposed to be an extension of himself in the Supreme Court. The President also, however, has to consider party politics when making a supreme court nomination. Finding a candidate that fits all of the criteria is a difficult job, and there have been at least ten different changes in the selection process since the new deal that have made the process more complicated. The Justice Department has also taken a more significant role in the government as time has passed, resulting in increasing importance of Supreme Court nominations. The number of federal courts has grown, and as a result so has the number of appointments the president is required to make. The White House staff grew as well, resulting in more influences and factors for the president to consider when making decisions. Presidents also rely more heavily on their counsel to help them make decisions. Because a divided party system is now commonplace, a moderate candidate for the Court must be selected to make it through if the president and the Senate have conflicting parties. Nominations have also become much more public, and have to deal with more scrutiny from the media and the public. The American Bar Association has also received the power to rate candidates and have a say in who is chosen. Interest groups conduct research and attempt to influence the appointment through their own means. Technology has also increased and allows more information to be gathered and seen about the candidates when making decisions. The Supreme Court has grown in influence and power, and with it the nomination process has become more important and complicated. 

[Put this on my lowest quiz, please :)]

Article Summary Extra Credit-Kinsey Anderson

Stalemate by Sarah Binder

Throughout Stalemate, Binder discusses several reasons that cause a gridlock in Congress. Although gridlock is a newer term, it is not a new concept. Alexander Hamilton mentioned how he was annoyed by the stalemate that arose in the Continental Congress. Binder first writes how the divided government results in conflict, which leads to a deadlock. Since the frequency of gridlock is not consistent, Binder says it is important to learn what causes it. Even if Congress is controlled by the same party, compromise for breaking a gridlock is not insured. There is a structural and pluralist component of the American political system. According to the analysis of David Mayhew, the pluralist component is better because of the distributions of policy views and the timing of party politics. Party effects influence Congress’ decision making. While elections divide control, they also decide the different beliefs within each party. In order for the government to be receptive, it is important to have united political parties that could give decisive choices to the electorate. Over the years, the party polarization has increased, which further bolsters deadlock. If the United States had a greater political center and a less polarized Congress, then it is more likely to have policy compromise. Binder believes that bicameralism is the most significant reason causing gridlock in American politics. When there are structural differences in the House and the Senate, bicameral differences occur. In Congress, there is not much incentive for compromise, so many legislators do not feel it is urgent to reach an agreement. Since people have different hopes for the outcome of a gridlock, it is difficult to fix it.

The Imperial Presidency by Arthur Schlesinger

Schlesinger believes the imperial Presidency was significant in the creation foreign policy, and he further explains the war-making power of the president. The imperial Presidency became part of the American society because of the deterioration of the traditional party system. Over the years, the parties have declined, which can most significantly be attributed to the improvement of technology. Because the parties have diminished, there has been a larger focus on the President. Economic changes have also impacted the powers of the President. Schlesinger thinks Roosevelt and Kennedy both used their imperial powers wisely, but he does not believe the same for Richard Nixon. He believes Nixon is the ultimate imperial president. During the New American Revolution, the power was focused towards the  president, not the people. Nixon believed that, as the president, he could place himself above the Constitution, which is evident through the Watergate Scandal. Secrecy favored the government in three ways: the power to withhold, the power to leak, and the power to lie. After the secrecy, Schlesinger further writes about questioning the power of the president during Nixon’s administration. Because of the Watergate scandal, the imperial Presidency was stopped until the presidency of George Bush. President Bush’s response to the 9/11 attacks and foreign policy revived the imperial Presidency.

Pursuit of Justices by David Yalof

David Yalof discusses how the president has to select nominees to the Supreme Court, which is one of his most important duties. In order for the nominee to become a justice of the Supreme Court, the Senate must approve of the candidate. The president chooses a person who has similar doctrine to himself, which creates a continuing legacy for the president after his term ends. The New Deal brought about significant change in American politics. Yalof describes ten advancements that changed the manner in which the justices are selected. Substantial growth occurred in the Justice Department, the White House, and the federal courts, which allowed the attorney general to give more guidance while selecting a Supreme Court nominee. This expansion has also provided the president with more appointment opportunities. Since senatorial courtesy does not apply in the broadening D.C. Circuit, the president is able to select people who have similar ideology in the federal judicial system. In addition to expansion, technology has also been an important part of the changing selection process. With the media’s greater focus on the process, the public is more informed on the nominee. Overall, the Supreme Court has become more involved in American politics. The Court places itself in the middle of significant political controversies, and it is focused on a rights-based agenda.


Please add 5 points to my test

KP: Article Summary Extra Credit

Stalemate

         Gridlock existed long before the 1980 election, as Hamilton saw it in place nearly 200 years prior. Many critics claim that a divided government brings “conflict, delay, and indecision” which leads to “deadlock, inadequate and ineffective policies, or no policies at all” because long periods of a successful, lawmaking government are rare in American history. However, gridlock in government has mixed reviews, as Jefferson’s philosophy might welcome a small amount of gridlock and Bob Dole states that we should even hope for it. Ultimately, a government controlled by one political party still cannot ensure that there will be no gridlock or stalemate in the legislative process, Party polarization, the separation of powers, and a bicameral legislature also contribute to this effect. Differing policy views and political agendas held by competing politicians fuel the modern political monster known as a Stalemate.

The Imperial Presidency

       Presidential primacy is now presidential supremacy, and constitutional presidency has turned into an imperial presidency, and if we’re not careful, could become a revolutionary presidency. There has been a shift in Constitutional balance concerning presidential power. The war-making power in particularly has essentially allowed the President to become a creator of foreign policy, as they are know the master of peace and war. In certain cases, such as FDR and his New Deal, that an influx of domestic power doesn’t always result in an influx of foreign power. A development of this imperial presidency was a decay in the structure of the traditional party system, because as the parties faded away, the presidency stood out. Kennedy’s actions concerning the Cuban Missile Crisis set a precedent for presidents in the future, despite the fact that he had dealt with an obscure and unique situation. His action was an exception that was taken as a rule. As Presidents reconstruct the office to meet their own needs, they continue to support Schlesinger’s ideas that it is now an imperial position.

Pursuit of Justices

Supreme Court Justice nomination is one of the president’s most significant duties, and conflict and factionalism has made this power much more complicated. President’s typically nominate those who have similar judicials views as their own, which in turn allows them to attempt to gain more control over the Supreme Court. However, because of the competing ideas even within the executive administration, finding the candidate that accurately reflects a president’s views may seem harder than it sounds. There are at least 10 developments post New Deal era that have changed the selection process for justices.

The Justice Department grew dramatically which delegated more power to agencies and allows the attorney general to have a louder voice in the selection process.

The White House staff also grew following FDR’s administration, and now many modern presidents rely heavily on their Counsel Office to assist them in researching new nominees.

The federal court system has also grown, which has allowed senatorial courtesy to be a dominant factor in lower court selections, and these courts act as a trial run for those who could one day be promoted to the Supreme Court.

A divided party government is now routine and moderate candidates must be selected in order to be confirmed by a Senate of a different party.

The confirmation process is now available to the media and the public can now be up to date on each and every step in the nomination and confirmation process, as the nominee must now also please the media.

The American Bar Association’ Special Committee on the Judiciary has reviewed all candidates since its creation and a president must now factor in the ABA’s approval ratings into the candidate’s nomination.

Interest groups now conduct their own research and have extended their influence on early stage nominations.

The increased media attention has forced president’s to also fight the daily coverage of the process, in which a long delay in the process could be blown out of proportion into a major problem.

Legal research technology has allowed all participants of the process to access software programs such as LEXIS/NEXIS and WESTLAW which quickly gather all past opinions, commentary, rulings, and so on.

Lastly, because the Supreme Court has become an increasingly more visible power in the government, the office is now held as one with higher stakes, influence, and power.

[put on the test please]

Unit 4 Extra Credit - JD Sanderson

Stalemate

The concept of gridlock has existed since the country began and is a result of the legislative system. Gridlock cannot be avoided just by having the same party in every seat. Inter-party politics and differing views would still contribute to the phenomenon. The polarization of the parties have also contributed to gridlock by presenting less chance for compromise within legislative debilitations. The larger the moderate section is, the more policy gets considered and moved through. Gridlock occurs between the two houses as well. The House and Senate will not always have the same agenda and, as bills need to pass both houses before being signed, many times bills will be kept in limbo while neither side can agree on compromises. Gridlock can also be used as a tool for some legislators when a bill passing or not passing could present a win either way. Overall, gridlock is mostly a result of politicians with different agendas being elected and having to work together, with little able to be done within the existing system to fix the problem.

The Imperial Presidency

Several presidents, such as Nixon, have tried to extend the Constitutional powers of the Oval Office into areas where they have no real business being. The main regent credited for this change is the “need” for more power and quicker possibility of action during times of foreign crisis. The roots of the problem are able to be seen with FDR’s New Deal and the economic powers it granted the government, setting a precedent of available powers in times of crisis. The decline of party importance is also stated as having made the office appear more as a beacon to the country as it was one place where the structure of the past was still seen. One example of the massive amount of power held by the president being a good thing is the Cuban Missile Crisis. Kennedy has the power to make a decision and carry it out quickly enough to diffuse the situation. However, this power also allowed presidents to shape the administration to how they envisioned it. Nison used it to install a large system of secrecy into the White House and keep major decisions away from the public eye, as well as from many people in the government. Eventually, Nixon stretched his powers too far, resulting in the Watergate scandal causing his resignation. There is also a trend of a 50 year cycle of corruption and public outcry seen in the presidency.

Pursuit of Justice

The president has a significant power in the ability to nominate the Supreme Court justices, provided the Senate confirms them. Many appointees are chosen according to similar political interests with the president, but he also has to consider party politics and what the appointment will do to his own political career. The New Deal and other political events caused a change in the Court’s role and structure. The growth of the Justice Department caused it to have more power within the government, with higher offices having more input into the nominations. The White House staff also grew, putting more people, and thus influences, closer to the president and giving the White House more power in the grand scheme. The president also has more power over appointments to federal courts, as the number of them has grown radically as Congress has had to deal with more issues. The president is able to have more judges with views, as well as being able to “screen” potential justices with lower appointments. The president has to consider the public opinion though. The nomination process has become much more public, with less chance for deliberation to take place and more attention on who the president is going to choose. The American Bar Association has also gained a more prominent role in the nomination process, although it does depend on who is in power at the time. They can “rate” a nominee, which affects the decision to approve the nominee, as well as how the public will perceive the nominee. As always, interest groups also have a large role in the process. They have the resources to run campaigns for or against nominees, as well as having the control of legislators who rely on them for reelection. The media plays a part by digging into nominees’ pasts and shaping public opinion. It has also become easier to find nominees’ past legal actions, opinions, and decisions through software developed for the purpose. The Court has steadily grown in influence due to its reputation of mainly dealing with rights and controversial issues. This causes nominations to garner large amounts of attention due to the potential power the justice could have.

Put this on my test, please.

Articles Summarization - Unit 4 Extra Credit

Give a summary of the three articles given for Unit 4:

• Stalemate
• The Imperial Presidency
• Pursuit of Justices

Post as separate blog, title with your name, and be sure to include where you would like the extra credit to be applied!

** Both the Silverdalia extra credit and this extra credit are due after the next test. **

Alexander Ioannidis Political Ideology

I lean more economically liberal and socially libertarian. I do agree with my results. I believe that government needs to do more to help lower class people make it in society. I think it is unacceptable for people to be starving or lacking medical care in the United States. My socially libertarian ways are also accurate because I believe people should be able to do what they want as long as they don't hurt others. This includes being pro-life. I am all for a woman being able to make her own health decisions, but not at the expense of an innocent child's life. With gay marriage, I do not think gay marriage is ok, but from a constitutional perspective, people should have the right to marry who they want and it should not be regulated by the government. I would describe myself as a moderate who leans toward the left. I am not extreme in my beliefs, but I do believe everyone deserves a fair shot and a level playing field. My only super conservative stance is on the issue of abortion. I am 100% pro-life even in cases of incest and rape. The only time I would be pro-choice is if the mother of the child was dying. On this note, I proudly endorse Bernie Sanders for President in 2016!

Please add my extra credit to the unit 2/3 test.

Kinsey Anderson-Political Ideology Extra Credit

According to the political compass quiz, my economic and social beliefs are left authoritarian. The quiz shows that my economic beliefs are approximately in the middle between conservative and liberal. I was surprised by this because my economic beliefs tend to be much more conservative. I think equal opportunity and equality are important, but I feel that extreme liberals go too far with equality. I disagree with the fact that people who are able to work, but choose not to are given money by the government. I also do not support the liberal idea of taxing the rich more in order to bring everyone more towards the center economically. I am not surprised that my social beliefs appear to be more conservative. I believe my conservative social ideology is rooted in my religious beliefs. I thought that economically and socially my beliefs would greatly be skewed towards the conservative side. Although my social beliefs were more on the conservative side than my economic beliefs, I find it interesting that both are not significantly conservative. Overall, I consider myself to have conservative economic and social beliefs.

Please add extra credit to Unit 2/3 Test