Unit 2 Part A (Legislative) Study Guide PDF

UNIT 2 PART A STUDY GUIDE Franking privilege - Certain members of congress have franking privilege, which can be useful - One of the most useful perks that comes with being an incumbent/ someone who is already part of Congress while running yet again - With franking privilege,...

UNIT 2 PART A STUDY GUIDE Franking privilege - Certain members of congress have franking privilege, which can be useful - One of the most useful perks that comes with being an incumbent/ someone who is already part of Congress while running yet again - With franking privilege, senators and representatives in the House can send FREE mail to the people in their congressional districts - The contents of this mail can be anything they’d like, and they usually utilize it to promote their campaigns and secure voter loyalty Requirements for House/Senate 1. House - Must be at least 25 years old - Resident of the state they represent - Citizen of the US for at least 7 years 2. Senate - Must be at least 30 years old - Resident of the state they represent - Citizen of the US for at least 9 years Powers of both houses–be ready to compare them 1. House - Initiate revenue bills - Impeach federal officials - Elect the President in case of an Electoral College tie 2. Senate - Confirm the president's appointments - Provide advice and consent to ratify treaties (One exception is that the House also has to approve appointment to the vice presidency and any treaty related to foreign trade) - Tries impeachment cases of federal officials 3. CONGRESS AS A WHOLE (enumerated powers in Art. 1 Sec. 8) - Power to pass a federal budget (power of the purse) - Power to raise revenue; accomplished by income tax, tariffs, etc. - Power to coin money - Power to declare war - Power to raise and maintain the armed forces Advantages of incumbents - Incumbents are people who already hold a certain position or office who choose to run again or are up for re-election  - Incumbents are present most famously in presidential elections, but there are also numerous benefits to being an incumbent in CONGRESS, for both the House and the Senate - Name recognition: When an incumbent runs for office again, it’s given that they are a familiar figure to the public, and that most people already know about this candidate and their policies well enough to vote for them - Proven track record: People know what to expect when you’ve already been around for a while. Your experience speaks for itself - Campaign funding: People and organizations are more likely to donate to a campaign that they believe is going to WIN. Since incumbents are more likely to win elections due to their experience as well as name recognition, they usually get more funding than their new/fresher counterparts - Franking privilege: Incumbent members of congress have franking privileges, which are a special right that can help further word of their campaign as well as send out important messages and information to their constituents. Franking privileges allow incumbents to send out mail to those living in their district FOR FREE! No postage or stamps; think about the impact that has on elections. It really helps spread the word and message - Safe districts (House): Incumbents have the advantage of safe districts but only in the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Safe districts are districts where the incumbent will win overwhelmingly; think a landslide decision Compare incumbents in the House/Senate The Senate has comparatively less incumbents than the House of Representatives has. Senate: - Elections occur every 6 years, which provides for more stability and gives them more experience/ name during reelection - They serve for entire states, which means that they represent a broader group of people with a more diverse population - This means that their ideas that can change often House: - Elections every 2 years, which means they have constant campaigning to do in order to get/hold the position - They serve smaller constituencies, so they are more closer connected to the people who vote for them, which may make them more likely to be reelected if their constituents liked them in their previous terms Bicameralism (Define it, Why do we have this system?) - Bicameralism is a legislature system that utilizes TWO chambers rather than just one - The United States government has a bicameral legislature, and congress is a body with TWO CHAMBERS! The Senate, and the House of Representatives - We have this system because under the Articles of Confederation, America’s first governing document, there was a one house legislature that - was not effective at all, mostly due to some disagreements between states  - Smaller states believed that the number of representatives in this legislature should be equal for all states (New Jersey Plan), but larger states believed it should be based on population (Virginia Plan) - So, the Framers came to a compromise and gave the US legislature a BICAMERAL system: the Senate, which would be equal (2 senators) per state, and the House of Representatives, which would be proportional to the population of each state Bill to Law Process (not on his guide) 1. A bill is first introduced in either house, but bills which are specifically meant for raising revenue must originate in the House of Representatives (Any member of congress can introduce a bill in their respective chamber) 2. The bill is then sent to the appropriate standing committee based on its subject matter. Often sent to a sub committee for detailed study, where they hold hearings, mark up the bill, and finally vote to approve or reject the bill 3. Next, the full committee/Committee of the Whole reviews the marked up bill and can either approve it and then send it to the floor or amend the bill, they can reject it, or they can table the bill, what kills the bill altogether 4. The bill can also get pigeonholed, which means the bill is stuck in a committee or in the overall process (if the bill is approved approved they have to issue a report about its purpose and the scope of the bill) 5. Floor action in both Houses: House of Reps. sets rules for the debate using the rules committee. As long as the bill passes with a simple majority (218/435 in house and 51/100 in senate), it’s good to go to the next step - Open rule: allows for changes - Closed rule: prohibits changes - The debate in the House is timed and the members vote on the bill and it’s new amendments, while the Senate floor allows for unlimited debate (filibuster possible) - No limitation on changes and they finally vote on the bill 6. If both the House and the Senate pass different versions of the same bill or can’t agree on an identical version, a conference committee is formed, which consists of members of both houses. They reconcile the differences and create a comprised bill that is sent back to both the House and Senate 7. Once both chambers approve the bill it is sent to the president - Sign the bill, it becomes an effective law - Veto the bill, it doesn’t - Another option the president has is doing nothing with it and after 10 days it automatically becomes a law - A pocket veto can also occur, which happens when congress is about to leave within 10 days. If the president doesn't take any action, the bill dies! 8. Circumstantial: If the president vetoes a bill, Congress can override the veto with a ⅔ vote in both chambers Standing committees (Define, why significant?)  - A standing committee is a type of committee in both the House and Senate that is permanent, or at least long-standing. They deal with issues that are almost always present in American politics and society - They remain from session to session; an example of a standing committee in the Senate would be the Appropriations committee, which decides on fiscal and government spending - An example of a standing committee in the House is the Ways and Means committee, which shapes fiscal legislation through taxes, tariffs, etc. House Rules Committee (functions, why important?) - The House Rules Committee is immensely important in the House because it holds lots of legislative power that other committees do not even come close to. They act as the “gatekeeper” of all legislation that comes to the House - Rules committee decides when debates take place on specific bills and also assigns various bills to each committee for debate and revision - Think of the Rules Committee as the traffic cop in legislation! - They decide all sorts of stuff, including whether the bill will be debated/voted on by the full committee/Committee of the Whole first or if it’s going to go to the full floor Subcommittees - Specific committees that preside on CERTAIN issues or families of certain problems - They can include standing committees, select committees, etc. - For example, Agriculture subcommittee, Financial services and general economics subcommittee, Homeland security subcommittee, etc. Other Types of Committees (that are not on his guide) - Select Committee - Select Committees are formed for a specific purpose, often in very short terms and in temporary circumstances - They tend to research specific issues and problems rather than bills and report back to either the House or the Senate, depending on which one, because both chambers of Congress have select committees - Joint Committee - A joint committee is a committee that consists of both representatives from the House of Reps as well as senators from the Senate - Join committees can be formed for long-standing purposes, like the Joint Committee of Library (LOC purposes), or can also be made in emergency situations for short-term legislation/discussion - Conference Committee - Formed if both Senate and House members cannot agree on an identical version of a proposed bill - Members from both chambers work together to come to a compromise between what both the Senate and House want individually - Full Committee/ Committee of the Whole  - A committee that exists in BOTH chambers of Congress which holds a FRACTION of the members (for example, the Committee of the Whole in the House is capped at 100 members rather than the quorum for the full house, which is 218; essentially, the full committee is a fraction of the senators/reps) - Meets in the House Chamber for the consideration of measures from the Union calendar - The Committee of the Whole is very similar to, but is not the same as, the full floor of the House, because though it is also a debate/voting with all the representatives, it has slightly different procedures, making it distinct from full floor debate, and it also doesn’t have everyone in it Know the roles/party leadership - HOUSE 1. Speaker of the House: The Speaker is chosen by members of the House of Representatives and is the most powerful member. The Speaker is always a member of the majority party. The Speaker is a very powerful position in the House, and has lots of influence on committee assignments, so many other representatives often try to “suck up” to the Speaker to get good committee assignments and avoid bad ones 2. Majority and Minority Leaders: The leaders of both the majority and minority parties work to enforce the influence of their parties in the house and guide their party in policy making issues. They also direct debates 3. Majority and Minority Whips: Whips of both parties work to keep all the representatives of their respective parties “in line” with party sentiment. They keep discipline in the party. (THINK: WHAT DOES A WHIP DO IRL??) - SENATE 1. President of the Senate: The President of the Senate is the Vice President of the United States, but they do NOT act as a true senator in the sense that they are a non-voting member, unless a tiebreaker is necessary. They are rarely actually present at Senate meetings. 2. President Pro Tempore: The Pres Pro Temp leads the Senate when the VPOTUS is not present to act as the Senate’s president. They are also 3rd in line to succeed the title of POTUS; they come right after the Vice President. 3. Majority and Minority Leaders: Majority leader sets the legislative agenda of the Senate, especially by deciding what bills will reach the Senate floor for debate and which ones won’t, as well as what specific day they will. Very powerful. Minority leaders have less power but are the face of the opposition, and lead their party during debates and speech. 4. Majority and Minority Whips: Whips of both parties work to keep all the representatives of their respective parties “in line” with party sentiment. They keep discipline in the party. (THINK: WHAT DOES A WHIP DO IRL??) The whips in both the Senate and House have practically the exact same roles. Most work in Congress takes place in the __________  - Most work in Congress takes place in the SUBCOMMITTEES! - Subcommittees of Congress are often the ones to make the most changes and often do the most legislative work on bills; they do most marking up, amending, and discussion Parliament vs. Congress - A parliament has a legislative body by which the executive official is also chosen - For example, in the UK, a the Parliament consists of legislators, and from them comes the Prime Minister, who acts as the main executive of the country (there is less distinction between branches of government) - However, a Congress, like in the American style, has much more distinguishing from the other branches, especially the executive branch, and has its own unique powers, unlike a parliamentary system Senate elections: how elected originally and today? What changed this? - Senators used to be CHOSEN/ appointed by their state legislatures, but now they’re directly elected by the people of their states - This was changed by the 17th amendment, which was passed in 1913 - The 17th amendment was brought up as an idea when government started realizing that many current senators bribed their way into their positions; they would pay money to their state legislatures in order to get appointed as a senator for that state - So, in order to combat this, even though it went against the Framers intentions of making a Senate far from the “passions of the people”, they added an amendment making senators directly elected by the citizens of the state they are running for Filibuster - A tactic used in the Senate that can be utilized to prevent a bill or policy from being introduced for voting or confirmation on the floor - Can be done solo or in a group, almost like a tag-team: there are a few rules to how a filibuster must work - The person speaking must be standing - They must be talking at all times - They must be on the Senate floor (they aren’t allowed to leave if they want to keep speaking for any reason, not even bathroom breaks!) - There are also no true provisions on what a filibuster has to be about; the senator can speak about whatever they want in order to kill time - In the past, senators have read out recipes and even phone books to pass the time and prevent the other party from reading out their proposed bill for voting or debate - A famous example of a filibuster was done in 1957 by South Carolina senator Strom Thurmond, who was doing a solo filibuster to prevent the introduction of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 in the Senate - He spoke for almost 24 hours and even peed in a bucket to continue speaking, but the CRA was still introduced in the Senate, making his efforts invalid, as they only delayed it, but failed to stop it completely Quorum - A quorum is the minimum number of people needed present in either the House or the Senate in order to do business as usual - Without meeting this minimum, the chamber cannot conduct activities as normal, including debating and voting bills on the full floor - For the House, the quorum is 218, and for the Senate, the quorum is 51 (simple majority) Cloture - A cloture vote can be taken to STOP a filibuster; think of it as a way to get the filibusterer to stop talking, and get the Senate back to their original agenda of addressing the bill - In 1917, the Senate adopted a rule to allow a filibuster to be shut down due to the fact that many filibusters were slowing down Senate processes and overall making legislation slow - However, the filibuster can only be stopped if 2/3 of the Senate agreed to it - In 1975, they bumped this fraction up to 3/5, which means that 60 senators are needed to stop a filibuster in present day “Closed rule” for debate. Define, which House of Congress uses it? - The “closed rule” is a rule on a certain bill in the legislative process that means that no amendments or changes can be made to it - This is used in the House of Representatives, and is decided by the House Rules Committee - A closed bill often passes much easier through the House because it’s not open to any kind of criticism or feedback “One person, One vote” (Define) - The One Person, One Vote principle stems from the SCOTUS case Baker v. Carr (see detailed, bulleted case if needed) - It essentially states that one person’s voting power should always be roughly equivalent to the voting power of someone else in the same state, regardless of race, gender, geographical location, etc. Compare differences in legislative process of House and Senate - The Senate has a much more relaxed debate structure than the House because they are smaller, but the House has lots of rules on how long each person can talk and other regulations because there are a lot more of them - The legislative process is also generally more lax in the Senate than in the House of Representatives - Most of these differences stem from the Founders’ ideas of the bicameral system - They believed the House of Reps as the passions of the people, almost like immature and full of opinions and quick thinking- think of it as a knee-jerk reaction - On the other hand, they dubbed the Senate as the cooling mechanism of the House’s passion, seeing them as more mature and willing to compromise Describe the legislative process - See Bill to Law Process Congressional power contested most frequently in federal courts is ________ - The congressional power is the COMMERCE CLAUSE, or in particular, to what extent the federal government has the right to regulate commerce among states, with foreign nations, and in other ways as well - There have been many court cases about this, and it’s a controversial clause Discharge Petition - If a bill gets stuck on a committee for over 30 days, the House can issue a discharge petition to help it pass through the House faster and therefore help it be voted on sooner - Think about the name: we are DISCHARGING the bill from the COMMITTEE it got stuck in before - A discharge petition is first filed by a member of the House. If the House is able to get a majority vote (218 members), the petition will be approved, and the bill will get out of the committee it was stuck in and will go directly to the House floor to be voted on Pork barrel spending - The money that goes to the states and spending that allocates government funds for local projects which benefit a legislator's district or state - Pork barrel spending is often used as a way to increase support from voters and constituencies because it shows that the congressman is not shy to utilize government money on projects that will actually benefit their constituents - Spending that is not essential for the broader national interest but rather for that specific district or state - Ex. Potato Research Funding Logrolling - Logrolling is a COOPERATIVE tactic that congresspeople like to use to get their bills of preference passed on the floor to go get approval by the President - Congresspeople will often talk to other congresspeople, and will negotiate a few votes for each other - For example, Senator A and some friends could speak to Senator B and his friends and say that if A and his group vote for Senator B’s bill, Senator B and his friends have to vote for Senator A - The name logrolling- think about how if you roll a log by yourself, it’s just going to go on one end in a continuous circle and it’s never going to get anywhere - That’s why you work with someone else on the other side, helping you push; that's exactly what logrolling is in legislation too! Congressional oversight/investigations - The legislative branch has the right to “oversee” other branches of the federal government, making sure that the other 2 are doing their jobs effectively. They essentially check the other branches  - One way that they do this is through investigations on federal officials, wrongdoings, as well as impeachment of people in the government who do illegal activity - Legislative branch has the sole power of fully impeaching a federal official Methods of nonconventional approach to the bill to law process - Add as a floor amendment - Taken by the leadership to the floor: for highly important or emergency-type bills, leadership can decide to immediately take the bill from the introduction to the full floor, skipping all of the committee considerations in the middle - Develop by special task force: Emergency forces that consist of a few congress people who work quickly to get the law effective as soon as possible. Their only concern and responsibility is to work on this and this only. - Discharge petition: If a simple majority of the House (218 members) decides that a bill has been stuck in committee too long, they can get the bill to be discharged from the committee it’s stuck in and into the full floor - Included in an omnibus bill: a single legislative document that combines multiple bills into one, making it easier for the bill to pass through the chambers Constituent Services - Constituent services stem from congressional oversight - Basically, senators and representatives often have certain services they provide to their constituents to help them - Constituents can go to these congresspeople to discuss their issues with them, usually about problems they have with other federal agencies, like USCIS, Department of Agriculture, etc. - Adds a level of connection between the representative and their voters Trustee, Delegate, Politico Roles - Trustee - A representative in Congress that follows the trustee model usually prioritize their own views or their opinion of the “greater good” rather than what their constituents might want; they vote with their own conscience - They can vote against what they believe is the will of the people - The Trustee model is more common with seasoned members of Congress who is willing to not listen completely to their constituents and enforce their own perspectives and policies without fear - Delegate - A representative believes the must try their best to identify with their constituents and votes based on the identities of their constituents - They think they are there to cater to the people’s beliefs, not their own - This model is more common in the House, because they have more frequent re-election - Politico - Hybrid model of trustee and delegate models  - If the representative/senator has constituents who they believe will feel very strongly about a certain issue or bill, they will make sure to follow the DELEGATE model by voting to please their voters - However, if the rep has constituents who they don’t think will really care about the bill or feel very strongly about it, they will follow the TRUSTEE model by voting based on their own perspectives and opinions Gerrymandering, Reapportionment, Redistricting - Gerrymandering - Gerrymandering is a tactic used by political parties or groups in order to obtain more votes in elections, mostly in the context of congress - Since state legislatures have the sole power to draw congressional district maps and borders, they can draw districts in such a way that a certain political party will win more votes than the other - Gerrymandering is completely legal, and is a very common strategy used by parties to emerge victorious in elections - Specifically, the type of gerrymandering that favors certain political parties is known as PARTISAN gerrymandering - Reapportionment - Reapportionment occurs every 10 years, and is the process of re-assigning a certain number of representatives for each state for usage in the House - It is based off of the census, which also occurs every 10 years; over the years, how many people a single rep can represent has changed as a result of the census - Some states gain representatives, some lose, and some stay the same - Redistricting - Redistricting is when state legislatures redraw congressional districts; in theory, each district should have about the same number of people - Might not always be drawn fairly; gerrymandering can occur Baker v. Carr 1. Facts: Tennessee used district boundaries that had been determined many years prior, even though the population changed since then. More people lived in Memphis, but the county was still represented by one person in the legislature, while rural counties with fewer people had one representative. Lawmakers ignored rules and refused to redraw. Baker from Memphis believed his votes were devalued because his vote wouldn’t count the same as votes in less populated rural areas. He sued Tennessee, and district courts refused to hear the case, so he appealed to SCOTUS who agreed to hear it. 2. Baker’s Argument: Baker said that the state legislature’s refusal to redraw the district lines for voting was unconstitutional and violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. He said that the state refusing to redraw lines even after significant changes occurred in population and population distribution in Tennessee put his urban vote at a lower priority and “devalued” it than votes from rural areas that have less people living in them. He stated that district courts should be able to hear his case because his problem was not just political; it was an issue of justice and tampering with votes.  3. Carr’s Argument: Carr, the representative of Tennessee, stated that the federal government did not have the authority to review legislative districts. He stated that if the district courts took up this case, it would pit the branches against each other, and the court would be overstepping its constitutional abilities by scrutinizing another branch of government. He also said that if the Tennessee residents really wanted to change legislative districts, they should speak with their own legislators and sort out the issue between themselves. 4. Ruling: SCOTUS ruled in favor of Baker, saying that the district courts did indeed have the authority to hear Baker’s case because it wasn’t a political issue, but rather a voting problem that violated his and other Tennessee residents 14th amendment rights under the equal protection clause. They said that it was unconstitutional for the district courts to refuse to hear Baker’s case and stated that challenging the legislative process or problems of it does not pose a political complaint, but rather one for the reason of preserving democracy. Shaw v. Reno 1. Facts: North Carolina had gained a 12th representative in the House of Representatives in 1990, and in an effort to increase racial diversity, the legislature attempted to gerrymander NC voting districts into racial areas in order to get a black representative to win. Melvin Watt, a black representative, won as a result of the racial gerrymandering that the state legislatures took part in. A few white citizens of NC sued the state, saying that it was unconstitutional for them to be drawing congressional district lines, specifically District 12, on the basis of race in order to make a candidate of a certain race win the elections. 2. Shaw’s Argument: Shaw, one of the white citizens, stated that District 12 was unconstitutional because the way that North Carolina drew its lines violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment because it drew the district solely based on racial status in order to get a candidate of a certain race to win. They said that the shape and drawing of the district also violated traditional district drawing regulations and laws, and that it was purely only drawn in that way to make sure a candidate of that race won, and also enforced racial stereotypes in a bad way. 3. Reno’s Argument: The Voting Rights Act of 1965 states that redistricting on the basis of minority race isn’t unconstitutional, but rather even IMPORTANT to make sure that all voices are heard. They said that in order for the votes to be reflective of the people in the state, it is necessary to draw oddly shaped districts that may go against traditional redrawing restrictions. 4. Ruling: SCOTUS ruled in favor of Shaw, stating that racial gerrymandering in order to get a candidate to win just because they are of a certain ethnicity/racial background is unconstitutional and ultimately DOES violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. They upheld the elements of his argument, especially the racial discrimination bit, saying that drawing lines purely on the basis of race was unconstitutional and an illegal practice for the state to partake in.