Legaislative Process on a Bill

This written report is appertaining to the book How Congress Works and Why You Should Care, written by Lee H. Hamilton. This book is published by Indiana University Press in Bloomington, IL, it was copyrighted in 2004 by the publisher.

In the past century, people continued to express an increasingly discontent view of Congress especially true when one looks back before the Clinton Impeachment debacle As the size of the nation and the number of congressman have grown, the congress has come under attack by both public influences and congressman themselves. Yet looking at one congressman's relationship with his or her constituents, it would be hard to believe that this is the branch of government that has come under suspect. In "If Ralph Nader says congress is 'The broken branch,' how come we love our congressman so much?" author Richard F. Fenno, Jr., provides insight into this view and why, through congress coming under fire, constituents still feel positively about

Recently, many political scientists have argued over whether today’s Congress is centralizing or decentralizing. Centralization allows Congress to act quickly and decisively, but at the expense of the members of Congress and their constituents, while decentralization protects and enhances the interests of individual members and their constituents, but at the expense of its ability to act quickly and decisively. At its birth, Congress was created as a decentralized body, and although it has fluctuated over the years, the Constitution, congressional incentive for reelection, the committee system, and weak central leadership has certainly maintained such a decentralized institution.

Another obstacle is that this long time frame spent debating a piece of legislation can end up costing the public more money than if a quick decision could be made. Another obstacle is that almost every piece of legislation ends up becoming a partisan strategy for gaining public favor. (Synel, 2008)

Recently many people believe that congress has not been working efficiently. Over the past couple of years the amount of laws passed has been at an all time low, and Congress has been receiving mostly negative reviews from the American public. In his book Unlock Congress, Michael Golden discusses many of the problems that have been negatively affecting Congress. Golden then offers many different solutions that he believes will help Congress work more smoothly.

The conflicting power struggle and rival relationship between the legislative branch and the executive branch is one that has always seemed anticipated. The relationship between a President and the Legislative branch is not only essential but it is significant making it equally an extremely delicate affair. One of the main questions that experts on the workings of congress have is whether or not the legislative and executive branch are capable of effectively cooperating with one another to ultimately promote and sustain the American agenda. George H.W. Bush’s relationship with congress can be seen as a dynamic one.

Filibusters are quite the conundrum, a pariah of sorts in the realm of U.S. politics, yet an integral part of our body of government. It is imperative that it remains to be kept alive in a warm embrace with the Senate, lest it is reduced to nothing more than a mere accessory to the House of Representatives. By nature, the filibuster is actually a resourceful tactic that utilizes the ideology of free speech to prolong and create an active dialog over legislation or to prevent a measure from being brought to a vote. However, in recent years the most unsettling adversity contemporary legislation faces is Rule XXII of the U.S. Senate. Forty-one senators can veto the lion's share of legislation by refusal of invoking cloture (sixty being the magic number). Due to the malapportionment of the Senate, less than forty-one percent of the population could be over represented, resulting in a conflicting vote against cloture sustaining debate indefinitely.

This written report appertains to the book Stalemate Causes and Consequences of Legislative Gridlock, written by Sarah A. Binder. It was published by Brookings Institution Press in Washington D.C. and copyrighted by Sarah A. Binder in 2003.

In the world of politics, the powers of the Legislative branch are crucial in the system of checks and balances in our government. According to the U.S. Constitution, the Legislative branch or better known as Congress, is responsible for making laws. Though trusted with this power, Congress does not effectively execute this action due to their inability to work together and make decisions on bills. Due to this indecisiveness, Congress is constantly being slammed in the media and is beginning to be referred to as the immature branch of government. Their indecisiveness is also dissatisfying American citizens making many citizens hold them in contempt because of them not doing their job.

It is no secret that the lawmaking process is a long winding road of difficulty and roadblocks. Without a few representatives, a bill cannot be introduced in the House or into the Senate. If a bill is introduced to the House, it is named a number with the letters “HR” before it. If it is taken to the Senate, then it’s given a number with the letter “S” before it. When presenting a bill, what is most important is who supports said bill. Usually, more powerful members of Congress are wanted to sponsor a piece of legislation for support for its path of approval.

Congressional members are influenced by their subjective experiences as well as their intellectual and psychological dispositions in dealing with the variability of global politics. Foreign policies, such as declarations of war, are conceived with the intent to defend congressional interests to protect the powers of Congress. Senators and Representatives frequently determine their stance on an issue by determining how it would impact their appointment to higher office, chances for reelection, and improving their influence and legacy. Once Members of Congress have established their interests, the United States Constitution provides the framework of how Congressional interests are conveyed into laws. The lawmaking process, however, may be a tedious

The filibuster is often treated as a scapegoat in American media and politics. Deadlock in Congress is better attributed to political division between uncompromising groups rather than specific procedure. As it stands, the filibuster has grown steadily more lenient since its original implementation. With this in mind, Congress has performed effectively before, doing so while encumbered by harsher constraints. Therefore, the fault of unproductivity can hardly be ascribed to procedural policy alone. With these considerations, the filibuster must be revised to ensure congressional productivity while also preserving debate and due deliberation.

The Supreme Court of the United States is perhaps the most eminent judicial branch in the world and has served for a model for justice and democracy. However the Court is not exempted from scrutiny, and critics question the increasing politicized nature of the Court, from the appointment process to the nature of their decisions in landmark cases like; Dred Scott v. Sandford, Roe v. Wade to Bush v. Gore. Based on empirical evidence, this essay argues that the United States Supreme Court today is severely influenced by politics and not as much by law- at least in practice. Indeed, robust partisanship of the political interests of the President and Congress imposes on the constitutional function of the Court.

Over recent years, the legislative branch has grown much more polarized. Congress’s polarization is very likely to continue increasing due to an increase in Americans’ mobility, which is beneficial because the mobility and grouping of like-minded citizens yields a more accurate representative for a larger amount of people.

Due to the hyperpastrsian era that Congress has been subject to, a bill simply advocating for transparency in election funding was rejected. However, it's important to examine the utility and durability of the bill if it would have been passed under these specific circumstances. Adler and Wilkerson hold that there certain factors at the time of legislation passage that will predict whether or not it will be amended in the future. The factors that have been proven to be statistically significant are: whether or not the government was divided at the time of passage, if there were subsequent chamber differences, mood of the policy, the complexity of the law, and whether or not it pertains sunset provisions(Adler and Wilkerson 178). Looking at