Read full document


Page 1 of 1
Woll's primary argument in this article is stating that the bureaucracy reflects the breakup of our political system and is often the "battleground," so to speak, for the three branches of government, including the outside interests. His reasoning behind this is basically that the Constitution does not mention the bureaucracy, which has become a hostage in a power struggle between Congress and the President, as well as the courts and other interests. The bureaucracy, however, can also be autonomous, acting outside of Congress, the President, and even the judiciary. In Hamilton's Federalist 72, he discusses executive control of administration and how administrators should be assistants to the President, therefore chosen by the President and subject to his or her superintendence. The President should thus control and be responsible for administrative action. In reality, Congress and the President have constitutional responsibilities for the bureaucracy because the Congress creates and destroys agencies, controls appropriations, defines the agencies' jurisdictions, approves high level appointments, and places them within or outside of the executive branch. The President then appoints officials and pretty much attempts to control and coordinate everything.

Reaction I agree with the basis of this article completely in that the bureaucracy plays a major role in influencing the government, the Congress, the President, and even the courts. It strikes me as odd, however, that the concept of a bureaucracy is not even mentioned in the Constitution. Although I'm clearly no expert in this matter, it may just as well be that even the mere notion of bureaucracy had not taken form at the time of the writing of the Constitution. The fact that the position of the bureaucracy was developed by custom and statutory law rather than by explicit constitutional provision and yet it possesses such a strong position should show that perhaps the ways of our government ought to be...