Congress and the President

Congress and the President

The framers of the U.S. Constitution created a presidency that must win cooperation from Congress to get the work of government done. Lawmaking and policy-making powers are divided, and the politics of shared power has often been stormy. In general, however, Congress and presidents somehow find ways to collaborate and solve problems. The relationship between a president and Congress is the most important one in the American political system, and while presidents spend great energy courting the media and appealing to the public, they do so in large part to gain support in Congress. A president may not like it, but sustained cooperation from majorities in Congress is a necessity. Several factors can cause conflict in our system of separated institutions sharing power. Among them are constitutional ambiguities, different constituencies, varying terms of office, divided party control of the different branches, and fluctuating support of the president or Congress. The media may exaggerate presidential tensions or disputes with Congress, yet clashes between the branches over presidential nominations, vetoes, budget proposals, military actions, and the exercise of executive privilege and executive orders are inevitable. These and other political realities are part of the continuing struggle that shapes presidential-congressional relations. Presidential powers have increased over the past 60 years in good part because of grants of power by Congress to the presidency. Many of these powers have come in military and foreign policy areas and are due to the increased role of the United States in global affairs. The framers created a presidency of limited powers, yet the role and leadership responsibilities of presidents increased as a result of national security and economic emergencies throughout the past several generations and because of the nation's world leadership responsibilities in the era. Congress usually tries to assert itself and serve as a reasonable and responsible check on the exercise of presidential power. It is sometimes effective and sometimes less effective in this role; yet no president can ever take congressional support for granted, and presidents can always expect at least suspicion of not hostile actions from the opposition party in Congress. `The president's policy agenda is shaped by political and personal resources. Presidents tend to lose influence over the course of office as their public approval and party support in Congress fall. At the same time, they also become more effective at their job as they learn more about one of the most difficult positions in the world.
Chapter 14 The Federal Bureaucracy: The Real Power? The chief characteristics of bureaucracy are continuity, predictability, impartiality, standard operating procedures, and "red tape." Our bureaucratic agencies reflect the ways in which our political system attempts to identify our most important national goals and how policies are implemented. Most of the 2.7 million civilian employees of the federal government serve under a merit system that protects their independence of politics. They work in one of the cabinet departments or else in any of innumerable government corporations, independent agencies, and independent regulatory boards or commissions. The federal government's Office of Personnel Management sets policy for recruiting and evaluating federal workers. Various restrictions on federal workers prevent them from running for political office or engaging in political fund-raising activities. The federal bureaucracy generally prizes continuity, stability, and following the rules more than risk taking or innovation. The bureaucracy generally uses regulations or spending to implement the laws. The rule-making process is governed by the Administration Procedure Act, while the spending process is governed by the federal budget. Most of the federal budget is uncontrollable, whether because of indexing to inflation or because Congress and the president are unwilling to cut highly popular programs such as Social Security. The American bureaucracy has at least two immediate bosses: Congress and the president. It must pay considerable attention as well to the courts and their rulings and to well-organized interest groups and public opinion. In many ways, the bureaucracy is a semi-independent force--a fourth branch of government--in American politics. Debates and controversy over big government and big bureaucracy and over how to reorganize and eliminate waste in them are never-ending. Compared with many other nations and their centralized bureaucracies, the hand of bureaucracy rests more gently and less oppressively on Americans than on citizens elsewhere.

Chapter 15 The Judiciary: The Balancing Branch The American judicial process is based on the adversary system. Judges in the United States play a more active role in the political process than they do in most other democracies. Unlike other countries, the U.S. has a dual judiciary--federal and state court systems. In both federal and state courts, individuals must have standing to sue and must assert a personal injury. Courts decide only justiciable disputes--actual cases or controversies--and not political questions. Except for the Supreme Court, federal courts are established by and receive their jurisdiction directly from Congress, which must decide the constitutional division of responsibilities among federal and state courts. District courts are the trial courts of the federal judicial system, and their decisions may be reviewed by courts of appeals. Federal judges apply federal criminal and civil law but in doing so exercise discretion. The Supreme Court has almost complete control over the cases it chooses to review as they come up from the state courts, the courts of appeal, and district courts. Law clerks and the solicitor general play important roles in determining the kinds of cases the Supreme Court agrees to decide. Its nine justices dispose of thousands of cases but most of their time is concentrated on the fewer than 100 cases per year that they accept for review. Partisanship and ideology are important factors in the selection of federal judges, and these factors ensure a linkage between the courts and the rest of the political system, so that the views of the people are reflected, even if indirectly, in the work of the courts. In recent decades, candidates for the presidency and the Senate have made judicial appointments an issue in their election campaigns. A continuing concern of major importance is the reconciliation of the role of judges--especially those on the Supreme Court--as independent and fair dispensers of justice with their vital role as interpreters of the Constitution. This is an especially complex problem of judicial review and the significant role courts play in making public policy. The debate about how judges should interpret the Constitution is almost as old as the Republic. More than 212 years after the Constitution was adopted, the argument between those who contend that judges should interpret the document literally and those who believe they cannot and should not remains in the headlines. Both liberals and conservatives have attacked judicial activism and urged judicial self-restraint.