Deep Political Science - Assignment Example

American Government Topic 7 In recent years, it has become the norm for Congress to pass bills than to block laws and this has been mainly because of the fact that Congress has tended to be dominated by opposing parties to that which runs the executive. This has created a situation where rival parties have attempted to block each other’s bills from becoming law more out of the need to stifle each other’s agendas rather than out of consideration for the national interest. Congress has become a battle ground between the Republicans and Democrats and this has led to a situation where the majority party dominates Congress. The difficulty faced when passing bills, especially those whose origins is the executive, leaves a lot to be desired because despite everything, the members of Congress do not realise that passing these bills makes it difficult for the executive to run its activities smoothly. The result has always been that many of the projects and policies which the executive has in hand to improve the lives of Americans tend to be blocked and in such a manner that the bills are only mildly effective once passed into law. This is in contradiction to many parliamentary democracies in the rest of the world because the executive tends to be formed by the leader of the majority party in parliament. In such situations, it is very easy for the party leader, as prime minister, to ensure that all of the government bills are passed into law and that they are effective. In addition, it has been found that in parliamentary democracies, it is common for those governing parties that do not have majorities in parliament to form coalitions with other minor parties in order to attain the majority needed to ensure that they are able to pass legislation needed to pass their agendas effectively. This is something which is not possible in the American system because there are only two parties whose ideologies are not similar enough to encourage cooperation between them. Topic 8 The Senate is the more powerful house of Congress and this is mainly because of the fact that it is more prestigious as well as being indispensable in the passing of laws from the House of Representatives. Members of the Senate tend to have longer terms when compared to their counterparts with the former having six years to serve while the latter serve for only two years. Moreover, members of the Senate tend to enjoy more privileges than those of the House of Representatives and this creates a situation where the former is the more lucrative position to have. Over the years, the Senate has exercised its power through ensuring that those bills which it does not approve of or are in contradiction to the desires of the American people are either sent back to the house of representatives or removed altogether so that they do not become law. Had Madison’s original proposal that members of the Senate be nominated by members of the House of Representatives, it is possible that the latter would have been the more powerful house because of the fact that the Senators would have owed their position to the Representatives (Edwards, Wattenberg & Lineberry 2012, p.56). This would also have created a situation where the House of Representatives would not have been checked by the Senate and his would have led to the former essentially being a rogue arm of the government with powers enabling it to influence and infringe on the right of Americans. In addition, it would have been possible for the House of Representatives to pass bills into law which were not well considered and which might have been detrimental to the working of the government. One would therefore suggest that the Senate is an important part of Congress today because it enables the development of consensus as well as acts as a check to the powers of both the executive and the House of Representatives. Topic 9 Judicial activism was prevalent in the decision behind the Roper v Simmons case where the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for those individuals who had committed capital crimes when under the age of 18 to face the death penalty. This showed that a majority of the judges who made this decision believed that minors did not have to receive sentences which were largely reserved for the adults. In addition, the proponents of judicial activism will have approved of the decision mainly because of their belief that it helps to provide check and balances to the laws which have been designed to punish capital crimes (Edwards, Wattenberg & Lineberry 2012, p.131). Among these is the fact that while the death sentence has been put in place in a number of states for the purpose of ensuring that individuals are deterred from committing certain crimes, these laws do not necessarily put an age restriction on those individuals who can be sentenced to death. All of this changed when the Roper v Simmons decision was made in favour of not sentencing those individuals who are minors, essentially bringing sanity back into the judiciary. This decision can also be considered to have been a move meant to ensure that those individuals under the age of 18 were given sentences which were proportionate with their age instead of being handed sentences which were meant for adults; essentially infringing on their right to attain justice. This instance of judicial activism created a situation where minors were allowed protection from the law against being sentenced to death and this was despite the attempt by various legislatures in the United States to treat minors as equals with adult offenders. Judicial activism in this case is the attempt by the judiciary to work towards attaining a balance in all of the legislation passed concerning the sentencing of minors to death so that the latter can have the opportunity of redemption since the crimes that they committed were done when they were minors. Topic 10 It has been found that the friction between the executive and the legislature is detrimental to the power of the presidency because of the fact that while he is considered to be the most powerful man on earth, his agenda cannot be achieved without the cooperation of Congress, as seen when the latter has often blocked presidential nominees. While it is a fact that the Senate’s rejection of presidential nominees ensures that the president does not become a dictator by essentially controlling all the functions of government, the Senate at times ends up acting irresponsibly. This can be seen through its use of all forms of excuses, in the name of ensuring checks and balances, to stall and even completely block the nominees of a president just because he is from a rival party. This ends up being a hindrance to the efficient functioning of the government since the positions which need to be filled remain vacant and at the mercy of the senate members from the opposing party. One would state that the Senate’s blocking of the presidential nominees from a rival party for an indefinite period is unconstitutional. This is because of the fact that the Senate is mandated to ensure that all of the functions of the government run smoothly (Edwards, Wattenberg & Lineberry 2012, p.59). However, in this case, the Senate does not fulfil its duty because instead of making governmental functions easier, it has become s tool that is used by rival parties to thwart each other’s agendas. The result of this is the Senate has lost its constitutional credibility since its actions have the intention of serving the interests of political parties rather than national interests. Reference Edwards, G.C., Wattenberg, M.P., & Lineberry, R. (2012). Government in America: People, Politics, and Policy, 2012 Election Edition, 16th Edition. New York: Pearson. Read More