apusgov

Shay’s Rebellion dramatically demonstrated weaknesses inherent within the Articles of Confederation and necessitated the call for a constitutional convention.  Virginia Plan versus New Jersey Plan aside, all delegates were weary of power falling into the hands of the one or the few, hence, preferred placing the majority of the new-found government’s power in a legislative body.  As a consequence, much attention was given to the formation of a bicameral legislative branch.  Intense debate, ultimately concluded with the Great Compromise, the Framers created a lower chamber (House of Representatives) and an upper chamber (United States Senate).

The House of Representatives was to directly be accountable to the people - the only portion of our new government directly elected by “we the people.”  Consequently, representatives in the House would “perpetually” run for reelection, serving only two-year terms to assure their fingers are firmly planted on the collective pulse of the voters, their constituents.  Reflective of the wishes of the large states, supporters of the Virginia Plan, the House of Representatives would feature representation based on population.  To insure minimal qualifications for service in the House of Representatives, the Framers decided representatives must be at least twenty-five years of age, have been a citizen the United States for at least seven years and have lived within the district (state) they will be representing for at least one year.  Special powers granted the House of Representatives by the Framers included the power of impeachment and, because House members were the only national government leaders directly elected by we the people, the authority to initiate all tax and revenue bills.  Otherwise, Patrick Henry might be resurrected from the grave and once more demand “No taxation without representation.”  The highest ranking member of the House, indeed, next in line to ascend to the presidency after the vice president, is the Speaker of the House, currently Republican Paul Ryan (2017).  Democrat Nancy Pelosi was the first female to serve in said capacity.

The United States Senate was calculated by the Framers to be a “deliberative” body, much slower moving to help guard against “tyranny of the masses,” to intentionally slow down the movement of the new-found democracy.    Senators were granted six year term to enable them to more thoughtfully analyze the bills before them.  To insure spirited debates rules were minimized in the Senate, quite the opposite one finds in the House.  Since Senators originally were not elected by the “we the people,” they, unlike representative in the House, did not have to stay tuned into the needs of ordinary citizens.  Instead, Senators were to be chosen by the state legislators, viewed by the Framers as a means of safeguarding the interests of the affluent and reputable citizens.  Selection by state legislatures was ended during the Progressive Era (1913) by the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution, enabling the citizenry to directly elect their United States Senators.  Reflective of the wishes of the small states, the New Jersey Plan, the Senate would feature representation based on equality.  Loftier eligibility requirements for admission to the Senate were established by the Framers.  To insure minimal qualifications, the Framers determined that Senators must be at least thirty years of age, have been a citizen in the United States at least nine years and have been a resident of the state they were to represent for at least one year.  Special powers granted the Senate included the right to conduct impeachment trials, the power to affirm presidential treaties and the authority to confirm major presidential appointments to federal offices.  Highlighting the idea of establishing a “deliberative” body, complete with six year terms to slow down the movement of government, the Senate was granted the right of the filibuster – the power to “talk a bill to death.”  Constitutionally speaking, the highest ranking member of the Senate is the President Pro-tempore, next in line – behind the Speaker of the House - for the presidency.  However, the real power of the Senate rests with the Senate Majority Leader, presently Mitch McConnell (2017).

	Revealing the Framers’ greater faith in our legislative branch over the executive branch and the judicial branch, is the fact that Article One primarily deals with the powers and responsibilities of the Congress.  Written in the Constitution, hence expressed, explicit or enumerated, are twenty-seven specific powers.  Implied, inferred or inherent powers, compliments of Chief Justice John Marshall’s rendering, McCulloch v. Maryland (“necessary and proper” and “elastic clause,” have afforded the legislative branch the authority to embellish its powers and responsibilities.  Yet, the Framers, cognizant that “separation of powers” and “checks and balances” are necessitated to insure their version of democracy, set limits on what the Congress could or could not do.  Specifically, in embracing the ideas of Charles de Montesquieu (separation of powers into 3 equal branches of government), the Framers listed within the Constitution powers denied the legislative branch, gave the executive branch the power of the veto and, by inclusion of the Bill of Rights, restricted the ability of the Congress to strip Americans of their personal liberties.  Interestingly, twenty-first century American politics has witnessed the power of the Congress to take a back seat to the powers of the president.

	To win a Senate seat requires victory in a state-wide election.   Financial contributions are significant for state-wide elections are far more expensive than district-wide elections.   For this reason, House of Representatives have more of the incumbency advantage since they run in single member districts.

	The Senate, reflecting representation based on equality, is composed of two senators from each state, regardless of state populations.  Should the United States add a fifty-first state, the size of the United States Senate would increase to 102.  However, the size of the House of Representatives, reflecting representation based on population, is cemented by law at 435 members.  This fact becomes very important when one considers demographics or population growth/movement within our country.  Population shifts from the “Frost Belt” and the “Rust Belt” to the “Sun Belt” have strengthened Southern state powers, at the expense of Northern states, in the House of Representatives.  This shift in the balance of power (also impacts representation in the Electoral College) is a consequence of three United States Supreme Court decisions:  Baker v. Carr, Reynolds v. Sims and Wesbury v. Saunders, each insuring the concept of “one person, one vote” or equality in a legislative body where representation is based on population.  In essence, each person in the House represents approximately 700,000 citizens.  Failure to adhere to “one person, one vote” is illegal, called malapportionment.  To guarantee “one person, one vote,” the country holds a national census every ten years, the last occurring in 2010 and the next to take place in 2020.  Known as both the national census and the decennial census, the Congress uses the new population totals of each state to apportion (assign) to each state the number of delegates that each state will be allowed to send to the House for the next decade.  For example, population drops in Michigan lead to a smaller number of delegates, hence a reduced impact the state can have on House votes and in the election of the president, via a diminished role in the Electoral College.  As the population in Texas continues to climb, the number of their delegates in the House continues to increase, hence a greater impact the state can have on House votes and in the Electoral College.  Again, the Congress – national/federal level of government – using figures ascertained by the national census, apportions the number of delegates each state has for the next ten years.  Yet, it is at the state level that redistricting is done.  Should shifts in state populations warrant change in the number of delegates to the House a state in entitled, state assemblies, not the Congress, determine/draw new voting districts.  Known as political gerrymandering, the party (Democratic or Republican) in control of each states’ state assembly is empowered to draw new district lines, practice of redistricting, in such a manner that the controlling party boosts its likelihood of maintaining and/or enhancing its political muscle within the state.  As long as “one person, one vote” is not ignored and as long as purposeful dilution of minority votes are not a result, the states can draw their district anyway they wish.  Some very bizarre shapes are a consequence.  It is imperative that your remember that the census, reapportioning, redistricting and political gerrymandering have no impact on the Senate – only affects the House of Representatives, where representation is based on population, not equality.

While political gerrymandering is legal, racial gerrymandering, incorporated in American politics in the 1980s and 1990s to promote the election of minority citizens to the House, is no longer considered legal.  The U.S. Supreme Court in 1997, citing Fourteenth Amendment violations against white Americans, ruled in Shaw v. Reno, Vera v. Bush, and Miller v. Lopez that racial gerrymandering was a reverse form of political discrimination and that “descriptive representation” was not a requirement for good representation.

	A Gallup poll, released August 2015, revealed that the Congress held only a eleven percent favorable rating among the American populous.  Even during the final year of George  Bush’s very unpopular presidency, experiencing the lowest favorability rates of any president since Richard Nixon (resigned due his  involvement in and cover-up of Watergate), public opinion polls such as Gallup, Rasmussen, Mason-Dixon, PEW, ABC/Time, Washington Post, FOX and CNN revealed the popularity of Congress to be approximately ten points lower.  Yet, better than ninety percent of the membership of Congress (incumbents) wins reelection.  In fact, approximately ninety-six percent of House members win their reelection bids.  Senators are less fortunate, approximately ninety-two percent are reelected.  If the Congress is so unpopular, why do better than nine-out-of-ten congressional members do so well in getting reelected?  The answer lies with the multitude of advantages held by incumbents when running for reelection.

	Incumbents have name recognition.  Having enjoyed many photo-ops displayed in newspapers and on television screens, they are known.  Some may have become well versed in gaining media attention.  Normally, the challenger is not known.  Since voters have a tendency to have a greater comfort zone with people they are familiar with, the challenger may have to spend a tremendous amount of money simply to develop name recognition, to become household names.

	The franking privilege allows those already in office to mail newsletters informing their constituents as to the many great things the incumbent is accomplishing.  These self-generated report cards are always favorable.  More importantly, these mailers are delivered at no cost to the incumbent.  The tax payer foots the bill.  Challengers are not granted this opportunity.  Anything delivered via the mail is done so at the challenger’s expense, making his/her campaign bid more expensive.

	Each member of Congress has a staff of dedicated assistants.  These are the people you usually speak with when reporting a problem.  The assistance provided to constituents is called casework.  Should they remedy the situation, your favorable opinion of their efforts is transferred as a vote for the man/woman in Congress for which they work.  A challenger is not in a position to hire staff or to use the power of the office to fight for your rights.

	Money, the single-most significant factor in winning an election, is heavily stacked in favor of the incumbent.  This means more funding for television advertisements, cash for campaign rallies and money for the last minute get-out-the-vote rush.  Political Action Committees (PACs), the financial muscle of interest groups tremendously favor incumbents.  Ignoring the party affiliation of most candidates, PACs generally favor incumbents (over 80% of the time!).  PACs normally contribute eighty percent of their campaign finance money to the incumbent, leaving a much smaller percentage to the challenger.  PACs on average give incumbent $12 compared to every $1 to challenger.. Cash-strapped challengers too often find themselves incapable of conducting viable campaigns.

	Pork-barrel legislation proves to be enormous advantages for incumbents.  Also known as ear marks, pork-barrel legislation refers to the ability of the individual already in office to sign on to legislation that results in tangible benefits for his/her constituents.  For example, a bill containing funds to build a new bridge, airport or highway passes through both chambers of the Congress and is signed into law by the president can be viewed (most likely will be perceived) as a gift to “we the people” as a consequence of our legislator’s planning and efforts.  Hence, the incumbent enjoyed the power of his/her office to help pass legislation that benefited the voters of the next election.  The challenger had no power to introduce, or monitor a bill in the Congress, therefore, can gain no credit for having given something of value to the voters.

	The absence of term limits on members of Congress (22nd Amendment places term limits only on the president) can serve as a power of incumbency.  Seniority lends itself to committee leadership positions.  The longer one serves in the House or in the Senate, the more responsibility the elected official gains, hence, the more likely one is to be able to influence legislation to the betterment of his/her constituents.  Pork-barrel legislation is enhanced.

	Gerrymandered districts, if formed to insulate the incumbent from stiff competition, are viewed as an advantage of incumbency.  Of course, the incumbent has to be of the party that redistricted the voting boundaries.  Otherwise, gerrymandering becomes a negative for the incumbent; an advantage for the challenger.

	The manner in which an elective official votes could prove to be another advantage of incumbency.  In essence, representatives or senators can vote as “delegates” or as “trustees.”  When assuming the role of delegate, the elected official’s votes follow the lead of public opinion polls - votes as his/her constituents wish.  For example, Democratic representative Glenn Nye’s (Virginia Beach district – conservative constituency) against President Obama’s universal health care package.  Voting the way of the delegate creates no anger among the electorate, therefore is considered safe – positive retrospective voting.  When assuming the role of trustee, the elected official votes his/her conscience, often disagrees with the wishes of the constituents.  Doing so, particularly on controversial issues can come back to haunt the incumbent election day – negative retrospective voting.

	Retrospective voting has the potential of being an advantage of incumbency.  Simply stated, if the electorate is pleased with that which the government has done for the past two, four or six years, the incumbent will be rewarded, hence, re-elected – again, positive retrospective voting.  However, if we the people are discontent with that which has been unfolding, the incumbent could be punished or voted out of office – again, negative retrospective voting.  This is particularly true should the economy be in disarray.

	If very fortunate, the incumbent will face no competition election day.  The opposition party, feeling it cannot unseat the incumbent, simply does not sponsor a candidate.  In other words, the incumbent is said to have a “safe” seat.  This is vastly different from the day the incumbent was first elected to the office.  Perhaps then, he/she confronted someone else running for the position for the first time, neither an incumbent, hence an “open” election.  Normally, the victor wins by a slight margin, known as having won a “marginal” seat.  If a newly elected House member, two years later and the now the “incumbent,” he/she will have all the advantages of incumbency and, coupled with the “sophomore surge,” probably wins by a wide margin, perhaps even developing a “safe” seat.

	The powers of incumbency are so powerful that unless reported by the media as having been involved in a financial or sexual scandal, been affected by the political gerrymandering by the opposition party, a member of the same party of a very unpopular president (eg Bush in 2006) or voted too often as a trustee, the incumbent is almost a lock to be reelected.  The phrase, “Kick the bums out” has almost no relevancy.   Even in the worst of political times, better than ninety percent of the incumbents will reelected. People may dislike Congress but they seem to love THEIR Representative or Senator.

The primary role of a member of the House or Senate is to legislate – craft public policy (laws) that govern how “we the people” behave.  How are issues of concern placed on the congressional agenda?   In large measure, one runs for office with certain ideas in mind.  These thoughts are projected to the public in terms of campaign promises.  If a majority of the electorate likes a candidate’s views on particular issues, the more likely the candidate is to emerge the winner in a subsequent election contest.  His/her campaign promises then become bills that will be studied, perhaps voted upon, in the House or Senate.  House and Senate members, in representing the folks back home, their constituents, listen to their concerns.  These concerns often take the shape of a proposed bill before the Congress.  The Speaker of the House, Majority Leader of the Senate and other congressional leaders help shape the legislative agenda, determine which bills will be addressed and perhaps passed.  In the role of gatekeeper, the media introduces ideas that can take the shape of bills.  For example, should the media report on the spread of swine flu, alarming “we the people,” our elected officials are quite likely to introduce legislation designed to combat the disease spread.  Interest groups, working to appease their membership, can influence the legislative agenda.  For example, the American Cancer Society, having learned that the government is dramatically altering past policy by encouraging women to wait ten years longer and to have fewer mammograms (every other year instead of yearly) for preventive care to guard against breast cancer, has pressured members of Congress to review the impact of Obama’s universal health care program.  When running for office (campaign promises) and when delivering the yearly State of the Union Address, the president of the United States adds to legislative agenda.  Unlike members of Congress, he commands national attention, speaks for all the people.  His wishes often are added to the congressional agenda.   Regardless of the bill’s origin, only members of the House of Representatives and of the United States Senate can introduce a bill to either body.

Once a bill is introduced or the agenda has been set, the “dance of legislation” commences.  The vast majority of bills are assigned to committees, the workhorses of Congress.  The bill may be sent to a joint committee, one in which members of both the House and the Senate work together to research issues.  The bill could be sent to a select (or special) committee where Senate only or House only members will investigate issues.  Data gathered by either a joint or select committee cannot be forwarded directly to the floor for a vote.  The only committees possessing power to directly forward a bill to the Senate or House floor for a vote are standing committees.

Unlike joint and select committees, standing committees are permanent and are considered the most important and most powerful.  The House of Representatives has twenty standing committees, such as the Rules Committee, Appropriations Committee, and the Ways and Means Committee.  The Senate has sixteen standing committees, such as the Judiciary Committee, Foreign Relations Committee and Appropriations Committee.  Standing committees are the only committees that have the power to forward a bill to the full House or Senate floor for a vote.  Regardless of committee type, the political party in power (House or Senate – not executive branch or presidency) has more of its people on the committee than the party out of power.  Additionally, all committees are chaired by someone from the party in control.
 The “dance of legislation” is made more complex by the fact that each committee, regardless of type, has subcommittees.  It is at the subcommittee and committee levels where lobbyists (golden vocal cords of interest groups) are most involved.  Utilizing the access time gain via PAC (financial muscle of interest groups) campaign contribution, the lobbyists provide information that might be considered relevant to the bill.  Whether in committee or on the House or Senate floor, markups/earmarks are to be expected.  These are additions added to bills to enable representatives and senators better serve the needs of their constituents.  Known as “bringing home the bacon,” markups/earmarks result in pork-barrel legislation.  These special additions to a bill also inflate the cost of the original bill, resulting in a greater national deficit and or debt.  When it appears that each of the 435 members of the House and each of the 100 members of the Senate add an earmark to a piece of legislation, the bill becomes known as a Christmas tree bill, gifts for everyone’s constituents will be delivered.  The cost of the bill becomes astronomically more expensive than it appeared in its original state, negatively impacting the deficit or national debt.  On occasions, legislators vote for one another’s bills when the bill has no impact upon their constituents.  This is known as logrolling or vote trading.

While in committee, sweetener amendments may be added to the original bill.   Designed to make the bill more acceptable to the president, hence, improve its likelihood of being signed into law, sweetener amendments can dramatically alter the original bill and add to its cost.  For example, the democratically controlled congress in 2008 added to a military bill favored by then President George W Bush a sweetener amendment granting more money for federally-supported abortions, something the president did not support.  He either accepts it or loses his money needed for the war.  An opposite to the sweetener amendment is the killer amendment, the purposeful adding of an  nongermane (has nothing to do with the bill’s original intent) amendment designed to force the president to veto a bill he otherwise would support.

Since senators and representatives are earmarking that which will help them get reelected, the bill that entered the House and Senate looking the same, now looks like two separate bills.  Since the president is not a legislator as defined by Article I of the Constitution, it would be a violation of Charles de Montesquieu’s concept of separation of powers should he be allowed to select the bill (House or Senate version) he likes more.  Consequently, the bill, having gained majority votes on the House and Senate floors, now goes before a conference committee.  Members of the House and Senate serve on the conference committee, the goal being to merge the House and Senate versions of the bill into a single bill, the bill sent to the president.

While thousands of bills are introduced in the House and Senate annually, only ten percent have a realistic chance of becoming law of the land.  Each bill faces many challenges.  Standing committees are the only type of committees that can forward a bill to the “floor” for a full House or Senate vote.  Should a bill lose its momentum, is stalled in committee, it is said to be tabled or pigeonholed.  In the House of Representatives but, not in the Senate, there exists a discharge petition that enables the full House, by a simple majority vote, to force the bill from committee to the full House floor for a vote.  Passage in one chamber of Congress alone is a death knell for a bill.  It must pass by a simple majority vote in both the House and Senate to make its way to the president’s desk.

In the Senate, the deliberative body of Congress designed by the Framers to slow democracy to a snail’s pace by allowing its membership to “talk a bill to death,” passage of a bill supported by fifty-one percent of the Senators might not be enough to insure passage.  As the vote is about to be taken, a filibuster can be staged.  While someone is talking, the vote cannot be conducted.  Once granted the floor, any Senator can talk for as long as he/she wishes.  Strom Thurmond, a Democrat, once spoke for twenty-four hours to filibuster against the Civil Rights Bill of 1964.  In 2009, the Republicans in the Senate, a decided minority, planned to start a filibuster to keep President Obama’s, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s and Senate Majority leader Harry Reid’s universal health care bill from being voted on.  The bill, despite being supported by better than fifty of the one hundred senators, could have been pigeonholed or tabled.  A filibuster can only be ended by a motion of cloture.  A motion of cloture requires sixty yea votes. (An odd fraction used here -Three fifths vote- 3 / 5 ).

Some Democrats serving conservative districts or states, are called “boll weevils” or “blue-dog” Democrats.  Moderate to conservative, they and tend to vote against liberal Democratic policies.  If one refused to vote for a motion of cloture or, should an Independent Senator  do so, the filibuster would be pigeonholed or tabled.

Should a  bill gain passage in both the House and Senate, it faces an additional hurdle prior to being forwarded to the president for his signature.  The barrier is the conference committee, a committee designed to form a compromise version of the differing bills from the two chambers.  If the two bills cannot be made into a singular version, it goes no further.  Should the conference committee iron out the House and Senate versions, the bill goes to the president.

The president can sign the bill into law with a single stroke of the pen.  With a presidential veto, he can kill the bill.  The president can opt to leave the bill on his desk for ten days, not including Sundays.
 If the Congress is still in session, the bill becomes law of the land without the president’s signature.
If the Congress has adjourned, is no longer in session, the bill is pocket vetoed, meaning it is dead.

The power of the veto is the only expressed legislative power given to the president by the Framers.
In 1996, the Congress delegated some of its legislative power to the president.  William Clinton was given the line-item veto.  With it, a president could veto portions of a bill while saving the original intent of the bill.  Such action would eliminate some or all of the earmarks or pork-barrel legislation.  Eliminating pork-barrel legislation reduces the nation’s debt or, at least, slows its growth.  In Clinton v. New York City, the United States Supreme Court ruled the line-item veto unconstitutional (use of judicial review from 1830’s Marbury v. Madison).  The High Court declared the use of the line-item veto to be a violation of separation of powers for it gave the president legislative powers far beyond the imaginations of the Founding Fathers.

Though the presence of minorities has increased on Capitol Hill over the past quarter of a century, our Congress remains comprised disproportionately of a select identity:  white, male, approximately fifty years of age, upper middle class or better (affluent) and Protestant.  In fact, of the 435 members of the House of Representatives and of the 100 members of the United States Senate, roughly seventy-five to eighty percent reflect such a description.  Our study of the various cleavages demonstrated that 50.2% of the nation’s population is female.  Are women grossly underrepresented in Congress?  Absolutely, proportionately speaking, women comprise the group with the least representation of any minority group in America.  While non-whites makeup thirty percent of the nation’s population, they constitute approximately twelve percent of the membership of the House and less than eight percent of the membership of the Senate.  Past efforts to proportionally represent African Americans via the creation of majority-minority districts or, the utilization of racial gerrymandering, to insure a numerical advantage for a minority candidate, have been discarded by the United States Supreme Court.