美国政治体制

Chapter I Origins After years of struggle and numerous battles in the late 1700s, the United States finally succeeded in breaking from the British Empire and became the first colonial possession to achieve independence from the mother country. Separation from England created an immediate problem to the newly born nation. That is, once the break was made, what was to be the legal basis for government? To put it in another way, by what right would government govern? We know that, before the American Revolution, the source of political authority had rested in allegiance to the monarch in England . Now, with that allegiance no longer in existence, what source could the new nation draw on for its legitimacy? This juridical dilemma was solved by fifty-five men, who, in the summer of 1787, gathered in the city of Philadelphia to draw up the Constitution of the United States of America . Fgure 5.1 . 1 city of Philadelphia The document they created begins with a memorable phrase: "We, the people of the United States ," thus launching a nation rooted in the supreme authority of "the people". But, of course, the fifty-five delegates were being somewhat presumptuous, because although they assumed the right to speak for the people, they, in fact, were representatives of only a small elite group within the total population. They were, for example, male, white, and from the upper-middle or upper class. Half of them were college graduates. Many, like Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin, were intellectuals. Could they really speak for black slaves, for women, for the illiterate poor, and for the Native Americans, who, by all measures, had every right to affirm that they were really "the people"? However, despite the lack of prophetic power, those now-sanctified Founding Fathers of 1787 did draw up a constitution, under which a new nation was official brought into existence on the face of earth. On the whole, the delegates were most concerned with such is sues as fundamental to the establishment of political society. For in stance, how docs a large, complex society maintains order and yet still uphold individual freedom? How much individual freedom should be allowed? How much direct rule should be accorded to the people (whoever they are)? How much and what kind of- power should be allotted to a central government? And, finally, how can a constitution ensure that excessive, or arbitrary, power will not converge in the single individual? These are issues as familiar to the students of American politics as they were to the statesmen of the 1780s. In the debate over these issues, delegates found their thoughts conditioned by various influences. For one thing, these were men of property and wealth. George Washington, for example, chairman of the Convention and owner of a large estate in Virginia , was reputed to be the richest man in America . Other delegates were said to be holders of government securities, owners of large plantations and renowned lawyers. Their economic position in the society, as some scholars argue, almost inevitably influenced their thinking in the drafting of the Constitution. For another, the delegates were of men of Enlightenment, literate, informed, and familiar with political thoughts dating from the ancient philosophers. Voltaire, Newton , Montesquieu and Locke were names they could all easily refer to for theoretical inspiration and political assurance. To them, enlightened human beings, as they were, could design a more perfect state, and the result would be human progress. Finally, these men also had rich experience in government. They participated in the Revolution, they administrated colonial governments, and they had long learned the English political tradition of which they had recently been a part, which included the ideas of representative government, supremacy of law, and liberty' of subject. At any rate, with all these factors operating in varying degrees their standing in the society, the abstract ideas of the Enlightenment, the practical experiences of the colonies and states, and the traditions of English law and government, the delegates convened to hammer out their plans for the newly founded republic. The Virginia delegation, led by Edmund Randolph, governor of Virginia , presented a "large-state" plan, proposing sweeping changes for the Articles of Confederation (1781 - 1788), the country's first constitution that established a loose league of independent states under a weak central government. According to Virginia Plan, there would be a central government with three branches: a legislative of two houses, a national executive, and a nation al judiciary. The New Jersey delegation, on the other hand, introduced to the Convention a "small-state" plan. Much closer in spirit to the Articles of Confederation, its key difference with Virginia Plan was the assumption that all states were equally represented in the Union, whereas in Randolph 's scheme, representation from the states in the national legislature would be allocated according to the population of each particular state. Additionally, New Jersey Plan insisted that sovereignty be rested in the states individually rather than in the people as a whole. After much discussion and many debates, a compromise on July 16, 1787 solved the conflicting views of these two plans. To the satisfaction of small states, each state would have an equal vote in the Senate, and to the delight of large states, representation in the House of Representatives was to be accorded by population. With the interests of both large and small states duly protected, the delegates agreed to replace the loose confederacy under the Articles of Confederation with a strong federation, where much greater power would be accorded to the central government. Figure 5.1.2 Edmund Randolph, governor of Virginia However, the conflict between large and small states over the way in which Congressional seats were to be allotted to states was not the only issue delegates needed to solve. There were also such thorny issues as slavery and tariffs to be dealt with. By 1787, most Northern states had either abolished slavery or contained very few slaves. Eager to develop manufacturing industries of their own, these Northern states wanted a tariff policy that would provide sufficient protection for their infant industries. By contrast, all the Southern states not only relied on slavery for their agricultural products, but also based their social structure and way of life on the practice of slavery. Conflicts between the North and the South over these issues were eventually solved after a compromise was reached by the two sections when both sides realized that the importance of a strong union transcended that of sectional interests. According to this compromise, three-fifths of the slaves would count for representation in the House, thereby giving legitimacy to Southern states' claim to slavery system. To relieve Northerners of their guilty conscience for allowing slavery to exist in the South, the compromise made it clear that importing of slaves would be outlawed by 1808. As for the tariff policy, agreement was reached between the Northern manufacturing interests and the Southern agricultural interests, whereby Congress would be given power to tax imports but not exports. In this way, Southern plantation owners could use slave labor to produce agricultural products for exports, while Northern manufacturers could shield themselves from competition from European manufacturers. With all these disagreements settled, the delegates signed the Constitution and sent it to the states for ratification in special conventions. The document thus approved had seven articles. The first three provided for and explained the branches of national government: the legislative, the presidency, and the courts. Article 4 dealt with relations among states and between the states and the national government. Article 5 explained the way in which amendments to the Constitution were to be made. Article 6 spoke to the nature of the Union and the Constitution, which is described as "the supreme law of the land". Finally, Article 7 provided for the establishment of the Constitution upon the ratification of the nine states. In the process of ratification, many Americans feared that the concentrated power of the national government would be maintained to undermine individual rights. To prevent this from occurring, they insisted that a specific statement of the rights of individual Americans be included in the Constitution. In 1791, James Madison, distilling several reservations and recommendations from various states, drew up the first ten amendments, which the states quickly adopted. These ten amendments, among other things, guarantee individuals such rights as the right to keep and bear arms, the right to speedy and public trial, and the right of trial by jury. More importantly, the ten amendments provide American citizens the freedom of belief, the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, and the freedom of assembly. Known as the Bills of Rights, these amendments are usually considered part of the original document. Chapter II Principles A constitution, by a definition derived from 1787, is a written document that grants powers to and limits the authority of government, that defines the organs of government, and that explains the relationship between the government and the governed. The U.S. Constitution is short but worthy of careful perusal. To understand it, one needs to, first of all, get acquainted with the key principles embedded in it. Rule by Law This principle is, in fact, an extension of the definition of constitutionalism, which, in essence, means that rather than have governmental actions take place at the whim and caprice of an individual or a special interest group, people in the society expect rule by law and proper procedure. In this way, government power is significantly limited. For example, if one is arrested for committing a crime, he expects to have a trial, to have access to legal help, and not to be incarcerated until and unless he has been clearly proved guilty. Also, a law cannot be proclaimed in effect by a president, a member of Congress, or an oil company. Rather, to become effective, it must pass both houses of Congress and be approved by the president. Popular Sovereignty Sovereignty, by definition, means the greatest authority and power to command all others. Every nation-state in the modern world has sovereignty. It may reside in a king, in a parliament, or in the state. In the case of the United States, popular sovereignty means that people are sovereign, because they, by consent, "do ordain anti establish this Constitution for the United States of America" By resting sovereignty in the people, the notion suggests, in theory at least, that a government can always be changed, preferably by majority rule, and, if necessary, by revolution. However, this concept is ambiguous, because it does not say clearly who are these "people" in whom sovereignty rests. Obviously, the Founding Fathers did not include women, blacks, Indians, and youths under eighteen in the "people". At its best, it is hoped, now and then, that it means an ever-improving democracy that seeks to draw more and more of the citizenry in the bloodstream of political decision making. Separation of Power This doctrine was derived from political theory as old as the classical power, and was attractive to Americans who feared the concentrated power. If federalism was designed as a mechanism to effect a scattering power vertically (that is, dividing power between national government and state governments), separation of power was meant to divide power horizontally (that is, separating power among different branches of government). At the national level, for instance, power is not concentrated in one branch of government, but, instead, lodged in three branches the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judiciary. Such being the case, none of the three branches is fully dependent on any one of the others, and yet each one of them has some interdependence with the other two. Furthermore, to ensure checks and balances, and to deprive any one class, interest, or faction of undue domination of the government, the personnel of each branch are chosen in different ways: the president by an independent electoral college, the judges by the president, the members of the Senate, initially by state legislature and later by popular vote, and the members of the House of Representatives by popular vote. Judicial Review Judicial review means the right of the federal courts to determine whether or not a piece of law, whether state or national, is consonant with the U.S. Constitution. The power to review state laws is implied in Article 2, Section 2. Thus, from the beginning, federal courts could determine the legitimacy of state laws and constitutions. The right to review national laws was established in the landmark case Marbury vs. Madison (1803), when the Supreme Court unanimously struck down a section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, finding that it violated a provision of the Constitution. However, although the right of the court to judge the constitutionality of federal law was thus established as a principle, it has continued to cause discord. Civilian Supremacy in Military Matters This principle is deeply embedded in the Constitution, which basically means that military forces are subordinate to and separate from civilian administration. Military policy is to be directed by constitutionally chosen officials, not by the military establishment. The president (normally not a military person) is the commander in chief of the armed forces. Besides, U.S. Congress also has constitutional responsibilities in the conduct of military policy. For instance, not only must appropriations for military activity come from Congress, but also only Congress can declare war. However, even though Congress is responsible for overseeing military spending, it is simply unable to keep track of the hundreds of weapons programs and thousands of weapons contractors. Moreover, because it is in the interest of many members of Congress to obtain defense contracts for their districts, they may be less inclined to seek restraints on military spending and influence than what would be in the interest of the nation. Protection of Individual Rights This is one of the most important principles of the Constitution. Based on the concept of the dignity of the individual, this principle reverses the common notion that the individual is subordinate to the state and declares that the most important characteristic of a just society should be the recognition of individual worth. The Bill of Rights contains the most sweeping and substantive protections for the individual rights in the United States . Included, among other things, are rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the press, the right to a recognizable procedure in criminal law, and the freedom of religion. Each of the rights outlined in the Constitution is worthy of a lengthy discussion, but by noting one, the freedom of religion, one can see how advanced the framers of the U.S. Constitution were. Until 1787, no major Western state had ever had the courage or inclination to separate the institution of government from the practice of religion. By forbidding all religious tests for office holding and by separating church and state, the U.S. Constitution represented a significant milestone in the history of individual liberty. Federalism Federalism is a principle invented by the framers, because prior to 1787 it was a unique form of government. To put it briefly, federalism refers to a dual form of government in which there is a functional and territorial division of authority. In other words, it refers to a political system in which there are local units of government, as well as a national government. This political system is better understood by contrasting it with other forms of political organization. The most common form of political grouping is what we call unitary system like that of Great Britain . Such a government has no autonomous units: the ultimate government authority rests in a central government. In such a situation, policies can be applied uniformly to the whole country. An alternative form of political grouping is a confederation such as existed under the Articles of Confederation. The common central agency in a confederation may discuss policy and advise separate members, but it has no meaningful power. Instead, each member (state, province, or whatever) retains ultimate governmental authority. Federalism, in some way, is a compromise between unitary and confederate political organization. The United States , Canada , Australia , India , Germany , and Switzerland are federal systems. In the case of the United States , federalism means several things. First, there is a division of political authority. For example, the central government is responsible for coining money the states cannot, whereas the states establish laws regulating marriage and divorce. Second, there are certain powers that both levels have, for example, the power to tax. Finally, the two levels can cooperate. The usual method by which this is done is through grants-in-aid, which are moneys provided by the national government to the states to help finance a state program. Chapter III The Presidency The single most distinctive feature of national government in the United States is the popularly elected president. The modern presidency has three basic components. First, it is defined in and has developed from Article 2 of the Constitution. Second, it is a product of historical forces. Finally, it is a reflection of the people who have held the office and the precedents they have established. What is striking about the presidency in the United States , or any other branch of government for that matter, is that the authority of the government is not simply divided but also limited to an extent unmatched in any other country. There are many things the president can do only with the cooperation of Congress and approval of the Supreme Court; there are many things he cannot do at all. More importantly, he has no control over the procedures and decisions of Congress, the Supreme Court, or the fifty state governments. Nevertheless, the president is the central figure in the American political system, and any attempt to understand how the United States is governed today must begin with an account of his responsibilities. The U.S. Constitution defines the presidency in the following manner. He is the head of the state. That is, he is the ceremonial head of the government, just as a king or a queen would be. He grants pardons, receives ambassadors, and holds state dinners. While functions take a large amount of time away from other duties, ceremony is essential to the magisterial awe that surrounds the nation's highest office. He is the chief executive of the United States . According to the first line of Article 2, the executive power is vested in the president. and therefore he is responsible for taking care that the laws are faithfully executed. He is mandated by the laws to prepare the government's annual budget, to set rules for the civil service, and to encourage efficient administrative practices. Also, the president explicitly or implicitly, has the powers of appointment and removal, and the people of the United States expect him to see that honesty, efficiency, loyalty, and frugality prevail throughout the administration. He is the chief diplomat. Although authority in the field of foreign relations is divided among three organs the president, Congress as a whole, and, for the approval of treaties and diplomatic appointments, the Senate his claim to ascendancy is now acknowledged by most Americans in or out of the government. To be sure, Congress is an important partner of the president in the making of foreign policy, but on the whole, Congress is the sort of partner that criticizes rather than takes the lead itself. Secrecy, dispatch, unity, continuity, and access to information the ingredients of successful diplomacy are properties of the president's office, and Congress, an open forum of conflicting interests and opinions, possesses none of them. The Secretary of State, it should be noted, is subject directly to the president's orders, and holds office at the president's pleasure. He is the commander in chief of the armed forces. In peace and war, he is, in fact, the unchallenged, indeed, unchallengeable, director of the armed might of the country. In time of peace, he raises, trains, supervises, and deploys the forces that Congress is willing to maintain, and he has a great deal to say about the size and make-up of these forces. In time of war, he makes all major decisions of strategy (and many of tactics as well), and mobilizes the economy for maximum production of the weapons of victory. As the living guarantee of the American belief in the supremacy of civil over military authority, the president has a clear right to appoint and, if necessary, discharge all makers of policy in the defense department. He holds the position of chief legislator. From the constitutional mandate to "from time to time give Congress information of the states of union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient" (Article 2, Section 3), the president has become the chief lawmaker. He is responsible for presenting the annual budget to Congress, and he is expected to introduce and seek passage of a legislative program. One of the president's prerogatives as chief legislator is his authority to veto legislation. Every bill or resolution passed by Congress must be approved or disapproved (vetoed) by the president. Congress can override the veto only by a two-thirds veto of both houses. The president can also use the "pocket veto". This takes place if within ten days before adjournment Congress passes a bill and the president merely ignores it, neither approving nor disapproving it. In this case, the bill does not become law. Congress, of course, is not al ways easily persuaded. It is every bit as proud and independent as the president. As a result, one of the interesting features of American political life is the clash of personalities between a strong-minded president and strong-minded congressmen, especially senators of the opposing party. Figure 5.3.1 US Presidents There are other roles, not precisely mandated by the Constitution, that the president has assumed. He is, for example, the head of his political party. He is nominated by a party and elected largely on the efforts of that party. He chooses his own vice-president, he selects the chairman of his political party, he campaigns for members of his party, and he works with the party to pass his legislative program. Other responsibilities of the president might include maintaining domestic order, as what Lincoln did to suppress the Southern rebellion. Also, the president, especially since the 1930s, has been held responsible for the economic health of the country. In the present-day United States , whether a person is an economic conservative or an economic liberal, he or she tends to praise or blame the president for price stability or inflation, high or low employment, and the general health of the economy. In addition, emerging concerns in the area of the environment and energy have given the president other responsibilities. Urban renewal, education, street crime, drug abuse, and family stability have increasingly come to the attention of the president as well. These roles, old and new, constitute a vast reservoir of power. In fact, given the economic, technological, and war-making strength of the United States , it is not far from truth to say that today's president of the United States may be the most powerful person in the history of the world. While the president is probably the most powerful person in the world, his power is by no means limitless. There are both constitutional and institutional checks on the president. Constitutional limitations include the four-year term, qualifications of the power of the veto, and the ban on the third term. Institutional checks are more numerous and quite specific. First, there is the checking force from Congress. Intended as a coequal branch with the executive, Congress has the important power of appropriating or not appropriating whatever money the national government needs or whatever the president wants. Congress must approve all the new agencies of the bureaucracy, and Congress, after all, makes the laws that the president will carry out. Besides, Congress can investigate presidential actions and can impeach and remove the president from office. Also, Congress can override a presidential veto by a two-thirds vote of both houses. The Senate, additionally, must approve appointments by the president and all treaties (by a two-thirds vote). And, theoretically, only Congress has the right to declare war. Another institutional check on the president is the judicial branch. However, in this case, the courts, historically speaking, can rarely hamper presidential power. Exceptions to this rule are the steel seizure case in 1952 ( Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company vs. Sawyer), which denied President Truman the power to take control of a steel plant during the Korean War, and U.S. vs. Richard Nixon (1974), which denied Nixon's claim of executive privilege in withholding tapes. In addition, periodic elections may serve as a kind of check as well, because they can check him by increasing the strength of the opposition party, though, interestingly enough, they may also increase a president's power by giving him an apparent mandate. Also, because of its enormous size and occasional inertia, the federal bureaucracy represents a kind of restraints as well. And, the political system itself may provide a check. The opposition political party, for instance, keeps a fairly constant criticism of the administration, and even in his own party the president sometimes must make concessions in order to achieve harmony. Besides, the press represents another very important check on the power of the president. As the press is free of government control and protected by the U.S. Constitution for the freedom of the press, it often serves as an overseer over government actions and informs the public of what it believes to be the true story behind government policy. Finally, public opinion may represent a check, though the nature and depth of this restrain are difficult to analyze the president has enormous manipulative power over public opinion. He is always front-page news. He can call a presidential press conference to make a public speech whenever he wishes and command a large audience. However, even the most active president cannot lead the people outside the realm of common expectation. Chapter IV Congress According to the U.S. Constitution, Congress's essential function is to make laws. That is why it is often referred to in the U.S. press as a law-making body. As we know, if it is to govern, a government must decide. There are two ways in which decisions can be made:(1) by a group of people voting collectively, usually representing various interests and points; (2)by a single individual. There is no other alternative known in human history except to do nothing at all. Thus, it could be said that "choices of Congress are the choices of the nation". And those choices ultimately become the law of the land. Organizationally, Congress is bicameral, made up of a House of Representatives of 435 members, each representing an approximately equal number of constituents, and a Senate of 100 members from each state. Representatives serve two-year terms and all 435 run for reelection in every even-numbered year. Senators serve six years, and one third are elected every two years. Figure 5.4.1 Washington Lib of Congress . As said above, the primary duty of Congress is to make laws for the country. However, the law-making process is a very complicated one, like a labyrinth. For any bill to become a law, it must go through that labyrinthine procedure. It is confusing and frustrating, even to many Americans. But briefly, its procedure can be summarized as follows. 1. A bill is introduced. Anyone can draw up a bill -- a member of Congress, the president, or a student. Many major bills are either conceived or written elsewhere. Thus, members of Congress spend considerable time processing what has been invented outside Congress. However, official introduction of a bill can come only from a representative or a senator. In the House, a member puts the bill into a box called hopper or gives it to a clerk. A senator orally introduces a bill to the floor. 2. The bill is then referred to the committee by leadership in that particular house. 3. The committee takes action (or more likely no action). If the committee approves the bill, it is reported to the full House. In the House of Representative, the Rules Committee issues a rule of resolution to bring it to the floor. 4. The bill goes on a calendar, which is a traffic-regulating device. In the House, there are five calendars: the union calendar for revenue and appropriations bills, the House calendar for all of the public bills, the consent calendar for items having no opposition, the private calendar dealing with private matters such as a veteran's pension, and the discharge calendar for bills brought out of committee by discharge petition. In the Senate, there are two calendars, one legislative and the other executive, the latter containing treaties and nominations. 5. The bill goes to the floor (usually in its order on the calendar, although the Senate, by a majority vote, and the House, by a special rule from the Rules Committee or a two-thirds vote, can bring up a pressing matter out of order). In the House, members who want to express their views on the proposed bill may debate among themselves within the allotted time, and after that the House resolves itself into formal session and asks its members to cast votes. By contrast, the Senate debates major legislative measures at length, and they often merit being called "great debates". 6. After a bill is passed by one house, it goes to the other, in which, frequently a similar bill has been considered, although the bill could be ignored or rejected. 7. If there are similar bills from both houses, a conference committee will meet to resolve differences. 8. Once the exact wording is agreed upon by both houses, the bill goes to the president for his approval or vote. 9. Only when the president signs the bill does it become law. If the bill is rejected by the president, it may be dead or resurface some other time. Other than its most important function of making laws, Congress has other duties provided by the U.S. Constitution. They are namely: 1. Congress can, by a two-thirds vote, propose amendments to the Constitution. 2. The House has the power to impeach (by a majority vote), and the Senate the power to try any civil officer of the United States . If the Senate upholds the impeachment charges by a two thirds vote, the officers will be removed. 3. Congress has powers of investigation. Investigations can expose excessive and at times unconstitutional activities within the executive branch of government and help Congress draw up legislation to improve the existing laws, especially when there are lots of loopholes in them. 4. Congress also has the authority to establish its own rules, that is, the procedures that it will follow in all of its functions. 5. Finally, the Senate has some functions that the House does not. The Senate, for example, advises and consents to treaties negotiated by the executive branch. The Senate also confirms most presidential nominations (to the cabinet, the: federal courts, and the diplomatic posts). Such confirmations require only a majority vote. Of the two houses, there are some differences. While the function of having one check the other still remains to a certain extent, today, the key differences between them are size and constituency. The House is much larger and thus requires a more formal hierarchical organization and more rigid rules by which to conduct its business. On the other hand, the rules and procedures of the Senate are more flexible. Additionally, senators, by virtue of serving a longer term, and representing a larger constituency, are believed to have more prestige and higher public visibility. What is important to keep in mind is that while Congress as an institution holds tremendous influence in policy-making process, the real power resides in various committees in it, and therefore most of the legislative activities are performed in committees. The reason why committees are so important in Congress is there is the need for all different interest groups to come to terms with very complicated issues, to deal with an increasingly high volume of bills and resolutions, and somehow to moderate their differences to get legislation passed. After all, the Senate or the House, acting as a single chamber, simply cannot handle so much business. Moreover, given the large membership in both houses, it is not difficult to understand why Congress has divided itself into smaller, more manageable components to deal with legislation in certain categories. Indeed, the committee structure of Congress in some ways illustrates the dispersal of power in the legislature and reflects the fragmentation of power in American society as a whole. Basically, there are four kinds of committees in Congress: standing, special, or select, joint, and conference. Standing Committees are permanent and the best known of the congressional committees. The House has twenty-two such committees, which include committees of Appropriations, Way and Means, Rules and so on. The Senate has sixteen standing committees, including, Foreign Relations, Judiciary and others. Standing committees are bipartisan, and the majority of their members are from the majority party. The chairperson of the committee is also from the majority party and is normally chosen by seniority. That is, the majority party member of a committee who has the longest continuous service on that committee is its chairperson. Special or Select Committees are temporary committees instituted for specific purposes. Examples of select committees in the Senate include the Senate Committee on Watergate, and the Select Committee on Intelligence. Joint Committees are usually permanent composed of members from both houses. The joint committee on taxation and the joint economic committee are the two examples. Finally, Conference Committees are, technically speaking, special joint committees. That is, they are temporary and contain members from both houses. Their purpose is to discuss and reach agreement on legislation when there are disagreements between the versions passed by the two houses. These committees have great power because they decide what it will be in the law. Committees and subcommittees in both houses are relatively independent, and the content and the success of legislation depend much more on decisions made on the floor of either house. The chairperson of a committee has considerable power, appointing sub committees, calling meetings, and determining the agenda. Chapter V The Judiciary In no other country in the world do the courts play as large a role in making public policy as they do in the United States . One aspect of this power is "judiciary review" -- the right to declare laws of Congress and acts of the executive branch void and unenforceable it they are judged to be in conflict with the Constitution. Since 1780, the U.S. Supreme Court has declared over one hundred federal laws to be unconstitutional. Indeed, judiciary review is the Supreme Court's chief weapon in the system of checks and balances on which American government is based. Figure 5.5.1 Judiciary House, constructed in 1966 Historically speaking, the only federal court that must exist is the Supreme Court, required and defined vaguely by Article 3 of the Constitution. All other federal courts and their jurisdictions are creations of Congress. The Constitution does not say how many justices shall be on the Supreme Court, nor does it indicate what its appellate jurisdiction shall be. The system of laws and courts that exists in the United States is the product of U.S. Constitution and of U. S. history. Over the past two centuries, Congress has created two kinds of lower federal courts to handle cases that need not be decided by the Supreme Court: "constitutional" and "legislative" courts. A constitutional court is one that exercises the judicial powers found in Article 3 of the Constitution, and because of that, its judges are given constitutional protection they may not be fired, nor may their salaries be reduced while in office. The most important constitutional courts are district courts and the courts of appeals. There are also four specialized courts that have constitutional status, such as the Courts of Claims and the Tax Court. A legislative court is one set up by Congress for some specialized purposes and staffed with persons who have fixed terms of office and can be removed or have salaries reduced. Legislative courts include the Court of Military Appeals and the Territorial Courts. There are currently ninety-four courts in the United States . Each state has, at least, one district court, and there is one in the District of Columbia and one in Puerto Rico . Large states have more than one. This is the level at which more national court work is done. There may be one or more judges at each district court. District judgeships are filled by the president with the consent of the Senate. All district judges hold office for life (of course, they can be impeached). District courts are trial courts of original jurisdiction. They are the only federal courts that regularly employ grand (indicting) and petit (trial) juries. Many of the cases tried before district judges involve citizens of different states, and judges apply the appropriate state laws. Otherwise, district judges are concerned with federal laws. If a case is successfully appealed, it will normally go to a U. S.Court of Appeals in one of eleven judicial circuits in the country (including one in the District of Columbia ). These courts only have appellate jurisdiction. They do not use juries, and they have from one to nine judges, all appointed for life by the president with the consent of the Senate. Next, and at the top of the hierarchy, is the Supreme Court, whose jurisdiction is both original (this original jurisdiction is severely limited in Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution) and appellate. The Court spends most of its time on cases on appeal. It is the Court of last resort, with the last word on matters within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution. Apart from the federal court system, there is the state court system in the United States . Like the federal system, states have a hierarchical system, ranging from lower courts to a state supreme court. These courts try civil (such as divorce) and criminal (such as murder) cases in which state laws are violated, though there are some areas of concurrent jurisdiction. As a general rule, the only national court that can review a state court decision is the Supreme Court -- and this is after all appeals at the state level have been exhausted, that is, the case has gone all the way through the state supreme court. Because of such a dual court system -- one state and the other federal, the U. S. Constitution lists the kinds of cases over which federal courts have jurisdiction -- cases "arising under the Constitution, the laws of the United States, and the treaties" (so-called "federal question cases"), and cases involving citizens of different states (so-called "diversity cases"). By implication, all other cases outside the jurisdiction of federal courts are left to state courts. However, some kinds of cases can be heard in either federal or state courts. For example, if citizens of different states wish to sue one another and that matter involves more than $10,000, they can do so either in a federal court or in a state court. Similarly, if a man robs a federally insured bank, he has broken both state and federal law and thus he can be prosecuted in either state or federal courts. In general, if a federal law is broken, the case is heard in a federal court. Likewise, if a state law is violated, the case finds its way to a state court. Ultimately, in the judicial system of the United States , it is the Supreme Court that makes history. However, it does so selectively, for although it takes cases on appeal from both state courts and lower national courts, it takes only a few, and those few are usually of national importance. For a case to come before the Supreme Court from a state court, a national question must be involved (for example, a constitutional question, or question involving a national law or a treaty), and the litigant must have exhausted his or her appeals. Even then, the odds are against the case's being presented to the Supreme Court. The Court also uses extreme discretion in deciding which appealed cases from lower national courts it will review. In either case, a disappointed litigant must petition the Court. If at least four justices find the case worthy, the Court will issue a writ of certiorari (Latin for "making more certain") to the lower court, ordering it to send up all records of the case. Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court essentially performs two functions. First, it determines what cases it will hear (a small minority of the total appealed to it), and second, it hears and issues judgments on those issues. The Court is in session from October through June in the dignified Supreme Court Building in Washington , D.C. The justices hear cases in the courtroom there and discuss them among themselves in a private chamber. Decisions are made by a majority vote, and the Court almost always announces its reasons for each decision. These can come in an opinion for the Court, which is the majority opinion; a concurring opinion, again written by a member of the majority, but one who wishes to emphasize different views; and of course, dissenting opinion, written by those who voted in the minority, explaining their reasoning. Chapter VI Political Parties The political parties of the United States are the oldest in the world. And among the Western nations, they may also be the weakest. However, it is not their age that has enfeebled them. When they were one hundred years old, they were still vigorous and played a dominant role in national politics. Rather, they have declined in significance as a result of changes in the legal rules under which they operate and in the attitudes of the citizens whom they seek to organize. All this has occurred -- and is still in a constitutional system that has caused the parties, even in their heyday, occurring -- to be decentralized and fragmented. A political party, as we know, is a group that seeks to elect candidates to public office by supplying them with labels -- a "part of identification" -- by which they are known to the electorate. However, there is no reference to political parties in the U.S. Constitution, and the Founding Fathers of the republic distrusted party politics and hoped that the nation could be governed without recourse to "faction". But, out of the power struggle in the early stage of the founding of the nation, there evolved different factions, which eventually led to the creation of political parties. The first political parties took shape in the United States , when the supporters of Thomas Jefferson (eventually called Democrats) banded together to oppose the ruling Federalists grouping around Hamilton and Adams. It is ironic that Jefferson , among the founders of the nation who warned against the dangers inherent in factions, was responsible for the formation of the nation's oldest and strongest political party. In the United Sates, the two-party system has become the dominant feature in the political landscape: Federalists vs. Democratic Republicans, Whigs vs. Democrats, and Republicans vs. Democrats. Why has the two-party system become so dominant in American politics? Why not many parties, as in most European nations, or one, as in much of the rest of the world? The Los Angels Times once carried an article, trying to explain this two-party system phenomenon in the United States . It suggested that "There will always be two-party system in the United States simply because it works well to get two names on the ballot for every office." Along this line of reasoning, some Americans look upon the quadrennial presidential battle between two major candidates as a kind of sporting event, a political version of the Super bowl or the World Series. If politics is about winning and losing, then there is an obvious aesthetic tidiness in having one big winner and one big loser. Figure 5.6.1 Two- party system Scholars of American political system have suggested other reasons for the curious persistence of the two-party system. One is that Americans elect people from single-member districts and so there is only one winner. (There is no proportional representation by which, for example, a party receiving 10 percent of the votes would get 10 percent of the seats in the legislature. ) Likewise, the presidential race is a winner-take-all election, and thus it is difficult for Smaller parties to sustain long-term support. Besides, most minor parties depend on ideological commitment for long-range support, whereas Americans, by and large, do not tend to seek out a candidate who champions a given political philosophy. Rather, Americans seem to prefer a more pragmatic approach. For instance, they ask themselves "Which candidate will best serve my interest and those of the nation, thus making it difficult, if not impossible, for ideology-oriented minor parties to run against the two major parties. Finally, the federal system with its dispersal of power makes a one-party rule difficult to achieve and a multiparty system difficult to sustain because patronage and money are hard for minor parties to come by. On paper, the national structures of the Democratic and Republican parties appear similar; in practice, there are important differences. Formally, ultimate authority in each party is the national party convention held every four years. Between national conventions, party affairs are managed by a national committee made up of persons chosen, in various ways, from states and territories. Actually, the real work of the party is done by a full-time, paid national chairman elected by national committee. At one time, the Democratic and Republican parties were quite alike -- each with a national committee that did little and a party chairman who (if his party held the White House) passed out federal patronage. Today, the structures operate quite differently. The Democrats have become more of a representational party -- one that emphasizes the mobilization and conciliation of volunteer party activists who are given a great deal of power in making rules and deciding policy. The Republicans, on the other hand, have become more an organizational party -- one that gives greater emphasis to creating an effective national organization in order to raise money and to supply assistance to local candidates and party units. As a result, the Democratic party has increasingly become an arena in which contending ideological groups fight over power and policy, whereas the Republican party has become a bureaucracy that is devoted to winning elections. The staff and budget of the Republican National Committee (RNC) have been much larger than those of the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Consequently, the Republicans can afford to spend their money not only on contributions to candidates, but also on financing campaign management schools (at which candidates learn campaign techniques), on setting up an office to advise state officials on congressional redistricting, on buying national advertising attacking the Democrats, and on hiring lawyers and other professionals to provide technical assistance to local campaigns. The Democrats, by contrast, tend to leave local candidates virtually alone to defend for themselves. In recent years, the Democrats have been following the Republican way of doing things, actively reaching out to raise money and making appreciable financial support to local campaigns. Still, substantial difference exists between the two major parties in their organizational structure as well as in their actual operation. In addition to the two national committees, each party has a congressional and senatorial campaign committee, composed of members of Congress, which provides help to candidates for House and Senate seats. They raise money and offer advice to their respective candidates. Below the national parties, there are party organizations at city, county, and state levels. Though affiliated with the national Democratic and Republican parties, they are not under the direction or control of the national committee or the national chairman, except insofar as they select delegates to the national conventions. In their day-to-day affairs, they are autonomous, independent units. Formally, these party units are organized under state law. In a typical state, there will be a state committee that nominally is the highest party authority. Below it, there will usually be county Committees and sometimes city or town committees. In some places, even precincts have a formal party organization. The members of these party committees are selected in a variety of ways some times in a primary election, sometimes by conventions, sometimes by a building-block process whereby persons elected to serve on precinct or town committees in turn choose the members of country committees who then choose state committee members. Historically, political parties in the United States have played the following functions. 1. Parties offer choices and simplify issues, which make the vote's job easier. The parties sift through all issues to find the most popular ones, and via a variety of techniques, they sift through all the candidates and, in each case, offer American voters alternatives. 2. The selection of candidates is a job in itself. Initially, parties chose candidates in meetings called caucuses, which at first were closed meetings of party leaders. Later, beginning in the 1830s, the party convention was adopted and is still used by national parties to nominate presidential and vice presidential candidates, as well as to debate, draw up, and adopt a platform. During the early twentieth century, various states began to adopt the direct primary as a means of nominating candidates. The direct primary allows every voter of the party a chance to participate in choosing local and state -- are chosen the nominee. In many states, candidates for all offices -- in this manner. and some states use a primary election for determining the choice for president among that state's party members. 3. In the general election itself, parties play a crucial role. They raise money for their candidates, campaign for their can&-dates, provide poll watchers, and mobilize volunteers. There is plenty of work to do for party volunteers. 4. Parties help shape public opinion. Each of the major parties has a national committee, with publicity divisions constantly propagandizing information in the party's favor. Perhaps, more than offering worthwhile information, the parties simply stimulate public interest in a given election. 5. The party in power is expected to develop policies and govern. This is particularly true when the executive and legislative branches of government (whether at the state or the national level) are controlled by the same party. 6. The party out of the power is expected to criticize the party in power. Both the Republican and Democratic parties have been doing in this way for a long time. Likewise, the minority parties may be expected to develop alternative policies and advertise them publicly and even present them to legislatures. 7. The political party is an organization that allows like-minded and public-spirited people to meet, socialize, and, perhaps, get started in a career in politics. 8. Some American scholars maintain that the two-party system helps keep the country unified, because in seeking to win election, especially presidential elections, parties must appeal to as many geographic and ideological interests as possible. Thus, parties tend to keep politics in America moderate, because both parties seek a kind of middle-of-the-road positions in order to win elections. 9. As the tool of the ruling class, the two major parties in the United States have been operating to serve the interests of the social elite rather than the rank and file of the population. Whether in power or out of power, each party tends to be more concerned with the needs of the ruling class than those of the ruled. 10. It is worth noting that detailed statements of party principles and policies are not important when the party differences are built into the very structure of the political system. As said previously, the two major parties in the United State are competitive and therefore the public can hold the party in power responsible for its conduct of the government. It can turn the party in power out, as it has done so about once in a decade throughout American history. In a presidential election, the American voter does not base his decision on a detailed party program. The system is so old and the political tendencies of the parties so well known that most American voters know where they belong. As nearly as possible, a national election is a vote of confidence or lack of confidence in the party in power. As long as elections are important, the two parties are important, because they are the only organizations that can win elections. Chapter VII Elections Figure 5.7.1 voting At the heart of American government is the electoral system. While the base of suffrage in the United States has gradually been broadened to include more and more citizens, a free and unfettered suffrage has always been a basic cornerstone of American political system. Government in the United States rests upon, in theory at least, the consent of the governed and that consent is gained through the ballot box. It is important to keep in mind that American electoral system calls for regularly scheduled elections. People can predict with absolute certainty when they will elect their presidents, members of Congress, governors, mayors, school board members, coroners, and so forth. Since the creation of the nation, Americans have never failed national, state or local -- on schedule. This record of electoral to hold an election -- stability is unparalleled. According to the U.S. Constitution, responsibilities for elections are divided between the national and the state government in each of the fifty states. To some degree, every election held in the United States is within the jurisdiction of both the national government and the states. For instance, even elections for state or local officials, governors, and mayors, are held under both federal anti state law, for the national government has the power under the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Nineteenth Amendments to the Constitution to intervene to prevent discrimination because of race or sex. However, the basic philosophic question is how and where to draw the line between the power of the federal government and that of the individual states. Where should this line be drawn in regard to the election of a president and the election of congressmen and senators, for instance? Traditionally and historically, the states have played the major role in the formulation of election law. The U. S. Constitution is quite specific in stating that "times, places and manners of holding elections for senators and representatives shall be described in each state by the legislature thereof, but Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations ... " However, the Constitution treats elections for president of the United States differently, because, technically speaking, the president and the vice-president are elected only indirectly by the vote of the people; they are chosen by a constitutional body called the Electoral College. This electoral body was devised by the founding fathers in an effort to keep the heat and passions of an election campaign away from the selection of the president. Each state, the Constitution directs, "shall appoint in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct a number of electors equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the state may been titled in Congress." The body of these electors from all fifty states is known as the Electoral College. These electors meet in their own states in mid-December and cast their votes for president. (In the 1870s, U.S. Congress enacted the law that made the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November the general election day. ) Apparently, the Founding Fathers did not foresee the rapid development of American two-party system which quickly altered and diminished the power of the Electoral College. In actual practice today in the United States , electors are chosen by the two major parties. These electors are pledged to support the candidates for president and vice-president nominated by their party at the national convention. Thus, a voter in 2000 technically was not voting George W. Bush or A1 Gore but was instead voting a group of men and women equal in number to the size of the state's congressional delegation who were pledged to vote for the major candidates. If more people in a state voted for the group of electors pledged to A1 Gore, he won the state and was credited with that state's total electoral vote. If those pledged to George W. Bush won a majority, he received all of the state's electoral votes. In American election, this is called "winner-take-all" practice. From time to time, the concept of the Electoral College has been under attack and changes suggested. These attacks center primarily on the fact that the state's electoral votes are awarded on a winner-take-all base. For instance, a candidate wins all sixteen of New Jersey 's electoral votes even though he wins the state by a narrow margin of less than 10,000 votes out of over 2,600,000 cast. Many people who favor a change in the nature of the Electoral College urge that the votes be awarded proportionately. Critics also argue that too much emphasis is placed on the heavily populated states like California and New York . Yet, despite these criticisms, from a practical point of view, there is little likelihood that there will be any constitutional changes in the near future that will alter the basic structure of the Electoral College. As of now, for a candidate to become the president of the United States , he has to, first of all, enter primary election to win nomination from his own party. Later, when the nomination has been made, he begins to contest with his opponent from the other party. So the presidential election is a two stage affair. At the end of the first stage, the parties close ranks behind their nominees; in the second stage, they compete for votes in the election itself. Even though the national government does possess certain broad and specific power in election matter, the bulk of the election process lies within the individual states. First, let us examine how the states organize to conduct elections. The pattern varies, of course, from state to state. Generally, however, the Secretary of State is charged with over-all responsibilities for the conduct of elections within the state. His/her office makes the official canvass of the vote and certifies the winning candidate, He/she receives the official records of campaign and election, especially financial reports of campaign expenditures. He/she also is responsible for the election calendar, determining when nominating petitions are to be in, when primaries are to be held, and in general attending to the myriad of details involved in running elections. It is at the county level, or in some cases at the city level, that election lists are prepared and maintained. County boards of elections, county supervisions of elections, or country clerks are responsible for the actual conduct of registration and elections. These officials often have wide discretion within the state laws. For instance, they may decide whether to have registration offices outside the county building or whether to have extra hours for registration. This can make a great difference in how many citizens are registered. County officials must see that correct ballots are printed and distributed to the election precinct; they maintain, store, and deliver the voting machines. They appoint precinct election judges and other election-day officials. Usually, the law requires that these election officials represent both major parties and that the Democratic and Republican parties have the opportunity to be represented in every election precinct. Second, let us examine some of the specific details of American election laws. These laws deal with matters of registration, residence, age, nomination, ballots used, size of precincts, absentee balloting, time polls are open, and literally thousands of details required to keep election machinery in operation. Given the limited space we have in this chapter, only a few of the more important of these details can be considered here. Residence In order to qualify as a voter, a person must reside in his state for a specific period of time. Over the past few decades, there has been a trend among the states to lower the requirement. Some states permit a person to vote after six-months residency in the state. Other states require a year of residency. Most states have local residence requirements of varying degrees, usually ninety days in the county within the state and thirty days in the election district in which the vote is to be cast. There is no real argument over the need for some kind of residence requirement to combat fraud and to allow people to become familiar with the issues and candidates. But in a nation where it is officially estimated that more than 20 million adults move each year, it is quite clear that this high degree of mobility does prevent some citizens from having the opportunity to vote. For this reason, many states have made residence requirement as minimal as possible for voting for president. New residents in some states can cast a special ballot limited to the candidates for president and vice-president. Some states allow persons who move away to vote by absentee ballot for president if they are unable to qualify to vote in the state to which they have moved. Registration Citizens aged eighteen or more may register as voters in their home towns, but about a quarter of all Americans do not bother to register, and so cannot vote. In some states, only people who have registered as Democrats may vote in Democratic primary elections, and so with Republicans. Other states have open primaries, so that. with both parties' primaries held simultaneously. any voter may vote in either party's primary. However, at the final elections in November, a voter's registration as a Republican or Democratic is irrelevant. It is perfectly normal for a registered Democratic to vote for Republicans for some or all offices if they want to do so. This applies to the election of president, congress- men, and state or local officials. There are a wide variety of procedures to be followed in order to register, but in every case the obligation falls upon the individual. He must make the effort. Registration may be permanent or it may be required that a person register for every general election. Even if registration is called permanent, a citizen must vote regularly or his registration is canceled and he must take the trouble of reregistering. In some states, a person can register any time during the year except just prior to elections, when the books are closed to allow the election officials to prepare their records for the election. In other states, registration occurs only at stated times. Absentee Balloting and Registration Most states allow citizens who are going to be away on election day or who are physically unable to get to the polls to vote by applying for an absentee ballot. However, the process is cumbersome and it undoubtedly discourages some people from voting. And yet, each of the fifty states has enacted a military absentee registration and voting system which is much simpler than the laws governing civilian absentee voting. Form and Nature of the Ballot The kind of ballot used varies from state to state. Essentially, there are two ballots -- machine or paper, but the continuing trend is toward the use of voting machine. Ballots, be they machine or paper, can be organized in different ways. In some states, the ballot is so organized that it is easy for the voter to vote the straight ticket, that is, for all the candidates of one party. He either pulls one lever on a machine or checks one box on the ballot and that automatically registers a vote for all the candidates of the party checked. Many ballots, however, contain not only names of candidates to be chosen, but also highly involved public questions or state constitutional amendments. Because all of this can be highly confusing to the voter, there is some trend toward the short ballot, that is, reducing the number of names on the ballot and the number of public questions to be voted on in any given election. Finally, let us turn to the question of choosing the candidates. The process of choosing each major-party candidate assumes a special importance, particularly in places where one party is so dominant that its candidate is almost sure to win. Although in theory the choice of a party's candidate might be regarded as a private matter for the party, primary elections are recognized as part of the formal voting process, and organized by the public authorities. The U. S. Supreme Court has accepted jurisdiction over the conduct of primaries as part of its duty to see that citizens' constitutional rights are respected. But the system of primaries is not uniform, and each state has its own rules and there are many different details. In most states, primaries are "closed". If a citizen wishes to take part in the primary at which the Democratic Party candidates are chosen, he or she must register as a Democrat. The Republican primaries are held at the same time and place. Voters may vote only in the primary of the party for which they have registered. Once the party candidates have been chosen by this means, the campaign between the parties begin, in preparation for the election proper. But then the voter can vote for either party. In a state where the Democrats are dominant, a voter who hopes they will lose may well register as a Democrat so as to vote in the Democratic primary, but then vote for Republican candidates at the general election. Because it is impossible to prevent such practices, some states have "open" primaries, allowing any person to vote in either party's primary -- and there are other variants as well. The system of primaries is a highly democratic device. In practice, however, it has one serious weakness. An effective primary campaign needs money -- the mother's milk of politics. No one can become the Democratic/Republican candidate for governor or senator in a big state without spending huge amounts which have to be provided by supporters. Partly because of this, the primary system has not been altogether successful in putting an end to "boss rule" Someone who gains an ascendance in a state party may be able to, ensure that the candidates he prefers have the money they need for? Their primaries, thus ensuring that if they are elected they behave according to his wishes. Another disadvantage of the primary sys tern is the time that it takes. Candidates must begin preparations for their primary campaigns as much as a year before the general election. As members of the United States House of Representatives are elected for only two years, and have to expect to be opposed by rivals for their party's nomination, a newly elected Representative may need to begin the next campaign within a year of being elected. Still, to most Americans, election constitutes the best way for ordinary citizens to exercise their rights, and thereby hold government officials accountable to the general public. a Figure 5.7.2 Election 1 Figure 5.7.3 Election 2