INFORMAL PRACTICES OF CONGRESS
In contrast to European parliamentary systems, the selection and behavior of U.S. legislators has little to do with central party discipline. Each of the major American political parties is basically a coalition of local and state organizations which join together as a functioning national party—Republican or Democratic—during the presidential elections at four-year intervals. Thus the members of Congress owe their positions to their local or state electorate, not to the national party leadership nor to their congressional colleagues. As a result, the legislative behavior of representatives and senators tends to be individualistic and idiosyncratic, reflecting the great variety of electorates represented and the freedom that comes from having built a loyal personal constituency.
Congress is thus a collegial and not a hierarchical body. Power does not flow from the top down, as in a corporation, but in practically every direction. There is only minimal centralized authority, since the power to punish or reward is slight. Congressional policies are made by shifting coalitions which may vary from issue to issue. Sometimes, where there are conflicting pressures—from the White House and from important economic or ethnic groups—legislators will use the rules of procedure to delay a decision so as to avoid alienating an influential sector. A matter may be postponed on the grounds that the relevant committee held insufficient public hearings. Or Congress may direct an agency to prepare a detailed report before an issue is considered. Or a measure may be put aside ("tabled") by either house, thus effectively defeating it without rendering a judgment on its substance.
There are informal or unwritten norms of behavior that often determine the assignments and influence of a particular member. "Insiders," representatives and senators who concentrate on their legislative duties, may be more powerful within the halls of Congress than "outsiders," who gain recognition by speaking out on national issues. Members are expected to show courtesy toward their colleagues and to avoid personal attacks, no matter how extreme or unpalatable their opponents' policies may be. Members are also expected to specialize in a few policy areas rather than claim expertise in the whole range of legislative concerns. Those who conform to these informal rules are more likely to be appointed to prestigious committees or at least to committees that affect the interests of a significant portion of their constituents.
OVERSIGHT POWERS OF CONGRESS
Of the numerous techniques that Congress has adopted to influence the executive branch, one of the most effective is the oversight function. Congressional oversight prevents waste and fraud; protects civil liberties and individual rights; ensures executive compliance with the law; gathers information for making laws and educating the public: and evaluates executive performance. It applies to Cabinet departments, executive agencies, regulatory commissions and the presidency.
Congress' oversight function takes many forms:
—committee inquiries and hearings;
—formal consultations with and reports from the executive;
—Senate advice and consent for executive nominations and treaties;
—House impeachment proceedings and subsequent Senate trials;
—House and Senate proceedings under the 25th Amendment in the event that the president becomes disabled, or the office of the vice president falls vacant;
—informal meetings between legislators and executive officials;
—congressional membership on governmental commissions; and
—studies by congressional committees and support agencies such as the Congressional Budget Office, the General Accounting Office or the Office of Technology Assessment—all arms of Congress.
The oversight power of Congress has helped to force officials out of office, change policies and provide new statutory controls over the executive. In 1949, for example, probes by special Senate investigating subcommittees revealed corruption among high officials in the Truman administration. This resulted in the reorganization of certain agencies and the formation of a special White House commission to study corruption in the government.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee's televised hearings in the late 1960s helped to mobilize opposition to the Vietnam War. Congress' 1973 Watergate investigation exposed White House officials who illegally used their positions for political advantage, and the House Judiciary Committee's impeachment proceedings against President Richard Nixon the following year ended his presidency. Select committee inquiries in 1975 and 1976 identified serious abuses by intelligence agencies and initiated new legislation to control certain intelligence activities.
In 1983, congressional inquiry into a proposal to consolidate border inspection operations of the U.S. Customs Service and the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service raised questions about the executive's authority to make such a change without new legislation. In 1987, oversight efforts disclosed statutory violations in the executive branch's secret arms sales to Iran and the diversion of arms profits to anti-government forces in Nicaragua, known as the contras. Congressional findings resulted in proposed legislation to prevent similar occurrences.
Oversight power is an essential check in monitoring the presidency and controlling public policy.
THE JUDICIAL BRANCH
THE FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM
The third branch of the federal government, the judiciary, consists of a system of courts spread throughout the country, headed by the Supreme Court of the United States.
A system of state courts existed before the Constitution was drafted. There was considerable controversy among the delegates to the Constitutional Convention as to whether a federal court system was needed, and whether it should supplant the state courts. As in other matters under debate, a compromise was reached in which the state courts were continued while the Constitution mandated a federal judiciary with limited power. Article III of the Constitution states the basis for the federal court system:
The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
With this guide, the first Congress divided the nation into districts and created federal courts for each district. From that beginning has evolved the present structure: the Supreme Court, 11 courts of appeals, 91 district courts, and three courts of special jurisdiction. Congress today retains the power to create and abolish federal courts, as well as to determine the number of judges in the federal judiciary system. It cannot, however, abolish the Supreme Court.
The judicial power extends to cases arising under the Constitution; laws and treaties of the United States; admiralty and maritime cases; cases affecting ambassadors, ministers and consuls of foreign countries in the United States; controversies in which the U.S. government is a party; and controversies between states (or their citizens) and foreign nations (or their citizens or subjects). The 11th Amendment removed from federal jurisdiction cases in which citizens of one state were the plaintiffs and the government of another state was the defendant. It did not disturb federal jurisdiction in cases in which a state government is a plaintiff and a citizen of another state the defendant.
The power of the federal courts extends both to civil actions for damages and other redress, and to criminal cases arising under federal law. Article III has resulted in a complex set of relationships between state and federal courts. Ordinarily, federal courts do not hear cases arising under the laws of individual states. However, some cases over which federal courts have jurisdiction may also be heard and decided by state courts. Both court systems thus have exclusive jurisdiction in some areas and concurrent jurisdiction in others.
The Constitution safeguards judicial independence by providing that federal judges shall hold office "during good behavior"—in practice, until they die, retire or resign, although a judge who commits an offense while in office may be impeached in the same way as the president or other officials of the federal government. U.S. judges are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Congress also determines the pay scale of judges.
THE SUPREME COURT
The Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States, and the only one specifically created by the Constitution. A decision of the Supreme Court cannot be appealed to any other court. Congress has the power to fix the number of judges sitting on the Court and, within limits, decide what kind of cases it may hear, but it cannot change the powers given to the Supreme Court by the Constitution itself.
The Constitution is silent on the qualifications for judges. There is no requirement that judges be lawyers, although, in fact, all federal judges and Supreme Court justices have been members of the bar.
Since the creation of the Supreme Court almost 200 years ago, there have been slightly more than 100 justices. The original Court consisted of a chief justice and five associate justices. For the next 80 years, the number of justices varied until, in 1869, the complement was fixed at one chief justice and eight associates. The chief justice is the executive officer of the Court but, in deciding cases, has only one vote, as do the associate justices.
The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in only two kinds of cases: those involving foreign dignitaries and those in which a state is a party. All other cases reach the Court on appeal from lower courts.
Of the several thousand cases filed annually, the Court usually hears only about 150. Most of the cases involve interpretation of the law or of the intent of Congress in passing a piece of legislation. A significant amount of the work of the Supreme Court, however, consists of determining whether legislation or executive acts conform to the Constitution. This power of judicial review is not specifically provided for by the Constitution. Rather, it is doctrine inferred by the Court from its reading of the Constitution, and forcefully stated in the landmark Marbury vs. Madison case of 1803. In its decision in that case, the Court held that "a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law," and further observed that "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." The doctrine has also been extended to cover the activities of state and local governments.
Decisions of the Court need not be unanimous; a simple majority prevails, provided at least six justices—the legal quorum—participate in the decision. In split decisions, the Court usually issues a majority and a minority—or dissenting—opinion, both of which may form the basis for future decisions by the Court. Often justices will write separate concurring opinions when they agree with a decision, but for reasons other than those cited by the majority.
COURTS OF APPEALS AND DISTRICT COURTS
The second highest level of the federal judiciary is made up of the courts of appeals, created in 1891 to facilitate the disposition of cases and ease the burden on the Supreme Court. The United States is divided into 11 separate appeals regions, each served by a court of appeals with from three to 15 sitting judges.
The courts of appeals review decisions of the district courts (trial courts with federal jurisdiction) within their areas. They are also empowered to review orders of the independent regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission, in cases where the internal review mechanisms of the agencies have been exhausted and there still exists substantial disagreement over legal points.
Below the courts of appeals are the district courts. The 50 states are divided into 89 districts so that litigants may have a trial within easy reach. Additionally, there is one in the District of Columbia and one in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, not a state of the union, but part of the United States. From one to 27 judges sit in each of the district courts. Depending on case load, a judge from one district may temp!) rarity sit in another district. Congress fixes the boundaries of the districts according to population, size and volume of work. Some of the smaller states constitute a district by themselves. while the larger states, such as New York, California and Texas, have four districts each.
Except in the District of Columbia, judges must be residents of the district in which they permanently serve. District courts hold their sessions at periodic intervals in different cities of the district.
Most cases and controversies heard by these courts involve federal offenses such as misuse of the mails, theft of federal property, and violations of pure food, banking and counterfeiting laws. These are the only federal courts where grand juries indict those accused of crimes, and juries decide the cases.
SPECIAL COURTS
In addition to the federal courts of general jurisdiction, it has been necessary from time to time to set up courts for special purposes. These are known as "legislative" courts because they were created by congressional action. Judges in these courts, like their peers in other federal courts, are appointed for life terms by the president, with Senate approval.
Perhaps the most important of these special courts is the Court of Claims, established in 1855 to render judgment on monetary claims against the United States. Other special courts include the Customs Court, which has exclusive jurisdiction over civil actions involving taxes or quotas on imported goods, and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals which hears appellate motions from decisions of the Customs Court and the U.S. Patent Office.
Conclusion
Although the Constitution has changed in many aspects since it was first adopted, its basic principles remain the same now as in 1789:
— The three main branches of government are separate and distinct from one another. The powers given to each are delicately balanced by the powers of the other two. Each branch serves as a check on potential excesses of the others.
— The Constitution, together with laws passed according to its provisions, and treaties entered into by the president and approved by the Senate, stands above all other laws, executive acts and regulations.
— All persons are equal before the law and are equally entitled to its protection. All states are equal, and none can receive special treatment from the federal government. Within
the limits of the Constitution, each state must recognize and respect the laws of the others. State governments, like the federal government, must be democratic in form, with final authority resting with the people.
— The people have the right to change their form of national government by legal means defined in the Constitution itself.
Few Americans, however, would defend their country's record as perfect. American democracy is in a constant state of evolution. As Americans review their history, they recognize errors of performance and failures to act, which have delayed the nation's progress. They know that more mistakes will be made in the future.
Yet the U.S. government still represents the people, and is dedicated to the preservation of liberty. The right to criticize the government guarantees the right to change it when it strays from the essential principles of the Constitution. So long as the preamble to the Constitution is heeded, the republic will stand. In the words of Abraham Lincoln, "government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth."
Contents:
Introduction__________________________
CONSTITUTION______________________
The Bill of Rights______________________
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH___________
THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH__________
THE JUDICIAL BRANCH______________
Conclusion____________________________