Who helps the president with foreign affairs?

George Washington's Farewell Address in 1789 contained one major piece of advice to the country regarding relations with other nations: "avoid entangling alliances." Those words shaped United States foreign policy for more than a century.

Today some Americans think that Washington's words are still wise ones, and that the United States should withdraw from world affairs whenever possible. In truth, however, the United States has been embroiled in world politics throughout the 20th century, and as a result, foreign policy takes up a great deal of government's time, energy, and money.

If isolationism has become outdated, what kind of foreign policy does the United States follow? In the years after World War II, the United States was guided generally by containment — the policy of keeping communism from spreading beyond the countries already under its influence. The policy applied to a world divided by the Cold War, a struggle between the United States and the Soviet Union.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, containment no longer made sense, so in the past ten years, the United States has been redefining its foreign policy. What are its responsibilities, if any, to the rest of the world, now that it has no incentive of luring them to the American "side" in the Cold War? Do the United States still need allies? What action should be taken, if any, when a "hot spot" erupts, causing misery to the people who live in the nations involved? The answers are not easy.

Foreign Policy Goals

To investigate the nature of current United States foreign policy, the logical source is the State Department, whose job it is to define and direct it. Foreign policy goals include the following:

• Preserving the national security of the United States
• Promoting world peace and a secure global environment
• Maintaining a balance of power among nations
• Working with allies to solve international problems
• Promoting democratic values and human rights
• Furthering cooperative foreign trade and global involvement in international trade organizations

Examining these goals closely reveals that they are based on cooperation with other nations, although "preserving the national security of the United States" implies possible competition and conflict.

Who Makes Foreign Policy?

As with all policy making, many people and organizations have a hand in setting United States foreign policy. The main objective of foreign policy is to use diplomacy — or talking, meeting, and making agreements — to solve international problems. They try to keep problems from developing into conflicts that require military settlements.

The President almost always has the primary responsibility for shaping foreign policy. Presidents, or their representatives, meet with leaders of other nations to try to resolve international problems peacefully. According to the Constitution, Presidents sign treaties with other nations with the "advice and consent" of the Senate. So the Senate, and to a lesser extent, the House of Representatives, also participate in shaping foreign policy.

The Secretary of State and many other officials of the State Department play major roles in setting foreign policy. The Secretary of State is usually the President's principal foreign policy adviser, and he or she is the chief coordinator of all governmental actions that affect relations with other countries.

The Foreign Service consists of ambassadors and other official representatives to more than 160 countries. Ambassadors and their staffs set up embassies in the countries recognized by the United States and serve as an American presence abroad. The embassies are part of the State Department, and they protect Americans overseas and are responsible for harmonious relationships with other countries.

The National Security Council, as part of the Executive Office of the President, helps the President deal with foreign, military, and economic policies that affect national security. It consists of the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and others that the President designates. The National Security Adviser — who coordinates the Council — sometimes has as much influence as the Secretary of State, depending on his or her relationship with the President.

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), one of the best-known agencies that sets foreign policy, gathers, analyzes, and transmits information from other countries that might be important to the security of the nation. Although the CIA is notorious for its participation in "spy" work and "top secret" investigations, much of its work is public and routine. The CIA Director is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

United States foreign policy has changed dramatically from George Washington's day. Although Americans always pay attention to the advice of their revered founder, the world is of course not the same. The many people that shape American foreign policy today accept the fact that the United States is a member of a world community that cannot afford to ignore the importance of getting along.

Page 2

Congress, the President, the Cabinet, advisers, agency bureaucrats, federal and state courts, political parties, interest groups, the media...All of these groups interact to make political decisions in the United States.

Public policy is a goal-oriented course of action that the government follows in dealing with a problem or issue in the country. Public policies are based on law, but many people other than legislators set them. Individuals, groups, and even government agencies that do not comply with policies can be penalized. This complicated process goes through a predictable series of steps:

1. Recognizing the problem.
At any given time, many conditions disturb or distress people, such as unsafe workplaces, natural disasters like tornadoes and earthquakes, crime, pollution, or the cost of medical care. But all disturbing conditions do not automatically become problems. People have to recognize that government can and should do something about them. For example, most citizens probably do not expect government to prevent hurricanes. However, they may expect government to help hurricane victims through quick relief actions.

2. Agenda setting.
An agenda is a set of problems that government wants to solve. Usually there are so many of them that they must be prioritized, with some problems getting earlier and more attention than others. Agenda setting may respond to pressure from interest groups, political parties, the media, and other branches of government. Agendas usually are reshaped when a new president takes office or when the majority party in Congress changes after an election. A crisis such as war, depression, natural disasters, or a tragic accident, almost always re-prioritizes issues.

3. Formulating the policy.
At this stage, usually several conflicting plans from various political interests take shape. Various players — the president and White House aides, agency officials, specially appointed task forces, interest groups, private research organizations, and legislators — may take part in formulating new policy.

4. Adopting the policy.
Once various plans are presented, one policy is accepted by the decision-makers. In many cases, a policy is adopted when Congress passes a law. Policy adoption may also take place when the president signs an executive order or when the Supreme Court rules on an important case. Policy is often built in a series of small steps passed over time by different players, and eventually, a complex policy emerges.

5. Implementing the policy.
Most public policies are carried out by administrative agencies in the executive branch, although sometimes the courts get involved in implementing decisions they make. Agencies use many techniques to see that policy is carried out. Sometimes they punish people and organizations who do not comply with policy. For example, a state can take a driver's license away from a bad driver. Or the government may offer incentives, like tax breaks for contributing to the presidential election campaign. They even appeal to people's better instincts, such as using the slogan, "Only you can prevent forest fires."

6. Evaluating the policy.
Policy makers often try to determine what a policy is actually accomplishing or whether or not it is being carried out efficiently. Often the evaluation process takes place over time with contributions from many of the interacting players. Most evaluations call for some degree of change and correction, and inevitably, at least some of the players will disagree. The whole process then begins again, starting with re-recognition of the problem.

Decision-making, then, is a continuous process with numerous people participating. At any given time, government is at various stages of policy-making in a never-ending quest to provide solutions to countless societal problems.

Page 3

All countries have rules that determine who is a citizen, and what rights and responsibilities come with citizenship. In the United States, the 14th Amendment gives constitutional protection of the basic rights of citizenship: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside." So citizenship is conferred on the basis of place of birth and the process of naturalization.

Native-born Citizens

Any individual born within the boundaries of the United States or its territories is eligible for citizenship. If a foreign woman travels to the United States and gives birth to the child before leaving, the child is an American citizen, but the mother is not. Also, children born to American citizens abroad are also native-born citizens. The Constitution affords but one advantage to native-born citizens over those who are naturalized — the right to run for President of the United States. People may have dual citizenship — being citizens of two countries — if they are born to parents living outside the United States, or if they born in the United States to foreign citizens.

Citizenship by Naturalization

Naturalization is the conferring of citizenship to an alien — a non-citizen living in the United States. An applicant for citizenship must be at least 18 years old, must be able to read, write, and speak English, and must have lived in the United States for five continuous years, or three years of he or she is married to a citizen. An alien must file a petition requesting citizenship. The Immigration and Naturalization Service then holds a hearing in which the applicant is asked about his or her background and character. The applicant must also answer questions about American government and history. If the application is successful, the individual attends a final hearing to swear an oath of allegiance to the laws and Constitution of the United States.

Loss of Citizenship

Americans may lose their citizenship in three ways:

• Expatriation, or giving up one's citizenship by leaving the United States to live in and becoming a citizen of another country
• Punishment for a federal crime, such as treason
• Fraud in the naturalization process

Admission to the United States

The United States has long been known as a haven for immigrants — a place people come to seek a better life. However, some Americans believed and still believe that too many people are crowding the United States and that immigrants will dilute American traditions and values. Throughout American history, debates have flared among those wishing to open the borders and those wishing to close them.

Congress has the power to regulate immigration by setting restrictions on who may be admitted to live in the United States. Until the late 19th century, no limitations were in place. The first immigration limitation acts were passed in the late 1800s, and eventually quotas — or limits — were placed on how many people could come from each country. During the 1960s quotas from individual countries were eliminated, but Congress does set a ceiling — 675,000 as of February 2021 — on the number of immigration visas granted each year.

The Rights of Aliens

The wording of the Constitution allows aliens to have many constitutional rights. The founders referred most often to "persons" rather than "citizens," and so the Supreme Court has allowed aliens the following rights:

• Property ownership
• Business ownership
• Enrollment in public schools
• First Amendment freedoms
• Due process rights

With these rights come responsibilities, so aliens must pay taxes. They are not allowed to vote, they can not hold public office, and, unlike citizens, they may be deported from the United States. A very controversial provision of the 1996 Immigration Act denied and permitted states to deny most welfare benefits to illegal aliens, with the exceptions of emergency medical care, disaster relief, and some nutrition programs.

All United States citizens are protected by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, as well as by the state and national laws. Even though laws govern overall immigration and residents from other countries must go through the naturalization process in order to become citizens, many rights extend to aliens as well.

Page 4

Inherit the Wind. The Practice. The People vs. O.J. Simpson.

What rights can Americans claim if they are accused of crimes? The 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments provide much of the constitutional basis of these rights.

The Principle of Due Process

Due process means that laws must be applied fairly and equally to all people, especially to a citizen accused of a crime. The Constitution uses the phrase in the 5th and 14th Amendments, declaring that the government shall not deprive anyone of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." The 5th Amendment protects people from actions of the federal government, and the 14th protects them from actions by state and local governments.

Searches and Seizures

The purpose of the 4th Amendment is to deny the national government the authority to make general searches and seizures of property. A major issue over the years has been the interpretation of "unreasonable" searches and seizures. The rules can be complicated. They also change often, but the general principle is that searches are valid methods of enforcing law and order, but unreasonable searches are prohibited.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Over the years, the Supreme Court has interpreted the 4th Amendment to allow the police to search the following:

• The person arrested
• Things in plain view of the accused person
• Places or things that the arrested person could touch or reach or are otherwise in the person's "immediate control"
• Property where there is strong suspicion that a person could be in immediate danger

The Fifth Amendment

The 5th Amendment requires that a citizen cannot be accused of a serious crime without a grand jury investigation. It also forbids double jeopardy — the act of bringing a person to trial a second time for the same crime.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Fifth Amendment also grants the right to a defendant to refrain from testifying against himself or herself. Probably the most famous modern interpretation of this provision is the right to remain silent. The famous Miranda v. Arizona (1966) case required that individuals arrested for a crime must be advised of their right to remain silent and to have counsel present. This intended to prevent forced or involuntary confessions under police pressure. Although the Supreme Court had long held that involuntary confessions could not be used in federal courts, state courts did not always comply. Now local police departments must issue warnings known as "Miranda Rights" to people that they arrest.

A very important principle related to the 4th and 5th Amendments is the exclusionary rule, which upholds the principle that evidence gathered illegally cannot be used in a trial.

The 6th Amendment and Right to Counsel

The 6th Amendment guarantees that an individual accused of a crime has the right "to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

What is a person can't afford to have a lawyer for his or her defense? Until the 1963 ruling in Gideon v. Wainwright, many states did not ensure this right. Clarence Earl Gideon could not afford counsel when he went to trial for breaking into a poolroom in Bay Harbor, Florida. He was convicted and sent to prison, where he spent years researching his rights. Finally, he successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to hear his case, and they ruled in Gideon's favor, ensuring the right to counsel in state as well as federal courts.

The 8th Amendment and Cruel and Unusual Punishment

The 8th Amendment prohibits "cruel and unusual punishments," a concept rooted in English law. But again, what does the phrase really mean? By far, the most controversial issue that centers on the 8th Amendment is capital punishment, or the practice of issuing death sentences to those convicted of major crimes.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

In general, states are allowed to pursue their own policies regarding capital punishment. The Supreme Court did not challenge the death penalty until 1972 in Furman v. Georgia. Even then, it did not judge capital punishment to be cruel and unusual punishment. It simply warned the states that the death penalty was to be carried out in a fair and consistent manner.

Rights of those accused of crimes are protected in other parts of the Constitution. For example, Article I affirms the right of a writ of habeas corpus, a court order that requires a judge to evaluate whether there is sufficient cause for keeping a person in jail. However, the most extensive protections are found in the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Amendments.

Page 5

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." -First Amendment to the Constitution

A careful reading of the First Amendment reveals that it protects several basic liberties — freedom of religion, speech, press, petition, and assembly. Interpretation of the amendment is far from easy, as court case after court case has tried to define the limits of these freedoms. The definitions have evolved throughout American history, and the process continues today.

Freedom of Religion

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion in two clauses — the "establishment" clause, which prohibits the government from establishing an official church, and the "free exercise" clause that allows people to worship as they please. Notice that the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the First Amendment, nor is it found anywhere else in the Constitution. Most people do not realize that the phrase was actually coined later by Thomas Jefferson. In 1802, when he was President, he wrote the opinion that the First Amendment's freedom of religion clause was designed to build "a wall of separation between Church and State."

Court cases that address freedom of religion have dealt with the rejection of prayer in public schools, the denial of aid to parochial schools, the banning of polygamy (the practice of having more than one wife), the restriction of poisonous snakes and drugs in religious rites, and limiting the right to decline medical care for religious purposes.

Freedoms of Speech and of the Press

Free speech is one of the most cherished liberties, but free speech often conflicts with other rights and liberties. The courts have had to consider the question, "What are the limits of free speech?"

The "clear and present danger" test is a basic principle for deciding the limits of free speech. It was set by the famous Schenck v. the United States case from World War I. Antiwar activist Charles Schenck was arrested for sending leaflets to prospective army draftees encouraging them to ignore their draft notices. The United States claimed that Schenck threatened national security, and the justices agreed. The principle was established that free speech would not be protected if an individual were a "clear and present danger" to United States security.

What is free speech? The definition is not easy, and the courts have identified three types of free speech, each protected at a different level:

• Pure speech is the verbal expression of thoughts and opinions before a voluntary audience. The courts have generally provided strong protection of pure speech from government regulation.
• Speech-plus involves actions, such as demonstrating or protesting, as well as words. Speech-plus is not generally protected as strictly as is pure speech, because actions can be physically dangerous. The courts have ruled that demonstrators may not obstruct traffic, endanger public safety, or trespass illegally.
• Symbolic speech technically involves no speech at all, but it involves symbols that the courts have judged to be forms of free expression. Symbolic actions such as wearing black armbands in school and draft-card burning fit this category. Symbolic speech is highly controversial, and as a rule, the courts have sometimes considered it to be beyond the limits of free speech. However, the Supreme Court did uphold the right of an individual to burn an American flag in the 1989 Texas vs. Johnson decision.

Many of the same principles that apply to freedom of speech apply to the press, but one with special meaning for the press is prior restraint. The courts have ruled that the government may not censor information before it is written and published, except in the most extreme cases of national security.

Freedom of Assembly and Petition

Freedom of assembly and petition are closely related to freedom of speech, and have been protected in similar ways. Former Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote, "Peaceable assembly for lawful discussion cannot be made a crime." Generally, that point of view has prevailed. Freedom of assembly has to be balanced with other people's rights if it disrupts public order, traffic flow, freedom to go about normal business or peace and quiet. Usually, a group must apply for a permit, but a government must grant a permit provided that officials have the means to prevent major disruptions.

Page 6

As much as the founders talked and wrote about liberty, they didn't have much to say about equality.

Thomas Jefferson's famous phrase in the Declaration of Independence proclaimed that "All men are created equal." By today's standards, that statement is problematic because it says nothing about women. The word "equality" is used nowhere in the Constitution or in the Bill of Rights. The goals of the early United States were much more centered on liberty, but over the years equal rights have come to be more and more important.

Civil Rights in Early National History

Civil rights — such as voting and owning property — in early America were mostly restricted to white men. Most African Americans were brought to America as slaves who, under the Constitution, were only counted as three-fifths of a person. After the Civil War slavery was abolished by the 13th Amendment, and voting rights were granted to African Americans in the 15th Amendment. But the most important change of the post-Civil War era was the 14th Amendment's famous clause: "No State shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The search for equal rights was far from over with the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868. State and local Jim Crow laws were enacted all over the South to segregate black and white Americans. The constitutionality of these laws was questioned in 1896 with the famous Plessy v. Ferguson case. Homer Plessy challenged a Louisiana state law that required the races to ride in "equal but separate" railroad cars. He claimed that the law violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court fatefully ruled that segregation was not unconstitutional as long as the facilities were equal. The decision effectively prevented the application of the 14th Amendment for more than a half a century.

Modern Civil Rights Movement

The movement for equal rights gained its momentum in 1954 with the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. The case overturned Plessy's separate but equal doctrine, and declared that separate but equal public facilities were unconstitutional. The decision alone was not enough to begin the civil rights movement. The case was argued by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, an interest group whose cause was validated by the Court's decision.

The focus of the early movement was on African Americans, with many citizens and organizations joining in. Martin Luther King's charismatic leadership helped to propel the movement to the forefront of the nation's agenda. Nonviolent protests, demonstrations, sit-ins, and boycotts sparked Presidents to act, and finally Congress passed two significant laws — the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Together they virtually ended de jure segregation — separation by law. But much de facto segregation — separation by fact — has remained.

Civil Rights for Women

The civil rights movement reawakened another major effort for equal rights — civil rights for women. Women had won the right to vote in 1920 after a struggle that effectively had begun in 1848 with a historic organizational meeting in Seneca Falls, New York. The movement lost momentum after its main goal was reached, but during the 1960s, new leaders emerged who demanded women's "liberation."

New organizations, such as the National Organization for Women (NOW), focused on eliminating gender discrimination in the work force and school. They demanded equal legal rights, such as owning property and easier access to divorce, for women. They fought for economic equality in the form of equal pay for equal work and broader admission into male-dominated professions. Although the movement failed in its push to add the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution, it brought about many legal and social changes that supported more equal rights for women.

Equal Rights for All Americans

Many groups in American society were encouraged by the successes of the movements for African Americans and women, and much has happened in recent years to ensure equal rights for all. Major movements for Latinos, the elderly, the disabled, and homosexuals have heightened American awareness of discrimination against many other minorities.

The 14th Amendment guaranteed "equal protection of the law" more than a century and a half ago. The fact that it took so many years for its effects to be felt is testimony to the complexity of the decision-making process in a democracy. It took all three branches, active interest groups, and concerned individual citizens to bring the country closer to the ideal of equal rights for all.

Page 7

"It is a fair summary of constitutional history that the landmarks of our liberties have often been forged in cases involving not very nice people." -Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter

• A pick ax murderer on death row who found God and asked for clemency
• A publisher of magazines, books, and photos convicted for sending obscene materials through the United States mail
• A convict whose electrocution was botched when 2,000 volts of electricity rushed into his body, causing flames to leap from his head
• A university student criminally charged for writing and publishing on the internet about torturing and murdering women

Each of these people made sensational headline news as the center of one of many national civil liberties disputes in the late 20th century. They became involved in the legal process because of behavior that violated a law, and almost certainly, none of them intended to become famous. More important than the headlines they made, however, is the role they played in establishing important principles that define the many civil liberties and civil rights that Americans enjoy today.

Liberties or Rights?

What is the difference between a liberty and a right? Both words appear in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. The distinction between the two has always been blurred, and today the concepts are often used interchangeably. However, they do refer to different kinds of guaranteed protections.

Civil liberties are protections against government actions. For example, the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights guarantees citizens the right to practice whatever religion they please. Government, then, cannot interfere in an individual's freedom of worship. Amendment I gives the individual "liberty" from the actions of the government.

Civil rights, in contrast, refer to positive actions of government should take to create equal conditions for all Americans. The term "civil rights" is often associated with the protection of minority groups, such as African Americans, Hispanics, and women. The government counterbalances the "majority rule" tendency in a democracy that often finds minorities outvoted.

Right vs. Right

Most Americans think of civil rights and liberties as principles that protect freedoms all the time. However, the truth is that rights listed in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are usually competing rights. Most civil liberties and rights court cases involve the plaintiff's right vs. another right that the defendant claims has been violated.

For example, in 1971, the New York Times published the "Pentagon Papers" that revealed some negative actions of the government during the Vietnam War. The government sued the newspaper, claiming that the reports endangered national security. The New York Times countered with the argument that the public had the right to know and that its freedom of the press should be upheld. So, the situation was national security v. freedom of the press. A tough call, but the Court chose to uphold the rights of the press.

The Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment

The overwhelming majority of court decisions that define American civil liberties are based on the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments added to the Constitution in 1791. Civil liberties protected in the Bill of Rights may be divided into two broad areas: freedoms and rights guaranteed in the First Amendment (religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition) and liberties and rights associated with crime and due process. Civil rights are also protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects violation of rights and liberties by the state governments.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age [Changed by the 26th Amendment], and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Protection of civil liberties and civil rights is basic to American political values, but the process is far from easy. Protecting one person's right may involve violating those of another. How far should the government go to take "positive action" to protect minorities? The answers often come from individuals who brush most closely with the law, whose cases help to continually redefine American civil liberties and rights.

Page 8

Not everyone agrees on how much power the judicial branch should have. After all, federal judges and justices are appointed, not elected. As most Americans believe in democracy, shouldn't elected officials run the country?

On the other hand, perhaps American government would be fairer if judges had even more power. Because they do not have to worry about reelection, they are relieved of the outside pressure of public opinion.

After all, the majority is not always right. It is no accident that the Founders provided for elected officials in the legislature and appointed officials in the judiciary. They believed that freedom, equality, and justice are best achieved by a balance between the two branches of government.

Checks on Judicial Power

The president and Congress have some control of the judiciary with their power to appoint and confirm appointments of judges and justices. Congress also may impeach judges (only seven have actually been removed from office), alter the organization of the federal court system, and amend the Constitution.

Congress can also get around a court ruling by passing a slightly different law than one previously declared unconstitutional.

Courts also have limited power to implement the decisions that they make. For example, if the president or another member of the executive branch chooses to ignore a ruling, there is very little that the federal courts can do about it.

For example, the Supreme Court ruled against the removal of the Cherokee from their native lands in 1831. President Andrew Jackson disagreed. He proceeded with the removal of the Cherokee, and the Supreme Court was powerless to enforce its decision.

The Power of the Courts

The federal courts' most important power is that of judicial review, the authority to interpret the Constitution. When federal judges rule that laws or government actions violate the spirit of the Constitution, they profoundly shape public policy. For example, federal judges have declared over 100 federal laws unconstitutional.

Another measure of the Supreme Court's power is its ability to overrule itself. In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka that schools segregated by race were unconstitutional. This reversed the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision that upheld the doctrine of "separate but equal."

For the most part, though, federal courts do have a great deal of respect for previous decisions. A very strong precedent called stare decisis ("let the decision stand") directs judges to be cautious about overturning decisions made by past courts.

	An act of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void.... It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is.John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison (1803) Words which, ordinarily and in many places, would be within the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment, may become subject to prohibition when of such a nature and used in such circumstances as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils which Congress has a right to prevent. The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done.Oliver Wendell Holmes, Schenck v. the United States (1919) The judgments below, except that, in the Delaware case, are accordingly reversed, and the cases are remanded to the District Courts to take such proceedings and enter such orders and decrees consistent with this opinion as are necessary and proper to admit to public schools on a racially nondiscriminatory basis with all deliberate speed the parties to these cases.Earl Warren, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1955) I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material [pornography] ...[B]ut I know it when I see it.Potter Stewart, Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964) Charles Evans Hughes was first appointed to the Supreme Court in 1910, but left the Court to run for president in 1916. He was reappointed to the Supreme Court as Chief Justice in 1930.

Judicial Activism versus Judicial Restraint

The lack of agreement regarding the policy making power of courts is reflected in the debate over judicial activism versus judicial restraint. Judicial activists believe that the federal courts must correct injustices that are perpetuated or ignored by the other branches.

For example, minority rights have often been ignored partly because majorities impose their will on legislators. Prayers in public schools support the beliefs of the majority but ignore the rights of the minority. The Constitution is often loosely interpreted to meet the issues of the present. In the words of former Justice Charles Evans Hughes, "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is."

Supporters of judicial restraint point out that appointed judges are immune to public opinion, and if they abandon their role as careful and cautious interpreters of the Constitution, they become unelected legislators. According to Justice Antonin Scalia, "The Constitution is not an empty bottle....It is like a statute, and the meaning doesn't change."

Despite the debate over what constitutes the appropriate amount of judicial power, the United States federal courts remain the most powerful judicial system in world history. Their power is enhanced by life terms for judges and justices, and they play a major role in promoting the core American values of freedom, equality, and justice.

QUIZ TIME: The Judicial Branch

Page 9

Legendary Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said that a Supreme Court Justice should be a "combination of Justinian, Jesus Christ, and John Marshall."

Why are venerable former justices sources of guidance in understanding necessary qualities for federal judges?

The Constitution is silent on judicial qualifications. It meticulously outlines qualifications for the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the presidency, but it does not give any advice for judicial appointments other than stating that justices should exhibit "good behavior." As a result, selections are governed primarily by tradition.

The Nomination Process

The Constitution provides broad parameters for the judicial nomination process. It gives the responsibility for nominating federal judges and justices to the president. It also requires nominations to be confirmed by the Senate. First, look at the numbers.

More than 600 judges sit on district courts, almost 200 judges sit on courts of appeals, and 9 justices make up the Supreme Court. Because all federal judges have life terms, no single president will make all of these appointments.

But many vacancies do occur during a president's term of office. Appointing judges, then, could be a full-time job. A president relies on many sources to recommend appropriate nominees for judicial posts.

Recommendations often come from the Department of Justice, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, members of Congress, sitting judges and justices, and the American Bar Association. Some judicial hopefuls even nominate themselves.

A special, very powerful tradition for recommending district judges is called senatorial courtesy. According to this practice, the senators from the state in which the vacancy occurs actually make the decision. A senator of the same political party as the President sends a nomination to the president, who almost always follows the recommendation. To ignore it would be a great affront to the senator, as well as an invitation for conflict between the president and the Senate.

Selection Criteria

Presidents must consider many factors in making their choices for federal judgeships:

• Experience — Most nominees have had substantial judicial or governmental experience, either on the state or federal level. Many have law degrees or some other form of higher education.
• Political ideology — Presidents usually appoint judges who seem to have a similar political ideology to their own. In other words, a president with a liberal ideology will usually appoint liberals to the courts. Likewise, conservative presidents tend to appoint conservatives.
• Party and personal loyalties — A remarkably high percentage of a resident's appointees belong to the president's political party. Although political favoritism is less common today than it was a few decades ago, presidents still appoint friends and loyal supporters to federal judgeships.
• Ethnicity and gender — Until relatively recently, almost all federal judges were white males. Today, however, ethnicity and gender are important criteria for appointing judges. In 1967, Lyndon Johnson appointed the first African American Supreme Court justice, Thurgood Marshall. In 1981, Ronald Reagan appointed the first woman to the Supreme Court, Sandra Day O'Connor. All recent presidents have appointed African Americans, Latinos, members of other ethnic minority groups, and women to district courts and courts of appeal.

Because federal judges and Supreme Court justices serve for life, a president's nomination decisions are in many ways his or her most important legacy. Many of these appointments will serve long after a president's term of office ends. Whether or not the results are a "combination of Justinian, Jesus Christ, and John Marshall," these choices can have an impact on generations to come.

Page 10

The justices are somehow different from other well-known figures in government. They dress in long black robes. They almost never appear on magazine covers, and they seem to stay on the court forever. They announce their decisions periodically, then disappear into their "Marble Palace."

In anger, President Franklin Roosevelt once called them "nine old men." What connections do they have to real-world government and politics, and what work do they do? The power of the Court is reflected in the work it does, and its decisions often shape policy as profoundly as any law passed by Congress or any action taken by the president.

The Power of Choice

The Court receives about 7,000 petitions every year. It has almost complete control over which cases it will hear. The justices choose about 90 percent of their 100 to 120 cases by writ of certiorari, an order to send up a case record from a lower court.

Typically, the justices discuss any cases one of them has recommended from earlier readings. The Rule of Four governs their choices: if four justices vote to hear a case, all nine agree to it.

How do they choose their cases? Generally, the Court considers only cases that have far-reaching implications beyond the two parties involved in the dispute. For example, a case in which a student sues an assistant principal for searching a locker may shape the privacy rights of all students in public schools. The court also tends to hear cases in which two lower courts have reached conflicting decisions. And it tends to look closely at lower court decisions that contradict earlier Supreme Court decisions.

Hearing and Deciding a Case

Hearings begin in October every year, and the last cases are usually heard in June. The justices receive briefs, or summaries of arguments, from the lawyers ahead of time. Often they receive amici curiae, or briefs prepared by interest groups or government agencies that support one side or the other. The hearings are open to the public and are strictly timed. Each side has 30 minutes to present its case, and the justices typically ask questions and even debate one another during the allotted time.

After the public hearing the justices meet together privately to discuss the case. They share their opinions, debate the issues, and eventually come to a conclusion. Each justice takes a side individually, and because there are nine justices (an uneven number), one side always wins.

Announcing and Implementing a Decision

When the Court announces a decision, the individual justice's opinions are revealed. A unanimous decision (9-0) indicates that the justices were in total agreement. This vote is rare because the cases that have been chosen are the tough ones. Decisions are usually split 6-3, 7-2, or 5-4.

Along with the decisions, the justices release explanations for each side. A majority opinion is prepared (usually by the senior justice on that side), and the justices whose point of view did not prevail release a dissenting opinion. A justice who agrees with the majority decision but reaches the same conclusion for different reasons sometimes presents a concurring opinion.

The power of the Court to implement its decisions is limited. For example, in the famous 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, the justices ruled that racial segregation (separate but equal) in public places is unconstitutional. But, it took many years for school districts to desegregate.

The Court has no means (such as an army) to force implementation. Instead, it must count on the executive and legislative branches to back its decisions. In the Civil Rights Movement, the Court led the way, but the other branches had to follow before real change could take place.

Despite the Supreme Court's limitations in implementing decisions, the justices often set policies that lead to real social change. So even though justices don't do a great deal of their work in public, and most Americans don't have a good sense of what they do, their decisions are very important. The Supreme Court has real power in the American political system.

Page 11

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. -Article III, Section 1, The Constitution of the United States

Notice that, according to the Constitution, Congress creates courts.

By implication, Congress also has the power to reorganize and even dismantle the court system. This clause provides one of many examples of the checks and balances in the Constitution, but it also reveals the Founders' intent to grant greater powers to the legislative branch than to the judicial.

The fact that most of the basic court structure has changed little since it was created by the Judiciary Act of 1789 is an indication that Congress does not readily use this power. The relative independence of the court system, as well as the evolutionary power of the judicial branch, has been generally respected by members of subsequent Congresses.

Constitutional Courts

Courts established by the Judiciary Act of 1789 are called constitutional courts because they are mentioned in Article III (they are the "inferior courts" in the quote above).

Legislative Courts

Those latter courts are referred to as "legislative courts." For example, by the early 20th century, Congress had set up the U.S. territorial courts to hear federal cases in the territories that the United States began acquiring during the late 1800s. Judges for legislative courts are also appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, but they serve fixed, limited terms.

The Judicial Circuits

The federal court system is divided into 12 geographic circuits. For example, Circuit One includes the New England states of Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts. Circuit Nine includes seven states in the far western part of the country. Originally, each state in each circuit was to have one district court, where all federal cases from the state originated.

Over time, as the population grew, additional district courts were added. Today, a total of 94 district courts exist; they are staffed by more than 600 judges. Some circuits have more than others, based on population, but each circuit still has only one court of appeals. Cases not settled in the courts of appeal may be appealed further, but only to the Supreme Court.

District Courts and Courts of Appeals

Most cases that deal with federal questions or offenses begin in district courts, which are almost always granted original jurisdiction. District courts hear appeals cases only in the rare case of a constitutional question that may arise in state courts. About 80 percent of all federal cases are heard in district courts, and most of them end there. The number of judges assigned to district courts varies from two to twenty-eight, depending on caseloads and population.

Courts of Appeal

By the late 19th century, so many people were appealing their cases to the Supreme Court that Congress created another type of constitutional court, the courts of appeals. Today, along with 12 courts of appeals (one for each circuit), a thirteenth court, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, hears cases that deal with patents, contracts, and financial claims against the federal government.

Courts of appeals never hear cases on original jurisdiction, and most appeals come from district courts within their circuits. They do sometimes hear cases from decisions of federal regulatory agencies as well.

Appeals courts have no juries, and panels of judges (usually three) decide the cases. Their decisions are almost always final. Their decisions may be appealed only to the Supreme Court, and because the Court is able to hear only a very small percentage of them, almost no cases go further than the appeals courts.

Thus, even though the Founders surely intended that Congress hold a great deal of power over the judicial branch, in reality the basic organization of federal courts has remained basically the same throughout U.S. history. Congress has created new courts and reorganized others, and the system has grown increasingly complex. The courts have a great deal of independence, however, and they have established the judicial branch as a strong coequal to Congress and the president.

Page 12

The Constitution painstakingly defines the structure and functions of the legislative (Congressional) branch of the government. It clearly (although less thoroughly) addresses the responsibilities and powers of the president.

But, it treats the judicial branch almost as an afterthought. Article III specifically creates only one court (the Supreme Court), allows judges to serve for life and to receive compensation, broadly outlines original and appellate jurisdiction, and outlines the trial procedure for and limitations of congressional power against those accused of treason.

That's all.

Marshall Marshals the Court

The framers of the Constitution were clearly more interested in their experiment with legislative government than in the creation of a judicial system. Had it not been for John Marshall, the third chief justice of the Supreme Court, the judicial branch might well have developed into a weak, ineffective check on the legislature and the presidency.

But Marshall changed everything by interpreting a power "implied" by Article III. Judicial review, or the power of the courts to overturn a law, was the vehicle he used to create the most powerful judicial branch in the history of the world.

Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Officer during good Behaviour, and shall at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority, — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction, — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — to Controversies between two or more States, — [between a State and Citizens of another State;](1) between Citizens of different States, — between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, [and between a State or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.] (2)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury, and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3.Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

The power of judicial review may be traced to the famous 1803 court case of Marbury v. Madison. The election of 1800 gave that the presidency to an opposing political party for the first time. Fearing that the newly elected Thomas Jefferson, a Democratic Republican, would undo his policies, Federalist president John Adams, sought to "pack" the courts with Federalist judges. He worked feverishly on the judicial appointments until the very end of his presidency. When he left office, several of the orders were left on the secretary of state's desk, waiting to be delivered.

The new secretary of state, James Madison, saw what Adams was up to, and refused to carry out the commissions. William Marbury, a Federalist whose commission was not delivered, sued Madison and demanded that the Supreme Court force Madison to act. Marbury's demand was based on the writ of mandamus, a power given to the Court by the Judiciary Act of 1789 to command actions by officials of the executive branch.

Chief Justice Marshall faced a huge dilemma. What if he commanded Madison to deliver the commissions and the secretary of state ignored his command? What could Marshall do to enforce the decision? The Court had no army, nor any other means to back up the command. If Marshall did nothing, the quarrel could spill over to Congress and tear the new country apart before it even got off the ground.

The Writ StuffA writ is a written court order requiring a party to perform or cease to perform a given act.

Marshall's decision was to declare the writ of mandamus unconstitutional, claiming that Congress had passed a law "repugnant to the Constitution." He declared that because Article III did not grant the judicial branch the power of the writ of mandamus, and so the Supreme Court was unable to order Madison to act. Of course, Jefferson and Madison were happy with the decision, and the crisis passed, with only a disgruntled prospective justice (Marbury) to protest.

	The constitution is either a superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.... Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and, consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.... It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other the courts must decide on the operation of each. So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison (1803)

The Supreme Court Gets the Final Word

No one seemed to understand the grand implications of what Marshall had done: he had created the power of judicial review. This established the precedent that only the federal courts could interpret the Constitution. This power has given federal judges the final word in settling virtually every major issue that has challenged the government in American history.

Today, the judicial branch not only provides strong checks and balances to the executive and legislative branches, it possesses a tremendous amount of policy-making power in its own right. This power rests more on the precedent (a principle that later justices followed) of judicial review set by Marshall in 1803 than on the provisions of the Constitution.

Page 13

"See you in court!"

"You can't do that. I know my rights!"

"I'm going to take this all the way to the Supreme Court!"

These cliché sentences reflect a core American belief: citizens of the United States can seek redress through the judicial system.

But how do courts protect citizen rights?

How does a case even get to the Supreme Court? How are basic rights preserved? Where do citizens go when freedoms, rights, or equality is threatened? Does justice prevail?

Throughout history, the American people have gone to the courts, seeking justice. The court system, then, is a cornerstone of democracy in the United States.

Justice Is Blind

Congress passes laws, and the president and the executive branch make recommendations and set policy. According to American ideals, judges often make impartial and wise decisions that elected officials find difficult to make.

Members of Congress, state governors, and the president must always worry about elections and popular opinion. As a result, they may lose sight of the need to preserve American values, and they sometimes set hasty or unjust policies.

Under the guidance of constitutional principles, the courts serve as watchdogs for the other branches of government. Without the justice system, democracy might easily veer off course.

Is Justice Blind?

But in reality, does the American justice system uphold these ideals? There are plenty of stories about innocent people held in prison and even prisoners executed for crimes they did not commit. Judicial critics abound. Some protest that the wealthy or the well-connected receive preferential treatment in courts.

Other critics of the judicial system cite statistics they believe to be evidence of racial and social discrimination. For example, a disproportionate number of prisoners are young, African American, and male.

Legal defense lawyers for the poor are sometimes criticized for being incompetent or apathetic. Cases in both federal and state courts are often backed up for years, making a mockery of "the right to a speedy public trial" as guaranteed by Amendment VI of the Bill of Rights.

Congress and the president are often at loggerheads over appointments of federal judges. Because the Republicans don't like a Democratic president's nominees (and vice versa), judgeships stay vacant for months, sometimes years.

Judge for Yourself

Yet despite all these criticisms, courts remain powerful protectors of freedoms.

Freedom of speech has been protected, whether the speaker has been a critic of unjust government policy or a burner of the American flag.

Segregation of public facilities ended partly because brave people took their cases to court. Freedom of religion interpretations have banned involuntary school prayer, preserving the separation of church and state, while stirring up criticisms that the Judeo-Christian heritage on which the nation was founded is slowly being eroded.

Although the wheels of justice often grind slowly, judges' decisions are usually the final word in interpreting basic constitutional principles. Almost from its beginning, the American judicial system has played a major role in defining and preserving freedom, equality, and justice.

Don't believe it? Read on and judge for yourself.

Page 14

Since 1980, virtually every presidential election included a debate over the size of the federal government. Americans who believed the bureaucracy had become too large, too expensive, and too powerful were becoming more numerous, and as a result many politicians began to demand reform.

Bureaucracies move slowly. One hand doesn't always know what the other is doing. Federal employees have so much job security that there is little fear of being fired for incompetence. There are so many agencies organized in such confusing ways.

How can the ordinary citizen feel connected to government when everything is so impersonal? Public criticism of bureaucratic inefficiency is commonplace. In response, many people, including most Presidents, have tried to reform and reorganize the bureaucracy.

The Merit System and the Hatch Act

The merit system tries to ensure that the best-qualified people get government jobs and that party politics is limited. In 1939, Congress passed the Hatch Act, which required employees, once they were hired, to have as little to do with political parties as possible. The Hatch Act forbids employees from engaging in many party activities. For example, they could not run for public office or raise funds for a party or candidate, nor could they become officers in a political organization or a delegate to a party convention.

In the early 1970s some bureaucrats complained that their First Amendment rights were being violated. The issue made its way to the Supreme Court, where the justices ruled that the Hatch Act did not put unreasonable restrictions on employees' rights. However, in 1993 Congress softened the Hatch Act by making many forms of participation in politics permissible. Federal bureaucrats still cannot run as candidates in elections, but they may be active in party politics.

Requiring Accountability

One criticism of our merit-based bureaucracy is that once a person is employed there are no requirements that he or she be held accountable for their work. Since they no longer lose their jobs when a new President takes office, some criticize that they become complacent and inflexible. Some suggestions for making civil servants more accountable for their work include the following:

• Limiting appointments to 6-12 years. After the appointment expires, the bureaucrat would then have to go through reexamination and their performance would be reviewed for possible rehire.
• Making it easier to fire a bureaucrat. Civil service rules that are meant to protect workers from partisan politics have made it difficult to fire anyone for poor performance. Reformers want to remove those rules.
• Rotating professionals between agencies and from outside. Reformers believe that this practice would bring "new blood" to agencies and encourage workers to get a broader view of government service.

Cutting "Red Tape"

One common complaint about bureaucracy is that "red tape" — the maze of government rules, regulations, and paperwork — makes government so overwhelming to citizens that many people try to avoid any contact. Filling out forms, standing in line, and being put on hold on the telephone all have resulted in many people being discouraged from ever applying for benefits they rightfully deserve.

In response, Presidents of the 20th century offered no fewer than eleven major reorganizations of the federal bureaucracy. The latest was the National Performance Review, conducted by Vice President Al Gore in 1993. The NPR report contained many horror stories about useless red tape for both citizens and government officials themselves. The NPR called for less centralized management, more employee initiative, fewer rules, and more emphasis on customer satisfaction. As of the year 2000, few of the recommendations have been followed.

One reason that it is so hard to reform the bureaucracy is that it has two masters — the President and Congress. Especially during periods of divided government, one branch can be suspicious that the other is trying to gain control. As a result, one branch or the other resists reform. Finding the practical solutions that have bipartisan support is a difficult process, largely because the system of checks and balances is not particularly efficient. Nevertheless, bureaucratic reform is often attempted by the President and Congress. Meanwhile, the red tape remains rather sticky.

Page 15

The image of the faceless federal employee is completely false.

The 4 million Americans who work for the federal government have many faces and do many jobs. For starters, over 1.4 million are in military service. Overall, they represent much more of a cross section of the American population than do members of Congress or federal judges. About 43% are women, and 28% represent minority groups.

Surprising Facts

Many other misconceptions exist about federal employees. Consider the following:

• Only about 10% of civilian employees work in the Washington, D.C. area. Postal workers and forest rangers live and work across the country, for example. California alone has more federal employees than does the District of Columbia.
• About 30% of the civilian employees work for the army, the navy, the air force, or some other defense agency.
• Even though bureaucrats work at a variety of jobs, most are white-collar workers like secretaries, clerks, lawyers, inspectors, and engineers.
• The number of federal employees per 100 people in the United States population has actually decreased from over 14 per 100 in the early 1970s to a little over 10 per 100 by the late 1990s.

What Do Bureaucrats Do?

Most people think that bureaucrats only follow orders. They carry out the decisions that the President or members of Congress make. Of course, anyone who works in the executive branch is there to implement decisions, but the reality of their work is more complicated. The power of the bureaucracy depends on how much discretionary authority it is granted.

Congress passes laws, but it cannot follow through on all the little decisions that have to be made as the law is translated into action. Bureaucrats, then, may make policies and choose actions that are not spelled out in advance by laws.

Congress delegates substantial authority to administrative agencies in several areas:

1. Paying subsidies — government support money — to farmers, veterans, scientists, schools, universities, and hospitals
2. Transferring money to state and local governments for grants-in-aid, such as highway building, city improvements, or educational programs.
3. Devising and enforcing regulations, such as who owns television stations, what safety features automobiles have, and what kinds of scientific research will be specially encouraged.

About 90% of all federal bureaucrats are hired under regulations of the civil service system. Most of them take a written examination administered by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and they meet selection criteria, such as training, education levels, or prior experience. Some of them take special tests and meet special criteria, such as postal employees, FBI agents, CIA intelligence officers, foreign-service officers, and doctors in the Public Health Service.

The variety of people who work for the federal bureaucracy is greater than most people realize. They may do scientific research, clerk in welfare offices, decide burn policies for national forests, or do undercover intelligence work. They are all a part of the process whereby the government fulfills the many expectations that Americans have for it today.

Page 16

Even the experts can't agree on the total number of federal government agencies, commissions, and departments.

Most estimates suggest there are probably more than 2,000 of these. They each have an area of specialization — some much broader than others — but their duties often overlap, making administration more difficult. To complicate things even more, many agencies have counterparts at the state and local level. Its size, complexity, and overlapping responsibilities leave the federal bureaucracy open to constant attempts to reorganize and streamline.

Congress has the power to create, organize, and disband all federal agencies. Most of them are under the control of the President, although few of them actually have direct contact with the White House. So, the bureaucracy has two masters — Congress and the President. The bureaucracy generally falls into four broad types: Cabinet departments, government corporations, independent agencies, and regulatory commissions

The Cabinet Departments

The 15 Cabinet departments are each headed by a Secretary who sits on the President's Cabinet. The exception is the Justice Department, which is headed by the Attorney General, who is also a member of the President's Cabinet. The Secretaries are responsible for directing the department's policy and for overseeing its operation. Cabinet secretaries are usually torn between their responsibilities as presidential advisers and heads of their departments.

Each has a special area of policy, although their responsibilities are still very broad. The organization of each is quite complex, but they have some things in common. All Secretaries have a Deputy or Undersecretary, as well as a host of Assistant Secretaries, who all direct major programs within the department.

Most departments are divided into bureaus, divisions, and sections. For example, the FBI lies within the domain of the Justice Department, and the Secret Service is currently within the Treasury Departmeny agency, but soon to be moved under the auspices of the Department of Homeland Security .

Government Corporations

Government corporations do not belong to any department — they stand on their own. Probably the best-known government corporations are the United States Postal Service and Amtrak. They are different from other agencies in that they are businesses created by Congress, and they charge fees for their services. Like any other business, government corporations have private competition — such as Federal Express and United Parcel Service — and sometimes state competition — such as the New Jersey Transit Authority.

Independent Agencies

Independent agencies closely resemble Cabinet departments, but they are smaller and less complex. Generally, they have narrower areas of responsibility than do Cabinet departments. Most of these agencies are not free from presidential control and are independent only in the sense that they are not part of a department.

Congress creates them as separate agencies for many reasons, practical as well as symbolic. For example, when the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was established, many members of Congress assumed that it would be a part of the Department of Defense. However, it is an independent agency because the space program has many other purposes than the defense of the nation.

Regulatory Agencies

These agencies regulate important parts of the economy, making rules for large industries and businesses that affect the interests of the public. Because regulatory commissions are "watchdogs" that by their very nature need to operate independently, they are not part of a department, and the President does not directly control most of them. Each commission has from 5 to 11 members appointed by the President, but the President cannot remove them for the length of their terms in office.

Examples of these commissions are the Securities and Exchange Commission, which regulates the stock market, brokers, and investment practices. Another well-known commission is the Federal Reserve Board that governs the nation's monetary policy. The Environmental Protection Agency serves as a guardian over the nation's environment, making and enforcing standards for the industrial and commercial sectors.

With over 2,000 different agencies, the federal bureaucracy is almost certain to run into problems with organization, overlapping responsibilities, and efficiency. Almost every recent President has come into office determined to refashion and trim the bureaucracy. However, none has been able to make more than minor adjustments. Well-established agencies have lives of their own, and are difficult to change. Besides, the country has large, complex, needs requiring special attention. A large bureaucracy is a part of the government's attempt to meet those needs.

Page 17

The original bureaucracy of the federal government consisted only of employees from three small departments — State, Treasury, and War. The executive branch employs today almost three million people. Not only have the numbers of bureaucrats grown, but also the methods and standards for hiring and promoting people have changed dramatically.

Patronage

George Washington promised to hire only people "as shall be the best qualified." Still, most of his employees belonged to the budding Federalist Party — the party toward which Washington leaned. When Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson became President, he dismissed many of the Federalists and filled their jobs with members from his party. With this action, he began a long tradition of filling government positions through patronage, a system of rewarding friends and political allies in exchange for their support.

Andrew Jackson is regarded as the President who entrenched the patronage, or "spoils" system. Following the old saying, "to the victor go the spoils," he brought a whole new group of "Jacksonian Democrats" into office. Jackson argued that the spoils system brought greater rotation in office. He thought it was healthy to clear out the government workers who had worked for predecessors, lest they become corrupt.

During the 1800s, while more and more federal employees were landing their jobs through patronage, the bureaucracy was growing rapidly as new demands were placed on government. As the country expanded westward new agencies were needed to manage the land and its settlement. And as people moved into the new areas, a greatly expanded Post Office was necessary. The Civil War sparked the creation of thousands of government jobs and new departments to handle the demands of warfare. After the war, the Industrial Revolution encouraged economic growth and more government agencies to regulate the expanding economy.

The Pendleton Act

The spoils tradition was diluted in 1881 when Charles Guiteau, a disappointed office seeker, killed President James Garfield because he was not granted a government job. After Garfield's assassination, Congress passed the Pendleton Act, which created a merit-based federal civil service. It was meant to replace patronage with the principle of federal employment on the basis of open, competitive exams. The Pendleton Act created a three-member Civil Service Commission to administer this new merit system. At first only about 10 percent of federal employees were members of the civil service. Today, about 85 to 90 percent take this exam.

Growth in the 20th Century

In reaction to the excesses of Gilded Age millionaires, many Americans demanded that the government regulate business and industry. As a result, a group of independent regulatory commissions emerged as the 20th century dawned. The first of these agencies was the Interstate Commerce Commission, set up in 1887 to monitor abuses in the railroad industry. Reform movements of the early 20th century demanded that government regulate child labor, food processing and packaging, and working and living conditions for the laboring classes.

The largest growth of the bureaucracy in American history came between 1933 and 1945. Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal meant bigger government, since agencies were needed to administer his many programs. With the American entry into World War II in 1941, the needs of the war elevated the number of federal agencies and employees even more. During those 12 Roosevelt years, the total number of federal employees increased from a little over half a million in 1933 to an all time high of more than 3.5 million in 1945.

After World War II ended in 1945, the total number of federal employees decreased significantly, but still has remained at levels between about 2.5 and 3 million. Contrary to popular opinion, the federal bureaucracy did not grow in numbers significantly during the last half of the 20th century. Federal bureaucrats did, however, greatly increase their influence.

Page 18

Red tape. Paper pushers. Bean counters. Vast, cookie-cutter buildings with fluorescent lighting and thousands of file cabinets.

These are the images that come to mind when many Americans think of government bureaucracy. A bureaucrat is someone who works in administrative capacity for the government. How important are bureaucrats and their government agencies in actually running the United States government? According to some, they are the real government — the ones behind the scenes who go to work when the politicians are enjoying the spotlight.

Max Weber's Bureaucracy

Max Weber, a German sociologist was one of the first people in modern times to think seriously about the importance of bureaucracy. The term actually comes from the French word "bureau," a reference to the small desks that the king's representatives set up in towns as they traveled across the country on king's business. So bureaucracy literally means "government with a small desk."

Weber wrote about Germany during the early 20th century, when developing capitalism was spawning more and more large businesses. The changing economic scene had important implications for government. Weber saw bureaucracy as a rational way for complex businesses and governments to organize. He did not see them as necessary evils, but as the best organizational response to a changing society.

According to Weber, model bureaucracies have the following characteristics:

• A chain of command that is hierarchical; the top bureaucrat has ultimate control, and authority flows from the top down
• A clear division of labor in which every individual has a specialized job
• Clearly written, well-established formal rules that all people in the organization follow
• A clearly defined set of goals that all people in the organization strive toward
• Merit-based hiring and promotion; no granting of jobs to friends or family unless they are the best qualified
• Job performance that is judged by productivity, or how much work an individual gets done

Weber emphasized the importance of the bureaucracy in getting things done and believed that a well-organized, rational bureaucracy is the secret behind the successful operation of modern societies.

The Iron Triangle

Observers of the modern American government often point to an iron triangle that best demonstrates who really does the work of government. The iron triangle, sometimes called a subgovernment, consists of interest groups, members of congressional subcommittees, and agency bureaucrats.

According to the theory, agencies and departments usually keep close contacts with interest group lobbyists who want to influence their actions. Interest groups may provide valuable statistics to government agencies, and they are motivated to have their point of view heard. Both lobbyists and bureaucrats value contact with congressional subcommittees that shape the laws that govern their interests. Working together, these three groups set most government policies.

An example of such an iron triangle would be the American Association for Retired People (AARP), the House Subcommittee on Aging, and the Social Security Administration all working together to set government policy on Social Security.

Advisers, bookkeepers, secretaries. So, it is not only the famous people — the President, the Chief of Staff, the Speaker of the House, or the Senate Majority Leader — who make the real decisions in government. Often, the real players in government are the agency bureaucrats — the people behind the scenes.

Page 19

Harry S Truman — man of the people. John F. Kennedy — bold, articulate leader with a great deal of charisma. Richard Nixon — introspective President with a deep knowledge of and interest in foreign policy. Each person who has held the office of President has brought to it a unique style. Each style reflects a President's character.

Barber's Research

James Barber published a well-known study of presidential character in which he studied personalities in order to predict presidential performance. Barber believes that Presidents can be categorized as having "positive" or "negative" attitudes, and as being "active" or "passive." His findings indicate that "positive active" Presidents are more successful than passive/negative ones. For example, Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt had positive active personalities. According to Barber, their personalities cause them to approach the presidency with enthusiasm and a drive to lead and succeed.

This research is controversial, but it is based on the assumption that presidential character and personality are extremely important in determining how successful a President is in office.

Rating the Presidents

Most Americans have their own ideas about which Presidents deserve to be called great, and which ones were failures. Historians even get into the ratings game, with Harvard professor Arthur M. Schlesinger starting the modern game with his invitation to 55 prominent historians to rate the Presidents. Although the lists have varied over the years, some Presidents consistently rate at the top. Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Franklin Roosevelt have locked up the top three spots in nearly every ranking survey. Others with high scores are Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Harry Truman. Usually near the bottom are James Buchanan, Ulysses Grant, and Warren Harding. Historians are reluctant to rank modern Presidents, because not enough time has passed to assess their legacies.

Some common leadership qualities that good Presidents appear to have are the following:

• A strong vision for the country's future


Thomas Jefferson's advice to a child encouraged good character, although his own character is sometimes questioned. His ownership of the slaves listed here seems to contradict his statement that "all men are created equal," leading some modern critics to call him hypocritical.
• An ability to put their own times in the perspective of history
• Effective communication skills
• The courage to make unpopular decisions
• Crisis management skills
• Character and integrity
• Wise appointments
• An ability to work with Congress

All Americans have different ideas about the importance that character plays in the job performance of the President. Considering all of the hats that a President must wear, perhaps the symbolic role that the President plays is most affected by character. Presidents must somehow symbolize what American citizens believe to be the essence of their country. They must represent what is valued now and in the past. But even more importantly, they embody the direction of America's future.

Page 20

Just what exactly does the President do all day?

The evolving power and enlarging scope of responsibilities have made the modern presidency a very big job. Some even say that it is impossible for one person to handle it all.

Presidents as Crisis Managers

The Constitutional power as "Commander in Chief" has evolved into the very important modern role of "crisis manager." In the 20th century, as the United States gained world leadership powers, the President has become a key player in international crises. In the case of war — such as the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Persian Gulf War — or less famous regional conflicts — such as those in Kosovo, Somalia, or Haiti — the President must go into "emergency mode" and concentrate on the immediate problem. Domestically, crises may occur — such as urban riots, hurricanes, or forest fires — that require the President to schedule time to coordinate government responses to the situation.

Presidents as Symbols and Administrators

More than anyone else, the President symbolizes the country — its people and its beliefs. In this role, a President performs many ceremonial duties, such as receiving foreign dignitaries, throwing the first baseball of the season, and walking on red carpets while waving to crowds. These actions are not trivial. Strong Presidents must exude confidence, not just in themselves, but in the American people as well. The best ones have had an intangible charisma that engendered public confidence.

As leader of the executive branch, the President is primarily responsible for seeing that the work of government is done. A famous sign sat on President Harry Truman's desk, "The buck stops here." The responsibility to administer and execute the laws of the land squarely rests on the President's shoulders.

The president must therefore recruit and appoint many people to top government jobs. Cabinet members, many sub-Cabinet positions, federal judges including Supreme Court Justices, ambassadors, top military leaders, and heads of independent government agencies are all appointments filled by the President. Even though nominees are subject to consent by the Senate, the fact that Presidents control more than 4,000 appointments to government service makes this responsibility an important one.

Presidents as Agenda Setters

Setting a political agenda has been a role that has grown in recent years. The founders clearly intended that Congress take the lead in setting priorities and determining policies. Today, Presidents have plans for Social Security, welfare programs, taxes, inflation, and public education. In foreign policy, they often act first, and then consult Congress. Virtually all recent Presidents regularly recommend legislation to Congress.

Strong Presidents have used the State of the Union address, given yearly at the start of each congressional session, to set an agenda. Modern Presidents now use the media to bring attention to their proposals and to place pressure on legislators. A President may threaten a veto before the bill gets to the Oval Office. This action lets legislators know the President's agenda and pressures them to rethink bills that they know will be vetoed.

Can any one person hope to be able to successfully hold the President's job? The great author John Steinbeck commented, " We give the President more work than a man can do, more responsibility than a man should take, more pressure than a man can bear." Yet, recent Presidents somehow have managed to endure — although the job has exacted a tremendous toll on each of them.

Page 21

The founders feared the masses. Cautious about granting powers to the general voting public, they created a safety valve against popular will. The American people do not technically elect their President. Electors do.

Selection

According to the Constitution, the President serves a four-year term of office. The 22nd Amendment further requires that a President may not be elected more than twice, nor serve more than a total of ten years. The Constitution also created an electoral college to select the President.

Some of the founders wanted to select a President by popular vote, but others did not want to put that much power into the hands of the voters. Others believed that Congress should select the President, but then, what would happen to separation of powers and checks and balances? So they compromised and created a special body of electors to be selected by the states. The number of electors would be equal to the sum of a states Senators and Representatives, so that large states would have more electors than the small ones.

Today many people believe that the Electoral College is out of date and that Presidents should be chosen by direct election, just as members of Congress are selected. By convention, state electors vote for the candidate that the people select in the general election, but they are not necessarily bound to do so.

The Electoral College also adds one nettlesome wrinkle — it is possible for a President to win more of the popular vote and lose the election. For example, if the Republican candidate gets even one more vote than the Democrat, all the state's electoral votes go to the Republican. Therefore, if a candidate wins a number of states with large electoral college members by small pluralities and carries enough states with small electoral college members to gain the necessary 270 electoral college votes, it is possible for a candidate to receive less popular votes than an opponent, and yet win the Presidential election. Five presidents — John Quincy Adams, Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, George W. Bush and Donald Trump — have been elected in this fashion.

Succession

The Constitution originally said little about presidential succession. It only specified that powers and duties should "devolve on the Vice President." Numerous succession situations over the years have shaped the current policy, defined in the 25th Amendment, adopted in 1967.

Section 1.

In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

What happens when the presidency is vacated before an election? The Vice President becomes President, and then selects a Vice President that must be confirmed by both houses of Congress. What if something should happen to the President and Vice President at the same time? Then the Speaker of the House takes the presidency, and the President pro tempore of the Senate becomes Vice President. The line of succession then goes to the Cabinet members, in the order of their creation.

The Vice President

What does the Vice President do? The only given constitutional duty is to preside over the Senate, a job with virtually no power since the Vice President can only vote in the event of a tie. Indeed, the nation's first Vice President, John Adams, called the post "the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived."

The President, then, has almost total control over what the Vice President does. If he chooses to give him many responsibilities, The Vice President can have a significant amount of power if the President is willing to delegate it.

In recent years Presidents have given their Vice Presidents more and more to do. They have headed commissions and organized major projects. The Vice President often makes goodwill missions and attends ceremonies and celebrations. If the President regularly asks for advice, then the Vice President has some real, though indirect, power.

This dependency on the President has made it very difficult for a Vice President to successfully run for President. Only twice in American history has a seated Vice President been elected to the presidency. In 1837, Vice President Martin Van Buren succeeded Andrew Jackson, and in 1989, Vice President George Bush succeeded Ronald Reagan. In neither case, did they win reelection.

Page 22

Just as the power of the presidency has grown tremendously in recent years, so have the numbers of people that surround the executive branch. George Washington began his first term with only one aide — his nephew — who he paid out of his own pocket.

Today many advisors in the White House office, the Cabinet, and the Executive Office assist the President. The Vice President and the First Lady also have large staffs that complement all the President's aides.

The Cabinet

The informal advisory body known as the Cabinet is not mentioned in the Constitution. The founders had discussed the idea of some form of national executive council, and George Washington appointed four Cabinet members (Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, Secretary of War, and the Attorney General) shortly after his inauguration.

By custom, each member of this advisory group heads a major department, so that their loyalties are almost always split.

Cabinet members must provide good advice to the President. But, they also must promote the well-being of their departments, sometimes at the expense of other Cabinet departments.

Cabinet members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. They may be dismissed at any time.

The size of the President's Cabinet has increased over the years as Presidents have recognized demands for services and governmental action. As the size of the Cabinet and their respective departments have grown, Presidents have come to rely more heavily on members of the Executive Office and the White House Staff.

POSITION	YEAR CREATED
Secretary of State	1789
Secretary of the Treasury	1789
Secretary of War (Defense)	1789; 1947 (name changed in 1947)
Attorney General	1789
Cabinet members and members of the White House staff often undergo rigorous screening before their appointments.
Secretary of the Interior	1849
Secretary of Agriculture	1862 (elevated to Cabinet in 1889)
Secretary of Commerce	1903
Secretary of Labor	1913
Secretary of Health and Human Services	1953
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development	1965
Secretary of Transportation	1966
Secretary of Energy	1977
Secretary of Education	1979
Secretary of Veterans' Affairs	1989
Secretary of Homeland Security	2002

The Executive Office

Franklin Roosevelt created the Executive Office of the President in 1939 to administer his New Deal programs. Today it consists of several advisory agencies that have worked closely with Presidents, particularly in recent years. The advisers in the Executive Office play key roles in advancing the President's agenda. Three of the most important agencies include the following:

• The National Security Council advises the President on American military affairs and foreign policy. The NSC consists of the President, the Vice President, and the Secretaries of State and Defense. The President's National Security Adviser runs the staff of the NSC and also advises the President.
• The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is the largest office in the EOP, and it has the job of preparing the national budget that the President proposes to Congress every year.
• The National Economic Council helps the President with economic planning. The council consists of three leading economists and is assisted by about 60 other economists, attorneys, and political scientists. The NEC is the President's major source of advice and information about the nation's economy.

The White House Office

White House Office staff members are not subject to Senate confirmation, nor do they have divided loyalties. They serve the President as an "inner circle" of most trusted advisers. Many have offices in the West Wing of the White House, and they often compete for space as close as possible to the President's Oval Office. Their titles include Special Assistant, Counsel, Aide, and Press Secretary.

Staff members gather information, write reports, give advice, lobby lawmakers, and present the President's views to the media. The Chief of Staff is usually particularly influential as the director of all the operations of the White House Office.

The job of presiding over the nation's government requires many assistants and administrators. Some people have criticized recent Presidents for having such a large staff in the executive offices. Recent Presidents have tried to cut back, but they generally have found that this large, complex country would be difficult to run without them.

Page 23

Section 1.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

As Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, the President is responsible for the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. Here, President Clinton reviews troops at the Fort Myer base in Virginia.

Each State 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 be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

[The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall choose from them by Ballot the Vice President.]*

*Changed by the Twelfth Amendment.

The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

[In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.]*

*Changed by the Twenty-fifth Amendment.

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.''

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by Law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section 3.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Section 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Page 24

Research indicates that the first person that most American children remember beyond their immediate circle of family and friends is the President of the United States.

Who is this person that creates such a strong impression on children, arguably the most powerful individual in the world today? The founders certainly did not intend to create such a powerful presidency. They saw the presidency as a "necessary evil," or an executive to carry out and coordinate decisions made by Congress. What is the nature of the modern presidency, this office so powerful and yet so limited?

Presidential Qualities

The presidency was created in the image of George Washington, the man everyone believed would first occupy the office. Washington's personality shaped the expectation that the President should be wise, moderate, dignified, and nonpartisan. Of course, the President could not be all-powerful like the king of England. This person had to be sensitive to treading on individual rights and liberties. But especially for the fledgling nation, strong leadership was necessary.

And so the paradox was created with the new nation. Americans want a strong leader, but they also want someone who understands the anti-government, anti-authority streak that is part of being an American. It is not at all surprising, then, that Americans quibble about how much power the President should have. When Presidents take charge and try to run the country, they are often criticized as aggressive and dictatorial. If they let Congress take the lead, they are seen as weak and ineffective.

Great Expectations

Americans set very high expectations for our Presidents. They want someone who provides a sense of purpose, and who represents all the hopes and dreams of Americans. Yet the President must also pay close attention to practical matters, such as jobs, peace, and prosperity. The President must be tough, decisive, and competent. Because of these great expectations, most modern Presidents have come up short.

Perhaps this situation happens partly because the modern media has brought Americans "closer" to Presidents, making them seem more human than before. They are seen with their families in their personal lives. Newspapers report who cuts their hair and how much it costs. Their lives are investigated in the most minute detail for scandal. This demystifying of the presidency, as well as the general increase in mistrust of government in recent years, makes being President a tough job.

Gridlock

Even today, Congress limits the President's powers. Gridlock, or inaction, occurs when the President wants one thing and Congress wants another. Just as the Constitution ensures that the lawmaking process in Congress is not easily seized by the power of a few people, it also places checks on the power of both Congress and the President. This balance is the primary reason for gridlock — an inefficiency that many critics see as a major fault in American government.

Few individuals are willing to endure the hardships of a campaign. Even fewer are willing to open even the most private aspects of their lives to public scrutiny. Some say that the burdens placed on presidential aspirants make the job undesirable to many qualified candidates. But for those who survive the process, the opportunity for true leadership awaits.

Page 25

Creating legislation is what the business of Congress is all about. Ideas for laws come from many places — ordinary citizens, the president, offices of the executive branch, state legislatures and governors, congressional staff, and of course the members of Congress themselves.

Constitutional provisions, whose primary purposes are to create obstacles, govern the process that a bill goes through before it becomes law. The founders believed that efficiency was the hallmark of oppressive government, and they wanted to be sure that laws that actually passed all the hurdles were the well considered result of inspection by many eyes.

Before a bill becomes a law it must pass both houses of Congress and signed into law by the President. It may begin its journey at any time, but it must be passed during the same congressional session of its proposal, a period of one year. If it does not complete the process, it is dropped, and can only be revived through reintroduction and going through the whole process again. Not surprisingly, less that 10% of proposed bills actually become laws.

There are many opportunities to kill a bill before it becomes law. In each house, a bill must survive three stages:

When bills are marked up, in Congress, they may be changed to sneak in unapproved spending or overspending on programs. The spending is called "pork" and the tactic, "pork barreling."
1. Committee consideration — New bills are sent to standing committees by subject matter. For example, bills on farm subsidies generally go to the Agriculture Committee. Bills that propose tax changes would go to the House Ways and Means Committee. Since the volume of bills is so large, most bills today are sent directly to subcommittee. Most bills — about 90% — die in committee or subcommittee, where they are pigeonholed, or simply forgotten and never discussed. If a bill survives, hearings are set up in which various experts, government officials, or lobbyists present their points of view to committee members. After the hearings, the bill is marked up, or revised, until the committee is ready to send it to the floor.


The filibuster king Strom Thurmond kept the Senate floor for over one day, with only one brief bathroom break.
2. Floor debate — In the House only, a bill goes from committee to a special Rules Committee that sets time limits on debate and rules for adding amendments. If time limits are short and no amendments are allowed from the floor, the powerful rules committee is said to have imposed a "gag rule." Rules for debate on the Senate floor are much looser, with Senators being allowed to talk as much about each bill as they like. No restrictions on amendments are allowed in the Senate. This lack of rules has led to an occasional filibuster in which a senator literally talks a bill to death. Filibusters are prohibited in the House. Both houses require a quorum (majority) of its members to be present for a vote. Passage of a bill generally requires a majority vote by the members present.
3. Conference committees — Most bills that pass the first two stages do not need to go to conference committee, but those that are controversial, particularly important, or complex often do. A conference committee is formed to merge two versions of a bill — one from the House and one from the Senate — when the two houses cannot readily agree on alterations. The members are chosen from the standing committees that sponsored the bill who come up with a compromise. The revised bill then must go back to the floors of each house and be passed by both houses before it can be sent to the President for signing.

Many people criticize Congress for its inefficiency and the length of time that it takes for laws to be passed and enacted. Although the process is long and difficult, the founders intentionally set it up that way. Some modern critics believe that the system is arcane and simply too slow for a fast-paced country like the United States. A process in which only a few people were responsible for making laws certainly would be more efficient. But of course it wouldn't be very democratic. The many hurdles that bills must face help to ensure that those that survive are not just passed on a whim, but are well considered and deliberate.

Page 26

A paunchy, older, silver-haired man with no facial hair wearing an ill-fitting dark suit. This is the image evoked in the minds of many Americans when they try to picture a Representative or Senator. This stereotype is actually grounded in truth, although the makeup of Congress has changed a great deal in the past few decades.

Personal Characteristics

Senators and Representatives come from all parts of the United States, but they do not reflect a true cross section of America. Overall, members of Congress tend to be older, wealthier, and better educated than those they represent. Nearly half of them are lawyers, and a large number come from business, banking, and education. Most of them are married with children, and about 60% are Protestants. Nearly all went to college, and many have advanced degrees as well.

However, this mix has changed considerably in recent years. For example, the 106th Congress (1999-2001) had 58 female Representatives and 9 female Senators. Although this does not reflect the ratio of the general population, it represents big increases over past years. The number of African American Representatives has also increased significantly, and there is a growing number of Representatives from other ethnic minorities.

Incumbency

For the first 50 years after the ratification of the Constitution, Representatives and Senators usually only served for short periods of time. Travel was difficult, and before air-conditioning and the massive swamp-draining that improved the comfort of Washington, D.C., the nation's capital was a pretty miserable town. Most served one or two terms and returned home to take local or state level office. Perhaps they had been rewarded with a federal judgeship. Today many Representatives and Senators are reelected as incumbents repeatedly.

As career politicians, members actually live in two worlds. They must work with party leaders, colleagues, and lobbyists in Washington, as well as maintaining contact with their constituents at home. Most travel back to their home districts many times during the year. They give speeches, have meetings, discuss problems, and observe with their own eyes the needs of their district or state. Most have staffs in both places, and no matter which place they are, they must keep up with what is going on in the other.

Pay and Perks

How well are members of Congress paid?. Of course, the best part is that they get to set their own salaries. In the year 2021, the basic yearly salary for members of Congress was $174,000. Congressional leaders, like the Speaker of the House and the Majority and Minority leaders, get more.

So members of Congress are among the top 1% of the nation's wage earners. However, they are prohibited by law from supplementing their income through honoraria or paid speaking engagements. Also, legislators have expenses that most people do not have — two homes, entertainment of constituents, and campaign debt. And then of course, they do have some pretty big responsibilities.

Members of Congress are sometimes criticized for the number of perquisites — or perks — that they receive. For example, each member has an office, a large expense account, generous travel allowances, pension plans, and low-cost health coverage. They even have free postal service, a perk known as the franking privilege.

They come from all over the country. They still tend to be older white males, and most of them have been in office for a number of years already. They are well paid, but they have a great many important responsibilities. The calling of public service certainly has its benefits, but political life generates headaches that many Americans would just as soon do without.