Politics and Administration - Essay Example

?Politics and Administration Politics and Administration Question Deficiencies and Remedies in the Social Contract Theory The Articles of Federation is a combination and collaboration of thirteen states, namely; North Carolina, Georgia, South Carolina, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, New York, New Jersey, Providence Plantations, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island, and New Hampshire. All of these states were once colonies and had gained their independences through hard struggle, though they decided to converge together and form a central government or confederacy, named the United States of America (McGraw-Hill, 1999). The states were colonies which decided to converge for a better security status and strength against their enemies and colonizers, forming the central government for the signing of treaties, declaration of war or the raising of arms (McGraw-Hill, 1999). However, due to the security and independence of individual states, the central government was given a limitation on the regulation of trade and the imposition of taxes (McGraw-Hill, 1999). The social contract theory had many restrictions in both sociality and movements, which delivered the Articles of Confederation that was seeking remedies for the loop holes in the social contract theory. The social contract theory was a brainchild of John Locke, David Hume and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, which is a description of how people converge together and establish agreements or contracts on living harmoniously together for mutual benefit (Wilson, 2011). As a strategy to defeating their colonizers and enemies, the states converged and entered into a strong relationship league for stronger common defense and security of their liberties (McGraw-Hill, 1999). All the member states had the privilege to retain independence, jurisdiction, freedom and sovereignty, which are not incorporated in the powers and responsibilities of the Central Government, and the formed Congress (McGraw-Hill, 1999). In the earlier setting of the members of the United States of America was quite socially vulnerable as proven by their colonization, brought about by the social contract theory and necessitated change (McGraw-Hill, 1999). The unity of the thirteen states was closely guided by common ideologies amongst the states, and the formation of common guiding legal frameworks and policies in the Central Government. The Central Government was designed to serve as a common secure ground for all the member states, which had created perpetually mutual relations, with enhanced contacts and social interactions within the states (McGraw-Hill, 1999). The Articles of Confederation set a common equal ground for social interaction and free movements within all the member states, with an exception of law fugitives and paupers, where the internal immigrants who originate from either of the member states were bound to enjoy the same privileges and immunities as the resident citizens (McGraw-Hill, 1999). It enhanced the free ingress and regress within the states for citizens of any of the states, as opposed to the restricted movement of people as dictated by the existence of the social contract theory. The formation of the Articles of Confederation, that delivered the United States of America, was greatly beneficial to the citizens of the member states (McGraw-Hill, 1999). All the citizens from within any of the states enjoy common and unbiased privileges of trade and commerce in any of the states, and a common tax and duty imposition. This is an improvement and amendment due to the social contract theory that only allowed equity in privileges for citizens of a specific state, which were bound to be denied or adjusted in of the other states (Wilson, 2011). The Articles of Confederation allowed for the free movement of citizens within the states, with no taxation or duty imposition on imported property or habitation restrictions for inter-state migrants. On the contrary, the social contract theory dictated tax and duty imposition on the imported goods or properties moving from one state to the other. On the other hand, the Articles of Confederation provided and allowed for the deportation of persons who flee justice, if they are charge with or guilty of treason and/or felony, or any other security threatening charges. However, this can only happen with the command of the Governor or executive power of a state. The constitution, as the supreme law, ensures the protection of human rights through the restraint of actions of the state government and the Central Government (Wilson, 2011). There was the installation of total faith, supremacy and recognition to the state records, policies, acts, and/or judicial proceedings amongst all the member states (McGraw-Hill, 1999). The social contract theory only ensured restricted legal frameworks, acts or judicial proceeding to individual states. This served as a potential conflicting issue amongst the priory totally separated states, with possible social restrictions and disharmony between the states (McGraw-Hill, 1999). The social contract is proven defective by the above identified and discussed deficiencies and remedies made in the Articles of Confederation (McGraw-Hill, 1999). There is promoted unity and oneness for a common good and goal, of common defense and securing of the liberties for the individual states. The formation of the Congress for delegates from each state ensured a more interactive diplomatic relation amongst the states, with each state given the privilege and liberty to recall and replace or swap its delegates at any given time (McGraw-Hill, 1999). The setting up of limited time in which each delegate could serve, of three years in a term of six years, and the restriction of not holding any other office within the term for the delegates. This is bound to ensure the introduction of new and vibrant ideologies and talents into the Congress, which is critical in the debates and running of the Central Government (McGraw-Hill, 1999). In conclusion, the Articles of Confederation seek to amend the social contract theory to bring unity in governance and defense, and retaining the sovereignty, liberty and independence of each state simultaneously (McGraw-Hill, 1999). Free migration of persons within the states enhances sociocultural and economic growth, and the unity of the states ensures that the security of each state is not compromised (Wilson, 2011). There is the provision of unquestionable liberty and freedom of speech to the Congress, whereby delegates in the Congress have granted security from arrests or imprisonments during their reign in the Congress (Wilson, 2011). This can enhance and facilitate ideology that is critical in development and making of policies and laws, and mutual decision making through deliberation and debate (McGraw-Hill, 1999). Question 2 Federalism in the American Government The United States of America is governed by a federal government, branched into three arms, namely; the legislature, the judiciary and the executive (Grodzins, 1988). The federal government is run within a constitutional system of checks and balances, with independence of each branch constitutionally guaranteed but cooperation among them core (Grodzins, 1988).US Supreme Court falls under the judicial arm of the federal government (Gamkhar & Pickerill, 2012). On June 20I1, the US Supreme court decision, in a lawsuit filed in 2004 by five of the State’s largest polluters and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emitters ratified its Massachusetts ruling that allowed the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate GHG emission under the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA conducted a hazard research for legal redress in the regulation of GHGs using executive measures, including the establishment of tailpipe standards for new vehicles in 2010 (Gamkhar & Pickerill, 2012). Additionally in 2011, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration set new higher fuel efficiency standards, i.e. the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, before the EPA issued rules on the adoption of GHG reduction regulation. The Supreme Court challenged all of these actions in favor of the Coalition for Responsible Regulation that led to the postponement of the date of finalization of the rules to mid-2012. This depicts a continued support of federalism by the US Supreme Court (Gamkhar & Pickerill, 2012). In the case of Sossamon versus Texas (No. 08-1438), the US Supreme Court addressed the state sovereignty in the suit filed by Harvey Sossamon III against Texas and prison for violating his rights (Gamkhar & Pickerill, 2012). In this case, Texas argued out that the lawsuit was barred from the federal courts under the eleventh Amendment and principles of sovereign immunity whereas Sossamon was on the point that Congress had passed the RLUIPA pursuant to its spending power, and hence the sovereignty immunity claim was waived. On April 2011, the Court dismissed the suit by siding with Texas. This ruling was a clear indication on the commitment of the Supreme Court in protecting state sovereignty immunity from federal lawsuits (Gamkhar & Pickerill, 2012). Several states have filed federal lawsuits challenging the federal policy directives, such as the federal healthcare reform law of 2010 (Gamkhar & Pickerill, 2012). In this case the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Obama Government, which is a clear depiction of the continued commitment and support to judicial enforcement of federalism principles, and state sovereignty (Gamkhar & Pickerill, 2012). Federalism has had implications in policy developments in public education, energy and environment; the State possesses power to continue defining legal parameters of federalism (Gamkhar & Pickerill, 2012). Question 3 The United States Congress According to Kingdon (1977) in his theory of legislative behavior, there is an overall assumption that congressmen cut in their information costs when making House decisions that further their goals, as a dominant voting strategy (Kingdon, 1977). He states that most interactions among congressmen occur in the Congress, with regional grouping resulting to regularized communications among congressmen. As per Kingdon, policy dimensions are voting theories, where congressmen consider the policy content and think in terms of dimensions such as economy, places self on the dimension, compares his with the legislation and makes his decision, with reference to the closest alternative (Kingdon, 1977). A congressman may assess the strength his disposition for or against the legislation without considering party position or effects of the bill on his people, or his past behavior. Insufficient predisposition necessitates consultations with colleagues, party or President that determines his final position (Kingdon, 1977). The congressman may consider the degree of controversy to drive the consensus, where no or low controversy is a vote for the legislation. He may also use his past decisions or his prioritized goals in decision making (Kingdon, 1977). According to Fiorina (1997), policy changes in the Congress result more from the replacement of incumbents than the change of behavior by the incumbents (Fiorina, 1977). The primary determinants of change in national policies are hereby outlined as death of individuals, rather than elections. The changes in electoral behavior tend to motivate the fringe, whereby citizens use simple thumb rules when voting in low information elections, such as the Congress elections (Fiorina, 1977). Party identification serves as the most common and easy thumb rule. According to Fiorina, current-day incumbents do not enjoy a greater informational change as compared to the past congressmen, either virtually or completely (Fiorina, 1977). Behavioral dynamics in incumbents or previous congressmen tends to change the entire nature of the congressional elections, with incumbency voting filling the space left by weakening party identification where party-voting is replaced by incumbency-voting. This is as a result of dynamics in voting due to increased access to information, voter ideology and consciousness to matters (Fiorina, 1977). According to Mayhew’s theory on the electoral connection to the congress, congressmen must frequently participate in reelection activities regardless of their nature in terms of risk and safety (Mayhew, 2004). Mayhew argues out that reelection shapes the behavior of a congressman to a certain degree, whereby re-election becomes the preoccupation of the congressman in decision making (Krehbiel, 2004). The congressman is presented with a short list of important activities to participate in, mainly basic re-election activities such as advertising (Mayhew, 2004). Advertising is an effort(s) to publicize one’s name in the electorate, with a successful congressman likely to have a created brand name (Krehbiel, 2004). There is an emphasis on personal qualities and abilities, such as integrity, experience, responsibility, knowledge, and/or sincerity among others (Mayhew, 2004). The incumbents have their advantages due to prior interaction and familiarity with the electorate as compared to new entrants, though reelection and replacement stand on an equal ground. The new entrants have their chances of selling their agenda to the electorate, while the incumbents have the chance to publicly evaluate their manifestos and/or modify (Mayhew, 2004). References Derthick, M. (2001), The Paradox of the Middle Tier, Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Fiorina, M. (1977), The Case of the Vanishing Marginals: The Bureaucracy Did It, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 71, No. 1, pp. 177-181. Gamkhar, S. & Pickerill, M. (2012), The State of American Federalism 2011-2012: A Fend for Yourself and Activist Form of Bottom-Up Federalism, The Journal of Federalism, volume 42 number 3, pp. 357-386. Grodzins, M. (1988), The Federal System, New York: Cengage Learning. Kingdon, J. (1977), Models of Legislative Voting, The Journal of Politics, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 563-595. Krehbiel, K. (2004), Legislative Organization, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 113-128. Mayhew, D (2004), Congress: the electoral connection P. Woll (Ed.), American government readings and cases. New York: Pearson Longman. Pp. 397-401. McGraw-Hill, G. (1999), The Articles of Confederation, New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies. Rubin, E. (2006), Puppy Federalism and the Blessings of America, New York: Sage. Wilson, W (2011), Congressional Government: A Study in American Politics, Available at http://www.gutenberg.org/files/35861/35861-h/35861-h.html/pdf, [accessed 4th July, 2013]. Read More