What Led to the Deterioration of Congress Legislative and Oversight Processes - Assignment Example

? Political Science Question Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein describe congress as ‘the broken branch’ because of their perception that over the last three decades Congress has transformed from two deliberative bodies into partisan battlegrounds (Ferguson, 2006). They assert that this has led to the deterioration of Congress’ legislative and oversight processes making them call and advocate for procedural. They cite the demise of civility and bipartisanship with political parties in the Congress moving to further their ideological extremes. Congress is said to have become exemplary of a parliamentary system with parties either rooting for the president’s agenda or they are in the opposition, and the suppression of minority input is rampart. Mann and Ornstein draw attention to numerous illustrations of partisan excesses in the house with the speaker increasingly becoming an active partisan. They contrast this to the speaker’s stipulated role in the constitution as an officer of the whole house. This role is diminished when the speaker gets actively involved in lobbying for votes. Restrictions on floor amendments and debate are amongst the procedural constraints that are increasingly being employed to eliminate minority input in Congress’ legislation and deliberations (Uhr, 2009). Mann and Ornstein cite the disappearance of effective Congressional oversight in the event the president and the Congressional majorities are of the same party, which is a serious weakening of the checks and balances of the system. According to Mann and Ornstein, the current situation in the Congress is not nearly as bad as it was during the United States’ (US) first 75 years in which slavery tore the country apart. This though does justify what is happening in the US because back then it was during the 19th century, and the US did not play a large and significant role domestically and internationally as it does at the moment. It has been observed that Congress does not deliberate and legislate as much as it used to do before that is characterized by legislations being rushed through committees and subcommittees with little debate or deliberation. Lack of interest in the robust deliberative process of legislation is a symptom of broader maladies in the contemporary Congress (Ornstein, Mann & Malbin, 2009). Mann and Ornstein are of the opinion that there is a belief in Congress that deliberation, bipartisanship, fairness and debate are impediments towards the achievement of the larger goal of party and political success. This can be construed to echo the adage that states ‘the end justifies the means.’ Mann and Ornstein effectively demonstrate the broken nature of Congress by illustrating how it mishandled the vital issue of continuity in the event of a terrorist attack or other catastrophe (Sasada, 2008). These vital aspects that are nonpartisan are considered by the House like partisan issues. The Congress’ inability to appropriately address such vital and pertinent issues is proof of the House’s dysfunctional nature, which is agreeable in this context and the apparent failures in delivering their pre-election agendas and promises. A characteristic of this is the subordination of Congress as an independent arm of government through partisan endeavors. Mann and Ornstein promote a progressive reform movement for Congress through various measures like internal reforms, ethics and lobbying reform efforts, campaign finance reforms and the destruction of the seniority system in the House. Question #2 The powers and practices of the executive branch of the US government in the founding days were characterized by an escalating affront against checks and balances. The founding fathers claimed to have immunity from oversight by Congress and the courts, which can be interpreted to mean that their practices were a mere extension an established trend towards increasing executive power. There are recent claims to presidential authority through the contortion of a unitary executive, which is perceived as a genuinely dangerous and distinct phenomenon (Ferguson, 2006). Both republicans and democrats have contributed to increasing presidential authority by espousing power on the presidency giving the office control over federal policymaking bureaucracy. Powers of the president are exacerbated by Congress exercising its powers as a legislative branch in creating administrative agencies and empower them in order to accomplish its legislative objectives under the constitution. The constitution empowers the president to appoint and almost fire the heads of these administrative agencies that are delegated to carry out the mandate of Congress (Ornstein, Mann & Malbin, 2009). Thus, in essence, the president has powers to control the Congress giving the office of the president immense power because it carries great weight. Greater control on the executive’s powers has been achieved through the efforts of Congress, but at the same time, presidential authority remains relevant when it comes to bureaucracy. The federal bureaucracy falls directly under the executive’s authority, which gives the president’s office substantial powers to control the running of government and policy implementation at the national level. Presidential power, congressional power, and the federal courts serve to limit the power of the bureaucracy (Rosenblum, 2009). Congressional duty lies in being the regulatory watchdog over government bureaucracy by setting limits, regulating and administering programs. Deregulation by Congress is a key measure that is instituted by the House to ensure that essential agencies of the government carry out their delegated role and responsibility. Congress also exercises oversight on bureaucratic activities by investigating executive units of the government. Democratic and practical purposes underlie Congress’ legislative ability to oversee the executive, a phenomena that was laid down in the country’s constitution. The founding fathers of the nation had it in their mind to ensure that no single government authority could overstep its mandate and exploit the citizenry. To this end, the founding fathers made interrelated checks and balances mechanisms that permeated the entire governance of the US. These are described as subordinate distribution of power with the constant aim to divide and arrange administrative agencies in such a way each serves as a check and balance to one another. Statutes of the constitution have played a key role in guiding the executive’s powers and practices that are manifested through the bureaucratic processes of the governance structure. Congressional duty and obligations should be emphasized due to its role in ensuring there are effective checks and balances in the whole system. References Ferguson, M. R. (2006). The Executive Branch of State Government: People, Process, and Politics. Illustrated Edition. ABC-CLIO. Ornstein, N. J., Mann, T. E., & Malbin, M. J. (2009). Vital Statistics on Congress 2008. Brookings Institution Press. Rosenblum, N. (2009). Responsible Congress and Political Time. BUL Rev., 89, 715. Sasada, H. (2008). Institutions, Interests, and Ideas: The Evolution of Developmental State Systems in Manchuria, Wartime Japan, and Postwar Japan. New York: Proquest. Uhr, J. (2009). Comparing Congress: Bryce on deliberation and decline in legislatures. BUL Rev., 89, 847. Read More