POLS 2311 Joseph Ignagni Notes Pt. 2
POLS 2311 Joseph Ignagni Notes Pt. 2 POLS 2311
Popular in American Government and Politics
Popular in Political Science
This 24 page Study Guide was uploaded by Brianna Fragoso on Saturday January 2, 2016. The Study Guide belongs to POLS 2311 at a university taught by Dr. Ignagni in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 15 views.
Reviews for POLS 2311 Joseph Ignagni Notes Pt. 2
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 01/02/16
T est 2: Lecture 11: 2/25/14 Civil Rights or Equal Rights Equal Rights: Right of every person to equal protection of the law and equal access to societies opportunities and facilities. Discrimination is at the heart of civil rights. The amendments should have made blacks and whites equal. But people found ways around the amendments. Treatment of Blacks: Civil War Amendments: 13th - 1865 - Ends slavery in the US. Makes it unconstitutional for slavery in the US. No one can be a slave. 14th - 1868 - Has two parts: (1) Due Process (2) Equal protection. 15th - 1870 - A person could not be denied the right to vote because of their ethnicity. (You know how long it took for women to be able to vote? 50 years? 19th amendment) Lecture 12: 2/27/14 Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) - In the state of LA the state passed a law saying that blacks and whites cannot be in the same cars of trains. Mr. Plessy got onto a white car and got arrested for going onto a white car because they said he was black. Going from Baton Rouge to New Orleans. What made Mr. Plessy black? One drop of black blood made you black. 14th Amendment - Equal protection clause. His lawyers argument was you’re treating him diﬀerently than white people because he’s black. That violates the equal protection clause. The Supreme Court said that what LA was doing DID NOT violate the 14th equal protection clause. SEPARATE BUT EQUAL Everyone got equal treatment, everyone got to the same place at the same time. Jim Crow Laws - Laws of segregation. They separate people based on race. Jim Crow wasn’t a real person. Jim Crow was a character from a show that travels from town to town in the south. He wore black face. It was completely racist. He portrayed as a dumb guy who always got things wrong. There were thousands of Jim Crow laws that were passed in the South. Education: Black and White schools, Black and white bathrooms, Black and white drinking fountains, black and white separate levels in theaters ex. To Kill a Mocking Bird Buses: Blacks sat in the back, Whites sat in the front. Black and white hospitals, Black and White beaches, in courthouses they had separate Bibles for blacks and whites to swear on. How equal were the facilities? They were not equal. They were never equal. The white cars on the trains were plushier classier ﬁrst class they got food service. The black cars were not. The white schools got new books, got 5x as much money. Black schools got the hand me down books, and barely any money. The white hospitals had several doctors and equipment, the black hospitals had one doctor and only open on the weekends. How’d they get away with that? The judges didn’t want to be fair. The families would sue saying my black child is going to a black school and the white schools are better. Judges would say why do children go to school? To get an education. There’s education going on at both schools. I can’t judge which is better. So it’s good enough. It wasn’t separate but equal. It was separate but you get something. Not the best, not equal but it’s enough. It was WHITE and then NON WHITE. IT was also hispanic, asian, anything not white. Anyone who complained was viewed as whiny. The 14th amendment became a joke. Right before you get to brown there were a few cases where the Supreme Court says the black family wins. All of the victories before Brown involve Law school or Grad school. Mr. Gaines lived in MI and he wanted to go to Law School. MI only had a white law school. So he applies to the Uni. of MI and the state tells him no black person can go to that school but if you want we’ll help you go out of state or to Canada. The Supreme Court says that’s not Separate but Equal. There was no black law school, so they can’t separate it. So they said either immediately build a black law school or accept him. He disappears 3 months later. His body was never found. OU and UT Austin. They wanted to go to Law School and there was no black law school. TX and OK got the memo they need to build a black law school. A black student applied there was no black law school yet. They accept him. They treat him awfully. He had to sit oﬀ in a corner by himself during class. He couldn’t use the library normally, he had to put in a slip and the librarian would bring him the book. He couldn’t eat together. He sued and the Supreme Court judged in his favor saying that wasn’t equal because part of law school is associating and talking with other students. Brown v Board of Education (1954) This involved lower schools. Elementary to high school. Little girl wants to go to white school. They say it’s not fair. Supreme Court agrees. Supreme Court OVERTURNS PLESSY V FERGUSSON + SEPARATE BUT EQUAL They say SEPARATE BUT EQUAL IS INHERENTLY UNEQUAL - You cannot make them equal by there very nature they are unequal. They never come out equal. If you build a million dollar high school for whites and if you build a million dollar high school for whites it’s still unequal. Because one race will always know that the other race doesn’t want to be near them. One race is choosing not to be near the other race. It’s psychological saying we’re better than you. A “Badge of inferiority” Most famous footnotes in Supreme Court history: "We base this on modern authority.” - Social Science research. These research projects study how blacks felt inferior. It’s called the Doll example. What they did was they would bring these children in a gym. These researchers were sitting at a desk. They would send in kids one at a time. They were 5 or 6 years old. They handed them two dolls they were identical dolls. Identical in every way except skin color. They would have them play with them. They asked them which one do you like better? They did it over and over again. The results of this study was: White children liked the white doll. Black children liked the white doll. Like 87%. The conclusion of this was even by the age of 5 Blacks were treated so badly that they preferred white over black. The Supreme Court knew that they were walking into a mine ﬁeld. Possibly the most controversial decision of the Supreme court ever. It turned over society. They knew not just a lot of average citizens weren’t going to like it. But a lot of government oﬃcials weren’t going to like it. Earl Warren;Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: Before the announced the decision of Brown, he gets invited to a white house dinner. Dwight Eisenhower was the President. Eisenhower had chosen Warren to be on the Supreme Court a year before. At the end of the dinner the President says can I talk to you Chief Justice? The President says I know you’re about to make this decision of Brown v B of Education. Earl I sure hope that you’re not even considering overturning separate but equal. Do you know what a disaster that will be? There will be confusion, killings, lynchings, etc. Please tell me you’re not considering it. He makes this racist comment: “The South, there’s good people in the South all they’re worried about is there little white girls away from these overgrown negro boys.” He doesn’t tell him what he’s going to do. But he knows he’s not going to get help from the White House on this decision. The Supreme Court does something it never does. There’s no other time you ever do. They say this is the law and here’s the law it’s backed up by. It happens immediately. They say the winner is Brown. But no one has to do anything yet. We want both sides to come back a year from now and we’ll tell you what to do next. They gave the South some breathing room. That never happens Board of Education thought they were going to lose. The lawyer was scared that the Supreme Court was going to throw out separate but equal. They said okay you caught us. The idea is still a great idea. We’ll make it equal we’ll spend the same amount of money for blacks too. Supreme Court said NO. Brown 2 (1955): We want you to integrate it. Black and white kids together. We know its hard. You don’t have to do it tomorrow morning. You have to do it with “All deliberate speed.” The reactions were not nice: Everything Eisenhower said would happen did happen. IT was WE’RE NOT GOING TO DO IT, not WE’RE WORKING ON IT. Black families would sue, and politicians would say things for votes, but when it got to court they said oh we need more time. Brown didn’t change things over night. It feuled the civil rights movement it was a great moral victory. But in reality did next to nothing in 1955. Ten years later 1964, the 11 Southern States that fought for the confederacy, 98% of all black children went to 100% all black or minority schools. Linda Brown won the case but kept going to black schools. Alexander v Holmes County Board of Education (1969): The Supreme Court in the Alexander Case says TIME IS UP. We’ve given you 15 years to work on this problem. If you haven’t done it yet we don’t think you’re trying. AND if anyone wants to sue you government oﬃcials because their children can’t go to a white school we’re telling you they’re going to win. Integration happened immediately (1970) Recently read about a young man who grew up in the city of Chicago. He went to public schools from Kindergarten to 12th grade. He’s black. Graduates from high school. In his 13 years of public education he never went to a school with a single white person. The neighborhood was mainly black, it was a minority neighborhood. The exceptions went to Private school. De Jure segregation: Segregation by Law. De Facto segregation: Segregation by circumstances, or by facts. 03/04/14 Milliken v Bradley (1974) Brown 3: The original girl in Brown 1 - her daughter ended up going to a minority school. She sued because she was going to a minority school but because of De Facto segregation. Never gets to the supreme court. Milliken v Bradley involved Detroit, Chicago. Detroit had the worse race riot in the history of the US. The military had to get involved. When the rioting was over many white people ﬂed to the suburbs. “White Flight” Suburbs were started because of this. The population of Detroit was about 1.9 million. The population of Detroit today is about 700,000. Over a million people left Detroit. It’s the only city in the history of the world that was over a million that’s under a million now. It went from the 4th biggest city in the US to being the size of Ft Worth. It looks like a war zone took place in downtown Detroit, mansions were torn down and burnt down and the remains are still there. Detroit decides to do something illegal to try to stop white people from leaving. Detroit created schools that today you probably call magnet schools, but only white people got to go to them. They told them don’t leave Detroit we’ll put you in school with only white people. People who were afraid of black people were happy for the school. The was De Jure segregation. Black people caught on pretty quickly, they sued the city saying you’ve created little white schools. Detroit makes the argument that if we don’t make schools like that then all the white people will leave. Help us here judge. The lower court federal judge made this ruling: He said both are segregation we should do something to solve the problem. He said I’m going to make the entire area of Detroit one monster school district. Therefore I’m going to send kids anywhere within this school district. Every single suburb in the area. 60 miles in any direction. His argument was if you’re moving away to get away from black people you can’t escape we need to learn to work together and go to school together. Created massive busing program to accomplish that. Of course certain people didn’t want that and the case goes alway to supreme court. The question became did that judge go to far or was he right? Supreme Court said we will get involved in De Jure we will not get involved in De Facto. Detroit is about 85% black today. It used to be about 50% white 50% black. De Jure = Bad (Because of Brown) De Facto = Okay (Because of Milliken) Recently: Detroit had the idea of creating a school in Detroit, it was beautiful new facilities but the catch was you had to be a black man. Even the teachers were black men. Black men were dropping out of school at the highest rate, so they ﬁgured if we pulled out the women no distractions. The ﬁrst year everyone did great. That school doesn’t exist. Because it’s DE JURE. Funny enough the people suing were white people. Black people were using Plessy saying separate but equal is okay. White people were using Brown. Women sued here saying you left out black and white girls. That’s gender discrimination. Civil Right Act of 1964 Among other things this law attempted to combat discrimination in employment and public accommodations; hotels and restaurants. It’s made things much more fair, there is less chance of discrimination. It’s not perfect though. Employment: Before 1964: If Mcdonalds or some company, opened a restaurant and they needed employees they could say “Help wanted: Negroes need not apply” We only hire white people. I’m not going to hire an Asian, Native American, Black person, no one. This document says it’s illegal to discriminate no matter how big the company based on race. You would get in trouble if you did that. People got around the law all the time. 60 minutes did a piece on this. In NY City they opened the want ads and hired 2 actors. A white guy and a black guy. They dressed them up the same. They trained them on how to respond to questions. They made up 2 resumes. Gave them equivalent experience and said they went to Harvard and Yale. They had the black guy go in ﬁrst apply for the job, then later they’d send in the white guy. They tried to make it as equal as they could make it. The black guy would go in and the employer would look over the resume and talk to the black person, the black man. And every time it was something like this “ Wow you went to Yale? “ “Wow you have experience “ Wow this is an impressive resume. You’ll have no problem getting a job but you’re not what we’re looking for. Then the white guy came in person would look it over they said “Wow you’re the dream candidate can you start this afternoon” The white guy got the job every time. 60 minutes why did you give the job to the white guy? I like Harvard better than Yale. I like this company better than that company. How do you prove it’s racism and not just he liked Harvard better than Yale? If you have a lawsuit the only way you could really prove they’re racist is if they have 1000 employees and all of them are white you couldn’t win. If they hired like 50 black people then you wouldn’t win. Public Accommodations: Before 1964: Mcdonalds could say “Black people can’t eat here” was totally legal. We will not let you stay in our hotel. Jackie Robinson - Very often the team would travel to a hotel 24 white players would stay in the hotel but Jackie Robinson had to go across town. Being a black person you could want to travel to Disney land and you know along the way you don’t know who will let you eat in their restaurants or sleep in their hotels. Now CRA 1964 was usually successful but in a small town if they pull into a hotel and the people there decide they want to be racist. They can say oh I forgot to turn on the no vacancy sign. Denny’s was discriminating based on race. A group of FBI agents that were black got oﬀ work and went to Denny’s and the manager sat them down. The place was empty. They didn’t serve them and they pretend to pass them by and be busy. They get hungry again so they go and notice it’s not a coincidence they actually were discriminating. There was a paper trail from Denny’s saying to discourage black clientele. Denny’s got ﬁned millions of dollars. Voting Rights Act of 1965 This attempted to increase the black vote.15th amendment says Blacks have a right to vote. But people found ways to get around the 15th amendment. States passed a number of laws to make it hard for blacks to vote. Ex. White primaries: meaning in several states they passed laws saying black people can vote in the general election they just can’t vote in primaries. The primaries are for white people. In TX a bunch of republican’s are running to see who will be the representative for Republicans and Democrats are running for representatives of Democrats. Blacks can for Governor of TX in fall. But not for the primaries. The most important part of the election is the Republican primaries, because who ever wins the Republican primaries will go on to be governor. Supreme Court said sorry black people should be allowed to vote on everything. Grandfather clauses: these laws said you could not vote in your state unless your grandfather had voted. It kills the voting because their grandfathers were slaves. It doesn’t say we said we wouldn’t discriminate based on race, we used Grandfathers. Literacy tests said you only vote if you literate. It was illegal to teach a slave to read or write. They said okay so they went and got their education. So when they went to vote they said take a literacy test. White’s got a diﬀerent literacy quiz than Black literacy quiz. It was hard and had ridiculous questions. Poll Taxes: said you had to pay money to vote. After the civil war the slaves didn’t have money, and because of employment practices they didn’t really get any money. So they were poor. So they couldn’t vote. Congress passed a law that says anything that discourages black voting is illegal. Open Housing Act 1968 This was an attempt to decrease discrimination in the renting or selling out housing. A person could say I won’t sell to you because you’re black, irish, native american… Not only was it legal for me to say it I can actually put it into the deed of the house that no one could sell this house to a black person. We don’t rent to black people. 03/06/14 Congress - Supposed to represent us Before people went to Congress what was the number one occupation they had before that? Lawyers. If you blew up the Congress building and there was no one left over who would America elect? Lawyers. How about women in Congress? Are women represented in the same percentage in Congress as they are in America? 50%? Is half of Congress female? No. Women make up about 18% of the House of Representative and 18% of the Senate. House has 435 people. Senate has 100. How about African Americans? 13% of America is black. How are they represented? 10% of the house is African American. In Senate there is 0. There’s been a few blacks through senate including barack obama. Why is that? House seats are district seats. The entire state votes for Senate. Therefore whites dominate when it comes to Senate. Hispanics? 16% of the population. House - 8% Senate - 3 Asians? 6% House 3% Senate -1 (Hawaii counts) House and Senate are not as racially diverse. Education and wealth It’s a rare circumstances of a congressman who did not go to college. They have PhD MD MBA etc. Financially they do very very well. Mulitimillionaires, Billionaires, etc. When you look at who is in the USA and who is in Congress it’s not a microcosm of the US. Should it be? What does representation mean to you? Ideology or how they look? Trustees - A trustee means electing someone whose judgement you trust. You say go oﬀ to Washington do a great job. Delegates - People are sent to Washington to do whatever the constituents want. They are there to follow your orders. Politicos - The combo platter. They can act like trustees or delegates. If you’re elected to Congress are you supposed to represent your district or the USA? Do you vote on what’s best for the USA or your district? You vote for TX. You vote for your local voters. Not for USA. Richard Fenno - IGN READER - Home Style - He was interested in representation. He said when people study representation they study how they were voting in Washington. Fenno said I’m also curious about how Congress people act when they go home. What is their behavior like at home? So what he did. He went home with a bunch of Congress people to their home districts. He got permission to follow them around. Wherever they went he went with them. He observed their behavior with their constituents. He said he noticed patterns.. When they go home they divide up their constituents into groups. (Largest to smallest) (1) The geographical constituency. (2) Supporters (3) Loyalists (4) Intimates Geographical - Every single person in the district. All 600,000 people. When asked about their district they knew all the demographics and statistics about their districts. They didn’t walk about it very personally. They wanted to know what’s their because it aﬀected their behavior in Washington. Supporters - These are the people who the Congressman/woman thinks will vote for them. Congress divides the world into 2 halves. Who is for me and who is against me. Who will vote and who won’t. Congress people are always thinking about the next election. There’s a fear of losing their jobs. They’d been in oﬃce for 20 years and they would always win 80% of the votes and yet they acted scared to death of the next election. They would drive around and he’d say I like this neighborhood because I always get 9/10 votes, or shaking hands he’d say that guy is going to vote against me he gave me a weak handshake. Loyalists - These are people who don’t just vote for the person but they give them money and campaign help. They’re the true believers. They don’t just like the congress person they love the congress person. They’ll work for free they’ll do anything to get them reelected. Intimates - These are people like Monica Lewinsky. Haha jk. These are the people who were actual friends with the Congress people. They would talk to those people to get inside info on their district. Tell me who I need to be afraid of. Mom and Dad etc... 03/18/14 UNDERSTANDING A CONGRESSMAN/WOMAN ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES - How much time, staﬀ, and money the congress person allocates to his or her district. They come home constantly. If you live in Hawaii and your district is Honolulu. The government pays every time you go home. It shouldn’t matter where you’re from, if you want to talk to your constituents you should be able to. They decide do they put more people in DC or more people here at home to talk to their constituents. The Congress persons PRESENTATION OF SELF - What kind of image are they trying to give oﬀ? How do they dress? How do they speak? Diﬀerent Congress people are very aware of this concept and they’re trying to give oﬀ diﬀerent images to their districts. Sam Rayburn - He dressed in the best suits. He drove around in a limo. He gave oﬀ a powerful image. When he ﬂew home to TX. There was this old beat up truck. He would be in overalls, chewing up tobacco, he had a southern drawl. Congress people adapt like chameleons to their surroundings. Bill Clinton - The ﬁrst time he ran for the Presidency he went on an airplane tour that stopped in 10 states. He started north and made his way down to AR. He made a speech at the airport. He accent changed every state. The reporters noticed the jokes comments and accent changed the more southern the closer he got to AR. Is he a master politician or fake? You decide… EXPLANATION OF HIS/HER WASHINGTON ACTIVITY - Do Congressmen like to talk to voters? They love talking to their voters and supporters about what they’re doing in Washington. If you’re part of any organization believe it or not a congress person would instantly come talk to any group of any size (not hey me and my buddy want to talk to you) and you can promise them a couple hundred people, after they talk to you, YOU WILL LIKE THEM. and if you go to vote, YOU WILL VOTE FOR THEM. They are masters of explaining to you what they’re doing and getting you to like them. Ex. People hate congress. They are at the lowest approval rating in history. I’m a congressman I take questions. You say “You should be embarrassed about what’s going on in Washington.You guys are doing a terrible job. There is 2 classic responses depending on if you’re criticizing CONGRESS or the PERSON (1) “I’m so glad you came here tonight, I’m so glad you answered that question. You’re right it’s a disgrace what’s going on in Washington. That bill you hated, I hated too. I voted against it. The problem is there’s not a lot of people like you there. Who understand America, what this country is built on!” They’ll praise the person asking the question, saying it’s just me against all the bad congress people. ME GOOD CONGRESS BAD (2) “I’m so glad you came tonight, I’m glad you brought that up. I understand why you would be mad. I thought exactly like you did. When I went to congress last year, I was conﬁdent I was going to vote no. I knew it would hurt the people. That was my initial reaction, but then I wanted to make sure I was right. I began to study all I could on the topic. I consulted experts across the US. I consulted experts on this topic. I knew it was a big deal. One of the hardest decisions of my life after all the study and work, after burning that midnight oil. I understood for most Americans maybe even eventually for you. I decided YES would be best for the US. They come across as good, hard working, honorable, smart, trustworthy. Goals: What do they want? (1) Election/ReElection (2) Policy - What ever they care about. Almost everyone goes to Washington with a policy area they want to work on. (3) Power (within the institution) (4) Ambition (outside of the institution) - You might want another job.. House - Senator, Governor, President. Senate - Governor President. All your focus is just on Dallas or Atlanta if you have no ambition. (5) Personal Financial Gain - Money! You can get wealthy in diﬀerent ways. They would buy land, radio stations etc. Quiz: HOUSE - 435 SENATE - 100 CONGRESS - 535 Members You have to be at least 25 to be in the HOUSE You must have been a citizen for 7 years. 2 years for a term. You have to be 30 to be in SENATE. You have to be a citizen for 9 years. 6 years for a term. Do incumbents usually win the next election? YES 80-90% will win the next election. They almost always win for reelection. David Mayhew talks about the advantages of being an incumbent. Not only do they win but they win big. The election is NOT close. It’s by a landslide. “Vanishing Marginals” 03/25/14 What drives Congress? Committees. This is the key part of what operates congress. Why are they so critical? Specialization and Reciprocity. Specialization - Let’s form committees that will be in charge of diﬀerent topics. Ex. farming, roads, military… The committees report back to Congress. Congress uses a division of labor. They expect the members of the committee to be experts in that ﬁeld. Reciprocity - give back. You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours. When the experts say it’s a good bill or it’s a bad bill, Congress is expected to vote in their favor. What committees say are good bills almost always pass. It all depends on what the committee says. Focus on the committee when it comes to laws passing. If you’re a lobbyist you focus on the committee. How a Bill becomes a LAW The process of making a law is like a mine ﬁeld. Every step must go perfectly. Ex. Ignagni Congressman - UTA Bill of 2014. Best university in the USA. (1) Proposing that we get the word out about this university and give UTA $10 million. It’s a great school! (2) Bill gets referred to EDUCATION committee. (3) Goes to higher education committee. (Edits it to 4 million UTA, 3 million UTD, 3 million SMU) (4) Goes back to EDUCATION committee. (Edits it from 10 million to 2 million each school.) If the majority of Congress wants the bill they can ﬁle a DISCHARGE PETITION. It’s a possibility but a rarity. Happens about once every 10 years. (1) A Bill must be introduced, sponsored, in the House or the Senate. Must be introduced by someone in Congress. You cannot introduce your own bill, the president, average citizen, cannot introduce their own bill. (2) Bill is referred to appropriate full committee. May have 15 members. (3) Bill goes to subcommittee. May have 5 members. (a) Can pass or recommend the Bill. (b) Can defeat or reject the Bill. (c) Can mark up (Revise, edit) the Bill (d) Can shelve or table the Bill. (They don’t bother to vote it; It’s dead 90% of all bills die here) (4) Bill is referred back to full committee. (a) Can pass or recommend the Bill. (b) Can defeat or reject the Bill. (c) Can mark up (Revise, edit) the Bill (d) Can shelve or table the Bill. (5) Depends on if you’re in House (A) or Senate (B): (A) Rules committee - makes rules for the Bill: Because the House has so many people who want to talk, before a bill can be considered in the House there are rules about how the debate/ discussion can happen. Ex. 1 hour discussing bill, time allotment. Speciﬁc number of amendments are allowed. What the rules say determine if your Bill makes it or doesn’t. If you like a bill and the people on the Rules Committee like you, they can say 5 minutes and no amendments. If they don’t like you, 3 hours and unlimited amendments. They can not give your bill rules, your bill cannot be voted on. House cannot vote on a bill without rules. It dies. (Most powerful committee) (B) In Senate, in theory, there are no rules for debating a bill. If for some reason you want rules you can propose an Unanimous Consent Agreement. Every member of senate has to agree “we want rules.” Uncontroversial bills will get this. If it’s a controversial bill they will not vote for rules. Filibuster - A tactic used where someone is delaying or stalling the procedure. They just keep talking. Once recognized to talk that person can talk for three days straight if their bodies will allow. Senate can do no other business until he/she sits down. Might be for attention purposes but if done strategically, it can be eﬀective to getting bill passed. Is there a legal way to stop a ﬁlibuster? Yes! Cloture - Will stop debate of a ﬁlibuster. To shut down a ﬁlibuster you have to have 60 members of senate to vote to end debate. If you get to 60 democrats or 60 republicans they can stop the ﬁlibusters. If you get 60 votes it doesn’t end the ﬁlibuster immediately they get 30 more hours. (6) The Bill is voted on by the entire House or R. or Senate. 51% must vote to pass. (7) The other house must pass the bill. So it goes to Senate or House of R. (Repeat steps 1-6) (8) Conference Committee: Sometimes diﬀerent versions come from both sides, they have to come to an agreement in order for the bill to pass. (9) The bill must now go back to both houses and be voted on again! No amendments are allowed. Needs 51% of vote. Both houses must pass the bill. (10) Bill goes to the President of the United States. (a) He signs itIt’s law. (b) He vetoes it - He rejects it. (c) He can Pocket Veto the bill. He can shelve it. He sticks it in his pocket. (A) If there is 10 days or less of a Congressional session to go, excluding Sundays, if he sticks it in his pocket the bill is dead. They didn’t give him enough time to think about it. There’s no override, it’s like it never happened. (B) If he sticks it in his pocket with a month to go, it becomes a law without his signature and it doesn’t have to go to Congress. He would do that if he knew Congress is uniﬁed against him. He looks weak if Congress overrides him. (11) It goes back to Congress. They vote again. This time 2/3 of Senate and 2/3 of House of R. must vote in favor. They overrode the veto. The Bill is law even though the President never signs it. 03/27/14 Executive Branch - US PRESIDENT When the framers were writing the Constitution they had lived through 2 type of executives. Under British rule they lived under a King. After the revolution, the articles on the confederation, then they had no executive branch. 2 extremes. They wanted something in the middle. (1) Madisonian version - AKA The weak Presidency; Carefully limited executive power. He wanted the President under tight control and to make sure that Congress could check the President. Closest to no Executive. (2) Jeﬀersonian version - AKA Shared Power; Under this view Congress + The President should be equal, the President and Congress work together to achieve goals. Closest to the middle. (3) Hamiltonian version - AKA The Strong Presidency; Under this view the President is a powerful leader and government revolves around the President. The President does not need Congress because he has his own power sources. Closest to being a King. Which of these three choices did the founding fathers choose? They chose number 1, Madisonian. They wanted a week President. What do we have today? Number 3, Hamiltonian. What does the Constitution require to be the President of the US? (1) Must be at least 35. (2) You must be a natural born citizen. Meaning: You’re a citizen the second you’re born. You’re either born on US territory OR one or both of your parents are a US Citizen. (3) Must have been a resident of the US for 14 years; it does not say consecutively. For the average person living in the US today are these high hurdles to reach? No. Most people who live in the US are eligible. So in theory we have had great diversity because anyone can be President. We’ve had very little diversity. We’ve never had a female president. Until Barack Obama we’ve never had a minority. We haven’t had a lot of diversity in terms of religion. Openly gay presidents? No. It seems unoﬃcially there have been other rules, no women, no minorities, no foreign religions. IGN reader: James Bryce; Why Great Men are not chosen President The early Presidents were really great and after that there are very few Presidents. There are exceptions but very few. This article was written in the 1880s. It started oﬀ great and now it’s really gone downhill. He gives reasons why he thinks Great Men are not chosen Presidents; James Bryce’s List for Why Great Men Are Not Chosen President (1) The proportion of ﬁrst rate people drawn into politics is smaller in America than in Europe. Most of America’s talent goes oﬀ to be nurses, businessmen etc. In Britain most of the most educated people think it’s their responsibility to give back to their country. We have great people in America just none of them don’t run. (2) Eminent people tend to make more enemies than obscure ones. So eminent people tend to be worst candidates. Meaning famous people, prominent people. His point here is a lot of times in America we have great people who become famous. Some people love them and some people hate them. So when a famous person runs for the Presidency already half the country is against him. So the political parties don’t want a already famous person. (3) The average American voter is willing to accept mediocrity. (4) Due to the way the oﬃce is set up often a great or brilliant person is not needed. Quiet times: There’s moments in history where things are smooth and then randomly there will be a war or something, then it’s smooth again. During the times that aren’t hectic, “Quiet times” the person doesn’t need to be brilliant because there isn’t anything to decide. Due to the way the oﬃce is set up; meaning when someone is President they don’t slip questions under the door and have them come up with solutions on their own. They have advisors. He can hire geniuses to help him make decisions. (5) There is political pressure to pick candidates from certain parts of the country or certain states. Democratic Party or Republican party where do you want your candidate to be from? Big states? Why? Electoral votes! (6) A candidate could have problems getting elected because of personal traits which might not be related to holding oﬃce. (7) Being a good or great president but a good campaigner or candidate another. Introduction • John Robers has been the chief justice of the supreme court for ﬁve years and will probably continue for 20 years. Public Opinion, Public Knowledge, and Public Participation • Public Opinion Polls are constantly being taken. • Public Opinion polls are relatively recent. • Scientiﬁc Public Opinion Polls didn't exist before the 1950's. • Social Scientists learned how to do polls scientiﬁcally. • Political Scientists began to ask the public about their opinions on politics. • They found that americans did not know basic information about government, but they knew a lot about actors and famous people. • They were shocked that this was the outcome in the 1950's. • Most people thought that americans knew a lot about their government. • Trust and believe in scientiﬁc polls because they are very accurate and mean a lot. • The reason people to survey's is to learn what people think. • REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE: goal is to have a pool or sample that represents everyone in the america (310,000,000). • FDR was running for re-elecion in 1936 and a magazine tried to ﬁgure out whether or not he was going to get reelected and the survey said that Roosevelt was going to lose. The election happens and Roosevelt wins BIG. The poll was wrong because they went to auto dealerships and asked people who were buying cars and they went randomly to photo booths and picked out people. This is not a representative example because rich people owned cars. What they really did was talk to a bunch of republicans. Political Socialization • process by which people acquire their political opinions beliefs and values. • Politically, how have you been socialized? How did you learn about politics? • How did you become liberal or conservative? • You either read a lot of books on philosophy, or you became conservative or liberal based on what you are surrounded by. Parents, school, church, and neighborhood. Happens through coincidence. • PARTY IDENTIFICATION: Which party to you feel more attached or loyal to. Or you like better. This tends to form very early in life. You become a democrat or republican as elementary school students. Your party identiﬁcation general matches your parent's viewpoints. It usually never changes. • As a political scientist this concept is a big deal. • Party identiﬁcation is decreasing now. • Most people say, "I'm independent" (younger people 18) • Most independents are not very knowledgeable. • 30% are republican, 30% are democrats, 40% are independent. • 100 years ago. 90% straight ticket (voting all for one party). Political Eﬃcacy • This term comes from the term eﬃcacious (to be trusted). • Politically, do you trust the government? • people trust the government if they a.) believe that they can inﬂuence the government. or b.) if they believe that the government could solve your problems. • Political Eﬃcacy is going down. People trust the government less. • In 1964 76% people believed that you could trust the government most of the time. Now this is 15%. • older, educated, and rich people pay attention to politics. Political Participation • Americans are not greatly involved in politics. • The most famous way to participate is by voting. • 60% of eligible americans vote for the president. • 40% votes for congress • 10%-20% votes for in local elections. Participation Paradox • Paradox: surprising and unexpected. • People participate when people value participation in and of itself and feel a duty to participate. • People enjoy to participate. They love doing it. • Citizen Duty: You have been trained to be a good american and you feel like you need to do it. • People participate when there are low costs. • The weather aﬀects voting! If it looks like a hassle people won't go out and vote. • You are given a month to vote now instead of just the ﬁrst two days on November which is why more people are voting. • People vote when they believe that they will make a diﬀerence. • Close election causes voting to go up. • Some people participate the the value is so great that even the slightest chance of it occurring is worth trying for.
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'