9/22 Blog

Stalemate is a problem that frequently arises in our legislative branch of government. Stalemate derives from the way our representation works in the House and Senate. The House represents the population of the United States. There are 435 members elected to the House and each state is represented. Since each representative is entrusted to represent its constituency things can get a little confusing. Each state wants different things which makes it difficult for 435 people to agree on something. The Senate contains 100 members with each state having two members. The Senate represents the elite in U.S. society rather than just the population. It is also difficult for the House (representing the population) and the Senate (representing the elite) to come to agreements as well. This is called a stalemate because no moves can take place when the two sides can never agree. Causes of these stalemates are various interests between the different constituencies and also disagreements between the elite and the lower population. While annoying and sometimes ineffective, I find that gridlock is an appropriate way to represent our people. The representatives do their best to voice the opinions of their people just as the Senate does their best to voice the opinions of the elite. This helps keep the United States intact and not subject to any radical change. Just because one constituency wants something does not mean that a change has to be made. Because of the difficulty passing legislation, you know that when everyone agrees on something it will be beneficial to everyone rather than just one person. I think that the ineffectiveness that stalemate creates is in fact what makes the legislative branch so effective. The fact that no major change can take place unless it is good for the whole country prevents us from radical change. This is what the U.S. government was always about.

Blog #6: Courts or legislatures?

If you look back on the history of desegregation in the United States, it is clear that the Judicial Branch and the Supreme Court made the greatest impact of all the other branches of government. I think it is fair to say that the Supreme Court overused their powers in their ruling of Brown vs. Board of Education. This was such a HUGE decision because after the Court's ruling all the states had to allow all blacks to enter white facilities. This meant that the separate facilities made for African-Americans were basically a waste of money and it would also cost lots of money to help make this adjustment. Also, the Supreme Court's decision to assimilate blacks and whites into the same public facilities and schools would be a dangerous one. Whites were still VERY racist and were maddened even more by the blacks entering their society. Race relations would get worse after this decision. Many argued that this decision was bad for race relations and the Supreme Court made a mistake by letting it happen. At the time I can understand why people would believe this was a bad choice, but I believe that it was necessary to take action. Even though relations would be ugly at first, you have to take actions knowing that someday things will improve. Obviously over time problems have worked themselves off and we live in a generally equal society. The Supreme Court's decision, while incredibly unprecedented and controversial, was a necessary one and has turned out to be a very positive step in our history. Pursuing federal legislation would not be a good idea because they were very slow and reluctant to step up and make a decision. If we waited on legislation from Congress then we might even be segregated in TODAY'S society. It is a great thing that the judicial branch made this important step in the history of civil rights.

Selective Incorporation

Selective incorporation was a big issue in the mid-1850s in which the federal government questioned whether the Bill of Rights limited state governments as well as the national government. Could the Bill of Rights and the "privileges or immunities clause" be incorporated in the states as well? American federalism did a poor job of supporting incorporation. All the national government did was hold up incorporation as seen in the Barron v. Baltimore case of 1833. The city of Baltimore had disposed of so much sand and gravel into the water near Barron's wharf because of the paving of new roads. This brought the water level down and destroyed the value of Barron's land. Barron brought Baltimore to court saying that Baltimore broke the rights he had in the fifth amendment (right to property). The Supreme Court ruled that there is nothing Barron could do unless the national government took away his rights to property. This ruling made no sense. Why could a state or a city deprive a citizen of property? In Palko v. Connecticut, Palko was indicted on first-degree murder and also second-degree murder by a lower court. Connecticut was mad at the verdict and tried him twice in order to get a maximum sentence. Palko took Connecticut to court arguing that his rights to prevention of double-jeopardy were being denied. The Supreme Court claimed that double-jeopardy wasn't a right given to the states in the 14th Amendment. In Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court claimed that the right to freedom of speech was also decided by the states too. Basically, the government was saying that states could almost disregard the national Bill of Rights. This was a scary picture because people could flat out be denied their rights just because they lived in a particular state.

Federalism, mandates, and devolution

Unfunded mandates, according to the textbook, are national standards or programs imposed on state and local governments by the federal government without accompanying funding or reimbursement. Basically this means that the U.S. government wants all the state and local governments to do something and so they force them to make changes. However, the catch is that the U.S. government provides no money or doesn't pay the governments back. Now the state and local governments are forced into spending what can be a great deal of money on changes that they may not have even wanted or needed to happen. One example of an unfunded mandate in U.S. history would be the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. This act required all state and local governments to promote access for the handicapped to all government buildings. Devolution is a policy to remove a program from one level of government by deregulating it or passing it down to a lower level of government. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and devolution go hand in hand. Devolution represents a revolution for state governments in which they are being given more power and more responsibilities. The UMRA helped the state governments from being forced into doing what the national government said. They now were guaranteed funding from the national government whenever mandates were proclaimed. The only difference between devolution and the UMRA is that the UMRA doesn't actually give state governments power, it just limits the national government's power. Devolution actually gives states power they never had under government. I think that devolution would be a better strategy to use in the fight against unfunded mandates. As the book said, the effect of the UMRA will not be revolutionary. The national government in the end has the final say and can get what they want easily. The powers granted to the state governments through the strategy of devolution have already had a widespread effect. State governments are experimenting with welfare and finding ways that best suit their citizens without any input from the national government. It is very clear that this route is much more effective than putting the future of unfunded mandates in the national government's hands. Any chance the state and local governments can get to gain more power for themselves will always be more effective.