Policy and Your Life

Please look over the instruction carefully.

Prepare: Prior to beginning work on this discussion question, read Chapters 3 and 4 in American Government, and review the Week 2 Instructor Guidance. In addition, watch the videos provided on federalism:

Quick Study of Federalism Part 1 (Links to an external site.)

Quick Study of Federalism Part 2 (Links to an external site.)

, and

Quick Study of Federalism Part 3 (Links to an external site.)

. Review the Week 2 assignment and the Final Paper assignment for more guidance regarding selecting your policy for your Final Paper, which you will also utilize for this discussion.

Reflect: The U.S. government’s expansive role in public policy is caught in a swirl of conflicting crosscurrents. On the one hand, popular expectations about government’s responsibility to solve problems often exceed the capacity of state and local authorities to respond effectively. On the other hand, policies developed at the national level may not sufficiently reflect the great diversity of interests across the United States to be effective at the local level. Moreover, the search for effective policy is further complicated by theoretical debates about the constitutional framework of federalism. That is, what limits on national power can be derived from the 10th amendment?

Write: Select a specific policy or piece of legislation that you are interested in and that directly impacts your current or future profession (i.e., your major). For examples, go to the

Week 2 DQ and Final Paper Policy Examples

Download Week 2 DQ and Final Paper Policy Examples

file located in your online classroom. The policy you select should be the same policy that you research for your Final Paper.

In your initial post,

· Identify your profession or future profession and provide a brief background on the typical job responsibilities.
—My profession: Early Head Start Teacher

· Discuss what federalism is and why it is important.

· Discuss your policy or piece of legislation that you have selected for your Final Paper and how federalism impacts it. —My chosen policy: Every Student Succeeds Act

· Discuss the federalism challenges that the policy you have selected is creating or facing.

Your initial post must be at least 300 words. If you are citing statistics our outside resources, please list the website or the reference entry.

3 Federalism

Learning Objectives

By the end of this chapter, you should be able to

• Analyze the division of power and authority between the states and the national

government.

• Describe and interpret the concept of federalism.
• Describe contemporary federalism as intergovernmental relations.
• Outline the historical phases of federalism.
• Analyze the meaning of federalism today.
• Describe the future of federalism.

fin82797_03_c03_053-074.indd 53 3/24/16 1:39 PM

Section

3.1 Federal Division of Power and Authority

Federal officials objected to the new Arizona law because they maintained that only the fed-
eral government may create immigration policy, and Arizona has no business interfering
with federal authority. A federal district court upheld some but not all sections of the state
statute. The state of Arizona appealed the ruling, and the case was later heard by the U.S.
Supreme Court. At issue was the rightful power and authority of state governments in rela-
tionship to federal authority. In June 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Arizona v. United
States in a 5–3 decision (Associate Justice Elena Kagan took no part in the case) to uphold the
state-level requirement that state and local police could check immigration status during law
enforcement stops. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down three other provisions of the statute
because they violated the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause requiring that state laws may
not conflict with national laws.

This case nicely illustrates several questions about the meaning of federalism, a term that
describes the U.S. system of dividing power and authority, derived from the people, between
the national and state governments. Does Arizona have the authority to enact the statute that
it did, or does federal authority over immigration limit or deny states the right to enact stat-
utes where state interests overlap with federal authority? Because Arizona shares its south-
ern border with Mexico, the governor argued, Arizona had the right to enact state-level immi-
gration legislation. The Supreme Court sided with Arizona; Arizona’s statute did not violate
the Supremacy Clause.

3.1 Federal Division of Power and Authority

The Constitution was written in very general language, which has resulted in ambiguity about
where national power and authority end and state power and authority begin, and vice versa.
Figure 3.1 illustrates how state and national governments both have their own powers but
also share the authority to perform some of the same functions. In other words, the Constitu-
tion has a built-in tension between the national government and the states. That tension has
long been part of the American experience, and it continues to be the source of political
conflict.

Figure 3.1: Chart of U.S. federalism

This figure illustrates the separate and shared powers of the national and state governments.

fin82797_03_c03_053-074.indd 54 3/24/16 1:39 PM

Section 3.1 Federal Division of Power and Authority

National Power

The U.S. Constitution sets up a system where national power is shared with state govern-
ments. This is called a federal system. The national government is part of a federal system.
When addressing the national government, one is referring specifically to the highest level of
government in a federal system. At the same time, the phrase “federal government” is used
interchangeably with “national government” when referring to the highest level of govern-
ment in a federal system. The two principal bases for national power are found in the Com-
merce Clause and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. The Commerce Clause, found in
Article I, Section 8, gives Congress the power to “regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations, and
among the several states,” which allows the national government to regulate various activities
related to interstate commerce. For example, the national government may create environ-
mental regulations because pollution crosses state lines.

The Supremacy Clause gives the Constitution and national laws authority over the states:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the
Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or
Laws of any State to be Contrary notwithstanding.

The Supremacy Clause addresses those times when state or local laws conflict with national
laws or the U.S. Constitution. In these instances, the Constitution and the national laws prevail.

In April 2010, Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona signed a statute requiring state and local
police to enforce the existing federal immigration law. The statute was passed because state
legislators and the Arizona governor believed it was time to reduce the number of Mexican
immigrants illegally crossing the U.S. border into Arizona. While federal law requires that
immigrants carry proof of either citizenship or documents proving their right to be in the
United States, under the new state law, officers who suspect someone of being in the United
States illegally can demand to see the appropriate papers and, if warranted, make an arrest.
Federal officials objected to the new Arizona law because they maintained that only the fed-
eral government may create immigration policy, and Arizona has no business interfering
with federal authority. A federal district court upheld some but not all sections of the state
statute. The state of Arizona appealed the ruling, and the case was later heard by the U.S.
Supreme Court. At issue was the rightful power and authority of state governments in rela-
tionship to federal authority. In June 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Arizona v. United
States in a 5–3 decision (Associate Justice Elena Kagan took no part in the case) to uphold the
state-level requirement that state and local police could check immigration status during law
enforcement stops. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down three other provisions of the statute
because they violated the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause requiring that state laws may
not conflict with national laws.
This case nicely illustrates several questions about the meaning of federalism, a term that
describes the U.S. system of dividing power and authority, derived from the people, between
the national and state governments. Does Arizona have the authority to enact the statute that
it did, or does federal authority over immigration limit or deny states the right to enact stat-
utes where state interests overlap with federal authority? Because Arizona shares its south-
ern border with Mexico, the governor argued, Arizona had the right to enact state-level immi-
gration legislation. The Supreme Court sided with Arizona; Arizona’s statute did not violate
the Supremacy Clause.
3.1 Federal Division of Power and Authority
The Constitution was written in very general language, which has resulted in ambiguity about
where national power and authority end and state power and authority begin, and vice versa.
Figure 3.1 illustrates how state and national governments both have their own powers but
also share the authority to perform some of the same functions. In other words, the Constitu-
tion has a built-in tension between the national government and the states. That tension has
long been part of the American experience, and it continues to be the source of political
conflict.
Figure 3.1: Chart of U.S. federalism
This figure illustrates the separate and shared powers of the national and state governments.
© 2013 Mr. Kindred’s U.S. History Blog.

fin82797_03_c03_053-074.indd 55 3/24/16 1:39 PM

Section 3.1 Federal Division of Power and Authority

State Power

The 10th Amendment states that all powers not delegated, or specifically given, to the federal
government become powers held by the states. Put differently, if the authority to do something
is not expressly given to the national government, that power falls to the states: “The powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved
to the States respectively, or to the people.” Fittingly, this is known as the “reserved powers”
clause. In contrast, federal powers are listed, or enumerated, in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S.
Constitution. Many argue that these powers may be interpreted in a way that expands them
beyond those listed in Article I, Section 8 through the Necessary and Proper Clause found at the
end of Article I, Section 9. This means that state powers may be limited by the national govern-
ment even if those federal powers are not enumerated in Article I, Section 8.

As we have seen, the defining fea-
ture of the American federal sys-
tem is that states share power and
authority with the national govern-
ment. In fact, the Bill of Rights was
intended to protect the civil liber-
ties of the people and state sov-
ereignty by imposing limitations
on national authority. However, in
1925, the U.S. Supreme Court began
applying key provisions of the 14th
Amendment to the states and inter-
preting some state laws to be in
violation of the Bill of Rights. These
interpretations have expanded the
power of the national government
while limiting state power.

Federal–state relations often hinge
on the tension between these

national and state bases of power. Consider the national No Child Left Behind Act (2001). In an
effort to improve students’ educational outcomes, this law limits states in how they regulate
education, assess student learning, and respond to student learning gains among other con-
cerns, even though public education has been provided and regulated by the states for more
than 200 years. Regulating education has long been considered to be a reserved power under
the 10th Amendment: Absent provisions that both grant express (or enumerated) powers to
Congress and withhold them from the states, the 10th Amendment means that it is assumed
that the states are given those powers unless those powers are given specifically to Congress.

State Sovereignty Versus National Unity

What are the limits of states’ rights? The answer is not clear, as the Supremacy Clause, the
10th Amendment, and the 14th Amendment all speak to national and state power. When a
state’s interest interferes with a national interest, there are limits placed on state power.
The language of the 10th Amendment appears to limit national authority unless that national
authority is spelled out in the Constitution. According to this view, if the states are sovereign,

The 10th Amendment states that all powers not del-
egated, or specifically given, to the federal government
become powers held by the states. Put differently, if the
authority to do something is not expressly given to the
national government, that power falls to the states.

fin82797_03_c03_053-074.indd 56 3/24/16 1:40 PM

Section 3.1 Federal Division of Power and Authority

there can be no national authority that interferes with that sovereignty. And yet, if there is no
national authority to limit state sovereignty, then the United States cannot be a united nation.

Recall from the discussion in Chapter 2 that there was great concern among states’ rights advo-
cates that the states might lose their sovereignty to the national government following consti-
tutional ratification. This was apparent with the issue of representation and the division
between free states and slave states when the Constitution was being designed. James Madison
proposed that the Three-Fifths Clause be included in the Constitution to calm fears that South-
ern states would become more powerful than others when counting slaves as whole persons
for the purposes of representation. Slave states were concerned that as more territories were
admitted to the union as free states, power among slave states would become diluted. Beyond
that concern, if the number of free states admitted to the union were to far outnumber slave
states, then the free states might support a constitutional amendment outlawing slavery.

John C. Calhoun (1782–1850), a South Caro-
lina statesman, wrote a famous pamphlet
titled A Disquisition on Government, which
was published shortly after his death. Cal-
houn expressed concern that over time the
Southern states would be outnumbered. To
preserve state sovereignty, he proposed two
mechanisms to assert states’ rights: nullifi-
cation and interposition. Both mechanisms
would allow a state to effectively decide that
a federal action does not apply to it.

Nullification would grant veto power to each
state, similar to that held by the president.
Calhoun suggested that for a bill to become
law, a majority of each state legislature, in
addition to a majority of both houses of Con-
gress, would have to pass it. In other words, if
the legislature of just one state voted against
the measure, it would not become law.

Nullification would also allow any state to veto anti-slavery legislation. For example, the states
would be able to veto the Missouri Compromise (1820), which allowed territories above the
368 30’ north parallel to be admitted as free states and those below it to be admitted as slave
states.

Given that each state has different interests and priorities, the likely consequence of nullifica-
tion would be to effectively paralyze and limit the authority of the national government. Nul-
lification would make the national government under the U.S. Constitution no more powerful
than it was under the Articles of Confederation.

Interposition was a less drastic proposal, but it too would have meant a weakened federal
system. With interposition, a state would have the right to oppose federal actions that it con-
sidered unconstitutional. Interposition would allow a state to assert its sovereignty by placing
a barrier between itself and the national government and deciding that a national law passed
by both houses of Congress and signed by the president does not apply within that state’s

South Carolina statesman John C. Calhoun
(1782–1850) was a strong advocate of states’
rights.

fin82797_03_c03_053-074.indd 57 3/24/16 1:40 PM

Section

3.2 Understanding Federalism

borders. The state would, in effect, exempt itself from following that national law. Interposi-
tion would have allowed free states admitted above the 368 30’ north parallel to declare that
the prohibition of slavery did not apply to them.

Neither nullification nor interposition ever took firm root, although the fact that the two ideas
were even suggested demonstrates the tensions organized around state and national sover-
eignty. Calhoun’s argument highlights the tensions built into the U.S. Constitution.

3.2 Understanding Federalism

The last chapter outlined how separation of powers serves as the cornerstone of the U.S. Con-
stitution. Federalism is another cornerstone. As suggested by its preamble, which begins with
“We the People,” the Constitution declares that sovereignty, or the ultimate authority to gov-
ern, rests with the people. Through the Constitution, the people distribute their sovereignty
to the units of government (national and state) in a federal system.

The concept of federalism can be interpreted in multiple ways. For example, federalism might
suggest that the national government has supreme and equal authority over all 50 states.
Alternatively, federalism can mean that the national government and states enjoy equal sov-
ereignty. The second interpretation was the dominant approach taken in the United States
from the Constitutional Convention up until the 1930s. During this period, the national gov-
ernment could not tell the states what to do, nor could the national government dominate the
states. Rather, the states and the national government cooperated. Beginning in the 1930s,
the federal government became more involved in domestic policy functions, and federalism
came to be understood as a relationship where the states were subordinate to the supreme
power and authority of the national government. This understanding, however, is not abso-
lute; rather, federalism should be viewed on a scale where strict states’ rights are found on
one end while absolute national authority is found on the other end. Depending on the pub-
lic’s needs, a pendulum swings back and forth between the two ends of the scale.

The Framers’ Vision

The idea of coequal state and
national sovereignty lies at the
core of the American consti-
tutional system. Recall from
Chapter 2 that the Constitution
is a contract between the states
and the national government.
The 13 original states agreed
to enter into that contract with
the understanding that they
would not surrender their sov-
ereignty. The phrase “We the
People,” which establishes the
principle of popular sover-
eignty, also refers to the people

Robert Harding/SuperStock

By establishing a federal system, the Framers rejected the
concentration of power and authority in the hands of a
central government.

fin82797_03_c03_053-074.indd 58 3/24/16 1:40 PM

Section 3.2 Understanding Federalism

of the original 13 states coming together, thus maintaining the concept of state sovereignty.
Providing a common defense, as noted in the Preamble, required state governments to give
up their power to a strong national government.

The Framers believed that a federal system would secure individual liberties. The division
of power between a sovereign national government and individual sovereign states would
distribute power while the separation of powers among three branches of government would
ensure that citizen rights and liberties would not be easily violated. By establishing a federal
system, the Framers rejected the concentration of power and authority in the hands of a cen-
tral government. Each phase of federalism is discussed in detail later in this chapter.

Contemporary Federalism as Intergovernmental Relations (IGR)

If the Framers were alive today, they might not recognize the federal system, because they
conceived of it as a formal division of power and authority between the states and the national
government. Today, federalism is thought of less in terms of formal divisions and more in
terms of working partnerships between the states and the national government. In fact, when
we talk about federalism today, we talk in terms of intergovernmental relations (IGR),
whereby the states and the national government must work together to achieve a common
public purpose.

The working relationship is not always easy
or smooth. The tension between state and
national sovereignty continues, although states
must work with the national government in
order to fulfill citizen needs. Unless it is part
of its enumerated constitutional powers found
in Article I, Section 8, the national government
should not direct state actions. The national
government lacks authority other than to use
the power of the purse to enforce compliance.
Consider the vignette that opened this chapter.
The federal government is obligated to enforce
immigration policy by patrolling the borders.

Grant-in-Aid
Despite the built-in tension, the national gov-
ernment has several tools at its disposal to
help ensure cooperation from the states. One
tool is grant-in-aid, or sums of money the
national government gives to the state or local
governments to do something. If the national
government gives the state of Colorado money
to repair highways, for instance, that money is
usually considered to be a grant-in-aid. Not all
grants-in-aid are the same. There are two basic
types: categorical grants and block grants.

Associated Press/Roger Alford

A categorical grant is money given to a state
by the federal government for a specific
purpose.

fin82797_03_c03_053-074.indd 59 3/24/16 1:40 PM

Section 3.2 Understanding Federalism

A categorical grant is money given to a state by the federal government for a specific pur-
pose or function, such as to build or repair roads. Categorical grants allow no flexibility or
discretion. Through categorical grants, the federal government is able to wield influence over
both states and localities. By contrast, block grants offer states more flexibility than categori-
cal grants do. Whereas the categorical grant is single purpose, the block grant is multipur-
pose. A block grant is actually a group of several categorical grants that are related to one
another. Within the block are several separate programs, and the recipient of the grant can
choose which programs to fund and can move money around from one program to another.

Preemption
The national government can seek state compliance through the courts. A court that issues a
judgment against a state has no real enforcement power, although states may comply with
judgments against them if only because they have been ruled against. At the same time, the
national government may utilize preemption, which is the federal government’s right to
prevent state and local governments from enforcing their own laws because those state and
local laws conflict with the Supremacy Clause. Either scenario is less likely today than it was
in the early republic. A tradition of respecting and abiding by judgments of courts has evolved
over time.

Use of Federal Marshals
The national government may,
though not frequently, use troops as a
last resort to enforce court decisions
against state governments. As an
example, the Supreme Court held in
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
that Kansas’ racial segregation of
the schools violated 14th Amendment
equal protection guarantees and was
therefore unconstitutional. A year
later, the Court ruled that schools
nationwide would have to integrate,
which meant that there could no lon-
ger be separate schools for White
and Black students.

Many states, particularly in the
South, refused to comply with these
Supreme Court rulings. One conflict
came to a head in 1957 in Little Rock,
Arkansas. Arkansas Governor Orval

Faubus refused to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1954 decision in Brown v. Board
of Education mandating school desegregation in Little Rock. Instead, he had the Arkansas

In 1957, President Eisenhower used federalized
troops to force the Little Rock, Arkansas, schools to
comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v.
Board of Education. Here, the troops are moving pro-
testors away from the high school.

fin82797_03_c03_053-074.indd 60 3/24/16 1:40 PM

Section

3.3 Historical Phases of Federalism

National Guard block nine Black students from entering a local Little Rock high school. Presi-
dent Dwight D. Eisenhower “federalized” the Arkansas National Guard, which in effect shifted
their command from the governor to the president. President Eisenhower then ordered the
Arkansas National Guard to escort and protect the nine Black students integrating Central
High School. Such events can add tension to the federal–state relationship.

3.3 Historical Phases of Federalism

Like the U.S. Constitution and core American values, approaches to federalism have changed
over time. From the Dual Federalism (1789 to the 1930s) period through the Cooperative
Federalism (1930s to 1960s) period (which included Creative Federalism [mid-1960s]), the
balance of power shifted from the states to the national government. New Federalism is char-
acterized by an attempt to rebalance the distribution of power between the states and the
federal government in the 1970s and 1980s.

Dual Federalism, 1789–1933

Dual Federalism dominated between the time of the ratification of the Constitution and
1933, when the national government became more active during the time of the New Deal, a
legislative package intended to help Americans suffering during the Great Depression. During
the Dual Federalism period, there was a division of labor between the states and the national
government. While the national government was responsible for national concerns such as
securing borders, defending the nation, and maintaining foreign policy and mail delivery,
states were responsible for local law enforcement, education, and maintaining roads and
waterways.

Cooperative Federalism,

1933–1960s

As the national government assumed
more responsibility for domestic pol-
icy during the Great Depression, the
states were responsible for imple-
mentation. This Cooperative Feder-
alism phase involved the states and
the national government working
together to implement public policy,
which brought the era of intergov-
ernmental relations.

People line up for food during the Great Depression.
The end of the Great Depression ushered in the era of
Cooperative Federalism.

fin82797_03_c03_053-074.indd 61 3/24/16 1:40 PM

Section 3.3 Historical Phases of Federalism

As an example, when Social Security was enacted in 1935, it created a retirement program
for senior citizens and public assistance for the poor originally called Aid to Dependent Chil-
dren (ADC) (and in the 1960s came to be known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children
[AFDC]). The national government created guidelines for implementing ADC and funded it
while the states implemented it. States could determine who would be eligible to receive
assistance and how much they would receive based on national criteria.

In the Dual Federalism period, the states and the national government operated separately,
while under Cooperative Federalism the states and the national government worked together.
Americans now looked to the national government for solutions to their problems largely
because the states did not have the resources to address them, although the states also looked
to the national government to address their concerns. One result was that the states lost
power under Cooperative Federalism.

Creative Federalism, 1963–1969

Creative Federalism began in 1963 with the Johnson administration. Creative Federal-
ism represented a shift of power from the states to the federal government through use of
grants-in-aid and increased regulation. The national government sought to create new pro-
grams through numerous grants-in-aid programs to both states and localities under Creative
Federalism.

But Creative Federalism also used crossover sanctions to achieve state compliance. A cross-
over sanction occurs when the national government withholds funding in one program area
to ensure compliance in other areas. As an example, when Congress passed the Voting Rights
Act in 1965 and prohibited racial discrimination in allowing people to vote, many states chose
not to enforce it. Using the crossover sanction, the national government threatened to with-
hold promised subsidies, such as funding for highway repairs, for states that failed to enforce
the act. Subsidies refer to special assistance from the government for a program or project,
such as a social program. Initially, there were some strongly segregationist states that were
adamantly opposed to allowing African Americans to vote and were thus willing to forfeit
highway subsidies. Arguably, the national government could have sent in federal marshals to
protect voting rights, but doing so would have heightened the tension between the national
government and the states. Crossover sanctions persuaded Southern states to comply with
the Voting Rights Act.

New Federalism I, 1972–1980

In response to the growth in grants-in-aid, the Nixon administration introduced New Fed-
eralism, which was intended to restore the traditional balance between the states and the
national government. The real objective was to cut many of the social programs that had been
connected to President Johnson’s domestic policy and anti-poverty programs enacted during
the 1960s under Creative Federalism.

fin82797_03_c03_053-074.indd 62 3/24/16 1:40 PM

Section 3.3 Historical Phases of Federalism

Initially, the Nixon administration
sought to combine categorical grants
into block grants. But Nixon’s New
Federalism introduced general rev-
enue sharing, which involves the
national government giving money
to the states without restrictions on
how those monies would be spent.
Nixon reasoned that this approach
would be politically feasible as,
instead of cities applying directly to
the national government for categor-
ical grants, they could get lump sums
to use for themselves. Suburban
areas often received more money
than central cities did.

New Federalism II, 1982–
Present

Although states had more discretion under the New Federalism/general revenue sharing
arrangement, the balance of power favored the national government. Governors complained
that the traditional balance of power between the states and the national government was
distorted because the states were limited in determining their spending priorities.

The Reagan administration (1981–
1989) promised to end the big gov-
ernment era and restore the balance
of power between the states and the
national government. As with Nixon
before him, Reagan confronted Dem-
ocratic majorities in Congress who
resisted cutting social programs. The
means to reform this system came
to be known as New Federalism II,
which featured the Great Swap and
the Super Trust Fund.

The Great Swap, as proposed,
involved the national government
trading responsibilities with the
states. The national government
would maintain responsibility for
Medicare (health insurance for the
elderly), while states would have
responsibility for Medicaid (health
insurance for the poor and people with certain disabilities). Until this point, Medicaid was
jointly funded by both the national government and the states.

President Ronald Reagan outlined his version of New
Federalism in his 1982 State of the Union address.
The states and federal government would trade some
responsibilities. For instance, the states would be
responsible for Medicaid and the national govern-
ment for Medicare.

Associated Press

President Richard M. Nixon introduced New Federal-
ism. In it, cities applying for federal categorical grants
receive monies in a lump sum to allocate to their com-
munities as they see fit.

fin82797_03_c03_053-074.indd 63 3/24/16 1:40 PM

Section 3.3 Historical Phases of Federalism

Further, the national government would provide temporary funding for the states’ new
responsibilities through a Super Trust Fund, which would be established for almost $30 bil-
lion and expire after 4 years. After the funds ran out, states could either discontinue their
programs or manage them with state funds.

Reagan reasoned that without national funding, governors would have no choice but to cut
Medicaid and other state social programs. Governors initially liked the idea because they
would have full discretion over their programs and budgets.

New Federalism II, however, never really emerged as New Federalism I did. States did assume
responsibility for Medicaid while the national government maintained responsibility for
Medicare. A trust fund was set up, but it was not easily phased out because a big recession set
in during the early 1980s and the governors resisted losing federal funds. The states became
increasingly dependent on the national government for support, as they could not meet the
needs of the people. Figure 3.2 illustrates the rising costs of Medicaid for the federal and state
government.

Figure 3.2: State and federal costs of Medicaid

With the Great Swap and the Super Trust Fund, President Ronald Reagan switched primary
responsibility for Medicaid from the national to the state governments.

Adapted from “Figure 1. Medicaid Enrolling and Spending, FY 1966-FY 2013,” by Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission
(MACPAC), 2014 (https://www.macpac.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Figure-1.-Medicaid-Enrollment-and-Spending-FY-1966-
FY-2013 ).

fin82797_03_c03_053-074.indd 64 3/24/16 1:40 PM

https://www.macpac.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Figure-1.-Medicaid-Enrollment-and-Spending-FY-1966-FY-2013

Section

3.4 The Meaning of Federalism Today

Unfunded Mandates

Arguably, New Federalism paved the way to the era of unfunded mandates. An unfunded
mandate works similarly to Creative Federalism as, with unfunded mandates, the federal gov-
ernment does not provide the states with needed funding, which forces the states to pay for
nationally mandated programs on their own.

As an example, each state provides unemployment benefits that its finances with its respec-
tive state unemployment insurance trust funds, into which employers have paid premiums.
Most states provide unemployment benefits for 26 weeks, although during severe recessions
the federal government may extend benefits for 13 weeks or more. When Congress votes to
extend unemployment benefits, it appropriates money for the additional coverage, but not
enough to cover the entire cost. The portion that is left to the states to pay is an unfunded
mandate.

Congress passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, which was intended to limit
the number of unfunded mandates imposed upon the states. Under the law, mandates could
not be imposed unless federal funding was included in the mandate to help state and local
governments fulfill mandate requirements.

3.4 The Meaning of Federalism Today

Federalism has come to be understood as intergovernmental relations where the lines that
divide national and state sovereignty are less clear than they were in the past. Multiple images
help us understand contemporary American federalism.

Layer Cake Theory of Federalism

In constitutional terms, the national government interacts with the states and the states
interact with their respective local governments. In traditional federalism, there is no interac-
tion between the national government and localities. This type of a federalism system is often
compared to a layer cake with three layers, one on top of the other. The reality is far more
complicated, as both the national government and localities have found ways to bypass the
states.

Marble Cake Theory of Federalism

Some argue that, because of the constant interaction between the states and the national gov-
ernment, the federal system can be thought of as a marble cake rather than a layer cake (see
Figure 3.3). In a marble cake, the flavors are integrated and blend into one another. No one
flavor stands on its own.

fin82797_03_c03_053-074.indd 65 3/24/16 1:40 PM

Section 3.4 The Meaning of Federalism Today

If we think of the different layers or parts of a layer cake (Dual Federalism) or marble cake
(Cooperative Federalism, Creative Federalism) representing different strands of sovereignty
and authority, it becomes clear that states cannot function without the national government
and the national government cannot function without the states. This was certainly true in
the era of Cooperative Federalism. To meet the needs of their citizens, the states needed the
assistance of the national government, while the national government needed the assistance
of the states to deliver goods and services to the people. Public policy in the form of public
programs became a joint effort.

In contemporary federalism, formal divisions between national and state governments are
harder to explain. Consider the following examples: With clear divisions, a person committing
a state crime such as murder would be tried in state court after the crime had been investi-
gated by local police. Meanwhile, if the same person had committed a federal crime, such as
terrorism, the crime would be investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and
tried in federal court. Here, there is a clear distinction between levels of government, like lay-
ers of a cake.

With the marble cake, however, it is not always clear who is responsible for what. When
terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in New York City on September 11, 2001, there
were questions as to who was responsible for the ensuing investigation. Because the attack
occurred in New York City, it would normally fall under the jurisdiction of the New York City
Police Department. But given the high-profile target, the motivation for the attack, and the
great loss of life and destruction, the city needed additional resources, so the New York State

Figure 3.3: American federalism

The federal system of government can be thought of as similar to a marble cake, because all levels
(flavors) are mixed and one level cannot function without the other.

From http://theroledex.wordpress.com/2010/10/17/rigidity-in-the-crime-complex-by-ny-and-ljd/

fin82797_03_c03_053-074.indd 66 3/24/16 1:40 PM

Section 3.4 The Meaning of Federalism Today

police were called in. The fact that the attack was also an act of terrorism made it a matter of
concern for the FBI and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

One might hope that all levels of government would cooperate despite uncertainty over issues
of jurisdiction, which speaks to the marble cake nature of the federal system. In most cases,
there tends to be great confusion, while in other cases there are too few resources for states
to address emergency situations. For instance, when Hurricane Katrina wiped out most of
New Orleans in 2005, the state of Louisiana did not have the resources to address the prob-
lem. Local and state officials, including the Louisiana National Guard, were needed to evacu-
ate some people, rescue others, and prevent looting. The federal government, through the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), was needed to provide relief and assistance
to residents who were displaced from their homes.

Adding to these approaches to
federal–state relationships is that
there are some powers that are held
by both the federal and the state gov-
ernments. These powers are called
concurrent powers. In these situa-
tions, both the federal and the state
governments hold specific pow-
ers, but that does not always mean
that they will be exercised at both
levels, nor do the federal and state
governments need to work together
when using their concurrent pow-
ers. For example, the power to tax is
held by the federal and by the state
governments.

States as Laboratories
of Democracy

Federalism today is often understood as a tug of war between those seeking more uniform
national standards and those seeking more flexibility for the states. The question is often
whether the notion of state sovereignty in the 21st century has any real meaning when the
states increasingly rely on the national government to provide them with financial assistance.
Some might argue that the U.S. government should be thought of as a unitary system with
a central authority that delegates authority and power to administrative subdivisions. Yet
states continue to have a vital role to play. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis (1856–1941)
famously observed that states in the federal system are laboratories of democracy—they
represent places to experiment with policy before it is tried out on the nation as a whole.

Wisconsin’s welfare-to-work program in the 1990s provides an example. The program
required that those receiving public assistance benefits work at least 20 hours a week. Those
needing training received it, while those requiring child care to participate also received
it. Participants could continue receiving Medicaid. The idea was to transition people from

The marble cake theory of federalism was exempli-
fied in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, when the
state of Louisiana and the city of New Orleans did not
have enough resources to deal with the emergency.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
stepped in to assist residents who were displaced
from their homes.

fin82797_03_c03_053-074.indd 67 3/24/16 1:40 PM

Section 3.4 The Meaning of Federalism Today

dependence on welfare to independence in the labor force. As the number of families on wel-
fare declined, federal officials and policy planners wondered if the success of the Wisconsin
program could be duplicated at the national level.

Following Wisconsin’s example, President Clinton signed a sweeping reform law in 1996
requiring welfare recipients to work in exchange for their benefits. As part of the reform,
the national government established a new program called Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF). States received TANF funds in the form of block grants and could distribute
the money as they saw fit. At the heart of the reform were the welfare-to-work programs
that each state would create. Some states might provide little help in finding employment,
while others might provide substantial help for job seekers, including résumé writing, inter-
view training, and general skills training. States wanting to reduce their welfare rolls (also
a requirement of the law) could find ways to disqualify recipients, which forced them into
the labor market and to accept whatever jobs available to them. Wisconsin’s welfare-to-work
program is an example of a laboratory of democracy. Clinton’s federal welfare reform pro-
gram was democratic because it emerged from grassroots experimentation.

Local Autonomy

Within the federal system, local govern-
ments are very different from states.
While the Constitution makes no men-
tion of local governments, it assumes
that municipalities function within, and
are governed by, their respective states.
Today, the federalist model extends to
local government, and local govern-
ments have only as much power and
independence as their states want them
to have.

Dillon’s Rule Versus Home-Rule
Charters
The guiding principle regarding local
autonomy versus state oversight is
known as Dillon’s Rule. In 1868, Iowa Circuit Judge Forrest Dillon expressed this opinion
regarding a dispute between the state of Iowa and a city:

Municipal corporations owe their origin to, and derive their powers and rights
wholly from, the legislature. It breathes into them the breath of life, without
which they cannot exist. As it creates, so may it destroy. If it may destroy, it
may abridge and control.

Cities, in other words, are creatures of the state. Disputes between municipalities and states
are decided in favor of the state. Cities have only those powers expressly granted to them by
state governments.

Associated Press/Richard Drew

An example of Dillon’s Rule was the New York
City mayor’s plan to reduce traffic congestion by
requiring drivers to pay a surcharge when they
entered the city. The plan, proposed by the city,
required approval by the state legislature.

fin82797_03_c03_053-074.indd 68 3/24/16 1:40 PM

Section

3.5 The Future of Federalism

Most cities have home-rule charters, which establish the limits of local authority. A city with
a home-rule charter is generally more sovereign than a city without one. Charters are granted
by either state legislatures or provisions in state constitutions. Cities without home-rule char-
ters are assumed to be governed by Dillon’s Rule, which gives state legislatures much more
power over them.

Types of Local Government
There are more than 3,000 local governments of different types and with different respon-
sibilities in the United States. Each state constitution provides for local entities, including
counties, municipalities, and special districts. County governments are generally responsible
for record keeping such as births, deaths, and land transfers; the administration of elections
including voter registration; construction and maintenance of local and rural roads; zoning;
building code enforcement; and the administration of justice. The functions of counties vary
from state to state.

Municipalities are incorporated cities, towns, or villages within a county that have their
own governing and taxing authority. Some municipalities take up an entire county, such as
San Francisco and Jacksonville. Some cities, such as Chicago, are the principal cities in their
respective counties (Chicago is in Cook County, Illinois) while others, such as New York City,
span several counties. Finally, special districts operate independently of other local govern-
ments and are usually established to serve a specific purpose within a geographic region. As
such, special districts often have their own taxing authorities.

3.5 The Future of Federalism

Questions concerning the future of federalism often focus on whether federalism as it is cur-
rently known is really viable. As citizens ask the national government to do more, there would
appear to be less of a need for the traditional division of power and authority between the
states and the national government. History, particularly where civil rights are concerned,
has shown that people cannot rely on the states to protect them. The argument for national
authority is that it is necessary to achieve uniformity of standards. If left up to the states, each
will do things as it sees fit.

Consider the example of the federal minimum wage. The federal minimum wage was set at
$7.25 in July 2009. Without a national uniform standard, one or more states might have mini-
mum wages below that standard, or none at all. Uniformity of standards requires a strong cen-
tralized authority at the national level, as well as states that will comply with that authority.

There remains a strong rationale for maintaining the federal system. During the late 1800s,
Lord James Bryce argued that federalism prevents the rise of despotic governments that
would absorb other powers and threaten the private liberties of citizens. Federalism ensures
that power and authority are well distributed.

Federalism also provides the best means for developing a growing country, principally because
it allows for experimentation. The forms of self-government that occur within smaller units

fin82797_03_c03_053-074.indd 69 3/24/16 1:40 PM

Summary and Resources

of governance may stimulate citizens’ interest in local affairs. This is because government is
closer to home and feels more relevant to citizens. For example, people tend to be more con-
cerned with their community’s decision to build a local sports stadium than with a congres-
sional debate over whether to try terrorists in civilian courts or military tribunals. Because
local government is closer to citizens, they can keep more of a watchful eye on what is going
on. Additionally, when governance is spread out widely, something that goes wrong in one
place will not adversely affect the rest of the nation. Finally, by creating many local legisla-
tures with broad powers, federalism relieves the national legislature of functions and respon-
sibilities that may prove too burdensome.

This was the argument that Madison made in Federalist No. 10, where he suggested an expan-
sive republic would both dilute the power of states and make them the centers of local politi-
cal activity. While all of this may be true, we must also remember that the future shape of the
federal system is whatever the people want it to look like.

Summary and Resources

Chapter Summary
Federalism is the formal division of authority and power between states and the national
government. In the American federal system, the states and the national government are
assumed to be equal in sovereignty. The American federalism system has evolved through
several phases. The first phase was Dual Federalism, which implied dual spheres of sover-
eignty within the national and state governments’ respective domains. For the most part, the
national government was limited to foreign affairs, and the states were responsible for domes-
tic functions. As the states found themselves unable to meet the needs of their citizens during
the Great Depression in the 1930s, the national government assumed more responsibility
for domestic policy and programs. What emerged was Cooperative Federalism, whereby the
states and national government worked together to deliver public goods and services to the
people. With the advent of Cooperative Federalism, the relationship between the states and
the national government changed from one of formal division of power and authority to one
of intergovernmental relations. The national and state governments had to work together to
get things done.

The third phase of federalism was Creative Federalism. The national government sought to
create new programs and treated the states and localities as subordinate and not coequal
governments. The national government offered grants on a two-for-one matching basis to
create programs around the country. This transformed state and local spending priorities. In
response to Creative Federalism, two separate phases of New Federalism occurred whereby
the national government sought to return power and authority to the states.

To a large extent, the evolution of federalism speaks to another unique feature of American
politics. The five phases reflect different conceptions about what the nature of the relation-
ship between the states and the national government ought to be. Much of American politics
revolves around these competing conceptions. The politics of federalism is often about which
unit of governance has greater authority, and which has jurisdiction in a particular policy
matter. Ultimately, this makes for a dynamic federal system. Tensions between the two fre-
quently play out on the national stage.

fin82797_03_c03_053-074.indd 70 3/24/16 1:40 PM

Summary and Resources

Key Ideas to Remember

• Federalism is understood to be the formal division of power and authority between
the national government and the states. Both the national government and the states
are understood to be sovereign entities even though the ultimate source of sover-
eignty is the American people.

• Claims to both national authority and states’ rights are rooted in the U.S. Con-
stitution. Claims to national authority are based on the Supremacy (Article VI)
and Commerce (Article I) Clauses, while claims to states’ rights are based on the
10th Amendment.

• The politics of federalism revolve around whether the national government has
authority over the states, or whether the principle of states’ rights effectively limits
national authority.

• The federal relationship in the Constitution deals mainly with the relationship
between the states and the national government; it does not deal with local govern-
ments, as local governments fall under the purview of their respective states. At
best, they can be autonomous through a home-rule charter, but they can never be
sovereign as the states are.

• American federalism has evolved over time from Dual Federalism, whereby the
states and the national government were each sovereign in their own spheres of
authority, to a situation where the national government has greater authority and
the states are, in effect, subordinate to it. This new relationship has been expressed
in Cooperative and Creative Federalism and more recently finds expression in the
principle of unfunded mandates.

• Although states are understood to be sovereign and cannot be forced to comply with
national authority, the national government can encourage compliance through the
use of the power of the purse, including grants-in-aid and crossover sanctions.

• There are arguments about the distribution of power in a federal system, although
most argue that federalism preserves individual liberty by dividing power and
preventing its centralization in one government. It also allows the states to serve as
laboratories of democracy—arenas for experimenting with policy before trying it
out at the national level.

Questions to Consider

1. How would you define federalism?
2. How has federalism changed over the years?
3. Is a federal system still necessary, or has it outlived its usefulness?
4. What are the benefits and detriments of having strong states’ rights?
5. What are some of the benefits and detriments of the layer cake versus the marble

cake approach to federalism?
6. What is the constitutional basis for Arizona to assert the right to check immigrants’

documentation?
7. Is it appropriate for local governments to use the Fifth Amendment’s “eminent

domain” power to promote urban renewal? Explain your answer.

fin82797_03_c03_053-074.indd 71 3/24/16 1:40 PM

Summary and Resources

Dual Federalism: for example, the national
government delivers the mail and states
maintain roads.

1799–1933

Congress passes the Social Security
Act, which has a public assistance
component to be jointly administered
by states and national government.

1935

Congress passes the Voting Rights Act.

1965

President Reagan introduces another
version of New Federalism in his State of
the Union Address.

1982

Congress passes the No Child Left
Behind Act.

2002

Cooperative Federalism

1933–1960s

Creative Federalism

1960–

1972

President Nixon introduces New Federalism.

1972

Unfunded mandates become sources of
tension between states and national

government.

1990s

1
8
0
0

2
0
1
5

Photo credits (top to bottom): James Steidl/iStock/Thinkstock, SuperStock/SuperStock, KenTannenbaum/iStock/Thinkstock, ©
Bettmann/Corbis, Associated Press/Evan Vucci.

Timeline: Federalism

fin82797_03_c03_053-074.indd 72 3/24/16 1:40 PM

Summary and Resources

block grant A type of grant-in-aid that
comes in a general category and allows
recipients to choose the programs and
the category on which they want to spend
money.

categorical grant A grant-in-aid given for
a specific purpose that can be spent on only
that purpose.

Commerce Clause A provision in Article I,
Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution stating that
Congress can regulate commerce between
the states.

concurrent powers Powers that are held
both by the federal government and by the
state governments.

Cooperative Federalism A phase of feder-
alism that began during the Great Depres-
sion, during which the federal government
designed and funded programs that were
then implemented by the states.

county A type of local government respon-
sible for record keeping, the administration
of elections, road construction and main-
tenance, zoning, and the administration of
justice.

Creative Federalism A phase of federalism
when the national government used grants-
in-aid and crossover sanctions to encourage
creative solutions and state compliance with
national mandates.

crossover sanction When the national gov-
ernment withholds funding in one program
area to ensure compliance in another.

Dillon’s Rule A judge’s ruling that cities are
creatures of their states.

Dual Federalism A phase of federalism
when both the states and national govern-
ments were sovereign in their respective
spheres of influence.

enumerated Listed, or numbered, one
by one; in the U.S. Constitution, used to
describe powers that are listed, such as Con-
gress’s powers in Article I, Section 8.

federalism A government system where
power and authority are shared by national
and state governments with ultimate author-
ity derived from the people.

general revenue sharing When the
national government gives the states a por-
tion of national revenue, which they can
spend as they choose.

grant-in-aid Money given by the national
government to the states for various uses.

home-rule charters Grants of authority by
state legislatures or state constitutions for
cities to govern themselves.

intergovernmental relations (IGR) Rela-
tionships and regular dealings between dif-
ferent units of governance.

interposition When a state places its sover-
eignty between itself and a national action to
argue that the national action does not apply
to that state.

laboratories of democracy The idea,
first articulated by Justice Louis Brandeis,
that states are useful places to experiment
with policies before trying them out at the
national level.

Medicaid Government-run medical insur-
ance program for the poor and people with
certain disabilities.

Medicare Government-run medical insur-
ance program for the elderly.

municipalities Cities that are incorporated.

Key Terms

fin82797_03_c03_053-074.indd 73 3/24/16 1:40 PM

Summary and Resources

New Federalism A phase in federalism
when the national government sought to
restore the traditional balance of power
and authority between the states and the
national government.

nullification When a state can effectively
veto national law.

preemption The judicial principle sug-
gested by the Supremacy Clause where
federal legislation is supreme over state
legislation conflicting with it.

special districts Local governments estab-
lished for a specific purpose.

subsidies Special assistance or aid given
by a government to support a program or
project, such as a social program.

Supremacy Clause Provision in Article
VI of the U.S. Constitution that states that
laws passed by Congress and signed by the
president are the supreme laws of the land;
it places supremacy of the law in the U.S.
Constitution and the national government.

unfunded mandates When the national
government imposes a program or cost on a
state or local government without providing
the money to fund that program.

Further Reading
Alston, L. J., & Ferrie, J. P. (1999). Southern paternalism and the American welfare state: Economics, politics, and

institutions in the South, 1865–1965. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Anton, T. J. (1989). American federalism and public policy: How the system works. Philadelphia, PA: Temple Univer-
sity Press.

Beer, S. H. (Ed.). (1982). Federalism: Making the system work. Washington, D.C.: Center for National Policy.

Beer, S. H. (1993). To make a nation: The rediscovery of American federalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Berman, D. R. (2003). Local government and the states: Autonomy, politics and policy. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Elazar, D. (1984). American federalism: A view from the states (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Feiock, R. C., & Scholz, J. T. (Eds.). (2010). Self-organizing federalism collaborative mechanisms to mitigate institu-
tional collective action. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Gerston, L. N. (2007). American federalism: A concise introduction. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Grodzins, M. (1974). The American system. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Kettl, D. (1987). The regulation of American federalism. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Nugent, J. D. (2009). Safeguarding federalism: How states protect their interests in national policymaking. Norman,
OK: University of Oklahoma Press.

Ryan, E. (2011). Federalism and the tug of war within. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Wright, D. S. (1982). Understanding intergovernmental relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

fin82797_03_c03_053-074.indd 74 3/24/16 1:40 PM

4 Congress and Policymaking

Learning Objectives

By the end of this chapter, you should be able to

• Distinguish between enumerated and implied congressional powers.
• Analyze congressional powers on the basis of the Necessary and Proper Clause.
• Analyze the ways that Congress performs its representative function.
• Analyze the organization of Congress and how that organization affects the legislative process.
• Describe how bills become laws and explain the political nature of the legislative process.
• Describe how Congress holds the executive branch accountable.
• Explain the different aspects of congressional elections.

fin82797_04_c04_075-106.indd 75 3/24/16 1:41 PM

Section

4.1 Congressional Powers as Stated in the U.S. Constitution

Toward the end of the 111th Congress (2009–2011), Congress passed a bill to extend two of

President George W. Bush’s tax cut bills: the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation
Act (2001) and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act (2003). While the cuts
lowered tax rates overall, earners in the top tax brackets derived greater benefit than those in
lower tax brackets did. Critics suggested that the cuts were actually giveaways to the rich,
while supporters claimed reduced taxes helped spur economic growth, as individuals would
have more money in their pockets to spend.

As the tax cuts were about to
expire in 2010, President Barack
Obama and congressional Demo-
crats favored the tax cuts expiring
for those earning at least $200,000
per year. Meanwhile, Republicans,
who had secured a majority in the
House and narrowed the Democrats’
majority in the Senate in the 2010
midterm elections, promised to
extend the cuts for everyone. The tax
rates would increase on January 1,
2011 if no action were taken. Mem-
bers of both parties were concerned
that a tax rate increase would slow
the emerging economic recovery.

Incoming Republicans were pre-
pared to vote for a complete exten-

sion once the 112th Congress took office on January 6, 2011. They believed that there were so
many Democrats concerned about being reelected in 2012 that they would vote with them
to make the needed legislative majorities. Democrats believed that if no action were taken on
the extension, the Republicans would gain the upper hand. Democrats also wanted to extend
unemployment insurance benefits to last 99 weeks and pass a new stimulus plan, which the
Republicans opposed.

Some Democrats in Congress were prepared to stand on principle and reject Republican
demands. Yet with help from the White House, most Democrats and Republicans were able
to reach a compromise. Congressional Democrats and the president supported a 2-year tax
cut extension across all income categories if congressional Republicans would support the
99-week unemployment benefits extension along with a stimulus package that included a 2%
deduction of Social Security payroll taxes for 1 year. Ideological purists in both parties were
dissatisfied, while practical-minded Congress members understood the political realities of
lawmaking that include deal making, vote trading, and compromises. The tax cut extension is
a good example of how Congress members seek to represent their constituents. In this chap-
ter, we explore how Congress represents the American people.

4.1 Congressional Powers as Stated in the U.S. Constitution

Congress is the legislative branch. As such, it writes the nation’s laws and makes public pol-
icy. Further, Congress holds the executive branch accountable through its oversight function.

After much haggling and compromise, members of
Congress from both parties, along with President
Barack Obama, reached an agreement to extend the
Bush tax cuts that both sides could live with.

fin82797_04_c04_075-106.indd 76 3/24/16 1:41 PM

Section 4.1 Congressional Powers as Stated in the U.S. Constitution

By raising and spending money, Congress determines how taxpayer funds will be allocated.
The U.S. Senate influences foreign policy through its power to confirm Cabinet-level appoint-
ments (secretary of state, secretary of defense) and ambassadorships and by ratifying trea-
ties. Finally, Congress participates in national security by raising armies and declaring war on
other nations. Each of these functions speaks to the primary role of the legislative branch to
represent the people.

The scope of congressional power, and the parameters of its representation, are both estab-
lished in Article I of the Constitution, Section I, which states, “All legislative Powers herein
granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and
House of Representatives.” Once Congress is established as bicameral, or made up of two
chambers, it defines who is eligible to serve, how each chamber selects its members, and term
length. Members of the House represent the people in districts for 2-year terms. Citizens are
also represented by senators, who serve for 6-year terms.

Most importantly, however, Article I outlines the principal powers of Congress, which are the
power of the purse, the power to declare war, and implied powers.

Enumerated Powers: The Power of the Purse

The power of the purse is perhaps Congress’s most important power. Article I, Section 7
states, “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Sen-
ate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.” This means all bills concerning
taxes must be proposed by the House of Representatives before moving on to the Senate. It is
the responsibility of Congress to pass the national budget before it is signed by the president.
Article I, Section 8 includes enumerated powers, or the powers specifically granted to Con-
gress by the Constitution: “Congress shall have Power to Lay and collect Taxes . . . To borrow
Money on the Credit of the United States . . . To Coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of
foreign Coin and fix the Standard of weights and Measures.” Further, Congress has the authority
to impose taxes, borrow money, and print money. Congress may decide whether the nation
will use coins or print money.

While Congress has the power to
raise taxes and spend money, the
national budget, like any other law,
must be approved by majorities in
both houses of Congress and signed
by the president. The Budget and
Accounting Act of 1921 requires
the president to prepare budget
estimates, which are then submit-
ted to Congress. This requirement
helps Congress learn about depart-
ment budget needs. Before this law
was enacted, departments often
submitted their budget estimates
directly to Congress. The purpose
of the Budget and Accounting Act,

Associated Press/Doug Mills

Only Congress has the authority to lay and collect taxes,
and to borrow and print money. Presidents prepare
budgets and submit them to Congress.

fin82797_04_c04_075-106.indd 77 3/24/16 1:41 PM

Section 4.1 Congressional Powers as Stated in the U.S. Constitution

which required the president to submit budget estimates, was to give the president respon-
sibility for the budget. From an administrative standpoint, the president has greater control
over executive branch agencies and departments, which promotes greater accountability. The
president’s right to submit a budget proposal can be inferred from Article II, Section 3 of the
Constitution, which says, “He shall from time to time give the Congress Information of the State
of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary
and expedient.”

Consider the vignette introducing this chapter. Extending the Bush tax cuts required Congress
to introduce a bill calling for their extension. Because the bill concerned taxation, the House
had to introduce it, after which the Senate needed to approve it before it was formally pre-
sented to the president, which is required under Article I, Section 7. Had Congress failed to
act, it would have meant the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts, as originally enacted.

Enumerated Powers: The Power to Declare War

The enumerated powers of Congress include the power to “declare War,” “raise and support
Armies,” and “provide and maintain a Navy.” If Congress declares war, Congress must also
appropriate the money to fight it. When the Constitution was initially ratified, there was no
Air Force, and the Army and Navy were each separate departments. Today, all branches of
the military fall under the Department of Defense, and Congress makes appropriations for all
of them. Still, the authority to appropriate money to the armed forces is taken from specific
constitutional provisions.

The formal authority to declare war is a matter of maintaining checks and balances. Tradi-
tionally, presidents request formal declarations of war from Congress. Congress has declared
war five times since the Constitution was ratified. The last time was on December 8, 1941,
one day after the Japanese attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor. President Roosevelt
appeared before a joint session of Congress and requested the declaration. Historical con-
gressional declarations of war include the following:

• War of 1812 (1812–1814)
• Mexican American War (1846–1848)
• Spanish-American War (1898–1898)
• World War I (1917–1921)
• World War II (1941–1945)

Implied Powers and the Necessary and Proper Clause

Congress’s implied powers are based on the enumerated powers in Section 8. Congress uses
its implied powers to expand its authority beyond the scope of its enumerated powers. Arti-
cle I, Section 8, Clause 18 states, “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for
carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution
of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” As noted in earlier chapters, this
clause is also known as the Necessary and Proper Clause and suggests that Congress has
an implied power to do something not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution if it infers
that such action is necessary to fulfill its other constitutional requirements. For example,

fin82797_04_c04_075-106.indd 78 3/24/16 1:41 PM

Section

4.2 The Meaning of Representation

Congress’s enumerated powers include the power “To raise and support armies,” although the
Constitution does not specify what that means. It has meant calling upon state National Guard
units and military drafts even though the Constitution does not give Congress the specific
authority to do either. Congress, however, can infer the right on the basis of the Necessary and
Proper Clause, because calling upon the National Guard is understood, or inferred, to be part
of Congress’s power to “raise and support armies,” which is an enumerated power.

Implied powers are the basis for justifying broadening congressional power. You may recall
from the last chapter that during the period of Dual Federalism, congressional power was
assumed to be limited because the Constitution outlines what it can do. More recently, Con-
gress has overcome that restriction by asserting its implied powers. If Congress passes a law
using its implied powers and without enumerated constitutional authority, that law may be
challenged as unconstitutional in the courts.

Even when there is an enumerated power, such as with interstate commerce in the Commerce
Clause, its scope may not be clear. The Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress to tie
legislation to the Commerce Clause. Congress established the precedent for such an expan-
sion of its powers in the early days of the republic when the Federalists supported a national
bank over the objections of the Anti-Federalists, who claimed that it would violate states’
rights. After heated debate, Congress established the bank on the grounds that it was neces-
sary and proper for the purposes of coining money.

Arguably, such reasoning could serve as the basis for unlimited congressional authority. This
argument was used when Congress passed the first minimum wage law in 1938. Before then,
national legislation was considered to be an unconstitutional encroachment on a state’s police
power. Congress argued that, when firms were conducting business across state lines, employee
pay was a matter of national concern because of Congress’s express authority to regulate inter-
state commerce. The constitutionality of the minimum wage was upheld on these grounds.

More recently, during the debate leading up to passage of the Affordable Care Act of 2010,
conservative critics asked what the basis in the Constitution was for such legislation, espe-
cially the requirement that individuals purchase health insurance. Congress’s response was
that the power was found in the Commerce Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Afford-
able Care Act on the grounds that the health insurance requirement was a tax. As Article I,
Section 8 gives Congress the power to lay and collect taxes, it was within Congress’s power to
mandate health insurance because the tax is a penalty for not purchasing the health insurance.

4.2 The Meaning of Representation

Congress makes policy and passes legislation all as part of its representation function. Yet rep-
resentation means different things to different people under different circumstances. On the
one hand, representation can mean that Congress members do exactly what the people tell
them to do. Yet Congress members represent by doing what they believe is right because they
have been entrusted by the people to speak and make decisions on their behalf. Representa-
tion can be interpreted on an individual level, such as when a member of Congress performs
constituent services such as helping to track down a missing Social Security payment; it also
can mean that Congress as a legislative body represents the people by holding the executive

fin82797_04_c04_075-106.indd 79 3/24/16 1:41 PM

Section 4.2 The Meaning of Representation

branch of government accountable. Congress members are expected to represent the people
by serving as their agent and acting on their behalf.

Apportionment and Congressional Districts

Article I of the Constitution provides for apportionment, or the distribution of House seats
among the states on the basis of population. Larger states are apportioned more represen-
tatives than smaller states are. House seats are apportioned into congressional districts.
The Constitution does not require congressional districts. Rather, it states in Article I,
Section 2,

The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting
of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten
Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The number of Representa-
tives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at
least one Representative.

Put differently, it is up to the states to define the boundaries of congressional districts.

During the early years, each state could decide if it wanted districts at all. Most states estab-
lished themselves as single-member districts, which meant that each district had only one rep-
resentative. The alternative was to allow for members of the House to represent their states
on an at-large basis such that a state with 10 House seats would be represented by all 10,

each representing the entire state, as opposed
to 10 separate districts, with one representa-
tive each. An at-large system would make the
House similar to the Senate with members rep-
resenting their states rather than the people.
To prevent this, Congress passed the Appor-
tionment Act in 1842 requiring all states to
send representatives to Congress from single-
member districts (as of the 2010 Census, seven
states have one representative each because
of their small populations; in these states, all
state residents are represented at large).

Interestingly, the Constitution does not require
equal representation in each congressional
district. According to Article I, Section 2, “The
Number of Representatives shall not exceed one
for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall
have at Least one Representative.” The impli-
cation is that there is no fixed number of rep-
resentatives in the House. As the population
grew, the Constitution implied, so too would
the number of representatives. But in 1929,
federal law fixed the number of House seats at

Associated Press/Nati Harnik

The Nebraska Legislature’s Redistricting
Committee redraws the state’s congressio-
nal districts, something states do periodi-
cally. Beyond the one-seat minimum guar-
anteed in the Constitution, the number of
House seats apportioned to each state is
determined by population.

fin82797_04_c04_075-106.indd 80 3/24/16 1:41 PM

Section 4.2 The Meaning of Representation

435, which meant that as the population increased, each House member would represent
a larger population within the same geographical area. As of the 2010 Census, each House
member represents approximately 710,000 people.

Gerrymandering
District boundary lines are not necessarily fixed. States will draw district lines as they see fit,
which may reflect state legislators’ desire to gerrymander to advance their own political
interests. Gerrymandering occurs when a district is intentionally configured to maximize
the influence of a specific party or class, often guaranteeing that districts remain safe for spe-
cific incumbents or parties. Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry first employed this prac-
tice prior to the 1812 election in an effort to protect his political party representation in the
state legislature. One district ended up looking like a salamander, and as a result the practice
came to be known as gerrymandering (see Figure 4.1).

One example of gerrymandering eventually resulted in a Supreme Court challenge. Following
the 1990 census, the North Carolina General Assembly sought to enact a congressional plan
with only one district with a majority of minority group members in 1991. This was known as
majority-minority districting, often referred to as racial gerrymandering. The demographics
of this northeast North Carolina area
made it possible to create a small
Black district by joining it with the
predominantly Black precinct in Dur-
ham, North Carolina. The U.S. Justice
Department opposed the plan, how-
ever, because of insufficient minority
representation. At the time, the state
was 22% African American; one pre-
dominantly African American district
was deemed insufficient.

Meanwhile, the State General Assem-
bly, then controlled by Democrats,
responded in early 1992 by creat-
ing a gerrymandered district. While
Republicans had proposed several
plans that would contain two minor-
ity districts, Democratic leaders in
the Assembly selected one and modi-
fied it to be more favorable to their
party. Several Republicans challenged
the plan, claiming that it lacked both
compactness and respect for commu-
nity interests.

In Shaw v. Reno (1993), the U.S.
Supreme Court ruled that a racial
gerrymander may, in some circum-
stances, violate the 14th Amendment’s

Figure 4.1: Gerrymander cartoon

The concept of gerrymandering takes its name from an
1812 Essex County, Massachusetts, district, which was
intentionally drawn to benefit Governor Elbridge Gerry’s
political party. This cartoon of the district as a dragon
satirized the practice.

fin82797_04_c04_075-106.indd 81 3/24/16 1:41 PM

Section 4.2 The Meaning of Representation

Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court did not rule the plan was invalid; rather, it sent
the case back to the district court to determine whether the districts had been drawn on the
basis of race and, if so, whether the racial gerrymander that resulted was “narrowly tailored
to further a compelling governmental interest.”

States still engage in gerrymandering to achieve certain results. Members of the U.S. House of
Representatives and in state legislatures seek to run in districts in which they can expect to win
because there are lopsided percentages of persons registered with their political party in that
district. Additionally, the majority party in state legislatures will draw districts that create dis-
advantages for the minority party. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld such arrangements on
the grounds that, provided certain approaches are taken, such as ensuring that the districts
respect community boundaries, then the 14th and 15th amendments are not deemed to have
been violated. Figure 4.2 demonstrates the various shapes U.S. congressional districts can take.

Figure 4.2: Map of U.S. congressional districts

Many U.S. congressional districts are still elaborately drawn to benefit members of the party in power.

From “Congressional Districts – 113th Congress,” by The National Map, 2014 (http://nationalmap.gov/small_scale/printable/images
/pdf/congdist/pagecgd113_us-all ).

Reapportionment
Because representation in the House is based on population size, the number of representa-
tives from each state is not fixed. Rather, the House is required to reapportion, that is, redis-
tribute, members based on changes in state populations. The Constitution specifically calls
for a census to be taken every 10 years for the primary purpose of reapportioning the House
of Representatives. This means that population shifts are reflected in congressional appor-
tionment. For example, Texas gained four House seats following the 2010 Census, while Loui-
siana lost one House seat. In 2005, Hurricane Katrina resulted in thousands of New Orleans
residents seeking refuge in Houston. Louisiana’s population shift to Texas contributed in part

fin82797_04_c04_075-106.indd 82 3/24/16 1:41 PM

http://nationalmap.gov/small_scale/printable/images/pdf/congdist/pagecgd113_us-all

Section 4.2 The Meaning of Representation

to Texas gaining representation and Louisiana losing representation. The Supreme Court
affirmed that Congress must reapportion based on population shifts when it ruled in the 1962
case of Baker v. Carr because failing to do so effectually denied citizens equal representation.

Models of Representation

There are four basic models of representation: the delegate model, the trustee model, the over-
sight model, and the individual service model.

Delegate Model and the Role of Public Opinion
The delegate model holds that members of Congress are delegates of the people they serve,
and, as such, whatever position Congress members take is the position that their constituents
direct them to take. The delegate model is considered to be a form of agency representation,
whereby members regard their constituents as their bosses with the power to hire or fire
them. In order to know how to vote, members must stay in tune in with public opinion. As an
example, a Congress member seeking direction on a policy vote may poll her district to gauge
public opinion on the issue and vote accordingly.

This model suggests that Congress members have no opinions of their own and they support
whatever their constituents stand for. This raises the question of whether someone following
the delegate model can both lead and follow at the same time. The case might be made, how-
ever, that a delegate is not a follower. Rather, delegates’ positions on the issues reflect their
constituents’ values, which explains why they were elected.

A second assumption of the delegate model is that the primary goal of Congress members
is to be reelected. They can do this only if they satisfy the wishes of their constituents. In
the early 1970s, political scientist David Mayhew put forth the electoral connection thesis,
which has become the conventional wisdom about how Congress operates. According to this
thesis, the primary goal of Congress members is to be elected and reelected, and the desires
they express during a campaign to achieve certain legislative goals are the means to that end.
In short, they will say or do whatever it takes to get elected, and they will never vote against
the wishes of their constituents for fear that they will be voted out of office. In essence, David
Mayhew suggests that Congress members, in serving their constituents, are serving their own
self-interests.

Based on this thesis, constituents’ wishes come before Congress members’ party loyalty. One
might consider the vote on the Affordable Care Act to be a case where this thesis did not hold
up. Most public opinion polls showed that most Americans opposed the legislation, but a
majority in Congress voted for it anyway. Many of those who voted for it soon discovered that
they faced a tough reelection challenge. If Congress members paid attention only to public
opinion in their districts, then the health care bill might not have passed.

The answer to this puzzle may lie in the fact that representation is a much more complicated
process than has been described thus far, as is public opinion. On one level, those who voted
for the bill may have believed that most people in their respective districts wanted it or were
not so strongly opposed to it that they would deny them reelection.

fin82797_04_c04_075-106.indd 83 3/24/16 1:41 PM

Section 4.2 The Meaning of Representation

Trustee Model and Serving the Public Interest
Following constituent opinion is not the only reason why Congress members would favor the
Affordable Care Act. Some Congress members may have believed that this was an issue of the
common good, and they voted for the bill because their constituents entrusted them to make
decisions on their behalf. This approach to representation is embodied in the trustee model.

The trustee model was initially formulated by British statesman Edmund Burke (1729–1797),
who argued that representatives should vote based on what they believe is right. By electing
members to a legislative body, Burke said, the people have entrusted them to effectively vote
their conscience. Trustees, then, do not represent their constituents by following public opin-
ion polls. They do what they think best serves the public interest. The trustees then stand
before their constituents during the next campaign and justify their positions. If their con-
stituents are satisfied, they are reelected. If the public is not satisfied, the trustees are voted
out of office.

In some respects, this model is undemocratic
and implies a negative view of the people. Burke
himself was a conservative who did not believe
the people could be trusted. The representa-
tive should be a trustee, he argued, because the
people lack the proper judgment. Columnist and
television commentator George Will (1993) has
considered Burke’s views within the context of
term limits, arguing they would make the mem-
bers less beholden to their constituents and
more able to act like trustees.

Oversight Model and Delegating
Authority to the Executive Branch
When Congress holds the executive branch
accountable, it represents the people and serves
the common good by using the oversight
model, where accountability is typically main-
tained through hearings.

Congress holds the executive branch account-
able by delegating authority to executive branch
departments to perform various functions. For

example, Article I, Section 8 gives to Congress the power to “raise and support armies.” Con-
gress itself does not raise armies; those powers are delegated to the secretary of defense. If
someone within the Department of Defense fails to fulfill Congress’s expectations, that person
may be required to testify before Congress to explain his or her decision making, thus mak-
ing the Department of Defense accountable to Congress. During the Iraq War, members of the
U.S. Army, among others, abused and tortured detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The
Senate Armed Services Committee held hearings investigating these human rights violations.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was included among those who were called to testify.

The Art Archive/SuperStock

Edmund Burke formulated the trustee
model of government. Burke believed that
elected legislators were obligated to vote
their conscience if there was a conflict
with their constituents’ desires.

fin82797_04_c04_075-106.indd 84 3/24/16 1:41 PM

Section 4.2 The Meaning of Representation

Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution says, “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be
vested in a Congress of the United States.” Questions have arisen as to whether Article I, Sec-
tion 1 deprives Congress of the power to delegate power to the executive branch. The consti-
tutional provision also reflects John Locke’s view of a supreme legislative body. In his Second
Treatise, Locke (1689/1988) says,

This Legislative is not only the supreme power of the Commonwealth, but sacred
and unalterable in the hands where the Community have once placed it; nor can
any Edict of any Body else, in what Form soever conceived, or by what Power
soever backed, have the force and obligation of a Law.

He then notes that the supreme legislature cannot transfer more power than it has, nor can it
transfer power that it does not have.

Can Congress delegate its authority? One view suggests that it cannot. Another view suggests
that, if authority is delegated, the regulations put in place by the executive branch may not
fully reflect the legislature’s intent. Alternately, Congress’s delegation of authority to the exec-
utive branch is legitimate because the authority is limited to running a program that Congress
has created.

Oversight hearings are a regular
occurrence in Congress, and usu-
ally few citizens pay attention to
them. The Watergate hearings
were an exception. On June 17,
1972, operatives associated with
President Nixon’s Committee to
Reelect the President broke into
the Democratic National Commit-
tee headquarters at the Watergate
apartment and office complex in
Washington, D.C. The cover-up
that followed the arrest of the
operatives led all the way to the
president. Congress held special
investigative hearings that riv-
eted the nation for weeks. The
House Judiciary Committee rec-
ommended that the House of Rep-
resentatives impeach President
Nixon. The president resigned
before impeachment could pro-
ceed. Watergate was an extreme case, but it nevertheless stands as an excellent example of
Congress’s potential to represent the people through the oversight model.

Congress’s power to impeach and remove the president from office is found in Article II, Sec-
tion 4 of the U.S. Constitution. Public officials are removed upon impeachment and conviction
for “Treason, Bribery or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Impeachment is a critical
check on executive power. Seeking impeachment carries political risk for Congress members.

In 1973, the Watergate Committee held hearings to
investigate Richard Nixon’s cover-up of the break-in
of the Democratic National Committee headquarters
in the Watergate office and apartment complex. Nixon
became the first, and only, American president to
resign right before the House of Representatives voted
on impeachment.

fin82797_04_c04_075-106.indd 85 3/24/16 1:41 PM

Section 4.2 The Meaning of Representation

Impeachment and removal requires first that the House of Representatives vote to impose
Articles of Impeachment. A majority impeachment vote once made is followed by a Senate
trial. The chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court oversees Senate impeachment trials of the
president, but not other impeached public officials. A two-thirds Senate vote results in convic-
tion and removal.

Two presidents have been impeached and tried by the Senate. Andrew Johnson was acquitted
by one vote in 1868, while Bill Clinton was acquitted by a wider margin in 1999. Impeachment
strains relationships between the president and Congress. Andrew Johnson was impeached
for violating the Tenure of Office Act because he removed the secretary of war from office,
which angered his political opponents in Congress. The impeachment weakened Johnson’s
political position, which may have contributed to his failure to secure his party’s nomination
when seeking reelection in 1868. Clinton’s impeachment enhanced his popularity because it
was viewed as politically motivated among congressional Republicans. Presidential impeach-
ments may be rarely used because members of Congress may see themselves as undoing the
will of the people in doing so.

Service Model of Representation
Finally, members of Congress represent their constituents by performing services for them.
This is known as the service model of representation. As an example, a recently retired person
who is having trouble receiving his first Social Security payment may contact his representative
for help. All House members maintain offices in their home districts and in Washington, D.C.,
while senators maintain several offices throughout their respective states. Either a congressio-
nal staff member or the Congress member herself may contact the Social Security Administra-
tion, which can investigate the issue. To take another example, a researcher studying the history
of funding prison building may contact a Congress member. The office will issue a request to
the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress, and within a few weeks a report
may be forwarded to the researcher. This type of representation is important because it is often
the little things that win the support of constituents who see their lives improved as a result of
a direct connection with the Congress member or his or her office staff. Such representation is
very personal. Many constituents might not care much about congressional debates over for-
eign policy because they do not greatly affect their day-to-day lives, but this type of service does.

This type of service can be highly beneficial, but there is a risk for abuse that can lead to cor-
ruption. For example, in 1989, five U.S. senators were accused of improperly intervening on
behalf of Charles Keating, the chairman of Lincoln Savings and Loan. It was alleged that Keat-
ing gave $1.3 million in campaign contributions to Senators Alan Cranston of California, Den-
nis DeConcini and John McCain of Arizona, John Glenn of Ohio, and Donald Riegle of Michigan
(the “Keating Five”). In turn, the senators were alleged to have used their influence to get
bank regulators to overlook various banking violations. The Senate Ethics Committee cleared
both Glenn and McCain of acting improperly, but they were criticized for poor judgment. The
others were found to have acted improperly and did not seek reelection.

Which Model of Representation Does Congress Follow?
In summary, Congress follows all four models of representation, at times more than one
model at a time. Members sometimes act as delegates and at other times act like trustees.

fin82797_04_c04_075-106.indd 86 3/24/16 1:41 PM

Section

4.3 Congressional Organization

Meanwhile, they all are involved in oversight and service. It really depends on the specific
issue being considered, the amount of time between voting on the issue and the next election,
and how Congress members view their role and impact on American politics.

In considering various congressional roles, members of Congress are more likely to act as
delegates on matters of domestic policy, because such bread-and-butter issues more directly
affect their constituents’ lives and constituents are more likely to pay attention to domestic
issues compared with foreign policy concerns, about which the public is less informed. The
trustee model is more often followed in foreign affairs for these reasons. The four models of
representation thus overlap with one another. Additionally, Congress members deliver ben-
efits to their constituents by bringing various projects such as construction and government
contracts to their districts and states.

4.3 Congressional Organization

Congress is organized by both committees and party leadership, neither of which is specified
in the Constitution. Most of the work of Congress is done in committees, while the majority
party organizes each house of Congress and determines its leaders. Upon entering Congress,
a newly elected member will seek committee assignments based on various factors. These
factors may include committees that best serve their district or state (such as agricultural
committees that will write policies that will greatly affect states whose economies depend
more on agriculture than others); “money” committees, such as Ways and Means and Appro-
priations, which may be viewed as key committees that will serve as a critical base of power;
or committees for which the Congress member has special expertise, such as doctors serving
on health-related committees. Additionally, members may seek a committee that will best
serve their constituency.

As an example, persons seeking membership on the Armed Services Committee may have
weapons systems manufacturers in their districts. These members hope to maintain support
for the systems that a manufacturer makes, which will also maintain jobs for constituents.
This is an example of delivering the goods back to the district. Some committees are viewed
as more prestigious than others, such as those dealing with foreign policy, the military, or
justice. Committee service may lead to the possibility of becoming a committee chair or party
leader, such as speaker of the House or Senate majority leader. Members of Congress serve
on multiple committees at the same time, although they may not chair more than one of the
permanent policy committees (“standing committees,” discussed later in the chapter) at the
same time.

There is one leadership position in the Senate created to accommodate the constitutional
mandate that the vice president break Senate ties. The constitutional requirement that
there be two senators per state regardless of the state’s population leads to the possibility
that there may be a tie in the Senate. The Framers assigned the task of breaking ties to the
vice president, whom the Constitution names as president of the Senate. When the vice
president is not present, the Senate’s longest-serving member is assigned the role of presi-
dent pro-tempore.

fin82797_04_c04_075-106.indd 87 3/24/16 1:41 PM

Section 4.3 Congressional Organization

Congressional Committees

Congress is organized by committees principally because it is the most efficient way to get its
business done. Some Framers believed that in the spirit of democracy all members should be
knowledgeable about and able to debate all the issues that come before Congress. This might
have been possible in the early days of the republic, when Congress was relatively small and
had fewer responsibilities. In those days, Congress was in session for less than 3 months each
year, and members remained in their districts most of the time. The farmer who came to Con-
gress to represent a rural Virginia district would still spend most of his year at home farming.

Broad knowledge is no longer prac-
tical, as Congress deals with so many
complex issues. Dividing Congress
into committees allows specializa-
tion and division, which leads to
greater efficiency. Those on a com-
mittee whose jurisdiction includes
education may focus on education,
while the Armed Services Committee
deals with matters of defense. While
specialization means that members
can become experts on issues within
their committee’s jurisdiction, spe-
cialization may also mean that other
issues are largely ignored. The obvi-
ous question is whether members of
Congress can represent the people
when they are not fully knowledge-
able about everything about which
they are making decisions. Yet if they divide their time among all the issues so that they can know
something about everything, they may end up having little depth of knowledge across these
issues. In practice, members of Congress may not fully understand legislation on which they are
expected to vote. They may review summaries that have been prepared by staff members.

Parties in both the House and the Senate have used different methods for selecting committee
members. For instance, from 1911 to 1974, House Democrats relied on Democratic members
of the Ways and Means Committee to recommend assignments. Beginning in 1975, the Demo-
crats gave this function to the Steering and Policy Committee, chaired by the speaker, when
they were in the majority. Republicans in the House have a Committee on Committees that
is composed of one member from every state that has at least one Republican in the House.
This committee is chaired by the Republican floor leader. On the Senate side, Democrats have
a steering committee, appointed by the floor leader, that makes appointments. The steering
committee is composed of senior party members, who also serve as committee chairs. Senate
Republicans have a Committee on Committees that makes initial assignments also based on
seniority. The party caucus must approve all committee assignment recommendations.

Associated Press/J. Scott Applewhite

Vice President Joe Biden meets with congressional
committee leaders to negotiate a deficit reduction plan.
Congress is organized by committees because it is the
most efficient way to get things done.

fin82797_04_c04_075-106.indd 88 3/24/16 1:41 PM

Section 4.3 Congressional Organization

Types of Committees
There are four types of committees: standing committees, select committees, special commit-
tees, and joint committees. Power is located in committees and is where legislation is crafted.
Legislative research is also completed at the committee level. And testimony about the impact
a bill may have is communicated in committee, such as through hearings and written reports.

Standing committees exist per-
manently from one Congress to
the next and deal with a variety of
issues in a given subject area. An
example of a standing committee
is the House Education and Work-
force Committee, which may deal
with educational achievement, job
training, and the minimum wage.
Because these issues vary so widely,
they are often divided into subcom-
mittees. A subcommittee may deal
specifically with job training while
another deals with minimum wage.

A select committee is established
to address a specific purpose, such as a particular issue that needs to be addressed or that is
in a subject area that does not easily fit into a standing committee. Once the issue has been
addressed, the committee can be disbanded, or if the issue is expected to be ongoing, the
select committee can be transformed into a standing committee.

A joint committee is made up of members of both houses of Congress. The most common
joint committee is the conference committee. Bills passed in each chamber on the same
issue must be examined by a conference committee to ensure that they are the same because
the Constitution requires that Congress present bills to the president that are jointly agreed
upon by both houses. Conference committees also negotiate compromises if there are differ-
ences between the bills passed by each chamber.

A joint committee may also be convened to carry out congressional investigations into execu-
tive branch abuses of power or to discuss business the two houses have in common, such as
managing common facilities or arranging celebrations and memorials.

Table 4.1 lists the standing and joint committees in Congress.

Joint committees are made up of members of both
houses of Congress.

fin82797_04_c04_075-106.indd 89 3/24/16 1:41 PM

Section 4.3 Congressional Organization

Table 4.1: Committees of the 111th Congress (2015–2017)

Standing committees in the U.S.
House of Representatives

Standing committees
in the U.S. Senate Joint committees

Agriculture
Appropriations
Armed Services
Budget
Education and the Workforce
Energy and Commerce
Ethics
Financial Services
Foreign Affairs
Homeland Security
House Administration
Intelligence
Judiciary
Natural Resources
Oversight and Government
Reform
Rules
Science, Space, and Technology
Small Business
Transportation and
Infrastructure
Veterans’ Affairs
Ways and Means

Agriculture, Nutrition, and
Forestry
Appropriations
Armed Services
Banking, Housing, and Urban
Affairs
Budget
Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
Energy and Natural Resources
Environment and Public Works
Finance
Foreign Relations
Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions
Homeland Security and Govern-
mental Affairs
Judiciary
Rules and Administration
Small Business and
Entrepreneurship
Veterans’ Affairs

Joint Economic Committee
Joint Committee on the Library
Joint Committee on Printing
Joint Committee on Taxation

Data from “Committees,” by U.S. Senate, n.d. (http://www.senate.gov/committees/committees_home.htm) and “Committees,”
by U.S. House of Representatives, by U.S. House of Representatives, n.d. (http://www.house.gov/committees/).

Committee Chairs
Committee chairs are normally assigned based on seniority. Before 1974, those in Congress
the longest often found themselves chairing their choice of committee. This practice contrib-
uted to shrinking opportunities for newcomers to become key committee chairs. On the heels
of Watergate in 1974, the newly elected freshman members staged a revolt and demanded
that these rules be relaxed.

In the Senate, the seniority system meant that the Southern states held a disproportionate
amount of power. Until the 1970s, the South was essentially a one-party system, as nearly all
Southern senators were Democrats. It was quite challenging to accomplish anything in the
Senate without the approval of the Southern senators.

Leadership

Congress is also organized by party leadership. The political party with the most seats in a
chamber of Congress has earned the power to organize it. The speaker of the House of Repre-
sentatives, the House leader, is elected by the majority party. The speaker is the third in line
of succession to be president. Working directly below the speaker is the majority leader, who
supervises lieutenants known as whips, or floor leaders. Whips gauge support for specific
bills among members of their party. They also attempt to enforce party discipline so that the
rank-and-file members, or members of Congress who do not hold leadership positions, vote

fin82797_04_c04_075-106.indd 90 3/24/16 1:41 PM

http://agriculture.house.gov/

http://appropriations.house.gov/

https://armedservices.house.gov/

http://budget.house.gov/

http://edworkforce.house.gov/

https://energycommerce.house.gov/

http://ethics.house.gov/

http://financialservices.house.gov/

http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/

Home

http://cha.house.gov/

http://intelligence.house.gov/

https://judiciary.house.gov/

http://naturalresources.house.gov/

https://oversight.house.gov/

https://rules.house.gov/

https://science.house.gov/

http://smallbusiness.house.gov/

http://transportation.house.gov/

http://veterans.house.gov/

Home

http://www.agriculture.senate.gov

http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/

http://www.armed-services.senate.gov/

http://www.banking.senate.gov/public

http://www.budget.senate.gov/

http://www.commerce.senate.gov/

http://www.energy.senate.gov/

http://www.epw.senate.gov/

http://www.finance.senate.gov/

http://www.foreign.senate.gov/

http://www.help.senate.gov/

Home

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/

http://www.rules.senate.gov/

http://www.sbc.senate.gov/

http://www.veterans.senate.gov/

http://www.jec.senate.gov/public/

https://cha.house.gov/jointcommittees/joint-committee-library

https://cha.house.gov/jointcommittees/joint-committee-on-printing

https://www.jct.gov/

http://www.senate.gov/committees/committees_home.htm

http://www.house.gov/committees/

Section 4.3 Congressional Organization

with the party’s political agenda. On the Senate side, key leadership positions include the
majority leader and whips, who perform the same basic functions as their counterparts in the
House. Meanwhile, the minority party in both chambers also has leadership positions. In both
chambers, there are minority leaders who supervise minority whips.

How does the party leadership enforce discipline? It comes back to committees. The majority
party selects the standing and select committee chairs in Congress (each party selects mem-
bers for its own special committees). The speaker and majority leader control the Rules Com-
mittee while they control other high-profile appointments. This means that party loyalists can
be rewarded with desirable committee assignments. Those failing to “toe the party line” can
be punished with less desirable committee assignments, which may include denying more
senior Congress members chair assignments that their seniority might otherwise earn them.

Staff

Members of Congress are each assigned staff members to support them in fulfilling their
responsibilities. Congressional staff members play a significant role in the overall operations
of Congress and, more specifically, in the representative function. Each member has a sizable
personal staff, while committees are also assigned staff. Prior to World War II, congressional
staff was not very large (see Figure 4.3). Just after the war, personal and committee staff
together numbered approximately 2,000. Those numbers grew steadily over subsequent
years, and by the mid-1980s, 18,000 individuals were working on either a personal or a com-
mittee staff in Congress.

Figure 4.3: Number of personal staff members in Congress, 1930–2010

Since World War II, the number of personal staff members in Congress has increased substantially.
By 2010, with 4,067 personal staff for 100 senators, each member of the Senate had an average of
40 personal staff.

Data from Vital Statistics on Congress (Table 5-2), by N. J. Ornstein, T. E. Mann, M. J. Malbin, A. Rugg, & R. Wakeman, 2014, Washington
D.C.: The Brookings Institution.

fin82797_04_c04_075-106.indd 91 3/24/16 1:41 PM

Section 4.3 Congressional Organization

Staff members can have a considerable impact on legislation. As members of Congress find
themselves stretched thin over a variety of issues, they rely on their staffs to study the
issues and provide them with essential information. Staff members can increase their leg-
islative impact if they are willing to aggressively advise members and challenge them on
their positions. Moreover, they can increase their influence by timing the release of critical
information that a member might need to make an informed vote on a measure. Members
tend to rely on personal staff members for legislative assistance when addressing new
problems, while recently elected members are likely to rely more on their staffs compared
with more senior members because they are less experienced and expert in various areas.

Committee staff members are also vital to the legislative process. They organize hearings
and conduct research on topics relevant to committee investigations. They draft bills and
amendments, prepare the language of committee reports, and assist members in prepar-
ing for floor debate, during which bills are discussed and argued over in each chamber
before being voted on by the full House or Senate. Committee staff members also serve as
the liaisons between Congress and both interest groups and the executive branch.

The persons testifying at hearings will often include executive branch officials and interest
group representatives. Executive branch officials will often speak to issues about a pro-
posed bill, such as to ensure that sufficient funding is put in place for implementation,
while an interest group will testify as to the need for legislation or to convince Congress to
shape proposed legislation in the direction supported by the interest group. When execu-
tive branch officials and interest groups testify before Congress, they are taking part in
iron triangles, which are discussed in Chapter 6.

Committee staff members perform
four principal functions, focus-
ing on intelligence/information
gathering, integration, innovation,
and influence. They provide intel-
ligence by collecting and filtering
information before it is shared
with committee members. They
integrate by working closely with
appropriate committee staff in the
other chamber. They innovate by
looking for new problems and pro-
posing solutions to them. Finally,
they have influence because of the
vital tasks they perform and the
trust they build between them-
selves and members of Congress.

Associated Press/Charles Dharapak

Congressional staff members gather outside the Capi-
tol. Staff members play numerous important roles in
the overall functions of both houses.

fin82797_04_c04_075-106.indd 92 3/24/16 1:41 PM

Section 4.3 Congressional Organization

Organization by Constituency Versus Organization by Party

A key question is whether it is more important for Congress to be organized around serving
constituents or serving party interests. The congressional committee structure is designed
to serve primarily constituents, while the leadership structure serves party interests. For
members, it can be difficult to manage the demands placed on them—is it in their constitu-
ents’ best interest for them to pursue committee leadership or chamber leadership? While
the speaker of the House and Senate majority leader may be more powerful and prestigious
positions than committee chairs, it can take years to work one’s way up to the top, and most
will not secure one of those positions.

As chair of a key committee, a member can build a power base and be effective. From 1987
to 1989, Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia served as Senate majority leader.
He resigned that leadership post to become the Appropriations Committee chair, where he
ensured a flow of federal dollars into West Virginia to benefit his constituents.

Although leadership positions may be highly visible, the people who hold them may be per-
ceived as focused on national issues at the expense of local concerns, and constituents may
feel neglected. Whether the perception is true or not, these highly visible congressional lead-
ers may not have as much time to devote to their districts. Democratic South Dakota Senator
Tom Daschle, who served as majority leader from 2001 to 2003, was defeated when he ran for
reelection in 2004 largely due to a well-financed campaign by his opponent, who accused him
of being out of touch with his constituents. In fact, Daschle was the first Senate party leader to
lose reelection since 1952. A similar campaign helped defeat former Democratic Speaker of
the House Tom Foley in 1994, when George Nethercutt beat him 51% to 49%. In both cases,
the challengers were advantaged, as they had more time to be in the district campaigning.

Efficiency Versus Democracy

Can a committee structure that encourages specialization and efficiency really be democratic?
There would appear to be an inherent contradiction here. The entire constitutional structure,
as noted in Chapter 2, was intended to be anything but efficient so as to prevent Congress from
encroaching upon individual rights. One tenet of democracy is for the people to be represented
by grassroots-level citizen-politicians, but the committee structure and the reliance on special-
ization and division of labor has given rise to the professional politician. The effect is to cre-
ate distance between Congress members and the people they represent. Moreover, a stronger
democracy may be achieved if representatives are familiar with all the matters before them. But
Congress has been overburdened with so much work in recent decades that many members
struggle to keep up. Put differently, the institution is so large and the business before it so great
that without some semblance of efficiency, there would be no functioning government at all.

fin82797_04_c04_075-106.indd 93 3/24/16 1:41 PM

Section

4.4 Policymaking and Broad Representation

Policymaking transforms ideas into laws. It is also through policymaking that diverse posi-
tions are represented in the U.S. Congress. On one level, the process can be thought of as a
flow diagram where bills are introduced, debated in committee, debated further in the full
chambers of each house, and then sent to the president for signature. However, the process is
considerably more political. How bills move through the process is a question of who pushes
them, how much power that person has, and what deals or agreements that person can make
to gain support for them. If we return to the premise of the delegate model of representation,
members of Congress are likely to support a bill if there is something in it for their constitu-
ents. This does not mean that they expect the same from every bill, but if they support a bill
for a program that is not important to their state or district, they will expect others to, in turn,
support bills that are. Each member, in other words, expects reciprocity. This is called logroll-
ing, where members support each other’s bills.

How a Bill Becomes a Law

As Figure 4.4 shows, a bill is typically introduced by a sponsor with several possible co-
sponsors, in each chamber of Congress. On the House side, a bill is introduced by a represen-
tative and then referred to the appropriate committee for action. As an example, the Afford-
able Care Act in its initial form was referred to the House Ways and Means Committee. A bill
is sometimes divided into its component parts and referred to different subcommittees. The
component dealing with financing may be sent to a financing subcommittee, while the com-
ponent focusing on expanding coverage may be sent to a different subcommittee. For a bill to
become law, each component must be passed by its respective subcommittee and referred
back to the full committee. The full committee then debates and votes on the bill. If it clears
the committee, it is sent to the House floor for debate and a vote.

Figure 4.4: How a bill becomes a law

The path a bill must take to become law looks straightforward, but the process is actually quite political.

Data from “How Laws Are Made,” by Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, n.d. (http://kids.clerk.house.gov/grade-
school/lesson.html?intID=17).

fin82797_04_c04_075-106.indd 94 3/24/16 1:41 PM

http://kids.clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17

Section 4.4 Policymaking and Broad Representation

4.4 Policymaking and Broad Representation
Policymaking transforms ideas into laws. It is also through policymaking that diverse posi-
tions are represented in the U.S. Congress. On one level, the process can be thought of as a
flow diagram where bills are introduced, debated in committee, debated further in the full
chambers of each house, and then sent to the president for signature. However, the process is
considerably more political. How bills move through the process is a question of who pushes
them, how much power that person has, and what deals or agreements that person can make
to gain support for them. If we return to the premise of the delegate model of representation,
members of Congress are likely to support a bill if there is something in it for their constitu-
ents. This does not mean that they expect the same from every bill, but if they support a bill
for a program that is not important to their state or district, they will expect others to, in turn,
support bills that are. Each member, in other words, expects reciprocity. This is called logroll-
ing, where members support each other’s bills.
How a Bill Becomes a Law
As Figure 4.4 shows, a bill is typically introduced by a sponsor with several possible co-
sponsors, in each chamber of Congress. On the House side, a bill is introduced by a represen-
tative and then referred to the appropriate committee for action. As an example, the Afford-
able Care Act in its initial form was referred to the House Ways and Means Committee. A bill
is sometimes divided into its component parts and referred to different subcommittees. The
component dealing with financing may be sent to a financing subcommittee, while the com-
ponent focusing on expanding coverage may be sent to a different subcommittee. For a bill to
become law, each component must be passed by its respective subcommittee and referred
back to the full committee. The full committee then debates and votes on the bill. If it clears
the committee, it is sent to the House floor for debate and a vote.
Figure 4.4: How a bill becomes a law
The path a bill must take to become law looks straightforward, but the process is actually quite political.
Data from “How Laws Are Made,” by Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, n.d. (http://kids.clerk.house.gov/grade-
school/lesson.html?intID=17).

Meanwhile, the same process occurs in the Senate. Once the Senate passes its version of the
bill, the two versions must be reconciled into one bill for the president to sign. Both chambers
appoint representatives to serve on a conference committee that is tasked with negotiating
compromise between the House and Senate versions of the bill. That committee then sends
the compromise version of the bill back to both chambers of Congress for another round of
debate and then a vote.

The bill can be killed at any step in this process. A bill that fails to make it out of a committee,
for instance, will not be voted on in the full chamber.

fin82797_04_c04_075-106.indd 95 3/24/16 1:41 PM

http://kids.clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17

Section 4.4 Policymaking and Broad Representation

Senate Filibusters

Each chamber has the right to establish its own rules for debate. In the House, where there
are more members, members might be given no more than 5 minutes to speak on a matter on
the floor. The Senate, however, has more elaborate rules, and a Senate debate can be endless.
The Senate also allows its members to engage in the filibuster, a procedure under which
individual senators can extend debate indefinitely and prevent action on a bill. Filibusters
prevent anyone from having the floor to speak, including introducing a motion to vote, if the
filibustering senator has not yielded the floor. As part of a filibuster, a senator can yield to a
colleague who will continue where the filibustering senator left off.

An old-style filibuster involved a senator
talking for hours until everyone dropped
from exhaustion. South Carolina Senator
Strom Thurmond staged the nation’s lon-
gest one-person filibuster, in opposition
to the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Thurmond
was a longtime segregationist who ran as
a States’ Rights Democrat (Dixiecrat) can-
didate for president in 1948, with the goal
of preserving the Southern segregationist
way of life. Thurmond’s filibuster, which
lasted for more than 24 hours, began with
his reading every state’s election laws in
alphabetical order and continued with
reciting the Declaration of Independence,
the Bill of Rights, and Washington’s Fare-
well Address. In the end, though, the Civil
Rights bill passed in the House by a vote
of 270 to 97 and in the Senate by a vote of
60 to 15.

Current Senate rules permit another type of filibuster. Each bill is assumed to be under filibus-
ter, meaning it cannot advance to the Senate floor for debate until a cloture vote— literally, a
vote to close it off—has occurred. Current Senate rules require that a minimum of 60 senators
vote for cloture. This means that a Senate divided along party lines, and where the majority
party can never achieve the required 60 votes, may never pass any legislation. As an example,
environmental legislation sought by President Obama and passed by the House in 2009 was
effectively declared dead in the Senate because it never achieved its requisite 60 votes to
achieve cloture. Chamber leaders usually will not seek a floor vote unless they believe they
have the necessary number of votes, as measured by the whips, to pass it.

Senator Strom Thurmond engaged in a 24-hour-
and-18-minute filibuster in 1957 to prevent pas-
sage of a Civil Rights Act (his efforts failed, as the
bill ultimately passed). In this photograph, he
is approached by reporters just after ending his
floor time.

fin82797_04_c04_075-106.indd 96 3/24/16 1:41 PM

Section 4.4 Policymaking and Broad Representation

In 2013, the 60-vote requirement for cloture was modified for presidential appointments.
Filibusters may be broken with a simple majority if the issue being delayed with a filibuster
is a confirmation vote. However, the 60-vote requirement to end a filibuster still stands for
proposed legislation.

Bringing a Measure to the Floor

To gain the consensus necessary to bring a measure to the floor, leaders often use the follow-
ing tools: pork barrel politics, vote trading, and coalition building.

Pork Barrel Politics
A major part of representation involves bringing benefits back to one’s district or state, which
is often referred to as pork barrel politics. Until 2011, the congressional leadership could
buy another member’s vote with the promise of support for a project that could offer sub-
stantial benefit to the member’s district. Sometimes this pork is referred to as an earmark,
which was a legislative provision directing funds to be spent on approved projects. Earmarks
that would target projects in House members’ districts or senators’ states were placed into
the budget. They also exempted certain projects or enterprises from taxes and other fees.
Critics of earmarks, including Congress members, claim that earmarks are wasteful spend-

ing. The ban on earmarks has not
changed the practice, however.
Rather, the way that the mon-
ies are now directed to specific
states or districts is by Congress
allocating dollars to the appro-
priate federal agency for the pur-
pose of directing those monies
into those states or districts.

Congressional leaders are not
the only politicians who offer
pork. The president may also
support various projects for spe-

cific members in exchange for their support of his or her goals. Moreover, many members of
Congress run on platforms outlining what they can do for their states, such as attracting large
employers and industries to the states.

Vote Trading
Vote trading involves members exchanging votes with one another. Representative X will prom-
ise to vote for a bill supported by Representative Y if Representative Y will in turn vote for Rep-
resentative X’s bill. For instance, Representative X’s bill is for increased defense spending that

Associated Press/David Duprey

Many people decry the idea of pork barrel spending but
do not mind when their own Congress members secure
federal programs and projects for their areas.

fin82797_04_c04_075-106.indd 97 3/24/16 1:41 PM

Section

4.5 Congress and Executive Accountability

will benefit Representative X’s home district, and Representative Y’s bill is for a new literacy
program that will benefit Representative Y’s constituents. In all likelihood, Representative Y has
no real interest in defense issues and Representative X has no real interest in literacy programs,
but both are willing to support each other to represent their own constituents effectively. It is
often through this process of logrolling that Congress gets things done.

Coalition Building and Broad Representation
Congress works through coalition building and consensus. Coalitions are usually built through
pork barrel politics and logrolling. Individual members of Congress trade votes with each
other, and committee chairs trade votes with other chairs. In a technical sense, a majority vote
in both chambers of Congress is usually enough to pass legislation, but the vote is really only
the final act of an otherwise long and drawn-out process. Most of the time, it is also anticli-
mactic; how members are going to vote becomes apparent along the way because of the work
that has gone into building a coalition.

Coalitions must be formed by those who spearhead legislation. It is the Madisonian formula
in action. When each constituency gets what is important to it, each has received what politi-
cal scientist Arthur Maass (1983) has called broad-based representation. Ultimately, every-
one’s interests and needs are fulfilled and legislation is rarely accomplished quickly.

Policymaking by Consensus and Partisan Mutual Adjustment

In an ideal world, Congress members would vote for a measure because it is the right thing to
do and a compelling argument has been made in its favor. But that is not the only reality. Mem-
bers often find that they must compromise on their positions to build consensus. They vote
for measures because they have bargained with one another while a variety of deals have been
made throughout the process. Political scientist Charles Lindblom (1965) calls this partisan
mutual adjustment. Members build a consensus that accomplishes some but not all of what
they want because they must adjust their expectations and compromise to get enough votes.

The extension of the Bush tax cuts is a case in point. Those who stand on principle will not
compromise their positions. But Congress members who seek to represent their constituen-
cies feel that it is better to have some tax cuts than none at all. By accomplishing something,
even just a very small step, a foundation has been placed upon which more blocks can be set in
the future. Lindblom calls this process of taking small steps incrementalism. If an extension
of the tax cuts represents a step, it can be built on in the future through perhaps more and lon-
ger extensions until they are made permanent at some point. This again shows the genius of
Madison’s design, because Congress cannot undertake sweeping action that could encroach
upon citizens’ liberties if congressional members are able to make only small changes as part
of a larger process. An incremental process is checks and balances in action and thus in the
end represents the public well.

4.5 Congress and Executive Accountability

As we noted earlier when discussing the oversight model, an important representative func-
tion of Congress is holding the executive branch accountable. Its chief tools for doing this are

fin82797_04_c04_075-106.indd 98 3/24/16 1:41 PM

Section 4.5 Congress and Executive Accountability

hearings, overriding presidential vetoes, and the legislative veto, which was utilized between
1930 and 1980 until it was declared unconstitutional in 1983.

Hearings

Hearings occur when members of
Congress, usually in committee,
request the appearance and testi-
mony of executive branch officials,
who have little choice but to com-
ply. (Failure to respond to a con-
gressional subpoena can result in
arrest and jail time.) During these
hearings, officials are usually asked
to report on what their agency or
department has been doing and
explain any new programs that
have been implemented.

For instance, both the House and
Senate Foreign Affairs committees
may hear testimony from the secre-
taries of state and defense to deter-
mine whether the money they have appropriated for diplomatic and military action is well
spent. Or they may want to know whether certain policies are accomplishing their intended
results. As a result of these hearings, Congress may either write new legislation to refocus a
policy or increase or reduce funding.

Testimony occurs in two forms. First, witnesses provide written testimony prior to the hear-
ing. Second, they deliver an oral summary of their written testimony, usually in the form of an
opening statement. After that, the floor is opened to questioning from members, who often
read from questions prepared by their staffs. Because these hearings are often televised, they
effectively constitute an exercise in public accountability. By forcing executive branch offi-
cials to publicly justify their actions, Congress holds the executive branch accountable to the
American public.

Overriding Presidential Vetoes

The Constitution specifically gives veto power to the president as a check on the legislative
branch. But Congress can override the president’s veto with a two-thirds vote of all the mem-
bers in both chambers. The threshold is higher than would be the case for normal passage of
a bill, which requires a simple majority of those who cast a vote that day.

Associated Press/Susan Walsh

Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who served
from 2006 to 2011, speaks with members of the Senate
Armed Services Committee after testifying before them.
Requesting the testimony of members of the execu-
tive branch is one way that Congress ensures executive
accountability to the American people.

fin82797_04_c04_075-106.indd 99 3/24/16 1:42 PM

Section

4.6 Congress and Elections

Veto overrides do not happen often,
but when they do, Congress can
claim that it has achieved suprem-
acy over the executive and in so
doing has added to its representa-
tive function. Arguably, if officials in
the executive branch know that an
override is possible, they will think
seriously about whether a veto is a
good option. At the very least, the
threat of a veto override may force
the president to justify his or her
position. Because an override is
difficult to achieve (only 7% of all
vetoes have been overridden), it is
not wise to threaten one unless the
leadership is sure that it has lined
up the needed votes.

Legislative Veto

The legislative veto was another tool that Congress used to control the executive branch.
Technically, the Constitution provides only for a presidential veto, but Congress had inferred
the right to its own veto as necessary to fulfill its representative function. The idea is really a
logical outgrowth of congressional delegations of authority. When Congress passes a law, it
leaves the implementation of the law to the executive branch. Then, as an aspect of its over-
sight function, Congress calls officials to testify about what they have been doing. If Congress
decides that it does not like how the law has been implemented, it can pass a resolution
instructing them to cease and desist. This is called a legislative veto, and it was found uncon-
stitutional in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha (1983) because it violated the
separation of powers.

4.6 Congress and Elections

Congressional elections, which occur every 2 years, present opportunities to change the
government. A midterm election, which falls in the middle of the president’s 4-year term,
provides a forum for voters to register opposition or support of the president’s policies and
performance. It is not uncommon for the president’s party to lose seats in Congress during
these contests. The 1994 midterm election is a case in point. Following great dissatisfaction
with the Democratic Party’s performance during the first 2 years of Bill Clinton’s presi-
dency, the voters elected Republican majorities in both houses for the first time since 1952.
Many observers were quick to label it a repudiation of Clinton himself, but Clinton still won
reelection 2 years later. This suggests that the midterm election was more of a repudiation
of the party controlling Congress than of the president.

Associated Press/Wilfredo Lee

President Clinton signs his veto of a temporary borrow-
ing bill in 1995. Congress could not secure the required
two-thirds majority to override it.

fin82797_04_c04_075-106.indd 100 3/24/16 1:42 PM

Section 4.6 Congress and Elections

Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign included a health care reform platform, which he failed
to deliver. Much of that failure stemmed from Democratic opposition in Congress. At the same
time, many incumbent Democrats were embroiled in what came to be known as the House
Banking Scandal, when it was discovered that lawmakers were overdrawing their congressio-
nal checking accounts without penalty. The 1994 midterm election giving Republicans majori-
ties in both houses of Congress may have been due, in part, to public anger over the scandal
and to the belief that the Democrats were wasting their time by not working with the presi-
dent to get things done. More recently, in both midterm elections of the Obama presidency, the
Democrats experienced meaningful losses. In 2010, Democrats lost their majority in the U.S.
House of Representatives, while Republicans in the Senate narrowed their minority by six.
Republicans gained 64 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, which shifted their member-
ship from 178 to 242. In 2014, the Democrats lost 10 seats, lost their majority party status in
the Senate, and lost 13 more seats in the House of Representatives. Arguably, Barack Obama’s
low approval ratings contributed to these staggering losses. In one sense, this creates gridlock
whereby nothing gets done. But in another, it is the very meaning of checks and balances.

The Role of Money in Congressional Elections

Running for Congress is an expensive proposition (see Figure 4.5). On average, running for a
House seat costs around $1 million, and Senate campaigns can cost considerably more. In a
large state such as California, for instance, a candidate might easily spend as much as
$40 million.

Figure 4.5: Cost of winning an election, 1986–2014
(in nominal dollars)

Running for Congress is an expensive proposition.

*John Corzine (D-NJ) spent $63,209,506 and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) spent $29,941,194. Remaining Senate winners in 2000 spent
an average of $4,737,365.
Data from “Table 3-1 The Cost of Winning an Election, 1986-2014 (in nominal and 2014 dollars),” by The Campaign Finance Institute,
2015 (http://www.cfinst.org/pdf/vital/VitalStats_t1 ).

fin82797_04_c04_075-106.indd 101 3/24/16 1:42 PM

http://www.cfinst.org/pdf/vital/VitalStats_t1

This means that those running for Congress must raise large sums of money. Once a House
election has happened, the next election is only 2 years away, so much of a member’s time is
spent raising funds and campaigning. By law, an individual is not permitted to give more than
$2,600 per campaign (note that primaries, runoffs, and general elections are separate cam-
paigns), but political action committees (PACs) can give up to $5,000 per campaign. Many
incumbents expend legislative effort trying to please an array of interest groups who are then
expected to make large contributions favoring the incumbent’s reelection campaign. The
nature of campaign finance may effectively make Congress beholden to special interests and
thus call into question the meaning of representation. At the same time, congressional elec-
tions also serve to keep members accountable to their constituents.

The nature of campaign finance
favors incumbency. Current mem-
bers tend to enjoy widespread
name recognition. More often than
not, they do not need to put forth
as great a financial effort to make
themselves known to the voting
public as do challengers. This does
not mean that incumbents gener-
ally spend less than challengers
do on elections. In fact, they spend
much more. Congress members
also enjoy the franking privilege
that comes with holding office.
Franking is using taxpayer funds to
mail flyers and other materials to
help educate one’s constituents as
to one’s positions and accomplish-
ments. A third significant advan-
tage of incumbency is that campaign contributors are more likely to give money to someone
they know than to a challenger with whom they may not be familiar or who may lack a legisla-
tive record.

Whom Does Congress Ultimately Represent?

The way elections in the United States are financed raises questions as to who is actually
being represented. Is it the constituents who vote or the moneyed interests that contrib-
ute to campaigns? Additional concerns emerged in 2010 when the U.S. Supreme Court, in a
divided 5–4 decision in Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, ruled that, among
other considerations, the First Amendment protects the political speech of corporations and
unions with regard to the funding of political broadcasts. Two thirds of the public opposed the
Court’s position soon after the decision was made. The reality is that Congress members can-
not represent their constituents if they cannot get elected. Because attaining leadership posi-
tions, even committee leadership positions, is based on seniority, members must be reelected
multiple times to become senior to their congressional peers. It might seem bizarre that
for Representative X to serve, Representative X first needs to satisfy financial contributors.

Associated Press/Eric Risberg

Politicians must raise large sums of money to fund
their congressional campaigns.

fin82797_04_c04_075-106.indd 102 3/24/16 1:42 PM

Summary and Resources

Nonetheless, if Representative X is perceived as catering to moneyed interests, Representa-
tive X can deflect criticism by delivering the pork and performing the essential service work.

The Role of Technology

When the Constitution was drafted in the late 1700s, the only way for members of Congress to
communicate with constituents was through letters or in person. It could take a long time for
a letter to arrive, and the travel difficulties between a member’s district and the Capitol made
visits infrequent. Today, technological advances in transportation and communications have
made it much easier for members to go back and forth between their districts and the Capi-
tol, and to regularly communicate with their constituents. Each member maintains a website
where constituents can learn what is going on in Congress and where their representative
stands on an issue. Congress as an institution also has websites that the public can access to
get information about pending legislation. In the other direction, technology has made it eas-
ier for members of Congress to obtain public opinion about particular issues, thereby making
it easier to represent the public’s wishes.

Technology also plays an increasing role in elections. Through the Internet and email, mem-
bers of Congress can reach out to the general population to raise funds. Reaching a broader
grassroots fundraising base through the Internet may weaken the hold of big, moneyed inter-
est groups, and it can potentially make Congress more representative. Also, the prospect of
a more informed citizenry pressures Congress to be more transparent. At a minimum, mem-
bers are more accountable; they can hide behind public ignorance far less than in the past.

Technology may raise a larger, more philosophical question: If the public can become informed
about public affairs through the use of the Internet, do citizens need Congress to represent
them at all? Might the institution become obsolete? Remember, one of the reasons for rep-
resentative government is that, given the population size and geographic distances, direct
democracy where everybody would come to debate issues and vote on them was impractical.
But is this still the case if members of the voting public can debate and, ultimately, vote over
the Internet?

Summary and Resources

Chapter Summary
Congress derives its formal authority from Article I of the Constitution, which specifically
grants it the power of the purse, the power to declare war, and the authority to do whatever
is necessary and proper to fulfill its expressly stated powers. On the basis of this Necessary
and Proper Clause, it infers a range of implied powers that it considers essential to its primary
function of representation.

Although representation is essential to the role of Congress, it holds different meanings. Mem-
bers can represent by serving as delegates whereby they take direction from their constituents
on how to vote in Congress. They can represent by serving as trustees whereby they vote on
the basis of what they believe is right and what they consider to be the public interest. Or they

fin82797_04_c04_075-106.indd 103 3/24/16 1:42 PM

Summary and Resources

can represent by holding the executive branch accountable through the oversight function.
Depending on the issue, members will represent through a combination of one or more of
these. By the nature of Congress’s organization and the process by which laws are passed and
policy is made, Congress members represent in a very broad fashion.

Congress is divided into committees because this is an efficient way to consider potential
policy. Members gravitate to the committees that best serve the interests of their constitu-
ents. Through the process of trading votes with one another and by delivering pork to their
districts, constituents are represented. Coalitions are necessary to achieve the required con-
sensus to pass legislation.

Congress holds the executive branch accountable through hearings, the threat of impeach-
ment, and its power to override presidential vetoes. What these tools have in common is that
they persuade members of the executive branch to publicly justify their actions. To a large
extent, then, everything that Congress does serves its primary representation function. Even
the nature of congressional elections serves the representation function, as the need to be
reelected forces members of Congress to raise large sums of money. While this might appear
to cater to moneyed interests, it often allows members to be reelected and thereby fulfill their
representative function.

Key Ideas to Remember

• Article I of the Constitution establishes the enumerated powers of Congress, but
Congress has been able to assume power beyond those powers through the Neces-
sary and Proper Clause and by showing a relationship between a legislative action
and the Commerce Clause.

• One principal power of Congress is the power of the purse, which means that all
expenditures of money must be authorized by Congress. This also means that Con-
gress can check the executive branch by cutting off funds.

• “Representation” means different things to different people. On some occasions,
members of Congress act as delegates, where they do as their constituents instruct
them to do. But on other occasions, they act as trustees, where they vote according
to what they believe is right.

• One theory of representation holds that the first priority of Congress is to be
reelected, which persuades members to vote on issues according to the wishes of the
people. But representing a district might also entail things such as bringing money
back to their districts and states, and trading votes with other members of Congress
to obtain support for locally important programs.

• Another theory of representation holds that Congress represents the people by hold-
ing the executive branch accountable to the public through its legislative oversight
function.

• Congress is organized into specialized committees, and this allows for greater effi-
ciency because members of committees become experts in legislative areas that are
important to their constituents.

• How a bill becomes law is a process that involves politics, making deals, trading
votes, and building coalitions of support. Building coalitions allows members of Con-
gress to achieve broad representation of the public.

fin82797_04_c04_075-106.indd 104 3/24/16 1:42 PM

Summary and Resources

Questions to Consider

1. What is the power of the purse?
2. Do implied powers through the Necessary and Proper Clause give too much power to

Congress? Why or why not?
3. What are the ways that Congress can represent the American people, and which one

best speaks to the nature of the U.S. Congress?
4. Is the way Congress is organized necessarily the best way?
5. Given what you now know about how policy is made in Congress, was there any

other way the votes for extending the Bush tax cuts could have been obtained?
6. How might the outcome have been different if members of Congress were not

so reliant on private donations and the need to raise huge sums of money for
reelection?

Key Terms

agency representation When members of
Congress regard their constituents as their
bosses with the power to hire or fire them.

apportionment Distribution of congressio-
nal members in a state.

cloture The vote of 60 to cut off filibuster.

conference committee A joint committee
made up of members of both the House and
the Senate; the goal of this committee is to
work out a compromise version of a bill that
can go to the president for signature.

congressional district The geographical
area represented by members of the House
of Representatives.

delegate model When members represent
their constituents by doing what the con-
stituents want.

earmark Legislative provision directing
that funds be spent on specific projects.

electoral connection thesis The argument
that the primary goal of members of Con-
gress is to get reelected.

Equal Protection Clause Included in the
14th Amendment, the Equal Protection
Clause guarantees to U.S. citizens that no
state may deny them their rights as citizens
of the United States.

filibuster A procedure by which members
of the Senate can extend debate indefinitely,
thereby preventing action on a bill.

floor debate During which bills are dis-
cussed and argued over on the House or
Senate floor once they are voted out of com-
mittee and before they are voted on by the
full House or Senate.

franking privilege The use of congressio-
nal or public funds to mail information out
to voters.

gerrymandering The drawing of congres-
sional district boundary lines to give a group
undue influence or to protect a member’s
seat.

incrementalism The idea that Congress
can make only small changes at a time and
therefore is less likely to take sweeping
action that might infringe on individual
liberty.

fin82797_04_c04_075-106.indd 105 3/24/16 1:42 PM

Summary and Resources

joint committee Congressional committee
made up of members from both the Senate
and the House of Representatives.

legislative veto When Congress orders
the executive branch to cease and desist
the implementation of a law because it
does not approve of how the law has been
implemented.

logrolling The trading of votes.

majority party The political party with the
most seats in a legislative chamber.

Necessary and Proper Clause Article I,
Section 8, Clause 18 of the U.S. Constitution,
which allows Congress to do what it believes
is “necessary and proper” to carry out its
enumerated powers. Also known as “implied
powers.”

oversight model The idea that Congress
holds the executive branch accountable
through investigative or oversight hearings.

partisan mutual adjustment The process
of reaching a consensus through bargaining
and compromise.

pork barrel politics When members of
Congress bring projects or other goods back
to their districts.

rank-and-file Describes members of Con-
gress who do not hold leadership positions.

select committee A committee that is set
up for a special purpose.

service model When Congress members
represent their constituents by performing
services for them on an individual level.

special committee A committee in one
house of Congress that is composed of mem-
bers of one party only.

standing committee A permanent
committee.

subcommittee A smaller committee within
a larger committee that might take up a spe-
cific aspect of a bill.

trustee model When members represent
their constituents by doing what the mem-
bers think is right.

whips Members of congressional party
leadership who work the floors and marshal
support.

Further Reading
Baker, R. K. (2008). House and Senate (4th ed.). New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Co.

Fiorina, M. P. (1977). Congress: Keystone of the Washington establishment. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Fisher, L. (2007). Constitutional conflicts between Congress and the president (5th ed., rev.). Lawrence, KS: Univer-
sity Press of Kansas.

Key, V. O. (1984). Southern politics in state and nation. Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee Press.

Lindblom, C. E. (1965). The intelligence of democracy: Decision making through mutual adjustment. New York, NY:
The Free Press.

Locke, J. (1988). Two treatises of government. Peter Laslett (Ed.). Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press. (Original work published 1689)

Maass, A. (1983). Congress and the common good. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Mayhew, D. R. (2004). Congress: The electoral connection (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Ripley, R. B. (1988). Congress: Process and policy (4th ed.). New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Co.

Will, G. F. (1993). Restoration: Congress, term limits and the recovery of deliberative democracy. New York, NY: The
Free Press.

fin82797_04_c04_075-106.indd 106 3/24/16 1:42 PM

Order your essay today and save 25% with the discount code: STUDYSAVE

Order Now

Turn in your highest-quality paper
Get a qualified writer to help you with

“ Policy and Your Life ”

Get high-quality paper

NEW! AI matching with writer

Order a unique copy of this paper

Type of paper needed:

Pages:

600 words

Academic level:

We'll send you the first draft for approval by September 11, 2018 at 10:52 AM

Total price:

$26

Our Services

Policy and Your Life

Order a unique copy of this paper