Stemming from a loose interpretation of the Constitution – and specifically the necessary and proper clause -- congressional oversight is one of many enumerated powers bestowed upon Congress per Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. As the legislative body, Congress is charged with overseeing the inner workings of the Executive Branch and its federal agencies as a part of a system of checks and balances. However, as previously mentioned, this power is one of the implied powers of Congress, thus making it very difficult for many to delineate rightful oversight from reckless meandering. In the Constitution, for example, there is no singular mention of a definitive power such as “congressional oversight.” Consequently, there is no clear set of goals or practices through which Congress can oversee the executive branch. This is where things can become slightly tricky, however. As ordered by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, Congress was given the power to “exercise continuous watchfulness” over the executive branch and its subsidiary agencies and programs. The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 went one step further in granting oversight powers to Congress by authorizing House and Senate committees to “review and study, on a continuing basis the application, administration and execution” of laws. In order to fulfill these obligations, Congress uses a number of techniques to check the executive branch. One technique is the usage of committee hearings and investigations. In the mid to late 1960s, for example, Senator J. William Fulbright organized Senate hearings which mobilized opposition to the Vietnam War. Consequently, the Gulf Tonkin Resolution, which gave the president the power to authorize usage of “conv... ... middle of paper ... ...nts’ opinions of them and constituents’ perception of their work to advance their own beliefs. Consequently the act of not stopping seemingly corrupt activities is sometimes viewed by constituents just as negatively as partaking directly in those activities. So, while the purpose of congressional oversight today is similar to what it was decades ago, it is clear that oversight no longer means what it once die. In the end, I propose this is true today because of one simple concept: times are changing and so are politics. Works Cited Davidson, Roger H., Walter J. Oleszek, and Frances E. Lee. Congress and Its Members. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2009. Print. Taylor Jr., Stuart. "CHENEY'S WIN OVER THE GAO THREATENS CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT." National Journal 34.50 (2002): 3638. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. Nov. 2010. US Const., art. 2, sec. 3. Print.
Even though fire-alarm oversight most likely ends in a hearing that does not mean that the hearing will not get the proper responsiveness from executive branch officials. As mentioned in the previous section this lessons the deterrent effect of fire-alarm oversight (Feinstein 2011). This leads to the conclusion that fire-alarm oversight should not check the box of congress actually performing their oversight duties. McCubbins, Noll and Weingast come to similar conclusion about how effective congress actually is in their oversight. Their work is based on the premise that members of congress, bureaucrats, and the president all have personal policy preferences that more than likely will conflict with each other. If there is not effective control than the bureaucracies will project their own preferences that are not aligned with congresses, which is when oversight needs to happen, if it has failed to this point. The deterrence effect of oversight is determined by the likelihood of punishment. A system of reward and punishment they say is also unlikely to deter noncompliance because of the information gap inherent in the system. If the agent who is specializing in an issue has more complete information on the policy it makes agency discretion harder to detect (McCubbins, Noll and Weingast
Most individuals with a general background knowledge of the United States Federal Government system are aware that in order for a bill to become a law, it must first pass a majority vote in Congress. There is, however, a very important step in the legislative process that sometimes goes unnoticed. The committee system of the legislation process ensures that the appropriate attention is given to each bill introduced to Congress. Each member of both chambers are assigned to committees and subcommittees, and are expected to become subject matter experts in their respective roles as committee members.
Under the Constitution, war powers are divided. Congress has the power to declare war and raise and support the armed forces (Article I, Section 8), while the president is the Commander in Chief (Article II, Section 2) (War Powers Resolution, Wikimedia). It is generally agreed that the Commander in Chief role gives the president power to repel attacks against the United States and makes him responsible for leading the armed forces. During the Korean and Vietnam wars, the United States found itself involved for many years in undeclared wars (War Powers Resolution, Wikimedia). Many members of Congress became concerned with the erosion of congressional authority to decide when the United States should become involved in a war or the use of armed forces that might lead to war. The Senate and the House of Representatives achieved the 2/3 majority required to pass this joint resolution over President Nixon¡¯s veto on November 7, 1973. (War Powers Resolution, Wikimedia).
In both wars, “Presidents have often engaged in military operations without express Congressional consent. These operations include the Korean War, the Vietnam War,” (War Powers 2008). The result of the action to go to war in Vietnam led to the passing of the the War Powers Resolution in 1973. Since World War II, the presidency seemed to have control over Congress, which did change after the Vietnam War. The wars, though, were meant to protect the ideals of democracy in other parts of the world. However, to their claim, they say that, “since the Constitution was adopted there have been at least 125 instances in which the President has ordered the armed forces to take action or maintain positions abroad without obtaining prior congressional authorization, starting with the ‘undeclared war’ with France,” (Woods). However, they include several things that were very small, and not very large scale attacks, not even against other federal
Schiller, W. J., Geer, J. G., & Segal, J. A. (2013). Gateways to democracy: introduction to American government, the essentials. (2nd ed.). Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth ;.
(Sell Lecture Notes, p.6) Congress shares responsibility with the president in declaring war, negotiating treaties with other countries and proving funds for soldiers and weapons. This is when conflicts come to head. The Vietnam War is a perfect example of this conflict, when the President waged war without a formal declaration of war from Congress. Because of this Congress then passed the War Powers Act in 1973. (Sell Lecture Notes, p.2) The Presidency has many responsibilities and powers.
The War Powers Resolution was the result of a consistent and ongoing power struggle between the President and Congress in the United States. The Constitution of the United States lays out the powers of the different branches of government. These branches are specifically designed to check each other to create a balance of power. In regards to foreign security affairs, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states that the Congress has the power to declare war, maintain the army and navy, and control war funding. Under article II, section 2 the President is the Commander and Chief of the Army and Navy. The President can also veto a declaration of war made by the Congress which must be overturned by a 3/4ths vote by the Congress. The Presidential veto power was also used to create a hurdle for the Legislative branch in passing this policy. However, as this essay will establish, the Congress was able to pass the bill despite the opposition from the Executive branch. The War Powers Resolution is a controversial piece of legislation because it challenged the power of the President as the Commander and Chief of the army and navy. This challenge was perpetrated by Congress in order to check this power of the President and strengthen the significance of the right to declare war.
(1956 ). The. Congressional Record (pp. 1). 4459 - 4460 ). Washington, D.C.:
National Conference of State Legislatures. Wendy Underhill , 26 Mar. 2014. Web. 30 Mar. 2014.
Political conflicts regarding oversight are becoming a common occurrence in Washington, but have you stepped back and analyzed why this is? These unnecessary strangle hold on the democratic process are due to a few common practices, party politics, a deference to the Executive Branch, and prioritizing voter concerns with wasteful government spending. Some cause more problems than others, but overall these are the three biggest causes. Party politics prevents Congressmen and Senators alike from rearing off the path of their political party stance. We also see voters own ignorance as a big part of the government waste problem. Many like to complain about problems in our laws, but then are supportive of the laws when they go through Congress. This makes it very easy to pass laws with waste because they know the general population most of the time will let it slide. If your party holds the presidency, but that president does something that is unconstitutional that party will most likely stand its ground supporting the president. While the Executive Branch is an office that deserves respect, respect cannot get in the way of the Constitution and the laws of the land. No one is above the law, especially people in high office if anything they should be held more accountable due to their importance in American life. Congressional oversight is a major part of the checks and balances system, and if these major problems continue to occur we will see more and more people abuse the American democratic process.
South University Online. (2013). POL2076: American Government: Week 4: People and Politics—Interest Groups. Retrieved from http://myeclassonline.com
American politics is often defined by a continuing power conflict between the executive and the legislative branches of the government. This struggle for political power between the two stronger branches of the three is inherent in the Constitution, itself. The concepts of separation of powers and checks and balances ensure that the branches of government will remain in conflict and provide a balance that keeps the entire government under control. As it was first established, the executive branch was much smaller and weaker than as we know it today. Consequently, the legislative branch was unquestionably dominant. Over the course of history, the executive branch grew in both size and power to the point where it occasionally overtook the legislative and today rivals the legislative in a much closer political battle. Today both branches have major factors that contribute to their power, but on the whole the legislative remains the lastingly dominant branch.
government. They are the executive, legislative and judicial branch. The relationship between the legislative and executive branch is known as the cat and mouse game. When it comes to approving the budget, both legislative and executive branch must work together to get things done. The legislative branch refers to Congress who has the power to create and develop laws for citizens of the United States. After Congress develops the law, the executive branch is responsible for enforcing the law. It makes sure everyone is going to follow and obey the laws. This principle is the same in a budget process. There are distinct differences between the legislative and executive branch because they have their own perspectives on things, but they resolve these differences together. Legislatures would hold meetings and hearings to discuss about information on the proposed budget proposal and decides how much funding should be given for programs in the agencies. According to power of the purse, legislators control and allocates dollars for spending purposes. The U.S. Congress must approve all budget requests from anyone who wish to receive funds for their program. As long as Congress is willing to provide funds for any agency, the executive branch would make it
Light, Paul C., and Christine L. Nemacheck. "Chapter 7 Congress." Government by the People, Brief 2012 Election Edition, Books a La Carte New Mypoliscilab With Etext Access Card Package. By David B. Magleby. 2012 Election Edition ed. N.p.: Pearson College Div, 2013. N. pag. Print.
One of the most commonly used means is the establishment of oversight committees that can force agency officials to explain their activities to them. Budgetary actions and legislative investigations are the other means of oversight in relation to the legislative and executive functions of these agencies. In relation to budgetary actions, the Congress ensures oversight of the legislative and executive functions of administrative agencies through determining the budget and appropriation of money for the various agencies. The allocation of funds determines the kind of work to be conducted and programs to be implemented by the administrative agency. In this case, the Congress may not provide funds for activities it does not like or necessitate expenditure on projects it like. With regards to legislative investigations, the President can issue executive orders that limit the powers of these agencies or result in commencement of investigations. Moreover, the Congress can repeal an agency’s enabling stature or modify legislation to force the agency to adhere to its wishes. Therefore, constitutional directives for legislative and executive actions are geared towards repealing an agency’s enabling statute while statutory directives focus on modifying an agency’s enabling legislation. Appointments to these agencies are political appointees by the President subject to the advice and consent of the Senate, which also play a crucial role in removal of such