The United States of America is one of the most powerful nation-states in the world today. The framers of the American Constitution spent a great deal of time and effort into making sure this power wasn’t too centralized in one aspect of the government. They created three branches of government to help maintain a checks and balance system. In this paper I will discuss these three branches, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial, for both the state and federal level. The legislative branch of America helps create the laws or legislation. Ideally, it works to create a society that is safe for all members. The State of California like the federal government has a bicameral legislature, in other words, composed of two chambers. The upper chamber is called the senate, while the lower is called the assembly. A unique process for the state level is that it allows for the initiative. This process circumvents the state congress and can create laws without their aide. In the state of California, every ten years, following a US census, which collects demographic information, state legislators draw redistricting plans for itself, California seats in the US House of Representatives, and the State Board of Equalization. There have been attempts to create a “non-partisan” redistricting commission, but this has been turned down by voters numerous times. Proposition 14, 39, 118, and 119 were all turned down by voters to create a non-partisan districting commission. Every decade a large portion of the state congress’s energy is spent on redistricting. In fact, two of the last four censuses, Supreme Court has had to step in to break a deadlock. In 1970, Ronald Reagan, a Republican, vetoed all together the Democratic redistricting plan. The Supreme Court had to step in and created its own plans for California to follow. Then in 1981, Democrats proposed redistricting as well as congressional delegation redistricting. The Republicans stopped this by adding referendums to the state ballot. Because it was too close to elections though, Supreme Court overturned these referendums in 1982. In 1984, they officially passed the new redistricting plan which was very similar to the original plans. In 1990, Governor Pete Wilson, a Republican, could not agree with a predominantly Democratic state legislature. The United States Supreme Court again had to step in and make independent plans. They created a system that moved two assembly districts into each senate district, otherwise known as a “nested” system.
The history of gerrymandering is one that has caused some major shakeups in how politics are done. A man named Elbridge Gerry, governor of Massachusetts back in 1812, started it all. The governor had the idea of redistricting his states lines in order to benefit his political party. One specific district was so badly morphed that it almost resembled a salamander, and thus you get the name, gerrymandering (Barasch). But it didn’t just stop in 1812 Massachusetts; it became one of the most common strategies in American politics. We even see it happening in modern day. For example, Texas in 2003 had realigned its districts in such a way that it put ten Democratic Congressman in heavy red, conservative districts (Barasch). This move was done to lessen their power within the house. As a result, half of them were not voted back in for the next election. The act of gerrymandering is not just as simple as redrawing districts, the un...
During and after the turmoil of the American Revolution, the people of America, both the rich and the poor, the powerful and the meek, strove to create a new system of government that would guide them during their unsure beginning. This first structure was called the Articles of Confederation, but it was ineffective, restricted, and weak. It was decided to create a new structure to guide the country. However, before a new constitution could be agreed upon, many aspects of life in America would have to be considered. The foremost apprehensions many Americans had concerning this new federal system included fear of the government limiting or endangering their inalienable rights, concern that the government’s power would be unbalanced, both within its branches and in comparison to the public, and trepidation that the voice of the people would not be heard within the government.
Redistricting is the legislative political process of redrawing the geographic boundaries of congressional district based on population following the decennial census. Each state is obligated to adhere to certain Supreme Court requirements regarding redistricting. Respective districts within a state should ensure population equality, contiguity, compactness and no discrimination against minority. Districts can be drawn to protect incumbents. The process of deliberately modifying districts in order to increase the partisan advantage of a particular political party is called gerrymandering.
When gerrymandering occurs, a political party draws the boundaries of an electoral district in a way that helps their party win elections over the other parties. For example, if a Republican controls a state, and it appears like the party will lose a seat in the future, the Republicans will draw the district in a way to exclude as many Democratic voters as possible. Perhaps they will do this by removing a democratic stronghold from one district and adding it to another district that will either easily go Republican or will have a Democratic representative no matter what happens. Before 1964, the majority party could draw districts in any way they wanted to, and chaos ensued. Consequently, in 1964, the U.S Supreme Court legislated that the districts “had to contain equal population, and be as compact as possible” (“Gerrymandering”). Every ten years the U.S. issues a census to determine the population of each state. After this, each state receives their share of the 435 seats, and then the state gets to break the population into the corresponding number of districts. This whole process, known as reapportionment, takes weeks to determine, and in many cases, courts must determine the shape and area of each district. Even though the districts must contain equal population, gerry...
Such as, there are two senators for each state. But there are states that have a higher population than others, but still only represented by two senators. Since, there are places that have a smaller population, their vote towards the senate or for certain ideas is much more impacted. For example, if a state has ten people living it compared to a hundred then the being in the state with ten people is more beneficial. Your voice is heard and placed into the votes that the senator takes to the Senate. Whereas, if you are in a state with one hundred people, your voice is less likely to be heard and will have less of an impact. This is what Dahl is trying to share with us throughout the novel. I began to understand that we need more representation in the Senate close to Chapter
One of the main similarities of these two systems is that they both have a bicameral legislature, which means that the legislatures is divided into two decision making bodies: a senate and an assembly (Starr, 62). In this sort of system, it is difficult to have a bias decision. They both also have 3 branches of government, with are the executive branch, which would consist of the governor of California and the president of the United States; the legislative branch, which consists of the U.S. congress and the state assembly of California; and the judicial branch, which consists of the U.S. Supreme Court and the California State Supreme Court.
Madison touches on the importance of ‘checks and balances’ and why they play such a huge role in distributing power among the branches. Checks and balances are meant to check the levels of government and to ens...
What is gerrymandering? According to Christina Greer, assistant professor of political science at Fordham University, it is the process of giving one political party the advantage over another political party by re-drawing district lines, a practice intended to establish a political advantage. Each party wants to gain as many districts as possible so that they can control different things such as the budget, and other ongoing policies, or to set their party up to gain more districts in the future.
Gerrymandering according to the text, (Barbour & Wright, 2015, p.195) is the process of drawing district lines to benefit one group or another. Just reading the meaning alone, you can see it not fair. By benefiting one group, you are leaving out or short changing other groups. According to the article (“Gerrymandering – Proving All Politics Is Local│Politics & Policy,” n.d.) gerrymandering works by shaping legislative districts in various ways. Officeholders are able to affect which voters they will be responsible to on election day. The opportunity for this arises out of the once-a-decade district re-apportionment required by a set of 1960s Supreme Court cases. As voters move into different congressional districts, the population in each of
I am sure there is a formula someone could come up with to align with court rulings, divide the districts evenly in population, contiguity, and compactness. This would make the districts more fair and representative of the people, and we would not need the biases of a few people to draw the lines in their favor. Redistricting more impartial districts would also help raise competition and make the incumbents work for their votes. According to Ballotpedia, both California and Arizona seem to be the only states that actually attempt to be bipartisan by having an independent commission draw the lines for both congressional and legislative district lines. Ballotpedia (2017)
During the creation of the Constitution of the United States of America, the framers of this innovative document had the foresight to include the right of the American people to seek justice. For this reason, the attendants of the Constitutional Convention shaped the judicial branch of the United States government. This branch, along with the executive and legislative branches, each serve vital roles alone and in relation to one another to form the government of the United States. The purpose of this paper is to describe the judicial branch’s powers, functions, organization, outputs, and implementation of these outputs, as well as to discuss how these decisions come about and the accountability standards to which judges and courts
The current state of federalism in the United States is of one of peril, plagued with recent Supreme Court rulings, current debates over the devolution of Federal powers, and variance in State governing. The United States has always been troubled with the role of the Federal government V. State government on numerous issues. Since around the time of the Great Depression, the federal government was charged with the taking care of the American public in many social and economic matters. Congress was then granted by the Supreme Court almost complete power in passing any sort by legislation by relating it somehow to the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause found in Section 8, Article I, United States Constitution, states that Congress may regulate any and all commerce between foreign nations and the states. Congress simply related almost all legislature in some way to intrastate commerce, therefore making the passing of their legislation constitutional. This system was greatly used by Congress for almost sixty years, when, in the late nineteen-eighties and early nineteen-nineties many individuals and special interests groups challenged the constitutionally of these laws passed by Congress using the Commerce Clause. In several cases, such as United States v. Lopez, Congress was dealt a powerful blow and the states seemed to gain an upper hand. In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that Congress had exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause by enacting the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. This, along with many other laws repealed by the Supreme Court, weakened Federal control and gave power back to the states, a grievous mistake in my opinion. This increased the strains on the role of federalism in the United States and once again brought up the question, who has the power to govern what? In addition to this, federalism has taken a frightful turn with the current debates of devolution, or returning power to the states. Many current Congressmen and citizens alike believe that states should have a greater level of sovereignty and that federal power should be weakened so as to strengthen state governments. In contrast, many others believe that the Federal government should be allowed more power. This and other conflicting ideas have lead to a constant strain on the abilities of the government to best carry out its duties.
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.
Federalism, by definition, is the division of government authority between at least two levels of government. In the United States, authority is divided between the state and national government. “Advocates of a strong federal system believe that the state and local governments do not have the sophistication to deal with the major problems facing the country” (Encarta.com).
The United States government braces its power among three powerful branches, legislative, executive and judicial. These branches interact with one another to establish authority that is strong, yet equal to have power over the country. Each branch pursues certain responsibilities and duties to operate in an efficient and effective manner in which society upholds. The executive, legislative and judicial branches all interact amid each other to validate accuracy of the nation’s most powerful law of the land, the Constitution. It is important to know how these branches interact with each other to learn how a bill becomes a law. Reflecting on how the three branches promote a balance of power that is constructive to include the agendas and electoral roles that also plays a vast part in the government’s operation.