PS103 Lec Sept 8.docx

Tuesday, September 8th PS103 Lecture Lecture 2 Review: Representation Delegate vs. Trustee Delegate---if constituents want them to do something, their delegate in gov. does it. Trustee---Know something that their constituents don?t; private info/experts that may sometimes lead them to vote in a way that their constituents don?t want to. Also, notion of principles---have different preferences at some level. Cheney saying ?So? is sort of saying I?m the trustee and have expert representation. Bush would stand by principles. Idea of trustee justified by more information. Representing special interests is bad rep. and not fall neatly in delegate or trustee model. Descriptive vs. Substantive People in favor of delegate representation tend to go with descriptive and federalists want to elect more elite leg. That didn?t necessarily look like avg. constituent but instead was (If you want to rep. the tradesman, elect the merchant). Stresses electoral connection---desire to get re-elected. Women aren?t elected at rate of men ~17% Federalists vs Anti-federalists Federal Farmer Importance of leg. that would rep. ppl. Descriptively. Wanted small districts bc thought big districts would favor elects who could mobilize campaigns to get elected. BUT infeasible in large Republic. Would be 1000s, too many ppl. In legislature to get anything done. Anti Fed position---rep. in the states (smaller units) not fed. gov Federalist 10 Concern over factions (self interest, not common interest). Concerned about majority faction and how you can control it. Madison argues that bigger is better---brings in a diversity of interests. Cross cutting cleavage in a large republic will prevent and majority faction from taking hold Concerned that a tyranny of the majority will take away property from property owners ^^^argument is being made to support ratification of Constitution Articles of Confederation Separation? No. Unicameral Congress w/ no real separation of powers. Loose confederation of the states formed to fight war, but then limited powers come into focus. Powers? No. No power of taxation Cannot raise army Cannot control currency and trade Change? No. Unanimity Draco piece highlights ^^^ Second Continental Congress Met after outbreak of war Committee drafted Declaration of Independence Charged with war effort (but lacked authority) Articles of Confederation Federation of independent of states Weak central govt could not impose taxes Legislative dominance/ no exec branch Each state has 1 vote in Congress Require 9 of 13 for major laws; all 13 to change Articles Postwar Problems Huge debt?and no taxing authority Trade/ economic disputes among the states Lack of contribution to external defense Threat of internal chaos---debtor rebellions (Shay?s Rebellion), debt relief laws *Debtors forced debt relief. Exactly what Madison is worried about. Debt relief laws are effectively taking property away from the ppl. who have it. Apparent that fed. Gov isn?t strong enough o solve ^^ problems Federalist 47 ?The particular structure of the new government and the Distribution of Power Among its Different Parts? What is he arguing against? Theory that there should be separation of powers We in creating def gov. that will be stronger will be too strong and does not adequately separate the powers (Anti Fed Argument) Why is separation necessary? It prevents tyranny (control over all branches of gov.) What evidence does he use? Evidence that in some states will be less evident that what already exists in few states and loose, overlapping authority of branches. Federalist 48 ?These Departments should not be so far Separated as to have no Constitutional Control Over each other.? Madison?s ?most dangerous? branch? Legislative---can reach into different aspects of live w laws. Close to people; worried about popular passions, what people want If there is a majority faction, leg branch is most likely to be responsive What is his evidence? VA and PA had leg power grow too strong Uses ^^as evidence. If this is how it worked out in your state, this is what you should be concerned for Fed Gov 1) If you don?t allow different parts of the gov. to have control, will be an extended ?. ?It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought o be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.? 2) Idea that parchment barriers won?t be sufficient to prevent 1 branch from encroaching on another. Flashing back to critique that the branches don?t really have control over each other. Fears (see below) 3)The leg power will get too strong. In bush?s presidency concern was that exec branch getting too strong and weak Congress Fed 51 ?The structure of government must furnish the proper checks and balances between different departments? EX) VP will break ties in the Senate Big change = bi-cameral legislature, both parts need to agree Different timeframe for election (vacancy---election; senate---state senators appoint) Bicameral purpose is to weaken legislature and remove it from being subject to a mass of popular opinion Senate appointed ^^^ checks large states versus small states Checks and Balances ?Checks on Congress? Bicameral structure ?The Great Compromise? Origin of Tax Bills Veto ?The President Clause? Origin of tax bills in the House Vice President Presides over the senate Quorum requirement (need to get legislature together to make decisions) Express limits Taxation Apportionment ?Balances of Powers? Impeachment process House impeaches Senate convicts with 2/3 majority Judge own members Make own rules Senate approves nominees and treaties Express Powers Necessary and Proper Clause General Welfare Clause Commerce Clause Note: Nothing other than VP and tax bills originated in House are in Constitution both the Senate and House is free to make their own rules Filibuster (in Senate) is NOT a Constitutional provision House @ critical juncture decided to go by majority rule HW: Watch Obama?s Address on Health Care