Barbara Deleoni
Given that most presidential powers are delegated and informal, the president’s ability to shape American politics is largely contingent on public support. To what extent do flagging political support or declining poll numbers hamper the president’s ability to lead Congress and the nation? Are there areas where this fact will be of little consequence? Discuss the suitability of public opinion polls for conferring a mandate on the president.
It is more of a persuasive than a commanding power that the president has backed Richard Neustadt’s statements. In contrast to other politicians, his goal is to maintain a delicate equilibrium between his power and the backing of the people and other members of civil society. Since polls and approval ratings shape the president’s public opinion, these factors substantially impact the president’s decision-making process. While it is true that Congress can either support or oppose the president and his party, several researchers and real-life examples show that the public also plays a significant role in helping the president accomplish his objectives. In fact, research indicates that the public’s distrust and skepticism regarding the president’s integrity and adverse conduct contribute to trust issues, thereby impeding efforts to address national challenges and secure their cooperation. People do not trust the government; therefore, they hold assemblies and other political events to protest its policies and programs and to undermine his attempts to demonstrate the democratically granted sovereign authority of the people.
Consider the positive and negative effects of profit in the context of several different areas of public bureaucracy. What is gained and what is lost by privatizing functions such as education policy, trash removal, criminal incarceration, and national defense? How might privatization affect the constitutional rights of citizens who deal with private companies?
Privatizing some government services, such as education, waste materials, criminal justice, and national security, has pros and cons. Motivated by a desire to make a profit, privately owned businesses are known to be more efficient and innovative than public sector organizations. This is because they are constantly competing to provide better services, which ultimately leads to better results and new ideas. As a result of this push for efficiency and new ideas, there is less focus on government control, especially from private property owners who are responsible for keeping their properties in good shape. However, worries about private monopolies that could abuse the market by raising prices are legitimate concerns. Public services could be badly affected, and government-managed firms could be dissolved if industries, particularly vital ones like healthcare, public transportation, and the military, are privatized. Accessibility issues may more negatively impact individuals with lower incomes in these places. When private companies put profit before the public interest, it could threaten constitutional rights.
EXECUTIVE BRANCH
Why were the Founding Fathers so concerned about the amount of power vested in the President? It was the most debated part of the Constitutional Convention in 1787.
The people who attended the Constitutional Convention were determined to stop the rise of an unchecked President because they feared a repeat of the oppressive British government. These people were determined to set up a system of checks and balances based on the ideas of the Enlightenment and the separation of powers. Because they believed in limited government and individual rights, the Founding Fathers carefully wrote down the President’s powers in the Constitution. They did this to ensure that the harsh rule they had fought against in the American Revolutionary War would not return. During these conversations, they repeatedly stated their intention to create a government that would safeguard democracy and personal liberties.
Why were the foundering fathers also concern about how to elect the President? Please Note we don’t have a direct democracy, but an Electoral College. Therefore the political power is not necessarily granted to the masses.
The Founding Fathers had to come up with a way to choose a president who would uphold democratic ideas and stop people from abusing their power. Because they were worried about the problems that could come up with direct democracy, they created the Electoral College to keep the majority from having too much power. The goal of this method was to make sure that states with fewer people would be treated fairly. The main goal was to find a balance between democratic values and security so that the dangers of unchecked majoritarianism would not happen. The Electoral College also pushed for compromise and coalition-building by needing a majority of electoral votes to win. This meant that candidates had to appeal to various interests across the country. This design is meant to strengthen democratic participation and keep the state’s power in check.
JUDICIAL BRANCH
Do you believe that judicial decisions will be affected if the diversity of the judges serving in the federal judiciary match the diversity of the population? Explain why or why not.
The federal judiciary’s effect on court decisions is complicated by several factors that reflect the variety of the people who live in the country. Although it is incorrect to assume equality within any demographic group, a judiciary representative of the general public provides a range of experiences for decision-making. Diversity can improve empathy, comprehension, and the ability to overcome prejudices, which could lead to more complex and representative decisions. It is important to remember that diversity alone does not ensure particular results because individual judges are also affected by legal theory, precedent, and the rule of law. However, a growing number of people see a more diverse court as a way to improve the legal system’s legitimacy and build public trust by demonstrating diversity and representation in the legal system.
Do you believe that 9 Supreme Justices interpreting the law for 330 million Americans is Democracy? Why or why not?
There is a lot of complexity and controversy surrounding whether or not nine justices on the Supreme Court interpreting laws for 330 million Americans constitute democracy. To begin with, the Supreme Court plays an essential role in protecting fundamental rights, interpreting laws so they are consistent with national principles, and preserving constitutional foundations. The significance of maintaining the rule of law is emphasized by the fact that decisions have to be grounded in legal interpretation, not public opinion. Since the people do not directly elect Supreme Court justices, opponents point out that they do not democratically represent the people. Some may view the centralization of power in the judiciary as anti-democratic because it does not allow for the kind of citizen participation and oversight seen in other parts of government. In order to answer this question, we must look closely at how the legal and constitutional frameworks strike a balance between protecting individual rights and ensuring democratic representation.
Do you believe that by the founding fathers vesting all legislative powers in Congress did NOT create a true democracy, but a representative democracy or even a dictatorship of 535 members controlling 330 million Americans?
As stated in the U.S. Constitution, the Founding Fathers purposefully created a representative democracy rather than a direct or pure democracy. Their concerns regarding the possible “tyranny of the majority” prompted them to institute a system in which voters choose representatives who enforce laws on their behalf. Congress, which consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate, has the authority to pass laws under this system of representative democracy. Critics could counter that while representation is guaranteed, limiting the number of people with legislative authority could resemble a ruling class or a limited democracy. Nonetheless, to prevent power accumulation and protect individual rights in this representative democracy, the system includes checks and balances, the division of powers, and the Bill of Rights.
…..
Adrian
Legislative Branch
1.
Given that most presidential powers are delegated and informal, the president’s ability to shape American politics is largely contingent on public support. To what extent do flagging political support or declining poll numbers hamper the president’s ability to lead Congress and the nation? Are there areas where this fact will be of little consequence? Discuss the suitability of public opinion polls for conferring a mandate on the president.
Answer – However, public opinion polls have limitations as well. They can be influenced by various factors such as sampling bias, wording of questions, and the timing of the poll. Furthermore, public opinion is not always consistent or stable, and it can change rapidly in response to events or media coverage. Therefore, relying solely on public opinion polls may not accurately reflect the true mandate or support for a president’s policies. It is important for leaders to consider a range of factors when making decisions and not solely rely on fluctuating public opinion.
2.
Consider the positive and negative effects of profit in the context of several different areas of public bureaucracy. What is gained and what is lost by privatizing functions such as education policy, trash removal, criminal incarceration, and national defense? How might privatization affect the constitutional rights of citizens who deal with private companies?
Answer – The profit motive can have both positive and negative effects on public bureaucracy. Privatizing functions such as education policy, trash removal, criminal incarceration, and national defense can bring efficiency and innovation to these areas, as companies strive to maximize their profits. However, it can also lead to inequality in access to services, as private companies may prioritize profit over the needs of all citizens. Additionally, privatization raises concerns about the protection of constitutional rights when dealing with private entities. There is a risk that private companies may not uphold or prioritize individual rights in the same way that public institutions do. Therefore, careful consideration must be given to strike a balance between the benefits of profit-driven efficiency and protecting the constitutional rights of citizens.
Executive Branch
1.
Why were the Founding Fathers so concerned about the amount of power vested in the President? It was the most debated part of the Constitutional Convention in 1787.
Answer – The Founding Fathers were deeply concerned about the concentration of power in the hands of a single individual, which led to intense debates during the Constitutional Convention in 1787 regarding the amount of power vested in the President. Their concern stemmed from their experiences with British monarchy and fears of a potential tyrannical ruler. They sought to establish a system that would prevent abuses of power and ensure checks and balances within the government. By limiting presidential authority through various means such as separation of powers, federalism, and a system of checks and balances, they aimed to safeguard against an overly powerful executive branch that could potentially threaten liberty and undermine democratic principles.
2.
Why were the founding fathers also concerned about how to elect the President? Please Note we don’t have a direct democracy, but an Electoral College. Therefore the political power is not necessarily granted to the masses.
Answer – The Founding Fathers were concerned about how to elect the President because they wanted to ensure a fair and balanced system that would prevent political power from being concentrated solely in the hands of the masses. They recognized the limitations of direct democracy and believed that an Electoral College would serve as a safeguard against potential mob rule or tyranny of the majority. By establishing this system, they aimed to strike a balance between giving citizens a voice in choosing their leader while also incorporating the expertise and judgment of more informed representatives who could make educated decisions on behalf of the nation.
Judicial Branch
1.
Do you believe that judicial decisions will be affected if the diversity of the judges serving in the federal judiciary match the diversity of the population? Explain why or why not.
Answer – Whether judicial decisions will be affected by matching the diversity of judges serving in the federal judiciary with the diversity of the population is a matter of debate. Some argue that having a diverse judiciary would lead to fairer and more representative decisions, as it brings different perspectives and worldviews to the table. The idea is that judges from various backgrounds can better understand and empathize with the experiences of all citizens, ensuring justice for all. On the other hand, there are those who believe that a judge’s qualifications, experience, and adherence to legal principles should take precedence over demographic representation. They argue that judges should interpret laws impartially without being influenced by personal characteristics such as race or gender. Ultimately, the impact on judicial decisions depends on individual judges’ approach to their role and their ability to separate personal beliefs from legal reasoning.
2.
Do you believe that 9 Supreme Justices interpreting the law for 330 million Americans is Democracy? Why or why not?
Answer – The question of whether having 9 Supreme Justices interpreting the law for a population of 330 million Americans constitutes democracy is subjective and can be seen from different perspectives. On one hand, it could be argued that this system aligns with democratic principles as the justices are appointed by elected officials and their interpretations are guided by the Constitution. Additionally, the court’s decisions can potentially reflect the will of the majority indirectly through representative government. However, others may argue that true democracy should involve a more direct involvement of citizens in legal interpretation and decision-making processes. Ultimately, whether or not this arrangement is considered democratic depends on one’s definition and understanding of democracy itself.
3.
Do you believe that by the founding fathers vesting all legislative powers in Congress did NOT create a true democracy, but a representative democracy or even a dictatorship of 535 members controlling 330 million Americans?
Answer – The question raises the concern that vesting all legislative powers in Congress, as done by the founding fathers, may not have created a true democracy but rather a representative democracy or even a dictatorship of 535 members controlling 330 million Americans. This implies that the concentration of power within a small group of individuals could potentially undermine the principles of direct participation and decision-making by the general population.
……
Missing one student will upload soon
