The process involved in the transformation of a bill into a law is quite intricate. Initially, legislation is introduced by any member of the Congress, received by the clerk and then passed on to the Senate/House which acknowledges its launch. Through the Speaker of the House, the bill is then referred to a suitable committee which acts on it.
Whatever transpires on the floor of the House is that the bill is placed on a calendar upon approval by the Speaker cum Majority Leader, debated on, and ultimately voted on. If both houses, the Senate and the House, approve it, the bill is passed onto the President who may assent to it to become a law.
The contrary happens when the duo disapproves a bill. In case a bill gets approval by one house, the bill is passed on to a Conference Committee, an amalgam of members from both houses, which works out their differences to reach a compromise.
It is from this point that the bill is passed on for presidential assent, but this should be within ten days. Nevertheless, the President may decide “to veto the bill; however, this may become a law upon approval by two-thirds majority member” (Martins, 1983).
The process steps involved in transforming a bill into a law in the House can be summarized as follows. First, the bill is drafted then launched in the House. This is then sent to the Committee who executes a Committee Action. If the action is positive, the bill qualifies for debate and hence goes to the Rules Committee to determine the rules for debate. The bill is then debated on the floor of the House in what we refer to as a Floor Action.
A majority approval gives a green-light for the bill to proceed to the Senate. As for the Senate, the procedure is the same; however, the Rules Committee in the House is substituted with a Bill Call Up in the Senate. The ensuing procedure is what has been explained in the preceding paragraph when the houses approve or disapprove a bill.
The difference in process step pitting the Senate and the House is that, while the entire Senate decides on whether to consider a bill, in the later house, this is decided on by the Rules Committee.
The members of the Senate and the House of representatives are less likely to be responsive to public opinions since they hold the committee’s business at the greatest stake.
For a law to effectively be implemented, the president and the bureaucrats ought to work in tandem. While the Congress makes laws, it is the duties of the bureaucrats that the law can, effectively, be enforced. As such, the bureaucrats make the rules which ought to equally be obeyed by the public. It is the president’s duty to lobby and convince the bureaucrats to implement these laws. Of note, the judiciary determines the constitutionality of a law.
The main proposals of the Virginia Plan were that a national government be formed which would be composed of the judiciary, the executive, and the legislative. Moreover, the pioneers proposed for “the formation of two houses, the lower house, elected by the citizens, and the second chamber, elected by the lower house” (Martins, 1983). Furthermore, the plan proposed that the Congress would choose the executive.
On the other hand, the main detail of the New Jersey Plan was that each State receives an equivalent representation in the Assembly. Against this background, the ‘Greatest Compromise’ was reached following a stand-out pitting the populous States and the less populous ones.
While the later embraced the New Jersey Plan, the Virginia Plan was a reserve for the populous States who proposed for representation based on the population index. Consequently, a compromise was reached when a two-pronged legislative house, the Senate and the House of Representatives, were formed.
As such, while “the former represented the interests of the less populous States, the later represented the interests of the populous States” (Martins, 1983).
The formal powers that the US’s president has vital in developing foreign policies are the powers to negotiate treaties, and those fundamental in appointing ambassadors. On the other hand, the informal powers vital in developing foreign policies is the one that emanates from the president’s character that enables him to influence the Congress.
Even with his powers, the Congress provides the checks and balances to the president’s powers. As such, the Congress may override a veto or impeach a president. Moreover, the Congress controls the budget.
A federal system of government is one in which the government’s powers are decentralized between the federal government and the State governments. As such, at each government level, a State enjoys sovereignty in a number of facets but share common powers in others.
The trend of federalism portrayed over the past 100 years implies that the national government is slowly encroaching into the roles of the State and local governments. As such, the federalism is transforming from ‘layer-cake federalism,’ where the government functions are distinct, to a cooperative federalism, where the individual functions are intertwined.
The common law tradition is a jurisdiction that is made on the contesting parties based on a precedent decision made in a synonymous case done before. Stare decisis is basically a common law legal code that emphasizes the fact that the precedents of a higher court ought to be obeyed by a court, “and should follow its own prior decisions (horizontal stare decisis)” (Bremner, 2011).
Ideally, the American legal system operates under this doctrine. As such, this is vital in portraying its legal system as stable and predictable. Fundamentally, a lower court’s decision on a constitutional matter mirrors what is expected of a Supreme Court’s decision on the same. A Supreme Court’s decision to hear a particular case is dependent upon three of factors.
First, it establishes the origin of the case and whether its decision conflicts with the other circuit courts. Second, it determines the gravity of the case; whether it holds a fundamental constitutional issue. Finally, whether the Supreme Court holds a contrary opinion to that of a lower court’s ruling.
Courts come in handy in policy making when they clearly interpret a constitutional law, and basing on a case before hand, makes an appropriate amendment to a law that was initially biased. One such amendment typified in the Roe Ruling “discovered the constitutional right to abortion” (Martins, 1983). The judicial branch is mandated to interpret the framed laws.
This body checks the legislative since it has vested powers to render legislative acts unconstitutional. Similarly, it checks the executive since they can’t be controlled by the executive. On the other hand, the legislative branch checks the judiciary in the sense that they approve judges’ appointments and it can impeach a judge.
Similarly, the executive checks the judiciary since the Supreme and the Federal judges receive appointments from the president.
Judicial activism means that a judge exercises his/her own will in a jurisdiction contrary to what the law stipulates.
For instance, Justice Earl Warren (1954-69) used this platform to give voting rights to all Americans. On the other hand, the proponents of the judicial restraint believe that the “courts should uphold all acts of Congress and state legislatures unless they clearly violate a specific section of the Constitution” (Wellington, 1991).
The First Amendment calls for protection of a number of liberties that includes religion among others. Within religion there are two clauses, the ‘establishment’ clause, which bars the government from setting up a common church for all, and the ‘free exercise’ clause that allows the citizens to worship whoever they please.
By definition, public opinion is a collective individual’s beliefs. Public opinion has a massive influence on the policy change. Public opinions spur policy change in many governments. Nonetheless, the degree of policy change is limited to an individual’s rights.
Political campaigns have evolved since 1970s; the popular parties are currently in dilemma of how they would sell their manifestos to the public. In spite of this, they contest on the tone and context through which their agenda may reach out to the common man. Research has it that a campaign strategy executed has a potential to make or break a party.
Recently, campaign battles have been fought on the social media front, a platform that has “proved to be a game changer” (Martins, 1983). While campaign strategies are changing, among the factors that would enable one to assume the coveted seat is a candidate’s character, his/her consultancy team, money and the opinion polls. All these have a significant effect on election outcome.
References
Bremner, P. (2011). “Public Opinion on Immigration: Trends and Interpretation.” Journal of the Centre of Migration, Policy and Society, 23, 45-78.
Martins, K. (1983). American History: Checks and Balances. Arizona: University of Phoenix Press.
Wellington, H. (1991). Interpreting the Constitution: The Supreme Court and the Process of Adjudication. New Haven: Yale University Press.