Political Role of Congress - AP US Government

Gerrymandering is the process of establishing or redesigning electoral districts in order to offer some electoral advantage to the group or party that is doing the restructuring. It has at times also been used to hinder specific social or ethnic groups from attaining equal representation in Congress.

The Commerce Power, or Commerce Clause, is an enumerated power given to Congress in the United States Constitution. It states that Congress has the power to regulate foreign and interstate trade.

Members of Congress are most likely to vote in line with their political parties. Very rarely does a Member of Congress not vote in line with the political party with which he or she is affiliated, so much so that when it does happen it usually cause for a major news story.

Veto power lies solely with the president, not Congress. All of the other choices represent powers that only Congress can use.

A Party Whip is tasked with assisting the party leader and identifying the voting patterns of the members of the political party in the legislature. The primary goal is to ensure that party members vote in accordance with the official party policy and do not go rogue.

The “power of the purse” refers to the influence of allocating funds on the process of law making and implementation. The legislature has the power to create the budget of the national government. None of the other choices have this power, which is given to the legislature in Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution.

Pork barrel legislation (often just “pork”) is a by-product of the legislative process, and it makes political sense, although it is economically indefensible. Pork is when members of Congress vote to appropriate funds or tax breaks (or really anything) that will economically (or otherwise) benefit their constituency. The problem with pork, however, is that everyone pays for it, but only a few benefit.

Take, for example, a brand new . . . YMCA . . . or something substantially similar that your Congressman secured for you, his constituent. You and everyone else in your hometown of Okay, OK (that’s actually a place) get to benefit from: the increase in jobs this YMCA brings—both in construction and the maintenance and upkeep once it’s built, the exercise benefits of YMA, etc. The best part for you, however, is that you get to share the cost with everyone else all over the US! You can imagine how this could become a problem when every Congressman brings home some pork for his district.

This is a rather tricky question. The correct answer is that your constituency is everyone in your district—you are the representative of that district (or, if you’re a Senator, of that state). Although you might have been tempted to select the answers that had to do with your party, or those who voted for you, that’s only half of the correct answer.

Straightforward vocab question here. The correct answer is, a logroll is when members of a legislative body swap support for dissimilar policies so that both policy objectives are achieved. While this may sound similar to pork (and it is—pork is an example of logrolling) it’s not the same thing.

An indirect, or representative democracy, is the system of government used in the US. As a representative democracy, we the citizens do not (generally, but there are a few exceptions) vote on laws directly; rather, we vote on representatives to make laws for us. In other words, in a direct democracy (or classic democracy) citizens vote directly on laws, but in an indirect democracy, citizens vote ONLY on representatives who then vote on laws.

This was a relatively difficult question. In order to answer it, you have to remember what pork-barrel legislation is, and how Congressional politics combined with constituent pressure make it logical to produce pork.

Pork-barrel legislation is, in short, a narrowly targeted program or expenditure that directly benefits one politician’s constituency, but which is paid for by the entire country. In other, more concrete terms, imagine that you were a congresswoman (or man) and that your constituency wanted a new rec center in town. It would be a political ‘win’ for you, because not only would your constituents get a new rec center, but you’d be able to employ local contractors to build it! If, however, it is federally funded, it means that your constituents aren’t the only ones paying for it—everyone in the nation is.

Now, as for the “logical” part: because each politician must pander to their constituency (in order to get reelected), pork makes sense; it’s the most direct and visible way to reward a faithful constituency, and moreover, the cost is shared among all Americans. The problem is that every congress member sees the advantage—hence widespread pork.

There is, in fact, a bias against action in Congress—in other words, it’s much easier to kill a bill than it is to get one passed. Logically speaking, this makes sense—it should be harder to pass a bill than it is to kill it, that way frivolous laws don’t get passed. Procedurally speaking, this is correct because there are many opportunities for a bill’s opponent to destroy a bill, whereas there is only one of two ways to get a bill passed (signed by the President or a veto override by Congress).

While opponent candidates are usually weak, especially in terms of adequate qualifications, they are actually most vulnerable when aspiring to the House of Representatives. Incumbent House members are even more likely to be successful in their reelection bids than are their counterparts in the Senate, most likely due to the strong party ties and two year terms that govern the House. Opponents who are seeking to steal away a seat from underneath a sitting House representative face a very arduous task. Challengers do not enjoy much voter visibility, free media coverage, or already earned goodwill among their constituent base and so must battle against an incumbent who is significantly better equipped from the very beginning.

Most Senators and Representatives hold law degrees, with a great many having practiced as lawyers. Other highly common professions include business and academia, but it would certainly be fair to term Congress a “lawyer’s club.” This prevalence can best be explained by the complimentary natures of politics and legal affairs, subjects whose contents often reinforce and give credence to each other. The flexible schedule and high salary which lawyers typically enjoy also come in handy for aspiring Congress men and women, as does the monetary support often provided to political candidates by law firms.

While it is indeed sometimes possible for an incumbent candidate to ride the sitting President’s coattails to electoral victory, overall this tactic is hardly ever successful. Whether employed by a Senator or a House representative, the odds of coattail campaigning proving effective are slim to none. This grim reality may seem surprising at first but a few key factors help explain its unlikelihood. Firstly, in order for the “coattail theory” to work, the sitting President and the Congressional incumbent must be from the same political party. Even if this first condition is met, it is very difficult for an incumbent, whether from the Senate or House, to lay claim to any significant part of a President’s popular initiatives. Sole credit is nearly impossible to establish and so any candidate’s attempts in this regard are overwhelmingly ignored by voters. In some cases, the “coattail strategy” can even backfire against an incumbent, as voters take these assertions as proof of a candidate’s desperation and/or false pretensions.

While Congress men and women naturally seek to authentically represent their constituents’ interests, they do not seem to be allowing these opinions to guide their policy votes any more than is historically usual. Every single Senator and representative comes face to face with this most classic of Congressional dilemmas: how best to balance their own political beliefs against the urgings of the voters to whom they owe their position. Most times, members make their choices on an issue-by-issue basis, weighing the virulence (or lack thereof) of the voters against party leaders’ pressures and their own leanings. Often, representatives and Senators hold many beliefs in common with the people in their districts, of which they themselves of course are a product, but this is not always the case. Strict adherence to constituents’ desires most often results when an issue is easily understood and highly visible, whereas those policies that are poorly comprehended by the public, require specialized and/or insider information, or are otherwise quite complicated are usually ultimately decided by the Congress person’s own opinions.

It is often believed that the President of the United States declares war. While the President may announce that war has been declared, because the President acts with the consent of Congress in the matter of war, s/he must first go to the Congress of the United States in a joint session and ask for the declaration of war.