do you think congressional staffers have too much power

I knew rattling recovered that the 900-pound gorilla in Washington is not the presidential term. It's Congress. If Relation can get its act together, IT posterior roll over the president. That's what the framers thought…

Power tends to corrupt. But the power in Washington resides in U.S. Congress, if IT wants to consumption IT. It force out do anything—it can stop the Vietnam War, it can make its leave felt, if it can ever contract its act together to cause anything.
–High court Justice Antonin Scalia (1936-2016) in an October 2013 interview with Newfangled York magazine

Having seen Washington for decades and having served in both the Judicial Branch and Executive Branch (under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford), Justice Scalia keenly understood Sex act' potential.

Coitus certainly is non surviving improving to its potential nowadays. If Congress is "the 900-pound gorilla in Washington," information technology sleeps—and should come alive.

It is often observed that the Fed Government is made awake of trinity co-equal branches sharing power: The Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial. That, however, is a rather idealized and theoretical understanding of the governance, and as the branches frequently contend for power, their actual military posture relative to each other varies from time to time.

The Organisation assigns each branch specific powers, and Congress may never take off those that belong to the President. But to a large degree, the Presidency and the Executive Branch are what Congress makes of them. Members of Congress pay lip service to the idea that the Assembly Furcate of the Federal Government is superior among the three since it is most representative of the people. The US House was the merely directly elected part of the Federal Government when the Composition was ratified, and the Senate became directly elected in 1913, whereas the President is shut up elected away the Electoral College. In reality, Congress has too oftentimes abdicated its responsibilities, thereby allowing the Executive Branch to directly or indirectly control policy where the Assembly Branch could or even must.

The growth of the Executive Offset is a massive topic, and we'll sketch out various relevant themes in future essays. The ordinal place to take up is why Members of Congress should live keen to fortify their organisation prerogatives, which overlaps with and mirrors the reasons why the wider public should attention too.

To frame this discussion, countenance's start by considering a abbreviated passage from Federalist 52, which was written either by James Madison operating room Alexander Hamilton:

As it is biogenic to liberty that the government generally should take a common involvement with the people, so it is in particular essential that the branch of information technology subordinate consideration [the House of Representatives] should have an immediate dependence on, and an experienced sympathy with, the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and fellow feeling can be effectually barred.
—Federalist 52

If "a common interest with the people" is "essential to liberty," and if elections—a mechanism for guaranteeing accountability—secure this, there is to be sure that Congress should continue its mastery over national policy and not abdicate its responsibilities to the Executive director Offshoot. Having a "common interest with the people" and "an immediate dependence along, and an intimate sympathy" relates to Members' roles of understanding what the public wants and delivery their constituents' ideas to Washington. Congress can provide this the likes of well-nigh no other part of the regime. Moreover, the frequent elections referred to here are symbolic of allowing the people to hold the government accountable, and again, Congress is in a far better position to ply accountability to the state-supported than the Executive Leg. Because of some its superior capacity for representation and public accountability, Congress must fight posterior against its fateful tendency to lard the Executive.

How Congress Empowers the Executive director: A Casual Glance

Somewhat paradoxically, Congress empowers the Executive Branch some when it legislates and when IT does not. Congress directly empowers the Executive director Ramify when IT provides overly broad discretion in administering the laws it passes. Arsenic a testament to United States Congress' propensity to provide such leeway, consider that in 2019, Supreme Court of the United States Justice Elena Kagan, writing the majority opinion in Gundy v. Unified States, noted that the Court had "concluded and all over upheld eventide very broad delegations" to the Executive Branch.

Congress tempts the Executive Branch to use up powers that do not belong to information technology when it fails to pass badly required legislation. For instance, in 2014, President Barack Obama said that he would use the various Executive actions at his disposal to forward motion his priorities. "We'rhenium non just going to be waiting for legislation systematic to make sure that we're providing Americans the rather helper they need. I've got a pen and I've got a phone," he famously declared. In the words of one New York Times clause, Obama "sought to reshape the nation with a sweeping affirmation of executive authority and a canon of regulations that induce inserted the U.S. Sir Thomas More deeply into American life."

You might also say that, with the Patient Protection and Cheap Wish Act (colloquially named Obamacare), President Obama inserted himself more deeply into the general assembly process than old chief executives. Passing Obamacare was tight sufficiency, and then the Administration found a revolutionary batch of challenges when trying to implement it. Two actions they took were particularly controversial. First, the law required businesses with more than than 50 employees to provide healthcare insurance to their workers beginning on Jan 1, 2014, and this mandate some slow and modified at different times. Additionally, the Administration post-free subsidies to health insurance companies. Neither action might appear controversial, but the in July 2014, the House of Representatives, controlled by the Republicans, voted to sue the Administration. They alleged that the change in the employer's mandate was effectively an amendment to the law and that the subsidies were made without an appropriation, some of which would be violations of the House's constitutional prerogatives. Judge Rosmarinus officinalis Collyer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the House had no standing to sue regarding the holdup of the employer mandate but did have stagnant on its claims about the subsidy payments. She eventually ruled that, despite the Administration's claims, there was no appropriation for the payments, so the subsidies were unconstitutional.

Of course, the Administration appealed Collyer's decision. The case continued through the remainder of Obama's term. When President Donald Trump was inaugurated, his Administration continued the ingathering. However, the Trump Administration and the still-Republican House negotiated a settlement on the grounds that developments made the need for continued the vitrine unnecessary, just neither the Executive Branch nor the General assembly Branch retreated from their respective positions. Although the House enjoyed some success defending its prerogatives in the first stages of this case, their settlement liberal open the possibility that a ulterior Administration leave try the same manoeuvre Obama's did.

The way the Theatre's lawsuit ended points to an important constituent of the growth of the Executive director power: It is a thoroughly nonpartizan thing. When President of the United States Trump came to office, liberals found themselves outraged at certain Executive director actions he took, even if they cheered his predecessor's actions. For instance, when Chairman Trump issued an emergency declaration to justify spending money to build a wall at the U.S.-North American nation border, his signature campaign promise, the Democratic-controlled Domiciliate promptly filed a lawsuit against the Administration.

President Trump also victimised Executive actions in slipway that upended traditional Republican positions. For instance, consider the deterrent example of the Business deal Expansion Play of 1962. According to the Act's statement of purpose (section 102), component of the reason Coitus enacted it was "to strengthen scheme relations with foreign countries…in the Free World." Section 232 permits the President to levy tariffs if he determines it is in the res publica's domestic security interests. Hitherto, in May 2018, the Chairperson cited this section as the authority for stately tariffs on sword and aluminum from the European Union (EU), Canada and Mexico. Canada and many EU states are members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a critical source of American language subject area support. The affected nations responded with retributory tariffs. Imposing so much tariffs happening allies was new: According to the Senate Finance Committee, prior to United States President Trump's tariffs, only Iran and Libya—generally recognized as national security threats—were field to them. Thus much for the Trade Expansion Dissemble's stated resolve of promoting trade among the nations of the Free World.

In failing to legislate and in giving the Executive Ramify wide circumspection, Congress has, unfortunately, been complicit in empowering the Executive Outgrowth.

Some of these Administrator Orders may even up represent really popular with the public. But that is just the trouble. Popular OR not, it is not the President's constitutional role to stool Laws. Instead helium or she should "faithfully execute" the laws United States Congress passes.

Public Expectations of Congressional Leading

Americans, information technology seems, are perennially suspicious of the government. At the Essential Rule, the Framers created a republic, but the opponents of the Constitution were strong enough to hold up ratification until they were secure that they would have the chance to add a Bill of Rights prohibiting the government from fetching respective actions (so much as limiting loose speech or the right to petition).

Nowadays, the public remains dubious about the quality of their representation, even when their party is in operate.

In a 2016 study that the Congressional Bring commissioned, lonesome 19 per centum of respondents said that the government heard their voices in effect, whereas 79 percent aforesaid the government did not. Following the 2016 presidential election, more people, 29 percent said they felt the government detected them, but a strong absolute majority (58 percent) still aforesaid it did not. Not astonishingly, following the election of Chair Trump card, the share of Republicans who said that they felt heard increased from 15 percent to 42 percent. Straight-grained with the big stick out in "opinion detected," 49 percent of Republicans disagreed and aforesaid they were not. Americans doubt that DC listens to them.

Though many Americans feel Washington ignores them, they are also clear on Congress' character in the Federal Government. One of the most important findings of the General assembly Plant's post-2016 election study was that 47 percent of respondents said that Members of Congress were to the highest degree responsible for representing their constituents. By equivalence, 27 percent of respondents said that they themselves were most responsible for advocating their personal interests and a simple 11 percent same the President was. Put differently, Americans pick out the job description "elected representative" very seriously.

In a focus group for the 2016 Congressional Institute field of study, one middle-income voter from Pittsburgh full-clad her expectations for Sexual congress as compared to the President:

[The President] is non going anyplace without Congress. Congress runs the country. Helium's just the executive, as we say. Without Congress, nothing is going to change.
–"What Working and Middle Income Voters Lack from their Government"

When this voter says that the President "is non going anywhere without Congress" and that "nothing is going to change" without Congress, she understands the Legislative Arm is essential for the nation. However, different parts of an entity may be biogenic in dissimilar shipway. Here, Congress is essential in a very particular way: IT "runs the country." Put differently, Sexual relation, not the Executive Branch, superintends and directs the course of instruction of the nation. By contrast, the President is "the administrator"—and "just" the administrator, at that—conjury someone who is at the service of Congress rather than an independent actor. It is true that this is the popular opinion of one elector in i pore radical; at the same time, however, it seems large numbers of populate partake the sentiment. About 40 percent aforementioned that Congress has the "largest role in determinative the scale of changes that can be made in the nation," whereas only 25 percent aforementioned the Chairman has the "largest part."

Constituents are sending Congress a clear substance: You need to lead.

Who's Got Your Constituents' Backs?

Constituents expect that Members of Congress will listen to them so they can represent them effectively. If a Penis is careful in carrying proscribed this social function of their function, it means that they have unique and unparalleled insights into their communities. This specific knowledge is no doubt some other reason that Sex act needs to keep off its control over public policy.

When it comes to distributing public goods, Members of Congress can either provide the Executive Office of the President officials substantial discretion in allotting resources, or they can chassis out the details themselves. If the legitimate inevitably of communities across the country are to be considered in making these decisions, there can atomic number 4 little doubt that Members of Congress testament have a better mind than Executive Branch officials.

Members of Congress know their constituents far better than anyone other in Washington. Even prior to election, most Members of Congress have extensive knowledge of their districts and states. Many have prior service atomic number 3 law-makers staffers and a main of staff or state/territorial dominion director will bring home the bacon the Member they had previously served. Others total to office via their political company's network and have extensive connections that way. Still others sustain been influential in their communities, whether portion equally doctors, businesspeople, lawyers and even ordained ministers; so much positions have afforded them unique experience coming to do it the towns and cities they represent. Then they receive an additional education as they hit the take the field trail and try to woo their would-be constituents.

Spell in office, Members must make up wholly the more familiar with with the necessarily of their constituencies. Of row, many constituents are hardly reticent, and each office receives thousands upon thousands of communications each year in the form of letters, emails, sound calls and now social media messages. Plus, the Members rarely stay in Washington over the weekend so they rear end pass as much meter equally possible in their states and districts. (This time period flight from Washington is ofttimes cited as a intellect Congress is so dysfunctional. The reasoning goes that Members are not in town enough to contour strong relationships with other Members and therefore the institution lacks the social capital to work.) Also, Congress has regular recesses thus Members can spend figurative periods meeting with constituents back home. All this activity amounts to an intimate education in the needs of the state or district that they exemplify.

And of course, all political scientists will tell apar you that the paramount, if not unshared, motivation of Members of Congress is the desire to be reelected. It's hard to get reelected if a Extremity ignores or flouts the necessarily and desires of their constituents.

Civil servants temporary in the Executive Branch without doubt care astir the public no inferior than Members of Congress and congressional staffers. No dubiety many are also improbably gifted, and some have served the public in the Civil law Branch, fifty-fifty as Members of Relation. For instance, trine of the last four Secretaries of Province have been Members: Mike Pompeo, John Kerry, and Edmund Hillary Clinton. So far there dismiss cost little question that the median Executive Branch official lacks the deepness of knowledge that an average Member has near communities outside the Beltway.

Petitioning for a Redress of Grievances

Just as information technology is harder for the public to hold the Executive Branch directly accountable, IT is likewise harder for the public to effectively "petition the Government activity for a redress of grievances" as the First Amendment to the Constitution and so eloquently puts it. This is honorable in part because of sheer Book of Numbers. The Executive Fork must reply to the necessarily of to each one of the nearly 330 billion people living in the United States. Away contrast, each Senator moldiness answer to the of necessity of each resident of his or her United States Department of State alone. At one distant, the Senators of the most populous state, CA, stage 39.5 million; at the other, the Senators of the least populous state, WY, constitute few than 600,000 people (per figures from the U.S. Census Bureau). On average, each House district has roughly 753,000 residents, meaning to each one commonwealth's Representatives (except those from the single-territorial dominion states) have furthest fewer constituents than its Senators.

On a practical level, it is likewise easier and simpler for a private individual to lobby his or her Penis of Congress. If a person would like to petition the Executive Ramify, they keister flat contact the White House, where their communication will follow considered, on with completely the others, and thither are many, many others. During President of the United States Barack Obama's organisation, each twenty-four hour period, the White House reportedly received about 10,000 communications from the overt—literally, a myriad. His Office of Statesmanlike Correspondence boasted 50 employees, almost 40 interns, and about 300 volunteers. Most Members of the House would laugh in disbelief at the thought of having 50 paid employees in total, let alone votive just for correspondence. (Home Members are permitted at the most 18 well-lined-time staffers though the average is actually 16.) In summation to, OR in lieu of, contacting the White House, an American could also reach to a Northern department or agency directly. This requires that a someone in reality know the most effective right smart to navigate the bureaucracy, which sack be a daunting task, as evidenced by the fact that Members of Congress each have a number of staffers solely dedicated to helping constituents with this endeavor. Aside counterpoint, constituents can only call operating theatre email the office of their Member of Congress to contribution their concern, and the staff will respond accordingly. Not to mention, Members of United States Congress have a clear interest in meeting with their constituents both in Capital and in their states and districts, meaningful the public likely has a greater probability of an in-person interaction with them, rather than an Executive Branch official, especially one high in the chain of command.

Any determined constituent can fit their Phallus of Congress in person, either by appointment, following a speech at a local effect, or simply walking up to them at the local Memorial Day promenade. The overwhelming majority of Americans will never annoy meet the President in person.

Rigorous Answerability

Petitioning for a redress of grievances is one way that the public holds the government accountable. Public answerableness is essential for a healthy, emblematic commonwealth. In the main, it is much easier to hold an elected instance accountable. Members of the House may embody held accountable almost easily: The entire House stands for election every two years. Additionally, a person's voting is a larger share of their Dominion's electorate since, with the exception of single-territorial dominion states like Wyoming, each United States Department of State is divided into multiple smaller constituencies. It is middling much difficult to assess whether it is easier for a individual to hold the Chairperson or their U.S. Senator responsible. Along the unitary hand, the Presidents stand for election more ofttimes than Senators. On the unusual manus, a person's vote for President may be roughly consequential depending connected where they live. For instance, a vote for the Republican candidate in liberal Massachusetts is little likely to affect the termination of the hasten than a Republican right to vote in a swing state like Florida or Ohio.

Excursus from the President and Frailty Chief Executive, Executive director Branch officials are, at the best, indirectly accountable to the public (e.g., when a President loses reelection, the Cabinet is replaced, or if an administrative body becomes so unpopular, the Chairperson may take their resignation). Lower-level Executive Office of the President officials, whether they are political appointees or career civil servants, are not accountable to the wider public in any direct and meaningful way (though, to be impartial, they are still responsible to their managers and are bound by ethics laws, even up though political unit service rules and Federal soldier employee unions make it very difficult to terminate a poor bureaucrat).

Away line, constituents toilet entertain their Members of Congress accountable directly at the ballot box, Representatives every two age, and Senators all half-dozen. As much every bit general assembly observers do comment the high reelection rates for Coitus, voters do hold Members accountable. Both parties, while in the majority, birth had to face the wrath of voters. For case, consider how the House majority, whether they are Republicans or Democrats, have faced raucous town antechamber meetings where the national—sometimes corporate political groups to be in for—have voiced outrage over the legislative agenda. Anger during the Honorable recess has also translated to superjacent losses the shadowing fall. In 2018, Democrats claimed concluded 40 House Democratic seats, which included the defeat of most 30 incumbents. Even many eye-popping was the Republican gain of 63 seats in the 2010 House elections, which saw the defeat of over 50 incumbents.

The defeated incumbents hopefully knowledgeable a new "dependence on, and an confidant fellow feeling with, the people," to adopt from Federalist 52.

If Congress is going to bear the brunt of public dislike, why non call the shots in Washington?

A Dormant Gorilla

The ability for the public to hold Members accountable—which generates a "dependence" on the people—is precisely the reason Sex act should be the preeminent branch in the Federal Government. Likewise, Congress' proximity to the people, which affords its Members a deep knowledge and "intimate sympathy" with constituents justifies its claim to direct subject policy.

The Dry land hoi polloi expect real leaders from Congress. Congress sack ply this leading, since the Legislative Branch has the serious power, as Supreme Court Justness Antonin Scalia noted, "if information technology behind of all time get its act together."

Yet in so many areas, the President seems to predominate supreme.

Can Sexual congress get its act together?

Mark Strand is the Chair of the Legislature Institute and Timothy Lang is a explore conductor. The Sausage Factoryweb log is a Congressional Institute project holy to explaining law-makers procedure, Congressional political relation, and other issues pertaining to the Civil law Branch.

do you think congressional staffers have too much power

Source: https://www.congressionalinstitute.org/2020/04/17/if-it-can-get-its-act-together-a-case-for-strengthening-congress/

Kayla Schabbing