Stalemate/Nature of Representation

Stalemate happens because of the varied representation present in Congress. Different interests come into conflict over a certain law or decision, and this conflict, many times, keeps any progress from happening. The House of Representatives is more concerned with the interest of the people, while the Senate is more concerned with the "landed interests of society".  Because of this bicameral, or two-housed, legislature, stalemate occurs often because different concerns come into conflict with one another.  

     Gridlock, another name for stalemate, occurs because of divided parties in Congress and the bicameralism in the legislature.  Divided parties have divided interests in the legislature, so it is truly almost impossible to get the parties to agree on anything. Similarly, bicameralism's inherent setup seems to promote stalemate because of the ideological differences between the House and the Senate. Personally, I feel that this gridlock is an appropriate representation of the will of the people. If one party was able to pass whatever policies or laws it desired, then the American people would be at an incredible disadvantage.  Inevitably, one party would be left out and cut down because of these new policies favoring only one group.  Gridlock is necessary in order to compromise between different interests and figure out what is best for everyone. Even though bicameralism has its problems with gridlock, it is still an effective body of government because it effectively represents the will of the people.  

Courts or Legislation?

Historically, the courts have had the most impact on desegregation.  Although Congress passed the 14th Amendment, it was the Court's job to enforce this legislation and to interpret the words expressed in the Amendment if they should come up in trial. In Plessy v. Ferguson, the courts upheld a Louisiana statute that required segregation, saying that the "equal protection of the laws" stated in the 14th Amendment was not violated as long as the facilities were separate but equal.  So, the Court interpreted the Amendment in one way...later it would change its opinion.  In Brown v. Board of Education, the Court ruled that "separate education facilities are inherently equal"- completely contradicting what it had ruled almost 60 years earlier in Plessy.  Congress could present and pass legislation, but the Court had the power to interpret that legislation whatever way they seemed fit. 

I don't think that it was the Court's fault for the backlash that occurred, especially in the Southern states, after Brown v. Board of Education.  The Court has the power to rule what it thinks fit for the whole country, and it is the states' responsibility to follow the rules set forth by the Court/Federal government.  The states can throw a hissy fit and say what they want, but, ultimately, they have to do what the Court and federal government tell them to do.  Further, I don't think that it would have mattered if federal legislation had been passed concerning desegregation.  The states(especially in the South) were not going to be happy with whatever ruling came about from desegregation.  If there was desegregation- it could have come from the President, Congress, or the Court- the states were going to be upset and there was almost certainly going to be violence. 

Incorporation Blog

Selective incorporation is a ruling of the Supreme Court that allows for parts of the Bill of Rights to be included in its interpretation of the 14th Amendment for a particular case. Basically, the Supreme Court is attempting to rule that only certain parts of the Bill of Rights apply to the 14th Amendment. American federalism seems to have slowed incorporation down- or at least a little bit. The cases that came to the Supreme Court had to go through state courts and lower federal courts, and sometimes the Supreme Court even changed its mind on the ruling of a certain incorporation. Barron v. Baltimore started the move towards incorporation, as Barron tried to argue that he must receive just compensation from the state for depriving him of his property. Barron used the 5th Amendment to bolster his plea, but this Amendment only protects one from the national government- not the state governments. So, the Supreme Court rejected Barron's plea. This case was held before the 14th Amendment(1833), so the story may have been much different if the case had been held in the 1880s. In Palko v. Connecticut, Palko argued that his murder sentencing had occurred because of "double jeopardy" and that he cannot be guilty according to the Constitution. But, since he was tried in state courts, the Supreme Court could not prove his innocence because double jeopardy was not one of the provisions of the Bill of Rights incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment. Like Barron, Palko could not be helped because he was not a victim of the national government. Finally, in Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court ruled that freedom of speech is one of the fundamental rights protected by the due process clause in the 14th Amendment. This case is different from the other two because the Supreme Court actually does rule in favor of the people--free speech is protected by the 14th Amendment. 

Federalism, mandates, and devolution

    First, an unfunded mandate is a program of the national government where the government imposes a certain national standard upon the states without providing any funding- all the money comes directly from the states' budgets.  Of course, the states would probably not recognize this mandate unless the government had some sort of way to force them to, so the government operates under "regulated federalism".  Under this federalism, the government gets the states to comply with its demands by threatening to cut off federal grant money unless the states' governments agree to accept the national standards set by the national government.  An example of an unfunded mandate would be current President George Bush's No Child Left Behind Act.  This act set a certain national standard in order to improve student performance on standardized tests, and it also punishes schools where students do not improve.  Although this idea seems to be very nice and helpful, it is very expensive for states to put in motion and has begun to lose support.

    Next, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was passed in 1995 under President Bill Clinton.  This Act limited unfunded mandates and was one of the first pieces of legislation adopted by Congress in 1995.  This Act allowed for any mandate that had an estimated cost of $50 million a year or greater could be stopped and discussed on the floor in either house of Congress.  Even though this Act does not stop Congress from passing unfunded mandates, it forces them to think twice before they actually do put them into action.  Similarly, devolution also deals with the issue of setting national standards.  Devolution in general is the policy to remove power from one area of government and pass it down to a lower level of government.  Like the "UMRA", devolution is an attempt to allow the states to have more power and more independence in their decisions.  With devolution in place, some national standards still do remain, but the national government has delegated more authority to the states.  The national government has also given the states more funding for these programs, too.

    In my opinion, devolution is more effective in limiting unfunded mandates in actual practice. Since 1995, many unfunded mandates have still been imposed upon the states, costing the states a good deal of money and sacrifice of their own power.  Under the UMRA, President Bush has still been able to pass the "No Child Left Behind Act", the "Transportation Act", and a few other matters of legislation.  These new policies have cost state governments a good deal of money, and they have also been forced to accept national regulations in order to receive whatever federal funding they had been receiving previously.  But, under devolution, the states have been able to gain more authority in numerous aspects, especially welfare.  States have been relieved of many of the national regulations that once held them down and limited their own personal budgets and programs.  Also, devolution, unlike the UMRA, has provided the states with funding for their programs.  All in all, devolution has allowed state governments to have more authority over programs and policies that were once under the national government.  Devolution has also supplied the states with more funding, allowing the states to accomplish what is on their own agendas.