Congress Rhetorical Analysis

Due process is the fair treatment for all humans using the normal judicial system especially through entitlement by a citizen. The conflict between the parties is weakening the power of our national government because without Congress working together to create laws they are opposing each other. Even though this opposition may weaken us it is one of Congress 's’ implied powers. An implied power is a power that is practically given to the federal government, also known as an elastic clause. Congress’ arguments on gun control is wasting time, while they are arguing over something that may not ever be changed rather that passing new reasonable laws that can strengthen our country.

The incumbency advantage is the tendency for members of Congress to win re-election in overwhelming numbers. The congress in place now has one of the lowest approval rates recorded, but almost all running for re-election were reelected in both the House and Senate. What can be done to with these high incumbent rates? The people have continued to reelect congressmen that they do not approve of. How can those running against the already elected officials win against them?

Polarization in politics refers to a sharp division of political attitudes as a party, into opposing parties. Partisan polarization over the past thirty years has negatively affected Congress’s ability to govern. Because of this polarization of the parties, Congress is now divided and practically dysfunctional. Similar voting between the Republicans and the Democrats was common through the 1980’s, but in the 1990’s the parties became ideologically distant with a decline of a center ground and began pulling away from each other. The main causes of this polarization are that Republicans have become more consistently conservative while Democrats have become more consistently liberal.

Congressional term limits have been what restricted the amount of time that anyone can work in office whether it be to a representative, senator, or even the president. People have debated over keeping or losing the term limits, since each come with their own benefits and faults at the same time. In the argument for term limits, some may argue that they are necessary because, “Congress will be more responsible toward their constituents because they will soon be constituents themselves” (Weeks). The validity in this statement proves to be one of the strongest arguments because the creation of laws is mean to serve all people, and if the people in office had complete immunity, it would serve unfair and unjust to the rest of society. For this reason, it always will make those in office consider how impactful and

176). An effective party will be able to present and carry out programs that they propose. However, if the cynicism of the public and the ineffectiveness of the party system continues to escalate, the nation may eventually witness the disintegration of the two major political parties. The two-party system is an essential part of our national government because if “[reinforces] the constitutional framework within which the voter may without peril exercise his freedom of political choice” (pg. 178).

Being in congress is not suppose to be a career; its suppose to be more like a temporary job. Another pro is it reduces problems. For example, some congress members like the power that they have and they start to misuse it. A con of having term limits is getting rid of the experienced members. Newer people may bring new ideas but they need time to figure out how the system works.

This is unproductive because instead of working together to better the nation, people are disunited which creates animosity and gridlock. One trend can be looked to in order to explain this. Over the past forty or so years, there has been a significant rise in the number of conservative Republican lawmakers. When considering this in the context of party polarization, conservative Republicans are consequently the biggest reason behind it, per Nolan McCarty of the Washington

I have to admit I was surprised by the expert’s response to this question. John Milewski, host of C-SPAN’s “Close Up”, explained that while voters expect our representatives to have a wide sweeping knowledge on issues, sometimes they just flat out do not know the answer. They may need to take the question and research the correct answer before responding. This can come off as elusive or “spinning an answer until such time they can present a better rebuttal. They also are politician, they have to play the game and try not to speak in inflammatory terms, because there are always to sides and someone will end up on the wrong side and be disgruntled.

With statistics shown about how the number of electors each state gets isn 't even fair, and that smaller states really do get more of an advantage it leads me to really question why they even have this system. America is about freedom, the freedom to choose your leader, the freedom to vote for laws, and the freedom to vote for who is eligible to pass these laws. If we are promised all these freedoms why is it that there is a whole complicated system not everyone even knows about that actually proves the popular votes of the people do not decipher our president? I believe it should be banned from use due to the unfairness of the process as a

Term Limitation of Congress In America, it is a constant debate whether members of congress should be term-limited. Many people believe that the current members of congress have been in their position for too long and are subject to prejudices and old ideas. Although, the terms of house and senate should not be limited due to the fact that, the power to change a representative is in our hands as well as we, as a country, do not need a congress with little experience. A lot of people believe that getting a congressman they do not like voted out is a myth. This is because in the past as well as now, the majority of some districts do not pay enough attention to know that someone does not deserve their position.

He was really convincing because if he wasn’t , we would most likely not be having this nation. Madison would want us to stop following parties blindly and have our own personal opinions in voting. People in 2017 tend to vote for candidate mostly because he or she is a republican or democrat. Following blindly will not result in any good outcome. He wanted balance in the government and well, there is balance now and a lot more.

Although we know that legislators are more extreme than are their constituents (Bafumi and Herron 2010), scholars have identified a range of factors that might explain elite polarization but have failed to generate consensus. Redistricting is one of the most commonly cited explanations for polarization (Mann and Orstein 2006). However, this is hotly debated in the literature. Abramowitz, Alexander, and Gunning (2006) argue the polarization has no effect, as the elections for House positions are not becoming less competitive. Carson et al.

At the age of 18, Americans have the right of voting for who they want to be in charge of our country. Many Americans have different opinions on which candidate they want to see in office; as a result, many are awarded with the candidate they choose. Others may not agree with the outcome of the election, but as a nation, we have to accept the outcome and still work together. People often choose not to vote because they feel their vote does not count towards anything, but one vote could change who wins an election. As citizens of America, we have the right to make the United States a better place.

As in designing “fire alarms,” legislatures also produce more statutory controls for policy implementation when the legislature is controlled by the opposite party as the executive (Huber, Shipan, and Pfahler 2001). Epstein and O’Halloran (1995) note that the “fire alarms” do not have an equilibrium, and can be abused by interest groups to gain Congress’s attention. None-the-less, committees possess sufficient reward and sanction mechanisms, such as budgets, appointments, and oversights (Weingast and Moran 1983). Congressmen, who are not policy wonks in a certain policy area, also focus on the reactions and demands of the constituency in monitoring bureaucratic

These are the people that will be easily influenced by the government. If the government claims something and backs it up with a few facts and a whole bunch of lies, chances are, the public will not bother to check up on it and support the government’s claims. That may be okay, but if the Congress doesn’t even read thoroughly everything they are signing off on, who is to say that what they are doing is good for the country or even follows the Constitution? Keeping the public, and sometimes even the Congress, ignorant is a great way to keep them united and at peace. “We know more than we did two weeks ago, but there are still entire government agencies whose names and missions are unknown, and programs so secret that Congress votes to fund them without knowing what they do.” (O’Hehir) With Congress being kept in the dark, the government programs can do whatever they feel is necessary in the name of the Constitution without burdening more people of what they do.