How effectively does Congress fulfil its constitutional roles

by riple101 (student)

Ahmed Albatat Congress Politics

How effectively does Congress fulfil its constitutional roles? (45)

Congress has many constitutional roles to fulfil such as the power of the purse, oversight, foreign policy and legislation. It can be argued that Congress does fulfil its constitutional roles as it may deliver effective over sighting, legislation, money bills, representation and foreign policy that may provide good checks and balances. However, most would argue that congress may not carry its roles effectively or sometimes not effectively enough which leads to poor scrutiny, and sometimes over-scrutinising, which leads to ineffective fulfilment of constitutional roles. I believe that the level of effectiveness will be the role of circumstances such as divided governments and united governments which can determine the effectiveness of congress for certain roles.

Congress has the role to pass legislation, scrutinise and emend bills for an effective fulfilment of the role. Congress will often amend bills which are initiated by the president in order to check the balance of power. With Congress commonly amend bills, it shows evidence of effective fulfilment of this role to scrutinise the work of the president. Congress will also take a vote on a bill which allows further scrutiny as bills may be passed or rejected by Congress. However, it can be argued that these roles are not effectively fulfilled. For instance, many bills get amended and sometimes heavily amended in such a way that bills come out the other end unrecognisable to the president’s proposals. An example of this would be Obama’s healthcare bill, and this is evidence of ineffective scrutiny that leads to bad, watered-down legislation. It also shows the lack of compromises and consensus within Congress which further suggests that Congress doesn’t fulfil its role effectively. In addition, many bills will be ‘pigeon holed’ by committees which leaves many bills forgotten. However, if is there to be a united government, a more effective legislation would be provided but if Congress is divided, it is more likely to be an ineffective fulfilment of this role due to partisanship in recent years.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Congress also has the role to pass money bills which are heavily important in America. Congress does provide an affective fulfilment of this role as they limit the power of the executive of dominating money of the state. This is done by committees in Congress that specialise in a particular field of finance and this allows effective oversight on money bills. However, the reality of the effectiveness is that Congress doesn’t fulfil this role well. ‘Pork barrel’ spending or ‘earmarks’ can be dropped in money bills and this wastes government spending in order to benefit a certain distract which makes this role ineffectively fulfilled. This problem is also common so therefore it’s significant as it leads to a better chance of budget deficits. Another problem is that there is a lack of consensus within Congress that it can be time consuming and disruptive. An example of ineffective fulfilment of this role would be in 1995 of the Clinton administration where the government had to shut down due to delays and lack of agreement, therefore Congress can be seen as ineffective in this role. It can also be said once again that a united government will produce a more effective money bill, and a divided government will make things more difficult for an effective bill.

Another constitutional role of Congress is foreign policy. Congress has the role to ratify and scrutinise treaties and over see military action. This role can be argued to be fulfilled effectively since Congress has rejected a total of 5 Treaties. This shows evidence of scrutinised treaties, an example of this would be in 1999, the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. In addition, the War Power Act of 1973 gave an increase of effective fulfilment of this role. This allowed Congress to approve or disapprove military actions by the president after sixty days. An example of this would be the military action in Somalia, which was disapproved after sixty days of military action and this shows the effectiveness of Congress in this role. However, it is argued that Congress is ineffective in this role as Congress has not declared war since 1941 on Japan, despite numerous military actions since the Cold War. This shows bad oversight in Congress and it is unconstitutional for this to happen. On the other hand, despite the lack of declared wars, Congress still has consent over military action. An example of this would be the Tonkin Resolution. However, Congress is seen as ineffective for this role as in practice Congress will usually support military actions as it may be ‘unpatriotic’ to disapprove, such as the war on Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001. Therefore congress is argued to be not effective enough in foreign policy as it allows the president to dominate foreign policy. Having a united or divided government will have little effect on this role.

A further constitutional role of Congress is oversight. This is usually for the case to ratify presidential appointments, investigations and the rare cases of impeachments the House of Representatives can exert. Evidence of effective oversight is rejecting presidential appointments such as Robert Bork to the Supreme Court in 1987 and Clinton’s nomination of Ronnie White for federal court judge in 1999. This can show the level of effectiveness of Congress of oversight as Congress may scrutinise the president’s appointments. However, it is argued that these disapprovals were hardly affective as these rejections were made due to party majorities in Congress. Most disapproval is done if the Senate has a majority of a different party from the president which makes over sighting ineffective as it shows disapproval is only for the sake of partisanship and not of wise decision. In contrast, having a united Congress will provide a lap dog style of oversight which is ineffective and this was apparent during Bush’s administration.

Representation is also a key role for Congress. It can be argued that Congress does well with this as both houses may vote on the line of their own district or state due to primaries. However, representation is not effective as mid-terms election have low turnout which shows their lack of approval from citizens. Also, many opinion polls show how America dislikes Congress in its job. Approximately 80% of citizens disapprove with the work of congress. In addition, senators are less likely to listen to their state as they have a six year term in office before mid-term elections. Congress is also becoming increasingly influenced by powerful pressure groups rather than the people of the district or state and usually become part of an Iron Triangle. Furthermore, the senate especially, does not represent their state as a whole as there is a lack of ethnic minorities and women. However, it can be argued the House is more representative but its role of representation is overall ineffective.

In conclusion, Congress is overall mostly ineffective in fulfilling its constitutional roles due to party alignment causing a lapdog or an attack dog style of oversight. Its role in legislation is mostly ineffective as countless bills are pigeon holed and heavily emended which leads to ineffective legislation. Also, the lack of declared wars can question the role of Congress in providing effective oversight, however congress still have considerable authority with the War Power Act but in practice is weak due to political pressure. The role over money is no better as pork-barrel spending is apparent and many delays due to lack of consensus which is ineffective. Furthermore, the representational role of Congress is ineffective as there is a high disapproval rate and does not represent America as a whole. However, the level of effectiveness may be due to the circumstances such as a united government which usually have a more effective role on legislation and money bills. On the other hand it may be ineffective with foreign policy and oversight. In contrast, a divided government will lead to a less effective role in legislation and money bills, but could be more effective with oversight. Therefore, congress is generally ineffective in fulfilling its constitutional role.