·
To harmonize
two conflicting requirements: the essential equality of the member states and
the democratic representation of the people of the US.
·
To prevent the
development of a tyrannical, all-powerful central government by limiting both
the scope of authority of the central government and the individual branches of
power within it.
These objectives were often in contradiction,
therefore the ultimate framework of the
Constitution has
been produced by a series of compromises. The two key principles determining
the present shape of the Constitution are the
separation
of powers and
federalism.
Separation
of powers means that the federal government is divided into three
separate branches – the legislative,
the executive and the judicial – each of which is represented
by a specific institution. The three
branches of power are separated from one another, which means that the
members of each branch gain their position separately and exercise their
authority independently. Nobody is allowed to be a member of any two branches
of power at the same time. This way, the Founding Fathers wanted to make sure
that none of the three branches can concentrate too much power in their hands
and suppress the other two. They even included a special system of
checks and balances (rules by
which one branch can control and limit the power of another) into the
Constitution as a further protection ’against tyranny’.
Federalism means that the federal government shares political
power with state governments. Both the federal government and the various
states have their own specific functions and authorities, which should be
mutually respected. Therefore the
Constitution made a
clear distinction between federal and state powers by specifying what powers
belong to the federal government.
Each of the three branches of power is represented
by one institution:
Congress is the
legislative body, the
President
exercises all executive powers, and the
Supreme
Court is the highest judicial authority. Congress consists of
two houses (also called a bicameral
legislature): the lower house is called House of Representatives, and the upper house is called Senate.
Both houses are elected, but in a different way and for different periods of
time (see Congress). The President is elected independently from
Congress.
The legislative and the executive branches are forced to cooperate in order to
govern the country: the President cannot force Congress to pass legislation they do not want to; on the
other hand, he has the right to veto
bills of Congress he disagrees with. The President can exercise executive power
with a great amount of liberty, but all his major appointments and his most
crucial decisions (e.g. declaration of war) must be approved by Congress. All
these limitations are parts of checks and balances.
Members of the Supreme Court are chosen in a
cooperation of Congress and the President, but once they are appointed, they
remain there for the rest of their life or until they wish to retire. The
Constitution described the powers and authority of the Supreme
Court in a lot less detailed way than those of Congress and the President; most
importantly, it is not specified in the
Constitution how
the Supreme Court can check and balance the other two branches of power.
Subsequently, such a power was created by the Court itself, in the form of
judicial review (see Supreme Court).
Besides describing the three branches of powers and
their scope of authority, the Constitution also
provided a way to change or modify its own content. It allowed Congress with a
two-thirds majority, or two-thirds of the states, to propose so-called amendments (modifying clauses) to the
Constitution. Each of these amendments must be ratified
(accepted) by three-fourth of all states in order to become part of the
Constitution. This way, the Founding Fathers made it possible
for subsequent generations to modernize the
Constitution and
harmonize it with future political and social necessities.
Soon after the
Constitution itself
was ratified in 1788 and the first Congress convened in 1789, ten amendments
were passed by Congress and ratified by enough of the states by 1791. These ten
amendments, collectively called Bill of Rights, contained those individual rights
of the citizens of the US which must not be taken away or offended by either
the federal or the state governments. Although the Bill of Rights was passed
slightly later than the original
Constitution, it
was so close in time that most people consider it part of the original text.
Since then, the
Constitution has
been amended 17 more times, so altogether there are currently 27 Amendments to
the Constitution. One of them, however, is no
longer valid: the 18th Amendment, which was passed in
1919 and made the production and sale of alcoholic drinks illegal in the US,
was repealed in 1933.
Congress represents one of the three branches of power in
the federal government of the United States. The rules governing the election
and operation of Congress are contained in Article I of the US
Constitution. Congress occupies the huge and impressive
building of the
Capitol in Washington D.C. Since the
building stands on a small hill, journalists and commentators often refer to
Congress as ’Capitol Hill’.
The Capitol |
Congress possesses all legislative powers in the federal
government. It consists of two legislative houses: the lower house is
called House of Representatives, and
the upper house is called Senate.
Each house has a different representative function: the Founding Fathers
imagined the House of Representatives to represent the people of the US, while
the Senate was meant to represent the member states in the federal legislature
(that is, two Senators for each state, no matter the population of the state;
thus there are now 100 Senators representing 50 states).
The members of the House of Representatives
(
)
― who
are simply called Representatives
― are elected by the citizens of the US. The territory of each state is divided
into Congressional districts with
roughly equal number of voters, and each district elects one Representative
into the House every two years. Each Representative must be at least 25 years
old and must live in the state in which he or she has been elected.
In the early 20th century, the total number of
Representatives in the House was fixed at 435. Since the population of the US
is continuously growing, and some states attract far more people than others,
the fair and equal distribution of Representatives among the states must be
regularly maintained. Every ten years, following a national census (counting of the population),
the number of Representatives is reapportioned
(redistributed) among the states to reflect the changes in their population.
California, the most populous state, currently has 53 Representatives, but even
the smallest states must have at least one, regardless of how small their
population is. Currently, there are seven states with only one Representative
in Congress. The latest apportionment
was made after the 2000 Census: on the basis of that, each member of the House
represents about 650,000 Americans. (For the details of federal elections, see
Elections)
The members of the Senate (
)
― who are called Senators
― are nowadays also elected by the voters of the state they represent, but this
has not always been the normal way. The logic of the Founding Fathers was that
the Senate represents the states of the US, therefore Senators should be chosen
by the legislature of the state they
will represent. This remained the general practice during the 19th century, but
the 17th Amendment in 1913 made the popular
election of Senators compulsory in all the states. Nonetheless, the most
important principle remained the same: in the Senate, all states are equal,
because each state has two Senators, elected for six years. Both Senators are
elected by all the voters of the state, but always in a different election
year. Senators must be at least 30 years old and must live in the state they
represent in the Senate.
The two houses of Congress are equal in legislative
power: both of them must approve all bills
before they can be sent to the President for signature. They have different
roles in the impeachment procedure
(see President). There are a few signs, however, indicating that the
Founding Fathers wished to give the Senate slightly more power and influence
than the House. For instance, the Senate was given the power to approve the
appointments made or foreign treaties signed by the President, while the House
has nothing to do with them. Also, Senators are elected for long terms (six
years, compared to two-year terms for Representatives) and usually by a much
larger number of voters, which gives them more prestige and respect. Many
experienced Senators are well-known politicians nationwide, while few
Representatives are recognized outside their state or even their district.
Nonetheless, the lower house does have a significant privilege: all revenue
bills must originate in the House of Representatives.
The legislative powers of Congress are not
unlimited: the Constitution specifies a number of areas where Congress has the
power to make laws. Such areas include:
·
Finance and
trade: Congress can coin money and
determine its value, borrow money for the purposes of the state, impose uniform
taxes and duties all over the US, regulate commerce both inside the country and
with other nations.
·
Citizenship: Congress can determine the rules of
naturalization (how someone can become
a citizen of the US)
·
Communication: Congress maintains the postal service and can
build post roads. (Of course, today it includes all other forms of
communication too)
·
Economy: Congress can determine bankruptcy laws and
protect the interest of inventors and authors (patent and copyright laws).
·
Defense: Congress can declare war, set up and maintain an
army, a navy and a militia (volunteer armed force to protect against internal
unrest and riots; today it is called the National Guard).
·
Government
of federal lands: Congress has exclusive legislative control over
the federal capital (Washington D.C.) and any other federal land that does not
belong to any states.
The Constitution left
it unclear whether Congress may pass laws regarding other areas not specified
by the text. In the 19th century, the
Constitution was
typically interpreted in a restricted way, which means that Congress can only
make law in those areas listed by the
Constitution. In
the 20th century, a looser interpretation gained ground, which construed
the areas above as examples rather than an exclusive list. As a result,
Congress has gained a lot of power at the expense of the state legislatures
during the past two centuries.
The White House |
The President represents one of the three branches
of power in the federal government of the United States. The rules governing
the election and functions of the President are contained in Article II of the
US Constitution. The official residence of the
President is the
White House
(
) in Washington D.C.
The President possesses all executive powers in the
federal government. He is the only person in the government to be elected by
the entire nation, therefore his prestige and respect are unique in the US. He
is elected for four years together with a
Vice-President
(
),
who steps in his place if the President dies, resigns, is removed from office
or becomes unable to exercise his duties. He must be at least 35 years old and
a born citizen of the United States.
Compared to European parliamentary systems of
government, the President combines two distinct functions: he is both the head
of state and the head of the government of the United States; the President may
be compared to the British
monarch and the Prime Minister, or the Hungarian President of the Republic and
the Prime Minister rolled into one very powerful person. As a result, he
has a wide range of powers, which could be categorized as follows:
·
As head of
state, the President has the exclusive right to turn bills of Congress into law, or
Acts
of Congress. The Constitution gives him
veto power over bills of Congress, that
is, he may refuse to sign any bill he does not like (such a wide power is not
possessed by either the British monarch or the Hungarian President). The
President has ten days to decide whether to sign or veto; if he does not act at
all, the bill automatically becomes law, without the President’s approval. If
he vetoes, Congress may override his
veto by passing the same bill again with two-thirds majority in both
houses. In such a case, the President can no longer prevent the bill from
becoming law, but during US history, only in about 4% of veto cases was
Congress able to override the veto by collecting the two-thirds majority behind
the bill.
·
Also as head
of state, the President appoints all major federal officials, including all
federal judges, all the members of the President’s Cabinet, all foreign
ambassadors, all the directors of federal agencies and other organizations,
etc. In parliamentary systems, such appointments are formally made by the
monarch or the president, but the actual persons are chosen and recommended by
the Prime Minister. The US President both chooses his candidates for the
various positions and appoints them, with one single limitation: his
appointments must be approved by the majority of the Senate.
·
Also as head
of state, the President exercises a number of less significant powers: he can
give pardons for federal offenses, receives foreign ambassadors, convenes Congress
for special sessions, etc.
·
As chief executive officer, that is, the
head of the US government, the President is responsible for enforcing the laws
of Congress. In practice, he governs the country with the help of 14
executive departments, which are led by
Secretaries. These Secretaries form the President’s
Cabinet, which the President usually consults before making
important decisions. Contrary to the Cabinets of European countries, however,
the President is not obliged by law to hold regular Cabinet meetings or discuss
any issues with his Secretaries; he has the right to make all decisions on his
own if he wishes (see Executive Departments for more details).
·
Besides the
executive departments, the modern President is the head of an enormous federal
bureaucracy, which mostly developed during the 20th century. The White House
Office (also called
Executive Office) includes hundreds of personal assistants and other staff members,
officially led by the
Chief of Staff.
There is also a large number of
federal
agencies, employing millions of people nationwide. The steady growth of
bureaucracy is constantly criticized by political scientists, journalists and
the general public alike, since the bureaucracy tends to isolate the President from the
outside world, slow down planning and decision making and usually resists any
reforms that would threaten the bureaucrats' influence.
·
The President
is the commander-in-chief of all the
armed forces of the US, and he appoints all the generals of the armed forces.
While in most parliamentary systems the head of state is formally
commander-in-chief but the actual direction of the army belongs to the Prime
Minister, the President has the exclusive right to issue commands and orders to
the US armed forces, especially during wartime.
From the list above it seems that the President is
a uniquely powerful figure among the political leaders of Western democracies.
This is probably true in theory but not necessarily true in practice. Despite
his wide range of authority, the President also has to face strong limitations
to his power, created by the principle of the separation
of powers in the Constitution.
In European parliamentary systems, the informal
influence of Prime Ministers is much larger than their formal powers, since
they are almost always the leader of the party or the coalition of parties that
commands a majority in Parliament. As a result, they can reasonably expect MPs
to support bills or other motions proposed by the government; at times they can
even exercise pressure on the majority party to line up behind the government. This
way, a Prime Minister is able to carry out his political program and get the
necessary bills passed by Parliament.
The relationship between the President and Congress
is entirely different. Due to the separation
of powers, the President is elected independently from Congress, and
has no institutional connection to any of the two houses. The President has the
right to propose bills to Congress, but cannot force Congress to pass them,
just as Congress cannot force the President to sign bills passed by them. This
practical independence and equality is a serious limitation on the
President’s power as chief executive. It often happens that the President
belongs to one party, while the other party has a majority in one or both
houses of Congress, and if the majority is hostile to the President, he is
practically unable to carry out any consistent political program. But even if
the majority of Congress' members are from the same party as the President, there is no
guarantee that they will unconditionally support his initiatives: he often has
to try and persuade influential Congressmen informally to get their support for
his purposes. The legislative and the executive branches are carefully balanced against
each other, and if they want to achieve anything, they are forced to cooperate
as equals.
A very radical and rarely used weapon of Congress
against the President is
impeachment.
Impeachment is a legal procedure against the President which can be initiated
if he is suspected to have committed something illegal. It is not a criminal
trial in the normal sense, because it is not conducted by the judicial branch
but by Congress: the House of Representatives has the exclusive right to
initiate impeachment by majority vote, while the Senate has the exclusive right
to hold impeachment hearings and ultimately, to convict or acquit the
President. The impeachment procedure is led by the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court, while the whole of the Senate acts as a huge jury. In the end, at least
two-thirds of Senators must vote against the President to convict him.
Impeachment is the only legal way to remove an active President from office.
Besides removal, there is no other penalty, but once the President has been
removed, he can be brought to trial in a standard criminal court, because he is
no longer protected by the immunity of his office.
In the history of the US, only two presidents have
been impeached: Andrew Johnson in
1868, and Bill Clinton in
1998. In both cases, the procedure was more about politics than any criminal
activities: President Johnson strongly opposed the Reconstruction program of Congress, while
President Clinton tried to hush up his extramarital affair with a young female
assistant, and the Republican-dominated Congress impeached him for perjury (false testimony before court)
in order to ruin him politically. Both presidents were acquitted, because there
was no two-thirds majority in the Senate to convict them (although in the case of
Johnson only one vote was missing). Contrary to popular belief, President Richard Nixon was not impeached in 1973
after the Watergate scandal: he resigned from office before impeachment could
have been initiated against him – the only American President ever to do so.
The Constitution created
an unusual system for electing the President of the US: he is
not elected directly by the people, but by the so-called electors. The Founding Fathers probably invented the
electoral college (the widespread name
for the collective body of electors) because they did not entirely trust the
people to make a wise choice in such an important question (see
Creation of the Constitution).
In practice, however, the voters of each state decide which candidate should be
supported by their state’s electors. (For details, see
Federal Elections).
The original
Constitution did
not limit the number of times a President can be re-elected. The first
President of the US,
George Washington,
however, decided to step down when his second term in office ended, and he
created a strong precedent: it became a tradition that all later Presidents
retired once they had spent eight years in office. The only President who broke
this tradition was Franklin D. Roosevelt,
who decided to run for a third time in 1940, arguing that the dangerous
international situation (World War II had
broken out in Europe) required a strong and experienced national
leader. He was re-elected once more, in 1944, but died the next year. In order
to prevent such an event in the future, the
22nd Amendment was
ratified in 1951, and since then, nobody can be elected President more than
twice.
Examining the personal background and former career
of past presidents, one can see that all former Presidents have been white
males, and all of them belonged to one of the many Protestant denominations
except for John F. Kennedy,
the only Catholic President in American history. So far, neither women nor
nonwhite politicians have ever been elected President or Vice-President (the
Democrats had a female vice-presidential candidate in 1984, but they lost the
election). Most Presidents had been prominent politicians – Vice Presidents,
Senators, or state governors – before they won the presidency. For example, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, the two most recent
presidents, had been governors of Texas and Arkansas, respectively. The typical
exceptions to this rule are former generals or military heroes, who have a good
chance of being elected. George Washington led the American
Revolutionary army during the War of Independence; Ulysses Grant, who was president in the
1870s, had become famous as the commander of the Northern troops during the
Civil War. The last person who won the presidency without a former political
career was Dwight D. Eisenhower
in 1952, who had been the Supreme Commander of Allied troops in Europe during
World War II.
The
executive departments in the United States are the equivalents of European ministries
(
Hungarians should be careful not to use the terms
'minister' and 'ministry' for US departments and their leaders, because these
words have an exclusively religious meaning in American English; see
Religion in the US). Each department is headed by a Secretary,
who is chosen and appointed by the President. Currently (since 2002), there are
fifteen executive departments, whose Secretaries constitute the President’s
Cabinet. The oldest and most important departments are the following:
·
The Department of State (also called State Department), headed by the Secretary of State. Although its name
does not reveal it, it is responsible primarily for foreign policy and the
diplomatic relations of the US with other countries, so it is the equivalent of
the British Foreign Office, or
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Hungary.
·
The Department of the Treasury, headed by the Secretary of the Treasury. It is the equivalent of the Exchequer in
Britain, or
the Finance Ministry in Hungary. It is responsible for the
financial affairs of the federal government, including the federal budget, the national
debt, the collection of taxes and duties. It also supervises banks and
financial institutions nationwide, and advises the government on general
economic policy. Besides these responsibilities, it performs some of the
functions of a national bank in Europe, for example it oversees the issue of
coins and paper money. Perhaps the most respected and feared bureau of the
Treasury is the
Internal Revenue Service
(IRS), responsible for collecting all sorts of taxes, and also investigating tax evasion (the equivalent of
APEH
in Hungary).
The Pentagon |
·
The Department of Defense
(also called Defense Department), headed by the Secretary of Defense. As the name suggests, it is responsible for
overseeing the US armed forces and conducting military operations. The
headquarters of the Defense Department is the famous
Pentagon building in Washington D.C. The three major divisions of
the US armed forces are the
Army, the
Navy
and the
Air Force. The
Marines,
special units which can be rapidly deployed in foreign countries, belong under
the Navy. The National Guard & Reserve
unites all former military people who are ready to take up active duty if
necessary. The highest ranking military officer overseeing all strategic
military planning and operations is the Chairman
of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff. He is directly responsible to the Defense
Secretary and to the President.
·
The Department of Justice (also called Justice Department), headed by the Attorney General. It is responsible for
representing the federal government in legal suits and cases, prosecuting
federal crimes, and advising the President on legal issues. The Department
supervises all federal law enforcement agencies, including the famous FBI (see
below).
These four departments or their predecessors have
existed since 1789, so they constitute the core of the executive branch. The
other departments are more recent (mostly 20th century creations), and they
mostly deal with less crucial issues and therefore their leaders are less
influential and not widely known politicians. Also, their authority overlaps
with those of the state governments, so they often have limited influence over
the day-to-day operation of their area. These departments are:
·
Interior,
Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban
Development, Transportation, Energy, Education, Veteran Affairs, and Homeland
Security.
Perhaps the most powerful of these is the most
recent department, the
Department of Homeland Security,
created in 2002 after the terror attacks on September 11
2001 to oversee and coordinate all federal government efforts
against terrorist activities on American soil. The Department received a wide
range of powers and functions. It took over from the State Department the
naturalization (granting of US
citizenship) of foreigners and the issue of
green cards (permanent residency permits). It supervises all
bureaus and agencies responsible for customs and border control as well as
guarding the coasts of the country. It enforces immigration laws by prosecuting
and expelling illegal immigrants. It
is also responsible for organizing government response to major emergencies
like natural disasters.
Besides the executive departments, there are
numerous federal agencies, which are one step below in the organizational
hierarchy, but in fact some of them are more influential than many of the
departments. Some of the most important and most widely known are:
·
Federal Reserve System (also called Fed): The organization responsible
for the monetary policies of the US, for example the inflation rate and the
interest rate of the US dollar. It is independent from the federal government,
overseen by its own Board of Directors appointed by the President. It is
roughly the equivalent of a central or national bank of European countries,
although it shares some of these functions with the Treasury.
·
Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI):
Federal law enforcement organization, which investigates federal crimes (crimes
that do not belong under any particular state’s criminal justice system).
People working for the FBI are not called ’police officers’ but ’federal
agents’.
·
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA): The organization responsible for collecting
and analyzing information about other countries, especially from the point of
view of US national security.
·
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA): The organization overseeing US space
research programs.
·
The Postal Service
(USPS): It is the oldest federal service, today
less important than it was before the invention of electric and electronic
communication devices, but it is still under the direct authority of the
President.
Besides these high-profile organizations, there are
many other agencies which are less well-known but their work is crucial, such
as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Communications Commission,
the Commission on Civil Rights, and many others.
The Supreme Court
|
The Supreme Court
building |
The Supreme Court represents one of the three branches of power in the federal government of the United
States. The main
functions of the Supreme Court are briefly described in
Article III of the US
Constitution, while the
appointment of its members is contained in Article II. The building of the
Supreme Court is located in Washington
DC.
The Supreme Court
is the highest judicial body in the US, and its legal decisions are final, they can only be
changed or modified by the Court itself. The members of the Court are called Justices: the Court is led by the
Chief Justice, and there are (since
1869) eight Associate Justices. Each
Justice is appointed by the President, but the majority of the Senate must
confirm the appointment. Justices may remain in their position during
"good behaviour" according to the
Constitution, which is
understood as lifelong terms or service until voluntary retirement. Justices cannot be
removed from the Court except by
impeachment
(for the rules of impeachment, see the President). When a
Justice dies or retires, the current President has the opportunity to appoint a
new member.
Procedure of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court today unites two different functions: it is the highest
court of appeal in the US, while it also has the final right to interpret the
Constitution. These two
functions are separated in many European countries:
in Hungary, for example, the first task is performed by the
Hungarian Supreme Court (Legfelső Bíróság), while the second is the
responsibility of the Hungarian Constitutional Court (Alkotmánybíróság).
The Constitutional
Court is
separated from the regular court system of the country: any citizen or
organizaton may turn to the Constitutional Court with any question or problem which involves the correct application of
the country’s constitution. The President of the Republic can also turn to the
Court if he has doubts about the constitutionality of an Act of Parliament he
is expected to sign.
This is very different in the US: the
Constitution limits the Supreme Court to dealing with "cases
and controversies". Therefore, the Court does not give general opinions in
response to people’s petitions, does not review laws before they are signed by
the President, and does not advise anybody on possible constitutional problems.
Its function is limited only to deciding specific cases. In practice, it means
that a constitutional problem can only be raised by a person whose
constitutional rights are directly injured by the law or rule. For example,
in
Hungary the Constitutional Court declared capital punishment
unconstitutional in 1990 after an ordinary citizen’s petition. In the US, only a person sentenced to death could appeal to the
Supreme Court questioning the constitutionality of the capital punishment.
(Actually, there have been such appeals and the Court has decided that capital
punishment is not against the
Constitution as long as it is performed without cruelty and
bias; see Landmark cases
below).
The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in a very small number of
cases arising out of disputes between states or between a state and the federal
government. Apart from these, most cases reach the Supreme Court through
appeals from lower courts. The Court receives about 8,000 criminal and civil
cases from lower federal as well as state supreme courts in one term, which
lasts from one October to the next. Each case is assigned to a Justice who
decides whether it merits examination by the Court. Plenary review, with oral
arguments by attorneys, is held in about 100 cases per term. This means that
the whole Court gathers and listens to the arguments of the two lawyers
representing the two opposing sides of the case (in constitutional cases, the
defendant or the plaintiff is often the federal government or a state
government). Justices also ask both attorneys various questions. Then they
retire to discuss the case, and either come to a unanimous decision, or take a
vote. Since there are nine judges, there must be at least a 5-4 majority in
favour of one opinion. Then one of the Justices is asked to write a formal
written opinion in which he or she explains the reasons and the exact meaning
of the decision. Justices who disagree with the decision of the majority may
write dissenting opinions in which
they explain why they refused to agree and why they think the decision is
wrong. Both the majority and the minority opinions are published and are
available for all. Approximately 50–60 additional cases are taken care of
without plenary review. The publication of a term’s written opinions and orders
approaches 5,000 pages. (For details on how the Supreme Court works, see
;
for a collection of significant oral arguments between 1955 – 1993, see
)
When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is
virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by a new amendment to the
Constitution (which is
very difficult to create, because it must be approved by two-thirds of both
houses of Congress as well as ratified by three-fourths of all the states) or by
a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court declares a law
unconstitutional, the state legislature or the federal Congress may pass a new
law to eliminate the constitutional problem.
Although the Supreme Court has been established by the
Constitution along with
Congress
and the President, its functions and powers are defined much more
briefly and far less precisely than those of the other two branches. It is
difficult to tell today why the Founding Fathers devoted so much less
attention to the Supreme Court than to the other two branches of power. In
accordance with the principle of the separation
of powers, they obviously wanted
to guarantee the independence of the judicial branch. The other two branches
have limited control over the Supreme Court: the President can influence the
Court by the selection of new Justices (although the Senate may reject his
nominee), while Congress can pass an Act which changes the number of Justices
or the system of lower federal courts.
But apart from these, the Supreme Court is protected from interference of the
other two branches.
The Constitution itself, however, gave no explicit authority to the Court to exercise any
kind of control over the other two branches of power. In this respect, the
Founding Fathers either made a mistake or a deliberate omission, because
they left the checks and balances system incomplete. It was
the Supreme Court itself which corrected the error in 1803: in the case
Marbury v. Madison, the Court
declared its exclusive right to
judicial review,
or the right to examine laws of Congress and determine whether they are in
accordance with the Constitution. If not, the Court reserved the right to declare
such laws void. Although the
Constitution never explicitly gave the power of judicial
review to the Supreme Court, it has become part of the constitutional
tradition, and as a result, the Supreme Court has become the guardian and
interpreter of the Constitution.
The Court’s opinion in Marbury v.
Madison was written by Chief Justice John Marshall, perhaps the most important person in the history of the
institution. Marshall remained on the Court for more than 34 years, from 1801
to 1835, and his vigorous and able leadership in the formative years of the
Court was central to the development of its prominent role in American
government. In the Marbury decision,
the Chief Justice asserted that the Supreme Court's responsibility to overturn
unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of its sworn duty to
uphold the Constitution. That oath could not be fulfilled any other way. It is the task of the
judicial branch to say what the law is. With his opinion, he clarifed that the
interpretation of the Constitution is necessary and it must be performed by the
Supreme Court. The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather
general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing
conditions. John Marshall expressed the challenge which the Supreme Court faces
in the following way: "We must never forget that it is a constitution we
are expounding ... intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be
adapted to the various crises of human affairs."
The Supreme Court first assembled on February 1, 1790, in New York City – then the nation's capital. Since the formation of the Court in 1790,
there have been only 17 Chief Justices and 98
Associate Justices (including the current Justices), with Justices serving for
an average of 15 years. On average, a new Justice joins the Court every 22
months, although sometimes the Court remains unchanged for long years (e.g. between
1994 and 2005).
The nine Justices wear black robes while in Court, and are seated by
seniority on the Bench. The Chief Justice occupies the center chair; the senior
Associate Justice sits to his right, the second senior to his left, and so on,
alternating right and left by seniority. When the Justices assemble to go on
the Bench and at the beginning of the private conferences at which they discuss
decisions, each Justice shakes hands with each of the other eight. The practice
is a reminder that despite differences of opinion on the Court, all Justices
have an overall harmony of purpose.
Courtroom seating chart of
the US Supreme Court (date May 2006)
Although Justices
are protected from political influence during their membership, politics play a
role in a president's selection of a Supreme Court justice. On average, a
president can expect to appoint two new Supreme Court Justices during four
years of office. Presidents are likely to appoint Justices whose views are
similar to their own (that is, leaning in a conservative or a liberal
direction) with the hope that these Justices will help them achieve their
political goals by passing similar-minded decisions. For example, the Supreme
Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren
(1953-69) passed a number of liberal decisions, putting an end to the
segregation of blacks and protecting the rights of women. In the 1970s, the
Court continued this practice, legalizing abortion, and extending the rights of
criminal suspects and defendants. As a result of President Ronald Reagan's appointments to the
Supreme Court during the 1980s, the Supreme Court in the last two decades has had
a small conservative majority. Many believe that this conservative majority
decided the legal argument after the contested 2000 Presidential election
in favour of George W. Bush.
The most recent changes (at the time of writing this text in 2006) have
occurred in late 2005 and early 2006. In September 2005, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist,
a well-known conservative, died after heading the Court for nineteen years.
President Bush replaced him with
John G. Roberts,
who had held various law-related government positions under former Republican
presidents and served two years as a judge in one of the federal Circuit Courts
of Appeal. Despite his past Republican connections, Roberts was generally
acknowledged as an outstanding jurist and was confirmed by the majority of the
Senate without much debate. Another Justice, Sandra Day O’Connor, the first female
Justice in the history of the Court, announced her retirement in the summer of
2005. Her replacement was less smooth than the replacement of the Chief
Justice: President Bush first nominated a female lawyer, a personal friend who
had no experience in either constitutional law or federal court work, so she
was critized both in public and by members of the Senate. Ultimately, she asked
the President to withdraw the nomination. Bush’s second choice was Samuel A. Alito, a US Circuit Court of
Appeal judge for 16 years, who was confirmed by the Senate in January 2006.
Alito also held government jobs during Reagan’s presidency, and is known as
moderately conservative.
In theory, the
new members of the Court have not significantly changed the internal balance of
conservatives and liberals, since both Rehnquist and O’Connor were considered
conservative, but their judicial philosophy will be truly revealed in their
practice. Out of the current nine members, there is one woman (Ruth Bader Ginsburg) and one
African-American Justice (Clarence Thomas). A
curiosity – although hardly a significant fact – of the current Court is that
for the first time in US history, the majority of the members (5 Justices) are
Catholic, including both new appointments, whereas during the history of the
Court, the great majority were Protestant.
Landmark Cases of the Supreme Court
There are a number of significant decisions made by
the Supreme Court, especially those involving constitutional questions. In the
following, there is a selection of important cases from the second half of the
20th century that have significantly influenced the life of ordinary Americans
(click on the name of each case for more detail).
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka
(1954): the two most famous Supreme Court decisions concerning racial
segregation. In the former, the Supreme Court essentially ruled that racial
segregation laws in Southern states were not against the
Fourteenth Amendment of the
Constitution. The
Court argued that the separation of different races (in this case, separate
railway cars for whites and blacks in Louisiana) in itself was not
discrimination. The doctrine became known as „separate but equal”,
and it helped maintain legalized racial discrimination in the South for more
than half a century. This legal precedent was overturned by the Court in the
1954 decision, which ruled that racial segregation of public school children
was by definition unequal, because it created a feeling of inferiority in minority
children. As a result, black children cannot be excluded from public schools
formerly reserved for whites. This decision started the process of legal
desegregation in the South.
Engel v. Vitale (1962): Perhaps one of the most unpopular
decisions in the history of the Supreme Court, because it declared any form of
school prayer (even if it is voluntary and nondenominational) forbidden by the
„Establishment Clause” of the First Amendment of
the Constitution. The Court argued that under the
First Amendment, no federal, state or local government may approve or support
religion, and public schools are maintained by state or local governments,
therefore all forms of religious activity should be strictly excluded from
public schools. Later, the Court reinforced its strict separation of church and state
doctrine with several other controversial decisions, which remain unpopular
among the majority of Americans.
Roe v. Wade (1973): One of the most famous but also most controversial
decisions of the Court, which found that women’s right to terminate their
pregnancy by abortion is included in the right to privacy and as such, is
protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision overturned a number of
state laws which had previously banned abortion except in cases when the
pregnant woman’s life was in danger. Since only the Supreme Court can change
its own precedents, liberals are worried that a Court with a conservative
majority might overturn the decision some time in the future.
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) : In this decision, the Court considered
the constitutionality of racial quotas in admission to colleges and
universities, which was a widespread method of affirmative action
programs. A white man was rejected by a university medical school twice
although he had better grades than several of the black applicants who were
admitted because a certain number of places had been reserved for them. He sued
claiming that he was racially discriminated by the university. The Court passed
a rare split decision: four Justices agreed with the complaint and considered
this a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,
but four Justices accepted racial quotas as constitutional. One Justice
essentially agreed with both sides: with his vote, automatic racial quotas were
declared unconstitutional, but the Court also ruled that race can be used as „a
criterion” in admission. Since then, affirmative action policies have
repeatedly been attacked in courts and have been much reduced in scope.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961): The Court’s decision in this case
established the so-called
exclusionary
rule, which means that no evidence may be used in a trial which has been
obtained in an illegal way. In other words, the police authorities may not
search a suspect’s home or private property without a proper search warrant
issued by a judge. If they do, and they actually find something that could be
used against the suspect, such evidence must be excluded from the trial. This
rule is one of the major protections of the rights of criminal suspects, based
on the Fourth Amendment.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966): This decision significantly changed the
procedure against criminal suspects, since the Court ruled that all suspects
have a right to be informed about their constitutional rights to remain silent
during interrogation and to have counsel (a lawyer) present. If the police or
prosecutors receive statements from suspects who have not been informed about
these rights, such statements cannot be used as evidence in the trial. In other
words, police cannot extort admissions from suspects using psychological
pressure while keeping them isolated from a lawyer. After the decision, it has
become standard practice to read out the rights of a suspect immediately on
arrest: it is called the Miranda warning, often seen and heard
in many American movies („You have the right to remain
silent. If you give up that right, anything you say can and will be used
against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney and to have an
attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will
be provided to you at no cost. During any questioning, you may decide at any
time to exercise these rights, not answer any questions, or make any
statements.”).
Furman v. Georgia (1972): In this decision, the Court was asked to
decide whether capital punishment
falls under the „cruel and unusual punishment” category forbidden by the
Eighth Amendment of the
Constitution.
Although the majority of the Court did not rule capital punishment itself
unconstitutional, they observed that the death penalty is often imposed
unfairly in many states. People are convicted to death for relatively less
severe crimes, on the basis of uncertain evidence, and disproportionately many
blacks are convicted. This decision led to the revision of death penalty laws and procedural rules in most states.
Although the
Constitution, as
its Preamble boldly stated, was written in the name of „We the People of the
United States”, the Founding Fathers did not give the citizens of the country
full democratic control over the federal government. In the original
Constitution, only the lower house of Congress was elected by
the people; the selection of Senators as well as the electors responsible for
electing the President (see below) was left to the state legislatures. And even
the Representatives were not elected by all the adult population of each
district: each state had laws that restricted the franchise (the right to vote;
also called
suffrage) to property-owning or taxpaying adult
males. All women as well as all black males were excluded from the franchise,
even in those states where slavery did not exist.
The democratic principle – the idea that all adults
should have the right to participate in elections – gradually gained ground
during the 19th century. By the mid-19th century, property qualifications were
gradually abolished in all states, so all white male adults received the
franchise. After the Civil War, the
15th Amendment was
added to the Constitution in 1870, which was meant to
guarantee the rights of former slaves to vote (it is another matter that most
blacks remained disfranchised in the Southern states until the civil rights movement
of the 1950s and 60s). And the 19th Amendment in
1920 gave the franchise to all adult women. Finally, the
26th Amendment in 1971 lowered the minimum voting age from 21 to 18 (as a result,
young Americans between 18 and 21 today may vote but may not legally buy and
drink alcohol).
Today, federal
elections are partly governed by the
Constitution and federal laws, and partly by state laws. Each state is free to set
its own election laws as long as they do not contradict the
Constitution or existing federal laws. As a result, the rules
of federal elections are not uniform all over the country. For example, some
states do not allow felons (people serving a prison sentence for a major crime)
to vote, while others do. Unlike
in Hungary, there is no federal or central
database of voters, where their addresses are stored and regularly updated:
people who wish to vote at an election are required to
register first in their home state by identifying themselves and
giving their current address. Since registration is not compulsory, a
significant number of people never bother to register themselves, and as a
result, they never vote. Non-registration is especially common among poor and
uneducated people and ethnic minorities. Before the 1970s, registration was
also an effective way to exclude blacks from elections in the southern states,
because the authorities refused to register them on various legal excuses.
Various states also have different methods for
voting and counting the votes.
In Hungary and most European countries, voting
is typically done with a pen on a paper ballot: the
ballot contains the names of all the candidates for the office, and
the voter puts a cross into a box next to the candidate’s name. Then votes are
counted by hand. In the US, however, voting is usually done by special voting
machines, which make counting faster and easier. In the 1960s, the punchcard
system was introduced: voters are given a standard-sized punchcard and a punch
device, and they punch a hole next to the name of the candidate they prefer.
The votes on the punchcards are then counted by special machines. Nowadays,
punchcard systems are still the most widespread in the US. Other systems
include optical scanning (voters darken a field next to the candidate’s name on
the ballot card, and an optical device counts votes by scanning the dark field
of each card) or computerized electronic voting (voters make their choice on a
touch-screen or by pushing buttons on a keyboard, and votes are added up by the
computer). From the voters’ point of view, the easiest and quickest system is
electronic voting, but many states distrust computers because they can be
manipulated and there is no way to recount the votes in case the outcome is
disputed.
In 1845, Congress set the date of Congressional and
Presidential elections on the Tuesday following the first Monday of November in
even-numbered years, called simply
Election
Day in the US. Many states, although not all of them, hold several of their
elections (e.g. election of the state governor or members of the state
legislature) also on this day, to make use of the high voter turnout.
Primaries
In the US, basically anybody who may vote may also
be a candidate for any political
office, including Congress seats.
They do not need to collect "nomination slips" (
kopogtatócédula) from voters
like in Hungary, or deposit a certain amount of money, as in Britain: all they
need to do is announce their intention and register their name with the
authority that organizes the election. In most cases, however, only the
candidates of the two largest parties have a realistic chance to win a seat in
either house of Congress. It is a very important aspect of American democracy
that the candidates of the two parties are not appointed by state or national
party leaders, but they are also chosen by the voters. The system of selecting
the most popular party candidate is called
primary
election in the US.
Primary elections were first introduced in the
early 20th century, to put an end to the corrupt practice of party bosses
choosing their loyal followers to run for offices. The purpose of a primary is to
decide which candidate of a certain party should be nominated for a certain
office. It is basically a small election within each party.
There are different kinds of primary elections. At
a closed primary, only those people
may vote on a certain party’s candidates who have registered themselves as
party supporters. This kind of primary can be seen as an opinion poll among
party supporters. At an open primary,
however, any local resident may vote for either party’s candidates (though not
for both at the same time), regardless of their party affiliation. An open
primary tries to find out which party candidate is the most popular among the
general population, rather than merely among party supporters. The winners of
the two parties’ primaries then try to defeat each other in November. Primary
elections are the most complicated during presidential campaigns, because the
president is the only office-holder elected nationwide, therefore all 50 states
must hold primaries or caucuses
(another, older and less widespread way of expressing preference for one of the
candidates, where people vote publicly, not by secret ballot, as in primaries).
The winner-take-all rule
Most elections in the US are decided on the basis
of the
winner-take-all rule, which
simply means that the candidate with the most votes wins. In other words, there
is no requirement to achieve an absolute
majority (50% + 1 vote), it is enough to have a plurality of the votes (to receive more votes than any of the other
candidates). The system has one big advantage: it is simple and easy to
understand for everybody. Under the winner-take-all system, there is no need
for a runoff election (a second round), because somebody always ends up as
winner (except when two winners receive exactly the same number of votes, but
that is very unlikely). Its disadvantage is, however, that it allows somebody
to win who does not enjoy the support of the majority of voters. The
winner-take-all rule may produce especially strange results at presidential
elections, because under certain circumstances it allows the candidate who has
received less votes nationwide to win the election and become president (see
below).
Members of the the House of Representatives are elected every second year. Representatives may be re-elected as
many times as they wish. There are 435 seats in the House, which are
apportioned (distributed) among the 50 states in proportion to their
population, and re-apportioned every 10 years after a new national census (see
Congress).
The Constitution prescribes, however, that each
state must have at least one Representative in
Congress,
regardless of how small their population is. Federal laws also require that the
states divide their territory into
Congressional
districts of equal population, and each district should elect one
Representative into the House. Each state legislature is free, however, to draw
the boundaries of its districts any way they wish, which gives opportunity for
political manipulation. The party which has a majority in the state legislature
usually tries to draw the boundaries in such a way as to include a majority
preferring their party in as many districts as possible. This manipulation is
called
gerrymandering in American
English.
Senators are elected for six-year terms, and they may also
be re-elected as many times as they wish. Each state, regardless of its size or
population, has two Senators, who are never re-elected at the same time. Every
second year, about one-third of the 100 Senators are re-elected. Senators are
always elected by all the voters of the state.
Under the two-party system, the typical
choreography of Congressional elections is the following: there is an incumbent, a person currently in office
who enjoys the support of one party. This person is challenged by the candidate
of the other party who would like to defeat them. So one candidate is fighting
to keep their seat in Congress, while the other is struggling to take it away
from them. The only exception to this rule is when the incumbent dies or
decides to retire, and both parties need to find a new candidate for the
position.
Presidential Campaigns
The longest, hardest and most complicated election campaign precedes the election of the
President. Since the President is the only federal official elected by the
entire nation, the selection of the most suitable candidate in itself takes a
long time. More than a year before Election Day, the summer or fall of the
previous year, several people in both parties announce their intention to „run
for President”, as people on the street say.
There are two types of situation, depending on
whether the current President is finishing his first or his second term in office. If he has been in
office only for one term, he is most likely to run again, and in this case he
is usually not challenged by anybody else from his party (the last President
who could have run for a second term and decided not to do so was Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968, because his
popularity hit rock bottom due to the unsuccessful Vietnam War). If the President is
finishing his second and last term, however, the race is open for candidates in
both parties: such a situation occurred in 1988, when Ronald Reagan ended his second term, or in
2000, when Bill Clinton did
so, and the same situation is coming in 2008, when George W. Bush is going to step down after
eight years in office.
After a candidate has announced his wish to become
President, he or she first needs to collect a huge amount of money, usually
millions of dollars, because the campaign is extremely costly. Each of the
presidential candidates need dozens of campaign
managers, advisers, aides, assistants, and a nationwide
network of – partly voluntary – activists in order to have a chance for
success. Most of the money, however, is spent on political advertisement. In
the US, there are no legal limits on political ads in the public media, and
prices are very high, especially as presidential candidates have to reach a
nationwide audience. Donations may come from individuals or organizations, but
the maximum amount is limited by law in order to prevent candidates from
becoming too indebted to any one supporter. There are various loopholes,
however, which make it possible for candidates to collect more money than the
laws allow; such semi-legal income is called ’soft money’ in American political slang, and it often amounts to
millions of dollars.
The campaign really begins in January of the
election year, when the so-called primary
season starts: this is the period of time during which both parties hold
their presidential primaries in all the states. During this period (usually
between late January and early June), the number of presidential candidates in
each party is reduced from as many as ten or more to two or one. The long
series of primary elections have one purpose: to select the most popular
candidate in both parties. If a current President runs again, his party usually
does not hold primaries at all, or even if it does, it is only a formality. But
when the incumbent President retires, both parties need a full series of
primary elections to select the party’s candidate.
At presidential primaries, voters formally elect
not candidates but delegates to the
party’s nominating convention. Nonetheless, the delegates are bound to
represent the preference of voters expressed at the primary. Apart from this
general rule, there is a lot of variety from state to state. Some states prefer
the caucus system instead of primaries (in 2004, for example, Democratic party
organizations in 15 states held caucuses, while 35 of them had primaries). Each
state has its own primary rules: how to vote (see open and closed
primaries),
how to distribute delegates among candidates (interestingly, the
winner-take-all principle is not applied at primaries, so candidates finishing
second or third at a state primary also gain some delegates) etc. Each state is
free to set the date of its primary, but within each state, both parties have
their primaries at the same time. The earliest primary is traditionally held in
New Hampshire in late January or early
February, under a lot of national media attention. After that, primaries
continue until early summer, but the later primaries attract much less
attention, because in most cases, the probable winner emerges by March the
latest. If there is a clear favorite among the candidates, and he keeps winning
more and more primaries, the rivals gradually realize that they have no chance
to defeat him at the convention, and one by one, they decide to give up the
race. Despite the disappearance of the rivals, however, the winner of the
primary season becomes the party’s official candidate only when he is announced
at the convention.
Both parties’
nominating
conventions are usually held in late summer, typically in August.
Conventions are the closest equivalent to the party congresses of European
parties, because this is the only occasion that the two big parties have a
national gathering, but they take place only once every four years. Their most
important task is to officially choose and nominate the party’s presidential
candidate. In the past, the nomination was often decided only at the convention
itself with the delegates voting for their favorite, but no party convention
had more than one standing candidate since 1976 (in that year, Gerald Ford defeated Ronald Reagan at the Republican
convention). The other important event of the convention is that the candidate
announces his choice for Vice-President. The vice-presidential candidate is always picked by the presidential
candidate out of the party’s politicians. Very often, he invites one of his
rivals from the primary season, who lost against him in the nomination race.
The two candidates form the so-called presidential
ticket: voters are two choose between two pairs of candidates on Election
Day. Vice-presidential candidates are usually selected in such a way as to
bring more votes for the ticket: if the presidential candidate is from the East
Coast, he may pick someone from the South or the West; if he is relatively old,
he may choose a younger person; and so on. Afterwards, the two candidates continue
the campaign together, and the vice-presidential nominee also works hard for
the success of the ticket.
Besides these two important announcements,
conventions are typically spectacular media events, where all the leading
figures of the party make speeches, pledge their support for the party’s
candidate, and encourage voters to do the same. Well-known entertainers
(singers, musicians, actors etc.) and other national celebrities also appear
regularly. Members of the audience are waving signs with the candidates’ names
(e.g. „Bush & Cheney for President!”), they applaude and cheer a lot, so
the whole thing is essentially a national political show to attract more voters
to the party’s candidates.
After the conventions, the last and most important
period of the campaign begins, when there are only two candidates (and two
vice-presidential candidates) left, and both parties unite in their effort to
secure the presidency for them. In this period, the candidates continue to tour
the whole country, attending public rallies,
giving countless speeches and interviews. Since the 1970s, the candidates have
always had televised debates, which
are considered crucial for the outcome of the election. The rules and
conditions are carefully set before the event begins: both candidates must
receive the same amount of time to talk, the moderator must be perfectly
neutral, the audience (if there is any) is forbidden to clap or express
preference for any candidate. Since there are a significant number of voters
who do not make up their mind until the last weeks of the long campaign, the
good or bad appearance made by one or the other candidate at the televised
debates may determine the outcome of the whole election.
Presidential Elections
The Founding Fathers worked out an indirect
method for the election of the President. According to the
Constitution, each state should select as many electors as the number of Congressmen
(Representatives + Senators) they have in the federal Congress (but electors
must not be identical with the state’s Congressmen). These electors gather in
each state capital and vote for president and vice president, and their votes
are sent to Washington D.C. The person who receives an absolute majority (that
is, at least 50% +1 vote) from all the electors becomes President. In case
nobody receives an absolute majority, the House of Representatives can elect
the President out of the three best candidates in such a way that each state
has one vote in the House. Today, since there are 435 members of the House and
100 members of the Senate, plus
Washington D.C. (which does not belong
to any state) is also given 3 electors (23rd Amendment,
1961), there are altogether 538 electoral votes, and 270 votes are needed for
any candidate to be elected President.
The Constitution
remains silent on whether the electors of each state should be elected by the
people or not. The Founding Fathers
apparently thought that this issue should be left to the states to decide. At
the earliest presidential elections, several of the states held popular
elections and gave their electors a mandate to follow the popular will; while
in several other states, the legislatures selected their electors and told them
who to vote for. Popular elections only became the standard practice from the
1830s, but South Carolina
continued the practice of the legislative selection of electors until the
outbreak of the Civil War.
Today, electoral votes are always determined by the
popular vote. In 48 states and D.C., they use the winner-take-all rule, so
whichever candidate receives a plurality of the vote gets all the electoral
votes of that state. Only two relatively small states (Maine and Nebraska) use
a different method which makes it possible to split the state’s electors
between several candidates.
The combination of the electoral system and the
winner-take-all rule practically means that the candidate who gains the
smallest possible advantage over his rivals wins all the electors of that
state. In case of a close election with three candidates, for example, one may
win all the electors of a state with only about 35–40% of all the votes. This
means that the minority votes in that particular state are wasted, they do not
influence the outcome of the election. The winner-take-all system of awarding
electors to candidates has one big defect: it may produce a situation where one
candidate receives more popular votes than the other, but still the other one
wins in the electoral college. The crucial question is who wins in a handful of
densely populated states (California,
Texas,
New York,
Florida,
Illinois,
Pennsylvania,
Ohio etc.) where an advantage of a few thousand
votes may bring dozens of electors.
The
Presidential Election of 2000: a case study
Al Gore |
George W. Bush |
The most recent and most controversial example of how the winner-take-all system
may work against the will of the people was
the presidential election in 2000, when Democrat candidate Al Gore received almost 51 million votes
nationwide (48.4% of all votes cast), while Republican candidate George W. Bush received slightly less than
50.5 million (47.9% of total). Despite the fact that Gore had an advantage of
more than half a million votes nationwide, Bush was elected President in the
electoral college, because he managed to collect 271 votes against Gore’s 266
(one elector did not vote). The explanation to this weird outcome lies in the
fact that Bush succeeded to win in Florida with an unbelievably tiny difference
(he received 537 (!) more votes than Gore out of a total of more than 5.8
million votes cast, his majority in the state was 0.000075%!). This way, he won
all the 25 electors in Florida, the third largest state in the US, and with it,
the Presidency too. Gore tried to contest the election results in Florida,
demanding a manual recount of ballots in several districts, since the counting
machines (Florida mostly uses the punchcard system of voting) threw out
thousands of votes as invalid, and these ballots could have changed the outcome
of the entire election. After a month of tense legal battle, his demand was
ultimately rejected by the US Supreme Court in December, and he was
forced to admit his defeat. (For details, see
)
Electoral College results of the 2000
Presidential Elections |
The Constitution does
not contain a single reference to political parties. This is not by accident:
the Founding Fathers were convinced that ’factions’ (as political groups were
called at the time) are harmful for the government of the country because they
would prefer and place their own narrow interests before the interests of the
nation. Despite their resistance to the idea, the first political parties
emerged immediately after George Washington was elected president,
and in 1796, after Washington retired from politics, they had the first bitter
fight for the presidency. Ever since then, American political life has been
dominated by two large national parties, except for short, transitory
historical periods. Since the Civil War, these political parties
have been the same: the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.
The American
two-party
system is different from similar European political systems with two large
and dominant parties. In Europe, there is usually a large left-of-center and a
similarly large right-of-center party, but there are always at least one or two
minor parties which have enough support to win seats in the national
parliament. For example, in the British
House of Commons besides the
Labour
and the
Conservative Parties there is a third party with significant
support (the
Liberal Democrats) plus there are several regional (ethnic
nationalist Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish) parties present (see
British
Government).
In Hungary, a similar party structure seems to be emerging.
So, European two-party systems are in practice two-plus-one or two-plus-two
structures.
Interestingly, in America there has never emerged a
permanent or long-standing third party with a solid support from a significant
minority of voters. From time to time, there have been efforts to establish a
third national party: most recently during the mid-1990s, when Texan
billionaire Ross Perot ran as
an independent candidate at the 1992 presidential election, and following his
unexpected success (he collected 19% of the popular vote, although he did not
win a single state), he and his supporters organized the Reform Party in
1995 for his second campaign. But the party disintegrated within a few years
after Perot himself retired from politics. Political scientists disagree about
the possible reasons for the lack of viable third parties in the US: some say
the winner-take-all system of American elections
does not give a chance to minor parties to send their representatives to state
or federal legislatures; others think that the two major parties are so varied
in their social support that one of them is acceptable for the majority of the
voters, so they do not leave enough social base for a significant third party.
Despite the long history of parties in the US,
American parties are far less powerful organizations than the parties in many
European nations with parliamentary governments. European parties are typically
centralized organizations, with a well-defined hierarchy: a party in Britain or
in Hungary usually has a group of leaders, elected by the national party
congress or conference, who then make all the crucial decisions for the party.
They decide what policies to be advocated and followed, and who should be
nominated for various elected offices, including Parliamentary seats. The
highest leader of the party usually becomes the prime minister if the party
manages to win the parliamentary election, and he appoints people to all the
major political positions. Party discipline is usually strong and carefully
maintained: Parliamentary MPs are expected to support the decisions of the
leadership, to vote for the party’s proposals and even if they disagree with
the official policy, they should keep their dissident opinion to themselves and
not speak publicly against the ’party line’. Party rebels may easily lose the
trust of the leadership and with it, their political position, job and
influence.
In the US, parties developed along very different
lines, partly because of the huge size of the country and partly because of the
federal system of government. Political authority is far more decentralized in
the US than in any European country, with each state having a wide range of
authority over local business, education, public welfare, etc., which has made
American party organizations decentralized too. Each state has its own party
organization, and the state leadership of the party has traditionally made all
the important decisions: what the party’s opinion on local and national issues
is, what policies should be followed, who should be nominated for state and
federal political offices, who should be appointed to government-controlled
jobs. Since the interests of local populations can be very different in various
parts of the country (e.g. an industrial state with many big cities has
different problems and different needs from a sparsely populated rural,
agricultural state), local organizations of the same party may often disagree
over issues and policies. The national parties are little more than coalitions
of local parties, and national party leaders have essentially no control over
local party leaders.
The decentralized character of American parties has
many crucial consequences. In the US, there is practically no such thing as a
no. 1 national party leader. Each party has a national committee and a chairperson,
but he or she is just a figurehead, having little power to issue orders or
demand loyalty and discipline from other party officials. Neither party has
annual congresses or conferences: the closest thing is the
national convention, but it is held only once every four
years, in the year of presidential elections,
and its primary task is to nominate the party’s candidate, not to choose
national leaders or decide the party’s policies The convention usually accepts
a so-called ’party platform’, which is a political
document summarizing the party’s opinions on the most important national
political issues, but it is rarely valid for longer than the end of the
presidential campaign, and party politicians are not required to follow the
principles contained in it; they are free to pursue their own ideas if they
wish.
Even the President is not a real head of his own
party: although he is the best-known and usually the most prestigious figure in
his party, he has no authority to tell Congressmen of his own party what to do,
and disagreements between, for instance, a Republican President and Republican
Senators or Representatives regularly arise during day-to-day government. The
principle of the separation
of powers in the Constitution makes
it impossible for the President to exercise strong pressure on Congress,
including members of his own party. He cannot even threaten them with taking
their seat in Congress away, because apart from the President, each federal
politician is elected from a certain state, where they are nominated not by the
national or even the local party leaders but by local voters through primary
elections (see Primaries). All Representatives and Senators
know very well that, above all else, they must keep the interests and
preferences of their local voters in mind or otherwise they risk losing their
re-election. This dependence on local public opinion and support is often
stronger than loyalty to one’s own party and its official purposes or policies.
Another very important aspect of the American
electoral system is that voters always have to choose between individual
candidates of the two parties: there are no votes for party lists as e.g.
in Hungary. Therefore, voters pay more attention to the individual candidates’
proposals, programs, they form an opinion about their previous career and public
character, and ultimately make up their mind on that basis. It is not uncommon
that the same voter supports the candidate of one party at a state election but
the other party’s candidate at a Congressional or presidential election: the
personality of the candidates is as important as their party allegiance.
Finally, the relative weakness of American parties
has perhaps one more reason: the great majority of voters are not connected
closely to either of the major parties. In the US, formal party membership is
an unknown concept: ordinary people do not have party membership cards, and do
not pay membership fees. They express their party sympathy by voting for this
or that party’s candidates at local, state or federal elections; by
participating in a party’s closed primary after declaring their preference at
registration (see Primaries); or by donating money to party
candidates or party organizations. All these are, however, voluntary actions,
and party supporters are free to change their mind any time. According to a
survey, only about 30% of the American population describe themselves as strong
supporters of this or that party, and this figure has declined since the
mid-20th century, while the number of self-described independent voters has
risen above 35%. One possible reason for this
phenomenon is that a large number of Americans do not feel that politics is
directly affecting their personal or family life. While Americans grumble about
’stupid politicians’ probably as often as people in Eastern Europe, they do not
tend to believe that the victory of this or that party at a Congressional or
presidential election will produce significant changes in their career, will
improve or ruin their livelihood. The cycles of prosperity and recession in the
American economy seem to follow each other mostly independently of politics,
and the everyday circumstances of ordinary people are influenced more by the
local or the state governments than the distant federal government in Washington.
It is only during the times of national crisis that the majority of ordinary
Americans turn their attention to the national government: such events in the
20th century included the Great Depression, World War II, the Vietnam War, or the terrorist attacks on September
11, 2001.
Both major national parties in the US include a
wide range of people, opinions and interests, therefore it is quite difficult
to give a general description of either of them. A general characterization is
made more difficult by the fact that both parties are governed by pragmatism rather than ideology. This means that their overall
purpose is to attract as many voters as possible, and for the sake of
popularity they are often willing to put aside theoretical principles. As a
result, both parties like to advocate policies and measures that serve the
interests or meet the wishes of many people and do not hurt or are not opposed
by important social groups. Since the majority of American voters are moderate or centrist in their political views, both parties typically avoid radical or extreme ideas and proposals. According to some political
scientists, this pragmatic character of the American two-party system is a
great strength of American democracy: it prevents small radical parties or
groups to gain political influence or manage to force their ideas on a
reluctant majority.
Due to their pragmatic nature, both major political
parties share a number of fundamental principles. They both respect the
Constitution and its principles; they are both devoted to the
ideas of individual freedom and equality before the law; they both protect
private property, and consider free enterprise and a capitalist economy the
cornerstone of the success and wealth of the US. Neither party tends to be
sharply critical about American institutions and neither of them has ever
advocated political, social or economic revolution. Neither party claims to
serve the interests or advocate the views of any particular social group; for
example, neither of them can be described as ’the party of workers’, ’the party
of farmers’, or ’the party of businessmen’. Neither party represents the views
of any church or Christianity in general, but neither is hostile to religion
either: the majority of American politicians (just like their voters) in both
parties belong to one of the many Christian denominations. In these respects,
the two national parties are significantly different from the major parties in
Europe, which are usually characterized by a stronger ideological background
and a history of relying on the support of a distinct class or social group
(Major right-of-center parties in Europe tend to be Conservative or Christian
Democrat, while major left-of-center parties are usually Social Democrat or
Socialist).
Nonetheless, each party can be characterized by
certain preferences in both national, state and local politics, over which
there is more or less a general agreement among party officials and supporters.
Some of these preferences come from the party’s history; others have emerged
out of the need to satisfy the party’s loyal voters; and yet others are more or
less ideological in character.
Logo of the Democratic Party |
The
Democratic Party (
) defines itself and is seen by
most voters as a left-of-center party;
its most typical adjective is ’liberal’.
It differs, however, from European liberal parties in several ways, especially
in its social policies which are more similar to those of the social democratic
parties in Europe. Its symbol is the donkey and its color is blue (unlike most
left-of-center parties in Europe). The group noun form of the name referring to
the party’s officials or voters is ’Democrats’. The adjective of the party’s
name sometimes also appears in the form ’Democrat’ rather than ’Democratic’, to
suggest a distinction between the party and the general meaning of the common
adjective.
Since the 1930s and Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal (see
History of the Democrats), the Democrats have
shown more sensitivity to the problems of the poorer groups in society. They
have also been more willing to initiate large-scale government programs to
address these problems: the federal Social Security
system as well as the Medicare and Medicaid programs were all created by
Democratic administrations to provide old-age
pension, unemployment benefit,
social payments, and limited health-care assistance to those who needed it
most. Since the 1960s, the Democrats have devoted their attention to the
problems of racial and ethnic minorities:
they initiated laws against racial
segregation and all sorts of discrimination,
and supported government-sponsored programs to help blacks and Hispanics.
Democrats are more sensitive to violations
of human rights, and more often stand up to protect the rights and
interests of women as well as disadvantaged
minorities, like disabled or homosexual people. As a result, the
majority of certain social groups are typically Democrat voters, such as
industrial workers (especially members of labor
unions), nonwhite minorities (especially African-Americans), Catholics and
Jews (who have traditionally felt disadvantaged and discriminated in a predominantly
Protestant society), women’s rights activists (usually called feminists), or gay and lesbian activists. Many of these groups, however, are more
radical and left-wing in their views than the mainstream of the Democratic
party, so they organize themselves into pressure groups to influence the
party’s policy.
In the economic sphere, Democrats have been in
favor of
progressive taxation and
higher taxes on the middle class, rich people, and businesses in order to
produce enough government income to finance their social programs. Democrats are usually more determined to stand up
against the excesses of capitalism: they are more willing to pass laws or
enforce laws regulating the activities of business firms, or protecting the
environment from pollution and destruction. But this does not mean that
Democrats as a party would be anti-business or critical of capitalism: on the
contrary, many wealthy businessmen are strong supporters of the party, donating
millions of dollars to support the party's purposes.
In fighting crime, Democrats tend to emphasize
prevention rather than tough penalties: they see poverty and social
disadvantages as the most important causes of crime and therefore urge more
social programs to create alternatives to minority kids to gangs and drugs. They
demand stricter
gun control laws to
reduce the number of guns in people’s hands as a way to prevent violent crime.
The Democrats are often criticized for their ’tax-and-spend’ economic policies: their critics claim that they drain money out of
the economy and people’s pockets to waste it on bureaucratic programs that do
not fulfil their professed goals. Democrats are also criticized for creating an
intrusive and all-too-powerful federal government which wants to regulate too
many things in the national economy, and intervenes in too many aspects of
public life, reducing people’s freedom in this way. ’Big government’ is a negative expression often used to describe this
tendency of the Democrats. The left wing of the party is sometimes attacked for
its controversial moral positions, like support for
abortion or
gay marriage.
If one wanted to summarize the general trend of
Democrat policies in a simplified way, one might say that out of the two
fundamental American values, Democrats consider equality slightly more
important: not just equality before the law, but
equality of opportunity, especially for poor and disadvantaged
social groups. They also consider it the job of the federal government to help
these disadvantaged groups to better opportunities through targeted government
programs. Ron Brown, former chairman of the party, summarized the priorities of the
Democratic Party the following way: "The common thread of Democratic
history, from Thomas Jefferson to Bill Clinton, has been an abiding faith in
the judgment of hardworking American families, and a commitment to helping the
excluded, the disenfranchised and the poor strengthen our nation by earning themselves
a piece of the American Dream. We
remember that this great land was sculpted by immigrants and slaves, their
children and grandchildren." (For source of quote, see
)
Logo of the Republican Party |
The
Republican Party
(
) defines itself and is seen by
most voters as a right-of-center party;
its most typical adjective is ’conservative’.
The adjective can be misleading though, because the social policies of
Republicans are typically conservative, but their economic ideas are
characteristically liberal. The party’s symbol is the elephant and its color is
red (unlike most right-of-center parties in Europe). The common abbreviation
and nickname for the party is GOP,
meaning ’Grand Old Party’ (even though Republicans are the younger of the two
national parties).
The Republicans were defined as a conservative
party after the 1930s, when they consistently opposed the reforms carried out
by Franklin D. Roosevelt. The basis of their
criticism was a traditional distrust in the ability of the government,
especially the federal government, to solve the economic and social problems of
the nation. Republicans usually emphasize the responsibility of individuals to
direct their own lives and make the best decisions, and criticize all laws and
measures that give too much power to the government as a danger to individual freedom. On similar grounds,
they opposed the regulation of the economy by the federal Congress because such
laws limit the freedom of enterprise
and free competition, threaten
efficiency and thus the prosperity of the national economy. They also
criticized extensive social programs because they require higher taxes, again
draining resources from the economy. Although they have continued all the major
social policies of earlier Democratic administrations, they maintain
their criticism of the „big government” of the Democrats, because they argue
that private individuals and private companies use their money more efficiently
and more wisely than governments.
The Republicans are usually seen as a pro-business
party, which argues for fewer regulations and lower taxes for business companies
and individuals, so many of their voters come from the predominantly white
wealthier classes. Since the 1980s (see
History of the Republicans) they believe in the
idea that
tax cuts are the most
important tool of the government to stimulate economic growth. In order to
reduce government spending, they tend to cut expenses on social programs in the
name of using resources more efficiently.
They have characteristic views on many social and
moral issues: they protect the institution of the marriage and the family,
oppose abortion and disapprove of children outside marriage as well as the
extension of the rights of gay and lesbian couples. They dislike government
programs that offer special support to certain social groups like non-white minorities or
women, arguing that it offends the basic American value of equality.
They urge stronger laws against and tougher punishments for crime, and support
the death penalty. They tend to
oppose gun control laws arguing that it is one of the basic constitutional
rights of Americans to own guns. In general, they are more distrustful of
foreign immigrants, and demand stronger measures to limit illegal immigration. The strongly conservative wing of the party
tends to sympathize with many demands of
Evangelical
Protestants (see
Religion in the US), such as daily prayers in public schools, government support
for religious schools, or the teaching of creationism in schools. As a result,
the majority of certain social groups tend to support the Republicans: strongly
religious Christians (especially Protestants), rural populations (e.g. the
sparsely populated Western states), and suburban middle-class families.
The Republicans are often criticized as ’the party
of the rich’, who do not care about the difficulties of poor people and protect
the interest of wealthy businessmen and professionals. Republicans claim that
lower taxes on rich people and businesses produce economic prosperity which will
ultimately benefit the poorer layers of society. This argument is often
ridiculed as an excuse to let rich people pay lower taxes: the economic idea is
nicknamed ’trickle-down economics’.
Opposition to abortion is a central issue for many Republicans: they see it as
government-sanctioned murder of unborn children. In general, they criticize
left-wing groups and politicians for causing a general moral decline in
America, whereas they are attacked for being intolerant and prejudiced against
non-Christians, nonwhite minorities and homosexuals.
If one wanted to summarize the general trend of
Republican policies in a simplified way, one might say that Republicans believe
more in individual freedom than equality: they do not think that the government
has the right or the means to promote social equality by interfering into
economic and social processes. They tend to protect the freedom of the
individual in issues like gun ownership or taxation. On the other hand, they
are not liberal in public moral issues, where they consistently represent the
convictions of religious Christians.
abortion
absolute majority
to acquit
Acts of Congress
adviser
affirmative action
aide
amendment
Amendments to the Constitution
American Dream
apportionment
Associate
Justice
Attorney General
ballot
bicameral legislature. See Congress, House of Representatives, Senate
"big government"
Bill of Rights
bills of Congress
Brown v. Board of Education
campaign
campaign manager
candidate
capital
punishment
Capitol Hill
the Capitol
caucus
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
centrist
chairperson
checks and balances
chief executive officer
Chief Justice
Chief of Staff
civil rights movement
Civil War
closed primary
commander-in-chief
to convene Congress
to convict
Congress
Congress seat
Congressional district
Congressional Elections
conservative
Constitution of the United States of America
convention
also
nominating
convention
court of
appeal
creationism
death penalty
defendant
delegate
Democratic Party
Department of Defense
also
Defense
Department
Department of Justice
also
Justice
Department
Department of State
also
State
Department
desegregation
disabled people
disadvantaged minorities
discrimination
dissenting
opinion
Election Day
elector
electoral college
Engel v. Vitale
equality of opportunity
evangelical Protestants
exclusionary rule
executive branch
executive department
extreme (in a political sense)
federal agencies
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
federal court
federal elections
federal government
federal lands
federal laws
Federal Reserve System
federalism
feminists, feminist movement
Founding Fathers
franchise
free competition
freedom of enterprise
gay and lesbian movement
gay marriage
gerrymandering
GOP (Grand
Old Party)
Grand Old Party. See GOP
gun control laws
homosexual people
House of Representatives
ideology
illegal immigration
impeachment
incumbent
individual freedom
judicial branch
judicial review
Justice
labor unions,
left-of-center party
legislation
legislative branch
legislative power
legislature
liberal
majority
opinion
Marbury v.
Madison
Marshall,
John
Medicaid
Medicare
minority
opinion
Miranda warning
moderate
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA)
national committee
naturalization
old-age pension
open primary
override the President's veto
party platform
perjury
plaintiff
Plessy v. Ferguson
plurality of the votes
pragmatism
President
presidential ticket
primary election
primary season
progressive taxation
racial and ethnic minorities
racial segregation
See segregation
radical
(party) rally
to reapportion,
to register, registration
Representative
Republican Party
revenue bill
right-of-center party
Roberts, John
G.
Roe v. Wade
Secretary
Secretary of Defense
Secretary of State
Secretary of the Treasury
segregation
Senate
separate but equal
separation of church and state
separation of powers
social programs
Social Security
soft money
state laws
Supreme Court
tax cut
tax-and-spend economy
televised debate
term in office
The Postal Service (USPS)
the Treasury
three branches of power
legislative, executive, judicial
trickle-down economics,
two-party system
unemployment benefit
veto, veto power
Vice-President
vice-presidential candidate
violation of human rights
voting age
White House
winner-take-all rule
