the power of congress

In the United States, everybody should have a voice in government so that they can trust that their interests can be met. This necessitates political effectiveness, in which people have confidence in and trust in the government. People may demonstrate their democratic effectiveness in a variety of ways, including in the newspapers, possessing the ability to vote about challenging problems, and engaging in free elections. However, if the government has balanced authority, this can occur in certain situations. If Congress, for example, gets more authority, that means that the majority's rights will be ignored. This means that the powers of Congress should be limited promoting equality of the powers in the government.

By promoting the republican form of government, it means that the law that is made by the chosen representatives is not just going to oppress anyone but become fair to all the people. In this regard, people can elect other leaders to change the laws if they find them unfair. Also, all the rights of the minority and the majority will all be represented here as this is a voice from the general public (Engberg, 572). This will allow for prosperity to its people and at the same time allow freedom. The economic development profits are going to reach and benefit all the people in the entire nation hence they will live well.

If this form of government is advocated for, it means that the leaders are going to serve the interests of the entire nation referring it to as the serving of the common welfare. All the people will then participate in the political process. All men are created equal, and it doesn’t matter whether one is a farmer or a doctor since all the people are invited to give views in the government (Engberg, 572). This means that the leaders will rise according to their abilities and not just like it is a birthright for them to be in leadership. There is also advocating for civic virtue which includes the self-reliance and at the same time self-assertion. Here, the reforms are made a vote and not by the use of force.

The separation of powers calls in for a federalist government where the power is equally shared. This will mean that diversity is allowed where the local governments have to deal with problems from people directly. Also, it participates in protecting the people against tyranny. If the pluralism runs in the united states, it means that the division of power must do, and at the same time provide a base for new leaders to be chosen in case failure to articulate the rights of all the people (Rice, 190).

If the powers of the Congress will not be limited, then it means that people in poorer states may not grow economically. This is because there will be no questioning of the leaders from the states even if they don’t represent the rights of all citizens. Notably, there will be reduced police protection to people poor environmental protection and poor health services. Participation of citizens in the government means that these types of leaders will not be in power forever (Hall, 322).

Power may not be diffused. There should be a limit on the powers of the Congress as it means that power will not just be centralized to one individual or a single group of people. If this happens, it means corruption may increase. According to Rice, it will mean that there will be inequalities in the different states (190). Some of the leaders, for instance, may put a lot of funds in education than the other sectors leading to the disparity. Here, taxes are included, and also welfare programs.



Sometimes, they are seen blocking national government policies. To some extent, it's not a bad thing since it helps in stopping what might be referred to as a bad law. However, special interest groups tend to challenge the rules that they don’t like. This can go to the extent of having them denying a law that is not bad but because they want to benefit their interests. There might not be general criteria for all the leaders to see in determining whether a law is bad or not (Rice, 190).



Additionally, having the Senate being chosen from the basis of the states and also the representatives in the districts particularly drawn to help one party or the other, the Congress might find itself on the wrong side of something. They may fail to do something that a sixty percent of the American wants them to do, but they may be faced with any consequences(Engberg, 572). Even for the president who has been elected to by a wider margin of votes to attain a certain aim might see that his efforts fruitless.

On the other hand, it is good the Congress maintains its powers because of the line of their job. The founders had it that the Congress was to have a higher position in power than the Supreme Court and even the president. However, in the legislature, checks were placed to ensure that power is not handed over to a single branch. It is to some extent a good thing that the Congress maintains the powers to see some things are done correctly (Hall, 322). It should be understood that the powers of the Congress are both evolutionary and at the same time constitutional.

The constitution has given the Congress the most vital power of making laws. Note that the Congress comprises of the Senate and the House of Representatives and a proposed law will only become law if both will approve in one form. Engberg adds that, revenue has to come from the House of Representatives (577). This power has however been seen to fade over the years but it is still honored until today. Mostly, the budget bills have to simultaneously consider in both houses. For instance, the discussions about the tax cut are done in both houses.

Notably, the Congress has the impeachment powers. It refers to the power to charge the president together with other civil officers who are involved in wrongdoing. In case of a simple majority vote, then an elected official can be impeached. It should be noted that impeachment trials also take place in the Senate. For instance, if a house has decided to impeach one of the elected officials, the accused official goes for a hearing in the Senate. It is vital that such a power be left to the Congress so that it helps in ensuring that leaders involved in wrongdoing are thrown out of power, and also it helps in ensuring that the officials perform by the constitution (Engberg, 579).

In the event of presidential appointments, it is the job of the Senate to confirm them. Here, the senate comes to help by offering advice and at the same time consent to the president through a vote from the majority on the appointing of federal judges, positions in the cabinet and also for ambassadors (Newman, 340). This helps to prevent choosing officials in the positions mentioned earlier who do not have the right qualities. If the president alone does the appointing, it means that he may make a wrong decision when appointing.

The Senate also has to approve the treaty entered with other nations by the president. The two-thirds vote should do it from the Senate members serving as a significant restriction for the powers of the president regarding foreign policy (Newman, 340). Under such matters, the Congress should still have the power over national defense which includes the power to declare war on a given country. If all this is with the aim of protecting the citizens of the country against foreign threats, then the Congress has to maintain the power s.

In conclusion, the Congress has a wide range of responsibilities to the citizens of the country no matter how powerful they are. If their powers are not moderated, then it means that some groups of the citizens may not benefit from the government. At the same time, some injustices to the people may not be punished. As also mentioned above, if some powers of the congress become limited, then it means that branches of officials may benefit on the expense of the people of the country. Therefore, it is the duty of the Congress and the government to work together for democracy and ensure that all the right, so the people are well represented, and the people also participate in their leadership.

















REFERENCES

Engberg, Catherine. "Taking the Initiative: May Congress Reform State Initiative Lawmaking to Guarantee a Republican Form of Government?." Stanford Law Review (2001): 569-596.



Rice, Charles E. "Limiting Federal Court Jurisdiction: The Constitutional Basis for the Proposals in Congress Today." Judicature 65 (1981): 190.



Newman, Brian. "Integrity and presidential approval, 1980–2000." Public Opinion Quarterly 67.3 (2003): 335-367.



Hall, Melinda Gann. "State supreme courts in American democracy: Probing the myths of judicial reform." American Political Science Review 95.2 (2001): 315-330.