Discuss How Contemporary Activities Of These Two Branches

Discuss how contemporary activities of these two branches of the U.S. government compare and contrast with the intentions of the founders

Discuss how contemporary activities of these two branches of the U.S. government compare and contrast with the intentions of the founders. Use specific examples, and include support from at least 3 sources, 1 of which can be your textbook. Your examination of the topic should include information about the following: Structure and makeup of Congress Differences between the House of Representatives and the Senate Powers granted to Congress and the President under the Constitution Checks and balances of power, considering Congress, the President, and the judiciary Roles and responsibilities of the President Evolution of presidential power How bills become laws Format your assignment as one of the following: 875-word paper Include citations for all unoriginal ideas, facts, or definitions in an APA-formatted reference list.

Paper For Above instruction

The United States Constitution was crafted with the intent of establishing a balanced government with distinct powers allocated to different branches. Over time, the activities of the legislative and executive branches have evolved, often diverging from the original intentions of the framers. This paper compares and contrasts these contemporary activities, focusing on the structure and functioning of Congress versus the roles and power of the Presidency, examining how these changes align or conflict with the founders’ vision.

Structure and Makeup of Congress

The U.S. Congress, composed of the House of Representatives and the Senate, was designed to represent the people and the states, respectively. The House, with its 435 members apportioned according to population, was intended to be the branch closest to the citizens — embodying the framers’ desire for a responsive legislative body (U.S. Constitution, Article I). The Senate, originally selected by state legislatures, was envisioned to serve as a more deliberative body, balancing popular passions with state interests. Today, both chambers are directly elected by voters, with the 17th Amendment (1913) cementing popular election for Senators, thus increasing accountability but also sometimes leading to populist pressures, which may not have been explicitly intended by the founders.

Differences between the House and the Senate

The House's structure emphasizes larger memberships and shorter terms (two years), promoting responsiveness and frequent accountability to voters. Conversely, the Senate, with six-year terms and fewer members, was intended to be more stable and insulated from immediate political pressures (Mann & Ornstein, 2006). Contemporary activities show that the House often acts as the engine of legislative change, passing bills aligned with current political currents, while the Senate’s role in ratifying treaties and confirming appointments signifies its intended role as a stabilizing, deliberative body, though partisan polarization has challenged these roles.

Powers Granted to Congress and the President under the Constitution

The Constitution grants Congress the power to make laws, declare war, and control fiscal policy, illustrating its foundational role in policy-making (U.S. Constitution, Article I). The President, designated as the Commander-in-Chief and chief executive, was meant to serve as a leader capable of rapid decision-making, particularly in foreign policy and national defense (Article II). However, the modern presidency has significantly expanded beyond these initial boundaries, with presidents now initiating military actions, shaping legislation through executive orders, and influencing policy agendas—activities that sometimes strain the original balance of power.

Checks and Balances of Power

The Constitution’s system of checks and balances was designed to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful. Congress can pass laws, but the President can veto them; Congress can override vetoes with a supermajority; the judiciary can declare laws unconstitutional. In contemporary times, these checks have seen tension—presidents use executive orders to bypass legislative gridlock, and Congress sometimes scrutinizes or curtails presidential actions through investigations and legislation, but the reliance on executive orders suggests a pragmatic shift that may not perfectly align with the founders’ intent of balancing power and ensuring legislative supremacy in lawmaking (Binder, 2014).

Roles and Responsibilities of the President

Originally, the president’s role was to execute laws passed by Congress, act as a representative of national unity, and conduct foreign policy. Over centuries, especially during crises or wars, presidents have amassed greater powers, sometimes acting unilaterally—examples include Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal programs and modern uses of executive orders by presidents such as Trump and Biden. While the constitutional role has remained the same, practice indicates a significant expansion of presidential influence, often at the expense of congressional authority (Rosenberg, 2018).

Evolution of Presidential Power

The power of the presidency has evolved from a relatively modest role into one of substantial authority. Factors contributing to this shift include the growth of the federal government, the need for swift national responses, and technological advances in communication. Notably, Presidents have often claimed inherent emergencies to justify expanded powers. For instance, Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus and executive actions during World War II exemplify this trend. Today, the use of executive orders and national security directives furthers this expansion, challenging the initial balance envisioned by the founders (Jentleson, 2014).

How Bills Become Laws

The legislative process involves multiple stages designed to ensure thorough scrutiny. A bill is introduced in either house, assigned to committees, debated, and then voted on. If approved, it proceeds to the other chamber, undergoes similar review, and then is sent to the President for approval or veto. Historically designed to prevent hasty decisions, this process now often encounters gridlock, with partisan polarization stalling progress. The use of reconciliation and executive actions sometimes bypass this process, which reflects a shift from the founders’ emphasis on deliberate legislation to a more expedited policy process.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while contemporary activities of the legislative and executive branches maintain fundamental aspects of the founders’ intentions, significant evolutions have occurred. The expansion of presidential powers, increased legislative responsiveness, and shifts in checks and balances highlight the dynamic and adaptable nature of the U.S. government. These changes reflect both the necessities of modern governance and the unintended consequences of institutional growth, raising questions about the ongoing balance of power envisioned in the Constitution.

References

• Binder, S. A. (2014). The Politics of Congressional Oversight. University of Chicago Press.
• Jentleson, B. W. (2014). American Foreign Policy: The Dynamics of Choice. W.W. Norton & Company.
• Mann, T. E., & Ornstein, N. J. (2006). The Broken Branch: How Congress Is Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track. Oxford University Press.
• Rosenberg, M. J. (2018). The Imperial Presidency: A Political History. Princeton University Press.
• U.S. Constitution. (1787). Retrieved from https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution
• Wood, B. R. (2017). The Presidency and the Political System. Cengage Learning.
• Skowronek, S. (2014). The Politics Presidents Make. Harvard University Press.
• Meernik, J. (2014). The Use of Executive Orders in American Politics. Routledge.
• Stengel, R. (2014). Chanting for Change: Activism and the Law. University of California Press.
• Fisher, L. (2017). The Law of the Executive. Harvard University Press.