Site Search and Site Map   

Table of Contents

The US Congress and Domestic and Economic Policy             The Presidency and Foreign Policy

The National Bureaucracy               The National Judicial System               Civil Liberties and Civil Rights   

The US Congress and Domestic and Economic Policy

I. Qualifications to Run for Congress

House

25 years of age when seated, not when elected

US citizen for 7 years

resident of state from which elected: custom that a representative live in the district that he/she represents, not Constitutional

Senate

30 years of age when seated, not when elected

US citizen for 9 years

resident of state from which elected

 

C-Span Congressional Resources

Power Rankings

II. Congressional Leadership

The new 119th Congress convened for the first time on January 3rd. Republicans control both the House and the Senate, although Republicans start 2025 with the smallest House majority since 1931. Senator John Thune (R-SD) is the new majority leader in the Senate, with a 53-47 majority. Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) was re-elected to his post in the House, and oversees a 219-215 majority (with 1 vacancy). Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) will serve as the minority leaders in their respective chambers.

A. Senate

1. Majority Party (most senators)

President Pro Tempore: selected by majority party and usually most senior member of the Senate majority party

Majority Leader: leads majority party

Majority Whip: assists majority leader, rounds up votes, heads group of deputy whips

Chairman of the Conference: presides over meetings of all members of the Senate majority party

Policy Committee: schedules legislation

Legislative Review Committee: reviews legislative proposals and makes recommendations to senators of the majority party

Steering Committee: assigns Senators of the majority party to committees

2. Republican/Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee: provides funds, assistance to Republican/Democratic candidates for the Senate

3. Minority Party (least senators)

Minority Leader: leads minority party

Assistant Minority Leader: assists minority leader, rounds up votes

Chairman of the Conference: presides over meetings of all senators of the minority party

Policy Committee: makes recommendations on party policy

Committee on Committees: assigns Senators of the minority party to committees

Senate Reference Section

The Filibuster: The Best Way to Keep Congress from Getting Things Done

The Hidden Biases at Play in the US Senate

B. House

1. Majority Party (most representatives)

Speaker of the House: selected by the majority party

Majority Leader: leads majority party

Majority Whip: assists majority leader, rounds up votes, heads large group of deputy and assistant whips

Chairman of the Caucus: presides over meetings of all members of the majority party

Steering and Policy Committee: schedules legislation, assigns members of the majority party to committees

 

100 Years Later, a Modern Speaker Showdown Feels Eerily Similar

On Oct. 3, 2023, the House removed Kevin McCarthy (R, CA) as Speaker, after a small band of Republican dissidents moved to oust him during a dramatic vote with no precedent in US history. McCarthy became the first Speaker of the House to be removed via a procedure known as a motion to vacate. The motion-to-vacate rule had been used unsuccessfully 3 times previously, beginning in 1910, but required a majority of the party to bring it to the House floor. McCarthy was made vulnerable by the Republican’s thin majority - just 221-212 - and because as a condition of his becoming speaker he agreed to a rule that any single member could file a motion to vacate. Matt Gaetz (R, FL) led the charge to remove McCarthy, putting his motion to vacate the chair - to oust the Speaker - up for a vote. Following the motion-to-vacate vote, Rep. Patrick McHenry (R, NC) stepped in as speaker pro tempore of the House, under post-9/11 rules requiring the Speaker to name a temporary replacement in case of a vacancy. McHenry immediately gaveled the session to a close.

As Republicans had only a 9-member majority, any group of five Republican lawmakers could block progress if all Democrats were opposed. It was the fifth-narrowest margin in history, according to Pew Research Center. No Speaker had ever been removed from office before and the move put the Republicans at the mercy of a few dissidents, most of them members of the House Freedom Caucus. Unlike most of the dozens of caucuses and single-issue groups on Capitol Hill, the Freedom Caucus doesn’t publicize its membership, which reportedly is by invitation only. Estimates are that 22% of the House Republican conference either belongs to the Freedom Caucus or is closely aligned with it. Scott Perry (R, PA) is the Freedom Caucus chairman. Ideologically, Freedom Caucus members and allies are among the most conservative of House Republicans, with several falling on the rightmost end of the spectrum. They have also spent less time in the House than other members of the Republican conference (71% have served for 6 years or less and 9 are freshmen) and are more likely to come from the South. In January 2023, McCarthy agreed to more Freedom Caucus representation on the powerful Rules Committee and other key panels and agreed to a list of rule changes long sought by the Freedom Caucus, many of them intended to shift power away from the Speaker’s office and toward committee chairs and rank-and-file members. The deal enhanced the power of far-right Republicans at the expense of moderates who prefer to advance legislation that can win the approval of a Democratic-controlled Senate and White House. It also made McCarthy’s task of passing critical bills, such as funding the government and raising the debt ceiling, much harder. Worse, the concessions made the House ungovernable and resulted in multiple crises.

Congress only wrote 21 laws in 2023, the least productive gathering of lawmakers since the Great Depression, as members drew more headlines for confrontations than for public policy-making. That's in no small part because the House devoted much of its floor time to partisan bills with no chance of advancing in the Senate - not to mention two protracted periods where the House had no Speaker.

2. Republican/Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee: provides funds, advice to Republican/Democratic candidates for the House

3. Minority Party (least representatives)

Minority Leader: leads minority party

Minority Whip: assists minority leader, rounds up votes, heads large forum of deputy and assistant whips

Chairman of the Conference: presides over meetings of all members of the minority party

Committee on Committees: assigns members of the minority party to committees

Policy Committee: advises on party policy

Research Committee: on request, provides information about issues

Twelve 2024 departing lawmakers tell us what Congress is really like.

What’s wrong with Congress? Weak parties have contributed to legislative failure.

Democrats are highly responsive to voter sentiment. Republicans are not, yet they win reelection anyway.

III. Powers of Congress

found in Article 1, section 8, of the Constitution -

levy and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises

borrow money

regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the states and with Indian tribes

establish rules for naturalization (becoming a citizen)

establish rules for bankruptcy

coin money, set its value and punish counterfeiting

fix the standard of weights and measures

establish a post office and post roads

issue patents and copyrights to inventors and authors

create courts inferior to (below) the Supreme Court

define and punish piracies, felonies on the high seas and crimes against the law of nations

declare war

raise and support an army and navy and make rules for their governance

provide for a militia (reserving to the states the right to appoint militia officers and to train the militia under congressional rule)

exercise exclusive legislative powers over the seat of government (the District of Columbia) and over places purchased to be federal facilities (forts, arsenals, dockyards and "other needful buildings")

"make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for the carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States"

IV. How a Bill Becomes Law

A. Introduction: any member can introduce a piece of legislation

House: legislation is handed to clerk of the House or placed in hopper

Senate: members must gain recognition of the presiding officer to announce the introduction of a bill during the morning hour … introduction of bill postponed until next day if any senator objects

bill assigned a number (HR 1 or SB 1)

bill labeled with the sponsor's name

bill sent to Government Printing Office (GPO) to make copies

Senate bills can be jointly sponsored

members can cosponsor legislation

B. Committee: bill referred to appropriate committee by Speaker of the House or presiding officer in Senate … often actual referral decision made by the House or Senate parliamentarian

bill may be referred to more than one committee

bill may be split so that parts are sent to different committees

Speaker of the House may set time limits on committees

bills placed on calendar of the committee to which assigned

failure to act on a bill is equivalent to killing it

bills in House can only be released from committee without a proper committee vote by a discharge petition signed by a majority of the House membership (218 members)

Committee Steps:

1. comments about the bill's merit are requested by government agencies

2. bill can be assigned to subcommittee by chair

3. may hold hearings

4. subcommittees report findings to the full committee

5. vote by the full committee: bill is "ordered to be reported"

6. committee will hold "mark-up" sessions during which it will make revisions and additions ... if substantial amendments are made committee can order the introduction of a "clean bill" which will include the proposed amendments, have a new number and be sent to floor while the old bill is discarded (chamber must approve, change or reject all committee amendments before conducting a final passage vote)

7. after bill reported, committee staff prepares written report explaining why they favor bill and why they wish to see amendments, if any, adopted … committee members who oppose a bill sometimes write a dissenting opinion in report

8. report sent to whole chamber and placed on calendar

9. House: most bills go to Rules committee before reaching floor and committee adopts rules that will govern procedures under which the bill will be considered, for example, a "closed rule" sets strict time limits on debate and forbids introduction of amendments

10. rules can have major impact on whether bill passes … rules committee can be bypassed in three ways: (1) a ⅔ vote of members to suspend rules, (2) file a discharge petition or (3) the House can use a Calendar Wednesday procedure

C. Floor

1. Calendar

House: bills placed on one of four House Calendars in the order which reported but don't usually come to floor in that order and some never reach the floor at all

Speaker of the House and Majority Leader decide what will reach floor and when (legislation can also be brought to floor by discharge petition)

Senate: legislation placed on Legislative Calendar … Executive Calendar deals with treaties and nominations

Scheduling of legislation is job of Majority Leader but bills also brought to floor whenever majority of Senate chooses

2. Debate

House: Debate limited by rules formulated in the Rules Committee … Committee of the Whole debates and amends bill but cannot technically pass it. Debate guided by Sponsoring Committee and time divided equally between proponents and opponents. Committee decides how much time to allot to each person. Amendments must be germane to subject of bill - no riders allowed. Bill is reported back to House (to itself) and voted on. A quorum call is a vote to make sure there are enough members present (218) to have final vote. If no quorum, House will adjourn or will send Sergeant at Arms out to round up missing members.

Senate: debate unlimited unless cloture invoked. Members can speak as long as they want and amendments need not be germane - riders are often offered. Entire bills can be offered as amendments to other bills. Unless cloture is invoked, Senators can use a filibuster to defeat a measure by "talking it to death"

3. Vote

If passed, sent to other chamber unless that chamber already has a similar measure under consideration. If either chamber does not pass bill dies. If the House and Senate pass the same bill then sent to President. If the House and Senate pass different bills they are sent to Conference Committee. Most major legislation goes to a Conference Committee.

D. Conference Committee

1. Members from each house form conference committee and meet to work out differences. Committee usually made up of senior members appointed by presiding officers of the committee that originally dealt with bill. Representatives from each house work to maintain their version of the bill.

2. If the Conference Committee reaches compromise, it prepares a written conference report submitted to each chamber.

3. Conference report must be approved by both House and Senate.

E. President: bill sent to President for review

1. Bill becomes law if signed by President or if not signed within 10 days and Congress is in session.

2. If Congress adjourns before 10 days and President has not signed bill it does not become law ("pocket veto").

3. If President vetoes bill it is sent back to Congress with note listing reasons. The chamber that originated the legislation can attempt to override veto by a vote of ⅔ of those present. If the veto of the bill is overridden in both chambers it becomes law.

4. Once a bill is signed by President or his veto overridden by both houses it becomes a law and is assigned an official number.

Congressional Bills | govinfo

BillTrack50 | Track and Share Legislation

Federal Statutes: A Beginner's Guide

How to Read a Government Bill

It is time for a bipartisan Speaker.

Bipartisanship the “secret sauce” for effective lawmaking, despite rising polarization in Congress

House Republicans have made no secret of their divisions. They openly refer to their various factions as The Five Families - a reference to warring Mafia crime families: The Freedom Caucus a hard-right faction made up of lawmakers who formed the Tea Party movement and strongly back Trump, The Republican Study Committee an older conservative group and the largest GOP ideological faction, The Main Street Caucus made up of pro-business Republicans, The Republican Governance Group which comprises many fiscally conservative but socially moderate members, The Problem Solvers Caucus which includes both Republicans and Democrats and focuses on policies with bipartisan support.

 

V. The Budget Process

A. Budget Facts

The government spends most of our money on a few major programs.

Federal Spending:(2022)

Health Insurance (Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, ACA) 25%

Social Security 21%

Defense 13%

Economic Security Programs (Earned Income Tax Credit, Child Tax Credit, Unemployment, SSI, SNAP, school meals, low-income housing assistance, child care assistance, help meeting home energy bills, aid to abused or neglected children) 11%

Benefits for Veterans and Federal Retirees 7%

Interest on National Debt 7%

Education 3%

Transportation 2%

Natural Resources, Environment, Agriculture 1%

Science, Medical Research 1%

Law Enforcement 1%

International Expenditures (humanitarian aid, maintaining US embassies and consulates) 1%

All Other 5%

TOTAL: 5.8 trillion (over $4.8 trillion estimated to be financed by federal revenues, remaining financed by net borrowing)

The government collects most of its revenues from a few main sources.

   

Federal Revenues (2022)

approximately 50% of federal revenue comes from individual income taxes

36% from payroll taxes that fund social insurance programs (Employers and employees split the cost of payroll taxes but research has shown that employers pass their portion of the cost on to workers in the form of lower wages.)

7% from corporate income taxes

8% from a mix of excise taxes (collected on the sale of certain goods such as fuel, alcohol, tobacco), estate taxes (taxes on assets - such as cash, real estate, stocks - that are transferred from deceased persons to their heirs), other revenue sources

 

 

In its first three years, the government spent a total of about $4 million. By 1800, total annual spending amounted to less than $11 million. National spending climbed during the 1930s from $4 billion in 1931 to over $8 billion in 1936. WWII increased that number to over $91 billion by 1944. Today the total has climbed to $30.9 trillion (2022).

Because often total revenues do not cover total spending, the government borrows money to finance any annual deficit. The total it has borrowed over the years, but not repaid, is the national debt. In its first 150 years, the government sometimes generated budget deficits (for instance, to finance a war) but later ran surpluses and repaid the debt that had accumulated. Budget deficits have grown more frequent in the last half-century and they soared during the 1980s. At the end of fiscal year 1977 the deficit was $706 billion. By the end of fiscal year 1997 it was $5.38 trillion - almost 8 times as much as it had been 20 years earlier - but the national budget ran a surplus of $184 billion in 2001. However, in 2022, the federal budget had a deficit of $1.4 trillion, 5.5% of the GDP.

 

Federal Debt Ceiling

The debt limit or debt ceiling is the total amount of money that the US government is authorized to borrow to meet its existing legal obligations. If the debt ceiling is reached and the US Treasury doesn’t have the ability to pay its obligations, the negative economic effects would quickly mount and risk triggering a deep recession. Unlike most other developed countries, the US puts a hard limit on how much it can borrow. Because the US government spends more than it takes in, lawmakers must periodically raise the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling is the legal limit on the total amount of federal debt the US government can accrue. The limit applies to almost all federal debt, including the debt held by the public and the debt the government owes itself as a result of borrowing from various government accounts, like the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. As a result, the debt continues to rise due to both annual budget deficits financed by borrowing from the public and from trust fund surpluses, which are invested in Treasury bills with the promise to be repaid later with interest. Since the end of World War II, Congress and the President have modified the debt ceiling more than 100 times. Lawmakers suspended the debt limit, rather than raising it by a specific dollar amount, seven times since 2012 and increased the debt limit twice in 2021. In early 2023, the US once again hit its debt ceiling, which was capped at $31.4 trillion. After months of using “extraordinary measures” to stave off default, lawmakers enacted legislation to suspend the debt limit through January 1, 2025.

The debt ceiling increase enacted in late 2021 sustained federal borrowing authority until January 19, 2023, with extraordinary measures (accounting maneuvers that provide for shifting certain funds around such as suspending the sale of some government securities) allowing the federal government to pay its obligations in full and on time until at least June of that year. However, once the debt ceiling was reached, the US government would not be able to issue any new debt, potentially defaulting on its obligations. If Congress had not raised or suspended the debt ceiling before then, the federal government would have lacked the cash to pay its obligations.

Such obligations are the result of laws previously enacted by Congress. Raising the debt limit is not about new spending; it is about paying for previous choices policymakers legislated. There is no plausible set of changes that can generate the instant surplus necessary to avoid having to raise or suspend the debt ceiling. Once the government hits the debt ceiling and exhausts all available extraordinary measures, it is no longer allowed to issue debt and soon after will run out of cash-on-hand. At that point, given annual deficits, incoming receipts will be insufficient to pay millions of daily obligations as they come due. The federal government will have to at least temporarily default on many of its obligations, from Social Security payments and salaries for federal civilian employees, and the military to veterans’ benefits and utility bills, among others. Some believe the Treasury Department could buy more time by engaging in unprecedented actions such as selling large amounts of gold, minting a special large-denomination coin, or invoking the Fourteenth Amendment to override the statutory debt limit. Whether any of these tools is truly available is in question, and the potential economic and political consequences of each of these options are unknown. A Treasury report found that a delay of payments, which suspends all government payments until they can all be paid on a day-to-day basis, is the least harmful scenario. Realistically, though, the only option to avoid a default of our nation’s obligations is for Congress to raise or suspend the debt ceiling.

A default occurs when the Treasury does not have enough cash available to pay for obligations that have already been made. In the debt ceiling context, a default is precipitated by the government exceeding the statutory debt limit and being unable to pay its obligations to its citizens and creditors. Without enough money to pay its bills, all payments are at risk, including all government spending, mandatory payments, interest on debt, and payments to US bondholders. A US government default would be disastrous. A default would roil global financial markets and create chaos (including extreme stock market volatility), since both domestic and international markets depend on the relative economic and political stability of US debt instruments and the US economy. Interest rates would rise, and demand for Treasuries would drop as investors stopped or scaled back investments in Treasury securities that were no longer considered safe. Even the threat of default during a standoff increases borrowing costs. If interest rates for Treasuries increase substantially, interest rates across the economy would follow, affecting car loans, credit cards, home mortgages, business investments and other costs of borrowing and investment. The balance sheets of banks and other institutions with large holdings of Treasuries would decline as the value of Treasuries dropped, potentially tightening the availability of credit. In the event of an actual default, increased unemployment rates could persist for years.

Although policymakers have often enacted “clean” debt ceiling increases, Congress has also coupled increases with other legislative priorities … “I’ll vote to raise the debt ceiling if you’ll pass my bill.” In nearly all instances in which a debt limit increase was accompanied by such deal-making, lawmakers generally approved temporary increases in the debt limit to allow time for negotiations to be completed without the risk of default.  But threatening to break the promises of the US government to people all over the world as well as its own citizens in order to gain political points makes no sense. Such legislative maneuvers ought to be banned as a weapon. Failing to raise a debt ceiling would be disastrous. It would result in severe negative consequences that experts are not capable of fully predicting in advance. Even threatening a default or taking the country to the brink of default has serious implications. In 2011, such maneuvers took the country to the brink of default and prompted a downgrade of the country's top-notch credit rating. The argument that raising the debt ceiling encourages additional future spending is logically irresponsible. The debt ceiling has to be raised to authorize past spending already approved by past Congresses. The truth is that the US doesn't need, and shouldn't have, a debt ceiling. Every other democratic country, with the exception of Denmark, does fine without one.

B. Types of Spending

1. Discretionary: 28% of all Federal Spending (2023)

This is the money the President and Congress must decide to spend each year. It includes money for such programs as the FBI, Coast Guard, housing, education, space exploration, highway construction, defense, foreign aid and so on.

2. Mandatory: 62% of all Federal Spending (2023)

This is the money that the national government spends automatically - unless the President and Congress change the laws that govern it. It includes entitlements - such as Social Security, Medicare and Food Stamps - through which individuals receive benefits because they meet some criteria of eligibility (e.g. age, income). It also includes interest on the national debt, which the Government pays to individuals and institutions that buy saving bonds and other US securities. Despite its name, however, mandatory spending is not unchangeable. The President and Congress can change the laws that govern entitlements or taxes but they must take explicit action to do so since they include laws other than appropriations acts.

C. The Budget Process

The President's budget is sent to Congress in early February. This proposal is his plan for the next fiscal year, beginning October 1. This plan, however, only becomes official after Congress passes and the President signs spending bills and legislation creating new taxes and entitlements.

After receiving the President's budget, Congress examines it in detail. Scores of committees and subcommittees hold hearings on proposals under their jurisdiction. The House and Senate Armed Services Committees, for instance, hold hearings on the President's defense plan. If the President's plan contains proposals that affect federal revenues, the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance committees hold hearings. The President, the Budget Director, the Cabinet and others work with Congress as it accepts some proposals, rejects some and changes others.

Each year Congress must pass and the President must sign, 13 appropriation bills that include all of the discretionary spending. The President and Congress do not have to enact new laws governing entitlements or taxes. If they do not, the government will pay the benefits for Social Security and other programs and collect the taxes required by laws already in place.

D. Budget Calendar

 

US National Debt Clock

5 Facts about the US National Debt

Okay, Folks, Let's Put Aside Politics and Talk About Taxes...

Understanding the Federal Budget

Mandatory vs. Discretionary Spending

Where the Current National Debt Comes From

History of Presidents and Federal Income Tax

We the Economy Films: Chapter 3: What is the role of our government?

o   Why is our tax system so complicated? Can a cartoon conquer a challenge like today’s tax system, with its ever-changing, 75,000 pages of laws? With retro flair, "Taxation Nation" looks into how our tax system does – and doesn’t – work.

o   Where do our tax dollars go? Uncle Sam takes a cut of our earnings every April. But what does he spend our hard-earned money on? The answers will truly surprise you in this vérité odyssey.

o   Why does the US fund foreign aid? The US spends approximately $37 billion dollars a year on foreign aid - just under 1% of our federal budget. "The Foreign Aid Paradox" zeroes in on food aid to Haiti and how it affects American farming and shipping interests as well as Haiti’s own agricultural markets. The result: a surprising study in unintended consequences.

o   Why do we have budget deficits and a national debt? In this free-wheeling animated film, you’ll see how Congress and public officials use and manage debt, and why it matters to you.

 

 

Policy Basics: Introduction to the Federal Budget Process

Budget Hero was launched in May 2008, re-launched in September 2012 and retired in August 2014 by Public Insight Network. I’m keeping the link ready (and my fingers crossed!) for the next re-launch.

VI. Making Policy (Click on link to access notes.)

VII. Domestic Policy (Click on link to access notes.)

VIII. Economic Policy (Click on link to access notes.)

The Presidency and Foreign Policy

I. Qualifications

A. Must be a natural-born citizen of the US (can be born abroad of parents who are American citizens).

B. Must be 35 years of age.

C. Must be a resident of the US for at least 14 years (but not necessarily the 14 years preceding the election).

II. Benefits

A. White House

The White House: Where the President and First Family live and conduct the people’s business

Touring the White House (4:31)

The Art in the Oval Office Tells a Story

B. an office building

Eisenhower Executive Office Building: the offices of the White House staff

C. a chef

D. a salary of $400,000 per year (taxable)

E. expense account of $50,000 per year (taxable)

F. travel expenses of $100,000 per year (tax-free)

G. a place in the country: Camp David

H. a personal airplane: Air Force One

15 Amazing Things about Air Force One (20:46)

Air Force One: The President’s Office in the Sky

VC-25 - Air Force One

Boeing Air Force One

Air Force One Debacle: Boeing has now lost more than $1 billion on each of the president’s two new jets.

Air Force One: Everything You Need to Know - dated but interesting

I. a helicopter

Marine One

New Marine One will change aviation. Best Helicopter Ever? (10:49)

Inside The New Marine One (10:08)

J. pension, on retirement, cabinet member's salary (taxable)

K. staff support on leaving the presidency

 

 

AIR FORCE ONE: OBAMA ON BOARD (2:36)	AIR FORCE ONE: BLACK, WITH EQUAL (0:40)
[If you see the message Error Loading Image in either of the two players above, just ignore it and hit the play button.]

III. The President's Roles

A. Commander in Chief of the Military

The President is responsible for all military decisions. Ultimately, any military action taken by this nation is his responsibility. This is particularly important because of the nature of the use of weapons ... they start wars and people die.

B. Chief Diplomat

The President is the nation's chief diplomat. It is his responsibility to negotiate treaties and conduct foreign affairs.

C. Chief Executive

All of the heads of the agencies in Washington report to the President. In the end he is responsible for carrying out the law and making sure the bureaucracy runs efficiently.

D. Head Legislator

Often the President suggests laws and he is always pushing for legislation he feels is important. In this function he often acts as a lobbyist, exerting pressure and shepherding bills through Congress. The President must also sign and/or veto legislation.

E. Leader of Public Opinion

The President is the one office for which the entire nation votes. He represents and leads the nation. This is particularly difficult considering the contentious nature of politics. Often in trying to lead public opinion he only serves to enrage half of the country. That's what politics is all about.

F. Head of His/Her Political Party

The President is responsible for helping to get members of his party elected / reelected (as well as himself). While this is not an official function it is very time-consuming.

IV. The Powers of the President

A. According to Article II of the Constitution the President has the following powers:

1. Serve as commander in chief of the armed forces

2. Commission officers of the armed forces

3. Grant reprieves and pardons for federal offenses (except impeachment)

4. Convene Congress in special sessions

5. Receive ambassadors

6. Take care that the laws be faithfully executed

7. Wield the "executive power"

8. Appoint officials to lesser offices

B. Powers shared with the Senate

1. Make treaties

2. Appoint ambassadors, judges and high officials

C. Powers shared with Congress

1. Approve legislation

V. The First Lady

Historically, the president's wife was little more than a campaign adornment and White House hostess. In modern times, however, that changed. Most Americans are now aware of the large role Eleanor Roosevelt played during her husband's presidential terms, even if they weren't aware at the time. Later presidential wives' power and influence depended in large part on what their husband's administration allowed them to have. That changed with Rosalynn Carter, who formalized and standardized the role of the first lady.

Whether or not they were supporters of Jimmy Carter, almost everyone considered his wife the most influential First Lady since Eleanor Roosevelt. Rosalynn Carter, a close political and policy adviser to her husband, President Jimmy Carter, created the modern office of the first lady. With her husband’s support and over the objections of others, she expanded the role of the first lady. She attended Cabinet meetings and security briefings, worked on mental health and other policy priorities, and formally created the Office of the First Lady in the East Wing with its own chief of staff. In May and June 1977, President Carter dispatched his wife on a diplomatic trip to Latin America that was substantive rather than social, and was unprecedented for a first lady. She engaged Central and South American government figures on issues that included human rights, beef exports, arms reduction, demilitarization, drug trafficking and nuclear energy. After each day’s talks, she filed a report with the US State Department. At many of her meetings, she spoke in Spanish, having recently completed an intensive language course.

The power and influence a specific first lady wields is and, to a large degree will remain, dependent on what that first lady is comfortable with and the sort of role she is interested in playing. Too, as we've seen with some of the first ladies since Rosalynn Carter, some presidents are not comfortable with their wives taking on any roles beyond White House hostess. Still, it is unlikely that first ladies will ever return to the largely background role played by their historical predecessors.

US First Ladies Collection

How Two First Ladies Weathered a Most Unusual Presidential Transition

The school for First Ladies is now in session.

First Ladies Website

 

 

Presidential Approval Ratings By Administration

Time improves former presidents’ standing among voters.

Gallup asked Americans whether, in retrospect, they approve or disapprove of the job each former president did.

State of the Union (SOTU)

The American Presidency Project: State of the Union Messages

State of the Union videos and transcripts

How the State of the Union Became a Picture of Disunion: Historically, the SOTU doesn’t move the polls much. It’s mostly watched by highly engaged partisans who already hold firm views about the president.

Supreme Court Nominations Not Confirmed

Most of Trump’s executive orders aren’t actually executive orders. Here’s why that matters.

White House Tapes: The President Is Calling

White House Tapes: The President Calling: Three of America's most compelling presidents -- Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon -- bugged their White House offices and tapped their telephones. In this documentary project, American Radio Works eavesdrops on presidential telephone calls to hear how each man used one-on-one politics to shape history. Includes audio, a transcript of the documentary and background information on each president and the tapes.

Video: FDR’s First Fireside Chat, 1933 (13:01)

Video: FDR Asks Congress for Declaration on War against Japan, 1941 (4:47)

Video: President Eisenhower’s Farewell Address, 1961 (9:28), in which he warns of the dangers of the unprecedented and vast military-industrial complex

Video: JFK’s Inaugural Address, 1961 (15:26)

Video: JFK’s Cuban Missile Crises Speech to the Nation, 1962 (16:58)

Video: JFK’s Speech near the Berlin Wall, 1963 (10:09)

Video: JFK’s Civil Rights Message, 1963 (10:41)

Audio: LBJ Takes Presidential Oath on Air Force One, 1963 (0:43)

Video: LBJ’s Comments on Returning to Washington after JFK’s Death, 1963 (0:42)

Video: LBJ Signs the Civil Rights Act, 1964 (9:57)

Video: LBJ’s Speech Withdrawing from His Re-election Campaign, 1968 (14:50)

Video: John Dean’s Testimony on the Watergate Cover-up, 1973 (17:35)

Video: Representative Barbara Jordan’s Statement to the House Judiciary Committee on the Proposed Impeachment of Pres. Nixon, 1974 (13:18)

Video: Pres. Richard Nixon’s Resignation Speech, 1974 (8:22)

Video: Pres. Jimmy Carter’s Fireside Chat on the Energy Crisis, 1977 (12:32)

Video: Pres. Reagan’s Star Wars Proposal, 1983 (20:31)

Video: Pres. Reagan Speaks at the Berlin Wall, 1987 (5:23)

Video: Pres. Reagan’s Farewell Address, 1989 (20:48)

American Presidents Website

VI. Making Policy (Click on link to access notes.)

VII. Foreign Policy (Click on link to access notes.)

The National Bureaucracy

The executive branch consists of a number of different people/offices other than the president.

I. Vice President

Traditionally, the power of the vice president has depended on the president. The Constitution makes the VP the 'president' of the Senate, but he has no actual power in the Senate. The Constitution mainly provides for a VP who waits around for the president to die. Few VPs, then, are given any real power by their president. Most presidents don't like their VPs (since each was chosen to balance a ticket and has little in common with the president) and don't trust their VPs (since they assume the VP is out to replace him).

United States Naval Observatory: The Vice President’s Residence

Air Force Two: Inside the Vice President’s Plane

Kamala Harris is trying to define her vice presidency.

II. Cabinet

The cabinet is the collective heads of the various executive departments - the head of State, Defense, Commerce, etc. The cabinet was intended to come together and act as a source of wisdom for the president on policy matters. After all, you have in one group the leading authority of every subject in the country. However, the cabinet has never been a major source of policy because members tend to think in terms of departmental interests, rather than national interest.

III. White House Staff / Office

These are the presidential advisors that actually have offices in the White House. These people - the press secretary, the national security advisor, etc. - will always be the president's closest advisors since, unlike any other officials, they have daily access to the president.

IV. Executive Office of the President

These agencies report directly to the president and perform services directly for him but are not located in the White House. Their contact with the president is direct, but not as intimate as the White House staff. The Executive Office of the President includes such positions as the CIA director and the OMB director.

V. Bureaucrats

...the people who are responsible for implementation: putting specific policies into operation. The chief advantage of a bureaucracy is that is tends to standardize everything so that procedures and personnel can be easily transferred or replaced. Today over 85% of the government operates on the merit system. It is this vast group of people that add stability to the government. Presidents, congressman, judges may come and go but the bureaucracy remains the same. The chief disadvantage of a bureaucracy is that is tends to standardize everything so that people become numbers and problems become cases.  How far can the bureaucracy go in the name of efficiency? By the way, most people who work in government don’t work in Washington:  85% of the federal workforce is based elsewhere, and nearly 18 million of the 20 million civilian government jobs are at the state and local level.

Homeland Security Knowledge Base

Pentagon Official News

Could a president use the Justice Department to jail his/her rivals?

 

The National Judicial System

The legal system is a complicated one and can be confusing. I would like to start by defining a few terms which are essential to any discussion of the courts and criminal justice but with which you may have some difficulty. Feel free to refer back to this list whenever you need to do so.

The world has two major legal systems: common law and civil law.

The common law legal system emphasizes the role of judges in determining the meaning of laws and how they apply (US, UK).

The civil law legal system relies more on legislature than judicial decisions to determine what the law is (France)..

There are also several types of law.

Constitutional Law: establishes the framework of the state whose purpose is to protect property in its broadest sense

Administrative and Regulatory Law: concerns the public laws that protect, tax, regulate or redistribute resources

Criminal Law: considered to be crimes against the state. Crimes in Texas are divided into misdemeanors and felonies. Criminal cases involve a representative of government attempting to prove the wrong committed against society and seeking to have the wrongdoer punished by the court system. Because criminal law deals with crimes against the state, a person accused of violating the criminal code is tried by the state. The state pays for the trial, provides the defendant with an attorney if necessary, and pays for the punishment if the defendant is punished (e.g., prison time). Check your textbook for the graded offenses system we have in Texas. Pay attention, as well, to the newest type of offense - the state jail felony.

Civil Law: deals with relations between two private parties - for example, a business contract that has been violated. Civil cases may include suits for breach of contract or tort cases, such as suits for personal injuries. Typically, they involve a request for damages or other appropriate relief.  In a civil action, the people involved must pay. The person who sues you must pay for his or her attorney and court costs. You must hire an attorney to defend you. The defendant pays for any punishment - a cash settlement, for example. (Don't confuse civil (or noncriminal) lawsuits with a civil law legal system, which is one emphasizing the importance of the legislature in determining the meaning of laws.)

In any given act, there may be grounds for both a criminal trial and a civil trial. The two are very different things, however, with different rules and what occurs in one has no bearing on what may occur in the other.

Tort Law: protects and compensates owners through private civil lawsuits when their resources are wrongfully harmed by the actions of others

Within the court system, not every court is able to hear every case. Jurisdiction: refers to the types of cases a court is competent to hear.

Some courts have only original jurisdiction, meaning that court may only hear a case the first time it is tried. Don’t let the idea of ‘first time’ confuse you. If a case ends in any way other than a verdict, if for example it ends in a mistrial or hung jury, it still hasn’t been heard the first time. If you are on trial for murder your first trial is an original case. If the trial ends in a hung jury - they cannot decide your guilt or innocence - and the district attorney decides to retry the case, the next case will still be an original case and must be heard by a court that has jurisdiction over original cases.

Once a verdict has been reached, however, you may appeal the decision to a court that has appellate jurisdiction, meaning that court hears cases on appeal. Some courts have only original jurisdiction. Some have only appellate jurisdiction. Some courts have both original and appellate jurisdiction.

In Texas, there are also several levels of courts, the higher of which have jurisdiction over the more important cases. (More about that below.)

There are many terms that are important during the legal process.

Stare Decisis: the doctrine of prior precedents. The Latin meaning is let the prior decision stand. Under stare decisis, judges in current cases follow whenever possible the interpretation of law determined by judges in prior cases.

Case Law: the judicial decisions that apply to a legal problem, a collection of past legal decisions written by courts and similar tribunals in the course of deciding cases.

Pros and Cons of Stare Decisis:

Pros: predictability, fairness, uniformity, efficiency

Cons: times change, distinguishable cases, conflicts/confusion, volume of cases

Substantive Law: defines the legal relationship of people with other people or between them and the state. Substantive due process is used to evaluate whether a law can be applied by states at all, regardless of the procedure followed.  Substantive rules of law define rights and duties.

Procedural Law: deals with the method and means by which the substantive law is made and administered. Procedural rules of law provide the machinery for enforcing those rights and duties. Procedural due process, based on principles of fundamental fairness, addresses which legal procedures are required to be followed in state proceedings.

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt: the burden of proof required in a criminal case. The prosecution in a criminal case has the burden of proving the defendant is guilty and the jury must have no reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt.

Preponderance of Evidence: the burden of proof required in a civil case. Requires the party with the burden of proof to demonstrate that an allegation or argument is more likely to be true than false.  In other words, in light of the evidence and the law, do you believe that each element of his/her [claim/counterclaim] is more likely true than not?

Jury Instructions: a statement made by the judge to the jury informing them of the law applicable to the case. The jury is bound to accept and apply those instructions.

A. courts settle disputes, not policy matters

B. must have standing (be a party to the case and suffer damages)

C. must follow precedent (previous court decisions)

D. courts are passive, not active like legislators or executives

II. Judicial Federalism

Comparing National and State Court Systems

A. Jurisdiction: the types of cases a court is competent to hear and decide

B. federal vs. state jurisdiction

1. federal: interstate commerce, immigration, terrorism, diversity of citizenship

2. state: murder, armed robbery, theft, intrastate commerce, state disputes

C. trial vs. appellate jurisdiction

1. trial court

   1. questions of fact (guilt/innocence)

   2. citizen participation (jury, witnesses): Although, as a citizen, you are most likely to participate in the judicial process through voting for a judicial candidate.

   3. local matters

2. appellate/appeals court

   1. questions of law and procedure

   2. regional and national matters

   3. set precedents for lower courts

III. The National Courts

The US Constitution created one national court - the Supreme Court - but did not mandate its structure. Instead the structure of the Supreme Court is determined by Congress. Originally, the Supreme Court had a chief justice and five associate justices. Today, it has a chief justice and 8 associate justices.

The Constitution also gave Congress the power to create any additional national courts necessary. Over time, the national court structure has evolved into what we have today, with 91 national district courts, 13 national appeals courts, the Supreme Court and a handful of specialized national courts.

THE STRUCTURE OF THE NATIONAL COURT SYSTEM
The Court System US Supreme Court US Courts of Appeal US District Courts (trial courts) and US Bankruptcy Courts US Court of International Trade US Court of Federal Claims	US Courts Martial US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims US Tax Court Federal Administrative agencies and boards State Courts

The president appoints all national judges. Each level of the national court system has its own jurisdiction (types of cases a court is competent to hear and decide). The national district courts are courts of original jurisdiction, while the national appeals courts have appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has both types of jurisdiction, depending on the case. It exercises its appellate jurisdiction when it hears an appeal from a lower court. When the Supreme Court hears a case directly it is exercising original jurisdiction.

Comparing National and State Court Systems

Types of Supreme Court Cases Heard

The Supreme Court hears three types of cases:

two-thirds are cases appealed from lower federal courts

one-third are cases appealed from state supreme courts

Rarely, the court hear cases that have not been previously heard by a lower court, such as between one state's government and another.

The justices decide which cases they will hear, about 80 each year. The US Supreme Court decides fewer cases than any other court in modern times. In recent years, the Court has heard an average of about 80 cases a term, which is half the number they heard 20 years ago and makes up fewer than 1% of the approximately 10,000 review petitions they receive. They decide another 50 without hearing arguments. The cases they choose usually address constitutional issues or federal law. The Court decides cases based on merit: cases in which two lower courts have issued contradictory decisions and issues that have broad impact on the country. Judicial review is the power of courts to declare acts of Congress, actions of national executives or laws enacted by any level of government to be unconstitutional. There are many cases that don't get heard. If the justices decide not to hear a case, the decision of the lower court stands.

What Happens When the Supreme Court Hears a Case?

Typically, all nine of the justices hear each case. Sometimes less than the full nine justices may hear a case due to illness, a vacant position, or if one justice recuses him/herself (chooses not to participate in a case) due to conflict of interest. A minimum of six of the nine judges must be present to make a decision on a case.

Each case is decided by majority vote. In case of a tie, the decision of the lower court is upheld.

Since the court only reviews cases which are appealed from a lower court, there is no evidence presented, and no witnesses are heard. There are simply briefs (written arguments) and oral argument by the parties. Each side has 30 minutes to present oral arguments, and the justices interrupt with questions while they are speaking.

After the attorneys are finished speaking, the justices meet in secret to discuss the case and come to a decision. No official record is kept of this discussion.

When the Supreme Court announces what they have decided in a case, they issue a formal document called a decision, and sometimes more than one.

The conclusion of the court is a majority opinion.

The justices that disagreed with the majority vote may issue one or more dissenting opinions, explaining their reasons for disagreeing.

Sometimes, one or more justices may be on the majority side but disagree with the reasoning behind the decision, and issue a concurring opinion.

In recent years many long-held traditions of the Court have changed or been dropped without explanation. The Supreme Court building has been closed to the public since the beginning of the pandemic in 2020. Then, not long after the leak in early May 2022 of a draft of the opinion that overruled Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court building was surrounded by an eight-foot fence. Always cloistered and remote, the Court is now impenetrable.

For unexplained reasons, the justices have stopped announcing their decisions from the bench, abandoning a tradition that is both ceremonial and illuminating. In the old days, the author of the majority opinion would give a quick and conversational summary of the ruling that could be extremely valuable for a reporter on deadline and, by extension, for members of the public trying to understand a decision. More important yet were oral dissents, reserved for decisions that the justices in the minority believed were profoundly mistaken. Ordinarily, one or more of the justices who dissent in a case would raise their voices in protest. These days, the Court makes do with posting PDFs of its decisions, robbing the occasion of ceremony, drama and insight.

The Supreme Court opinion allowing Texas to ban nearly all abortions (2021) was different from most major rulings by the court. This one came out shortly before midnight. It consisted of a single paragraph, not signed by the justices who voted for it and lacking the usual detailed explanation of their reasoning. And there had been no oral arguments, during which opposing lawyers could have made their cases and answered questions from the justices. Instead, the opinion was part of something that has become known as “the shadow docket.” In the shadow docket, the court makes decisions quickly, without the usual written briefings, oral arguments or signed opinions. In recent years, the shadow docket has become a much larger part of the Supreme Court’s work. Shadow-docket cases are frequently those with urgency - such as a voting case that must be decided in the final weeks before an election. As a result, the justices don’t always have time to solicit briefs, hold oral arguments and spend months grappling with their decision. Doing so can risk irreparable harm to one side in the case. For these reasons, nobody questions the need for the court to issue some expedited, bare-bones rulings. But many legal experts are worried about how big the shadow docket has grown, including in cases that the Supreme Court could have decided in a more traditional way.

Why have the justices expanded the shadow docket? In part, it is a response to a newfound willingness by lower courts to issue decisions that apply to the entire country. By acting quickly, the Supreme Court can retain its dominant role. But there is also a political angle. Shadow-docket cases can let the court act quickly and also shield individual justices from criticism: In the latest abortion case, there is no signed opinion for legal scholars to pick apart, and no single justice is personally associated with the virtual end of legal abortion in Texas. The only reason that the public knows the precise vote - 5 to 4 - is that the four justices in the minority each chose to release a signed dissent. Critics argue that judges in a democracy owe the public more transparency. The idea of unexplained, unreasoned court orders seems so contrary to what courts are supposed to be all about. If courts don’t have to defend their decisions, then they’re just acts of will, of power. The shadow docket also leaves lower-court judges unsure about what exactly the Supreme Court has decided and how to decide similar cases they later hear. Because the lower-court judges don’t know why the Supreme Court does what it does, they sometimes divide sharply when forced to interpret the court’s non-pronouncements.

Currently, the court’s six Republican-appointed justices are driving the growth of the shadow docket, and it is consistent with their overall approach to the law. They are often (though not always) willing to be aggressive, overturning longstanding precedents, in campaign finance, election law, business regulation and other areas. The shadow docket expands their ability to shape American society. The three Democratic-appointed justices, for their part, have grown frustrated by the trend. Chief Justice Roberts also evidently disagrees with the use of the shadow docket in the Texas abortion case. In his dissent, joining the three liberal justices, he said the court could instead have blocked the Texas law while it made its way through the courts. That the court chose another path means that abortion is now all but illegal in the nation’s second-largest state.

One new line of reasoning recently introduced in SCOTUS arguments is the Major Questions Doctrine (MQD). Federal agencies are given great power to operate within the authority granted to them by Congress. Historically, courts have given agencies broad discretion as long as they are not operating in a way that is not expressly restricted and where they can show that their interpretation is reasonable. However, the MQD, a term the Court never used in a majority opinion prior to 2022, is a principle of statutory interpretation in US administrative law which states that courts will presume that Congress does not delegate to executive agencies issues of major political or economic significance. When the US Supreme Court issued its 2022 decision in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, the majority concluded that the EPA’s policy involved a major question, and that the agency went too far in its attempt to regulate, without explicit permission from Congress to do so. This signaled a turn away from how the Court traditionally interpreted statutes and was at odds with the normal tools of statutory interpretation. Advocates of limiting the power of the federal bureaucracy cheered, while others worried that it could prevent the government from taking decisive action on urgent problems like climate change, student loans, healthcare and so on. Under the MQD, courts make an initial finding of whether something has vast political or economic implications - and if so, the agency loses. The MQD stops agency action, even if a law potentially gives them the power, until Congress authorizes the action again clearly. That seems okay because Congress can, in principle, still act. But the odds of current congressional action are quite poor. Congress, in other words, isn’t going to do what the MQD says it is meant to do. The MQD could potentially be quite harmful since the whole point of an administrative state is to allow broad delegation to agencies. It suggests that the Court does not really respect governmental choices about delegating power to agencies. Rather, the Court looks like an imperial court, motivated by power, not reason. And the MQD stops healthy action, especially in areas where it’s most needed - like climate action or regulation of emerging technologies. The MQD seems to be simply an expression of judicial aggrandizement. It creates a bureaucracy unable to function and imposes an unconstitutional judicial limit on US administrative law. The major questions doctrine inherently benefits the status quo, and with industry, the environment and society evolving at a pace far faster than Congress can legislate with the specificity required, the ruling has cast doubt on how agencies will be able to act on the major issues of our day. If Congress will not act on important issues because the parties are too busy fighting, and the Court stops agencies and the President (see Biden v. Nebraska (2023)) from acting, the country is going to be in real trouble.

What Do Supreme Court Justices Do Besides Hear Cases?

In remarks in May 2022, Justice Clarence Thomas reflected on how things had changed at the Court since an 11-year stretch without changes in its membership before the arrival of Chief Justice John Roberts in 2005. “This is not the Court of that era,” Justice Thomas said, adding: “We actually trusted each other. We may have been a dysfunctional family, but we were a family.” A less collegial Court seems like it could be especially problematic for justices in the minority. There are now five Republican-appointed justices who are even more conservative than Chief Justice Roberts. If the Court is a less collaborative place, it probably gives justices in the minority less ability to shape decisions. It’s possible to overstate the power of collegiality, though. Justices cast votes based on the strength of the relevant arguments and the desired outcomes, not on how likable their colleagues are. The justices also say there is no vote-trading across cases. On the other hand, there are certainly negotiations within cases. It seems fairly clear, for instance, that Justices Breyer and Kagan shifted positions in one part of the 2012 case that upheld a key portion of the Affordable Care Act to make certain they would secure Chief Justice Roberts’s vote on another part. Justices may well be prepared to narrow or reshape a draft opinion that seeks to speak for a five-justice majority in exchange for a vote. But once the author has gotten to five, the value of another potential vote plummets. It is that dynamic that must worry the Court’s minority justices.

The Portrait of Justice

Table for Nine (Lunch at the US Supreme Court)

The justices usually make an effort to treat one another respectfully. They disagree on the law, sometimes harshly, while maintaining productive and even warm relationships, like the famous friendship between Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Video: The Supreme Court held a swearing in ceremony for Ketanji Brown Jackson (06/30/2022) to be the first Black woman on the nation’s highest court. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the constitutional oath and outgoing Justice Stephen Breyer delivered the judicial oath. (3:30)

Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Advice for Living

Speaking of collegiality … On June 30, 2022, Justice Breyer officially retired and helped swear in his replacement, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. When a new justice joins the Supreme Court, tradition requires the second-most junior justice to arrange a little party. In 2006, for instance, when Justice Samuel Alito came on board, that task fell to Justice Breyer, who knew his new colleague to be a Phillies fan. Before dessert was served, Justice Breyer introduced a special guest: the Phillie Phanatic, the team’s mascot. This year, Justice Amy Coney Barrett is the second-most junior justice and will presumably be in charge of the welcoming celebration for Justice Jackson.

The Court is in recess from sometime near the end of June until October each year. During the break justices analyze new petitions for review, consider motions and applications, study argued and forthcoming cases and work on their opinions, travel extensively, make public appearances and speeches (for which they are well compensated), and write books and articles. The justices often teach courses in exotic places. In 2012, for instance, after voting to uphold the Affordable Care Act (and thus angering Republicans), Chief Justice Roberts left for Malta to teach a two-week class on the history of the US Supreme Court. “Malta, as you know, is an impregnable island fortress,” Roberts said. “It seemed like a good idea.”

Because the justices do not meet to decide whether to grant or deny review in cases during the summer months, thousands of legal petitions pile up during their absence. The Court plows through this backlog at their first conference (aptly referred to as the “long conference”) in the last week of September. But they obviously cannot give these petitions the same consideration as those that arrive later in the term. (For this reason, savvy appellate attorneys know that it is best to avoid filing petitions over the summer if they can.) When pressing issues arise during the recess, the matter is often handled by a single justice “in chambers” who must make important decisions about whether to grant stays, injunctions or extensions without consulting with his/her absent colleagues.

A charity tied to the Supreme Court offers donors access to the Justices.

Former Anti-Abortion Leader Alleges Another Supreme Court Breach

On November 13, 2023, the US Supreme Court announced that it had adopted a Code of Conduct for its justices. The code specified that justices should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary; avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety; perform their duties fairly, impartially and diligently; engage in extrajudicial activities that are consistent with the obligations of the judicial office; and refrain from political activity. The Supreme Court had been the only court in the country without a binding ethics code and that lack had led to increased scrutiny, especially in cases where the justices’ conduct or potential conflicts of interest raised questions about their independence, impartiality and political neutrality. The justices adopted the new code, they explained, only because of some “misunderstanding” by the public about their honesty and integrity, and asserted that the code simply summarized ethical restrictions that the Court has long followed anyway. The code also called for the justices to judge themselves. There was no mechanism to enforce, apply or even interpret the code, and the principles themselves included multiple loopholes not found in the codes of the lower courts. Courts cannot function unless the public has faith that they are acting impartially and with moral integrity, and it is crucial to have robust and enforceable safeguards in place to ensure that happens.

The Most Ridiculous, Right-Wing Supreme Court That Dark Money Could Buy

How a Corporate Law Firm Led a Political Revolution

Gridlock in Congress has amplified the power of the Supreme Court.

A new report reveals how Chief Justice John Roberts rewrote the playbook and helped Trump clinch a win with the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling.

How Chief Justice John Roberts shaped Donald Trump’s Supreme Court winning streak.

As unanimity declines, conservative majority’s power runs deeper than the blockbuster cases.

Supreme Court Jurisdiction

Under the Constitution, federal courts exercise only judicial powers. The Supreme Court only considers cases that are justiciable:

o   the petitioner has standing to sue (stake in outcome): In an actual case or controversy, the plaintiff in a federal lawsuit also must have legal standing to ask the court for a decision. That means the plaintiff must have been aggrieved, or legally harmed in some way, by the defendant. This means that federal judges may interpret the law only through the resolution of actual legal disputes, referred to in Article III of the Constitution as “Cases or Controversies.” A court cannot attempt to correct a problem on its own initiative, or to answer a hypothetical legal question.

o   the case is ripe for decision (will have an impact on the country)

o   it is not moot (has not already been decided): it must present an ongoing problem for the court to resolve

o   it is not a political question (an issue with which the Congress or the President should deal)

The case must present a category of dispute that the law in question was designed to address, and it must be a complaint that the court has the power to remedy. In other words, the court must be authorized, under the Constitution or a federal law, to hear the case and grant appropriate relief to the plaintiff. The federal courts, thus, are courts of limited jurisdiction because they may only decide certain types of cases as provided by Congress or as identified in the Constitution .Although the details of the complex web of federal jurisdiction that Congress has given the federal courts is beyond the scope of this brief discussion, it is important to understand that there are two main sources of the cases coming before the federal courts: federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction.

In general, federal question jurisdiction arises in cases that involve the US government, the US Constitution or federal laws, or controversies between states or between the United States and foreign governments. A case that raises such a federal question may be filed in federal court. Examples of such cases might include a claim by an individual for entitlement to money under a federal government program such as Social Security, a criminal prosecution by the government that alleges someone violated a federal law, or a challenge to actions taken by a federal agency.

A diversity jurisdiction case also may be filed in federal court based on the diversity of citizenship of the litigants, such as between citizens of different states or between US citizens and those of another country. To ensure fairness to the out-of-state litigant, the Constitution provides that such cases may be heard in a federal court. An important limit to diversity jurisdiction is that only cases involving more than $75,000 in potential damages may be filed in a federal court. Claims below that amount may only be pursued in state court. Moreover, any diversity jurisdiction case regardless of the amount of money involved may be brought in a state court rather than a federal court.

Federal courts also have jurisdiction over all bankruptcy matters, which Congress has determined should be addressed in federal courts rather than the state courts. Through the bankruptcy process, individuals or businesses that can no longer pay their creditors may either seek a court-supervised liquidation of their assets, or they may reorganize their financial affairs and work out a plan to pay their debts.

Although federal courts are located in every state, they are not the only forum available to potential litigants. In fact, the great majority of legal disputes in American courts, civil or criminal, are addressed in the separate state court systems. State courts have jurisdiction over virtually all divorce and child custody matters, probate and inheritance issues, real estate questions, and juvenile matters, and they handle most criminal cases, contract disputes, traffic violations, and personal injury cases. In addition, certain categories of legal disputes may be resolved in special courts or entities that are part of the federal executive or legislative branches or state and federal administrative agencies.

                                            HOW A CASE GETS TO THE SUPREME COURT

A Primer on Supreme Court Procedures

Video: Touring the Supreme Court (2:49)

Video: Chief Justice Roberts on the Role of the Supreme Court (2:15)

Contrary to popular belief the Supreme Court has traditionally been limited by a number of factors:

o   The Constitution sets certain outer limits by guaranteeing certain rights and liberties.

Dissenting Opinions: Bucking their traditional reserve, judges from across the spectrum are publicly disagreeing with the Supreme Court justices and decisions.

o   Past decisions – Precedents must serve as general guidelines for current decisions. A super-precedent is a case that is so deeply embedded in the fabric of the law that it should be especially hard to overturn, a decision so widely accepted that it is invulnerable to serious legal challenges that could see it overturned, a cases that is so well settled that no one seriously pushes for its overruling, e.g., Brown v. Board of Education (1954 ruling that outlawed racial segregation in public schools), Marbury v. Madison (1803) decision giving courts the authority to strike down laws as unconstitutional. Recent decisions by the current very conservative Court, however, have shown that the current Court does not feel bound by precedent.

Video: Justice Elena Kagan on Legal Precedent (5:02)

o   The Supreme Court does not have any enforcement power. However, as recent decisions have shown, if state legislatures agree with the Court, they will provide enforcement power of the Court's decisions.

o   The Supreme Court relies on public acceptance of its rulings ... although that seems to be changing. The Court's rejection of Roe v. Wade and a constitutional right to reproductive choice (2022) was unpopular with an overwhelming majority of the country.

SCOTUS asked governors to quell non-violent protests.

Supreme Court justices don’t like being criticized in public, which is a good reason to keep doing it.

70% of Americans think the Supreme Court tries to shape the law to fits its members’ ideologies.

Why the Supreme Court Probably Doesn’t Care What Most Americans Think about Abortion or Gun Rights

o   The public must be willing to follow a ruling even if it doesn't like it.

The Supreme Court’s priorities and ideological orientation are increasingly out of step with those of many citizens but Supreme Court opinions don’t have to be the final word.

Confidence in US Courts Plummets to Rate Far Below Peer Nations

o   Congress can rewrite legislation so that it avoids the rational the Supreme Court gave for its decision..Of course, this assumes a Congress that can agree on legislation.

Congress has the power to override Supreme Court rulings.

o   We can amend the Constitution, which could negate any ruling the Supreme Court may have made on any applicable issue. However, as the past has shown, amending the US Constitution is difficult, perhaps impossible in modern times.

10 ways to fix a broken Supreme Court

Video: Former Justice Breyer on Packing the Court and Term Limits (3:18)

There are limits to the Supreme Court’s power: Political progressives and moderates who are alarmed about the 2022 Court - the combination of its aggressiveness and the relative youth of its conservative members - have many options for confronting it.

Some options are fairly radical, like changing the size of the Court or passing a law declaring any subject to be off limits from Supreme Court review (both of which, to be fair, have happened in previous centuries). Other options are more straightforward. They involve the basic tools of democratic politics: winning over public opinion and winning elections. The founders did not design the Court to be the final arbiter of American politics, anyway. At the state level, progressives still have the ability, for example, to protect abortion rights, so long as they can persuade enough voters. At the federal level, Congress has more authority to defy Court decisions than many people realize. For example, the same-sex marriage bill is so intriguing because it is a rare recent instance of Congress acting as a check and balance on the Supreme Court, just as the founders envisioned and the Constitution allows.

When the Court overturns a specific law, Congress can often pass a new law, written differently, that accomplishes many of the same goals. Congress took this approach with civil rights starting in the 1980s, including with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which made it easier for workers to sue for pay discrimination. The law was an explicit response to a Supreme Court ruling against Ledbetter. More recently, however, Congress has been too polarized and gridlocked to respond to Court decisions. As a result, the courts have tended to dominate federal policy, by default.

However, after the Court’s abortion decision in June 2022 contained language that seemed as if it might threaten same-sex marriage rights, House Democrats quickly proposed a marriage bill that would defang any future Court decision. The Court could still issue a ruling allowing states to stop performing same-sex marriages but the House bill would require one state to recognize another state’s marriage. Two women or men who married in, say, California would still be legally married in South Carolina even if it stopped performing same-sex weddings. According to a recent Gallup poll, 71% of Americans support same-sex marriage.

[It should be noted that progressives still face obstacles to achieving their goals through Congress. The Senate has a built-in bias toward rural, conservative states. The House suffers from gerrymandering (although 2022’s districts don’t actually give Republicans a big advantage). And the Supreme Court has made it easier for states to pass voting restrictions.]

Still...

The Right accuses the Supreme Court of being too liberal.

The Left accuses the Supreme Court of being too conservative.

If both Republican and Democratic presidents have been able to make their share of Supreme Court nominations over time (and that's a big "if" given the US Senate's behavior regarding Court appointees in the last decade), can we not say that, over time, we have had a balanced Supreme Court? As of 2022, however, an ambitious Republican-appointed majority controls the Supreme Court even though Democrats have won the popular vote in seven of the past eight presidential elections.

Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court   

Behind the Curtain at the Supreme Court

The first Supreme Court was held on this day 226 years ago

Rule of Law

Levels of the Federal Courts

Granting Certiorari

Judicial Independence

How Courts Work

Video: Justice Thomas on Questioning During Oral Arguments (4:23)

Understanding the Federal Courts (PDF)

Interactive Supreme Court Timeline

State Courts vs. Federal Courts: Which court hears the case?

United States Supreme Court Cases

Landmark Supreme Court Rulings

Federalism Court Cases

First Amendment Court Cases

Religious Freedom Court Cases

Freedom of the Press Court Cases

Civil Rights Court Cases

Criminal Rights Court Cases

The Court Martial Process

The Supreme Court’s Secret Power

What is Originalism? Debunking the myths

What is originalism? Did it underpin the Supreme Court’s ruling on abortion and guns? Debunking the myths

Video: Justice Gorsuch on Originalism and a Living Constitution (5:13)

A Supreme Court Justice sounds a warning.

The Supreme Court Just Keeps Deciding It Should Be Even More Powerful

The Supreme Court has decided they know more than everyone else about everything ever.

Justice Kagan: The majority disdains restraint and grasps for power … The justices are making a laughing-stock of long-standing judicial principles.

Justice Sotomayor is trying to warn us about the Supreme Court’s dirtiest open secret.

Justice Alito’s crusade against a secular America isn’t over.

The roots of today's authoritarianism come from a 19th century Supreme Court ruling.

Why November 8, 2016 is Judgment Day for the Supreme Court ... and Our Rights

Justice Barrett Says Roe v. Wade Is Not Super-Precedent

Religious Doctrine, Not the Constitution, Drove the Dobbs Decision

Abortion: A Global Overview

How the End of Roe Will Impact Women of Color in Texas

Roe v Wade (1973), annotated

Dobbs v Jackson (2022), annotated

Full Text of Supreme Court Justices' Dissenting Opinion on Dobbs v Jackson

The Legal Reasoning Behind the Supreme Court Overturning Roe v. Wade (5:58)

A History of Key Abortion Rulings of the US Supreme Court

Takeaways from the latest controversial and contentious Supreme Court term

“I Cannot Think of Many Things More Frightening”: The Supreme Court Has Declared War on Governing (WV v. EPA)

Video: National Constitution Center’s Jeffrey Rosen talked about executive privilege vs congressional oversight and the Supreme Court case McGrain v. Daugherty that occurred during the Teapot Dome Scandal in the 1920s. (2:09)

Video: National Constitution Center’s Jeffrey Rosen talked about the idea of executive privilege and the Supreme Court case United States v. Nixon in 1974. (3:47)

SCOTUS vs. the Executive Branch

Video: In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in the Supreme Court Case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018). The court's majority opinion was narrow in how they interpreted the case involving gay rights and the first amendment protections of business owners. Los Angeles Times Supreme Court Reporter explained the ruling and the potential impact of the decision.

Video: Becket Fund for Religion Liberty Vice President and Senior Counsel Eric Rassbach talked about the Carson v. Makin (2022) Supreme Court ruling that the state of Maine may not exclude religious schools from a state tuition program. (6:04)

The Supreme Court’s Extreme Power Grab (WV v. EPA)

For decades, Justice Thomas has had a deeply pessimistic view of the country, rooted in his reading of the Fourteenth Amendment.

IV. National Criminal Justice System

A federal crime or federal offense is an act that is illegal under US law. Examples include tax evasion, possession of weapons banned by the National Firearms Act, mail fraud, aircraft hijacking, espionage, and assassinating or attempting assassination of the President or Vice President. A federal crime is prosecuted under federal criminal law, not under state criminal law. The US district courts are the general trial courts of the US federal courts. Both civil and criminal cases are filed in the district court. Prosecution guidelines are established by the US Attorney in each federal judicial district and by federal laws. The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is the US federal law enforcement agency within the Department of Justice that operates US federal prisons and is responsible for the care, custody and control of federal prisoners. The US has the largest population of incarcerated people in the world.

Hidden Punishment: Destructive and Predatory Criminal Justice Fees

Civil Liberties and Civil Rights

The American system of government is based on the concept that power flows from the people to the government.

When the power of government is limited by a framework of fundamental written law,
that government is said to be constitutional.

I. Civil Liberties

...prohibitions against government interference in the lives of its citizens

Civil liberties refer to individuals in general situations.

my right to say what I please on the street

your right to worship in the church of your choice.

Civil liberties guarantee individuals freedom from government intrusion into their lives.

Government does not provide liberty but it can provide the condition of legal order necessary for liberty.

Government can get too strong without restraint -- thus the Bill of Rights -- but civil liberties are significant only if individuals use them.

Civil liberties are found in the Bill of Rights, Articles 1, 3 and 6, and in various Congressional laws -- for example, the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act.

Liberties Guaranteed in the US Constitution (before the Bill of Rights was added)

May not suspend writs of habeas corpus (except during invasion or rebellion).

Congress or states may not pass bills of attainder.

Congress and states may not pass ex post facto laws.

The right of trial by jury in criminal cases is guaranteed.

Citizens of each state are entitled to the privileges and immunities of the citizens of every other state.

No religious test or qualification for holding federal office are imposed.

States may not pass laws impairing the obligation of contracts.

Protections Afforded Citizens to Participate in the Political Process

Amendment 1: Freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly; right to petition government

Protections against Arbitrary Police and Court Action

Amendment 4: No unreasonable searches or seizures

Amendment 5: Grand jury indictment required to prosecute an individual for a serious crime, no double jeopardy (being tried twice for the same offense), forcing an individual to testify against himself prohibited, no loss of life, liberty or property without due process

Amendment 6: Right to a speedy, public, impartial trial with defense counsel and right to cross-examine witnesses

Amendment 7: Jury trials in civil suits where value exceeds $20

Amendment 8: No excessive bail or fines, no cruel and unusual punishments

Protections of States' Rights and Unnamed Rights of People

Amendment 9: Unlisted rights necessarily denied

Amendment 10: Powers not delegated to US or denied to states are reserved to states

Other Amendments

Amendment 2: Right to bear arms

Amendment 3: Troops not quartered in homes in peacetime

Although the Bill of Rights is the fundamental charter of American civil liberties, the Supreme Court determines how those rights are defined and applied.

Civil liberties were established at a time when the common perception was that individuals could take care of themselves if government left them alone. Gradually Americans became less optimistic about the individual's ability to take care of himself and more optimistic about the government's ability to take care of people.

Do you think this has led to our willingness to allow our freedoms to erode? Do we now say "the government can have my freedom of privacy if they will keep drugs off of my street"? If so, have our priorities shifted?

Know Your Rights: What to Do...

...If You're Stopped by the Police

Think carefully about your words, movement, body language and emotions.

Don't get into an argument with the police.

Remember, anything you say or do can be used against you.

Keep your hands where the police can see them.

Don't run. Don't touch any police officer.

Don't resist even if you believe you are innocent.

Don't complain on the scene or tell the police they're wrong or that you're going to file a complaint.

Do not make any statements regarding the incident. Ask for a lawyer immediately upon your arrest.

Remember officers' badge and patrol car numbers.

Write down everything you remember ASAP.

Try to find witnesses and their names and phone numbers.

If you are injured, take photographs of the injuries as soon as possible, but make sure you seek medical attention first.

If you feel your rights have been violated file a written complaint with police internal affairs division or a civilian complaint board.

...If You're Stopped for Questioning

1. It's not a crime to refuse to answer questions, but refusing to answer can make the police suspicious about you. If you are asked to identify yourself, see #2 at the bottom.

2. Police may "pat-down" your clothing if they suspect a concealed weapon. Don't physically resist but make it clear that you don't consent to any further search.

3. Ask if you are under arrest. If you are, you have a right to know why.

4. Don't bad-mouth the police or run away even if you believe what is happening is unreasonable. That could lead to your arrest.

...If You're Stopped in Your Car

1. Upon request, show them your driver's license, registration, and proof of insurance. In certain cases, your car can be searched without a warrant as long as the police have probable cause. To protect yourself later, you should make it clear that you do not consent to a search. It is not lawful for police to arrest you simply for refusing to consent to a search.

2. If you're given a ticket, you should sign it; otherwise you can be arrested. You can always fight the case in court later.

3. If you're suspected of drunk driving (DWI) and refuse to take a blood, urine or breath test, your driver's license may be suspended.

...If You're Arrested or Taken to a Police Station

1. You have the right to remain silent and to talk to a lawyer before you talk to the police. Tell the police nothing except your name and address. Don't give any explanations, excuses or stories. You can make your defense later, in court, based on what you and your lawyer decide is best.

2. Ask to see a lawyer immediately. If you can't pay for a lawyer, you have a right to a free one and should ask the police how the lawyer can be contacted. Don't say anything without a lawyer.

3. Within a reasonable time after your arrest, or booking, you have the right to make a local phone call: to a lawyer, bail bondsman, a relative or any other person. The police may not listen to the call to the lawyer.

4. Sometimes you can be released without bail or have bail lowered. Have your lawyer ask the judge about this possibility. You must be taken before the judge on the next court day after arrest.

5. Do not make any decisions in your case until you have talked with a lawyer.

 ...In Your Home

1. If the police knock and ask to enter your home, you don't have to admit them unless they have a warrant signed by a judge.

2. However, in some emergency situations (like when a person is screaming for help inside or when the police are chasing someone) officers are allowed to enter and search your home without a warrant.

3. If you're arrested, the police can search you and the area close by. If you are in a building, close by usually means just the room you are in.

1. What you say to the police is always important. What you say can be used against you and can give the police an excuse to arrest you, especially if you bad-mouth a police officer.

2. You must show your driver's license and registration when stopped in a car. Otherwise, you don't have to answer any questions if you are detained or arrested, with one important exception. The police may ask for your name if you have been properly detained and you can be arrested in some states for refusing to give it. If you reasonably fear that your name is incriminating, you can claim the right to remain silent, which may be a defense in case you are arrested anyway.

3. You don't have to consent to any search of yourself, your car or your house. If you DO consent to a search, it can affect your rights later in court. If the police say they have a search warrant, ASK TO SEE IT.

4. Do not interfere with or obstruct the police ... you can be arrested for it.

We all recognize the need for effective law enforcement, but we should also understand our own rights and responsibilities, especially in our relationships with the police. Everyone, including minors, has the right to courteous and respectful police treatment. If your rights are violated, don't try to deal with the situation at the scene. You can discuss the matter with an attorney afterwards or file a complaint with Internal Affairs or the Civilian Complaint Board.

Produced by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Black Lives Matter: Before you protest, know your rights

II. Civil Rights

...regulations permitting state interference to guarantee rights of full political participation to groups excluded by law, custom or condition of poverty

Civil rights are the freedom or opportunity to take part in government. They usually come about after a struggle leading to new laws that offer guarantees to a previously excluded group. America's history is one of the extension of opportunity to participate in politics to more and different groups of people.

Expansion of the franchise (right to vote) is an obvious example of civil rights struggles.

Amendment 15 gave African Americans right to vote.

Amendment 19 gave women right to vote.

Amendment 26 gave 18-to-20 year olds right to vote.

Specific civil rights are found in Amendments 13-15, 19, 24 and 26.

In addition, Congress has passed a number of Civil Rights Acts over the past several decades.

Although the civil rights movement of African Americans is the most obvious struggle, it is certainly not the only one. Other groups -- women, Hispanics, gays and lesbians, migrant workers, children, disabled -- have struggled and continue to struggle to increase their rights in the system.

Implicit Association Test   

Homo Stereotypus--Wired for Trouble

Stigmatization

Racism Then

Racism Now

Pew Report: 5 facts about race in America

Sexism

Anti-Semitism

Genocide in America

Heterosexism

Making Connections

Reducing Prejudice

Freedom of Information Act

A list of the 20 essential films since 2000 that capture the American Latino experience

Video: FDR’s Four Freedoms Speech, 1941 (2:37)

Video: Government Film on the Internment of Japanese and Japanese-American Citizens by the US during WWII, 1942 (18:03)

Video: Little Rock School Integration Crisis, 1957 (1:57)

Video: Pres. Eisenhower’s Response to Little Rock School Integration Crisis, 1957 (13:34)

Video: MLK’s I Have a Dream Speech at the Lincoln Memorial, 1963 (16:22)

Video: Gov. Wallace Resisting Integration at the University of Alabama, 1963 (3:29)

Audio: Malcolm X’s The Ballot or the Bullet Speech, 1964 (52:46)

Video: Selma Alabama Civil Rights March and Confrontation, 1965 (4:13)

Video: Pro-Choice March, Washington, 2004 (2:29)

Video: Pro-Life March, Washington, 2005 (1:58)

FBI monitored Aretha Franklin for years, file shows.

The Perils and Promise of America's Third Reconstruction

The 2020 Black-White Wage Gap Was as Big as It Was in 1950