The Fascinating Legislative Process: The Unicameral

“The Bosses of the Senate” Political cartoons have been used for centuries to display the various perspectives and views on major events or topics of discussion in the society. In various earlier eras of our history, political cartoons were aimed towards the general public to bring much-needed attention to various situations and proceedings. Cartoons could be viewed by anyone and everyone despite literacy, therefore they quickly gained popularity. “The Bosses of the Senate” was one of such political cartoons that depicted the direct relation between monopolies and the Senate during the Gilded Age to the general public. The Gilded Age was a time of modern industrialization, with national transportation, communication, and other innovative benefits

Andrew Jackson also changed the way that presidential candidates are nominated. Prior to Jacksonian Democracy the old caucus system was used. In the caucus system congressional party members would choose the nominee. The old caucus system was done away with. Jackson and his supporters replaced this with a national nominating convention. In the national nominating convention delegates from the states would meet choose the party’s presidential nominee.

David Crockett the most well known Texans who was actually born in Tennessee on August 7,1786 . By 1821, he was elected to the State Legislature. A state legislature in the United States is the legislative body of any of the 50 U.S. states. The formal name varies from state to state. In 25 states, the legislature is simply called the Legislature, or the State Legislature, while in 19 states, the legislature is called the General Assembly. David was reelected to that position in 1823. From 1827 through 1833, Crockett served in the Congress of the United States. However, in his run for a fourth term in Congress, he was defeated by a narrow margin.

Senate reform has been a much-debated topic in Canada. Since the early 1970s, there have been at least 28 major proposals for constitutional senate reform. All of them have failed. But once again, thanks to the senate expenses scandal, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and his government have proposed yet another reform. Would a reformed senate solve the current issues of the senate or would it make it worse? This paper would discuss why a reformed senate would bring about more problems than it will solve. The construct of my paper is basic. Firstly, I would be looking at the Canadian senate, its roles and functions, and present and past problems. Next, I would look at some senatorial reform proposals and what these various reforms all look to change. I shall conclude this paper by providing my view on why a reformed senate would bring up more issues than it would solve.

The portrayal of the separation of church and state, and the harmony in the middle of law and religion, is one of persevering disarray in current American protected hypothesis and origination. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution is generally accepted to be the determination of this mass of partition, on the other hand, the Framers never purposed such a divider. Some portion of the perplexity in comprehension religious freedom inside of the setting of the political, lawful, and social measurements of America lives in the United States Supreme Court's foundation and free practice

The inter workings of Congress have been studied extensively by Richard Fenno and David R. Mayhew. Mayhew’s study of Congress took place in Washington, while Richard Fenno conducted his research by following politicians within their congressional district. Mayhew attributes three primary goals to congressmen- getting reelected, achieving influence within Congress and making “good Policy”. Fenno also attributes three basic goals, having influence inside the House than other congressmen. Second, helping their constituents and thereby insuring their reelection, and lastly helping make good policy. The purpose of this paper is to research a member of Congress and to make a direct connection between his activity in Washington and his home district. The paper will answer whether the congressmen is a delegate or trustee. Are the actions a pursuit for reelection? Are the committee assignments a path for movement within the House or outside? What legislation has he/she sponsored or co-sponsored and does it directly reflect his/her districts political view. And finally, do major industries and interest groups within his/she district affect the way he/she votes.

Federalist 10: 1. Madison justifies his concerns by claiming that factions are inevitable yet dangerous. As a result he believes that their influence on government should be limited through a representative democracy where it is harder for factions to gain power. 2. 2 differences between a republic and a pure democracy are in a republic less people represent a larger population in the legislature compared to a democracy.

The most pressing issue I would face as an Assembly Member would be water conservation. The state’s lack of action and initiative to conserve water has led to California’s worst drought in over a century. This has led to panic reactions behind bills such as AB-1739, disregarding long-term economic impacts in order to fulfill short-term needs. Legislators proposing bills are not taking into consideration effects on jobs, business, and taxpayers.

In 1867, congress overturned president Jackson’s vetoed bills and formed three significant laws known as Congressional reconstruction: the Command of the Army Act, the Military Reconstruction Act, and the Tenure of Office Act. The Military Reconstruction Act used federal troops to reorganize governments in the south and to enforce civil rights for blacks. It also abolished all new governments within the rebel states under president Jackson’s reconstruction policies. Congress regained military control of ten out of the eleven previous rebel states. The Military Reconstruction Act ordered each state to create a new constitution that guaranteed the right for all men to vote; no matter of race, social status or if they owned property.

On the floor of the Senate on January19-27, 1830, Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts argued that the states should be considered as one nation (Webster, 178). In response, Senator Robert Hayne of South Carolina argued that the states should be able to interpose and or nullify the federal government and its laws when they thought necessary to protect their citizens’ rights. (Hayne, 166). Overall, Senator Webster’s argument was better because he pointed out that although join the federal government may seem risky, it overall goal is to ensure a stronger nation for the people.

The Nebraska legislature is different from other state legislatures. What makes Nebraska different to begin with, is the fact that it is a non-partisan unicameral. Although, the unicameral only has one house it operates in basically the same manners as all others and faces problems like those bicameral legislatures in other states. However, Nebraska takes pride in the fact that its state legislature is non-partisan and that it works across party lines to make it a better state. Yet, some inside the legislature do not believe this to be the case.

The colonial legislatures, the First Great Awakening, the term “Patriots”, and the Preamble to the U.S Constitution all relate to the historical theme of Ideas, Beliefs, and Culture. To begin with, the colonial legislatures were a legislative system that consisted of an assembly and a council that controlled the decision of taxes. The colonial legislatures were developed during the time that Great Britain was under the policy of salutary neglect, which meant that the colonial legislatures gave the colonists a sense of control over their business and affairs. This political movement helped shape the American society because it gave the American society a sense of independence over Great Britain when they gained control over their own business

It is no secret that the lawmaking process is a long winding road of difficulty and roadblocks. Without a few representatives, a bill cannot be introduced in the House or into the Senate. If a bill is introduced to the House, it is named a number with the letters “HR” before it. If it is taken to the Senate, then it’s given a number with the letter “S” before it. When presenting a bill, what is most important is who supports said bill. Usually, more powerful members of Congress are wanted to sponsor a piece of legislation for support for its path of approval.

Our Constitutional Convention was affected by many things prior to the event. Many discussions were arranged in order to set up alliances and partnerships. As a Southern Plantation owner, my group had many preliminary discussions and we formed an agreement with the Bankers, Workers, and the Farmers. These discussions were necessary because my group needed to form agreements and get others to vote for our cause and this could only be arranged if we held preliminary discussions, which we did. There are many lessons to be taught when it comes to preliminary discussions. Before discussing any topics, you need to know who to confer with. Say you need to discuss about slavery, you wouldn’t talk to the slaves, your best option would to be to talk to the farmers. Also, when setting up agreements you need to make sure that any previous agreements don’t interfere with your current agreement. For example, you made a deal with the Bankers that payment in kind

In a classic sense of history being written by winners, the United States Constitution and its ratification process is usually presented as a unifying document establishing a system of government that most efficiently ensures the states’ newly won independence. Those who opposed ratification of the Constitution were seen as against a strong federal governmental power and obstructive in their opposition. In her book, Ratification: The People debate the Constitution, 1787-1788, Pauline Maier examined the often-tempestuous state-level debates over the ratification of the U.S. Constitution and found there was a legitimate concern for the new federal government to be as powerful as proposed in the Constitution and that many prominent, and not so prominent, men within the states’ legislatures, taverns, and coffee houses voiced vehement opposition to the Constitution’s ratification.