Social Studies, 19.01.2021 18:50, IsoSaysHi

For each of the presidential powers below, explain one way that congressional decision making is affected by that power. 1- veto power
2- power to issue executive orders
3- power as commander in chief

Answers: 2

Show answers

Answers

answered: taryn3

For veto power, Congressional decision making is affected by the knowledge that in both houses of Congress, a two-thirds majority will be needed to override the President's veto. There is also the historical knowledge that Congress has overriden less than 10% of presidential vetoes. So Congress will seek to make sure they have sufficient votes before proceeding, unless they want to pass the legislation simply as a statement of principle, knowing they don't have the votes to override a veto.

For the power to issue executive orders, Congress recognizes that the President has power on implementing government programs and policies. However, for major policy initiatives, legislative action would be required. So Congress still holds the chief lawmaking authority, but the President can make some adjustments within how laws or policies are put into action by issuing executive orders.

For the President's power as commander-in-chief, Congress has the ability to assert the War Powers Resolution, which was passed over a presidential veto in 1973.

The War Powers Act gave Congress (the legislative branch) power over whether to continue fighting a war. The War Powers Resolution blocks presidents from continuing the pursuance of a war without Congress's approval. The President, as Commander-in-Chief, can send US troops to carry out a military action, but to continue that military engagement beyond 60 days (plus a 30 day withdrawal period) requires the President to obtain the approval of Congress.

We might note that the US Constitution leaves some tension in place between the legislative and executive branch when it comes to the country's involvement in war. Article I of the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. But Article II names the President the Commander-in-Chief, and presidents frequently have understood that role as containing the authority to deploy US forces without first getting congressional approval. The War Powers Act has been an ongoing point of controversy as US forces have been sent into all sorts of conflict zones in the 21st century without formal declarations of war.

Explanation:

hope this is the answer you are looking for

answered: Guest

As citizens grow increasingly wary of whose interests are being represented in the public policy arena, especially in light of recent sensational scandals showing a cozy relationship between professional lobbyists and lawmakers, a crisis of confidence is engulfing many democratic societies across the european and north american continents. public perceptions of undue influence peddling, in which special interest groups exercise too much sway over government for self-serving purposes, have led to growing demands for the regulation of lobbyists and transparency of the policymaking process. the united states and canada have been struggling for decades to refine their systems of lobbyist regulation. of all the shortcomings of the north american model of lobbyist regulation – and there are many – transparency is not, for the most part, one of them. many european countries have also been experimenting with systems of lobbyist regulation. until recently, however, the european national experiments have produced very different results among themselves and in comparison with the north american counterparts. surprisingly, some of the earliest efforts to regulate lobbying occurred among new democratic countries in eastern europe rather than the more advanced industrial democracies of western europe. this observation stands in stark contrast to the north american experience, where lobbyist regulation emerged as an effort to manage a highly developed class of professional lobbyists within the strictures of long-standing democratic principles. the authors find that the answer to this anomaly lies in the fact that early european lobbyist regulations focused not on transparency as a means to regain public confidence in government, but on providing business interests with access to lawmakers as a means to bolster fledgling economies. this focus on access is quickly giving way to demands for transparency as many european governments, racked by scandal, are striving to salvage the public's trust. propelled largely by example from a reluctant european parliament and commission, which are themselves attempting to convince europe that a regional government is in its own interest, several european countries are beginning to make a transition from weak systems of lobbyist regulation, which emphasize business access, to strong systems of lobbyist regulation, which emphasize public transparency. in order to discern ‘best’ practices for achieving transparency through lobbying regulation, the authors first chart the regulatory systems of the united states and canada. that is followed by an analysis of all of the european lobbying regimes. the oft-expressed objection to this new trend toward transparency in europe – that professional lobbyists view such regulations as overly burdensome – is undercut by research on european and american lobbyists’ attitudes toward regulation, which are generally quite favorable. like everyone else, lobbyists realize that they have an image problem and that the best way to address that problem is by operating in the broad daylight of public transparency. finally, the authors offer recommendations on how to enhance transparency in policymaking, drawing from detailed comparisons of the north american and european models of lobbyist regulation.

answered: Guest

answer: ‘no one should be discriminated against because he or she is not from a minority group’

because—> affirmative action means ‘a policy or program that provides opportunities for traditionally disadvantaged groups to them overcome the effects of discrimination’