U.S. Congress Research Papers - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

- by
- •
- American Politics, Congress (American Politics), Political Theory, Political Science

If you have an open case or not and you are fighting the theft of your home because of BREACH OF CONTRACT, RICO, Slander of Title, conversion, violations of the Congressional Banking Regulations and other claims then open this file and read. We have compiled this and shared it with the public servants, we encourage you to do the same, share the link we provide, fax and email it. We know the truth and so do the public servants. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/z2kslzei1mxrgeo/AACkYWdbj3G5v2Dw_mXbOgn5a?dl=0 Title Shall not pass by fraud and one who is without clean hands cannot transfer it..ie: Trust names and third party purchaser names are not valid on your title and the fraud upon the title means it is still yours, no matter what the criminals want to pretend and opine. Don't let them assume anything. Even if one buys a home without knowing it is stolen title they cannot just keep the title when you contest it. Key Words, "TITLE SHALL NOT PASS BY FRAUD." To resolve this dilemma, we begin with a basic policy of jurisprudence: a person cannot transfer better title than he or she had. (The Uniform Commercial Code [UCC] notes this policy in Sections 2-403, 2A-304, and 2A-305.) https://saylordotorg.github.io/text_business-law-and-the-legal-environment-v1.0-a/s21-title-and-risk-of-loss.html conversion (i.e., the unlawful assumption of ownership of property belonging to another) and claiming damages or the right to recover the goods. (our team stands on the fact the Foreclosure Mills are using fraud upon the courts and land records to give an appearance of standing they never have, hence stealing title through conversion.) The Contract is VOID (not voidable!) when there is no contract, when the alleged deed of trust or mortgage you thought you were getting was unknowingly converted (Conversion) to a Security. That Security Instrument became the derivative as the weapon of mass destruction to homeowners everywhere. The Breach of Contract happened at the beginning of your journey with the criminals, it is Financial Crimes. There was no meeting of the minds, VOID is what it is and the Foreclosure Mills count

Americans Against Foreclosures ( AAF ) with over 1,600 Homeowners across the United States have investigated and discovered that Banks, among them U.S. Bank specifically, have apparently bribed Judges in cases of foreclosure and evictions to rule in the Banks' favor. AAF has obtained the evidence from the Committee on Financial Disclosure. Judges with investments and mortgages taken out with these Banks in favorable conditions.

- by Ed Vallejo
- •
- Courts, U.S. Congress, Congressional Politics, Mortgage Foreclosure

The second installment in the Unleashing Opportunity series, Policy Reforms for an Accountable Administrative State, is now available. Adam J. White, Oren Cass, and Kevin R. Kosar offer help to policymakers in Congress and the new... more

- by Kevin R Kosar and +1
- •
- Public Administration, U.S. Congress, Congressional Politics, Bureucracy

this may be of interest to those who have not seen our case. in 2015 i caused a Notice of Default to be filed against BONYM et al. It is in the case and filed into the country recorders. The Waiver of Tort was violated, leaving over 15 million dollars owed to my estate by the criminals and the judge over looked it, hence part of appeals. Give it a read if you like! It also has a UCC filed against it too, so go figure the county made it appear it was them against me, NOT!

This paper examines the conflicting rhetoric leading up to and following the Apollo-Soyuz mission in 1975 and the concurrent attempts to increase the percentage of minority and female employees within NASA's ranks. In both cases, the international prestige of the US was at stake. Dissent in both international and domestic forms, however, fought against a political détente while internal dissent hindered interracial détente within NASA. The agency's administration, while employing the positive rhetoric of international cooperation and a diversified workplace, struggled in its attempts to create either.
Published in Quest: The History of Spaceflight Quarterly, 22:1 (2015): 4-15.

- by Eric Fenrich
- •
- Black Studies Or African American Studies, Race and Racism, Cold War, U.S. Congress

This study evaluates the claim that all three branches of the U.S. federal government are producing secret law. It conducts an empirical analysis of the classified legislative addenda through which Congress regulates classified intelligence programs. It distinguishes secret law from secret fact, constructs normative options, and recommends principles for governing secret law, starting with the cardinal principle of public law’s supremacy over secret law.

- by Dakota S Rudesill
- •
- Law, Constitutional Law, Military Intelligence, Intelligence Studies

Forced Commercial Intercourse is rape, human trafficking on paper, and occurring in the court rooms of the world, violating the lives of millions of dispossessed homeowners and their families. Financial Crimes Against Humanity have destroyed the lives of too many and we look forward to the end of 2019 and the beginning of 20-20, seeing the criminals with clear vision and a renewed interest in Justice and Criminal Indictments. It's called Human Trafficking on Paper: Domestic Violence; Stolen identities; usurpation of the Certificates of Live Births; Social Security Number usury for unjust enrichment; these crimes are a Foreclosure Mill-Banker-Pirates wet dream and it's time they experience the nightmare of responsibility for their crimes. We the people, Americans, Australians, Europeans, all international communities, men, women and children are growing in awareness and facts that #URtheBank and #TogetherWeCan end the Pirates reign. Working to pay a mortgage that doesn't exist is forced labor, debt slavery and it's to end the ponzi scheme L read McFadden's 1932 speech

- by Precious Rasheeda Muhammad
- •
- U.S. Congress, History of Slavery, Race and Religion, Islam

When the Judiciary Committee initiated its impeachment inquiry of Richard Nixon for his complicity in Watergate, it was the first time that the House of Representatives had commenced such a proceeding against a president since Andrew Johnson in 1868. Johnson’s impeachment and subsequent Senate acquittal was widely regarded as an example of Congress run amok, its partisanship so blatant and its failure so grand that many Americans assumed that presidential impeachment had become obsolete. But impeachment, by its nature, is political, and each Congress defines the bounds of high crimes and misdemeanors in light of the current political climate. For the House in October 1973, Nixon’s Watergate scandal threatened to breach those limits.
From the outset, Judiciary Chairman Peter Rodino recognized that if his Committee were to recommend impeaching President Nixon without bipartisan support, the American public would interpret it as another Johnson-like fiasco, and a threat to the constitutional system of government. To thwart suspicion that the Democratic majority would impeach Nixon exclusively for its own political gain, Rodino preached fairness to the President, even as Nixon refused to comply with the Committee’s investigation. Despite Rodino’s assurances, however, his procedural proposals—designed in consultation with the Committee’s Special Counsel, John Doar—did not always seem fair enough to many Republicans. At the same time, many Democrats believed that Rodino and Doar had already accorded Nixon too many rights, which encroached upon the House’s constitutionally guaranteed “sole power of impeachment.”
Ultimately, Rodino conceded that he could not marshal a bipartisan majority without making compromises with members who expected more fairness than he and Doar had initially offered. Despite pressure from their congressional leadership, constituents, and the White House, seven southern Democrats and moderate Republicans formed a “Fragile Coalition” to vote their conscience in favor of three articles of impeachment. In doing so, they convinced a fearful and cynical American public that impeachment could be just, and in the case of Richard Nixon, necessary.

Party support is critical to winning congressional office. However, scholars disagree whether the goals of parties in elections are pragmatic or ideological, and these goals have different implications for the legislative behavior of party-preferred candidates once in office. We join usually distinct perspectives to argue that parties emphasize different goals at different times. We examine links between party support in primary elections and subsequent behaviors of candidates in Congress. We find that candidates who received higher levels of party support during the primary election were more likely to focus their activities in Congress around partisan efforts. Further, party support of incoming legislators is linked to increased partisan behavior through replacement. However, we also find that these relationships are stronger for majority party candidates, suggesting that parties put a greater emphasis on winning majorities when in the minority but a greater emphasis on policy congruence when in the majority.

- by Andrew Ballard
- •
- Congress (American Politics), U.S. Congress, Elections, Congressional Politics

Since the attacks of September 11, 2001 against New York and Washington, D.C., the term of « terrorism » took a dominating place in the American political speech. Deeply pejorative and always accompanied by a strong moral judgment, it has been used to explain and justify the use of force in several regions around the world and curbs on the civil liberties of American citizens, all in spite of the absence of a clear definition of this concept at the American as well as at the international level. The American discourse on terrorism made its appearance on the political scene during the last decade of the Cold war, the Soviet Union and its « totalitarian » allies being described by Ronald Reagan as resorting to « international terrorism » in order to fulfill their hegemonic goals and as waging a war against the whole civilized world, initially in Central America and then, more and more often, in the Middle East.The American president, expressing himself in a protected context, never had to put forth an explicit definition of the term. However, the debates in Congress, at the General Assembly and the Security Council of the United Nations reveal that this concept was strongly disputed at the time both within the American government and at the international level, and that the representatives of the American government defended not one but multiple and very different discourses, each adapted to its specific context of enunciation. Through this process of compartmentalization, made possible by the absence of a clear and widely-accepted definition of « terrorism » but also by the role played by experts and the media, the American discourse was able to impose itself on the political scene in spite of its internal contradictions and, after the interlude of the 1990s, to complete its triumphant comeback after September 11, 2001.

- by Remi Brulin
- •
- History, Latin American Studies, International Relations, Media Studies
- by Barbara Keys
- •
- U.S. Congress, History of Human Rights, 1970s

On December 4, 2003, the Latin American Program and the Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales co-sponsored a second conference on "Argentina-United States Bilateral Relations: An Historical Perspective and Future Challenges," held at the University of Buenos Aires in Argentina. The first panel dealt with the current Argentina-US bilateral relations and the future challenges. The panelists discussed US-Argentina bilateral relations during Kirchner's presidency. The second panel evaluated a new perspective on Argentina-US bilateral relations, given the declassification of 4677 documents about the dirty war period that were kept in the US Embassy in Buenos Aires. The declassification was ordered by the State Department on August 20, 2002; and new documents were then declassified in November 2003. This book contains an edited version of the panelists' presentations. Panelists included John Dinges, Columbia University; Carlos Osorio, National Security Archive; Horacio Verbitsky, CELS; Ariel Armony, Colby College; Agustín Colombo Sierra, Argentine Ministry of Foreign Relations; Roberto Russell, Torcuato Di Tella University; Mark Falcoff, American Enterprise Institute; and Diana Tussie, FLACSO Argentina.

- by Kyle David Richard Tadman
- •
- Diplomatic History, Afghanistan, U.S. Congress, Pakistan
- by Marco Fey and +1
- •
- Foreign Policy Analysis, International organizations, International Security, NATO

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), commonly known as drones, have revolutionized the face of modern warfare. Drones are practical tools for asymmetrical modern warfare and their continued use in the forefront of United States weaponry is unquestionable. However, the drone program must be reformed to reverse the damage incurred on international relations through (1) intimidating nations with United States technology and tactics, (2) alienating countries through an indifference to collateral damage, and (3) by violating national sovereignty of nations in which strikes occur. The solution to these strategic errors, while preserving the tactical advantages, is to pursue a new framework of drone operations. This reform will attempt to work closely with the host government and integrate their military and intelligence forces into drone operations while ensuring that a coordinated human intelligence program accompanies any drone strike operations to ensure minimal collateral damage.

- by Devin Streeter
- •
- International Relations, Multiculturalism, International Law, Human Rights

"In the United States the right to petition is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which specifically prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances". This will answer your questions regarding why the participation in the Petition of Remonstrance filed by our committee members into Congress is so important for you to lend your support and name to. This took months to write and hundreds of hours of education and years of a journey through the corrupt courts, please read and send in your support! The link is on our website: www.abolishthebankers.com. Thank you, Billie by: Lorie Cole Co-Chairwoman of www.resolution6021.com To start with for homeowners that are currently in the midst of foreclosure, or have had their title stolen already, through the Breach of Contract, Business Tort acts; herein are 8 educational video links to get everyone up to speed on those Constitutionally Protected Rights, the foundational laying down of the Law (Land, Air and Water), Lawful Due Process and how to exercise our Sovereign and full Political Authority in the Court of Justice. Please share these video links with your teams and homeowners. Keep in mind that this process of Redressing our Grievances through a Petition of Remonstrance is not just for Homeowners, but anyone who has been chased down the streets or had their private dwellings busted in by these Revenue Generators; such as the Police or Agents who are wroughting out the substance of We the People, for any subject matter; such as medical kidnapping, CPS issues, tax, traffic, etc. What most of us who have been in this fight for some time, missed is the proper way to redress our grievances. But, if you refer back to the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence, you will see that our Court of Justice is seated in the House and Senate in our State General Assemblies and Congress. We redress those grievances in the Legislature by a Petition of Remonstrance (Protest). The Declaration of Independence clearly talks about how we had to Remonstrate before our Representatives, to STOP the unlawful Bills of Attainder, through the BAR Association. The Judicial Branch, the small of the 3 branches of Government are Courts of Law and Equity, not Justice. No matter, how much evidence you brought into the Judicial Courts, you did not follow DUE PROCESS by going through the Legislature. This is why they routinely give a 12 (b) 6 ruling, for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. You did not know you had to state your lawful claim in the Legislature, the Court of Justice, for relief through remedy. This process has been somewhat "hidden in plain sight" and now seems to be the appointed time for We the People to come into this knowledge and apply it accordingly to Redress the Grievances we have to our elected Representatives. Let's remember that it's the Legislature's that caused a lot of these problems/controversies for We the People, as Congress and our State General Assemblies have usurped powers and authorities not delegated to them. Which is clearly shown in the 2010 Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure, Pg. 2 Ten Principles That Govern Procedure in Group Decision Making; 1) The group must have the authority to take the actions it purports to take. Jurisdiction must be given; it cannot be assumed. Groups sometimes assume powers that they do not have. Get your copy of the 2010 Mason's Manual of Legislative procedure here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1T4UGYvXGagmFO-qYBg9n12_UGbnP3mMg/view?fbclid=IwAR0n-xQPtJYuDL1ttk4AIHXEZzq_hTBcwEZVWvKFtqyLPPKkiA5Od55aUeY Chris Hallett, with E-Clause, LLC in Florida is a former BAR member who gave it all up, when he himself had a CPS, child custody issue with his ex-wife. Chris, who has experience as a former Corporate Attorney in LOSS PREVENTION. Figured out that since the 1871 Reconstruction Act, where these offices became Incorporated as Corporation in a De Facto/ legal manner, never implemented LOSS PREVENTION. So, he has been in a 5 year beta testing working with the current Trump Administration and Congress to implement and see how LOSS PREVENTION works with ASSET RECOVERY, for We the People and restoring our Constitutional and De Jure/Lawful Republic. Chris is currently in his 3rd year of Beta Testing and we are making head way. You and your team members can continue the education weekly by getting on Facebook or YouTube and connect with Chris Hallett with E-Clause, LLC and Kirk Pendergrass with Kirk's Law Corner. They host a live video every M, W, and Friday from 7:30-8:00 pm CST to 10:00-11:00pm CST. Sometimes they have pre-Zoom parties and after Zoom parties shows where up to 100 people can get in the zoom room for those currently in legal matters, looking for some 1 on 1 or group help in their processes. I hope this helps with getting you and others up to speed with over 16 + hours of FREE EDUCATION and how we can all UNITE in our efforts to END FINANCIAL CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. Thank you, Lorie Cole, Co-Chairwoman of www.resolution6021.com Remonstrance Dropbox link:

- by Billie Rene' Frances Lillian Powers and +1
- •
- First Amendment Law (USA), U.S. Congress, Banking, Civil Rights

This essay upends the conventional view of the Capitol Riot as a treasonous insurrection directed at the heart of American democracy. Instead, it advamcesthe idea that the Riot is a diagnostic lens or pathologist's instrument to explore... more

- by Lee Drummond
- •
- Journalism, U.S. Congress, Cultural Analysis, U.S. Congressional Elections

In this paper, I present evidence from a meta-analysis of one of the most dominant theoretical perspectives in executive-legislative policy making relations—Aaron Wildavsky's (1966) two presidencies thesis. Wildavsky's work suggested that no less than two policy making presidencies existed within a single president's relationship with the Congress (1966). Furthermore, that while the president " dominated " the construction of policies in foreign affairs vis-à-vis the Congress; he was impeded in that effort in the realm of domestic politics (1966). After Wildavsky's work was published no less than an entire school of academic thought grew up around the idea and inherent possibilities of a " two presidencies thesis " (Shull 1991). It is my intention in this analysis to examine that body of literature and report on its general conclusions relative to the existence of and subsequent evolution of the two presidencies as an intellectual endeavor. My findings indicate that the two presidencies is subject to examination within institutional, methodological and partisan terms and from that an adequate theoretical, empirical and normative critique can be developed which is the finished project of this paper. As an empirical theory, the two presidencies is rather strongly support with a support rate among two presidency researchers of 62.5%. The strongest level for the explanatory existence of the two presidencies comes from Wildavsky's classic institutional (Wildavsky 1966) version and the strongest reason for rejection of the two presidencies comes from its notion as a " cultural phenomenon " (Peppers 1975). Despite wide spread discussion within the literature there is little evidence to support a strictly partisan version of the thesis probably due to its lack of clear association between itself and either support or refutation of the thesis. (see Edwards 1986). Methodologically, the two presidencies has some association between the employment of an aggregate level of analysis and the institutional explanation, however, while some qualitative evidence exists for such a relationship between the employment of an individual level of analysis and the partisan version of the two presidencies no such relationship is corroborated quantitatively. Also, the cultural version of the theory is associated at least through the qualitative meta-analysis with the employment of qualitative methods; this relationship does not appear in the quantitative portion of the meta-analysis. Finally, the lack of normative study either as a critique of executive-legislative relations or as a reflexive commentary on the body of research itself holds the two presidencies back from fulfilling a broader promise regarding American political analysis. Lastly, the need for re-theorization is necessitated by the conclusions of this meta-analysis because the two presidencies as it currently exists is not developed enough to truly get at the " heart of the executive-legislative policy making divide. " A more nuanced approach is needed to provide greater empirical " fit, " provide stronger explanative/ predictive " power, " and establish a normative " critique " as to the appropriateness of presidential prerogatives and congressional involvement in foreign and domestic policy making.

The study of agenda control in Congress has largely been the study of negative agenda control, but this is only a piece of the full picture of agenda control. I present an approach to analyze agenda control based on estimates of how members would have voted on bills that were killed before the oor (pre-oor bills). This allows me to investigate both positive and negative agenda control, and for a direct comparison between House and Senate. Contrary to recent research comparing the level of agenda control between the two chambers, but consistent with our institutional understanding , I nd higher levels of agenda control in the House than in the Senate. While I nd strong negative agenda control in both chambers, I nd strong positive agenda control in the House only.

- by Andrew Ballard
- •
- Congress (American Politics), U.S. Congress, Congressional Politics, Text Analysis

This paper examines the executive-legislative relationship in the United States through an inquiry made into the “politics of policy” as it is exhibited in the contextualized nature of history. Accordingly, we work from two assumptions: (1) that inter-institutional policymaking results largely from its issue area/sub-policy type and (2) that the arrangements of such policymaking takes various forms as to which institution—the Congress or the presidency—is empowered. This phenomenon, is itself, a matter of historical conditioning for which institutionally favorable (or the reverse) political environments are constructed as “regimes” that rise, peak, and ultimately fall in varying cyclical patterns. The theoretical power of this argument is that it captures static and dynamic patterns of the presidential-congressional political-policy relationship across time. We employ a mixed model technique for hypothesis generation and testing that bridges the quantitative-qualitative divide. My co-researcher and I do this by providing a comparison of two slices of what we will refer to as “timespaces.” Accordingly, the two of us attempt to compare the politics of policy in the Early Republic when the environment favored congressional action at the expense of the Chief Magistrate against a more recent period of near-present time which largely falls within the orbit of a presidentially-dominant national policymaking politics.

- by Chase Pritchett
- •
- Demography, Econometrics, Political Economy, Political Science

From the founders to the modern era, the USA has struggled with the appropriate balance of competing principles—liberty, equality and good governance. For most of the country's history, regulating political campaign contributions was seen as a fair means of protecting democratic principles and preventing corruption. That began to change, prompted by the court challenge, Buckley v. Valeo, which changed the legal view of money. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's view that money was a vehicle of speech, instead asserting that money is speech itself. That decision began the unraveling of the campaign regulation, which continues today. This paper traces the construction of money as speech through the congressional debates and the courts and places those arguments within the context of the key principles that are inherently attached to the issue.

- by Maria Armoudian
- •
- American Politics, U.S. Congress, Campaign Finance, Supreme Court
- by Mila Rechcigl
- •
- Immigration Studies, U.S. Congress, Czech & Slovak Studies

Given the US president's leading role in many areas of American foreign policy, one might expect the president to prevail in executive-legislative clashes over economic sanctions. In this paper, I show that, with surprising frequency, US legislators overcome presidential opposition to their sanctions proposals and induce the president to take foreign policy actions that he or she would not otherwise take. My argument explains why the president often signs and implements sanctions legislation despite considering it inadvisable, as well as how sanctions legislation can influence foreign policy actions, the behavior of foreign governments, or international diplomacy in other ways. I support the argument with descriptive statistics based on an original data set of over a hundred legislative sanctions proposals and a case study of the effects of legislative initiatives targeting Iran over a period of two decades. The paper's findings show that legislative activity is more important than some previous research on sanctions and US foreign policy suggests.

This article seeks to make the case for the weightiness of values-oriented separation of powers law by exploring an alleged constitutional conflict perceived by the Reagan administration—a conflict between the President's constitutionally vested authority as head of the executive branch and Congress's creation of various “independent” policymakers, whose administrative functions are not susceptible to plenary presidential control. The article argues two theses: The first is that the only weighty arguments against congressional decisions to authorize independent administrators are modernist. The second is that even the modernist attack on independent policymaking is unpersuasive. Congressional decisions to vest authority in independent administrators do downplay one value embodied in our constitutional structure, that is, the value of centralized accountability. Such decisions, however, also help to promote two other, equally central constitutional commitments: the commitment to legislative primacy in domestic policymaking, and the commitment to a general diffusion of government power.

- by Peter M Shane
- •
- Constitutional Law, U.S. Congress, Policymaking

What is the constitutional textual basis for key statutes that constrain the national security apparatus and condition the President’s ability to direct it – statutes that are neither spending limitations, nor war declarations or authorizations for the use of military force (AUMFs), nor militia laws? There are a series of such statutory frameworks, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), Posse Comitatus Act and its relatives (particularly parts of the Insurrection Act), Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the covert action statute, anti-torture laws, and the War Powers Resolution. The best or at least strong additional textual footing for these statutes, this article argues, is Article I, Section 8, Clause 14 of the Constitution. This clause gives Congress the power “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.” Although the common assumption is that this Land and Naval Forces Clause is a single enumerated power, this article theorizes the Clause as providing Congress two powers: a well-recognized Internal Regulation power over military justice and other internal affairs of the national security apparatus, and also an External Government power over operations. This article analyzes the Clause’s text, counter-authoritarian origins, and its constitutional interpretation since the Founding Era. This article argues for the Clause’s constitutional rediscovery and embrace as primary textual footing for a series of vital statutory frameworks that govern the military and the Intelligence Community at the intersection of liberty and security. These include the Posse Comitatus Act, the Insurrection Act, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Covert Action statute, torture statute, War Powers Resolution, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), annual National Defense Authorization Acts (NDAAs), and the emerging statutory framework regarding cyber operations. Ultimately, the Clause’s power is contingent: Congress must use it and other legal actors must give life to its statutes and constitutional values for it to be meaningful.

In recent years, US policymakers have instituted quadrennial strategy reviews in several major policy areas. In this article, I examine why policymakers have initiated these large strategic reviews, and why a particular model for them has diffused from the US Defense Department to other government agencies. I find that policymakers have initiated the reviews principally to spur organizational change in agencies and influence the relationship between agencies and Congress, and that policymakers have replicated the Defense Department’s review model because of that department’s strong political support. My findings suggest more generally that formal strategy activities are often driven more by legislative-executive and bureaucratic politics than by a search for new strategic ideas. Commonalities between the diffusion of quadrennial reviews in the United States and the diffusion of other strategy and planning processes internationally underscore the broader applicability and significance of these findings.

This course is essentially about the U.S. Congress, the central legislative branch in American Politics, and one of the most powerful and oldest of any democracy in world history. Although is it not what we think of when hearing the term " American exceptionalism " , it is by far one of the most unique and original aspects of America. The goal here is to provide an understanding of the basic electoral, procedural, policy, and institutional features of the U.S. Congress. It is also important that this course helps your ability to think about, communicate, and analyze its different topics. While the official, course title is " Legislative Process " , in reality the course is far broader with Legislative Process being an important component of it. This course on U.S. Congress will be split up into 4 sections, but they are overlapping in nature, and are the following: Section 1) Introduction to Congress & Congressional Political Behavior 2) Congressional Structures/Processes 3) Congress & Policymaking, & 4) Congress & Political Institutions. The most central and recurring theme of this course is the difficulty members have in balancing and managing the often contradictory facts that they are locally elected, but often make national policy.

4 ноября на выборах в Конгресс США были переизбраны треть состава Сената и полный состав Палаты представителей, контроль над которыми приобрела Республиканская партия. Ближайшие два года исполнительная ветвь власти будет находиться в руках президента-демократа, а законодательная сосредоточится у республиканского Конгресса. Разделенное правление представляет серьезную угрозу для проведения политической линии главы государства, грозя остановкой начатых реформ. В Сенате в январе сменятся руководители комитетов, что может дополнительно повлиять на политику США.

"By establishing the dangerous limitations of postcolonial theory, this essay explores the invisibility of Puerto Rico’s colonial status. Mainly, it argues that postcolonial theory has enabled U.S. Congress to keep Puerto Rico as a territory. Using selected quotes from the last three Congressional Hearings on the status of the island, this paper illustrates two basic patterns by which this is done: by employing rhetoric of a caring and compassionate democracy and by employing a “tied hands and loose mouths” approach. The paper concludes that in order to decolonize a territory like Puerto Rico, modifying a political status alone is not enough if other colonial aspects remain in place."

- by Carmen R. Lugo-Lugo
- •
- Cultural Studies, Political Sociology, Ethnic Studies, Latino/A Studies

This dissertation investigates the impact of slavery on America's self-understanding as a beacon of freedom and equality. While it is true, as historians have long noted, that the Civil War was not fought explicitly or exclusively over the issue of slavery, two earlier battles were: the Missouri controversy of 1819-1821, and the explosion of abolitionism and the subsequent anti-abolitionist backlash of the early 1830s. Between these two episodes, my dissertation demonstrates, the slavery issue did not subside, as historians have generally believed, but rather continued to seethe throughout the period, decisively shaping the course of federal policy, of electoral politics, and of American national character.

After the tawdry events of the assault on the US Capitol by mobs spurred on by his electoral defeat in the 2020 presidential election, not a few political observers considered the New York billionaire to be a political corpse. This was a serious mistake, in view of the latest results of the primaries underway to choose the candidates for the next elections in November. These will surely indicate the political future of the populist reactionary in his quest to return to the White House.

- by Luis Moreno
- •
- American Politics, Congress (American Politics), Political Science, U.S. Congress
- by Camille Moraud
- •
- Cultural History, U.S. Congress, Urban Studies, Washington, D.C.
- by Brian Frederick
- •
- U.S. Congress, Gender and Politics
- by Debbie Sharnak and +2
- •
- Human Rights, U.S. Congress, U.S. Foreign Policy, Ronald Reagan