Teses / dissertações sobre o tema "United States. Congress 2007). House"

Le Congrès des Etats-Unis est une institution méconnue, mal comprise et souvent dénigrée, y compris par ses propres membres. On le dit en crise, inadapté aux exigences du monde moderne. L’objectif est donc d’évaluer les forces et les faiblesses objectives du Congrès contemporain pour le réinsérer dans la dynamique des freins et contre-pouvoirs au coeur du système politique américain. La période retenue s’étale de la victoire des Républicains menés par Newt Gingrich en 1994 jusqu’aux élections de mi-mandat de 2006 et au retour des Démocrates. De la présidence Clinton à Bush, ces douze années offrent un contexte institutionnel varié. Elles forment une trajectoire historique fascinante de la rhétorique révolutionnaire qui accompagne les victoires de 1994 à la résignation d’une défaite marquée par une certaine corruption institutionnelle, partisane et idéologique. Le cœur de notre étude vise à étudier les conséquences institutionnelles du retour à un équilibre partisan dans les deux chambres du Congrès. La compétition entre les deux partis a été accompagnée par la polarisation du système politique. Notre étude retrace les débuts de l’entrée dans une nouvelle ère sur la colline du Capitole. On cherchera à combiner une approche politique et institutionnelle en analysant plus particulièrement trois domaines de l’action politique particulièrement révélateurs: les finances via la procédure budgétaire, la réforme de l’Etat providence, et les relations avec le judiciaire via les nominations des Juges d’Appel fédéraux, lieu privilégié de frictions entre la Maison-Blanche et le Sénat. À cette perspective institutionnelle, il s’agira d’ajouter une étude sociologique de cohorte des membres du Congrès, nécessaire pour comprendre les ressorts de l’action institutionnelle. Au-delà des membres de la chambre, l’étude d’une période dominée par le parti de l’éléphant nous permettra de plonger au cœur du mouvement conservateur. Après avoir présenté les racines historiques de l'idéologie conservatrice qui domine au sein du Parti républicain, il s'agira de révéler comment un mouvement contestataire a transformé l’institution du Congrès mais aussi comment l’institution a transformé le mouvement conservateur et le Parti républicain. Dans un contexte international de renforcement du pouvoir exécutif, l’étude du Congrès doit permettre de redécouvrir certaines leçons sur les modalités de fonctionnement d’un système démocratique. Il s’agit de montrer qu'au-delà des questions techniques, des jeux de procédures obscures, dans la tension qui anime le Congrès, se joue l’avenir du concept de démocratie représentative ; de rétablir un certain équilibre dans la perception du système américain : système plus complexe qu’il n’apparaît dans les médias et même parfois la littérature. On ne peut se contenter d’étudier la présidence impériale sans prêter attention au vortex qui siège, toujours, au coeur de la constitution. Ainsi, sans faire un panégyrique du pouvoir législatif, il s’agira de remettre en cause la tentation d’un Césarisme plus ou moins démocratique qui chercherait à faire du Congrès une chambre d’enregistrement des volontés de l’exécutif
The United States Congress is often disparaged including by its own members. The critics of the institution decry the gridlock on Capitol Hill and Congress's alleged inability to deal with the challenges of the modern world. The unpopularity of today's Congress calls into question its ability to represent the American people. In that context it is necessary to try to assess whether or not Congress is truly dysfunctional. To that end, this study proposes to study a period of twelve years from 1994 to 2006 during which the Republican party dominated the institution. In 1994, under the leadership of Newt Gingrich, the Republicans returned to the majority in the House of Representatives for the first time in forty years. In 2006, after another midterm election, the Republican majorities in the House and the Senate were soundly defeated. Drawing on the long and tortuous history of the relationship between the Republican party and conservatism, the new majorities proposed large-scale change that amounted to a conservative revolution. They had initially laid out a clearly conservative agenda that insisted on balancing the budget and reducing the size of government. A detailed study of their fiscal policy and their attempts at entitlement reform over the period actually leads us to conclude that they eventually governed over ever larger deficits and a growing federal government whose policies were adjusted to favor different portions of the population. It is therefore necessary to try to account for the discrepancy between the initial goals and the eventual results. This entails studying first the evolution of the Republican members of Congress themselves to see whether the policy changes can be explained by the members becoming more moderate. Another explanation centers on the relationship between the members of the Congress and their constituents. The Republican majorities could have been forced to moderate their positions by the voters themselves in the elections of 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002 and 2004. Here the complex interplay that implies the interpretation of election results comes into play. Over the past decades, the American political system has been polarizing clearly. The growing ideological gap between the two parties and their bases calls into question the institutional stability of an institution built on the necessity to compromise. Especially since both parties have polarized while the margins of the majorities have grown more narrow. It is thus essential to look at the constraints set up by the institutional system. The arcane nuances of the legislative process directly impinges on the content of legislation. Indeed, if the majority rules decisively over the House of Representatives, in the Senate, the minority can very easily block most initiatives. The growing recourse to procedural shortcuts offered by the budget process is a testament to that fact.Finally, the relationship with the president of the United States is very much a factor in the equation. The twelve years of Republican domination in Congress covers two very different periods. Until January 2001, they had to battle with President Clinton in a context of divided government. Following George W. Bush's election in 2000, they started working under the command of the White House. The stark contrast in the way Senate republicans dealt with the two presidents when it came to their judicial nominees for the Federal Courts of Appeal offers an excellent opportunity to evaluate the continuing yet variable strength of the system of checks and balances set up by the U.S. Constitution. A deeper understanding of the workings of the contemporary Congress might allow for a more nuanced vision of the institution as much more than a roadblock on the road of presidential leadership and, perhaps, lead to a better appreciation of the way its members are trying or failing to fulfill their constitutional duty

The theoretical debate over the ability of parties and leaders in the House of Representatives to influence legislative decision-making is at the center of much of the literature on Congress. On the one hand, the Procedural Cartel perspective argues that while the tools used by the majority party leadership to assure the triumph of its preferences may vary depending on the institutional context, the basic ability of the leadership to impact legislative outcomes remains consistent. In contrast, Conditional Party Government (CPG) theory posits that any power the majority party and its leadership possesses over legislative decision-making is directly conditioned upon the amount of agreement within the majority party caucus as to collective goals, as well as the amount of ideological polarization that exists between the majority and minority parties. This thesis provides an original test of these two theoretical perspectives by evaluating their comparative ability to account for the proposal and passage of limitation riders on the House floor during the annual appropriations process since the 1980s. Limitation riders provide a good vehicle to test theories of congressional voting as they often have important policy implications in areas of significant controversy. In addition, the extent to which the individual members or legislative parties are able to successfully utilize limitation riders as a means of making substantive policy is indicative of larger patterns of committee or party domination of the floor process. After reviewing the relevant literature on congressional decision-making, this analysis proceeds to outline the theoretical predictions that the Procedural Cartel and CPG perspectives make regarding limitation riders. An original dataset comprised of over 800 limitation riders from the 97th through the 110th Congresses is analyzed both with respect to overall proposal and passage rates as well their party of origin. This study finds that while the CPG perspective is best able to account for what occurs during periods of low polarization and cohesion, Procedural Cartel provides the most accurate prediction of what occurs when polarization and cohesion are high. These findings suggest that, although these theories both have some ability to account for congressional decision-making on the House floor, both of these frameworks need to be revisited so that they can accurately account for what occurs during floor phase of the legislative process.

Elections are seldom covered in detail below the level of the national contests. Regional, district, and local elections often appear to be too provincial to be worth the time and effort to research and analyze in any detail."Taking the Fifth" is about a contested congressional race that was in dispute between various local and forces longer than any other House race on record.The Fifth District of Indiana leaned Republican, but it swung to the Democrats about once a decade. The 1960 election broke that historic pattern.Since 1960 was a pivotal election year for both political parties, and since the U. S. Congress was divided by various regional and philosophical factions, it is the contention of the dissertation that the Indiana Fifth District took on more importance than it would have under normal circumstances.Pursuit of power by local and national figures became inextricably involved with the struggle of the candidates in the Fifth District of Indiana. Intraparty grudges between district and state Democratic leaders, scars from Republican battles for congressional leadership posts, Dixiecrat versus urban Democrats maneuvering for dominance on key congressional committees, and an energetic young President and his allies -- bent on making a lasting mark on history -- all influenced the outcome of the race.As the gap widens between election day in Indiana and final settlement of the contest, the two candidates fade into secondary roles, and eventually appear to be little more than pawns for the congressional and national figures who had pre-empted the contest for their own political purposes.

This dissertation considers two aspects of legislative representation: (1) how citizens use information about legislative activities and outcomes to assess the performance of the US president and the congressional majority party, and (2) why Canadian MPs debate government bills—even when the government controls the outcome. An investigation of these questions is divided into three principal chapters. First, I examine the effects of legislative outcomes on citizens’ assessment of the president and the majority party in Congress. Prominent theories of legislative behavior argue—and media pundits often assert—that Americans reward these actors if they succeed in passing their bills. But what if the bill is divisive, as is likely the case with well-publicized legislation? Using survey experiments, I show that, on average, citizens still express greater approval for the president and the majority party if Congress passes their ideologically contentious bills—compared with if Congress does not pass them. However, I also find that this reward is typically concentrated among those who already favor the underlying policy change; among policy opponents, the effect is often statistically indistinguishable from zero. Second, I investigate the sophistication of citizens’ judgments of legislative performance. Specifically, do inferential biases—common in other domains—interfere with how citizens evaluate the president and the congressional majority party in light of bill failure? Again using survey experiments, I find that citizens avoid the serious inferential mistake of treating these actors as if they had performed poorly. Instead, I show that their assessments—even in the absence of diagnostic information about those involved—are broadly consistent with realistic beliefs about legislative performance and the obstacles to success in Congress. Third, I explore why Canadian MPs debate government bills. Whereas recent research tends to emphasize legislative speech as a means of communicating with the electorate, the particular rules of government bill debate—coupled with the relatively low visibility of such deliberations—suggest alternative motivations. Using an original dataset of 53 debates, I find no evidence of personal vote seeking; instead, I find patterns of debate participation consistent with attempted obstruction by bill opponents and attempted persuasion by bill proponents.
Arts, Faculty of
Political Science, Department of
Graduate

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Boston University
PLEASE NOTE: Boston University Libraries did not receive an Authorization To Manage form for this thesis or dissertation. It is therefore not openly accessible, though it may be available by request. If you are the author or principal advisor of this work and would like to request open access for it, please contact us at open-help@bu.edu. Thank you.
From the Well of the House analyzes the remaking of the House Republican Party into an aggressive, partisan organization. It explores how a new generation of Representatives elected after 1978 transformed the GOP, instituting a style of congressional politics that favored confrontation, media spectacle, and personal scandal. Following key actors, including Newt Gingrich, Bob Walker, Vin Weber, and the Conservative Opportunity Society, this dissertation explores key events and illustrates how the House Republican Conference changed from passive acceptance of their minority status to pugnacious fighters for the majority. Throughout their careers Gingrich and his Congressional allies promoted a style of politics in the House, first as backbenchers then from leadership positions, which advocated conflict and attack. They showed that aggression was a winning strategy and other Congressmen followed their lead. By examining in depth events that led the House Republican Conference to adopt a more confrontational stance, including the formation of the Conservative Opportunity Society, the use ofC-SPAN as an effective political weapon, the House Bank scandal, and conflicts with Speakers Tip O'Neill and Jim Wright and Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, this dissertation demonstrates that the 1994 Republican Revolution was the product of more than a decade of dedication and hard work. While numerous scholars have analyzed the rise ofthe New Right and the conservative ascendancy in American politics after the 1970s, From the Well of the House breaks new ground by exploring this shift in the arena of Congressional politics. In so doing, it both elucidates the deep background of the House Republican Party's successful efforts to become a majority and establishes the significance of Congress in the transformation of recent American politics.
2031-01-02

Thesis (Ph. D)--Ohio State University, 2002.
Title from first page of PDF file. Document formatted into pages; contains xi, 169 p.: ill. Includes abstract and vita. Advisor: John Wright, Dept. of Political Science. Includes bibliographical references (p. 162-169).

Over the course of the last few years, a new movement has taken the American political system by storm, the Tea Party. The movement has not only captivated our media but also the minds of ordinary Americans and political elites. According to popular consensus and academic opinion, the Tea Party is comprised of a group of conservative-leaning Republicans who want a smaller government and a lesser tax burden. This is what we think of the Tea Party, but is it true? It is perceived that Tea Party members differ significantly from their Republican colleagues in the House of Representatives, but do they? Do they truly represent the Tea Party philosophy and agenda? By creating an original data set on the Republican members of the United States House of Representatives, and examining variables such as the political lean, economic and employment make-up of a member's district, their endorsements and incumbency, as well as high priority legislative votes from the 112th Congress, I will be able to investigate the characteristics and tendencies of Tea Party Caucus members. Once one looks at the 242 member House Republican Caucus and further examines the sixty members of the Tea Party Caucus, the data shows that Tea Party Caucus members largely originate from safe Republican districts and have served in previous congressional terms. Analysis shows that Tea Party Caucus members do vary significantly from their House Republican colleagues when examining their districts, but do not vary as considerably when examining their voting patterns.
B.A.
Bachelors
Sciences
Political Science

The specters of violence and economic insecurity have haunted the Sudan since its independence in 1956. The United States Congress has held numerous hearings on the Sudan's civil war and U.S. television news outlets have reported on the conflict since 1983. While attempting to engage the Sudan in a viable peace process, the U.S. Congress has been beset by ineffectual Cold War paradigms and an inability to understand the complexities of the Sudan civil war. U.S. television news programs, on the other hand, engaged in a process of oversimplification, using false dichotomies to reduce the conflict into easily digestible pieces. This thesis will analyze the overall tone and focus of U.S. Congressional hearings and television news broadcasts on the Sudan and demonstrate the problematic factors in their portrayals of the war.

Government investigations into the motion picture industry are well-documented, as is the widespread blacklisting that was concurrent. Not nearly so well documented are the many investigations of musicians and musical organizations which occurred during this same period. The degree to which various musicians and musical organizations were investigated varied considerably. Some warranted only passing mention, while others were rigorously questioned in formal Congressional hearings. Hanns Eisler was deported as a result of the House Committee on Un-American Activities' (HUAC) investigation into his background and activities in the United States. Leonard Bernstein, Marc Blitzstein, and Aaron Copland are but a few of the prominent composers investigated by the government for their involvement in leftist organizations. The Symphony of the Air was denied visas for a Near East tour after several orchestra members were implicated as Communists. Members of musicians' unions in New York and Los Angeles were called before HUAC hearings because of alleged infiltration by Communists into their ranks. The Metropolitan Music School of New York, led by its president-emeritus, the composer Wallingford Riegger, was the subject of a two day congressional hearing in New York City. There is no way to measure either quantitatively or qualitatively the effect of the period on the music but only the extent to which the activities affected the musicians themselves. The extraordinary paucity of published information about the treatment of the musicians during this period is put into even greater relief when compared to the thorough manner in which the other arts, notably literature and film, have been examined. This work attempts to fill this gap and shed light on a particularly dark chapter in the history of contemporary music.

This research project seeks to explore aspects of the post-reporting phase of the public inquiry process. Central to the public inquiry process is the concept of legitimacy and the idea that a public inquiry provides and opportunity to re-legitimate the credibility of failed public institutions. The current literature asserts that public inquiries re-legitimise through the production of authoritative narratives. As such, most of this scholarship has focused on the production of inquiry reports and, more recently, the reports themselves. However, in an era of accountability, and in the aftermath of such a poignant attack upon society, the production of a report may represent an apogee, but by no means an end, of the re-legitimation process. Appropriately, this thesis examines the post-reporting phase of the 9/11 Commission’s public inquiry process. The 9/11 Commission provides a useful research vehicle due to the bounded, and relatively linear, implementation process of the Commission’s recommendations. In little more than four months a majority of the Commission’s recommendations were passed into law. Within this implementation phase the dominant discursive process took place in the United States Congress. It is the legislative reform debates in the House of Representatives and the Senate that is the focus of this research project. The central research question is: what rhetorical legitimation strategies were employed in the legislative reform debates of the post-reporting phase of the 9/11 Commission’s public inquiry process? This study uses a grounded theory approach to the analysis of the legislative transcripts of the Congressional reform debates. This analysis revealed that proponents employed rhetorical strategies to legitimise a legislative ‘Call to Action’ narrative. Also, they employed rhetorical legitimation strategies that emphasised themes of bipartisanship, hard work and expertise in order to strengthen the standing of the legislation. Opponents of the legislation focused rhetorical de-legitimation strategies on the theme of ‘flawed process’. Finally, nearly all legislators, regardless of their view of the legislation, sought to appropriate the authoritative legitimacy of the Commission, by employing rhetorical strategies that presented their interests and motives as in line with the actions and wishes of the Commission.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-29T13:48:38Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertacao Ivy B G Turner.pdf: 404366 bytes, checksum: 8f7580f072c2944058d678625559e197 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2006-06-19
Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
The objective of the present work was to present factors that promote congressional activism in the area of foreign policy. The work involved an analysis of the main subjects related to the participation of the United States Congress in the foreign policy-making process, the intention being to present the latest thinking in this area. As such, the work seeks to contribute to the body of research being developed on the influence of domestic factors in American foreign policy. Although information and studies in Brazil about the United States abound, this is not the case for this specific area of investigation. It should be stressed that the intention of this work was not to explain the performance of the institution through history, but rather to focus on the institutional structure of the process by which US foreign policy is formulated
O objetivo do presente trabalho esteve em tentar desvendar quais fatores promovem ativismo congressual em temas de política externa. Para tanto, realizou-se análise das principais questões relativas à participação do Congresso na formulação da política externa norte-americana. O intento foi apresentar o estado da arte do debate acerca do papel que o Congresso possui neste processo. Ao estudar este tema pretendeu-se contribuir com as pesquisas acerca da influência de fatores domésticos na política externa norte-americana por que, apesar das informações e estudos disponíveis no Brasil acerca dos Estados Unidos serem abundantes, não o são nesta área específica. Ressalta-se que o trabalho não teve intenção de explicar a atuação da instituição ao longo da história, sendo uma análise focada na estrutura institucional do processo

Depuis les attaques du 11 septembre 2001 contre New York et Washington, D.C. le terme de « terrorisme » a pris une place prépondérante dans le discours politique américain. Profondément péjoratif et s’accompagnant indéfectiblement d’une forte condamnation morale, il a été utilisé afin d’expliquer et justifier le recours à la force armée dans de multiples régions de monde et l’imposition de limites aux libertés civiles des citoyens américains, et ce malgré l’absence de définition claire de ce concept au niveau américain comme au niveau international. Le discours américain sur le terrorisme fit son apparition sur la scène politique durant la dernière décennie de la Guerre froide, l’Union Soviétique et ses alliés « totalitaires » étant décrits par Ronald Reagan comme recourant au « terroriste international » afin d’assouvir leurs velléités hégémoniques et de mener une véritable guerre contre l’ensemble du monde civilisé, d’abord en Amérique centrale puis, de plus en plus souvent, au Moyen-Orient. Le président américain, s’exprimant dans un contexte d’énonciation protégé, n’eut jamais à proposer de définition explicite de ce terme. Les débats devant le Congrès, l’Assemblée Générale et le Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies révèlent eux par contre que ce concept était à l’époque fortement contesté au sein du pouvoir américain tout comme au niveau international, et que les représentants du gouvernement américain défendirent non pas un mais de multiples discours très différents les uns des autres et adaptés aux contextes d’énonciation propre à chacun de ces forums. Grâce à cette compartimentation rendue possible par l’absence d’une définition claire et acceptée par tous du « terrorisme », mais aussi au rôle joué par les experts et les médias, le discours américain put ainsi s’imposer malgré ses contradictions flagrantes, et après l’interlude des années 1990, faire son retour triomphant après le 11 septembre 2001
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

This master's thesis focuses on the inability of the U. S. Congress to pass a comprehensive immigration reform. The main goal of the thesis is identification of key factors that prevent successful passage of this legislation. Two latest immigration reform proposals from 2007 and 2013 were selected for the research. To analyze them, process tracing was used. This method allows for better understanding of the legislative development. As an analytical framework, approach of John W. Kingdon was selected. His revised garbage can model of organizational choice applied to congressional decision making identifies three process streams that are critical for passing legislation in Congress - problem definition, policy generation and politics. Firstly, Kingdon's framework is described and then applied to the selected immigration reform proposals case studies. Emphasis is put on identification of factors that play key role in generating and passing the policy. Then, both case studies are compared to allow for more general inference. The key finding of the thesis is that the political stream is crucial to passing comprehensive immigration reform. Based on the comparative case study, political skills of leaders and political context significantly influence the ability of Congress to act on the immigration...

Following the historic election of Barack Obama, the largest overhaul of the nation's health care system since the Great Society, and with the country still reeling from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, a group of disenchanted conservative Republicans and elected leaders wary of government policy gave rise to a new political movement – the Tea Party. Since taking the American political system by storm in 2010, considerable research has focused on the electoral consequences of the Tea Party. Using an original dataset and the American National Election Study, I study the Tea Party Caucus at the elite level by analyzing roll call votes, incumbency, and endorsements, and at the mass level through an examination of congressional districts and constituencies. Findings show that members of the Tea Party Caucus and their Republican House colleagues are largely homogeneous. Exceptions to this include economic final passage votes, legislation receiving presidential support, district lean, census region, and presidential vote in congressional districts. Furthermore, evidence is seen that economic factors in members' districts affected the election of freshmen representatives in 2010, and that district variables strongly influence legislative voting behavior. Finally, discontinuity is discovered between the Tea Party movement at the mass level and the Tea Party Caucus at the elite level.
M.A.
Masters
Political Science
Sciences
Political Science; American and Comparative Politics Track

The Coast Reservation of Oregon was established under Executive Order of President Franklin Pierce in November, 1855, as a homeland for the southern Oregon tribes. It was an immense, isolated wilderness, parts of which had burned earlier in the century. There were some prairies where farming was possible, but because the reservation system itself and farming, particularly along the coast, were unknown entities, life for the Indians was a misery for years. Those responsible for the establishment of the reservation were subject to the vagaries of the weather, the wilderness, the Congress, and the Office of Indian Affairs. Agents were accountable, not only for the lives of Oregon Indians, but also for all of the minute details involved in answering to a governmental agency. Some of the agents were experienced with the tribes of western Oregon; others were not. All of them believed that the only way to keep the Indians from dying out was to teach them the European American version of agriculturalism. Eventually, if possible, Oregon Indians would be assimilated into the dominant culture. Most agents held out little hope for the adults of the tribes. This thesis lays out the background for the development of United States Indian policies. European Americans' ethnocentric ideas about what constituted civilization became inextricably woven into those policies. Those policies were brought in their infant stage to Oregon. Thus, the work on the reservations was experimental, costing lives and destroying community. How those policies were implemented on the Coast Reservation from 1856-1877 concludes this study.
Graduation date: 2000
Best scan available for photos. Original is a black and white photocopy.