Furthermore, with so many opinions to take into consideration, it is extremely difficult to reach an agreement that the Bill’s “life” died somewhere along this process before even reaching the president’s desk. In fact, most of the Bills die in the committees! The process for policy change is better suited within an institution driven for positive change and trust.
Some other challenges the legislative branch faces is the lack of trust in Congress as a whole. Most voters like their representatives and do not believe that Congress is concerned with making good policy. This issue arose from the strategy of Congress being only concern with short-term goals versus long-term goals. This is because elected officials campaign for re-election every …show more content…
The federal bureaucracy main job is to implement policy, which in turn, has a huge effect on policymaking. Most bureaucrats work directly with congress writing rules and regulations, monitor federal candidates money raised and encourages all political parties to work in unison. Controlling the bureaucracy can be exhausting because of the vast size of employees and maintaining a balance of duties performs can create inefficiencies in the policymaking process. Bureaucrats also hold the upper hand on some policy issues because they are more knowledgeable in administering policy. This could create bargaining powers for individuals to produce a policy that is self-interested in the bureaucratic agencies’ favor. Bureaucrats use iron triangles to form alliances with people in congress and interest groups which leads to pork-barrel policies that only benefit a small number of people. A relaxed relationship with congress can also present problems in the implementation process of policy. Once congress finally approves a new program, it is left to the bureaucratic agencies to work out the specific details of the program within reason. The boundaries are not clearly defined allowing bureaucrats freedom to carry out the program as they see fit. Luckily, the federal courts can interpret the law and how political parties are carrying it out to ensure equal …show more content…
Judges have an unlimited amount of time that they can serve and handle the majority of the work in the legal system. Constituents have an issue that these political parties are just appointed versus up for a vote in a democracy society. This idea was based on allowing the appointees “to apply the law with only justice in mind, and not electoral or political concerns” (https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/judicial-branch). Federal courts are granted the power to interpret the laws based on the constitution serving as a guideline and applying those parameters to individual cases. According to Horwitz, “Administrative law determines the character of court participation in the process of regulatory policy making” (Horwitz). This is critical to the policymaking process because courts have the “final say over regulatory decisions- where more public policy is carried out” (Horwitz). It is inevitable that judges apply their own policy preferences and engage in their personal biases when trying to interpret the constitution “faithfully”. This will result in sometimes supporting bad policy and oppose the good policy. Human nature plays a part of preference but also the concerns of electoral/political decisions influence how judges make their decisions. Keep in mind that these officials are appointed by the president, therefore, he has some power and leverage over the
Some other challenges the legislative branch faces is the lack of trust in Congress as a whole. Most voters like their representatives and do not believe that Congress is concerned with making good policy. This issue arose from the strategy of Congress being only concern with short-term goals versus long-term goals. This is because elected officials campaign for re-election every …show more content…
The federal bureaucracy main job is to implement policy, which in turn, has a huge effect on policymaking. Most bureaucrats work directly with congress writing rules and regulations, monitor federal candidates money raised and encourages all political parties to work in unison. Controlling the bureaucracy can be exhausting because of the vast size of employees and maintaining a balance of duties performs can create inefficiencies in the policymaking process. Bureaucrats also hold the upper hand on some policy issues because they are more knowledgeable in administering policy. This could create bargaining powers for individuals to produce a policy that is self-interested in the bureaucratic agencies’ favor. Bureaucrats use iron triangles to form alliances with people in congress and interest groups which leads to pork-barrel policies that only benefit a small number of people. A relaxed relationship with congress can also present problems in the implementation process of policy. Once congress finally approves a new program, it is left to the bureaucratic agencies to work out the specific details of the program within reason. The boundaries are not clearly defined allowing bureaucrats freedom to carry out the program as they see fit. Luckily, the federal courts can interpret the law and how political parties are carrying it out to ensure equal …show more content…
Judges have an unlimited amount of time that they can serve and handle the majority of the work in the legal system. Constituents have an issue that these political parties are just appointed versus up for a vote in a democracy society. This idea was based on allowing the appointees “to apply the law with only justice in mind, and not electoral or political concerns” (https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/judicial-branch). Federal courts are granted the power to interpret the laws based on the constitution serving as a guideline and applying those parameters to individual cases. According to Horwitz, “Administrative law determines the character of court participation in the process of regulatory policy making” (Horwitz). This is critical to the policymaking process because courts have the “final say over regulatory decisions- where more public policy is carried out” (Horwitz). It is inevitable that judges apply their own policy preferences and engage in their personal biases when trying to interpret the constitution “faithfully”. This will result in sometimes supporting bad policy and oppose the good policy. Human nature plays a part of preference but also the concerns of electoral/political decisions influence how judges make their decisions. Keep in mind that these officials are appointed by the president, therefore, he has some power and leverage over the