Essay on Unorthodox Lawmaking by Barbara Sinclair

The Congress is an important institution of the government. The institution plays a crucial role in lawmaking and keeps the presidency and judiciary in check. In the old days, lawmaking process had been predetermined and well-documented in the governments textbook. However, the contemporary legislature no longer follows the set rules in developing a bill into law. Barbara (2016) identifies recent changes in the process of lawmaking and terms the process as being unorthodox. According to Barbara, legislative process routinized and entrenched but the structure changed in the 1970s. This paper critically summarizes Barbara (2016).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

In Barbara (2016), three main factors can be attributed to changes in legislation. These factors include distribution of influence between the national assembly and the senate, changes in the budget, and the political aspect. In the first chapter, Barbara assesses Clean Air legislation passed in 1970 and 1990. Passing a bill before 1970 was straightforward coupled with minimum compromises. Before the 1970s, the southerners had dominated the Senate that was led by powerful committee leaders who were more conservative, and in those days party leaders and members had little control on legislation process. However, internal reforms result in a distribution of influence on a single bill between the House and the Senate. As such, two versions of the bill was debated and reworked by the two houses. This lead to a provision of a contested bill that opted for wide reconciliation and that raises the question of validity.

Barbara goes a step forward and recognizes when the internal reform occurred. Reform came to be when the overwhelming northern liberal Democrats came to the Senate. Given their activism draw, the group wanted to make a mark and therefore attracted different groups including other elected members of the Senate who had an eye for more power. It is at this juncture that the Senate extensively explored their power and changed the law making process.

Relatively, liberal northern Democrats enshrined power to a conservative committee of leaders with little influence from the party leaders and members. The House further adopted new rules that aided public participation at any given proceeding. As such, the committee had a difficult time to rule out decisions which dragged the process of legislation. The leadership provided for alternative changes that ruled out delay by the committee to pass a law. According to Barbara, the inventive measures further undermined the textbook model of lawmaking by simply passing a law rather than a problem-solving law.

Internal reforms as outlined by Barbara had a tremendous impact on legislation process. The Democrats otherwise called the Northern, increased membership to the Senate approaching 1970s. The anti-conservative trait of leadership at this time made a move to rule out the initial procedure in developing the law. Although this aspect led to daunting circumstances, it is still debatable. On the one hand, distribution of influence in the two houses increased critics of the proposed bills. This means malicious intend to enumerate content in the bill was overlooked. However, much time would also be spent debating and working on bills from the two houses. Barbara could have been biased on this particular issue.

Secondly, changes in the budget lead to changes in law making. Unprecedented methods have been outlined by Barbara in a bid to control the budget. For instance, in the year 1980, Jimmy Carter and Congressional Democrats experienced inflation and wanted to contain it instantly. The legislation at the time was viewed as a prolonged process and would not contain the urgent matter. For this reason, they moved to a more reconciliation method rather than following due processes. The proposed bill was passed amid legislation process.

The 1993 reconciliation bill rule enabled cancellation of the unpopular elements such as the Btu tax and the tax on social security high earners. Further, the rule barred the minority from appealing with instructions. This, therefore, gave an opportunity to Republicans to rule out two constricting approaches. Nevertheless, the rule restricted both parties in amending and casting a difficult vote. The rule also dictated a set of language that would not require a separate vote. Another good example is the FY 2014 Budget Resolutions. In 2010, the Republicans in power downsized the government size by significantly reducing domestic spending. However the Democratic strongly opposed their proposals. By 2013 there still was needed to reconcile the Senate differences.

The majority party has the upper hand in lawmaking. As discussed by Barbara, majority party sets up Rule committee that aids and develops ominous bills to allow enforcement of bills. Given this powerful tools, it is evident that the minority party succumbs to the majority rule. This is not in line with the initial legislation processes. In such provisions, therefore, the majority may take advantage of the minority to achieve their plans. The budget law being crucial, taxpayers might suffer large deficits. On the other hand, however, Barbara should have sought out the fact that ruling party can have important policies for the people. In such a case, the minority cannot substantially interfere with the passing of the budget amendments. Finally, Barbara identifies the political arena as a contemporary guide to legislation process. The political arena is characterized by divided control, big deficits, and ideological history. Depending on how well the law directly impacts on politicians involved is a matter of the political agenda. The parochial politicians in both chambers in their interest give multiple referrals to scrutiny by committees in a bid to derail and delay the legislature process. Multiple referrals lessened committee ability to resolve their conflicts and exacerbated ability to resolve intel committee conflicts which threatened the legislation further. Procedural changes are in legislation also affected in a bid to benefit the majority party. In reference to Barbara, leaders who sought their goals are likely to delay the legislation process. During the 1980s, the Republican president delayed legislation process on his accord. The Democrats majority leadership packaged legislation into ominous measures in a bid to counter Republicans president hostile ideologies. The ominous measures were developed in near full participation of party members for legislative success. The Rules Committee developed rules as powerful tools to ensure the bills were considered and sometimes would shape the floors outcome.

Barbara critically views the unprecedented differences between the two houses as a barrier for to government legislation textbooks. Polarization is evident between the republicans and democrats. The track since the 1970s has only deteriorated with party leaders dominating the legislative process. However, in the case studies, it is also evident that the party leaders may want to enforce policies according to their ambitions. In such a case, political parties are internally ideologically homogeneous but differ regarding policy preferences. The party members ultimately would choose to either support or differ from the principal. In conclusion, therefore, Barbara (2016) gives evident political climate suppressing the legislation process requirement.

In conclusion, Barbara has provided a good argument base in accordance to unorthodox lawmaking. Three main elements are core in the differentiated legislative process. These include internal reforms that caused the distribution of influence between the House and the Senate, the budget reforms, and the political environment. The aspect of internal reform has seemed to be the beginning of unorthodox lawmaking. Barbara is however biased from the fact that distribution of influence in the between the House and Senate increased critics of the proposed bills. The other aspect of budget reforms confirms with Barbara view. The budget law being crucial, taxpayers might suffer large deficits. However, Barbara should have sought out the fact that ruling party can have important policies that are people centered. In such a case, the minority cannot substantially interfere with the passing of the budget reforms. Finally, political climate seems tense as is described by Barbara. Political leaders though should be firm on important amendments to policies that favor people; they should not impose laws that would be otherwise detrimental. The Congress is changing regarding lawmaking as Barbara suggests and caution should be observed.

References

Sinclair, B. (2016). Unorthodox Lawmaking: New legislative processes in the US Congress. CQ Press.