Search results

Much of the extant literature on legislative organization treats Congress' jurisdictional framework as an exogenous facet of the political landscape. While bill referral and statutory rules are key institutional determinants shaping the politics of committee jurisdiction, we argue that important choices affecting committee power occur at post-referral stages of the legislative process, including actions taken by the Rules Committee. The analysis suggests that variation in amendment challenges to committee bills resulting from special rule decisions is systematically affected by key factors related to organizational theories of Congress. The findings have at least two important implications for committee power in the U.S. House. Special rule decisions can shape committee power by closing or opening access to committee products bill by bill. This result diminishes the significance of prior referral decisions granting committees the prerogative to exercise uninhibited discretion over policies within their jurisdiction. Furthermore, the findings demonstrate that patterns in amendment rights conferred by special rules respond systematically to majority party interests.

Much of the extant literature on legislative organization treats Congress' jurisdictional framework as an exogenous facet of the political landscape. While bill referral & statutory rules are key institutional determinants shaping the politics of committee jurisdiction, we argue that important choices affecting committee power occur at post-referral stages of the legislative process, including actions taken by the Rules Committee. The analysis suggests that variation in amendment challenges to committee bills resulting from special rule decisions is systematically affected by key factors related to organizational theories of Congress. The findings have at least two important implications for committee power in the U.S. House. Special rule decisions can shape committee power by closing or opening access to committee products bill by bill. This result diminishes the significance of prior referral decisions granting committees the prerogative to exercise uninhibited discretion over policies within their jurisdiction. Furthermore, the findings demonstrate that patterns in amendment rights conferred by special rules respond systematically to majority party interests. 3 Tables, 1 Appendix, 30 References. Adapted from the source document.

Recent research on congressional‐executive relations has concluded that partisan and ideological forces explaining decision making in domestic policy have also become dominant in the realm of foreign policy. Accordingly, scholars have inferred the effective demise of the two‐presidencies. In this analysis, the authors compare models explaining bipartisan congressional support of the president on domestic issues with that of foreign and defense. Although factors relating to the congressional context tended to be influential in both policy areas, they found important differences in the effects of factors relating to the international context. They also found that congressional bipartisan support was significantly less likely on matters related to the purse strings and on issues such as trade. The contrasting effects of the explanatory factors across policy areas suggest the importance of both the two‐presidencies and resurgent Congress perspectives in explaining congressional‐executive interactions.

Summarizes predictions and findings in the literature regarding committee behavior and role in the legislature, arguing that appropriations bills with nationally salient issues will be more likely to invoke partisan conflict, but less likely to generate committee bias than bills with parochial interests; since 1979; US. Compares data on votes in the 96th, 100th, and 104th Congresses.

AbstractThis article investigates the variables that affect the award of
tenure in political science departments in the United States. We
examined two dependent variables: (1) whether a department has
denied tenure in the past five years, and (2) whether a positive
departmental tenure recommendation has been reversed by higher
college or university authorities during the same period of time.
Five clusters of independent variables were evaluated: (1)
college/university and departmental characteristics, (2) the
procedures employed to evaluate tenure cases, (3) the instruments
used to assess teaching, (4) service expectations, and (5) research
and publication standards. We found that the most important factors
affecting departmental decisions to deny tenure were whether
teaching and substantive publications were treated as equally
valuable qualifications, the number of articles a candidate
published, and the candidate's level of commitment to advising.
Interestingly, reversal decisions by higher authorities were not
strongly affected by any of the variables in the analysis.

Recent scholarly attention has considerably advanced our understanding of executive orders. We argue that executive orders represent a valuable opportunity to assess the relevance of the two presidencies and the distinction between foreign and domestic policies. The over-time analysis (1953-1997) demonstrates significant differences in the effects for most of the variables explaining executive orders depending on the issue area. For example, we find that the president's share of congressional party seats significantly affects executive orders on domestic policy, but no such effects are found on foreign policy. This result, as well as many others in the analysis, illustrates that factors shaping the executive's ability to influence policy in Congress differ substantially in their effects on domestic as compared to foreign policy executive orders. We infer from our analysis that the two-presidencies distinction remains a useful one, at least for understanding executive orders.

Previous research suggests that women's descriptive representation may have a role-model effect on young women, encouraging them to greater levels of political participation. Using data from the Monitoring the Future Survey and the National Survey of Political and Civic Engagement of Young People, we examine whether highly visible female role models like Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Sarah Palin, and viable female candidates for governor and senator had a role-model effect on young women. At the national level, we find some evidence of a role-model effect resulting from the election of Speaker Pelosi and the presidential candidacy of Hillary Clinton, but the effects are largely concentrated among young women who are Democratic and liberal. We find little evidence that Sarah Palin's vice-presidential run had a role-model effect on young women, regardless of party or ideology. Our state-level analysis of viable female gubernatorial and senatorial candidates finds that role-model effects on young women and men are mediated in different ways by ideology and, to a lesser extent, party.

In "See Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Sarah Palin Run?" we extend the work of David Campbell and Christina Wolbrecht to assess whether young women see themselves as more likely to engage in political activities in response to the presence of national-level female role models. One of the key methodological challenges facing researchers analyzing whether female candidates and officeholders have a role-model effect on individuals is the fact that the presence of women as candidates and officeholders constitutes a state-level or district-level variable rather than an individual-level variable that is independent across cases. In this case study, we describe how we incorporated hierarchical linear modeling regression to address the challenge that mixed-level analysis poses to the study of the role-model effect. A review of our research process illustrates why it is important for scholars to be transparent about their data and methods.

There are three general models of Supreme Court decision making: the legal model, the attitudinal model and the strategic model. But each is somewhat incomplete. This book advances an integrated model of Supreme Court decision making that incorporates variables from each of the three models. In examining the modern Supreme Court, since Brown v. Board of Education, the book argues that decisions are a function of the sincere preferences of the justices, the nature of precedent, and the development of the particular issue, as well as separation of powers and the potential constraints posed by the president and Congress. To test this model, the authors examine all full, signed civil liberties and economic cases decisions in the 1953–2000 period. Decision Making by the Modern Supreme Court argues, and the results confirm, that judicial decision making is more nuanced than the attitudinal or legal models have argued in the past

We argue that the Supreme Court's long‐term goal of maintaining legitimacy and institutional power reflects an underdeveloped strategic consideration in models of judicial decision making. Our article posits that both institutional‐ and policy‐related incentives exist for the Court to engage in strategic behavior, and that those motivations may be differentially applicable to decision making in constitutional versus statutory cases. Our results offer broad confirmation of the above hypotheses, providing an important supplement to our understanding of how Congress may affect the Supreme Court's role in constructing legal policy.Related Articles
McKenzie, Mark Jonathan, and Michael A. Unger. 2011. " ." Politics & Policy 39 (): 813‐834. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747‐1346.2011.00317.x/full


Sharma, Hemant, and John M. Scheb II. 2011. "." Politics & Policy 39 (): 1077‐1105. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747‐1346.2011.00325.x/full


Curry, Brett, and Banks Miller. 2008. "." Politics & Policy 36 (): 1094‐1124. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747‐1346.2008.00151.x/full
Related MediaFilm Clips: . 2012. "." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaoLMW5AF4Y


. 2012. "." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCA38zjwNJM