The Two Majorities

Kendall, Willmoore

doi:10.2307/2108870

Cited by 20 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Congressional initiation implies that as an institution representing one of America's two majorities, 39 Congress is to a large degree organizationally and functionally autonomous. 40 Thus those who glory in a "constitutional balance" model of American political institutions can be satisfied; those who preach executive supremacy had better look again.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The President Proposes and Congress Disposes—But Not Always: Legislative Initiative on Capitol Hill

Johannes¹

1974

Rev Pol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recurring and fundamental questions about policy-making in the United States focus on Congress' ability to initiate legislation. Does Congress lead? How and when? Are conditions changing to enhance or inhibit congressional initiative?Nearly all commentators on the legislative process see the president's leadership as natural. But many have argued that he has become the dominant or even exclusive initiator of major legislation. House Republican Leader John Rhodes recently wrote that “Congress has served as little more than a glorified echo chamber for the Executive Branch of government—usually content to approve or disaprove [sic], rarely willing to initiate.” Former Senator Mike Monroney asked, “Is Congress still capable of initiating and enacting its own legislative program?”

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The President Proposes and Congress Disposes—But Not Always: Legislative Initiative on Capitol Hill

Johannes¹

1974

Rev Pol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Interestingly, Kendall compared the speaking styles of representatives, senators, and presidents. He concluded that members of the House, because of the limited size of their constituency, were more likely to be “talking about something , not nothing ,” but that as the constituency increased in size with the Senate and the presidency, those elected officials were more likely to find themselves talking about “ nothing , not something , and will also find themselves talking about situations that are too large, too complicated, for them to understand” and communicate with any clarity (Kendall, , 343, emphases in original).…”

Section: Restoring Balance and Public Lawmentioning

confidence: 99%

The LawConnecting Presidential Power to Public Law

Fisher¹

2014

Pres Stud Q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When political science developed in the United States in the 1880s, the study of politics incorporated public law. Upon its founding in 1903, the American Political Science Association linked the discipline of government studies to law. Presidential scholar Edward S. Corwin was regularly invited to testify before Congress on constitutional matters, as were other political scientists. By 1963, however, behavioral studies topped the list of fields in which significant work was being done. Located at the bottom was public law. Presidential scholars, giving little attention to legal and constitutional analysis, generally promoted broad trust in presidential power with few checks. That orientation has been rejected by a number of political scientists who remain committed to public law. Part of the political science discipline remains divorced from legal analysis.

show abstract

Section: Presidential Models After Neustadtmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From the 1940s to the 1960s, those who consistently critiqued presidential power and defended Congress and republican government tended to be conservatives, including Friedrich Hayek, James Burnham, Willmoore Kendall, and Alfred de Grazia (Hayek 1944, Burnham 1959, Kendall 1960, de Grazia 1967). Kendall's article in 1960 reviewed some prevailing stereotypes, with intellectuals believing that the executive reflected “enlightened opinion” and Congress representing low principle, reaction, and unintelligence (Kendall 1960, 325). Yet Kendall observed that members of the House, because of the size of their constituency, were more likely to be “talking about something , not nothing ,” and that as the constituency increased in size to the Senate and the president, those elected officials were more likely to find themselves talking about “ nothing, not something , and will also find themselves talking about situations and problems that are too large, too complicated, for them to understand” (ibid., 343, emphases in original).…”

Section: Presidential Models After Neustadtmentioning

confidence: 99%

Teaching the Presidency: Idealizing a Constitutional Office

Fisher¹

2012

APSC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From World War II to the present, prominent scholars placed their hopes in the presidency to protect the nation from outside threats and deal effectively with domestic crises. Their theories weakened the constitutional system of separation of powers and checks and balances by reviving an outsized trust in executive power (especially over external affairs) that William Blackstone and others promoted in eighteenth-century England. The American framers of the Constitution studied those models with great care and fully rejected those precedents when they declared their independence from England.

show abstract

The Two Majorities

Cited by 20 publications

References 0 publications

The President Proposes and Congress Disposes—But Not Always: Legislative Initiative on Capitol Hill

The President Proposes and Congress Disposes—But Not Always: Legislative Initiative on Capitol Hill

The LawConnecting Presidential Power to Public Law

Teaching the Presidency: Idealizing a Constitutional Office

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About