Abstract
This paper includes information about three completely different issues connected with the U.S authority, the Constitution and political power. The articles include information about what is congressional ethics and ethical violations of the Congress members, minor and major parties struggle, and clashes between Federal and State Laws. The paper examines pros and cons and gives appraisals of the issues.
Congressional Ethics Violations.
What is “congressional ethics”? And why do we need it? Basically, it is a set of rules and procedures that determine and regulate ethical behavior of members of the House, which are related to gifts, traveling and campaign activities. These rules exist to promote and enforce the proper conduct of public officials and to maintain public confidence in government. Ethics laws “drain the swamp” and make sure the government serves the public rather than public officials' whims or private interests. However, current and former members of Congress, and their staff, are still cashing in at the expense of the country because no matter how tough laws are there is always “a loop-hole” to find. Democratic Representative Charles Rangel, who had been found guilty of 11 of the 13 charges of ethics violations against him, provides us with an example of ethical violations. The longtime New York representative, war hero, history-making Congressman was accused of violating congressional ethics in his efforts to found the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York. The probe alleged that Rangel frequently solicited donations from lobbyists and companies with interests before the Ways and Means Committee, which were not proved (Christopher Lee, 2008). Potential punishments included a formal reprimand or censure and even expulsion, but that had not happened. Instead, he resigned as a congress chairman for being involved in corporate-financing traveling, which was actually a minor violation than the previous one (Office of Congressional Ethics, 2009). I am not completely satisfied with the Committee’s decision. Charles Rangel had violated the trust of the House, and moreover - he had violated the trust of the U.S. citizens, and this disturbed confidence in other members of the House. His stay leads to a suggestion that other Congressmen were also not “clear” of misdeeds. Despite his 40 years of service to the Congress he should have been expelled. Charles Rangel is now serving 23rd term in the House of Representatives and is the second longest-serving Democrat (Bredderman, 2016).
Third Party Candidates.
In the United States of America, political authority is concentrated in the hands of two major and the most powerful parties – the Democrats and the Republicans. Leaders of these two parties alternatively hold the President’s office and rule the country. Throughout the years members of the minority parties, so-called third parties have tried to endorse their own candidates and win, however their major success have been far from achieving a goal of winning the presidential race. Their successes have been short-lived and were mostly characterized by spoiling the bid of one of the major party’s candidates and stealing the votes from him. In addition, it is a wide known fact that the only independent candidate to win the office without the endorsement of the major party was George Washington. As we can see, history shows that neither third party candidates nor independents candidates have any viable chance to win the Presidential race. According to G. William Domhoff, one of the main reasons is the lack of financing. A third party gets government financing for the presidential campaign only if their candidate reached a 5% threshold during the last presidential elections, which is a very rare situation (G. William Domhoff, 2005) The second major reason is the lack of organization. Third parties just do not have the resources, both human and financial, to organize and control a successful campaign in all of the fifty states. Thirdly, major parties do everything in their power to prevent third party candidates not only from winning the elections, but from even participating. Restrictive ballot access laws and other barriers that the major parties have erected to protect their de facto monopoly serve this issue very well. (G. William Domhoff, 2005). This is what happened during the year 2004 elections. The independent candidate Ralph Nader had managed to build his campaign and was gaining support, however with the lack of financing and strong opposition from the major parties his campaign failed. Nader was sued by the Democrats multiple times to have his name taken out from the ballots in different states. As a result, his campaign had very little influence on the overall results of the elections (G. William Domhoff, 2005). The Democratic and Republican Parties do their best to retain the power. They make prohibitively difficult for a third party to be consistently competitive even at the state or local level without the possibility of a third party member to ever being elected as a president. At the same time, they work hard to co-opt third party issues and fold their supporters into their members leaving them with nothing. If there was any chance for a third party to beat the duopoly and share the political power, the Democrats and Republicans would be forced to give up their positions, make compromises and create a coalition. This would create diversity of views in the government and more demands of the voters would be heard and addressed.
Federal and State Authority.
There are two basic levels in the U.S legal system: federal laws and state laws. Federal laws apply to everyone in the United States, and state laws apply only to people who live or work in a particular state. The Federal government is supreme to state governments. It prevails in direct conflict with a state law. A state law is able to afford more rights to its residents than federal law does, but the federal authority makes final decisions. The law that applies to situations where state and federal laws disagree is called the Supremacy Clause. Unfortunately, there is always a loophole in laws to go through. It happened to be the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (The Bill of Rights: A Transcription, 1791). It was construed that the Federal government had no rights to pass laws prohibiting an individual's right to possess a handgun in a home and requiring any firearms in the home to be inoperable during possession, in 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller (Acosta, 2008). As a result of this Supreme Court ruling, the Federal Government lost some influence over the gun control in the country and states started to pass laws to prevent any future federal gun measures from being enforced in the state. Among those laws is the Second Amendment Protection Act in Idaho. In Kansas, a law made federal regulation not to apply to guns manufactured in the state. Wyoming, South Dakota and Arizona have had laws protecting “firearms freedom” from the U.S. government since 2010 (Cage & Dance, 2013). This example shows us that there is a clear contradiction between the federal laws and state laws, which leads to a different interpretation of the Constitution on the federal and state levels.
References
Acosta, L. (2008, July). United States: Gun Ownership and the Supreme Court. Retrieved March 03, 2016, from https://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php
Bredderman, W. (2016). Harlem's Lion in Winter - A Requiem for Rangel. Retrieved March 03, 2016, from https://rangel.house.gov/news/articles/harlems-lion-winter-requiem-rangel
Cage, F., & Dance, G. (2013). Gun laws in the US, state by state â interactive. Retrieved March 03, 2016, from http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jan/15/gun-laws-united-states
Domhoff, W. G. (2005, March). Who Rules America: Third Parties Don't Work. Retrieved March 03, 2016, from http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science_egalitarians.html
Domhoff, W. G. (2005, March). Who Rules America: The What-If Nader Campaign of 2000. Retrieved March 03, 2016, from http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/change/science_nader.html
Lee, C. (2008). Rangel's Pet Cause Bears His Own Name. Retrieved March 03, 2016, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/14/AR2008071402546.html
Office of Congressional Ethics, US House of Representatives. (2009, June). Review No. 09–6333. Retrieved March 03, 2016, from http://oce.house.gov/2010/02/february-26-2010---oce-referral-regarding-rep-rangel.html
The Bill of Rights: A Transcription. (1791). Retrieved March 03, 2016, from http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
