Part one: Congress
The Congress still remains important in the United States of America. However, the paper grudgingly acknowledges that the role and importance of Congress has faded and cannot be compared to the original one. It is the paper contention that Congress has a clear and essential role to play especially in light of checks and balances on the Federal Government led by the presidency and his executive members. In addition, Congress suffices to protect and champion for the special interests of the states at the national policy level. Consequently, Congress is important and still needs to be retained in the American political structure.
In addition, legislators from various states represent unique interests of the states. In that context, the paper asserts that a legislator from Delaware represents unique interests as opposed to a legislator from Rhode Island. A case in point is the different gun control policies adopted at state levels. In some states, even the conceal and carry laws have been prohibited while in others the laws are being supported and the society is embracive of gun ownership as envisaged in the Second Amendment. This points to the difference in interests by states and hence the need to have legislators from different states at the national level through the Congress.
The paper in the same vein advances for legislators at both the state and national level. The American political structure is a federalist in character hence the occurrence of government at three levels. At all levels the need for checks and balances offered by the legislative institutions is essential. Therefore, the paper asserts that legislators should be at the national and state levels and not at the national level only.
Part two: Presidency
The founders of the nation would be disappointed with the modern presidency. This is because they would see in the modern presidency the elements of imperialism and superiority. It should be noted that the founders were opposed to the monarchical systems that ruled the world before and during their times. They consequently mooted the institution of the presidency accompanied with the legislature so as to dilute the centrality of power which incurred the risks of dictatorship and imperialism. Unfortunately, the presidency has not fully lived to these ideals and instead assumed a compromise with some elements of democracy, dictatorship and imperialism.
The change in the presidency can be explained in the practicality of these objectives and ideals. Power at the end of the day has to be exercised by an institution. Some power confer responsibility on the presidency and these responsibilities must be exercised expeditiously, in the public interest and confidentially. This has occasioned the development of the presidential functions with the reduction of congressional checks and balances. This is what has led to the relative imperialism and superiority. A good example can be seen in national security. The president cannot share with Congress or any institution for that matter what the executive through the military and security agencies are doing or pursuing without comprising national security. It is consequently in the interest of the public that such powers and the attendant responsibilities be discharged without checks and balances as envisaged by the founders.
However, the presidency has not yet made Congress and Courts irrelevant. This is because the institution still have essential and critical roles to play. Congress has constitutional mandates to legislate, sanction and disapprove some of the presidential decisions and budgets and offer a check and balance on the executive. The Courts have a critical role of administering justice and serving as the final arbiters on justice among parties. These functions be Congress and the Courts have not been watered in any by the Presidency.
Part three: Government and the Economy
The concept and idea of government regulation to the markets is as emotive as it is contentious. However, it is this paper’s assertion that government ought to do the least possible. In that context, government has the regulator should ensure standards and principles as defined by the operating laws are conformed to and that non-conforming bodies (individuals and corporates) are punished with the full force of the law. This approach must be as lean as possible and under the cautious approach that promotes business but instils discipline in the society by the stakeholders.
It is fallacious to expect people to act unethically without being checked. With globalization and information technology, competition has been heightened. The need to survive and grow equally puts pressure for performance. The consequence includes the temptation by people to sacrifice ethics and pursue profits in any way possible. The Enron scandal of creative and fraudulent accounting is a good example of the compromise of ethics in preference for profits. It is, therefore, important for government to check and regulate the markets.
However, the government regulation does not need to cover all spheres and aspects. This is unnecessary, tedious and in some cases impractical. The government must identify sensitive and critical areas and undertake regulation. The approach need to be based on the high risk high regulation basis. In that manner, less risky areas can be regulated only occasionally while high risks areas need to be continuously and regularly regulated.
Works Cited
Ferell, O C, John Fraedrich and Linda Ferell. Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making and Cases. Sydney: South Western Cengage Learning, 2011.
Kloppenberg, James T. "The Two Faces of American Freedom." Journal of American History 99.4 (2013).
Macedo, Stephen and Michael Brintnall. Democracy at Risk: Renewing the Political Science of Ctizenship. Chicago: American Political Science Association , 2004.
Rourke, John T. You Decide! 2012: Current Debates in American Politics. New York: Prentice Hall, 2011.
Woll, Peter. American government: readings and cases. New York: Pearson Longman, 2010.
