Comprehensive Overview of Unit 2: AP Government - The Three Branches of Government

Hey there and welcome back to Himler's History. Now, in this video, I'm going to take you through everything you need

to know about unit two of AP Government. And oh, baby, is this one a beast. So, get them brain cows ready for milking

because we have no time to waste. Let's get to it. So, unit two is all about the three branches of government and how

they interact with each other. We're going to start by talking about the legislative branch, then we'll move on

to the executive branch, and then we'll talk all about the judicial branch. But, we'll also talk about that kind of

unofficial fourth branch of government, namely the bureaucracy. M. You smell that? That smells like learning and it

smells good. You should know that this video is part of my eight review packet which has exclusive video content, all

the practice questions your little heart could desire, essential course questions and answers, and basically everything

you need to do well in this course and on your exam in May. You know, if you're into that kind of thing to get that

clicky finger out and have at it. Okay, let's begin with the legislative branch, which is to say Congress, which

is the lawmaking branch of the government. Structurally, Congress is made up of two houses and the word for

that is biccameal. That means in order to pass a bill, two camels are required to spit upon the legislation and that's

how laws are made. Yeah, that's not how laws are made. But now I'm wondering if I even want to live in a country where

laws are not made that way. Anyway, Congress is made up of two houses. And the first is the House of

Representatives. In this house, representatives are aortioned by the population of each state. More populist

states have more representatives and vice versa. Now, representatives in the House are more closely tied to the

people whom they represent for two reasons. First, they only serve two-year terms, and that means that they better

listen to the people who elected them because in two years, they have to go right on back and ask them for another

term. Second, because a state is made up of, in most cases, many districts, House members represent fewer people and thus

are able to know their constituency better. Just for poops and giggles, you should probably know that there are 435

representatives that make up the House. The second House of Congress is the Senate. There are 100 senators because

each state gets two. And if this history teacher has his math right, that means we have approximately 50 states. Now,

senators serve for 6 years and have a few more constitutional responsibilities than do members of the House. And I'll

talk more about those in a minute. But because those senators represent an entire state, they are, all things being

equal, going to be less connected to the intimate details of their constituency than House members. And taken together,

both houses of Congress are required to pass legislation. They must agree on identical versions of the bills and then

pass them on to the president for signing. Now, you should know that in doing this work of legislation,

coalitions are formed in order to make the process more efficient. These coalitions are formed in both houses,

but the durability of the working relationships are affected by termlength differences. Senate coalitions tend to

be longerlasting and more durable, while House coalitions can change more often even though re-election rates tend to be

high. Now, let's talk about where Congress gets its power. And for that you need to know two terms enumerated

powers and implied powers. Enumerated powers are those powers explicitly listed in article 1 section 8 of the

constitution. The enumerated powers of congress include but are not limited to federal funding, foreign policy and

military legislation. Now under the heading of funding, Congress has the power to raise revenue through taxation,

coin money for a uniform currency throughout the nation, and pass a federal budget. Under the heading of

foreign policy and military legislation, Congress has perhaps the most important and far-reaching foreign policy

decision, and that is to declare war. To that end, Congress can raise armies, pass draft laws, and direct funding to

the armed forces. Okay, so those are some of the enumerated powers that Congress holds, but they also have

implied powers. This basically means that Congress can pass any law that is required by the enumerated powers. And

the justification for these powers comes at the end of article 1, section 8, and it's known as the necessary and proper

clause, also known as the elastic clause. By this power, Congress can pass a wide range of legislation addressing

economic, environmental, and social issues, even if they're not explicitly mentioned in Article 1, Section 8. For

example, Alexander Hamilton used the necessary and proper clause to argue for the establishment of a national bank.

Article 1 section 8 says that Congress can raise funds through taxation. So, you know, that's an enumerated power,

but it says precisely nothing about Congress having the authority to establish a bank. However, Hamilton

argued that if the federal government is going to be raising money, it was necessary and proper to establish a

bank. So, his argument was that the need for a bank was implied by the power for raising taxes. Okay. Now, let's talk

about the leadership structures in Congress. And we'll start with the House. The Constitution only mentions

one leader for the House, and that's the speaker of the House. And basically, all it says is that the House members will

choose this leader. Now, the speaker will always be a member of the majority party, not because that's what the

Constitution mandates, but because this leader assumes his or her position by a vote. And the majority party isn't going

to vote for somebody in the minority party. Now, the speaker has significant power from recognizing who can speak and

who cannot to assigning representatives to committees. Now, under the speaker are the majority and the minority

leaders. And they basically direct debates and guide their party members in policymaking issues. Then you have the

whips, one each for the majority and minority parties. And whips are exactly what they sound like. Like if

representatives are a bunch of livestock, then the whips get in there and make sure that their party is moving

in the same direction. And if a party member steps out of line, so whips render party discipline and make sure

members of the party walk in line with the party goals. Then over in the Senate, you have a somewhat different

leadership structure. There are two Senate leaders mentioned in the Constitution, and the first is the

president of the Senate, and that privilege falls to the vice president of the United States. Now, the vice

president is a non- voting member of the Senate, unless there's a tie, and then the vice president can vote. The second

Senate leader mentioned in the Constitution is the president proemporary, commonly known as the

president prom. This is the most senior member of the majority party and has the authority to act as president of the

senate when the vice president is not present which in modern times is a lot. Okay. The next rung down on the

leadership structure is the senate majority leader which is in practice much more powerful than the president

and the president prom. This person sets the legislative agenda by determining which bills reach the floor for debate

and which ones do not. And then finally you have the whips who function the same way in the senate as they do in the

house. Okay, so that's the basic leadership structure. Now, let's talk about how these representatives get

their legislative work done. And in both houses, most of the work is done in committees. Now, committees are not

required by the constitution, but they're more of a practical necessity. Essentially, they're small groups of

representatives who can debate and draft precise legislation that would otherwise be impossible in the large group

setting. Now, there are four kinds of committees you need to know about. First, standing committees, which are

committees that endure for a long time. For example, in the Senate, you have the standing committee on the budget, and in

the House, you have the House Judiciary Committee. Both of these are permanent committees because they do work that

always needs to be done from congressional session to congressional session. It's standing committees where

new legislation begins and most bills never make it past that stage. Second, you have joint committees which are

groups that have members from both the House and the Senate. An example of this is the joint committee on the Library of

Congress. Third, you have select committees which are temporary and created for a specific purpose. Like

they're basically the opposite of standing committees. For example, a select committee was formed to

investigate President Richard Nixon's Watergate scandal. And when that was done, the committee was dissolved. And

fourth, you have conference committees. Now, to understand the purpose of these committees, you have to realize that if

a bill is going to become a law, the bill must be passed by both houses in identical form. So, if the House passes

a bill to raise income tax by 5% and the Senate has the same bill, but added a provision to provide every American

household with a 5gallon tub of nacho cheese per month. Well, then they have to go into a conference committee and

work out the difference. In that case, I think it's obvious how to work it out. get rid of the 5% and give us the

cheese. Now, one last note about committees. Generally, they serve the goals of the majority party since they

hold a majority of seats on each committee and the committee chair is always from the majority party. Okay?

Now, all the committees I just mentioned are found in both the House and the Senate, but each house has different

rules that they follow for getting their work done. House rules mandate limited debate, and that's not hard to

understand why. Like, compared to the Senate, the House has a metric buttload of representatives, and if everyone

talked as long as they wanted to, they'd never get anything done. So, the House limits its members to one hour for

debate. Additionally, the House has the House Rules Committee, which wields an awful lot of power. This committee is

the one that decides which bills make it to the floor for debate, which means that if this committee doesn't allow the

bill through, it effectively dies. The House also has a unique committee called the Committee of the Whole, which

theoretically includes all 435 representatives, although only a quorum of a 100 is required to call this

committee. Basically, calling the committee of the whole is just a procedural move that relaxes some of the

rules for debate so that amendments for bills can be considered and debated more quickly. And the House also makes use of

what's called a discharge petition. So, if a bill gets stuck in a committee and the rest of the House wants to bring it

out for consideration that can muster a majority vote, which will bring that bill out of the committee and into the

House for consideration and voting. But the Senate has a slightly different way of getting its work done. In the Senate,

the rules for debate are much more relaxed because there are less members. In the Senate, representatives can have

unlimited time to debate bills. And one way that they can use that privilege to slow down a bill is by using the

filibuster. Basically, this is an attempt to stall or kill a bill by talking for a very long time. However,

the Cloer rule is a way to get a filibustering senator to shut it. It requires a twothirds vote, which is to

say 60 senators to shut down the filibuster and to bring the bill to a vote. Now, getting 60 senators to agree

on this is a very difficult thing, and it doesn't happen that often. Okay? So, the Senate also gets his work done

through something called unanimous consent as a way of speeding legislation along. Before they get to work, the

acting Senate President asks all the senators if they will agree to limit debate. And of course, this is a way of

avoiding the possibility of a filibuster. And since it requires unanimous agreement, even one senator

can object, which is called a hold, and thus the bill under consideration can be stalled. Okay. Now that we understand

how each house of Congress gets its work done, let's talk about the basic process of how a bill becomes a law. First, the

bill has to be introduced, and a member from either house can do that. Second, a bill is assigned to a committee, and

there it often undergoes some changes. Sometimes writers are added, which are essentially non-relevant additions,

which will usually benefit a representative's own agenda, or alternatively, it could be something

added to help get the bill passed. Sometimes pork barrel spending is added, which are funds earmarked for special

projects in a representative's district. And probably the most well-known occasion of pork barrel spending became

known as the bridge to nowhere. Basically, there was a bill introduced to provide body armor for US troops in

Iraq. And an Alaska senator thought, h, you know, nobody in their right mind is going to vote against body armor for US

troops. So, why don't we go ahead and add $400 million for Alaska in there to build a bridge. So, you know, the

process can be a little sleazy. Anyway, after the bill is marked up and amended, it comes back to the whole group where

they vote on it. And, you know, in a perfect world, representatives would just vote on the merits of a bill, but

sometimes folks engage in log rolling. And this just means that representatives agree and say to each other, "Hey, if

you vote for my bill, I'll vote for yours." It's an elaborate system of congressional backscratching. But

regardless, if the bill gets a thumbs up, then it heads to the president's desk for signing. Now, before we move

on, I should probably mention that arguably the most important legislative work done by Congress is passing a

federal budget. Now, most of the federal government's income is gathered from income taxes, although there are other

taxes and tariffs that generate income as well. And when it comes time for passing a budget, Congress has to

allocate funds according to two categories. First is mandatory spending which is spending that is you know

mandatory. These are payments required by law especially with respect to entitlement spending. For example,

Congress passed the social security act and that means that they have to make those payments to retirees by law. Other

big entitlement spending categories include Medicare and Medicaid and mandatory spending also includes

interest payments on debt of which there is a metric buttload. Now after mandatory spending is accounted for

everything that's left over is called discretionary spending. And so committees debate how to use these

funds. And the biggest recipient of discretionary spending by far is paying federal employees. Now, this is probably

common sense, but I'll say it anyway. As mandatory spending, otherwise known as entitlement spending, increases,

discretionary spending must decrease. That is, of course, assuming that the federal government operates on a

balanced budget. Wouldn't that be hilarious if they did that? No. There are always more opportunities to spend

money than there is money available. So, there are two ways to increase discretionary spending. First, Congress

can raise taxes, and people generally don't like that. Second, Congress can approve an increase in deficit spending.

The deficit basically just describes the gap between the budget and the funds available. And where does that money

come from? They borrow it. Okay. Now, there is still more to talk about regarding how Congress gets its work

done. I've given you the mechanics of how they get their work done, but now let's consider some of the factors that

might slow down or speed up how they get their work done. Factor number one is ideological divisions. Over the last 30

years, Republicans have become more conservative and Democrats have become more liberal, which is a phenomenon

called political polarization. This makes negotiation and compromise, which are essential for passing legislation,

very difficult and often leads to gridlock regarding policy. So, the quickest way for Congress to get things

done in this atmosphere is for one party to have a majority in both houses of Congress, which means they can just push

their legislation through without an occasion for the minority to interrupt it. If that's not the case, then

generally anything that requires compromise gets stuck and slows the whole machinery down. That slowdown

could be even worse when we have a divided government, which is to say the president is from one party and both

houses of Congress are from another. For example, in 2016, President Obama, a Democrat, had the occasion to appoint a

new judge to the Supreme Court. And obviously, he's going to choose a liberal judge. But the Republican

dominated Senate argued that since it was an election year, they should wait to see who would win the presidency

before they confirmed a new judge. You know, Obama was serving in the last months of his second term, which made

him a lame duck president, which basically means that he had very little power to do anything since he was on his

way out of office. So, the Senate simply wouldn't hold a confirmation hearing, but the situation was very different in

2020. That also was an election year and Republican President Donald Trump had the occasion to appoint a new justice

and the Republican Senate rushed the confirmation through without waiting on the outcome of the election. So here you

have a very good example of how a divided government can slow things down and how a unified government can speed

things up. All right. Another factor that affects the efficiency of the work that Congress does is the differing

conceptions of their representative role in determining how they vote. Some representatives follow the trustee

model, which means they believe that they have been entrusted with the people's faith to vote according to the

representatives best judgment. A good example of this is Republican Senator Mitt Romney's vote to remove Donald

Trump from office. This was a move that the majority of his constituency did not support, but he voted according to his

best judgment. Other representatives follow the delegate model, which means that the representative believes that he

or she must vote with the will of the people, even if it goes against their own better judgment. And you find this

model more in the House since their two-year terms make them more accountable to the people. And then

still other representatives adopt the Politico model, which is basically just a blend of the other two. For the

Politico, how they vote depends on the situation. Like if there is a strong public opinion on an issue, the Politico

will consider that when voting and may act like a delegate. If not, they will vote like a trustee. Okay. Now, there is

one more issue that you need to know with respect to the efficiency of congressional work, and that is

redistricting and gerrymandering. That sounds like two things, Himler. I know what I said, but they're related, so

cool off. Anyway, the Constitution says that every 10 years, a census must be taken to find out how many people live

in the United States and where they live. Then based on that information, the number of representatives for each

state is aortioned to reflect the population. And then congressional districts are redrawn to reflect those

new seats. So you've got reaportionment, which is the doullling out of representative seats. And then you have

redistricting, which is the redrawing of boundaries that those folks represent. So this is a highly contentious issue,

and things can get even more heated when districts are not reaportioned properly. And to understand that, we need to talk

about two required Supreme Court cases. First is Baker versus Carr in 1962. So by 1962, Tennessee had not redrawn its

districts for over 60 years. In that time, the urban populations of Tennessee had exploded while the rural populations

had grown much slower. That meant that rural citizens had much more voting power than urban citizens. Or to say it

another way, a minority of voters had a majority of the power precisely because districts had not been redrawn. So in

this case, the Supreme Court ruled that such a situation violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

And out of this decision, we got the one person, one vote principle. In other words, districts must be drawn in order

to evenly distribute voting power. Additionally, this case settled the question about whether aortionment

issues are justable, which means whether or not the court can rule on such questions. And in case you're not

following, the answer is yes. The court can rule on aortionment issues because it is a constitutional issue, not a

political issue. The second case you need to know is Shaw versus Reno in 1993 which was similar to Baker versus Carr

in that it dealt with the drawing of congressional districts but in this case it considered the constitutionality of

drawing those districts based on race alone. Now in order to understand the outcome of this case you need to

understand the concept of gerrymandering. Basically this is a way of drawing districts and it's a little

sleazy because districts can be drawn to favor one group over another. Usually gerrymandered districts are drawn in

weird shapes which don't correspond at all to the natural features of the landscape and they're drawn that way to

ensure that a certain party has the advantage in that district and that is what's known as partisan gerrymandering.

But Shaw versus Reno dealt with a different kind of gerrymandering known as racial gerrymandering which means

districts are drawn so that certain races constitute the majority in those districts. So in this case, two

districts in North Carolina were drawn with strange shapes and created majority black districts, which actually meant

that these districts had a very good chance of electing black folks to office, thus upholding the provisions of

the Voting Rights Act of 1965 for historically discriminated people. However, the court ruled that drawing

this district solely based on race, even if it helped historically discriminated people, was a dangerous practice and

thus unconstitutional. So, the point of everything I just said at length is to show you how all of these factors taken

together affect how well Congress is able to do its job. Okay, that was a lot, but let's keep going and talk now

about the executive branch. If you're weary after all that talk about Congress, then go get yourself one of

those energy drinks that have enough caffeine to kill a small horse. Let's continue.

So, let's begin talking about how a president can implement his or in the future perhaps her policy agenda. Now,

every president comes into office with a set of policies that they want to see enacted. But as you know by now, it is

Congress that has constitutional authority to pass laws, not the president. So, how does the president

get that policy agenda enacted? Well, through formal powers and informal powers. The president's formal powers

are laid out in article two of the constitution. And let's talk about a couple of them. First, and maybe most

important of the president's formal powers is the veto. As I mentioned before, if a bill is going to become a

law, then the president must sign it within 10 days of its arrival on the executive desk. If a particular law is

not in line with the president's policy agenda, then the president can veto it, which means the bill will not become a

law. At that point, three things can happen. Number one, the bill dies. Everyone wipes a single tear off their

face and life goes on. Two, the bill is sent back to Congress and they can add or subtract items from the bill to make

it more palatable to the president. And if that happens, that means that the bill would have to start over completely

and go through the entire process again. And thus, when a president even threatens a veto, it incentivizes

Congress to negotiate further before sending the bill to the presidential desk. Three, Congress can override a

presidential veto with a twothirds vote, which is very difficult to do. Now, that's the formal veto process, but the

president can also exercise informal powers with the veto. An example of this is what I just mentioned, like the

president threatens to veto, and so that sends a signal to Congress that they have to work the bill into something

that the president can sign. The president can also employ the pocket veto.

It was right there in my pocket all along. Remember that the president has 10 days to sign the bill into law. But

if a bill shows up that does not align with the president's policy agenda and there are less than 10 days left in the

congressional session, the president can do nothing with it, let the session expire, and the bill is effectively

vetoed. On the other hand, if there are more than 10 days left in the session and the president does not sign it, the

bill then becomes a law. Now, the president is also given formal powers with respect to foreign policy.

According to article 2, the president is the commander-in-chief of the United States armed forces. Even so, remember

that the president can't declare war. That power belongs to Congress. But that can get a little murky because not every

deployment of troops equals a declaration of war. For example, President Obama authorized Navy Seals to

kill Osama bin Laden in 2011. Now, with respect to foreign policy, the president can enter into executive agreements with

other heads of state. This isn't a treaty since treaty ratification is a power belonging to the Senate, but more

like a contract between a president and another president or monarch. For example, before the US entered World War

II, President Roosevelt made an executive agreement with Britain to provide US destroyers in exchange for

99-year leases on certain UK naval bases. Okay, now I've given you some of the formal powers of the presidency laid

out in the Constitution, and I've dabbled in some of the more informal powers, but now let's talk directly

about those informal powers. The first informal power of the president is bargaining and persuasion. We'll talk

more about this in a moment, but essentially, the president has the nation's attention in a way that no

other politician does. So the president can use that attention to persuade the people according to the executive policy

agenda. Another informal power is the executive order. And this is a directive from the president that has the force of

federal law, but it's not actually a law. That's confusing, Himler. Well, then let

me explain it up real nice to you. Mainly, executive orders direct the actions of the federal bureaucracy and

the military, which are both areas the president does have direct authority over. For example, by executive order,

the president can move money from one bureaucratic agency to another in order to get done what the president wants to

get done. For example, one of Donald Trump's central campaign promises was to build a wall on the US Mexico border.

And when Congress wouldn't approve that funding, Trump declared a national emergency and by executive order moved

money from several executive agencies so that the work could begin. Another informal power of the president is the

signing statement. So when signing a bill into law, the president can also issue a signing statement which informs

the nation how the executive branch interprets that law and thus how the president intends to execute it, which

of course could be different than the congressional version of the law. Okay. Now, still keeping with the president's

policy agenda, it won't surprise you to know that this agenda can conflict with the agendas of other branches of

government, especially with Congress, and even more specifically with the Senate. So included in the president's

power is the ability to make federal appointments. But those appointments have to be confirmed by the Senate and

that can lead to some tension. Let me just give you some examples. The president appoints a team of adviserss

which is known as the cabinet. These folks make up the heads of all the different executive agencies on which

more in a moment. And typically the Senate just lets these appointments cruise on through on the assumption that

the president should be able to choose their own staff. However, there are some cabinet appointments that get downright

scrappy. For example, Donald Trump nominated Betsy Devos as the education secretary. because she made it clear

that she would pursue the privatization of education. That made her a lot of enemies in the Senate. Her confirmation

hearing actually ended in a tie and that brought Vice President Mike Pence, the president of the Senate, to break the

tie in DVOS's favor. The president also appoints ambassadors to other countries. And usually the Senate just confirms

those folks without much drama. The White House staff is likewise appointed by the president, but requires no Senate

confirmation. At this point, you're like, "I thought you said there was tension here between these two branches.

Like, give us the drama." All right, you want the sauce? I'll give you the sauce. The sauce comes when there's an opening

for a federal court nomination, more specifically the Supreme Court nomination. This is where things get

highly contentious. Judges who are appointed to the Supreme Court hold that job for the rest of their lives. And

that means that if a president appoints a judge who is favorable to the presidential policy agenda, the judge

can rule in line with that agenda for many years to come after the president is no longer in office. Not

surprisingly, conservative presidents appoint conservative judges and liberal presidents appoint liberal judges. And

because of the long-term effects of this appointment, it creates no small amount of tension with the senators of the

opposite party. Now, you should know that over the course of US history, the scope of presidential power has expanded

roughly 3 to four metric buttloads, give or take. And reaching all the way back to unit one, this expansion of power in

the executive branch is exactly what the anti-federalists were worried about. In fact, they said that the presidency, as

it was laid out in the constitution, was nothing less than the fetus of monarchy. But Hark, I see upon yonder a required

document. It's Federalist 70. And in this essay, Hamilton argues that a single executive was necessary because

one person is able to act swiftly and decisively on matters that require firm leadership and tactical decision-making.

Additionally, Hamilton argued that the executive branch can be checked with the power of the other two branches. So, a

presidential monarch would be an impossibility. And finally, if the president does turn out to be a corrupt

turd, then it is much more easily detectable in a single individual than in multiple. And thus a single executive

will have to be much more careful with their power since they will be much more closely watched. And ultimately as you

already know that was the argument that won the day. But even so as I mentioned the power of the president has grown

significantly over time. George Washington along with the first five presidents who followed him basically

yielded to Congress's agenda since Congress was the voice of the people. Washington even stepped down after two

terms to put the kibash on any fears of an overbearing executive. Like remember in Washington's day there was no limit

on the number of terms a president can serve. Now later that was added to the constitution in the 22nd amendment but

still Washington set the two-term president but then there was a significant shift in presidential power

in the presidency of Andrew Jackson. He believed that the president was the representative of the people and not

congress and thus he expanded the power of the executive office to reflect that. And the classic example here is the

Supreme Court ruling that it was unconstitutional for the executive branch to force the Cherokee Indians off

of their land in Georgia. And yet Jackson went ahead and did it anyway because that's what in his mind the

people wanted. And then presidential powers expanded even further with Abraham Lincoln. He assumed way more

power than any president before him and he's generally forgiven for it because he had the civil war to fight. Most

famously, he suspended the constitutional right of habius corpus which meant that he could order people

to be arrested without granting them a trial. And then if there was ever a president who expanded executive power,

it was our boy Franklin Roosevelt. The man used the veto 635 times. And look, in case you don't know,

that's a lot. Like everybody freak out when Andrew Jackson used the veto 12 times in his tenure. That was more than

all the presidents before him combined. So FDR used the veto 635 times to which I say, dang. He was, to say the least,

an energetic executive. He pushed his New Deal programs through Congress in order to address the devastating effects

of the Great Depression, programs like social security and minimum wage laws and public works programs. Also, FDR

served no less than four stinking terms as president. Now, to be fair, he did die in the first year of his fourth

term, but still, the man was elected four times. So, when we're talking about expansion of federal power, it really

was FDR who gave us our old friend, big daddy government. Okay, now let's talk about presidential communication. And if

there's one advantage that the president has that no other branch does, it's the eyes and ears of the nation. And good

presidents use that attention to their advantage. The term for this presidential communication comes from

Teddy Roosevelt, who said that the presidency was a bully pulpit. Now, the word bully doesn't mean then what it

does now. It just meant excellent. In other words, Roosevelt was enamored with the fact that he could speak directly to

the people and that they would hopefully in turn put pressure on their representatives to legislate in line

with Roosevelt's agenda. And one of the chief ways the president does this is through the annual State of the Union

address to Congress. Now, the effectiveness of the presidential bully pulpit has changed as technology has

advanced. For a long time, presidents did give their State of the Union addresses and those were filtered

through newspaper editors. But with the advent of radio, Franklin Roosevelt discovered that he could talk directly

to the people without any intermediary. and he did so in his famous fireside chats where he explained in simple terms

his policy proposals through the radio. John F. Kennedy was the first president to use the new medium of television to

deliver live press conferences. And that is when you saw the creation of a presidential communication office which

worked to refine and to shape the president's talking point so that the president's policy agenda would succeed

in the hearts and minds of the people. And then with the advent of social media, the bully pulpit took on yet

another form. This was a massive innovation in presidential communication because now the president had a way to

speak to the people not only without an intermediary but as often as the president wanted to. Barack Obama

pointed to social media as the key to winning his first campaign by creating a stream of communication directly to his

supporters through social sites. To put it mildly, Donald Trump uh built on this innovation. He was deeply suspicious of

traditional news media and used Twitter as his bully pulpit to comment dozens of times a day on legislation, his

political enemies, and foreign affairs. In fact, Trump so often used the Twitter platform that he earned the nickname

Twitter in chief. All right, with that, let's move on to the judicial branch and we're going to

start with how the courts are structured and then talk about how it checks the other branches. So, in terms of the

structure of the federal court system, there are three levels. At the bottom, there are the US district courts and

there are 94 of those spread across the nation. These courts have what's called original jurisdiction, which means that

they have the right to hear a case for the first time. On the next level, you have the US Circuit Court of Appeals.

And there are 12 of these. They have what's called appellet jurisdiction, which means that they hear appeals from

the lower courts. And the big daddy federal court sitting on top of the heap is the Supreme Court, which has both

original and appellet jurisdiction, depending on the kind of case being heard. The Supreme Court is the only one

of these courts that is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, and that is in Article 3. All the other courts I

mentioned are created by Congress in the Judiciary Act of 1789. Now, wouldn't you know it, there is a required document

associated with the Supreme Court, namely Federalist 78. In this essay, Hamilton argued that the independence of

the judicial branch acted as a protection for its power. And where does the court get such independence? Well,

from the lifetime appointment of its judges. If the judges aren't answerable to the voters, that means that they can

rule on cases without the pressure of trying to get reelected. Hamilton also argued that the court has the right of

judicial review, which means it's the court's job to declare laws constitutional or unconstitutional. It's

through this power that the Supreme Court has the power to check the other branches of government. Now, this power

isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, and that's where the required case of Marbury versus Madison

in 1803 comes in. Now, I'm not going to go through all the details of this case, but what you really need to remember is

that it was the court's ruling in this case that firmly cemented the power of judicial review in the Supreme Court's

purview. And that had the effect of significantly increasing the power of the Supreme Court. In the Constitution,

the Supreme Court was kind of like Steve Rogers trying to sign up for the army. But after Marberry, the court is like

Steve Rogers coming out of that pod with his muscles all jacked and twitching. Okay, now let's talk about how the court

works. As they're considering their cases, the role of precedence is of extreme importance. So when a decision

is handed down, it creates a precedent, which means that unless there are some very extreme circumstances, this

decision will act as a binding template for future decisions. And you know precedents are very hard to overturn

because of a principle to which the court holds namely star decisis which when being translated means let the

decision stand. So if the court receives a case on a topic that has already been decided it will often rule in the same

way as the previous case. However although it is rare precedence can be overturned as it was for example in

Brown versus the board of education on which more in unit 3. Now, the Supreme Court by comparison is less bound to

precedence than the lower courts. But even so, precedents still serve to guide present decisions in a very significant

way. Now, when it comes to upholding or overturning precedences, the court's activity falls under two headings:

judicial activism or judicial restraint. Judicial activism is the idea that the court acts to establish policy and

considers more than just the constitutionality of a decision. It also considers the decision's broader effects

on society. Brown versus the Board of Education is an important example of that. and activism in the court can

either be liberal or conservative. Okay. Now, on the other side of the spectrum is judicial restraint. And the idea here

is that judges believe that they aren't appointed to make policy like the elected legislature exists for that. If

judges act according to judicial restraint, they believe that a law should only be struck down if it

violates the actual written word of the constitution. And then the ideology of the judges also plays a role in how the

court makes its decisions as well. Presidents appoint judges that align with their own political sympathies. And

this has a role in whether the court will remain bound to previous presidents or create a new one. For example, since

the 70s, conservative presidents have appointed conservative judges to the court in hopes of overturning the

president established in Ro v. Wade, which made abortion legal in all 50 states. Now, so far, that effort has

been unsuccessful, but it illustrates the point that ideology plays a role in the court's decisions. Now, probably not

going to surprise you to hear that as the court has exercised its power of judicial review, it has often led

certain groups of Americans to question the legitimacy of the court's power. And this is especially true when

controversial decisions are handed down. For example, in the landmark case of Dread Scott versus Sanford in 1857, the

court essentially ruled that slavery was permissible in all states. Now, if you know your US history, you'll know that

in 1857, the country was coming apart at the seams over the slavery question. And so, when the court handed down this

decision, no small amount of abolitionists and anti-slavery crusaders called into question the legitimacy of

the Supreme Court. Like how in the world can these unelected judges overturn all the legislation that has kept the North

free of slavery? When the court hands down a decision, it effectively becomes the law of the land. But there are some

ways that the other branches can reduce the impact of those decisions. The president can appoint new judges as the

opportunity arises. For example, I just mentioned Roie Wade a second ago. Evangelical Christians have been trying

to get that overturned for a long time. And their chief way of doing it in the 2016 election was to elect Donald Trump.

And when asked why they voted for a man whose ethics are so opposed to Christianity, their response was for the

court nominations. Now, another way the president can mitigate court decisions is by a lack of enforcement. For

example, the court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the federal government to remove Cherokee Christians

from their lands in Georgia and Andrew Jackson went ahead and did it anyway. And then Congress can also check the

power of the judicial branch and they do this through legislation. For example, Congress invalidated the Dread Scott

decision by passing the 13th Amendment to the Constitution which abolished slavery. Additionally, Congress passed

the 11th Amendment, which limited the court's jurisdiction, thus restricting the kinds of cases that can even be

heard in the Supreme Court. And with that, it's time to turn the last corner in this video and talk about the federal

bureaucracy. Now, the bureaucracy is not a separate branch of government, although sometimes

you'll hear people refer to it as the fourth branch of government. Technically, the bureaucracy falls under

the authority of the executive branch, and it's made up of millions of people who are employed to carry out the

responsibilities of the federal government. So why don't we begin by talking about the structure of the

bureaucracy and then we'll see how it gets its work done. In terms of structure, the highest level of

authority in the bureaucracy falls to the cabinet secretaries. These are the leaders of the 15 executive departments

like the department of energy, the department of homeland security or the biggest of all the department of

defense. And then these departments are further subdivided into agencies which all work together to accomplish the

goals of the department. For example, the department of the treasury has all kinds of tax collecting agencies within

it like the Internal Revenue Service or the IRS. So the way it works in this case is that Congress passes tax

legislation, then it's up to these agencies to make sure that taxes are actually collected. Another part of the

bureaucratic structure is commissions. These are regulatory groups who operate somewhat independently of the authority

of the president, but still fall under the executive authority. They're run by a board of individuals, and they're

usually created for a specific purpose. For example, you have the FCC or the Federal Communications Commission, which

regulates the content of media, not by censoring free speech, but by making sure that nothing inappropriate is

displayed. And then yet another part of the bureaucratic structure is government corporations which are kind of like a

hybrid between a business and a government agency. Basically the government acquires businesses when they

want to offer a public good but the free market is the best way to offer that service. A good example of this is PBS

which produces educational media. Now when it comes to the actual work of the bureaucracy here's what they do. First

they write and enforce regulations. But it's important to remember the distinction here. The bureaucracy is not

creating laws. Congress is responsible for that. The bureaucracy is only making a set of more refined rules that help

facilitate the execution of the law. For example, the 16th amendment establishes the income tax, but there's nothing

about how those taxes are going to be collected. It was the IRS who determined that taxes are due by April 15th and how

we are to pay them. So, this is what's known as delegated discretionary authority. And by definition, it's the

authority given to the bureaucracy by Congress that gives them the discretion on how to make the rules and carry out

the laws. And another part of this authority is compliance monitoring, which means that the bureaucratic

agencies establish rules for certain industries and then have to do the work of making sure those industries are

complying with those rules. And look, this can slow down policy implementation, but the alternative is

lacks oversight, which would essentially invalidate the regulations they exist to implement. The second thing that

bureaucracy does is issue fines when laws are violated. And third, heads of agencies will often testify before

Congress, either to be held accountable for their actions or just to give an update on the work of their agency. Now,

these bureaucratic agencies often work very closely with other entities. And I want to mention one relationship that

you really need to know, and it's called an iron triangle. On the three points are bureaucratic agencies, congressional

committees, and interest groups. And these groups often work together and rely on one another to create policy.

Bureaucrats offer expertise to congressional committees with whom they are eager to cooperate since it's

Congress who approves funding for their departments. And then committee members want to pay attention to interest groups

because they often have policy experts who can inform them of the implications of certain policies. And then interest

groups can provide funding for congressional races. And with all this mutual benefit, the relationship between

the three grows very strong. And that is why it's called an iron triangle, not an overcooked noodle triangle. Because you

know, I mean, overcooked noodles are kind of weak and structurally they can't hold much. You know, it'd be a bad

metaphor for a strong Anyway, for your exam, you need to know the names and purposes of seven of these bureaucratic

departments. And I'm not going to tell you everything these departments are responsible for. I'm just going to give

you a couple examples. First is the Department of Homeland Security, which protects the US from terrorism and

maintains and controls the nation's borders. Second is the Department of Transportation, which manages all kinds

of transportation like highway and air travel. Third is the Department of Veterans Affairs, which manages veterans

hospitals and the general welfare of America's veterans. Fourth is the Department of Education which oversees

states in their implementation of federal educational standards. Fifth is the Environmental Protection Agency

which works to protect the environment and human health through industrial regulations. Sixth is the Federal

Elections Commission which administers and enforces campaign finance laws. And then seventh is the Securities and

Exchange Commission which regulates the stock market and prevents fraud. Now all the leadership in these entities are

folks whom the president appoints. And if the bureaucracy doesn't act sufficiently in accordance with the

president's policy agenda, the president can fire them and appoint new leaders in cabinet and agency positions. Although

the president cannot fire regulatory commission heads and often, not surprisingly, the president tries to

staff those positions with folks sympathetic to the executive goals. Even so, commission heads serve fixed terms

that overlap and outlast any given president. So, while the president does have a lot of influence over these

entities, the president's influence isn't total. All of these departments and agencies and commissions I just

listed along with hundreds of others are basically the law enforcement apparatus of the executive branch. But their power

in this regard can still be checked by other branches of government because Congress is responsible for making sure

that laws are upheld along the lines in which they were passed. They can hold committee hearings to ensure such

execution is happening. Congress has many committees that correspond to the bureaucracy's agencies and will call

directors of those agencies to testify and give reports of their progress. And sometimes this is just a friendly

check-in. Other times it can be uh tense. But Congress also has another way to check the bureaucracy. And that's

because Congress is the entity who's holding all the hooch in its pockets. Through the power of the purse, Congress

can decide how to allocate funds to different agencies. And agencies cannot spend their money until a committee or

subcommittee authorizes them to do so. The president can also check the bureaucracy, and this is usually the

first line of defense since it falls under the president's authority. For example, President Clinton initiated a

national performance review in which the various agencies were required to scrutinize and change, if necessary, its

mission and objectives. You didn't think the judicial branch was going to miss out on all this power check and fun, did

you? When citizens believe that the bureaucratic decisions are unconstitutional, they can challenge

them in court. And usually, unless the agencies are blatantly violating a law, the court upholds the authority of the

agency. And the legitimacy of the bureaucracy has been challenged over time, specifically regarding its

independence. These agencies and commissions create rules and regulations that do have the force of law. But as

you no doubt know by this point, they are not elected representatives and thus are not accountable to the people. And

this has a way of chapping the American thighs. You also need to know that the way people have been chosen to work in

the bureaucracy has changed over time. Back in the first 100 years or so of our history, people were given bureaucracy

jobs based on the patronage system, which means that these jobs were a way for the president to award those who

supported his campaign. And that system was in place for a long time. But it kind of went sideways when President

Garfield was assassinated. Basically, Garfield didn't give a bureaucratic job to a man who supported his campaign. So,

that man went ahead and shot the president. So, clearly, there needed to be some reform on that count. And there

was. After the Garfield assassination, Congress passed the Pendleton Civil Service Act in 1883, which created a

merit system for bureaucratic appointments. And so, now you had to pass a competitive examination in order

to get one of those sweet bureaucratic jobs. And that reform continued into the 20th century in order to make the

bureaucracy more professional, specialized, and neutral. For example, under Jimmy Carter's administration, we

got the Civil Service Reform Act, which upheld the merit system, but made further reforms to help offer wider

opportunities for women, more efficient control of human resource departments, etc. And that's it. Oh my goodness, that

was a giant unit, but I hope it helped. And if you want more help getting an A in your class and a five on your exam in

May, you can click right over here and grab the ultimate review packet. this video helped you, you want me to keep

making them, then you can let me know that by subscribing.