Seriously, not in a sarcastic way Im asking this. A rundown of what each office does, what congress does, what the senate does, how they get elected, what powers each group has.
I have never taken a government class, and would like to know that what I understand is correct.
Any good web sources for this?
Joey
Urm, that's Soooo much info. There's a reason that most college students in this country are required to take a semester of American Government as a G.E. Req. I can only suggest that you find a textbook from such a class.
At it's most basic, there are three branches: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. The legislative branch writes the laws, the judicial branch interprets the laws, and the executive branch enforces the laws.
However, there are "checks and balance" built into the system... this pic might help explain it if the animation works...
This might be a better one:
In it's most simplistic terms:
Congress PROPOSES laws,
the President has approval power of those laws (if he vetoes a law, Congress can re-pass, but needs a majority to do so).
the Supreme Court INTERPERTS the laws. (They also rule on the Constitutionality of laws...sort of the same thing, I guess). If Congress passes a law that limits a right outlined in the Constitution, the Supreme Court can "strike it down".
in before the flame war.
Hook - check
Bait - check
Rod - check
We're gonna need a bigger boat...
Gee, I learned all that in High School.
It doesn't!
What is big, yellow and sleeps 8? A PA DOT truck. (rimshot)
Thank you folks... I'll be here all week.
youtube + school house rock, all you need to know
neon4891 wrote: youtube + school house rock, all you need to know
"Oh, I'm just a bill / On Capitol Hill..."
Great stuff.
[Jack Nicholson voice]
I just want the american people to know that they still have two out of three branches of government working for them. And that ain't bad!
[/jack nicholson voice]
Clem
Well, you're assuming that the government does, in fact, work. 
Ok, couldn't resist; here's the basic explanation.
First thing is to note that there is a federal government and then the state governments, and generally the state governments are arranged more or less like the federal government. Each state has its own Constitution and their government plan may not quite be like the other states, but they're usually like the federal government - just substitute "Legislature" for "Congress" and "Governor" for "President" when discussing the state level. Generally, the big things the state governments do include basic criminal law (laws against murder, stealing, etc), building roads, running the school system, and local sorts of things, while federal powers include decisions involving business that crosses state lines, war, and other national issues.
Congress's main job is to write the laws, as well as declare war and approve treaties. There are two sections, the House of Representatives and the Senate. The main differences are that the House is elected every two years and Senators serve six year terms with 1/3 up for election every two years, that there are two Senators per state but the number of Representatives is pegged to the state's population, and the Senate is the only one that needs to approve treaties.
The President approves the laws, and he's also in charge of the agencies that carry out the laws and Commander in Chief of the military. He appoints the head of just about anything with "Department," "Administration," or "Agency" in its name. For example, when Congress passed the Pure Food and Drug Act requiring that food be safe, correctly labeled, etc, this called for a Food and Drug Administration to check to be sure food and drug companies were obeying, which reports to the President.
The Supreme Court is the top court - there are a few kinds of disputes it hears directly, but it's usually for appeals from lower courts. They can sometimes declare a law unconstitutional or in conflict with other laws, depending on the circumstances.
I can honestly say that I learned next to nothing in my AP Government class last year. I got a 4 on the exam (good enough to exempt from a 100 level class in real college), mostly from what I remembered from school house rock.
MadScientistMatt wrote: The Supreme Court is the top court - there are a few kinds of disputes it hears directly, but it's usually for appeals from lower courts. They can sometimes declare a law unconstitutional or in conflict with other laws, depending on the circumstances.
Another interesting thing to point out about the Supreme Court (or pretty much any court) is that they are only able to rule on a case that is brought to them.
That means, if a bad law is passed, the Supreme Court does not have the power to jump in and declare it unconstitutional. There has to be a suit brought to them by an injured party contesting the law. Once that law is contested, they can then rule on the law as it regards to the case in front of them.
iceracer wrote: Gee, I learned all that in High School.
+1
EricM wrote:iceracer wrote: Gee, I learned all that in High School.+1
Some years ago, it was taught as "Civic" and was part of the regular curiculum. Not so much anymore as it's deemed "not useful enough" to get funding. Riiiight.
A couple of weeks ago I was told that uber-lib Richard Dreyfuss has consented to appear on Mike Huckabee's cable show, so I had to watch in case there was going to be a Springer-moment or two.
Interestingly, the man eloquently explained how the education process desperately needs to once again include "Civics" courses. His contention (andI agree) is that people are so ignorant on how government works, they haven't a clue on how to cast an informed vote when at the polls.
I recommend finding a copy of the Federalist Papers. It is a collection of information written by one of the founding fathers that was distributed as an argument in favor of the proposed constitution that people would soon be voting to adopt.
It does an excellent job of explaining what was done in constructing the constitution, and why it was done that way.
All figured it is pretty small, is written in plain English, and you can skim through a number of the sections to find the more interesting parts of it. It gives a very good insight into what the intended goals of our founding fathers were.
Hmmm...
The Federalist Papers were not written by one of the founding fathers. It's a collection of 85 papers, written by at least 3 separate founding fathers, and several of the paper's authorship is disputed.
You're the first person I've ever heard say the Federalist papers were an easy read. Significant, yes. But not easy.
Here's paragraph # 1 of the first paper:
AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America. The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world. It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.
There's probably more basic intros.
SVreX wrote: The Federalist Papers were not written by one of the founding fathers. It's a collection of 85 papers, written by at least 3 separate founding fathers, and several of the paper's authorship is disputed. You're the first person I've ever heard say the Federalist papers were an easy read. Significant, yes. But not easy.
Forgive my errors in the history of them. They're still significant and do show some of the insight of the reasoning behind the framework of the Constitution.
I didn't call it an easy read. But it is plain English, as opposed to legalese. The plain English it is written in, is a bit archaic by our current standards.
It's the closest to having the Constitution explained to you by the people who wrote it, as you can get.
Personally, I think the Constitution itself is as easy to understand (if not easier) than the Federalist papers.
Besides, what's so hard to understand about legalese?
billy3esq wrote: Besides, what's so hard to understand about legalese?
Hence why I put pretty pictures ;)
oldsaw wrote: Interestingly, the man eloquently explained how the education process desperately needs to once again include "Civics" courses. His contention (andI agree) is that people are so ignorant on how government works, they haven't a clue on how to cast an informed vote when at the polls.
It seems to me they need to apply this education to the presidential candidates also. If you watch the debates and all the speeches during the election, the candidates really don't seem to have a strong grasp on what they actually have power over! Of course I am sure they do, they just realize most citizens don't so they can pretend they will be some sort of all powerful overlord that has control over all aspects of the country.
I suspect this is why the original poster asked the question. Seeing the election really makes you ask the question: "Wait a minute now, what exactly are the responsibilities / powers here?"
aircooled wrote: It seems to me they need to apply this education to the presidential candidates also. If you watch the debates and all the speeches during the election, the candidates really don't seem to have a strong grasp on what they actually have power over! Of course I am sure they do, they just realize most citizens don't so they can pretend they will be some sort of all powerful overlord that has control over all aspects of the country.
No kidding, quite a few of the campaign promises have been things a presidential candidate can't accomplish directly.
Sample actions a President does have the authority to do:
Sample things the President wouldn't be able to do directly:
What about save the economy? Create jobs? They do that, right?
iceracer wrote: Gee, I learned all that in High School.
Gee, I'm glad you did. I didn't. I asked if there was a good source of information on how everything worked, so I could have a reference, when there was a bit of misinformation floating around. There seems to be alot these days.
it is amazing I can read, though, as my education was obviously lacking.
Thanks, everyone, for all the info. Its very helpful. I suppose this is all stuff that everyone should know, and Im trying to fill myself in!
joey
aircooled wrote: What about save the economy? Create jobs? They do that, right?
I think you could make a very strong argument for congress having much more to do with economy and job creation than the president does. But i tend to get a little worried any time that the government tries to "save" anything.
You'll need to log in to post.
