Search results

"In this book, readers will learn about the Executive Branch of the United States government. Vibrant, full-color photos and carefully leveled text will engage young readers as they learn more about the president's duties, who else is in the executive branch, and the work they all must do to ensure that the federal government and society runs smoothly"--

This collection of essays, edited by Joel D. Aberbach and Mark A. Peterson and written by leading scholars, examines the evolution of the presidency and the executive branch as related to civic participation and democracy itself. It provides an analysis of the president's role in developing foreign and domestic policy and how they influence the policy process and other policy makers. The Executive Branch provides a historical assessment of the role of the person of the president, the favorable and problematic attributes that past presidents have brought to the challenge of leadership, and the measure of overall success captured in notions of presidential failure or greatness.

The study of "divided government" has focused on the split partisan control of executive & legislative branches. The concept of divided government can also be applied to the study of state executive branches. There is no plausible reason for state electorates to prefer one party for governor & the opposing party for other state executive branch officials, yet many states have a governor of one party, while several of the state executive branch officers are of the opposing party. This study examines the extent of divided executive branches in state politics. Incumbency, state partisanship, & the changing nature of Southern politics affect levels of divisiveness in state executive branches. Electoral features do not affect levels of divisiveness. The data comprise states that had separately elected state executive officers between 1968 & 1993. 2 Tables, 1 Figure, 27 References. Adapted from the source document.

In this lively, accessible, and highly informative survey, readers come to understand the workings of American representative democracy. They learn about the Constitution, checks and balances, and how the executive branch of government is organized. The president and vice president's powers are studied, as well as those of the cabinet and staff who offer help to the executive office. Readers discover the power of the veto, how policy is crafted, how the president carries out enumerated and implied powers that are mentioned in the Constitution, and what happens when a departing president hands

The authors of several papers in this Symposium have justifiably criticized the essay that former Vice President Dan Quayle published in Volume 41 of The American University Law Review. Many knowledgeable observers of the civil justice system have leveled equally legitimate criticism at civil justice reform initiatives that the Bush administration instituted. Questionable data, arguable policy, or overheated political rhetoric supported certain aspects of the Vice President's paper, as well as most of the proposals developed by the Competitiveness Council that the Vice President chaired and numerous efforts of the Republican administration in the area of civil justice reform. One endeavor, involving executive branch civil justice reform in the field of federal civil procedure, apparently was less problematic. That effort, which aimed to "facilitate the just and efficient resolution of civil claims" involving the United States Government, imposed a number of requirements on government attorneys who participate in civil litigation. This is a Bush administration initiative that Vice President Quayle mentioned in his essay and that the Clinton administration must rigorously analyze. The Bush administration briefly experimented with civil justice reform in the executive branch. President Bush promulgated Executive Order 12,778 on October 23, 1991, and the order became effective in January 1992. That same month, the United States Department of Justice issued preliminary guidance that was intended to assist federal agencies and government lawyers in effectuating the Executive order. Nonetheless, the Department only finalized those guidelines in the waning days of the Bush administration. Although the Republican administration did not fully implement executive branch civil justice reform, the Executive order and the accompanying guidance seemed well considered and prescribed some procedures that apparently would be efficacious in reducing expense and delay, the ostensible purpose of civil justice reform. Moreover, the order and the guidelines will be in effect until President Clinton modifies them, so that his administration must decide how to treat this nascent reform. The factors above mean that civil justice reform in the executive branch warrants systematic assessment to ascertain whether the Clinton administration should continue experimenting with the concept and, if so, how the administration can most effectively implement the reform. This Article undertakes that effort. The Article first traces the origins and development of civil justice reform in the area of federal civil procedure, emphasizing the Bush administration's attempts to institute executive branch reform. The Article then critically evaluates the Bush administration initiative and finds it sufficiently promising to warrant additional effectuation and ongoing experimentation, particularly if the endeavor is vigorously implemented, rigorously evaluated, and recalibrated. The third Part of this Article affords numerous suggestions that the Clinton administration should follow to effectuate, and to continue experimenting with, civil justice reform in the executive branch.

The executive branch of government constitutes the pinnacle of political power. In principle, presidents and prime ministers, along with their cabinets, set the policy agenda, debate, and deliberate policy initiatives; introduce legislation; and oversee the implementation of public policies. Executives are the most visible political actors, representing the public "face" of government. Until very recently, executives were also the most masculinized of political institutions, with women absent entirely from the position of prime minister or president until the 1960s, and, at least until the last decade, holding only a small number of posts in cabinet. Yet one of the most striking global trends in recent years is the growing number of women elected to the post of prime minister or president: at the time of writing there are 12 countries where a woman occupies the top political office. A growing number of women are also being appointed cabinet ministers and, in some cases, to some of the most traditionally masculine posts. It is common today to define "parity" cabinets as those where women hold between 40% and 60% of ministerial portfolios. With that definition, countries as different as Spain, Bolivia, Sweden, and South Africa have had gender parity in cabinet. What is more, women's presence in cabinet is now a firmly established norm. Among the first questions raised by commentators after a newly elected president or prime minister announces her cabinet are, how many women were appointed? To which portfolios were they assigned?