As you know, the semester is drawing to a close, and the final examination is upon us. As promised, this exam is intended to cover material we have encountered throughout the semester. Almost two hours have been allotted for this exam, which will be divided into sections with which you are doubtless familiar by now.

Below are a few of the highlights of this semester’s investigation of government and politics in the United States. For the purposes of this review, the segments have been divided according to the major themes we have discussed. In addition to this review, you may refer to previously returned exams and whatever comments which may appear as preparation for the final.

The authors of the Constitution, on the whole, feared that power in the hands of a single individual would be abused. This in part explains why they placed a considerable amount of power in the legislative, or the "most numerous," branch of government.

The national legislative power is was vested in a Congress which was to be a bicameral (two-house) institution, intended to serve different constituencies. The House was to be elected by the people, apportioned by population, and would therefore represent the views of the people. The Senate at one time were selected by the state legislatures, representing the states themselves, and would be at least one step removed from the people. In 1913, the XVII Amendment provided that the people of the state would elect the senators of the state.

The Enumerated Powers of Congress are set forth in Article I, section 8. Enumerated powers, also referred to as express powers, are specific grants to Congress. These powers include the control of money (taxing, spending, borrowing, and coining), regulation of interstate trade, regulation of the military (regulate state militia, create and regulate an army and a navy, suppress insurrections within states, and to declare war), as well as defining the court structure below the Supreme Court. While these are not all the specific grants of Congressional power, they do represent the powers which Congress relies on to pass a vast number of laws each year. In addition to Article I section 8, Congress has received other grants of power through amendments.

The implied powers of Congress emanate from the "necessary and proper" clause of Article I section 8. This clause allows Congress to make all laws that are deemed to be necessary to carry out the expressed powers. In McCulloch v. Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled that this clause allows Congress considerable authority to enact laws which may assist the Congress in accomplishing goals directly related to the enumerated powers.

The primary function of Congress is lawmaking. This is the process of deciding the legal ruls that govern our society. In this function the Congress may establish broad national policies, including budgetary policies, or they may establish minor regulations. Members of Congress also function as representatives, where they present the views of their constituents in Congress. They also incorporate oversight roles over the executive branch, especially the federal bureaucracy, and especially as the executive is charged with the implementation of policy or the enactment of legislation. Congressmen are also seen as having public education, or agenda-setting roles, as well as roles in the resolution of conflicts within American society and as ombudsmen, where they investigate constituent problems, especially with the federal bureaucracy.

The key to understanding how Congress operates is to understand congressional committees. These "little legislatures" determine whether a bill will reach the floor and be called foe a vote. The obstacles to a bill reaching the floor are numerous, and the committee structure is a maze through which bills must pass to become law.

The following represent the types of congressional committees:

1. standing committees: the most important committees in Congress, since all bills are referred to them in each chamber. These deal with permanent general subject areas of legislation, and are divided into subcommittees dealing with an area of specialization. In the House, each member must serve on at least two standing committees.
2. select committees: are created to accomplish a specific task. Unlike standing committees, these are not permanent. Once the task is accomplished these committees are dissolved.
3. joint committees: these are established with members of each chamber serving on the committee. The tasks assigned to these committees are rather diverse.
4. conference committees: a special kind of joint committee which arises from the need to reconcile differences between the two versions of a bill which have passed through each chamber. The process of amendment and revision in each house gave rise to the necessity of conference committees.
5. House Rules committee: a very powerful standing committee in the House of Representatives. Once a bill has been approved by the appropriate standing committee in the House it is sent to this committee, which makes rules governing how the bill will come to the House floor.

1. The Speaker: This is the most powerful member of the House. The Speaker must work with both parties in the House, and his or her power is derived largely from his/her personal appeal. The Speaker has numerous responsibilities, but his/her primary responsibility is to seek the enactment of his/her political party’s legislative ideas.
2. House Majority Leader: second in line in the majority party leadership. This officer is responsible for assisting the Speaker in gaining the enactment of preferred legislation. The majority leader also fosters cohesion among party members in the House.
3. House Minority Leader: the Leader of the minority party in the house, this officer has similar responsibilities as the Majority Leader, but with his/her own party. The Minority leader also serves as a source of "loyal opposition" to the majority party. If the minority party becomes the majority party, this officer is likely selected to be the Speaker.
4. Whips: both the majority and minority parties in the House have officers whose job is to assist their party leaders, and to encourage party loyalty among their membership.

1. President of the Senate: This is the Vice President. Rarely does the VP actually preside over the Senate. On rare occasions, the Vice President will be called upon to vote in the Senate in order to break a tie vote.
2. President Pro Tempore: Usually referred to as the "pro tem" this officer is the member of the majority party with the longest continuing service in the Senate. Although this position resembles the Speaker in the other chamber, this officer lacks most of the power of the Speaker.
3. Majority floor leader: The most powerful member of the Senate. This position is roughly analogous to the Speaker of the House.
4. Minority floor leader: the leader of the minority party in the Senate, this officer is responsible for attempting to achieve the enactment of the legislative ideas of the minority party.
5. Senate Whips: both the majority and minority parties in the Senate have officers whose job is to assist their party leaders, and to encourage party loyalty among their membership.

The legislative process is a difficult and tedious process which results in most proposals being rejected. In order for a bill to become law, it must pass through both houses of Congress. All "money bills" or spending measures must originate in the House of Representatives, as prescribed in the Constitution.

1. Introduction: In each house a member or members draft a bill and submit it to the presiding officer.
2. Referral: After a bill is introduced, the Speaker in the House and the President Pro Tem in the Senate refer the bill to the standing committee that has jurisdiction over the subject of the bill. In most cases there are two or more committees which have jurisdiction and each committee will take action.
3. Rules Committee Action/Scheduling: In the House, the Rules Committee will draft a set of rules governing what happens to the bill when it reaches the floor. This step does not occur in the Senate. Rather, it is scheduled by the Majority floor leader.
4. Floor action: the bill and all the amendments proposed are debated. Each amendment is debated and voted on separately. After all amendments have been voted upon, the bill itself is put to a vote. If a majority of the members favor the bill it is considered passed by the house which voted on it.
5. Conference committee: If there are differences between House and Senate versions of a bill, a joint committee is set up to attempt to reach a compromise on the bill. The members of this joint committee are selected by the leaders of their respective houses, and if a compromise can be reached, the revised bill is sent back to each respective house, debated and put to a vote. If this version passes both houses it is sent to the Executive branch (i.e. the President) for consideration.
6. Presidential action: If the president favors the bill, he will sign it into law. If he opposes it, he may veto the bill and send it back to the chamber that originated it, along with his reasons for the veto.

1. if 2/3 of the members of one chamber vote to override the veto, it is sent to the other chamber.
2. if 2/3 of the other chamber also vote to override the veto, the bill is considered enacted.
3. if fewer than 2/3 of either house vote to override, the bill is considered dead.

Speaking of the Executive, over time the presidency has evolved into numerous formal and informal roles, besides the constitutional role in the legislative process.

One of these roles is as the chief of state. In this position the president performs the role of the ceremonial head of state. As head of state the president is afforded a distinct status which some other countries, including Great Britain reserve for a monarch. In most countries the head of state is distinct from the head of government.

The President also functions as the chief executive. In this role, the president is leader of government in the executive branch, requiring that he administer the laws of the country. He/she is therefore the head of the bureaucracy and is responsible, through his/her appointment power, for selecting all high-ranking officers of the government who are not elected.

The President is also the commander in chief, or the head of the military. This has become a position which has more power and responsibility than most people can comprehend. As the military power of the United States increases, so does the power of the President. This power has greatly influenced the role that every modern president has had to assume in world affairs.

As chief diplomat the president is responsible for setting the direction of foreign policy, determining which countries the US will recognize. The president will also propose treaties, although 2/3 of the Senate must approve of such action before the treaty is effective. The president can also make international agreements with the heads of foreign governments. These actions, called executive agreements, do not require Senate approval.

Some of the powers of the president as Chief legislator are prescribed in the Constitution. In this role the president is the initiator of a legislative agenda for congressional action. The president gives a State of the Union message to Congress each year, in which the president generally outlines his agenda. If Congress decides to ignore this agenda, the president may attempt to stop legislation by use of the veto power, although it is possible for Congress to override a veto with a 2/3 majority in both houses. In 1996 Congress enacted legislation which allows the president to use a line-item veto on bills of revenue (such bills, of course, must originate in the House of Representatives) Measuring how successful a president’s legislative agenda is often difficult, especially if the president places minimal importance on particular issues.

Other presidential powers include powers which Congress has bestowed on the president by statute (statutory powers) and those that are considered inherent powers. Statutory powers include Congressional legislation like the War Powers Act, which confines presidential use of force. Inherent powers are those powers the head of government needs to fulfill his duties. An example of these inherent powers are emergency powers used in times of war.

The structural organization of the executive branch was not outlined in detail by the framers of the Constitution. All the Constitution expressly provides for is a president and a vice-president. The remaining structure was left to the discretion of the president and Congress. This lack of constitutional structure has allowed the executive branch to be as flexible as the president and Congress have desired.

By far the largest growth within the executive branch has occurred in the twentieth century. Prior to Franklin Roosevelt’s administration, the size of the executive branch was less than half the current size. But Roosevelt’s administration was overburdened in its attempt to administer its New Deal programs, and thus the size of the federal bureaucracy grew to accommodate its new responsibilities. However, not all of the federal bureaucracy is understood in terms of executive agencies. In fact only fourteen executive agencies, the Cabinet departments, are expressly a part of the executive branch.

A bureaucracy is a large organization that is structured hierarchically to carry out specific functions. The ideal purpose of a bureaucracy is the efficient administration of rules, regulations, and policies. Governments, businesses, and other institutions such as colleges and universities have bureaucracies.

Analysis of how bureaucracies operate and how they should operate are often based on the studies conducted by the noted sociologist Max Weber. Weber’s model for bureaucracy described these organizations as hierarchical, in which every person in the organization has a superior to whom they report. They are also specialized, in which workers have an area of expertise within the organization as opposed to being knowledgeable about aspects of the organization generally. Decisions are made based on set rules, and are typically based on a rational analysis of specific data in order to ensure the most efficient use of the organizations resources. Finally, the Weberian model assumes that bureaucracies are politically neutral—that is, bureaucrats are supposed to administer the rules without bias; no one should be given preferential treatment.

However, the Weberian model often does not describe the realities of various bureaucracies. The Weberian model is a hierarchically organized model with formal rules and regulations. Power flows from the top down. Decisions are technical in nature, and the focus is placed on rational unbiased decision making.

The Acquisitive model, inspired by the works of the 16^th Century Florentine writer Niccolò Machiavelli, is a view of bureaucracy where decisions are made for the needs of the bureaucrats. Each division of the bureaucracy is most concerned with protecting the "turf" of the department and expanding the size of their budget. Once created, an agency will continue to seek new goals in order to justify the existence of the agency.

The Monopolistic model views bureaucracy as the sole provider of a service. Without competition, the department has little or no incentive to be efficient, and they typically are not penalized for waste or inefficiencies.

Finally, the most cynical view of bureaucracy is that of the Garbage Can model. This view maintains that decisions in a bureaucracy generally lack purpose. There is virtually no rational decision making, and bureaucracy itself is actually a rudderless organization where various ideas are attempted with little effort to analyze the effectiveness of any one policy. Some policies or decisions within these bureaucracies may even conflict with each other.

In 1789 the size of the federal bureaucracy was extremely small in comparison to the size of the current bureaucracy. Most of this growth has been attributed to the expansion of the role of government, particularly in the twentieth century. Much of this growth occurred following the implementation of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal programs. Today, the federal bureaucracy can be divided into four basic categories:

1. Cabinet departments: These are the fourteen (now fifteen) major service organizations of the executive branch, which are each headed by a secretary appointed by the President. Examples include the Department of State, the Department of Defense, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Health and Human Services.
2. Independent executive agencies: These agencies have a single function that is not part of a cabinet department. The director of the agency reports to the president. Examples include the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the General Services Administration (GSA).
3. Independent regulatory commissions: these are agencies which are outside the major executive departments charged with making and implementing rules and regulations, ostensible to protect the public interest. Examples include the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
4. Government corporations: These are agencies which charge the public for a specific service. Unlike other bureaucratic agencies, government corporations are organized on a managerial model borrowed from business, with a board of directors and managers, but without stockholders. Examples include the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), the United States Postal Service (USPS), and AMTRAK.

Difficulties have been encountered over the years concerning the staffing of the bureaucracy. Historically, the bureaucracy has been staffed by individuals of the party of the president. The first political party, the Federalists, held the early positions for the first twelve years of the government. When Thomas Jefferson was elected, he replaced many of the officers with members of his own party. Andrew Jackson was credited, or rather blamed, for furthering this tradition in 1828 with the so-called "spoils" system, whereby the bureaucrats from a previous administration, especially those who refused to implement the new president’s policies, were fired.

Reform of the bureaucracy selection process began in 1883 with the Pendleton Act, which established the civil service system. Civil servants were to be selected based on merit rather than political affiliation. Further reform came in 1939 with the passage of the Hatch Act. This act prohibited civil servants form participating in political campaigns. It sought to ensure a neutral bureaucracy, and sought to protect civil servants from being pressured for political contributions. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 established the Civil Service Commission, as well as two important bureaucratic entities, namely the Office of Personnel Management, which oversees the recruitment and hiring of civil service workers, and the Systems Protection Board, which hears civil servant complaints.

The federal bureaucracy has become a major source for decision making concerning public policy. Since the bureaucrats have gained considerable power in the last century there has been a development of considerable controversy concerning the proper role for such decision making. An iron triangle, or three-way alliance among legislators, bureaucrats and interest groups (or even individual constituents) seeks to make or preserve policies that benefits the interests of those who participate

For Example, Congress sets up a bureaucracy to provide a service, the benefits of Social Security, to the constituents. The qualifying constituent receives the service and is generally satisfied with that service, so he re-elects the Congressman who supports the agency. However, if the Agency for whatever reason fails to provide the service, (say, a retired citizen qualifying for Social Security benefits fails to receive his check) the constituent may exert pressure on the Congressman to remedy the situation. The Congressman in turn exerts pressure (usually budgetary pressure) on the agency to fix whatever internal problem prevented the service from being provided. If the problem is remedied and service to the constituent is restored, the constituent as voter may act favorably towards the Congressman and support him in the next election. With enough similar support the Congressman is re-elected, and he may support continued or even expanded budgetary consideration for the agency in question. The agency would generally favor an increase in their budget, partly to sustain their day-to-day activities, and partly to continue providing their service to the constituent. In this way all participants in the triangle are satisfied.

Under an iron triangle bureaucrats no longer act as impartial administrators. Instead the bureaucrats may act as agents, either for a special interest, attempting to influence Congress to enact laws generally favorable to the groups they serve or regulate, or else for legislators, providing their own agencies as an indirect instrument whereby a Congressman can gain support for a re-election campaign.

Ultimately, the bureaucracy must answer both the president and Congress. Congressional control of the bureaucracy is especially significant since Congress establish agencies and departments in the first place. In addition, Congress holds the "power of the purse," meaning that Congress ultimately authorizes and appropriates the funds necessary to keep the bureaucracy running. Finally, Congress may oversee the bureaucracy through investigations and committee hearings to determine whether or not bureaucratic agencies are performing according to Congressional intentions.

All of the institutions of government--Congress, the Presidency, the bureaucracy, and the courts --have a role in the steering of the nation's affairs. The act of making decisions, establishing rules and regulations relative to this steering (or government, from the Latin gubernare--to steer) is referred to as public policy. While public policy may incorporate every aspect of American life, it generally may be divided into four major categories: Domestic Policy, Economic Policy, Foreign Policy, and Defense Policy. While these areas of policy may be generally divided, however, the distinctions may become less clear when dealing with specific policy decisions.

Public policy may also be understood in terms of the process by which policies are formed and reformed--the public policy cycle. This process is typically framed in terms of a problem-solving process whereby problems are identified and addressed. A substantial variety exists in the specific means by which the public policy cycle moves, depending on the area of policy to be considered; but the process itself may be understood as having five steps.

 The first step in the policymaking process is to identify a problem. Numerous problems exist, but until they are identified as problems by policymakers, they cannot be addressed. This typically occurs through public debate, but policymakers may also rely on their environments--constituents, associates, interest groups, and media--to bring policy problems to their attention

Once a problem has been identified, the reaction to that problem and the solutions applied to a problem are a part of the public policy cycle:

1. Agenda building: This is the effort to identify a problem and bring it to policymakers' attention. This may come through a crisis, or through the lobbying efforts of interest groups, strong political personalities, or others concerned about the problem.
2. Formulation: This consists of the debate that occurs among government officials and the public in the media, in Congress, and through campaigns. Various solutions to the problem are considered and debated.
3. Adoption: This is the selection of a strategy for addressing the problem among the solutions discussed. It may come in the form of new legislation, new regulations, new interpretations of past policies, or, more broadly understood, an election.
4. Implementation: This is the administration of the policy adopted by the bureaucracy, law enforcement agencies, the courts, private citizens, and others.
5. Evaluation: Groups evaluate the policy to determine if it has had the desired impact. The feedback also evaluates unintended consequences of the policy adoption. This feedback is a part of the building and formulation process, so that a particular policy may be adjusted if necessary. Evaluation leads to an identification of new problems to be addressed, starting the cycle anew. However, evaluation may be highly politicized, where proponents of existing policy exaggerate the benefits of current policy, while opponents exaggerate the deficiencies of current policy. Still others will point out evidence of corruption in the policymaking process, identifying new problems to be addressed in order to bring about effective policy.

Because the role of the Judiciary is to settle disputes in matters of law, the courts play an active role in the evaluation of public policy, especially when ambiguities or legal deficiencies may arise during the course of the adoption and implementation of public policy. Judicial decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka KS and Kilgarlin . Martin have served to identify a variety of public policy problems, from injustices resulting from segregation to inequities surrounding legislative redistricting.

The basic purpose of the Judiciary—the courts—in the United States is to resolve disputes among citizens arising in matters of law. Law in the United States is based primarily on the English legal system because of the American colonial experience. Once the colonies broke from Great Britain, the old English system was kept largely intact and states began to operate their courts according to the traditions of the previous form of government. Unlike many other countries, the English court system incorporated a common law tradition which arose from the acceptance of court decisions informed by prevailing custom and eventually on legal precedent. This concept is referred to as stare decisis which means to stand on decided cases. If a legal situation occurs that has previously been decided, the decision in the initial case is legally binding on the current situation. The major advantages of this type of system are effiiciency , stability, and consistency in the resolution of disputes.

The principal sources of American law include:

1. constitution: this includes the US Constitution and the various state constitutions. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land and sets forth guidelines regarding the division of power between the federal and state governments. Unless a state constitution is in direct violation of the US Constitution, The state constitutions are supreme within the borders of their respective states.
2. Statutes, treaties, and administrative regulations: Frequently, courts are asked to resolve disputes in matters which require an interpretation of specific laws, treaties, and regulations, which are then applied to specific situations
3. Case law: laws derived from judicial decisions in other cases. Case law includes judicial interpretations of common law provisions and of statutes, treaties, and regulations.

The court system in the United States includes both federal and state courts. Article III of the Constitution provides for the establishment of a Supreme Court, as well as granting Congress with the power to establish lower federal courts. These courts are limited in what sort of cases they may hear as a matter of jurisdiction. On the federal level, the courts are limited to cases which involve a federal question, in which a dispute arises in matters relevant to federal law, and those which involve a diversity of citizenship, where parties in a case may come from different states, or where a US citizen brings a suit against a citizen or government of a foreign country.

The federal court system has three levels:

1. US district courts are trial courts (courts of original jurisdiction) with general jurisdiction, where either civil or criminal cases may be heard. Each state has at least one federal district court, and there are now 94 districts.
2. US Courts of Appeals are appellate courts that hear appeals from US district courts located within their circuit. The Thirteenth Circuit has national appellate jurisdiction over cases involving the US government itself. In appellate cases, the cases are not re-tried. Rather, a panel of judges reviews the transcript of the trial and the decision, and they decide if a mistake was made. The decisions of these courts are generally final, with the rare exception being when the US Supreme Court chooses to hear an appeal.
3. The US Supreme Court is the highest court in the country. While its jurisdiction is largely appellate, this court does have original jurisdiction in some cases. Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the President and subject to Senate confirmation.

The reason for the vigor of the debates concerning judicial appointments is that it is widely recognized that the courts play a large role in determining policy throughout the country. One of the important way in which the courts influence policy is through judicial review. If a case challenges a decision of a state court affecting the status of a state action in relation to federal law or the US Constitution, a federal court may effectively declare through its decision the state action unconstitutional. As a result of the Supreme Court decision in the Marbury v. Madison case in 1803 the concept of judicial review broadened to include the possibility that acts of Congress could be unconstitutional as well.

To some extent the ability of the courts to act as policymakers depends on the activism or the restraint of the courts. If the Court assumes an activist role, it will use its power to direct policy toward a particular goal. An activist court takes a broad view of the Constitution and involves itself in legislative and executive matters. If, on the other hand, the Court assumes the role of judicial restraint, it rarely uses the power of judicial review and limits judicial action in the political process.

The courts’ policymaking function is the result of the evolution of the role of the judiciary. In Federalist #78 Madison noted that the judiciary was the "least dangerous" branch of government because it lacked enforcement powers. In the early years, the Supreme Court was in fact a rather weak branch of the federal government. With the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison and the practice of judicial review, however, the courts have continued to expand their power.

Despite the expanding power of the Judiciary, both the Executive and the Legislative branches have important checks against Judicial policymaking.

The president has the power to enforce judicial decisions through the bureaucracy, and executive commitment to the policy may affect how aggressively these decisions are implemented. More importantly, however, the president has the power of appointment to check the judiciary. When vacancies occur within the judiciary the president can select judges whose understanding of the Constitution and laws are more consistent with his/her own views. In this way the president can affect policy long after he/she leaves office.

The Congress also has a check against the courts. When the courts make a ruling on a particular law in a particular case, the legislature can revise the law if the interpretation of the law is not what the legislature intended. In the case of the federal government, the Congress may propose a Constitutional amendment is the Congress disagrees with the Supreme Court over a Constitutional matter. Statutes may also be amended if Congress believes the Supreme Court interprets them in a manner inconsistent with legislative intent.

To a certain extent, however, the courts also check themselves. Their unwillingness to adjudicate political questions, and to leave such questions for resolution by elected bodies demonstrates that the courts sometimes see their role as limited.

Regular sessions are held in odd-numbered years beginning in January and last for only 140 days. Special sessions, called by the governor, are limited to 30 days. This configuration reflects the suspicion the framers of the Texas constitution viewed government and sometimes causes problems for an urban state as large and complex as Texas.

Legislators in both houses are elected from within districts generally apportioned according to population, with House members serving two-year terms and senators serving four-year terms. Apportionment refers to dividing the population into districts for the purposes of election and representation. In Texas, each house is responsible for drawing up its members’ districts. This is often a troublesome process, but the courts an federal law have mandated that the ‘one person, one vote’ rule must be upheld and so district lines must be redrawn. Arguments over single-member versus multi-member districts as well as over gerrymandering have often marred the apportionment process.

Power in the Texas Legislature is vested in the presiding officers. In fact, the most powerful elected official in Texas is the lieutenant governor acting in his capacity as president of the Senate. Almost as powerful is the Speaker of the House. The lieutenant governor is elected by the people in a statewide vote and serves a four-year term with no limits. The Speaker is elected by House members from among themselves and serves a two-year term with no limits. Both are empowered to recognize members to speak from the floor, to appoint committee chairs in their respective houses, to refer legislation to committees (which act as ‘little legislatures’), and to determine those committees’ jurisdiction (not to be confused with judicial jurisdiction). Both also serve on the Legislative Budget Board and hold numerous other ex officio positions in state government. While the lieutenant governor also appoints all committee members in the Senate, the Speak of the House operates under a limited seniority system and can only appoint half the membership of most standing committees.

Most of the actual work of legislation is done in committees. Committees allow for a more efficient division of labor and for the development of legislative expertise. Standing committees are formed each regular session and are permanent in nature. They are subdivided into substantive committees, which deal with specific public policy topics, and procedural committees, which deal with the internal operations of the legislature. Special committees are temporary in nature and are exemplified by conference committees made up of both House and Senate members to settle differences between House and Senate versions of a bill, and interim committees, which are formed to carry out responsibilities between legislative sessions.

A bill’s path to becoming law is long and torturous. The bill is introduced by filing multiple copies with the appropriate clerk in each house. It is numbered and referred to a committee by the presiding officer. Committees study the bill, hold public hearings, and make whatever changes they desire in the bills. Committees rarely report bills out unfavorably, but will often "pigeonhole" them by simply setting them aside and considering them no more. This is the fate of most bills. Those that make it to the floor are placed on a schedule and eventually discussed and voted on by the entire house. If it passes on house, it goes to the other and the process starts over in that other house. The opportunities to kill a bill are almost limitless and can include procedural "traps" such as the filibuster and the two-thirds rule in the Senate. Those few bills on which both houses can agree are then sent to the governor. If he doesn’t veto the bill, it becomes law.

Most Texans assume that the governor is the most important elected official in the state. Yet the Constitution of 1876 created an office that was stripped of most of its Reconstruction-era powers. It created a plural executive where executive power was divided among many elected and appointed officials. This arrangement makes it difficult for the governor to be a true "chief" executive.

The governor’s powers are limited, and the office is usually ranked at or near the bottom when compared with other governors. Yet, he does have some notable formal executive powers, including the power to appoint commission and board members, although this power is limited by the informal practice of senatorial courtesy and by the fact that these positions have six-year terms. Other executive powers include the power to declare martial law and to call forth the Texas Guard and the Texas Rangers in certain situations.

The governor’s powers relative to the legislature are more significant. He has the exclusive power to call special sessions of the legislature, and is solely responsible for setting the agenda of those sessions. He also has a significant veto power, in which any bill he rejects must be overridden by a two-thirds majority of each house of the Legislature. Furthermore, since most legislation passes in the last days of a session and since the governor has 10 days (excluding Sundays) to decide whether or not to veto a bill, he could exercise his veto power after the Legislature adjourns (the post-adjournment veto). This veto cannot be overridden In addition, the governor can veto specific provisions of appropriations bills (the line-item veto), and may even combine the post adjournment veto with the line-item veto.

Both the United States and Texas Constitutions provide for an executive branch of government. Th US model makes use of the cabinet form of government, in which the president appoints key personnel who are subordinate to him. The president conducts periodic cabinet meetings and outlines the administration’s strategy for governance. Each cabinet member is responsible for carrying out the portions of this strategy within his particular department.

This is not the case in the Texas executive branch, where the plural executive model is used. The framers of the Texas Constitution purposely weakened the governor’s office by creating a division of power within the executive branch. With the exception of the secretary of state, each of the office that make up the plural executive exercise autonomous powers, and none are subordinate to the governor. The officers are chosen independently by popular election for four-year terms. This is strong evidence of the framers’ basic distrust of government and their reluctance to put too much power in the hands of a single person.

The offices of the plural executive include:

In addition to the plural executive is a state bureaucracy comprised of administrators, managers, and other government workers who actually accomplish the tasks set out by the executive branch. Many have had a less-than-positive experience with a government worker or agency, and as a result "bureaucracy" often has a negative connotation. However, when the operations of government work smoothly, most do not notice them.

The judicial system exists to resolve conflicts in a fair, impartial, and consistent manner. Conflict is an inevitable part of democracy, and every day thousands of Texans settle their differences in one of many Texas courtrooms. Texas has a variety of courts ranging from the informal municipal and justice of the peace courts to the powerful Supreme Court and Court of Criminal Appeals. Unlike the Federal Judiciary, the Texas Court system includes a Dual Supreme Court, in which the Texas Supreme Court has final appellate jurisdiction in civil and juvenile matters, while the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has final appellate jurisdiction in criminal matters.

The first thing that must be determined when a court-bound conflict arises is whether the case is civil or criminal in nature. Civil law cases generally involve two or more private parties, one of which takes the other to court, or "sues" to recover damages. The loser of a civil court trial may be required to give the winner a sum of money or some property. Losers of criminal cases, on the other hand, may lose more than just money. Criminal cases are always instigated by the government and are always against an individual accused of breaking a law.

The court most likely to be familiar to a majority of Texans is the municipal court. This court is distinctive because it is the only court in Texas to which judges are not elected. All other courts in Texas require judges to be elected by the people. The jurisdiction of the municipal court is strictly criminal, and only a few are courts of record. Justice courts hear both civil and criminal cases, and like the municipal setting, informality is the general rule.

The county courts at law and district courts hear both civil and criminal cases. County courts at law may be specialized, and the Texas legislature creates additional courts as the need arises. Th more serious criminal cases (felonies) and the civil cases involving more money are heard in the district courts. The district court is the highest trial court (court of original jurisdiction) in the state. In the criminal arena, the District Court may impose the ultimate punishment—death. On the civil end, there is no limit as to how much a district court may award in damages.

Texas’ appellate system includes 14 courts of appeals, which hear both civil and criminal cases. At the top of the system are the Texas Supreme Court and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Texas and Oklahoma are the only states with such a dual supreme court system. Other states, and the federal court system, allow their supreme courts to hear both civil and criminal cases.

Over the years the high courts have expanded their role as "interpreter" of public laws and policy, and have actually become involved in making public policy. Sometimes this is mandated through judicial review, and at other times the courts are asked to recommend a change in policy. In many cases, the courts have overruled legislation that it deemed unconstitutional, and such action is tantamount to creating new laws. The debate over such "judicial activism rages on. Those opposed to the court’s ability to overrule virtually any popularly enacted law argue that such a practice is in itself unconstitutional because the policies made by the court are not a result of the legislative process. On the other hand, proponents of judicial activism claim that it is the court’s primary responsibility to ensure the fairness and constitutionality of legislative action.

Another topic often debated is the process by which judges are selected in Texas. All Texas judges, except a handful of municipal court judges, are elected to four-year terms in partisan elections (six-year terms in the case of the Intermediate Courts of Appeals and the dual Supreme Courts) . Critics argue that judicial candidates should not have to identify with a particular party and should not have to hit the campaign trail like legislative contenders. As of late, these arguments have been given additional weight because of recent evidence of election fraud in some of the state’s highest judicial offices.