“…7. As Curry and Lee (2020) show, bargaining to achieve bipartisan agreement continues to be necessary even in polarized times because both parties are less unified than roll-call-data suggests.…”
To what extent and under which conditions do presidents challenge foreign policy legislation through Statements of Administration Policy (SAPs)? While the presidents’ use of executive orders and signing statements has been studied extensively, this paper argues that SAPs are a subtler and less politically costly tool that is more important than scholars realized. Delivered at a crucial intervention point along the legislative process, these communications provide a key gateway for assertive presidential challenges. Relying on a novel assertiveness-score, this paper finds that SAPs target legislative content more aggressively over time and that the composition of government predicts executive assertiveness particularly well. Next to that, I show that presidents are more assertive when their term comes to an end. These insights contribute to our understanding of spiking interbranch tensions in American Politics.
“…7. As Curry and Lee (2020) show, bargaining to achieve bipartisan agreement continues to be necessary even in polarized times because both parties are less unified than roll-call-data suggests.…”
To what extent and under which conditions do presidents challenge foreign policy legislation through Statements of Administration Policy (SAPs)? While the presidents’ use of executive orders and signing statements has been studied extensively, this paper argues that SAPs are a subtler and less politically costly tool that is more important than scholars realized. Delivered at a crucial intervention point along the legislative process, these communications provide a key gateway for assertive presidential challenges. Relying on a novel assertiveness-score, this paper finds that SAPs target legislative content more aggressively over time and that the composition of government predicts executive assertiveness particularly well. Next to that, I show that presidents are more assertive when their term comes to an end. These insights contribute to our understanding of spiking interbranch tensions in American Politics.
“…27 simply put, "you cannot work with someone you don't trust. 28 as noted by others (Curry and Lee 2020;Warren and Mansbridge 2015), legislators are able to work together better when they do not fear retribution for suggesting ideas that may be unpopular in their party or an anathema to their party's base. indeed, our interviewees emphasized that relationships, and the trust they form, are important because they allow legislators and staff to communicate openly and be honest with each other.…”
Section: Why Relationships Mattermentioning
confidence: 90%
“…Developing these relationships was often about the necessity of lawmaking in a system of government that almost always requires the development of broad, bipartisan coalitions (Curry and Lee 2020; Krehbiel 1998; Mayhew 2005). Our interviewees frequently noted this reality:They have to get along at some level.…”
Section: Interview Findingsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…38 [They]were implacable opposites on most issues-but they trusted each other and so they could work together. 39 developing these relationships was often about the necessity of lawmaking in a system of government that almost always requires the development of broad, bipartisan coalitions (Curry and Lee 2020;Krehbiel 1998;Mayhew 2005). Our interviewees frequently noted this reality:…”
Do interpersonal relationships among and between representatives and senators affect legislative collaboration in the contemporary Congress? The extant literature on Congress suggests interpersonal dimensions of life on Capitol Hill should play a minimal role in the legislative process. However, research in other fields, including psychology, finds that relationships are crucially important within organizations. In addition, many contemporary accounts of congressional deal‐making highlight the role of personal relationships. Drawing on interviews with high‐level congressional staff, and data on CODEL trips taken by members of Congress, we show that interpersonal relationships help promote collaboration across the aisle. These findings have implications for how we understand the contours of conflict and cooperation on Capitol Hill.
“…The Court's authority has only increased in an era of congressional polarization. Although Congress may be more productive than widely believed, congressional majorities have increasingly failed to enact their legislative priorities (Curry and Lee 2020) and there is little doubt that partisan polarization has become a defining feature of American politics (Pierson and Schickler 2020). Predictions of separation of powers scholars have come to fruition as congressional "overrides" of Supreme Court statutory cases have become increasingly rare since a flurry of legislation in the early 1990s (Gely and Spiller 1990;Hasen 2013;McCubbins, Noll, and Weingast 1989).…”
Scholars have made important advances in explaining policy drift, uncovering the prevalence of drift in veto-riddled systems, the importance of bureaucratic discretion and statutory ambiguity in combatting drift, and its feedback effects. Despite research demonstrating the potential for judicial action to alleviate drift, we know little about the potential for the Supreme Court to facilitate policy drift. I argue that the Supreme Court may operate as a powerful agent of drift by stripping statutes of ambiguity, foreclosing policy innovation in institutions outside of Congress, and curtailing bureaucratic discretion and authority. To demonstrate these mechanisms, I show how in the case of federal labor law, the Court’s jurisprudence addressing the right to strike, federal preemption, and National Labor Relations Board authority played a central role in gradually undoing the efficacy of The National Labor Relations Act. This inquiry has important implications for understanding public policy, judicial power, the development of American labor law, and American democracy.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
