David Vladeck
David C. Vladeck (born June 6, 1951) is an American lawyer and the former director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection of the Federal Trade Commission, an independent agency of the United States government. He was appointed by the chairman of the FTC, Jon Leibowitz, on April 14, 2009, shortly after Leibowitz became chairman. He served in that position until December 31, 2012, when he returned to the Georgetown University Law Center.
Early life and education.
Vladeck is a native of New York City. He comes from a family of lawyers. His father, Stephen Vladeck, founded a worker's rights firm in 1948, which his wife, Judith, joined in 1957. Vladeck's sister, Anne, is a partner at the same firm, while his nephew, Stephen, is a law professor at the University of Texas School of Law. Vladeck’s brother, Bruce, headed the Health Care Financing Administration, now called the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, under President Bill Clinton.
Vladeck received his B.A. from New York University in 1972, and graduated with a J.D. from Columbia Law School in 1976. He received an L.L.M. the from Georgetown Law Center in 1977. While a student at New York University, Vladeck played on the school’s basketball team
Career.
Before joining the faculty of the Georgetown University Law Center, Vladeck spent nearly 30 years as a lawyer at the Public Citizen Litigation Group, the litigation arm of Public Citizen, an advocacy organization founded by Ralph Nader. He served as the group’s director for 10 years. While at the Public Citizen Litigation Group, Vladeck argued a number of cases in front of the United States Supreme Court, including cases about the First Amendment, civil rights and labor law. He also argued more than 60 cases in front of federal courts of appeal and state courts of last resort.
Vladeck was a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center for seven years before his appointment to head the Bureau of Consumer Protection. While at Georgetown, he served as the co-director of the Institute for Public Representation, leading the Institute's work in civil rights. He taught courses in federal courts, civil procedure, and government processes and co-directed the Institute for Public Representation, a legal clinic.
Policy priorities.
Vladeck’s appointment to head the Bureau of Consumer Protection was lauded by consumer advocates, who felt that the bureau had shown a pro-business bias under commissioners appointed by George W. Bush in areas such as consumer financial services and online privacy. Since taking office, Vladeck has made clear that he intends to make significant changes to the Bureau’s approach in a few key areas.
Technology and privacy.
Since the FTC started to regulate online privacy issues, in the mid-1990s, its focus has been on whether consumers are provided with proper notice about what information may be collected from them and on whether they are given some choice about how it is collected and used. This philosophy was laid out in the fair information practice principles (FIPs)", published in a 1998 FTC report to Congress about online privacy. The Bureau of Consumer Protection has traditionally taken the position that as long as consumers are provided with notice through company privacy policies, collection and use of consumer data is acceptable; and that the bureau should only intervene when a company’s information practices cause concrete, economic harm to consumers.
Vladeck has stated that he doesn’t believe this existing model succeeds in protecting consumers’ privacy online. He has advocated a new framework that is broader than just economic interests, and that doesn’t rely solely on privacy policies to protect consumers online. In a recent interview with the New York Times, Vladeck argued that, "I don’t believe that most consumers either read [privacy policies], or, if they read them, really understand it [sic]. Second of all, consent in the face of these kinds of quote disclosures, I’m not sure that consent really reflects a volitional, knowing act."
Vladeck’s approach to online privacy was seen in his handling of FTC litigation against Sears in In the Matter of Sears Holdings Management Corporation. In June 2009, shortly after Vladeck assumed office, the Bureau of Consumer Protection settled a case against Sears. The company had offered consumers $10 to download software that tracked their internet browsing. The software collected information such as medical prescriptions and financial information. The software contained a privacy policy with detailed disclosures about the type of information to be collected and how it would be used, and consumers suffered no economic harm when they downloaded it. Nevertheless, the FTC sued the company for its practice. Vladeck stated that "under the harm framework, we couldn’t have brought that case," but that because "there’s a huge dignity interest wrapped up in having somebody looking at your financial records when they have no business doing that," the commission was justified in suing.
Financial regulation.
Consumer advocates have criticized the FTC in recent years for its lack of active regulation of financial services providers, including companies providing and servicing subprime mortgages in the years leading up to the financial crisis of 2007-2010. As "Mother Jones" magazine noted during the Bush Administration, the FTC "brought an average of one subprime lending case a year (in 2004 and 2005 there weren't any), even as the industry was experiencing record growth and complaints mounted about abusive practices leading to home foreclosures."
Advertising and marketing.
In an October 2009 speech to its national advertising division, Vladeck set forth his plan for the Bureau of Consumer Protection's regulation of advertising and marketing practices. He stated that the bureau would have a renewed focus on national advertising, going after large companies that advertise widely and put forth deceptive or unsubstantiated claims, not just small companies perpetrating direct fraud. He also indicated the bureau would particularly focus on food advertising, health claims in advertising and advertising and marketing practices directed at children.
Additionally, since Vladeck took office, the bureau revised its endorsement guides, guidelines to advertisers who use endorsements and testimonials. Previously, the guides – which were last revised in 1980 - only required product testimonials claiming exceptional results to have a disclaimer that said "Results Not Typical". Under the new guidelines, using such testimonials will now require advertisers to "clearly and conspicuously disclose the generally expected results consumers can expect in the depicted circumstances." The guidelines also – somewhat controversially – require bloggers making an endorsement to disclose their "material connections" to the product’s manufacturer or seller.
A positive response to the new rules and laws regarding endorsements and testimonials is an increased level of website compliance standards being adopted that includes the third-party verification of the testimonials businesses present on their websites. These companies, such as testimonialshield.com, collect the data regarding a customer's transaction and experience with a company and with a combined technology and sometimes even personal interviews with the customers to determine the authenticity of the testimonials. Once the testimonials, reviews and/or results are verified, the company can include them in their profiles and add a 'trust mark' similar to that of Verisign, the Better Business Bureau, or Good Housekeeping. The presence of this seal or trust mark helps consumers determine how much weight they should give to the testimonials they are reading before making a decision to support a business.
Personal life.
Vladeck is married and has two sons, both of whom pitched for their college baseball teams. One is also a Georgetown Law graduate.
References.
<templatestyles src="Reflist/styles.css" />

Appropriation bill
Bill or law authorizing expenditure of government funds
An appropriation bill, also known as supply bill or spending bill, is a proposed law that authorizes the expenditure of government funds. It is a bill that sets money aside for specific spending. In some democracies, approval of the legislature is necessary for the government to spend money.
In a Westminster parliamentary system, the defeat of an appropriation bill in a parliamentary vote generally necessitates either the resignation of a government or the calling of a general election. One of the more famous examples of the defeat of a supply bill was the 1975 Australian constitutional crisis, when the Senate, which was controlled by the opposition, refused to approve a package of appropriation and loan bills, prompting Governor-General Sir John Kerr to dismiss Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and appoint Malcolm Fraser as caretaker Prime Minister until the next election (where the Fraser government was elected).
By country.
India.
An appropriation bill is a bill that authorizes the government to withdraw funds from the Consolidated Fund of India for use during the financial year. Although Appropriation Acts are not included in any official list of central laws, they technically remain on the books. Since 2016, appropriation bills in India include a sunset clause as result of which the Act is automatically repealed after its purpose is met. Appropriation Acts passed prior to 2016 were repealed by the enactment of "The Appropriation Acts (Repeal) Act, 2015" in April 2016.
New Zealand.
In New Zealand, an Appropriation Bill is the formal name for the annual Act of Parliament that gives legal effect to the New Zealand Budget, that is, the Government's taxing and spending policies for the forthcoming year (from 1 July to 30 June). Like other bills, it is enacted, following debate, by the House of Representatives, and assented to by the governor-general. The main Appropriation Bill is traditionally placed before the House for its first reading in May amid considerable media interest, an event known as the "introduction of the Budget". An Appropriation Bill is not sent to a select committee, a lengthy process undergone by most bills during which they are scrutinised in detail by the committee, which also receives public submissions relating to the bill. Instead, an expedited process is followed in which the Appropriation Bill essentially goes directly to its second reading for consideration by the committee of the whole House. Royal assent is granted after the formality of a third reading.
The main Appropriation Bill is formally called an "Appropriation (Estimates) Bill", or, after assented to, an "Appropriation (Estimates) "Act"". Supplementary Budgetary legislation in New Zealand includes an annual "Appropriation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill", which serves to validate taxation and spending incurred in the previous year which fell outside the previous year's Budget, and "Imprest Supply Bills," typically several in a year, which grant interim authority to the Government to tax and spend.
Both Appropriation and Imprest Supply bills fall under the rubric of confidence and supply. A refusal by the House to pass such a Bill conventionally leads to either the resignation of the Government (unlikely, since there is usually no alternative Government immediately available) or to a dissolution of the House and a subsequent general election.
Philippines.
In the Philippines, the Congress which consists of the House of Representatives and the Senate is mandated to pass a General Appropriation Bill annually. If the Congress fails to pass a General Appropriation Bill for a fiscal year, the General Appropriation Act for the previous fiscal year would be used until a bill for the specific year is passed.
United States.
Under the presidential system, the support of the Congress for the President's appropriations requests is not necessary for the separately-elected President to remain in office, but it can severely limit the President's ability to govern effectively.
In the United States, there are two types of appropriations. When Congress sets up particular programs, the legislation may itself set up the necessary appropriation mechanism, such as the social security program for which payment of benefits are "mandatory". A mandatory program does not need an additional authorisation for spending under the program to occur. An authorization bill can create programs and make known Congress's intended level of spending for programs that also require an appropriation. What distinguishes a mandatory program from a discretionary program is that after Congress enacts a law creating a mandatory program, the program may spend funds until the program expires based on a provision in law or until a subsequent law either terminates the program or reauthorizes it. Discretionary programs typically require annual appropriations legislation.
An appropriation bill is used for actually providing money for "discretionary" programs. Appropriations are generally done on an annual basis, but multi-year appropriations are occasionally passed. According to the US Constitution (Article I, Section 8, clause 12), Army appropriations cannot be for more than two years at a time. An annual appropriation requires that the funds appropriated to be obligated (spent) by the end of the fiscal year of the appropriation. Once the fiscal year ends, no more money can be spent via the prior year's appropriation. A new appropriation for the new fiscal year must be passed in order for continued spending to occur or passage of a special appropriations bill known as a continuing resolution, which generally permits continued spending for a short period of time, usually at prior year levels. The Anti-Deficiency Act makes void any attempt to spend money for which there is no current appropriation.
According to the Origination Clause of the US Constitution, all bills for raising revenue, generally tax bills, must originate in the House of Representatives, similar to the Westminster system requirement for all money bills to originate in the lower house. Traditionally, appropriation bills originate in the House of Representatives. House appropriations bills begin with "H.R.", meaning "House of Representatives." In reference to revenue bills, the Constitution also states that the "Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills." As with revenue bills, the Senate and House each drafts and considers its own appropriation bill. The Senate then cuts and pastes, substitutes the language of its version of a particular appropriation bill for the language of the House bill, and agrees to the bill as amended.
The United States House Committee on Appropriations and the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations have jurisdiction over appropriations bills. Both committees have twelve matching subcommittees tasked with working on one of the twelve annual regular appropriations bills. Other committees and lawmakers in Congress write legislation creating programs and reauthorizing old ones to continue. That legislation is called an authorization bill. Such legislation authorizes the programs to exist and expenditure of funds on them, but it cannot actually give them the money. That second step of granting the money is done in an appropriations bill. The appropriations committees have power because they can decide whether to fund the programs at the maximum level authorized, a lesser amount, or not at all.
Appropriations bills in the United States can also come in the format of an omnibus spending bill, a continuing resolution, or a supplemental appropriation bill. If Congress has not enacted the regular appropriations bills by the start of a new fiscal year, it can pass a continuing resolution, which continues the pre-existing appropriations at the same levels as the previous fiscal year (or with minor modifications) for a set amount of time. An omnibus spending bill is simply a combination of multiple appropriations bills into one larger appropriations bill. Supplemental appropriations bills increase funding for activities that were already funded in previous appropriations bills or the provide new funding for unexpected expenses. For example, both the War in Afghanistan and the Iraq War were funded with a variety of supplemental appropriations. Supplemental appropriations bills also provide funding for recovering from unexpected natural disasters like Hurricane Sandy (the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013).
Annual appropriations are divided into 12 separate pieces of legislation:
<templatestyles src="Div col/styles.css"/>
References.
<templatestyles src="Reflist/styles.css" />

Separation of powers under the United States Constitution

Separation of powers is a political doctrine originating in the writings of Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu in "The Spirit of the Laws", in which he argued for a constitutional government with three separate branches, each of which would have defined authority to check the powers of the others. This philosophy heavily influenced the United States Constitution, according to which the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of the United States government are kept distinct in order to prevent abuse of power. The American form of separation of powers is associated with a system of checks and balances.
During the Age of Enlightenment, philosophers such as Montesquieu advocated the principle in their writings, whereas others, such as Thomas Hobbes, strongly opposed it. Montesquieu was one of the foremost supporters of separating the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary. His writings considerably influenced the Founding Fathers of the United States, such as Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, who participated in the Constitutional Convention of 1787 which drafted the Constitution.
Some U.S. states did not observe a strict separation of powers in the 18th century. In New Jersey, the governor also functioned as a member of the state's highest court and as the presiding officer of one house of the New Jersey Legislature. The president of Delaware was a member of the Court of Appeals; the presiding officers of the two houses of the state legislature also served in the executive department as vice presidents. In both Delaware and Pennsylvania, members of the executive council served at the same time as judges. On the other hand, many southern states explicitly required separation of powers. Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia all kept the branches of government "separate and distinct."
Legislative power.
Congress has the sole power to legislate for the United States. Under the nondelegation doctrine, Congress may not delegate its lawmaking responsibilities to any other agency. In this vein, the Supreme Court held in the 1998 case "Clinton v. City of New York" that Congress could not delegate a "line-item veto" to the President, by powers vested in the government by the Constitution.
Where Congress does not make great and sweeping delegations of its authority, the Supreme Court has been less stringent. One of the earliest cases involving the exact limits of non-delegation was "Wayman v. Southard" 23 U.S. (10 Wet.) 1, 42 (1825). Congress had delegated to the courts the power to prescribe judicial procedure; it was contended that Congress had thereby unconstitutionally clothed the judiciary with legislative powers. While Chief Justice John Marshall conceded that the determination of rules of procedure was a legislative function, he distinguished between "important" subjects and mere details. Marshall wrote that "a general provision may be made, and power is given to those who are to act under such general provisions, to fill up the details."
Marshall's words and future court decisions gave Congress much latitude in delegating powers. It was not until the 1930s that the Supreme Court held a delegation of authority unconstitutional. In a case involving the creation of the National Recovery Administration called "A.L.A. Schechter Poultry", 295 U.S. 495 (1935), Congress could not authorize the president to formulate codes of "fair competition." It was held that Congress must set some standards governing the actions of executive officers. The Court, however, has deemed that phrases such as "just and reasonable," "public interest" and "public convenience" suffice.
Executive power.
Executive power is vested, with exceptions and qualifications, in the President. By law (Section 2.) the president becomes the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, Militia of several states when called into service, has power to make treaties and appointments to office "with the Advice and Consent of the Senate," receive Ambassadors and Public Ministers, and "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" (Section 3.) By using these words, the Constitution does not require the president to personally enforce the law; rather, officers subordinate to the president may perform such duties. The Constitution empowers the president to ensure the faithful execution of the laws made by Congress and approved by the President. Congress may itself terminate such appointments, by impeachment, and restrict the president. Bodies such as the War Claims Commission (created by the War Claims Act of 1948), the Interstate Commerce Commission, and the Federal Trade Commission—all quasi-judicial—often have direct Congressional oversight.
Congress often writes legislation to restrain executive officials to the performance of their duties, as laid out by the laws Congress passes. In "Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha" (1983), the Supreme Court decided (a) The prescription for legislative action in Art. I, § 1—requiring all legislative powers to be vested in a Congress consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives—and § 7—requiring every bill passed by the House and Senate, before becoming law, to be presented to the president, and, if he disapproves, to be repassed by two-thirds of the Senate and House—represents the Framers' decision that the legislative power of the Federal Government be exercised in accord with a single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered procedure. This procedure is an integral part of the constitutional design for the separation of powers. Further rulings clarified the case; even both Houses acting together cannot override Executive vetoes without a <templatestyles src="Fraction/styles.css" />2⁄3 majority. Legislation may always prescribe regulations governing executive officers.
Judicial power.
Judicial power—the power to decide cases and controversies—is vested in the Supreme Court and inferior courts established by Congress. The judges must be appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the Senate, hold office during good behavior and receive compensations that may not be diminished during their continuance in office. If a court's judges do not have such attributes, the court may not exercise the judicial power of the United States. Courts exercising the judicial power are called "constitutional courts."
However, because Congress controls the budget, jurisdiction, and structure of the federal courts, the judiciary as a branch is better described as largely dependent on Congress rather than independent of it. Although the Constitution, not Congress, creates the Supreme Court, it is Congress that decides whether to create lower federal courts, how to arrange them, how many judges will be appointed to them, and whether to abolish them. Congress also has the power to grant jurisdiction to and withdraw jurisdiction from, lower federal courts. Moreover, although judges have the power to issue final judgments, they must rely on the executive for enforcement.
Congress may also establish "legislative courts," which do not take the form of judicial agencies or commissions, whose members do not have the same security of tenure or compensation as the constitutional court judges. Legislative courts may not exercise the judicial power of the United States. In "Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co." (1856), the Supreme Court held that a legislative court may not decide "a suit at the common law, or in equity, or admiralty," as such a suit is inherently judicial. Legislative courts may only adjudicate "public rights" questions (cases between the government and an individual and political determinations).
Checks and balances.
<templatestyles src = "Column/styles.css" />
Executive.
The president exercises a check over Congress through their power to veto bills, but Congress may override any veto (excluding the so-called "pocket veto") by a two-thirds majority in each house. When the two houses of Congress cannot agree on a date for adjournment, the president may settle the dispute. Either house or both houses may be called into emergency session by the president. The Vice President serves as president of the Senate, but they may only vote to break a tie.
The president, as noted above, appoints judges with the Senate's advice and consent. They also have the power to issue pardons and reprieves. Such pardons are not subject to confirmation by either the House of Representatives or the Senate, or even to acceptance by the recipient. The President is not mandated to carry out the orders of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court does not have any enforcement power; the enforcement power lies solely with the executive branch. Thus, the executive branch can place a check on the Supreme Court through refusal to execute the orders of the court. However the prestige of the Court makes that difficult to do.
The president is the civilian Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States. They have the authority to command them to take appropriate military action in the event of a sudden crisis. However, only the Congress is explicitly granted the power to declare war per se, as well as to raise, fund and maintain the armed forces. Congress also has the duty and authority to prescribe the laws and regulations under which the armed forces operate, such as the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and requires that all Generals and Admirals appointed by the president be confirmed by a majority vote of the Senate before they can assume their office.
Judicial.
Courts check both the executive branch and the legislative branch through judicial review. This concept is not written into the Constitution, but was envisioned by many of the Constitution's Framers (for example, "The Federalist Papers" mention it). The Supreme Court established a precedent for judicial review in "Marbury v. Madison". There were protests by some at this decision, born chiefly of political expediency, but political realities in the particular case paradoxically restrained opposing views from asserting themselves. For this reason, precedent alone established the principle that a court may strike down a law it deems unconstitutional.
A common misperception is that the Supreme Court is the only court that may determine constitutionality; the power is exercised even by the inferior courts. But only Supreme Court decisions are binding across the nation. Decisions of a Court of Appeals, for instance, are binding only in the circuit over which the court has jurisdiction.
The power to review the constitutionality of laws may be limited by Congress, which has the power to set the jurisdiction of the courts. The only constitutional limit on Congress' power to set the jurisdiction of the judiciary relates to the Supreme Court; the Supreme Court may exercise only appellate jurisdiction except in cases involving states and cases affecting foreign ambassadors, ministers or consuls.
The Chief Justice presides in the Senate during a president's impeachment trial. The rules of the Senate, however, generally do not grant much authority to the presiding officer. Thus, the Chief Justice's role in this regard is a limited one.
McCulloch v. Maryland, decided in 1819, established two important principles, one of which explains that states cannot make actions to impede on valid constitutional exercises of power by the federal government. The other explains that Congress has the implied powers to implement the express powers written in the Constitution to create a functional national government. All three branches of the US government have certain powers and those powers relate to the other branches of government. One of these powers is called the express powers. These powers are expressly given, in the Constitution, to each branch of government. Another power is the implied powers. These powers are those that are necessary to perform expressed powers. There are also inherent and concurrent powers. Inherent powers are those that are not found in the Constitution yet the different branches of government can still exercise them. Concurrent powers are those that are given to both state and federal governments. There are also powers that are not lined out in the Constitution that are given to the federal government. These powers are then given to the states in a system called federalism.
Congress is one of the branches of government so it has a lot of powers of its own that it uses to pass laws and establish regulations. These include express, implied, and concurrent powers. It uses its express powers to regulate bankruptcies, business between states and other nations, the armed forces, and the National Guard or militia. They also establish all laws necessary and proper for carrying out other powers. In addition to this Congress makes laws for naturalization. Implied powers are used to keep the regulation of taxes, the draft, immigration, protection of those with disabilities, minimum wage, and outlaw discrimination. Congress's inherent powers are used to control national borders, deal with foreign affairs, acquire new territories, defend the state from revolution, and decide the exclusion or establishment of aliens. Concurrent powers makes it so that both federal and state governments can create laws, deal with environmental protection, maintain national parks and prisons, and provide a police force.
The judicial branch of government holds powers as well. They have the ability to use express and concurrent powers to make laws and establish regulations. They use express powers to interpret laws and perform judicial review. Implied powers are used by this branch to declare laws that were previously passed by a lower court unconstitutional. They can also use express powers to declare laws that are in the process of being passed unconstitutional. Concurrent powers are used to make it so that state courts can conduct trials and interpret laws without the approval of federal courts and federal courts can hear appeals form lower state courts.
The executive branch also has powers of its own that they use to make laws and establish regulations. The powers that are used in this branch are express, implied, and inherent. The President uses express powers to approve and veto bills and to make treaties as well. The President is constitutionally obligated to make sure that laws are faithfully executed and uses their powers to do just this. He uses implied powers to issue executive orders and enter into treaties with foreign nations. The executive branch uses inherent powers to establish executive privilege, which means that they can enforce statutes and laws already passed by Congress. They can also enforce the Constitution and treaties that were previously made by other branches of government.
The system of checks and balances makes it so that no one branch of government has more power than another and cannot overthrow another. It creates a balance of power that is necessary for a government to function, if it is to function well. This, in most situations, makes it so that each branch is held to a certain standard of conduct. If a branch of the government thinks that what another branch is doing is unconstitutional, they can "call them out" so to say. Each branch is able to look at the other branches wrongdoing and change it to meet the needs of the people whom they serve. Humans as a whole have a history of abusing positions of power but the system of checks and balances makes it so much more difficult to do so. Also, as there is more than one person running each branch gives room for debate and discussion before decisions are made within a single branch. Even so, some laws have been made and then retracted because they were an abuse of the power given to that particular branch. The people that created these laws had been serving a selfish agenda when forming these laws instead of looking out for the welfare of those people that they were supposed to be protecting by making certain laws. While this is a horrible scenario, it does happen. That does not mean that it cannot be fixed though. Indeed, it can be, by another branch of government stepping up to right the wrongs that had been done.
The federal government is fully capable to intervene in affairs of Native Americans on reservations to some extent. Their ability to create and enforce treaties makes it so that they can interact with the Native Americans and build a treaty that works for both parties and make reservations for the Native Americans to live on and make it so that the people that would live on the reservation not be interrupted by the outside world and be able to live their lives as they please. This responsibility also falls on to the states as well. This happens because the federal government is the one that creates the treaties but the reservations are then put in the jurisdiction of the states. The states are then responsible for maintaining the relationships with the Native Americans on those reservations and to honor the treaties that were previously made by the federal government.
Equality of the branches.
The Constitution does not explicitly indicate the pre-eminence of any particular branch of government. However, James Madison wrote in Federalist 51, regarding the ability of each branch to defend itself from actions by the others, that "it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates."
One may claim that the judiciary has historically been the weakest of the three branches. In fact, its power to exercise judicial review—its sole meaningful check on the other two branches—is not explicitly granted by the U.S Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court exercised its power to strike down congressional acts as unconstitutional only twice prior to the Civil War: in "Marbury v. Madison" (1803) and "Dred Scott v. Sandford" (1857). The Supreme Court has since then made more extensive use of judicial review.
Throughout America's history dominance of one of the three branches has essentially been a see-saw struggle between Congress and the president. Both have had periods of great power and weakness such as immediately after the Civil War when republicans had a majority in Congress and were able to pass major legislation and shoot down most of the president's vetoes. They also passed acts to essentially make the president subordinate to Congress, such as the Tenure of Office Act. Johnson's later impeachment also cost the presidency much political power. However the president has also exercised greater power largely during the 20th century. Both Roosevelts greatly expanded the powers of the president and wielded great power during their terms.
The first six presidents of the United States did not make extensive use of the veto power: George Washington only vetoed two bills, James Monroe one, and John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams none. James Madison, a firm believer in a strong executive, vetoed seven bills. None of the first six Presidents, however, used the veto to direct national policy. It was Andrew Jackson, the seventh President, who was the first to use the veto as a political weapon. During his two terms in office, he vetoed 12 bills—more than all of his predecessors combined. Furthermore, he defied the Supreme Court in enforcing the policy of ethnically cleansing Native American tribes ("Indian Removal"); he stated (perhaps apocryphally), "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it!"
Some of Jackson's successors made no use of the veto power, while others used it intermittently. It was only after the Civil War that presidents began to use the power to truly counterbalance Congress. Andrew Johnson, a Democrat, vetoed several Reconstruction bills passed by the "Radical Republicans." Congress, however, managed to override fifteen of Johnson's twenty-nine vetoes. Furthermore, it attempted to curb the power of the presidency by passing the Tenure of Office Act. The Act required Senate approval for the dismissal of senior Cabinet officials. When Johnson deliberately violated the Act, which he felt was unconstitutional (Supreme Court decisions later vindicated such a position), the House of Representatives impeached him; he was acquitted in the Senate by one vote.
Johnson's impeachment was perceived to have done great damage to the presidency, which came to be almost subordinate to Congress. Some believed that the president would become a mere figurehead, with the Speaker of the House of Representatives becoming a "de facto" prime minister. Grover Cleveland, the first Democratic President following Johnson, attempted to restore the power of his office. During his first term, he vetoed over 400 bills—twice as many bills as his 21 predecessors combined. He also began to suspend bureaucrats who were appointed as a result of the patronage system, replacing them with more "deserving" individuals. The Senate, however, refused to confirm many new nominations, instead demanding that Cleveland turn over the confidential records relating to the suspensions. Cleveland steadfastly refused, asserting, "These suspensions are my executive acts ... I am not responsible to the Senate, and I am unwilling to submit my actions to them for judgment." Cleveland's popular support forced the Senate to back down and confirm the nominees. Furthermore, Congress finally repealed the controversial Tenure of Office Act that had been passed during the Johnson Administration. Overall, this meant that Cleveland's Administration marked the end of presidential subordination.
Several 20th-century presidents have attempted to greatly expand the power of the presidency. Theodore Roosevelt, for instance, claimed that the president was permitted to do whatever was not explicitly prohibited by the law—in direct contrast to his immediate successor, William Howard Taft. Franklin Delano Roosevelt held considerable power during the Great Depression. Congress had granted Franklin Roosevelt sweeping authority; in "Panama Refining v. Ryan", the Court for the first time struck down a Congressional delegation of power as violative of the doctrine of separation of powers. The aforementioned "Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States", another separation of powers case, was also decided during Franklin Roosevelt's presidency. In response to many unfavorable Supreme Court decisions, Roosevelt introduced a "Court Packing" plan, under which more seats would be added to the Supreme Court for the president to fill. Such a plan (which was defeated in Congress) would have seriously undermined the judiciary's independence and power.
Richard Nixon used national security as a basis for his expansion of power. He asserted, for example, that "the inherent power of the President to safeguard the security of the nation" authorized him to order a wiretap without a judge's warrant. Nixon also asserted that "executive privilege" shielded him from all legislative oversight; furthermore, he impounded federal funds (that is to say, he refused to spend money that Congress had appropriated for government programs). In the specific cases aforementioned, however, the Supreme Court ruled against Nixon. This was also because of an ongoing criminal investigation into the Watergate tapes, even though they acknowledged the general need for executive privilege. Since then, Nixon's successors have sometimes asserted that they may act in the interests of national security or that executive privilege shields them from Congressional oversight. Though such claims have in general been more limited than Nixon's, one may still conclude that the presidency's power has been greatly augmented since the 18th and 19th centuries.
Views on separation of powers.
Many political scientists believe that separation of powers is a decisive factor in what they see as a limited degree of American exceptionalism. In particular, John W. Kingdon made this argument, claiming that separation of powers contributed to the development of a unique political structure in the United States. He attributes the unusually large number of interest groups active in the United States, in part, to the separation of powers; it gives groups more places to try to influence, and creates more potential group activity. He also cites its complexity as one of the reasons for lower citizen participation.
Judicial independence.
Separation of powers has again become a current issue of some controversy concerning debates about judicial independence and political efforts to increase the accountability of judges for the quality of their work, avoiding conflicts of interest, and charges that some judges allegedly disregard procedural rules, statutes, and higher court precedents.
Many legislators hold the view that separation of powers means that powers are shared among different branches; no one branch may act unilaterally on issues (other than perhaps minor questions), but must obtain some form of agreement across branches. That is, it is argued that "checks and balances" apply to the Judicial branch as well as to the other branches—for example, in the regulation of attorneys and judges, and the establishment by Congress of rules for the conduct of federal courts, and by state legislatures for state courts. Although in practice these matters are delegated to the Supreme Court, the Congress holds these powers and delegates them to the Supreme Court only for convenience in light of the Supreme Court's expertise, but can withdraw that delegation at any time.
On the other side of this debate, many judges hold the view that separation of powers means that the Judiciary is independent and untouchable within the judicial sphere. In this view, separation of powers means that the Judiciary alone holds all powers relative to the judicial function and that the Legislative and Executive branches may not interfere in any aspect of the Judicial branch. An example of the second view at the state level is found in the Florida Supreme Court holding that only the Florida Supreme Court may license and regulate attorneys appearing before the courts of Florida, and only the Florida Supreme Court may set rules for procedures in the Florida courts. The State of New Hampshire also follows this system.
References.
Citations.
<templatestyles src="Reflist/styles.css" />
Sources.
<templatestyles src="Refbegin/styles.css" />

United States House of Representatives
Lower house of the US Congress
The United States House of Representatives is a chamber of the bicameral United States Congress; it is the lower house, with the U.S. Senate being the upper house. Together, the House and Senate have the authority under Article One of the U.S. Constitution to pass or defeat federal legislation, known as bills. Those that are also passed by the Senate are sent to the president for signature or veto. The House's exclusive powers include initiating all revenue bills, impeaching federal officers, and electing the president if no candidate receives a majority of votes in the Electoral College.
Members of the House serve a fixed term of two years, with each seat up for election before the start of the next Congress. Special elections also occur when a seat is vacated early enough. The House's composition was established by Article One of the United States Constitution. The House is composed of representatives who, pursuant to the Uniform Congressional District Act, sit in single member congressional districts allocated to each state on the basis of population as measured by the United States census, with each district having at least a single representative, provided that that state is entitled to them. Since its inception in 1789, all representatives have been directly elected. Although suffrage was initially limited, it gradually widened, particularly after the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment and the civil rights movement.
Since 1913, the number of voting representatives has been at 435 pursuant to the Apportionment Act of 1911. The Reapportionment Act of 1929 capped the size of the House at 435. However, the number was temporarily increased from 1959 until 1963 to 437 following the admissions of Alaska and Hawaii to the Union.
In addition, five non-voting delegates represent the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories of Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. A non-voting resident commissioner, serving a four-year term, represents the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. As of the 2020 census, the largest delegation was California, with 52 representatives. Six states have only one representative apiece: Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming.
The House meets in the south wing of the United States Capitol. The rules of the House generally address a two-party system, with a majority party in government, and a minority party in opposition. The presiding officer is the speaker of the House, who is elected by the members thereof. Other floor leaders are chosen by the Democratic Caucus or the Republican Conference, depending on whichever party has the most voting members.
History.
18th century.
Under the Articles of Confederation, the Congress of the Confederation was a unicameral body with equal representation for each state, which meant that any state could veto most actions.
After eight years of a more limited confederal government under the Articles, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and other Founding Fathers initiated the Constitutional Convention, which convened in Philadelphia from May 25 to September 17, 1787, and received the Confederation Congress's sanction to "amend the Articles of Confederation". All states except Rhode Island agreed to send delegates.
Congress's structure was a contentious issue among the founders during the convention. Edmund Randolph's Virginia Plan called for bicameral legislature with proportional representation in the House and equal state representation in the Senate.
The House is commonly referred to as the lower house and the Senate the upper house, although the United States Constitution does not use that terminology. Both houses' approval is necessary for the passage of legislation. The Virginia Plan drew the support of delegates from several large states, including Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, and called for representation based on population. The smaller states, however, favored the New Jersey Plan, which called for a unicameral Congress with equal representation for the states.
The Convention ultimately reached the Connecticut Compromise or Great Compromise, under which the House of Representatives would provide representation proportional to each state's population, and the Senate would provide equal representation amongst the states. In 1788, the Constitution was ratified, and it was implemented on March 4, 1789.
Less than a month later, on April 1, 1789, the U.S. House convened for the first time in New York City, which was then the nation's capital. In 1790, the capital was moved back to Philadelphia, and the House met there from 1790 until 1800 when construction of the new national capitol in Washington, D.C. was completed.
19th century.
During the first half of the 19th century, the House was frequently in conflict with the U.S. Senate over regionally divisive issues, including slavery. The North was much more populous than the South, and therefore dominated the House of Representatives. However, the North held no such advantage in the Senate, where the equal representation of states prevailed.
Regional conflict was most pronounced over the issue of slavery. One example of a provision repeatedly supported by the House but blocked by the Senate was the Wilmot Proviso, which sought to ban slavery in the land gained during the Mexican–American War. Conflict over slavery and other issues persisted until the Civil War (1861–1865), which began soon after several southern states attempted to secede from the Union. The Civil War culminated in the South's defeat and in the abolition of slavery. Since all southern senators except Andrew Johnson resigned their seats at the beginning of the war, the Senate did not hold the balance of power between North and South during the war.
During the Reconstruction that followed, the Republican Party held large majorities, which many Americans associated with the Union's victory in the Civil War and the ending of slavery. The Reconstruction period ended in about 1877; the ensuing era, known as the Gilded Age, was marked by sharp political divisions in the electorate. The Democratic Party and Republican Party each held majorities in the House at various times.
The late 19th and early 20th centuries also saw a dramatic increase in the power of the speaker of the House. The rise of the speaker's influence began in the 1890s, during the tenure of Republican Thomas Brackett Reed. "Czar Reed", as he was nicknamed, attempted to put into effect his view that "The best system is to have one party govern and the other party watch." The leadership structure of the House also developed during approximately the same period, with the positions of majority leader and minority leader being created in 1899. While the minority leader was the head of the minority party, the majority leader remained subordinate to the speaker.
20th century.
The speakership reached its zenith during the term of Republican Joseph Gurney Cannon, from 1903 to 1911. The speaker's powers included chairmanship of the influential Rules Committee and the ability to appoint members of other House committees. However, these powers were curtailed in the "Revolution of 1910" because of the efforts of Democrats and dissatisfied Republicans who opposed Cannon's heavy-handed tactics.
The Democratic Party dominated the House of Representatives during the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration between 1933 and 1945, often winning over two-thirds of the seats. Both Democrats and Republicans were in power at various times during the next decade. The Democratic Party maintained control of the House from 1955 until 1995. In the mid-1970s, members passed major reforms that strengthened the power of subscommittees at the expense of committee chairs and allowed party leaders to nominate committee chairs. These actions were taken to undermine the seniority system, and to reduce the ability of a small number of senior members to obstruct legislation they did not favor. There was also a shift from the 1990s to greater control of the legislative program by the majority party; the power of party leaders (especially the speaker) grew considerably.
According to historian Julian E. Zelizer, the majority Democrats minimized the number of staff positions available to the minority Republicans, kept them out of decision-making, and gerrymandered their home districts. Republican Newt Gingrich argued American democracy was being ruined by the Democrats' tactics and that the GOP had to destroy the system before it could be saved. Cooperation in governance, says Zelizer, would have to be put aside until they deposed Speaker Wright and regained power. Gingrich brought an ethics complaint which led to Wright's resignation in 1989. Gingrich gained support from the media and good government forces in his crusade to persuade Americans that the system was, in Gingrich's words, "morally, intellectually and spiritually corrupt". Gingrich followed Wright's successor, Democrat Tom Foley, as speaker after the Republican Revolution of 1994 gave his party control of the House.
Gingrich attempted to pass a major legislative program, the Contract with America and made major reforms of the House, notably reducing the tenure of committee chairs to three two-year terms. Many elements of the Contract did not pass Congress, were vetoed by President Bill Clinton, or were substantially altered in negotiations with Clinton. After Republicans held control in the 1996 election, however, Clinton and the Gingrich-led House agreed on the first balanced federal budget in decades, along with a substantial tax cut.
21st century.
Republicans held on to the House until 2006, when the Democrats won control and Nancy Pelosi was subsequently elected by the House as the first female speaker.
Republicans retook the House in 2010 elections with the largest shift of political power between the parties since the 1938 elections. Republicans held the House until Democrats retook it in the 2018 elections, which became the largest shift of power to the Democrats since the 1970s. In the 2022 elections, Republicans took back control of the House, winning a slim majority.
In November 2024, House speaker Mike Johnson announced that the House would have women-only spaces following the election of Sarah McBride
Membership, qualifications, and apportionment.
Apportionments.
Under Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, seats in the House of Representatives are apportioned among the states by population, as determined by the census conducted every ten years. Each state is entitled to at least one representative, however small its population.
The only constitutional rule relating to the size of the House states: "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative." Congress regularly increased the size of the House to account for population growth until it fixed the number of voting House members at 435 in 1911. In 1959, upon the admission of Alaska and Hawaii, the number was temporarily increased to 437 (seating one representative from each of those states without changing existing apportionment), and returned to 435 four years later, after the reapportionment consequent to the 1960 census.
The Constitution does not provide for the representation of the District of Columbia or of territories. The District of Columbia and the territories of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are each represented by one non-voting delegate. Puerto Rico elects a resident commissioner, but other than having a four-year term, the resident commissioner's role is identical to the delegates from the other territories. The five delegates and resident commissioner may participate in debates; before 2011, they were also allowed to vote in committees and the Committee of the Whole when their votes would not be decisive.
Redistricting.
States entitled to more than one representative are divided into single-member districts. This has been a federal statutory requirement since 1967 pursuant to the act titled An Act For the relief of Doctor Ricardo Vallejo Samala and to provide for congressional redistricting. Before that law, general ticket representation was used by some states.
States typically redraw district boundaries after each census, though they may do so at other times, such as the 2003 Texas redistricting. Each state determines its own district boundaries, either through legislation or through non-partisan panels. Malapportionment is unconstitutional and districts must be approximately equal in population (see "Wesberry v. Sanders"). Additionally, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibits redistricting plans that are intended to, or have the effect of, discriminating against racial or language minority voters. Aside from malapportionment and discrimination against racial or language minorities, federal courts have allowed state legislatures to engage in gerrymandering to benefit political parties or incumbents. In a 1984 case, "Davis v. Bandemer", the Supreme Court held that gerrymandered districts could be struck down based on the Equal Protection Clause, but the Court did not articulate a standard for when districts are impermissibly gerrymandered. However, the Court overruled Davis in 2004 in "Vieth v. Jubelirer", and Court precedent holds gerrymandering to be a political question. According to calculations made by Burt Neuborne using criteria set forth by the American Political Science Association, only about 40 seats, less than 10% of the House membership, are chosen through a genuinely contested electoral process, given partisan gerrymandering.
Qualifications.
Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution sets three qualifications for representatives. Each representative must: (1) be at least twenty-five (25) years old; (2) have been a citizen of the United States for the past seven years; and (3) be (at the time of the election) an inhabitant of the state they represent. Members are not required to live in the districts they represent, but they traditionally do. The age and citizenship qualifications for representatives are less than those for senators. The constitutional requirements of Article I, Section 2 for election to Congress are the maximum requirements that can be imposed on a candidate. Therefore, Article I, Section 5, which permits each House to be the judge of the qualifications of its own members does not permit either House to establish additional qualifications. Likewise, a state could not establish additional qualifications. William C. C. Claiborne served in the House below the minimum age of 25.
Disqualification: under the Fourteenth Amendment, a federal or state officer who takes the requisite oath to support the Constitution, but later engages in rebellion or aids the enemies of the United States, is disqualified from becoming a representative. This post–Civil War provision was intended to prevent those who sided with the Confederacy from serving. However, disqualified individuals may serve if they gain the consent of two-thirds of both houses of Congress.
Elections.
Elections for representatives are held in every even-numbered year, on Election Day the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. Pursuant to the Uniform Congressional District Act, representatives must be elected from single-member districts. After a census is taken (in a year ending in 0), the year ending in 2 is the first year in which elections for U.S. House districts are based on that census (with the Congress based on those districts starting its term on the following January 3). As there is no legislation at the federal level mandating one particular system for elections to the House, systems are set at the state level. As of 2022, first-past-the-post or plurality voting is used in 46 states, electing 412 representatives, ranked-choice or instant-runoff voting in two states (Alaska and Maine), electing 3 representatives, and two-round system in two states (Georgia and Louisiana), electing 20 representatives. Elected representatives serve a two-year term, with no term limit.
In most states, major party candidates for each district are nominated in partisan primary elections, typically held in spring to late summer. In some states, the Republican and Democratic parties choose their candidates for each district in their political conventions in spring or early summer, which often use unanimous voice votes to reflect either confidence in the incumbent or the result of bargaining in earlier private discussions. Exceptions can result in so-called floor fights—convention votes by delegates, with outcomes that can be hard to predict. Especially if a convention is closely divided, a losing candidate may contend further by meeting the conditions for a primary election. The courts generally do not consider ballot access rules for independent and third party candidates to be additional qualifications for holding office and no federal statutes regulate ballot access. As a result, the process to gain ballot access varies greatly from state to state, and in the case of a third party in the United States may be affected by results of previous years' elections.
In 1967, Congress passed the Uniform Congressional District Act, which requires all representatives to be elected from single-member-districts. Following the "Wesberry v. Sanders" decision, Congress was motivated by fears that courts would impose at-large plurality districts on states that did not redistrict to comply with the new mandates for districts roughly equal in population, and Congress also sought to prevent attempts by southern states to use such voting systems to dilute the vote of racial minorities. Several states have used multi-member districts in the past, although only two states (Hawaii and New Mexico) used multi-member districts in 1967. Louisiana is unique in that it holds an all-party primary election on the general Election Day with a subsequent runoff election between the top two finishers (regardless of party) if no candidate received a majority in the primary. The states of Washington and California use a similar (though not identical) system to that used by Louisiana.
Seats vacated during a term are filled through special elections, unless the vacancy occurs closer to the next general election date than a pre-established deadline. The term of a member chosen in a special election usually begins the next day, or as soon as the results are certified.
Non-voting delegates.
Historically, many territories have sent non-voting delegates to the House. While their role has fluctuated over the years, today they have many of the same privileges as voting members, have a voice in committees, and can introduce bills on the floor, but cannot vote on the ultimate passage of bills. Presently, the District of Columbia and the five inhabited U.S. territories each elect a delegate. A seventh delegate, representing the Cherokee Nation, has been formally proposed but has not yet been seated. An eighth delegate, representing the Choctaw Nation is guaranteed by treaty but has not yet been proposed. Additionally, some territories may choose to also elect shadow representatives, though these are not official members of the House and are separate individuals from their official delegates.
Terms.
Representatives and delegates serve for two-year terms, while a resident commissioner (a kind of delegate) serves for four years. A term starts on January 3 following the election in November. The U.S. Constitution requires that vacancies in the House be filled with a special election. The term of the replacement member expires on the date that the original member's would have expired.
The Constitution permits the House to expel a member with a two-thirds vote. In the history of the United States, only six members have been expelled from the House; in 1861, three were removed for supporting the Confederate states' secession: Democrats John Bullock Clark of Missouri, John William Reid of Missouri, and Henry Cornelius Burnett of Kentucky. Democrat Michael Myers of Pennsylvania was expelled after his criminal conviction for accepting bribes in 1980, Democrat James Traficant of Ohio was expelled in 2002 following his conviction for corruption, and Republican George Santos was expelled in 2023 after he was implicated in fraud by both a federal indictment and a House Ethics Committee investigation.
The House also has the power to formally censure or reprimand its members; censure or reprimand of a member requires only a simple majority, and does not remove that member from office.
Comparison to the Senate.
As a check on the regional, popular, and rapidly changing politics of the House, the Senate has several distinct powers. For example, the "advice and consent" powers (such as the power to approve treaties and confirm members of the Cabinet) are a sole Senate privilege. The House, however, has the exclusive power to initiate bills for raising revenue, to impeach officials, and to choose the president if a presidential candidate fails to get a majority of the Electoral College votes. Both House and Senate confirmation is now required to fill a vacancy if the vice presidency is vacant, according to the provisions of the Twenty-fifth Amendment. The Senate and House are further differentiated by term lengths and the number of districts represented: the Senate has longer terms of six years, fewer members (currently one hundred, two for each state), and (in all but seven delegations) larger constituencies per member.
Salary and benefits.
Salaries.
Since December 2014, the annual salary of each representative is $174,000, the same as it is for each member of the Senate. The speaker of the House and the majority and minority leaders earn more: $223,500 for the speaker and $193,400 for their party leaders (the same as Senate leaders). A cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) increase takes effect annually unless Congress votes not to accept it. Congress sets members' salaries; however, the Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits a change in salary (but not COLA) from taking effect until after the next election of the whole House. Representatives are eligible for retirement benefits after serving for five years. Outside pay is limited to 15% of congressional pay, and certain types of income involving a fiduciary responsibility or personal endorsement are prohibited. Salaries are not for life, only during active term.
Titles.
Representatives use the prefix "The Honorable" before their names. A member of the House is referred to as a "representative", "congressman", or "congresswoman".
Representatives are usually identified in the media and other sources by party and state, and sometimes by congressional district, or a major city or community within their district. For example, Democratic representative Nancy Pelosi, who represents California's 11th congressional district within San Francisco, may be identified as "D–California", "D–California–11" or "D–San Francisco".
"Member of congress" is occasionally abbreviated as either "MOC" or "MC" (similar to MP). However, the abbreviation "Rep." for Representative is more common, as it avoids confusion as to whether they are a member of the House or the Senate.
Pension.
All members of Congress are automatically enrolled in the Federal Employees Retirement System, a pension system also used for federal civil servants, except the formula for calculating Congress members' pension results in a 70% higher pension than other federal employees based on the first 20 years of service. They become eligible to receive benefits after five years of service (two and one-half terms in the House). The FERS is composed of three elements:
Members of Congress may retire with full benefits at age 62 after five years of service, at age 50 after 20 years of service, and at any age after 25 years of service. With an average age of 58, the US House of Representatives is older than comparable chambers in Russia and the other G7 nations.
Tax deductions.
Members of Congress are permitted to deduct up to $3,000 of living expenses per year incurred while living away from their district or home state.
Health benefits.
Before 2014, members of Congress and their staff had access to essentially the same health benefits as federal civil servants; they could voluntarily enroll in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), an employer-sponsored health insurance program, and were eligible to participate in other programs, such as the Federal Flexible Spending Account Program (FSAFEDS).
However, Section 1312(d)(3)(D) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) provided that the only health plans that the federal government can make available to members of Congress and certain congressional staff are those created under the ACA or offered through a health care exchange. The Office of Personnel Management promulgated a final rule to comply with Section 1312(d)(3)(D). Under the rule, effective January 1, 2014, members and designated staff are no longer able to purchase FEHBP plans as active employees. However, if members enroll in a health plan offered through a Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) exchange, they remain eligible for an employer contribution toward coverage, and members and designated staff eligible for retirement may enroll in a FEHBP plan upon retirement.
The ACA and the final rule do not affect members' or staffers' eligibility for Medicare benefits. The ACA and the final rule also do not affect members' and staffers' eligibility for other health benefits related to federal employment, so members and staff are eligible to participate in FSAFEDS (which has three options within the program), the Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance Program, and the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program.
The Office of the Attending Physician at the U.S. Capitol provides members with health care for an annual fee. The attending physician provides routine exams, consultations, and certain diagnostics, and may write prescriptions (although the office does not dispense them). The office does not provide vision or dental care.
Members (but not their dependents, and not former members) may also receive medical and emergency dental care at military treatment facilities. There is no charge for outpatient care if it is provided in the National Capital Region, but members are billed at full reimbursement rates (set by the Department of Defense) for inpatient care. (Outside the National Capital Region, charges are at full reimbursement rates for both inpatient and outpatient care).
Personnel, mail and office expenses.
House members are eligible for a Member's Representational Allowance (MRA) to support them in their official and representational duties to their district. The MRA is calculated based on three components: one for personnel, one for official office expenses and one for official or franked mail. The personnel allowance is the same for all members; the office and mail allowances vary based on the members' district's distance from Washington, D.C., the cost of office space in the member's district, and the number of non-business addresses in their district. These three components are used to calculate a single MRA that can fund any expense—even though each component is calculated individually, the franking allowance can be used to pay for personnel expenses if the member so chooses. In 2011 this allowance averaged $1.4 million per member, and ranged from $1.35 to $1.67 million.
The Personnel allowance was $944,671 per member in 2010. Each member may employ no more than 18 permanent employees. Members' employees' salary is capped at $168,411 as of 2009.
Travel allowance.
Before being sworn into office, each member-elect and one staffer can be paid for one round trip between their home in their congressional district and Washington, D.C., for organization caucuses. Members are allowed "a sum for travel based on the following formula: 64 times the rate per mile ... multiplied by the mileage between Washington, DC, and the furthest point in a Member's district, plus 10%." As of January 2012[ [update]] the rate ranges from based on distance ranges between D.C. and the member's district.
Officers.
Member officials.
The party with a majority of seats in the House is known as the majority party. The next-largest party is the minority party. The speaker, committee chairs, and some other officials are generally from the majority party; they have counterparts (for instance, the "ranking members" of committees) in the minority party.
The Constitution provides that the House may choose its own speaker. Although not explicitly required by the Constitution, every speaker has been a member of the House. The Constitution does not specify the duties and powers of the speaker, which are instead regulated by the rules and customs of the House. Speakers have a role both as a leader of the House and the leader of their party (which need not be the majority party; theoretically, a member of the minority party could be elected as speaker with the support of a fraction of members of the majority party). Under the Presidential Succession Act (1947), the speaker is second in the line of presidential succession after the vice president.
The speaker is the presiding officer of the House but does not preside over every debate. Instead, they delegate the responsibility of presiding to other members in most cases. The presiding officer sits in a chair in the front of the House chamber. The powers of the presiding officer are extensive; one important power is that of controlling the order in which members of the House speak. No member may make a speech or a motion unless they have first been recognized by the presiding officer. Moreover, the presiding officer may rule on a "point of order" (a member's objection that a rule has been breached); the decision is subject to appeal to the whole House.
Speakers serve as chairs of their party's steering committee, which is responsible for assigning party members to other House committees. The speaker chooses the chairs of standing committees, appoints most of the members of the Rules Committee, appoints all members of conference committees, and determines which committees consider bills.
Each party elects a floor leader, who is known as the majority leader or minority leader. The minority leader heads their party in the House, and the majority leader is their party's second-highest-ranking official, behind the speaker. Party leaders decide what legislation members of their party should either support or oppose.
Each party also elects a Whip, who works to ensure that the party's members vote as the party leadership desires. The majority whip in the House of Representatives is Tom Emmer, who is a member of the Republican Party. The minority whip is Katherine Clark, who is a member of the Democratic Party. The whip is supported by chief deputy whips
After the whips, the next ranking official in the House party's leadership is the party conference chair (styled as the Republican conference chair and Democratic caucus chair).
After the conference chair, there are differences between each party's subsequent leadership ranks. After the Democratic caucus chair is the campaign committee chair (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee), then the co-chairs of the Steering Committee. For the Republicans it is the chair of the House Republican Policy Committee, followed by the campaign committee chairman (styled as the National Republican Congressional Committee).
The chairs of House committees, particularly influential standing committees such as Appropriations, Ways and Means, and Rules, are powerful but not officially part of the House leadership hierarchy. Until the post of majority leader was created, the chair of Ways and Means was the "de facto" majority leader.
Leadership and partisanship.
When the presidency and Senate are controlled by a different party from the one controlling the House, the speaker can become the "de facto" "leader of the opposition". Some notable examples include Tip O'Neill in the 1980s, Newt Gingrich in the 1990s, John Boehner in the early 2010s, and Nancy Pelosi in the late 2000s and again in the late 2010s and early 2020s. Since the speaker is a partisan officer with substantial power to control the business of the House, the position is often used for partisan advantage.
In the instance when the presidency and both Houses of Congress are controlled by one party, the speaker normally takes a low profile and defers to the president. For that situation the House minority leader can play the role of a "de facto" "leader of the opposition", often more so than the Senate minority leader, due to the more partisan nature of the House and the greater role of leadership.
Non-member officials.
The House is also served by several officials who are not members. The House's chief such officer is the clerk, who maintains public records, prepares documents, and oversees junior officials, including pages until the discontinuation of House pages in 2011. The clerk also presides over the House at the beginning of each new Congress pending the election of a speaker. Another officer is the chief administrative officer, responsible for the day-to-day administrative support to the House of Representatives. This includes everything from payroll to foodservice.
The position of chief administrative officer (CAO) was created by the 104th Congress following the 1994 mid-term elections, replacing the positions of doorkeeper and director of non-legislative and financial services (created by the previous congress to administer the non-partisan functions of the House). The CAO also assumed some of the responsibilities of the House Information Services, which previously had been controlled directly by the Committee on House Administration, then headed by Representative Charlie Rose of North Carolina, along with the House "Folding Room".
The chaplain leads the House in prayer at the opening of the day. The sergeant at arms is the House's chief law enforcement officer and maintains order and security on House premises. Finally, routine police work is handled by the United States Capitol Police, which is supervised by the Capitol Police Board, a body to which the sergeant at arms belongs, and chairs in even-numbered years.
Procedure.
Daily procedures.
Like the Senate, the House of Representatives meets in the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. At one end of the chamber of the House is a rostrum from which the speaker, Speaker pro tempore, or (when in Committee of the Whole House) the chair presides. The lower tiers of the rostrum are used by clerks and other officials. A table in front of the rostrum is used by the official reporters. Members' seats are arranged in the chamber in a semicircular pattern facing the rostrum and are divided by a wide central aisle. By tradition, Democrats sit on the left of the center aisle, while Republicans sit on the right, facing the presiding officer's chair. Sittings are normally held on weekdays; meetings on Saturdays and Sundays are rare. Sittings of the House are generally open to the public; visitors must obtain a House Gallery pass from a congressional office. Sittings are broadcast live on television and have been streamed live on C-SPAN since March 19, 1979, and on "HouseLive", the official streaming service operated by the Clerk, since the early 2010s.
The procedure of the House depends not only on the rules, but also on a variety of customs, precedents, and traditions. In many cases, the House waives some of its stricter rules (including time limits on debates) by unanimous consent. A member may block a unanimous consent agreement, but objections are rare. The presiding officer, the speaker of the House enforces the rules of the House, and may warn members who deviate from them. The speaker uses a gavel to maintain order. Legislation to be considered by the House is placed in a box called the hopper.
In one of its first resolutions, the U.S. House of Representatives established the Office of the Sergeant at Arms. In an American tradition adopted from English custom in 1789 by the first speaker of the House, Frederick Muhlenberg of Pennsylvania, the Mace of the United States House of Representatives is used to open all sessions of the House. It is also used during the inaugural ceremonies for all presidents of the United States. For daily sessions of the House, the sergeant at arms carries the mace ahead of the speaker in procession to the rostrum. It is placed on a green marble pedestal to the speaker's right. When the House is in committee, the mace is moved to a pedestal next to the desk of the Sergeant at Arms.
The Constitution provides that a majority of the House constitutes a quorum to do business. Under the rules and customs of the House, a quorum is always assumed present unless a quorum call explicitly demonstrates otherwise. House rules prevent a member from making a point of order that a quorum is not present unless a question is being voted on. The presiding officer does not accept a point of order of no quorum during general debate, or when a question is not before the House.
During debates, a member may speak only if called upon by the presiding officer. The presiding officer decides which members to recognize, and can therefore control the course of debate. All speeches must be addressed to the presiding officer, using the words "Mr. Speaker" or "Madam Speaker". Only the presiding officer may be directly addressed in speeches; other members must be referred to in the third person. In most cases, members do not refer to each other only by name, but also by state, using forms such as "the gentleman from Virginia", "the distinguished gentlewoman from California", or "my distinguished friend from Alabama".
There are 448 permanent seats on the House Floor and four tables, two on each side. These tables are occupied by members of the committee that have brought a bill to the floor for consideration and by the party leadership. Members address the House from microphones at any table or "the well", the area immediately in front of the rostrum.
Passage of legislation.
Under the U.S. Constitution, the House of Representatives determines the rules according to which it passes legislation. Any of the rules can be changed with each new Congress, but in practice each new session amends a standing set of rules built up over the history of the body in an early resolution published for public inspection. Before legislation reaches the floor of the House, the Rules Committee normally passes a rule to govern debate on that measure (which then must be passed by the full House before it becomes effective). For instance, the committee determines if amendments to the bill are permitted. An "open rule" permits all germane amendments, but a "closed rule" restricts or even prohibits amendment. Debate on a bill is generally restricted to one hour, equally divided between the majority and minority parties. Each side is led during the debate by a "floor manager", who allocates debate time to members who wish to speak. On contentious matters, many members may wish to speak; thus, a member may receive as little as one minute, or even thirty seconds, to make their point.
When debate concludes, the motion is put to a vote. In many cases, the House votes by voice vote; the presiding officer puts the question, and members respond either "yea!" or "aye!" (in favor of the motion) or "nay!" or "no!" (against the motion). The presiding officer then announces the result of the voice vote. A member may, however, challenge the presiding officer's assessment and "request the yeas and nays" or "request a recorded vote". The request may be granted only if it is seconded by one-fifth of the members present. Traditionally, however, members of Congress second requests for recorded votes as a matter of courtesy. Some votes are always recorded, such as those on the annual budget.
A recorded vote may be taken in one of three different ways. One is electronically. Members use a personal identification card to record their votes at 46 voting stations in the chamber. Votes are usually held in this way. A second mode of recorded vote is by teller. Members hand in colored cards to indicate their votes: green for "yea", red for "nay", and orange for "present" (i.e., to abstain). Teller votes are normally held only when electronic voting breaks down. Finally, the House may conduct a roll call vote. The Clerk reads the list of members of the House, each of whom announces their vote when their name is called. This procedure is only used rarely (and usually for ceremonial occasions, such as for the election of a speaker) because of the time consumed by calling over four hundred names.
Voting traditionally lasts for, at most, fifteen minutes, but it may be extended if the leadership needs to "whip" more members into alignment. The 2003 vote on the prescription drug benefit was open for three hours, from 3:00 to 6:00 a.m., to receive four additional votes, three of which were necessary to pass the legislation. The 2005 vote on the Central American Free Trade Agreement was open for one hour, from 11:00 p.m. to midnight. An October 2005 vote on facilitating refinery construction was kept open for forty minutes.
Presiding officers may vote like other members. They may not, however, vote twice in the event of a tie; rather, a tie vote defeats the motion.
Committees and caucuses.
The House uses committees and their subcommittees for a variety of purposes, including the review of bills and the oversight of the executive branch. The appointment of committee members is formally made by the whole House, but the choice of members is actually made by the political parties. Generally, each party honors the preferences of individual members, giving priority on the basis of seniority. Historically, membership on committees has been in rough proportion to the party's strength in the House, with two exceptions: on the Rules Committee, the majority party fills nine of the thirteen seats; and on the Ethics Committee, each party has an equal number of seats. However, when party control in the House is closely divided, extra seats on committees are sometimes allocated to the majority party. In the 109th Congress, for example, the Republicans controlled about 53% of the House, but had 54% of the Appropriations Committee members, 55% of the members on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and 58% of the members on the Judiciary Committee.
The largest committee of the House is the Committee of the Whole, which, as its name suggests, consists of all members of the House. The Committee meets in the House chamber; it may consider and amend bills, but may not grant them final passage. Generally, the debate procedures of the Committee of the Whole are more flexible than those of the House itself. One advantage of the Committee of the Whole is its ability to include otherwise non-voting members of Congress.
Most committee work is performed by twenty standing committees, each of which has jurisdiction over a specific set of issues, such as Agriculture or Foreign Affairs. Each standing committee considers, amends, and reports bills that fall under its jurisdiction. Committees have extensive powers with regard to bills; they may block legislation from reaching the floor of the House. Standing committees also oversee the departments and agencies of the executive branch. In discharging their duties, standing committees have the power to hold hearings and to subpoena witnesses and evidence.
The House also has one permanent committee that is not a standing committee, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and occasionally may establish temporary or advisory committees, such as the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. This latter committee, created in the 110th Congress and reauthorized for the 111th, has no jurisdiction over legislation and must be chartered anew at the start of every Congress. The House also appoints members to serve on joint committees, which include members of the Senate and House. Some joint committees oversee independent government bodies; for instance, the Joint Committee on the Library oversees the Library of Congress. Other joint committees serve to make advisory reports; for example, there exists a Joint Committee on Taxation. Bills and nominees are not referred to joint committees. Hence, the power of joint committees is considerably lower than those of standing committees.
Each House committee and subcommittee is led by a chairman (always a member of the majority party). From 1910 to the 1970s, committee chairs were powerful. Woodrow Wilson in his classic study, suggested:Power is nowhere concentrated; it is rather deliberately and of set policy scattered amongst many small chiefs. It is divided up, as it were, into forty-seven seigniories, in each of which a Standing Committee is the court-baron and its chairman lord-proprietor. These petty barons, some of them not a little powerful, but none of them within the reach of the full powers of rule, may at will exercise almost despotic sway within their own shires, and may sometimes threaten to convulse even the realm itself.
From 1910 to 1975 committee and subcommittee chairmanship was determined purely by seniority; members of Congress sometimes had to wait 30 years to get one, but their chairship was independent of party leadership. The rules were changed in 1975 to permit party caucuses to elect chairs, shifting power upward to the party leaders. In 1995, Republicans under Newt Gingrich set a limit of three two-year terms for committee chairs. The chairman's powers are extensive; he controls the committee/subcommittee agenda, and may prevent the committee from dealing with a bill. The senior member of the minority party is known as the Ranking Member. In some committees like Appropriations, partisan disputes are few.
Legislative functions.
Most bills may be introduced in either House of Congress. However, the Constitution states, "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives." Because of the Origination Clause, the Senate cannot initiate bills imposing taxes. This provision barring the Senate from introducing revenue bills is based on the practice of the British Parliament, in which only the House of Commons may originate such measures. Furthermore, congressional tradition holds that the House of Representatives originates appropriation bills.
Although it cannot originate revenue bills, the Senate retains the power to amend or reject them. Woodrow Wilson wrote the following about appropriations bills:
[T]he constitutional prerogative of the House has been held to apply to all the general appropriations bills, and the Senate's right to amend these has been allowed the widest possible scope. The upper house may add to them what it pleases; may go altogether outside of their original provisions and tack to them entirely new features of legislation, altering not only the amounts but even the objects of expenditure, and making out of the materials sent them by the popular chamber measures of an almost totally new character.
The approval of the Senate and the House of Representatives is required for a bill to become law. Both Houses must pass the same version of the bill; if there are differences, they may be resolved by a conference committee, which includes members of both bodies. For the stages through which bills pass in the Senate, see Act of Congress.
The president may veto a bill passed by the House and Senate. If they do, the bill does not become law unless each House, by a two-thirds vote, votes to override the veto.
Checks and balances.
The Constitution provides that the Senate's "advice and consent" is necessary for the president to make appointments and to ratify treaties. Thus, with its potential to frustrate presidential appointments, the Senate is more powerful than the House.
The Constitution empowers the House of Representatives to impeach federal officials for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors" and empowers the Senate to try such impeachments. The House may approve "articles of impeachment" by a simple majority vote; however, a two-thirds vote is required for conviction in the Senate. A convicted official is automatically removed from office and may be disqualified from holding future office under the United States. No further punishment is permitted during the impeachment proceedings; however, the party may face criminal penalties in a normal court of law.
In U.S. history, the House of Representatives has impeached seventeen officials, seven who were convicted. Another, Richard Nixon, resigned after the House Judiciary Committee passed articles of impeachment but before a formal impeachment vote by the full House. Only three U.S. presidents have ever been impeached: Andrew Johnson in 1868, Bill Clinton in 1998, and Donald Trump in 2019 and in 2021. The trials of Johnson, Clinton, and Trump all ended in acquittal; in Johnson's case, the Senate fell one vote short of the two-thirds majority required for conviction.
Under the Twelfth Amendment, the House has the power to elect the president if no presidential candidate receives a majority of votes in the Electoral College. The Twelfth Amendment requires the House to choose from the three candidates with the highest numbers of electoral votes. The Constitution provides that "the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote". It is rare for no presidential candidate to receive a majority of electoral votes. In U.S. history, the House has only had to choose a president twice. In the 1800 election, which was held before adoption of the Twelfth Amendment, it elected Thomas Jefferson over Aaron Burr. In the 1824 election, it elected John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson and William H. Crawford. If no vice presidential candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes, the Senate elects the vice president from the two candidates with the highest numbers of electoral votes.
Latest election results and party standings.
As of  1, 2025[ [update]]
References.
Citations.
<templatestyles src="Reflist/styles.css" />
Sources and further reading.
<templatestyles src="Refbegin/styles.css" />
Surveys.
<templatestyles src="Refbegin/styles.css" />