Answer: The federal bureaucracy has a huge influence on policymaking and its rule making process is explained below.
Explanation:
The federal bureaucracy carry out three main tasks in government which are administration, implementation, and regulation. Bureaucrats put the policies of government into practice. The federal bureaucracy has a huge influence on policymaking. For policies to be passed, the bureaucracy works with the president and the Congress.
The federal bureaucracy develops rules that affect the operation of programs, and the rules must be adhered to. There are stages in the Rule-Making process. When Congress passes new laws, series of rules are proposed which are presented in the Federal Register. The parties interested can give their opinion on the rules. After the final regulation is published by the agency, the rules are then enforced after sixty days. During the waiting period, the rules can be adjusted by the Congress. If no changes are made, the rules become effective at the end of sixty days.
Answer:
The Case of the Supreme Court Worcester v. Georgia was a small victory for the Cherokee nation in Georgia because it was decided that Georgia laws did not apply to Cherokee territory.
Explanation:
In the Worcester case v. Georgia, the Supreme Court denied Georgia jurisdiction and state authority over the Cherokee community. In other words, this meant that Georgia law and authority did not apply to Cherokee territory. Although this decision was a small victory for the Cherokee people, the decision was not very helpful as the state of Georgia totally ignored the Supreme Court decision and forced the Cherokee community to march west.
Answer:
"Opponents of the War Powers Resolution have traditionally claimed that clause 11 confers upon Congress only a narrow piece of war power. Defenders of the Resolution have argued in contrast that the Resolution constitutes an exercise of congressional authority under the clause. This last contention pokes at the truth without quite striking it. The War Powers Resolution is not constitutional as an exercise of the war power. It is constitutional because it defines the war power. The War Powers Resolution is nothing more or less than a congressional definition of the word "war" in article I. A definition of this kind coupled with a reasonable enforcement mechanism is well within the power of Congress under a proper understanding of the constitutional system of checks and balances. The definition does not intrude on any presidential prerogative. The mechanisms chosen by Congress to enforce the provisions of the Resolution were reasonable in 1973 and, although matters have been complicated by the United States Supreme Court's decision late last Term in Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, those mechanisms remain reasonable today."
Explanation:
