Locating the U.S. Sovereign: An Analysis of American Government, Essay Example

If sovereign nations were once represented in the body of the King as understood prior to the Enlightenment of the 18^th century then law was a pure praxis of individual reason determined and administered according to the right of the Monarch. Not so since the decades of that century’s revolutionary independence on both sides of the pond and the resultant formation of the U.S. Federal Government reveals one of the core frameworks aside from parliamentary rule that establishes a basis for democratic representation of the citizenry through law.

Of the three branches of the United States Federal government, Executive, Judicial and Legislative, Congress is the most obvious body working toward law making by way of coalition on issues that matter most to the people they represent. The processes of congressional voting on ratification of regulatory policies dedicated to high level legal rule codification (i.e. rules on oil trade) are furthered by the responsibility of Congress to act on behalf of the federal government in allocation of monies based on appropriations for provision on the numerous activities meant as ‘public service.’ Composed of two bodies for check and balance of decision making on legislative laws, the Legislature’s House of Representatives and Senate often administer authority through various appropriations committees.

Oversight committees constitute much of the work in both bodies of the Legislature, and investigative activities are subject to summons by those representatives; many of whom are licensed attorneys upon election. Additional obligation of the Senate, is the power of confirmation whereby Presidential appointments of voted on. The Senate also has the power to ‘advise and consent’ on international treaties and protocols to those accords (i.e. Kyoto Protocol) and the winds of change in regard to U.S. signatory on those decisions inevitably stands and falls with their vote. Risk assessment has more recently become a critical aspect of duties on committee decisions, and especially here as the U.S. attempts to determine the degree of fiscal and program participation on international mandates. Finally, the dynamic of lobbying within this federal branch, and its impact on public media contracts members of the Legislature into the spotlight where they serve to form consensus around particular issues, and mitigate between competitive interests amongst lobbying interests toward decision on forthcoming legislation.

The Executive Branch is constituted by the decision making of the existing President of the United States, in what are known as “executive orders.” From crafting policy to forming institutions, executive orders substantiate allocation of federal finance to public interests. Historically, such an order by President Nixon prompted the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The institution was the result of cumulative interest by the President in various environmental platforms already administered under existing legislation (i.e., Clean Air Act). Executive orders impact congressional decision making, and at times will overrule legislative decision making by “veto” in favor of alternative direction in policy. The issuance of executive orders is largely impacted by standing legislation, budgetary concerns as seen in the relationship between agencies like the EPA and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the professional perspective of administrative and secretariat appointments, and partisanship or “will” of the people whom he/she represents.

As much as governance is rule of law based and specifically regulatory in nature, Executive oversight may contribute order by comment to new or changed legislation. Jurisdictional application of rules under federal code may be subject to regional office implementation. While the Senate must ratify treaties with a 2/3rds majority, Executive signatory to such accords is final and must conform or be written in adherence with U.S. law. Under U.S. Supreme Court decision, this extends to executive orders made in private, whereby policy decisions may be made without contribution from the Legislative or Judicial branches of government. Like most government offices, the federal Executive is protected by sovereign immunity that exempts the president from imposition of compensatory damages in response to legal action. Therefore, lawsuits sustained against the United States by domestic and foreign legal bodies may not include the Executive unless determined by a court of law to be criminal in misconduct.

Finally, the Judicial Branch of the federal government is responsible for the application of legislative and statutory laws toward the arbitration of justice. Often seen as the ‘frontline’ aspect of federal government, Supreme Court Justices, appointed for life by the Executive and confirmed by Congress, are considered to be the highest authority on the exercise of rule law and procedural justice. Also responsible for crafting precedent setting rules according to court decision, the Judiciary is ultimately the most active in the actual codification of statutory rules that impact the everyday lives of Americans. While policy and presidential orders focus on the activities of governance, it is precisely in the context of judicial power that most citizens find themselves implicated in rule application through civil litigation or criminal lawsuits. If ideals are realized through electoral vote, and the consensus building strategies of lobbying to Congress and leadership of the President, it is truly only in the presence of judicial decision as representative the justice system that we ‘know’ the inner workings of the State as sovereign.