No description available.

Studies on Presidential-Executive relations fails to empirically analyze whether or not modern presidential scandal can impact presidential-congressional relations. Meinke and Anderson (2001) find that presidential scandal impacts House of Representatives voting behavior on key votes cited by Congressional Quarterly. A slight revision and replication of Meinke and Anderson's research finds presidential scandal impacts Senate aggregate key votes reported by Congressional Quarterly. In addition, political party plays a more important role than scandal in determining the logged odds of Senate key votes and presidential agreement. / Master of Arts

This research project seeks to explore aspects of the post-reporting phase of the public inquiry process. Central to the public inquiry process is the concept of legitimacy and the idea that a public inquiry provides and opportunity to re-legitimate the credibility of failed public institutions. The current literature asserts that public inquiries re-legitimise through the production of authoritative narratives. As such, most of this scholarship has focused on the production of inquiry reports and, more recently, the reports themselves. However, in an era of accountability, and in the aftermath of such a poignant attack upon society, the production of a report may represent an apogee, but by no means an end, of the re-legitimation process. Appropriately, this thesis examines the post-reporting phase of the 9/11 Commission’s public inquiry process. The 9/11 Commission provides a useful research vehicle due to the bounded, and relatively linear, implementation process of the Commission’s recommendations. In little more than four months a majority of the Commission’s recommendations were passed into law. Within this implementation phase the dominant discursive process took place in the United States Congress. It is the legislative reform debates in the House of Representatives and the Senate that is the focus of this research project. The central research question is: what rhetorical legitimation strategies were employed in the legislative reform debates of the post-reporting phase of the 9/11 Commission’s public inquiry process? This study uses a grounded theory approach to the analysis of the legislative transcripts of the Congressional reform debates. This analysis revealed that proponents employed rhetorical strategies to legitimise a legislative ‘Call to Action’ narrative. Also, they employed rhetorical legitimation strategies that emphasised themes of bipartisanship, hard work and expertise in order to strengthen the standing of the legislation. Opponents of the legislation focused rhetorical de-legitimation strategies on the theme of ‘flawed process’. Finally, nearly all legislators, regardless of their view of the legislation, sought to appropriate the authoritative legitimacy of the Commission, by employing rhetorical strategies that presented their interests and motives as in line with the actions and wishes of the Commission.

Government investigations into the motion picture industry are well-documented, as is the widespread blacklisting that was concurrent. Not nearly so well documented are the many investigations of musicians and musical organizations which occurred during this same period. The degree to which various musicians and musical organizations were investigated varied considerably. Some warranted only passing mention, while others were rigorously questioned in formal Congressional hearings. Hanns Eisler was deported as a result of the House Committee on Un-American Activities' (HUAC) investigation into his background and activities in the United States. Leonard Bernstein, Marc Blitzstein, and Aaron Copland are but a few of the prominent composers investigated by the government for their involvement in leftist organizations. The Symphony of the Air was denied visas for a Near East tour after several orchestra members were implicated as Communists. Members of musicians' unions in New York and Los Angeles were called before HUAC hearings because of alleged infiltration by Communists into their ranks. The Metropolitan Music School of New York, led by its president-emeritus, the composer Wallingford Riegger, was the subject of a two day congressional hearing in New York City. There is no way to measure either quantitatively or qualitatively the effect of the period on the music but only the extent to which the activities affected the musicians themselves. The extraordinary paucity of published information about the treatment of the musicians during this period is put into even greater relief when compared to the thorough manner in which the other arts, notably literature and film, have been examined. This work attempts to fill this gap and shed light on a particularly dark chapter in the history of contemporary music.

The Senate Munitions Committee of 1934-1936, chaired by Gerald Nye of North Dakota, provided the first critical examination of America's modern military establishment. The committee approached its task guided by the optimism of the progressive Social Gospel and the idealism of earlier times, but in the middle of the munitions inquiry the nation turned to new values represented in Reinhold Niebuhr's realism and Franklin D. Roosevelt's Second New Deal. By 1936, the committee found its views out of place in a nation pursuing a new course and in a world threatening to break out in war. Realist historians writing in the cold war period (1945-1990) closely linked the munitions inquiry to isolationism and created a one-dimensional history in which the committee chased evil "merchants of death." The only book-length study of the munitions investigation, John Wiltz's In Search of Peace, published in 1963, provided a realist interpretation. The munitions inquiry went beyond the merchants of death in its analysis of the post-World War I American military establishment. A better understanding emerges when the investigation is considered not only within an isolationist framework, but also as part of the intellectual, cultural, and political history of the interwar years. In particular, Franklin Roosevelt's political use of the investigation becomes apparent. Sources used include the committee's hearings, exhibits, and reports, the Gerald Nye Papers, the Franklin Roosevelt Papers, the Cordell Hull Papers, the R. Walton Moore Papers, the Henry Stimson Papers, the Homer Cummings Diaries, and the State Department's decimal files.

This investigation deals with a change of congressional attitude concerning violence in entertainment media, from noninterference to investigation to initiation of research. The data are primarily from official government records. This study first examines a period of congressional reluctance to interfere with the violent content of movies and radio in 1929-45. Next examined is the period 1945-68, when Congress actively investigated media violence,, focusing on television. Finally, the study examines congressional activity concerning television violence in 1968-74 and the Surgeon General's report on television violence. This report concludes that, by 1955, the pattern of congressional interest in media violence had turned from reluctance to activity, -and discusses the likelihood of future control of television program content.

Abstract not available

This paper will explore further the process of selection of majority party leaders in the United States House of Representatives. It will seek to show that there were certain common denominators that existed among those who were selected for leadership positions between 1962 and 1976, and that these common denominators were not present in those individuals who challenged the leaders and lost. Additionally, it will be argued that those certain qualities were particularly important to the style of leadership during that period, and that their importance to that style allowed the development of an institutionalization of the selection process during that period.

Initially proposed in 2001, the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act (DREAM Act) continues to be relevant after nearly 20 years of debate. The year 2010 was significant because there seemed to be some possibility of passage. This study investigated the ways in which the DREAM Act discourse was framed that year by supporters and opponents. Selected Congressional speeches of three supporters and three opponents were analyzed using the approach to frame analysis developed by Schön and Rein. Accordingly, attention went to each individual's metacultural frame (i.e., culturally shared beliefs), policy frame (i.e., identification of problem and presentation of possible solution), and rhetorical frame (i.e., means of persuading the audience). Attention also went to the shared framing among supporters and the shared framing among opponents as well as differences in framing across the two groups. Although speakers varied in framing the issue, there were commonalities within groups and contrasts between groups. For supporters, the metacultural frame emphasized equity/equal opportunity, fairness, and rule of law; for opponents, the metacultural frame stressed rule of law, patriotism, and national security. For supporters, the policy frame underscored unfairness as the problem and the DREAM Act as the solution; for opponents, the policy frame emphasized the DREAM Act as the problem and defeating the DREAM Act as the solution. Rhetorical frames also differed, with the supporters making much use of testimonial examples and the opponents making much use of hyperbole. The study illustrates (1) how the same named values and beliefs can have dramatically different interpretations in metacultural framing, as were the case for rule of law and American dream in this discourse; (2) how the crux of an issue and its intractability can be seen by looking at how the problem is posed and how the solution is argued, and (3) how speakers strengthen their claims with particular kinds of rhetorical devices. Through descriptions of political positioning on the DREAM Act, the study contributes to understandings of ongoing issues regarding the lives of undocumented young people who have received and are receiving education in the U.S.

This research incorporates a decision-making theory which defines the linkage between the public, the media, the president and the Congress. Specifically, I argue that the public holds widely shared domestic and international goals and responds to a number of external cues provided by the president and the media in its evaluation of presidential policies. Although most studies examine overall presidential popularity, there are important differences in the public's evaluations of the president's handling of foreign and domestic policies. Additionally, I am concerned with how the Congress responds to these specific policy evaluations, the president's public activities, and the electoral policy goals of its members when determining whether or not to support the president. Finally, I link together the theoretical assumptions, to examine the influence of varying levels of support among the Congress and the public, and the president's own personal power goals on the type, quantity, and the quality of activities the president will choose. Ultimately, the primary focus of this dissertation is on the sources and consequences of presidential support and the influence of such support on presidential decision-making.