Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-28T14:20:53.691Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Public Policy in Constitutional Reform1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

Francis G. Wilson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Not Many years ago most political scientists accepted the proposition that it is the spirit and tradition of a political system rather than its structure that informs and governs its operation. We may regard such a proposition as a truism; yet its acceptance came in the wake of what might be called the “second era” of democratic reform in the United States. That era had seen the destruction of the old system of making nominations and the rise of party regulation, the adoption of direct primary elections, and of other devices for direct government, such as the initiative, referendum and recall. It had seen, likewise, the enactment of corrupt practice acts, the growth of the merit system in the choice of civil service personnel, the turn to the popular election of United States senators, attempts at administrative reorganization and other devices for increasing the voter's control over his government.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , January 1945 , pp. 58 - 73
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1945

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 See Spurlin, P. M., Montesquieu in America, 1760–1801 (1940), pp. 135 ff., passimGoogle Scholar.

3 See Wilson, F. G., “The Mixed Constitution and the Separation of Powers,” The Southwestern Social Science Quarterly, XV (1934), 14 ffGoogle Scholar.

4 Smith, T. V., The Promise of American Politics (2nd ed., 1936), pp. 196, 248 ffGoogle Scholar.

5 See Prince, Charles, “Legal and Economic Factors Affecting Soviet Russia's Foreign Policy I,” The American Political Science Review, XXXVIII (1944), 657Google Scholar.

6 See Laski, Harold J., Faith, Reason and Civilization (1944)Google Scholar, for a defense of the Soviet regime on like grounds. Sufficiently noble ends apparently will justify the complete destruction of limitation on power.

7 Kerwin, , op. cit., p. 267Google Scholar.

8 Hastie, W., Kant's Principles of Politics (1891), pp. 138–139.Google Scholar Kant argued that “All actions relating to the rights of other men are wrong if their maxim is not compatible with publicity.”

9 See Price, Don K., “The Parliamentary and Presidential Systems,” Public Adminhlralion Review, III (1943), 317 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar This article contains an effective and energetic criticism of the British system. Price urges that in fact the British are moving by traditional practice toward a kind of presidential system. Harold J. Laski has written an elaborate evaluation of Price's article and the author has replied. These articles are especially valuable in their treatment of the problem of the civil service in relation to the parliamentary and presidential systems. See Laski, Harold J., “The Parliamentary and Presidential Systems,” Public Administration Review, IV (1944), 347 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Price, Don K., “A Response to Mr. Laski,” Public Administration Review, IV (1944), 360 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 See Macmahon, Arthur W., “Congressional Oversight of Administration: The Power of the Purse,” Political Science Quarterly LVIII (06, September, 1943), 161 ff., 380 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Kerwin, , op. cit., p. 274.Google Scholar See Loewenstein, Karl, “Government and Politics of Germany,” in Shotwell, James T. (editor), Governments of Continental Europe (1940)Google Scholar.

12 Rep. Estes Kefauver has proposed m House Resolution 327 that there be a report and question period on the floor of the House of Representatives at least once every two weeks. During this report and question period, a particular member of the Cabinet, or the head of an agency, would be invited to appear on the floor of the House and answer written questions, which had already been prepared and submitted to him by the legislative committee issuing the invitation. See also Galloway, George B. and others, “Congress—Problem, Diagnosis, Proposals,” The American Political Science Review, XXXVI (1942), 1091 ffGoogle Scholar.