The United States is experiencing disruptive politics, as promised by the Republican Party and President Donald Trump. The Republican Party possesses comfortable majorities in the US House (241/194) and US Senate (52/48), the presidency, a majority of US Supreme Court judges, and 32 state legislatures. With this strong mandate for change offered by the electorate in 2016, Republicans seek to reduce or eliminate tax, regulatory, health care, environmental policies; build a wall along the southern border, "drain the swamp" of lobbyists and insider interests, and more to fulfill campaign promises. Mr. Trump has brought to the presidency unconventional ideas about governing and the role of government in society. Having registered as both Democrat and Republican at different points in his life, his leadership style has not won over all congressional Republicans. Additionally, with an administration mired in an assortment of controversies surrounding Russian interference in the 2016 elections, the Republican agenda has not moved forward as much as many in the party would like. The Democrats, roundly trounced in the elections (save for the nearly 3 million more popular votes Hillary Clinton won), are playing the role of “loyal opposition” by challenging the new administration, something the Republicans did so well during the Obama years. With political partisanship at record levels—meaning little to no inter-party compromises on issues—stalemate seems to be an apt description of politics in Washington, DC these days. But isn't some degree of gridlock precisely what the separation of powers with checks and balances promotes? Even when one political party controls the branches of government, institutional limitations on the exercise of power are built into the political system. This was done at the founding of the nation in order to 1) protect wealth, and 2) promote liberty for freemen. The revolution that gave rise to the United States was not a social transforming event; rather, its focus was on establishing a new political order. The new political system created by the Constitution allows for slow, incremental, deliberative change through mechanisms that are more likely to thwart than to embrace change. This may have been an adequate response the post-Revolutionary War environment they found themselves in at the end of the 18th Century, but can it survive the rapid changes upon us today? Scholars see several disturbing trends in American government on the left and the right that contribute to the disruptions we observe today: the unprecedented use of social media by the president, his appointees, and members of Congress; gerrymandered election districts that produce overly partisan candidates; nearly unfettered money in campaigns; and elected officials who care more for their reelection than the public good. Much of what ails politics is the relatively low level of political participation (roughly 60% in 2016). Political mandates for change in publ.

1. The United States is experiencing disruptive politics, as
promised by the Republican Party and President Donald Trump.
The Republican Party possesses comfortable majorities in the
US House (241/194) and US Senate (52/48), the presidency, a
majority of US Supreme Court judges, and 32 state legislatures.
With this strong mandate for change offered by the electorate in
2016, Republicans seek to reduce or eliminate tax, regulatory,
health care, environmental policies; build a wall along the
southern border, "drain the swamp" of lobbyists and insider
interests, and more to fulfill campaign promises.
Mr. Trump has brought to the presidency unconventional ideas
about governing and the role of government in society. Having
registered as both Democrat and Republican at different points
in his life, his leadership style has not won over all
congressional Republicans. Additionally, with an administration
mired in an assortment of controversies surrounding Russian
interference in the 2016 elections, the Republican agenda has
not moved forward as much as many in the party would like.
The Democrats, roundly trounced in the elections (save for the
nearly 3 million more popular votes Hillary Clinton won), are
playing the role of “loyal opposition” by challenging the new
administration, something the Republicans did so well during
the Obama years. With political partisanship at record levels—
meaning little to no inter-party compromises on issues—
stalemate seems to be an apt description of politics in
Washington, DC these days.
But isn't some degree of gridlock precisely what the separation
of powers with checks and balances promotes? Even when one
political party controls the branches of government,
institutional limitations on the exercise of power are built into
the political system. This was done at the founding of the nation
in order to 1) protect wealth, and 2) promote liberty for
freemen. The revolution that gave rise to the United States was
not a social transforming event; rather, its focus was on
establishing a new political order. The new political system

2. created by the Constitution allows for slow, incremental,
deliberative change through mechanisms that are more likely to
thwart than to embrace change. This may have been an adequate
response the post-Revolutionary War environment they found
themselves in at the end of the 18th Century, but can it survive
the rapid changes upon us today?
Scholars see several disturbing trends in American government
on the left and the right that contribute to the disruptions we
observe today: the unprecedented use of social media by the
president, his appointees, and members of Congress;
gerrymandered election districts that produce overly partisan
candidates; nearly unfettered money in campaigns; and elected
officials who care more for their reelection than the public
good. Much of what ails politics is the relatively low level of
political participation (roughly 60% in 2016). Political
mandates for change in public policies are difficult to assess
when 40% of the eligible electorate opts out of voting.
Is this the kind of political system that can respond adequately
to the challenges of the 21st Century? It might be, but the
United States today couldn’t be more different now than it was
when our current political system came into existence in 1789.
From some 4 million in population in 1790 (the first official
census) in 13 states to nearly 325 million today in 50 states,
from horse and buggy to the International Space Station, from
an electorate of only white propertied men to full adult suffrage,
the country has changed while political structures remain the
same.
The issues Americans face in 2017 are polarizing and profound;
they speak to the kind of nation we are today and what we seek
to become. The two main ideological groups in the United
States, liberals and conservatives, offer not only differences of
opinion on the same issues, but also different sets of issues that
reflect their policy preferences. Consider the following
(incomplete) list:
Liberal
Conservative

3. Wealth inequality
Taxation
Access to affordable healthcare
Business deregulation
Racial profiling and police brutality
Repeal of Obamacare
Immigrant rights
Strong defense
LGBTQI rights
Law and order
Reproductive rights
Wall along Mexican border
Environmental protection
Deportation of illegal aliens
Living wage
Ban abortion/defund Planned Parenthood
Separation of church and state
School Choice
This assignment's scenario suggests the need to explore
alternatives that would encourage more responsive government
and your task is to do that exploration.
Here are your instructions:
In addition to information available in the textbook and
supplemental videos, you are to find and use
any
legitimate
information source
to obtain information about making American government more
responsive to the issue demands the country faces today (use
keywords to search). Though you will consult and list your
sources, you must
not
quote or paraphrase from them—you must write in your own
words (failure to follow this instruction leads to an automatic
reduction of points). Below you will find some of the ideas
under consideration to make American government more

4. responsive:
Several proposals are floating around (and some states have
adopted) to change the way congressional election districts are
drawn in order to produce less partisanship in political decision
making.
Several states, including Texas, have passed resolutions calling
for a new constitutional convention whose purpose would be to
draw up a new national constitution.
A popular proposal calls for term limits on members of the US
House and US Senate to promote greater turnover—and perhaps
greater responsiveness—in Congress.
A significant movement wants to see the
Citizens United
US Supreme Court ruling allowing corporations and unions to
fund campaigns overturned or repealed by constitutional
amendment.
Once you have adequately researched the topic, you will prepare
a 540 word (minimum) essay that argues in support of or
opposition to the idea that the United States is in a
constitutional crisis. You must back up your argument by
specifically describing why you take your position and
demonstrating your understanding of the information you have
learned in Module 1.
Your response must be written in academic English. You will
use your own voice and write in your own words.
To earn full points you must follow all instructions carefully,
proofread for writing errors, and submit on time