Language practice and comprehension check

TASK I Useful vocabulary.

a). Consult a dictionary to find the meanings of the following words.

tentative(adj.); tentatively(adv.)

contend(v.)

coadjutor(n.)

treason(n.)

tenure(n.)

ambiguity(n.); ambiguous(adj.)

obstruction(n.);obstruct(v.)

b).Insert the missing words from the list above:

1. He was criticized for his … of efforts to rebuild the war-torn country.

2. Critics of the school system … that not enough emphasis is paid on creativity.

3. The peace talks are … planned for next week.

4. There seem to be some … in the rules.

5. Throughout his … of office the committee worked very effectively and carried out a number of important surveys.

6. The task would have never been fulfilled without … help.

7. The court found him guilty of committing a … and sentenced him to life imprisonment .

TASK II Match the words to their definitions:

1. mismanage

2. mislead

3. misjudge

4. mishandle

5. misinform

6. misdial

7. misdiagnose

8. misbehave

9. misappropriate

1. to take for yourself the money that you are responsible for but that does not belong to you

2. to take a wrong judgment about a person or situation

3. to deal with the situation or process badly or without enough care

4. to behave badly and annoy and upset the people

5. to give someone false or incorrect information

6. to be wrong about what illness someone has

7. to choose a wrong number when making a telephone call

8. to make someone believe s-t. that is incorrect or not true

9. to manage s-t. badly

What meaning does the prefix –mis- have ? Consult a dictionary to add other words of the same word-building pattern to the list. Write a short detective story with the verbs above. Discuss your stories in class to decide whose is the best.

TASK III

a) Find the definition of impeachment in the text.

b) Study the following definitions of impeachment and compare them with the one given in the text. Which of them most appeals to you ?

1. (esp. in the USA) charging (a public official) with serious misbehaviour in office

(Longman Dictionary of English Language and Culture)

2. charge of treason brought about a head of state

(Peter Collin English Law Dictionary)

3. a charge of treason or other high crime before competent tribunal

(The Concise Oxford Dictionary)

4. the first step in removing an officer from office. The President and other federal offices (as judges) may be impeached by the House of Representatives. The House draws up articles of impeachment, once approved by a simple majority of the House members, are then submitted to the Senate, thereby impeaching the officer. The Senate then holds a trial, at the conclusion of which each member votes for or against conviction on each article of impeachment… Once convicted, the officer can be removed from office.

(Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law)

5. a criminal proceeding against a public officer, before a quasi political court, instituted by a written accusation called “articles of impeachment”.

(Black’s Law Dictionary)

TASK IV

a) Study the meaning of the prefix “mal”:

• a prefix meaning bad, wrong, fraudulant

e.g. a tentative agreement was reached under which the executive would be removable “on impeachment and conviction of “mal-practice or neglect of duty”.

b) Consider the meanings of the following words:

1. maladministration wrong administration

2. malapportionment unconstitutional apportionnment

of legislative districts

3. malconduct ill conduct, esp. dishonest conduct. The

commission of some act which is positively

unlawful

4. malpractice negligence or incompetence on the part of a

professional (esp. lawyer or doctor)

5. malversion official corruption, misconduct in office

Can any of the above terms be used interchangeably?

Task V

Discuss different views on the procedures of impeachment. Begin your sentences with:

Dickenson suggested…

Madison and Wilson contended…

Sherman suggested…

Madison argued…

Moris noted…

Randolf wrote…

Mason substituted…

Text 9* THE INTENT OF THE FRAMERS VERSUS THE MODERN AMERICAN PRESIDENCY

The intent of the Framers should be addressed at every stage of the studies in Constitutional law. Arguments for and against the legislative veto, summarized in the accompanying selection, illustrate their intent versus reality. Legislative vetoes are provisions in laws enacted by Congress that delegate provisional or conditional authority to the president or the executive (or judicial) branch. Congress, by concurrent resolution not subject to presidential veto, can thereby veto executive decisions. From 1952—2000 over 250 separate veto provisions existed in legislation. The Framers had not debated a legislative veto power since it made little sense that Congress should negate legislation it had already initiated as the legislative branch. But as the modern institutionalized presidency expanded, the legislative process diverged from the Framers' plan. The legislative veto should be seen as a product of changes in the presidency.

The Supreme Court declared the legislative veto unconstitutional in Immigration and Naturalization Services v. Chadhsi. In the majority opinion written by Chief Justice Burger, the Court focused on the intent of the Framers. A substantial part or the decision quoted directly from the records of the Constitutional Convention. In the Court opinion the legislative veto was unconstitutional because.

The Constitution sought to divide the delegated powers of the new Federal Government into three defined categories, legislative, executive and judicial, to assure, as nearly as possible, that each branch of government would confine itself to its assigned responsibility. The hydraulic pressure inherent within each of the separate branches to exceed the outer limits of its power, even to accomplish desirable objectives, must be resisted.

Although not "hermetically" sealed from one another, the powers delegated to the three branches are functionally identifiable. When any branch acts, it is presumptively exercising the power the Constitution has delegated to it. ... The choices we discern as having been made in the Constitutional Convention impose burdens on governmental processes that often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable, but those hard choices were consciously made by men who had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked. There is no support in the Constitution or decision of this Court for the proposition that the cumbersomeness and delays often encountered in complying with explicit constitutional standards may be avoided, either by the Congress or by the President. With all the obvious flaws of delay, untidiness, and potential for abuse, we have not yet found a better way to preserve freedom than by making the exercise of power subject to the carefully crafted restraints spelled out in the Constitution.

In dissent Justice Byron White argued that the Court was inappropriately applying the solution of 1787 to the world of 1984 — a world in which the powers exercised by the president went far beyond those enumerated in Article II. The legislative veto was not the sword that Madison and Hamilton feared Congress would one day use to tyrannize the other branches and to aggrandize itself. "Rather, the veto has been a means of defense," wrote Justice White, "a reservation of ultimate authority necessary if Congress is to fulfill its designated role under Article I as the nation's lawmaker": We should not find the lack of specific constitutional authorization of the legislative veto surprising, and I would not infer disapproval of the mechanism from its absence. From the summer of 1787 to the present the government of the United States has become an endeavor far beyond the contemplation of the Framers. Only within the last half century has the complexity and size of the Federal Government's responsibilities grown so greatly that the Congress must rely on the legislative veto as the most effective if not the only means to insure their role as the nation's lawmakers. But the wisdom of the Framers was to anticipate that the nation would grow and new problems of governance would require different solutions. Accordingly, our Federal Government was intentionally chartered with the flexibility to respond to contemporary needs without losing sight of fundamental democratic principles . . . the legislative veto device here — and in many other settings — is far from an instance of legislative tyranny over the Executive. It is a necessary check on the unavoidably expanding power of the agencies, both executive and independent, as they engage in exercising authority delegated by Congress.

The legislative veto is but one of several issues that requires the attention of modern constitutional thinkers.

President Reagan has requested regularly that he be given an item-veto authority. In the effort to achieve fiscal responsibility over the federal budget, an item veto would enable the president to reject specific items within a piece of legislation rather than veto the bill entirely. In recommending the item veto, Reagan added his name to a long list of predecessors dating back to Grant. In Reagan's view, the intent of the Framers in providing the president a qualified veto power has been frustrated to a large extent by the development of the congressional practice of combining various items in a single appropriations bill. The Framers undoubtedly anticipated that Congress would pass separate appropriations bills for discrete programs or activities, and that the president would be able to review each program. Until about the time of the Civil War, this was the practice of Congress. Since that time, however, Congress has increasingly combined various items of appropriation in omnibus appropriation bills. This makes it difficult for the president to discharge the responsibility vested in him by the Framers, because a president cannot consider the individual items of the appropriations separately, but must either veto or approve the package as a whole. The president is thus prevented from using the veto as the Framers intended, "to increase the chances in favor of the community against the passing of bad laws, through haste, inadvertance, or design."

It is for this reason that we have proposed restoring the Framers' original design through constitutional amendment granting the president line-item veto authority. The constitutions of no fewer than forty-three states grant some authority to the governor, and the experience at the state level suggests a line-item veto would work well at the federal level."

Would enactment of an item veto actually restore the intent of the Framers? "It is fair to say," wrote Judith Best, "the veto power created by the Founders has been displaced and debilitated, and that some form of item veto would be viewed by the Founders as necessary to reinstate the veto power they originally envisioned. ... It is reasonable to assert that the Founders would not find the item veto to be a dangerous innovation but rather a rehabilitation of an original and essential check and balance."

Moreover, an item veto reinforces the principle of checks and balances by restoring the original intent of the veto itself.

The Framers offered their country an experiment in republican government. That certain issues and contingencies were unanticipated there can be no doubt. Recognizing this possibility, the Framers included an amendment process. But as these debates on both a legislative veto and a line-item veto reveal, the structure bequeathed by the Framers is often ambiguous with respect to contemporary needs. If the Framers could be called back to assess their blueprint and suggest revisions and amendments, what do you believe they would say, either as a group or individually? In formulating your response, don't worry about what your professor might think. Most scholars have already incurred too much of a stake in the answer. What do you believe the Framers would say about the relationship of their blueprint to expectations for the president? Does this arrangement tend to foster constitutional insolvency? Keep in mind that the Framers placed the necessity for checks and balances ahead of the need for cooperation between the branches. Moreover, to the Framers the very notion of presidential leadership of the political system was anathema to the preservation of liberty and balances between branches.

LANGUAGE PRACTICE AND COMPREHENSION CHECK

TASK I

a) Consult a dictionary to find the meanings of the following words and word combinations:

concurrent(adj.)

confine to(v.)

intent(n.)

comply with(v.)

aggrandize(v.), aggrandizement(n.)

anticipate(v.)

enact(v.)

focus on(v.)

discern(v.)

b) Use the above words and word combinations in the sentences that follow:

1. He is serving two … prison services.

2. He is willing to tell lies and break promises for his own personal … .

3. The police cadet’s duties were … to taking statements from women and children.

4. We … meeting a certain amount of resistance to our plan.

5. The court has to decide if he entered the building with … to steal.

6. The factory was closed for failing to comply to … with government safety regulations.

7. Several bill were … at the end of this session of Parliament.

8. It was difficult to … which of them was telling the truth.

9. Today we are going to … on the question of homeless people.

TASK II.

a) Provide synonyms to the following words. Use a dictionary if necessary.

consciously

cumbersomeness

to encounter

explicit

flaw

to envision

to reinstate

authority

presumptively

aggrandize

endeavor

insure

enactment

to negate

b) Provide antonyms to the following words.

inappropriate

disapproval

intentionally

avoidable

to reinstate

TASK III. Consult the text to define the following notions. Use reference books if necessary.

legislative veto

institutionalized presidency

delegated powers

ultimate authority

constitutional authorization

item veto

qualified veto power

appropriation bills

the principle of checks and balances

TASK IV Find the sentences in the text with the word” government.” Explain the difference in its usage in American English and British English.

TASK V

a) Use the given modal verbs to express duty and obligation in the sentences below.

Should, must, ought to, to be+ infinitive

1. The legislative veto … be seen as the product of changes in the presidency.

2. The hydraulic pressure inherent within each of the separate branches to exceed the outer limits of its power … be resisted.

3. The veto has been a means of defense , a reservation of ultimate authority necessary if Congress … to fulfill its designed role under Article I as the nation’s lawmaker.

4. The intent of the framers … be addressed at every stage of the studies in constitutional law.

5. The wisdom of the framers … to anticipate that the nation would grow and new problems of governance would require different solutions.

6. The President … either veto or approve the package as a whole.

7. The Congress … rely on the legislative veto as the most effective if not the only means to ensure their role as the national legislator.

b) Explain the difference in the way of expressing necessity, obligation and duty. Make up your own sentences to illustrate it.

TASK VI

Change the following sentences using the link-words from the list given below. The meaning should stay the same.

Since, thereby, as, although, that, rather than, because, thus

1. The burdens we discern as having been made in the constitutional convention impose burdens on governmental process which often seems clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable.

2. The Framers had not debated a legislative veto power because it made little sense that Congress should negate legislation it had already initiated as the legislative branch.

3. Congress, by concurrent resolution not subject to presidential veto, can therefore veto executive decisions.

4. Even though they are not hermetically sealed from one another, the powers delegated to the three branches are functionally identifiable.

5. While the modern institutionalized presidency expanded, the legislative process diverged from Framers plan.

6. An item veto would enable the President to reject specific items and not veto the bill entirely.

7. This makes it difficult for the president to discharge the responsibility vested in him by the Framers as a president cannot consider the individual items of the appropriations separately.

TASK VII

Analyze the following pairs of words, whether their meanings are: a) similar; b) opposite; c)

complementing one another

Provisional or conditional authority, cumbersomeness and delays, programs or activities, issues and contingencies.

TASK VIII Make the list of arguments for and against the legislative veto as they appear in the text.

TASK IX Comment on the following statements:

1. The Framers offered their country an experiment in republican government.

2. The legislative veto is a product of changes in presidency.

51