DOCSLIB.ORG

Newsletter 11-2014

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Newsletter 11-2014 VOLUME 7, ISSUE 2 FALL 2014 Department of Political Science Newsletter INSIDE THIS ISSUE: A Note From The Chair 1 A NOTE FROM THE Fall is an exciting time to be on campus. New students CHAIR are fresh with anticipation to begin their college experience. Continuing students are ready to begin another chapter of CONFERENCE HOST their college careers. Faculty prepare to teach a new crop of Department Hosts Pre-APSA students. The department this fall welcomed many new Conference undergraduates who plan to major in political science, looking forward to taking classes and experiencing Washington as a 2 ENGAGED STUDENTS GW student. We welcomed new graduate students to our Undergraduates Receive Luther doctoral and masters’ program. And, we welcomed four new Rice Research Fellowships faculty: Eric Kramon, Corrine McConnaughy, Ismail White and Adam Ziegfeld. We appreciate the gifts of friends and alumni who allow the department’s faculty and students to pursue their goals. Your donations allow us to support undergraduates who IN THE CLASSROOM participate in professional conferences and work with faculty on research projects. Your Former Senate Parliamentarian gifts also allow us to provide seed grants for graduate student research, which has led to two Teaches Congressional Leadership dissertation improvement grants from the National Science Foundation in the past year. Course The financial resources you provide also support faculty engagement. On behalf of my colleagues, thank you! 3 GRADUATE STUDENT The year moves by quickly, of course. Soon enough, we’ll break for Thanksgiving NEWS and then the holidays. As we approach that season, we are thankful for our alumni and Ph.D. Graduate Wins Prestigious friends. Dissertation Award -Paul Wahlbeck, Department Chair ALUMNI SPOTLIGHT Conference Host Alumna Devoted to Public Service Department Hosts Pre-APSA Conference as Family Court Judge With the end of summer and the start of a new school year, the American Political Science Association (APSA) holds their annual conference for members. This year’s conference took place here in Washington, D.C., giving the department a unique opportunity 4-5 SPOTLIGHT ON NEW to host some of the leading political scientists for sessions of collaboration and discussion. FACULTY As APSA members from around the U.S. flew into town, the department hosted a series of pre-conference workshops in Monroe Hall and the Elliott School as a way to provide an FACULTY IN THE NEWS environment where scholars could present their work before the main conference sessions. The Monkey Cage Thrives With The All the pre-conference sessions were organized by Assistant Professor Yonatan Lupu. Washington Post Reflecting on his idea to host the workshops, Professor Lupu said: “I thought it would be useful to take advantage of the fact that many of our colleagues from across the discipline 6-7 ALUMNI NEWS & would be in D.C. for APSA. The goal of the pre-APSA workshops was for the junior faculty in our department to meet with other scholars doing similar work, exchange ideas and receive NOTES feedback in a more in-depth setting than is generally provided at APSA panels.” One of the junior faculty members participating in the day was Assistant THANKS TO OUR Professor Harris Mylonas, who joined the workshops and reported: “I had the opportunity DONORS to present the prospectus of my second book manuscript, The Strategic Logic of Diaspora Management, and receive comments by top scholars in that field such as Alexandra Delano, Yossi Shain and Stephen Saideman.” Looking back at the series after its conclusion, Professor Lupu noted: “The organizers of the individual workshops reported that they were a great success, that they received useful feedback on their own work and that they learned a great deal from the discussions. I hope we can repeat this event next time a large conference is in town.” DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE ● THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY 1 POLITICAL SCIENCE NEWSLETTER FALL 2014 Engaged Students Haines found his Introduction to American Politics class Undergraduates Receive Luther helpful to his research as it dispelled some misconceptions about Rice Research Fellowships interest groups and how they work. Haines believes that while the Luther Rice Undergraduate Research Fellowships are subject of interest groups is a common topic within political sponsored by the Columbian College of Arts and Sciences to discourse, interest groups’ tactics and operations are not well promote discovery and inquiry-based education throughout the understood. He hopes that it will be worthwhile to try and learn undergraduate experience at GW. The fellowships offer support more about how they work and how effective they actually are. for student research carried out under the guidance of a faculty Professor Binder is thrilled with Haines’ work. She explains, member. This year, political science majors Jacqueline “Helping students to learn how to do research—and hopefully to Sodano, ’15, and Theodore Haines, ’16, are conducting enjoy it—is always a rewarding experience for me.” original research in collaboration with Professors Steven Balla Both Sodano and Haines credit their GW political science and Sarah Binder, respectively. Sodano’s research focuses on courses with preparing them for research and also see the Luther the rulemaking process, more specifically, studying regulatory Rice Fellowship as a step toward continuing their education gridlock in executive branch agencies. Haines’ research is an beyond GW. Sodano explains, “I work with the Boeing analysis of the electoral strategies used by the conservative Government Operations Team, and I often have the opportunity interest group Club for Growth, specifically looking at the to discuss how the regulatory process impacts our competitive contributions they make to Congressional candidates. position. After graduation, I hope to have the opportunity to Sodano’s interest in her topic was sparked during Professor continue my work at the company. In addition, I would eventually Balla’s pro-seminar course, Politics of Regulation. She had always like to continue my education and seek an advanced degree.” been interested in regulatory processes, but this class prompted For Haines, this experience has inspired him to focus on her to explore the topic in-depth and seek out more information continuing his education in political science. Though he hasn’t about the reality of “ossification” in the rulemaking process. decided on a concentration yet, he states, “At this point, I'm Professor Balla is thrilled to see the evolution of Sodano from interested in pursuing a PhD in political science, since academia student to researcher. He states, “It has been a rewarding seems like the most worthwhile career path for me at this point. I experience for me as a faculty member to witness Jackie's enjoy writing, and I pursued the Luther Rice Fellowship in large progression from a student in my class to a researcher who can (a) part to see how well-suited I am to doing research work in the identify a gap in our understanding about the politics of long term.” regulation and (b) execute a project that fills in that gap.” In The Classroom real sweetheart of a guy—I knew our students would love the Former Senate Parliamentarian class.” Deering recalled. “I also knew the Congressional Teaches Congressional Leadership Professorship was available and I called [then-GW President] Course Steve Trachtenberg and we made it happen.” Being the official rule keeper for the United States Senate is Dove began teaching a department pro-seminar on not for the faint of heart. Knowing the elaborate “Congressional Leadership” after arriving in procedures and rules of order that govern the nation’s 2001. “I loved teaching undergrads. They legislature is a tall order in the first place—enforcing those are not yet cynical about politics and I find rules on your own employers makes the job of Senate that refreshing. I think that Congress is the Parliamentarian a uniquely challenging position. most misunderstood branch of government It should be no surprise then, that former Senate and I loved teaching about how it works.” Parliamentarian Robert Dove found the chance to teach Dove said “I was attracted [to GW] by the undergrads right here at GW a rewarding change of pace. fact that GW students often had internships Twice-appointed Senate Parliamentarian and twice- on the Hill and could bring their dismissed (first by Majority Leader Robert Byrd in 1986 experiences into the classroom.” and later by Majority Leader Trent Lott in 2001), Dove Department Chair Paul Wahlbeck left Capitol Hill for good and brought his wealth of agreed, saying “Our students are attracted to knowledge and perspective to Foggy Bottom, where he joined the GW for many reasons, but one of the primary attractions is our Political Science Department. location in the nation's Capital. Bob Dove shared with students his Then-Department Chair Chris Deering brought the insider knowledge of how work is done on Capitol Hill. His former Parliamentarian into the department as an adjunct perspective was a perfect complement to our curriculum.” professor, where Dove’s direct teaching style and years of Dove stepped down from teaching this past summer, after 13 experience working for Congress engaged students from day one. years with the university. He remains involved with the downtown “I got word that Bob was about to become available, he had an lobbying firm Patton Boggs, where he provides public policy and inside knowledge of Congress, with a PhD from Duke, and he is a Congressional strategy advice to firm partners and clients. DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE ● THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY 2 POLITICAL SCIENCE NEWSLETTER FALL 2014 Graduate Student News interest in state bailouts dating from the Ph.D. Graduate Wins Prestigious 2001 U.S. airline bailout and an interest Dissertation Award in financial markets from my time A recent graduate of the political science Ph.D.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Filibuster and Reconciliation: the Future of Majoritarian Lawmaking in the U.S
    The Filibuster and Reconciliation: The Future of Majoritarian Lawmaking in the U.S. Senate Tonja Jacobi†* & Jeff VanDam** “If this precedent is pushed to its logical conclusion, I suspect there will come a day when all legislation will be done through reconciliation.” — Senator Tom Daschle, on the prospect of using budget reconciliation procedures to pass tax cuts in 19961 Passing legislation in the United States Senate has become a de facto super-majoritarian undertaking, due to the gradual institutionalization of the filibuster — the practice of unending debate in the Senate. The filibuster is responsible for stymieing many legislative policies, and was the cause of decades of delay in the development of civil rights protection. Attempts at reforming the filibuster have only exacerbated the problem. However, reconciliation, a once obscure budgetary procedure, has created a mechanism of avoiding filibusters. Consequently, reconciliation is one of the primary means by which significant controversial legislation has been passed in recent years — including the Bush tax cuts and much of Obamacare. This has led to minoritarian attempts to reform reconciliation, particularly through the Byrd Rule, as well as constitutional challenges to proposed filibuster reforms. We argue that the success of the various mechanisms of constraining either the filibuster or reconciliation will rest not with interpretation by † Copyright © 2013 Tonja Jacobi and Jeff VanDam. * Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law, t-jacobi@ law.northwestern.edu. Our thanks to John McGinnis, Nancy Harper, Adrienne Stone, and participants of the University of Melbourne School of Law’s Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies speaker series. ** J.D., Northwestern University School of Law (2013), [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Rule: the US Senate Parliamentarian and Institutional Constraints on Legislator Behaviour
    Parliamentary Rule: The US Senate Parliamentarian and Institutional Constraints on Legislator Behaviour JAMES I. WALLNER This article analyses the extent to which institutional rules constrain member behaviour in the United States Senate by examining the evolution of its parliamentarian. Interestingly, the US Senate parliamentarian has received surprisingly little scholarly attention given the important role she performs in the legislative process. The subsequent analysis thus provides a new understanding of the parliamentarian’s role in the legislative process and the interplay between institutional rules and member behaviour in the Senate. To this end, the following analysis is situated within the context of the two primary theoretical approaches to understanding how institutional rules constrain member behaviour: path dependency and majoritarianism. These contrasting approaches provide expectations about the extent to which members will defer to the parliamentarian’s interpretation of Senate rules rather than exercising their own discretionary control over those rules. Examining the evolving relationship between the parliamentarian and individual members affirms the centrality of institutional rules as a constraint on member behaviour over the past several decades. Yet such an examination also yields two surprising, and potentially contradictory, observations. First, individual senators in both parties have increasingly deferred to the parliamentarian to interpret the Senate’s rules. This is sur- prising given that the Senate has simultaneously become more individualistic, partisan, and ideological over the same period. Second, the majority party has recently disregarded the norm of parliamentary constraint reflected in past practice and demonstrated a will- ingness to ignore Senate rules when doing so was necessary to achieve legislative success.
    [Show full text]
  • The Tax Legislative Process: a Byrd's Eye View
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Journal Articles Faculty Scholarship 2018 The Tax Legislative Process: A Byrd's Eye View Ellen P. Aprill Daniel Hemel Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/journal_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Ellen Aprill & Daniel Hemel, "The Tax Legislative Process: A Byrd's Eye View," 81 Law and Contemporary Problems 99 (2018). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal Articles by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. APRILL_HEMEL_FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 5/16/2018 4:54 PM THE TAX LEGISLATIVE PROCESS: A BYRD’S EYE VIEW ELLEN P. APRILL* AND DANIEL J. HEMEL** I INTRODUCTION The year 2017 was, among other distinctions, the year of the Byrd rule. This once-obscure Senate procedural provision—on the books since 1985 but only recently the stuff of page one news1— featured prominently in several failed attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act in the spring and summer. Then again at year’s end, the Byrd rule played a central role in the successful effort to rewrite large swaths of the Internal Revenue Code. While the Byrd rule has influenced the legislative process in the past, never before has it drawn so much attention from the mainstream and trade press, and never before has it shaped so consequential a law in such a significant way. One theme that runs throughout this article is that when it comes to the budget math mandated by the Byrd rule, numbers can obscure the truth.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Parliamentary Rule: the Origins, Development, and Role of The
    Parliamentary Rule: The Origins, Development, and Role of the Senate Parliamentarian in the Legislative Process James Wallner Catholic University of America – Department of Politics Prepared for delivery at the Annual Meeting of the Congress & History Conference, Providence, Rhode Island, June 8-10, 2011 1 Parliamentary Rule: The Origins, Development, and Role of the Senate Parliamentarian in the Legislative Process “I talked earlier about all the people who are helpful to us. Some people I didn’t mention who are so vital to us, Mr. President, are the Parliamentarians. The Senate rules are extremely complex. I know them pretty well, but I am amateur compared to our Parliamentarians who interpret the precedents and Rules of the Senate and advise the Presiding Officer anytime we are in session. Their work is vital to the well-oiled Senate we have.” -Majority Leader Harry Reid February 7, 20091 Introduction The literature on Congress includes a theoretically diverse collection of approaches to understanding the legislative process. The most prominent approaches focus on the political behavior of representatives and senators and the strategic calculations they make to achieve their goals in the institution. According to these behavioral and rational choice approaches, member action shapes Congress as an institution and determines the legislative process within it. More recently, a historical-institutional approach has proliferated in the literature which focuses on how Congress itself shapes the goal-driven behavior of its members and the legislative process. Yet regardless of the approach employed, the literature on congressional decision-making shares a common interest in the nature of conflict within Congress and the manner in which it is resolved.
    [Show full text]
  • Examining the Filibuster Hearings
    S. Hrg. 111–706 EXAMINING THE FILIBUSTER HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION April 22, 2010; May 19, 2010; June 23, 2010; July 28, 2010; and September 22 and 29, 2010 ( VerDate Nov 24 2008 14:23 Dec 03, 2010 Jkt 062210 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6011 Sfmt 6011 C:\DOCS\62210.TXT SHAUN PsN: DPROCT EXAMINING THE FILIBUSTER VerDate Nov 24 2008 14:23 Dec 03, 2010 Jkt 062210 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6019 Sfmt 6019 C:\DOCS\62210.TXT SHAUN PsN: DPROCT S. HRG. 111–706 EXAMINING THE FILIBUSTER HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION APRIL 22, 2010; MAY 19, 2010; JUNE 23, 2010; JULY 28, 2010; AND SEPTEMBER 22 AND 29, 2010 Printed for the use of the Committee on Rules and Administration ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 62–210 WASHINGTON : 2010 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected]. VerDate Nov 24 2008 14:23 Dec 03, 2010 Jkt 062210 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 C:\DOCS\62210.TXT SHAUN PsN: DPROCT COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION * CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York, Chairman DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah CHRISTOPHER J.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Steal a Trillion: the Sesu of Laws About Lawmaking in 2001 Charles Tiefer University of Baltimore School of Law, [email protected]
    University of Baltimore Law ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law All Faculty Scholarship Faculty Scholarship Summer 2001 How to Steal a Trillion: The sesU of Laws about Lawmaking in 2001 Charles Tiefer University of Baltimore School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/all_fac Part of the Law and Politics Commons, and the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation How to Steal a Trillion: The sU es of Laws about Lawmaking in 2001, 17 J.L. & Pol. 409 (2001) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. How to Steal a Trillion: The Uses of Laws About Lawmaking in 2001 Charles Tiefer" I. Introduction: Laws Directing Lawmaking in 2001 II. Background: From the Rulemaking Clause to Chadha and City of New York A. The Barriers to Enactment B. Delegation and its Discontents C. Power, Discourse, and Symbolism III. Facilitating the Controversial 2001 $1.3 Trillion Tax Cut A. Reconciliation Tax Cutting in 2001 1. 1974 through 2000: Reconciliation for Deficit Control 2. 2001: Reconciliation Outside Deficit Control 3. The Misguided Product of the Reconciliation Conference B. Mter the 2001 Tax Cut: Reforming Budget Act Reconciliation 1. The Upcoming Need for Reform 2. Why and How to Reform IV. Trade Fast Track Renewal in 2001: Laws About Two-Level Lawmaking A.
    [Show full text]