Is Congress effective in carrying out its constitutional powers

Paragraph 1: Oversight of the Judiciary

• Weaker counterargument:
  Congress has limited effectiveness in overseeing the Judiciary due to the difficulty of using constitutional powers like amendments or impeachments.

• Explanation:
  The high procedural and political hurdles make it challenging for Congress to check judicial power effectively. For example, impeaching justices is rare and difficult, while constitutional amendments require supermajorities and state ratification.

• Evidence:
  Congress has struggled to act against controversial Supreme Court decisions such as Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) and United States v. Windsor (2013), which legalized same-sex marriage, seen by some as judicial activism. Joe Biden’s promise to explore expanding the Supreme Court reflects political attempts to influence the court, but actual Congressional control remains limited.

• Stronger argument:
  Despite these challenges, Congress plays a critical role in confirming judicial appointments, influencing the court’s ideological balance indirectly through its advice and consent powers.

• Explanation:
  The Senate's role in confirming justices allows it to shape the judiciary’s composition and thus its decisions. This power acts as a significant constitutional check on the judiciary.

• Evidence:
  The politicization of Supreme Court nominations—illustrated by the refusal to consider Merrick Garland’s nomination in 2016 and the swift confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett in 2020—shows Congress’s real influence in shaping the judicial branch.

Paragraph 2: Legislative Effectiveness

• Weaker counterargument:
  Congress is often ineffective at passing legislation, with only about 3% of proposed bills becoming law.

• Explanation:
  The complex legislative process, including the House Rules Committee’s power to delay or block bills, and rising partisan polarization since the 1980s, contribute to legislative gridlock.

• Evidence:
  Since the 1980s, ideological polarization has reduced bipartisan cooperation, lowering legislative success rates to around 23%. The narrow passage of recent bills, like the “Big, Beautiful Bill” in May 2025 (passed 215–214), illustrates this struggle.

• Stronger argument:
  Nevertheless, Congress has historically demonstrated its effectiveness in passing landmark legislation that expanded citizens' rights and federal government roles.

• Explanation:
  From 1933 to 1980, Congress enacted significant bipartisan legislation that reshaped American society and governance.

• Evidence:
  Key legislative acts from the 1960s—such as the Civil Rights Act (1964), Voting Rights Act (1965), Medicare and Medicaid Act (1965), and Housing and Urban Development Act (1965)—highlight Congress’s legislative power when bipartisan cooperation was stronger.

Paragraph 3: War Powers and Foreign Policy

• Weaker counterargument:
  Congress is largely ineffective in exercising its constitutional war powers, having not formally declared war since 1914.

• Explanation:
  The War Powers Act (1973) intended to limit presidential military action without Congressional approval, but presidents often circumvent these limits.

• Evidence:
  Examples include President Trump’s claim that he could notify Congress via Twitter and ongoing military engagements without formal declarations of war or Congressional approval.

• Stronger argument:
  However, Congress still exercises important oversight in foreign policy through powers like funding and authorizing military actions and passing significant trade and regulatory legislation.

• Explanation:
  Congress controls the purse strings and can influence or check the executive's military and foreign policy decisions through legislation and oversight.

• Evidence:
  Recent legislation like the Trade Review Act (April 2025), which requires presidential notification and approval for tariffs, and votes limiting California’s emissions standards, demonstrate Congress’s ongoing role in shaping foreign and domestic policy.