In 2009, a member of the House introduced a bill to force a ...

[joesmith1212]

In 2009, a member of the House introduced a bill to force a national college football playoff. The bill failed, but the push for a national football playoff system was ultimately successful. Was it appropriate for Congress to take on this issue? Present a
 
  Present arguments from both sides.

Question 2

Assess the Super Committee of 2012 in light of what we know about the intentions of the Framers. Has partisanship gone too far, at the cost of efficiency?
 
  Answer:

[marict]

Answer to Question 1

Answer: An ideal response will:
1. Take a stand for or against congressional action.
2. Arguments against: Congress had more important issues to address, for example, the economy, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the debt ceiling, unemployment, and climate change. It was not the appropriate venue to push for the change. Other types of pressure would have been sufficient.
3. Arguments for: There was widespread support for the playoff system from the public, the press, various athletic conferences, members of Congress, and the president. Where else could those in favor of the playoff turn to pressure the powers behind college football to act?

Answer to Question 2

An ideal response will:
1. Discuss the origin and reason for the Super Committee.
2. Analyze the constitutional basis for partisanship, noting that the Framers preferred a stalemate in government when a consensus could not be reached.
3. Argue whether it is beneficial to sacrifice efficiency to prevent a concentration of power.

[joesmith1212]

TYSM

[duy1981999]

YES! Correct, THANKS for helping me on my review