Since the second quarter of the 19th century the rules determining the position of committees both in the supreme legislative body and in the whole political organization of society were developed and legally consolidated, the centers of power and influence within the committee system itself were distinguished – the process of institutionalization of the congressional committee system began.
COMMITTEES DURING THE “JACKSONIAN DEMOCRACY”.
The rapid development of capitalism in the 20s and 40s put new social forces at the center of the political struggle. The process of the industrial revolution, a decisive factor in social development, brought to the forefront a clash between two factions of the bourgeoisie: the commercial-financial one and the nascent industrial one.
Party regrouping led to the emergence of a new two-party combination. Although Democratic Party supporters had a majority in both houses of Congress during the “Jacksonian Democracy,” the position of the emerging Whig Party in the Senate was quite strong. The different balance of political power in the congressional chambers had a direct impact on the work of the committees.
The most influential senators (such as G. Clay and D. Webster) tried to remove the vice-president from forming committees. “The Executive Prodigy” was “allowed” to appoint their members only when elections did not result in a significant renewal of the Senate and did not significantly alter the party’s balance of power. The president of the upper chamber had only to reaffirm the continuity of the committees and extend previous appointments.
In the House of Representatives, by contrast, all three previous speakers supported the head of state and selected committee members so that the bills needed by the president were considered and approved as soon as possible. In defending himself against accusations of excessive obedience to Jackson, Speaker Bell said that he was operating on the principle articulated by President J. C. Adams: for our government to be useful, its various bodies must not only coordinate their work, but also cooperate with each other. It was not by chance that this interpretation of the theory of the separation of powers came from the lips of the leader of the House of Representatives. The innovations introduced by Jackson forced the working bodies of Congress to consider the president’s position to a greater extent than before.
General Jackson’s candidacy for head of state was not nominated by party caucuses. Though the constitution determined that the president gets his powers through an extraparliamentary system of indirect elections, until the 1920s the election of the head of state was nevertheless connected to the representative body, because the party caucuses of the congressional houses decided the question of candidates for the post of president. With the change of the procedure of nominating candidates for the highest state office, with the replacement of the caucuses by the convention system, the president gained greater independence from the legislature.
Jackson has consistently used the constitutionally granted veto power of the president for political purposes. (In the first 40 years of the independent American state, presidents refused to sign bills passed by Congress only nine times, and only three vetoes were over important bills. It has become the conventional wisdom that the president can veto a bill only if it is not in accordance with the constitution.) Jackson, subverting the established practice, used the veto 12 times in eight years and used the pocket veto for the first time. Since the president could finally decide the fate of a bill approved by an absolute majority of the House and Senate, one of the primary tasks of the committees was to ascertain the position of the executive branch on all controversial details of the bills. The passage in Congress of the Department of the Interior bill is illustrative. At the request of the Ways and Means Committee, the bill was examined and finalized in detail by the Treasury Department, and the specialized body of the House of Representatives merely adopted the recommendations of the department.
In an effort to subordinate the workings of the entire state machinery to their interests, the Democrat leadership put forward the idea of “the spoils belong to the winners” and refused to take merit into account in selecting candidates for federal government agencies. A purge of federal employees was carried out, and for the first time Jackson applied on a large scale the previously known practice of patronage – the appointment of his supporters to positions. The composition of the executive branch was substantially renewed (1/5), with changes primarily affecting the top ranks of the federal administration. This greatly undermined the basis of the power of the Capitol committees – longstanding, strong ties with the departments. So the committees now sought to establish direct contact with those in the president’s inner circle, and mainly with his unofficial advisers – members of the first “kitchen cabinet. Specialized House bodies began to select their own staff. It was during the period of “Jacksonian democracy” that the first mention in House rules of paying committee clerks was made.
In order to be more aware of the enforcement of laws, Senate and House committees expanded the system of regular departmental reports on financial reporting. Thus, from 1836 onward, each House began to summarize the appropriations to the executive on the basis of the data furnished by the ministries. Investigations continued to be an important instrument of political struggle. They were generally conducted on the most important issues that were causing division between Democrats and Whigs. In establishing investigative committees, the House leadership primarily took into account the political positions of the congressmen.