1 John A. Garraty, The New Commonwealth 1877–1890 at 222–23 (New York: Harper & Row, 1968) (“Garraty, New Commonwealth”); Samuel P. Hays, The Response to Industrialism 1885-1914 at 143 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957) (“Hays, Response to Industrialism”).Google Scholar

2 Eric Foner, Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution 1863–1877 at 465–67 (New York: Harper & Row, 1988) (“Foner, Reconstruction”); Morton Keller, Affairs of State: Public Life in Late Nineteenth Century America 245 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1977) (“Keller, Affairs of State”).Google Scholar

3 See, e.g., Arthur S. Link & Richard L. McCormick, Progressivism 9 (Arlington Heights, III.: Harlan Davidson, 1983) (“Link & McCormick, Progressivism”).Google Scholar

4 See, e.g., John E. Chubb & Paul E. Peterson, eds., Can the Government Govern? (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1989) (“Chubb & Peterson, Can Government Govern?”); Donald L. Robinson, ed., Reforming American Government: The Bicentennial Papers of the Committee on the Constitutional System (Boulder, Col.: Westview Press, 1985); Donald L. Robinson, Government for the Third American Century (Boulder, Col.: Westview Press, 1989); “Beating the System,” New Republic, 5 Nov. 1990, at 7; Stanley W. Cloud, “The Can't Do Government,” Time, 23 Oct. 1989, at 28; “Congress—It Doesn't Work. Let's Fix It,” Bus. Week, 16 April 1990, at 54; Janet Hook, “Budget Ordeal Poses Question: Why Can't Congress Be Led?” Cong. Q., 20 Oct. 1990, at 3471; Peter Smithers, “Presidential Paralysis and the Constitution,” Wall St. J., 24 Dec. 1987, at 8. See also the series “The Trouble With Politics” in the New York Times: Michael Oreskes, “America's Politics Loses Way as Its Vision Changes World,” N.Y. Times, 18 March 1990, at 1; Robin Toner, ”‘Wars’ Wound Candidates and the Process,” N.Y. Times, 19 March 1990, at A1; Richard L. Berke, “An Edge for Incumbents: Loopholes That Pay Off,” N.Y. Times, 20 March 1990, at A1; Michael Oreskes & Robin Toner, “Swamp of Political Abuse Spurs a New Constituency, for Change,” N.Y. Times, 21 March 1990, at A1.Google Scholar

5 Sundquist, James L., “Needed: A Political Theory for the New Era of Coalition Government in the United States,” 103 Pol. Sci. Q. 613, 613–14 (198889).Google Scholar

6 See, e.g., Kathleen Day, “When Hell Sleazes Over,” New Republic, 20 March 1989, at 26; Anthony M. Solomon, “The Risks Were Too Good to Pass Up,” N.Y. Times Bk. Rev., sec. 7, 29 Oct. 1989, at 27.Google Scholar

7 Richard L. Berke, “50.16% Voter Turnout Is 64-Year Low,” N.Y. Times, 18 Dec. 1988, at 18; E. J. Dionne, Jr., “Issues, or Their Lack, Reflect Voter Concern, or Its Lack,” N.Y. Times, 18 Sept. 1988, at 1.Google Scholar

8 Thomas E. Cavanagh, “The New Populism,” N.Y. Times, 6 Nov. 1990, at A15; Jane Gross, “Voters Feel Electoral Process Has Failed,” N.Y. Times, 7 Nov. 1990, at A16; Michael Oreskes, “Alienation from Government Grows,” N.Y. Times, 19 Sept. 1990, at A15; id., “Study Finds ‘Astonishing’ Indifference to Elections,” N.Y. Times, 6 May 1990, at 16; Robert Reinhold, “California Tally: Apathy on the Rise,” N.Y. Times, 12 June 1990, at A14; Roberto Suro, “Viewing Chaos in the Capital, Americans Express Outrage,” N.Y. Times, 19 Oct. 1990, at A1.Google Scholar

9 Griffin, Stephen M., “What Is Constitutional Theory? The Newer Theory and the Decline of the Learned Tradition,” 62 S. Cal. L. Rev. 493, 530–31 (1989).Google Scholar

10 There are other motivations for this project. At present there are impasses in constitutional theory with regard to the debate over the legitimacy of judicial review and theories of constitutional interpretation that exist partly because constitutional scholars have an inadequate descriptive-explanatory understanding of the American political system. See generally Griffin, 62 S. Cal. L. Rev. A theory of the development of the American state may give constitutional scholars a better grasp of political reality. Second, many scholars are calling for a “transformation” of American politics and political values from various perspectives. See, e.g., West, Robin., “Progressive and Conservative Constitutionalism,” 88 Mich. L Rev. 641, 721 (1990). These scholars urge us to focus on the Congress, rather than the Supreme Court, to achieve further political advances. Id. at 650–51. However, it may be that fundamental reform of the political process is a necessary precondition of any substantive transformative program. If this is the case, then we must improve our understanding of the present structure of the American state before we can engage in any substantive programs of reform.Google Scholar

11 See, e.g., Richard Franklin Bensel, Yankee Leviathan: The Origins of Central State Authority in America, 1859-1877 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990); Barry D. Karl, The Uneasy State: The United States from 1915 to 1945 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983) (“Karl, Uneasy State”); Keller, Affairs of State (cited in note 2); William E. Nelson, The Roots of American Bureaucracy 1830-1900 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1982) (“Nelson, Roots of American Bureaucracy”); Louis Galambos, ed., The New American State: Bureaucracies and Policies since World War II (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987) (“Galambos, New American State”); Stephen Skowronek, Building a New American State: The Expansion of National Administrative Capacities, 1877-1920 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982) (“Skowronek, Building”).Google Scholar

12 See, e.g., Robert R. Alford & Roger Friedland, Powers of Theory: Capitalism, the State, and Democracy (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985); Roger Benjamin & Stephen L. Elkin, eds., The Democratic State (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1985); Charles Bright & Susan Harding, eds., Statemaking and Social Movements (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1984) (“Bright & Harding, Statemaking”); Kenneth H. F. Dyson, The State Tradition in Western Europe (New York: Oxford University Press, 1980) (“Dyson, State Tradition”); Peter B. Evans, Dietrich Rueschemeyer, & Theda Skocpol, eds., Bringing the State Back In (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985) (“Evans et al., Bringing State Back In”); John A. Hall & G. John Ikenberry, The State (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1989) (“Hall & Ikenberry, State”); David Held, Political Theory and the Modern State (Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University Press, 1989); G. John Ikenberry, Reasons of State: Oil Politics and the Capacities of American Government (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1988) (“Ikenberry, Reasons”); Stephen D. Krasner, Defending the National Interest (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1978); Eric Nordlinger, On the Autonomy of the Democratic State (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1981) (“Nordlinger, Autonomy of Democratic State”); Gianfranco Poggi, The Development of the Modern State (Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University Press, 1978) (“Poggi, Modern State”); Theda Skocpol, States and Social Revolutions (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1979) (“Skocpol, States”); Charles Tilly, ed., The Formation of National States in Western Europe (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1975) (“Tilly, Formation”); Krasner, Stephen, “Approaches to the State: Alternative Conceptions and Historical Dynamics,” 16 Comp. Pol. 223 (1984); Nettl, J. P., “The State as a Conceptual Variable,” 20 World Pol. 559 (1968).Google Scholar

13 See, e.g., Steven Kelman, Making Public Policy (New York: Basic Books, 1987); James G. March & Johan P. Olsen, Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics (New York: Macmillan, 1989); Mathew D. McCubbins & Terry Sullivan, eds., Congress: Structure and Policy (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987); Smith, Rogers M., “Political Jurisprudence, the ‘New Institutionalism,’ and the Future of Public Law,” 82 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 89 (1988).Google Scholar

14 , Griffin., 62 S. Cal. L. Rev. at 529.Google Scholar

15 Dyson, State Tradition 4.Google Scholar

16 Id at 37–38.Google Scholar

17 Gordon S. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776–1787 at 344–89 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1969).Google Scholar

18 Id. at 599 (footnote omitted).Google Scholar

19 See Nettl, 20 World Pol. at 574 (intellectual tradition of coping with sovereignty in the United States has been to deny its existence).Google Scholar

20 Wood, Creation of the American Republic 264–65.Google Scholar

21 Samuel P. Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies 7 (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1968) (“Huntington, Politicol Order”).Google Scholar

22 See Griffin, Stephen M., “Constitutionalism in the United States: From Theory to Politics,” 10 Oxford J. Leg. Stud. 200, 206–7 (1990).Google Scholar

23 For discussions of the relationship of state-building in Europe to the need for a strong military, see Dyson, State Tradition 32–33; Hall & Ikenberry, State 40–41; Charles Tilly, “Reflections on the History of European State-Making,” in Tilly, Formation 3, 73–74 (all cited in note 12).Google Scholar

24 See James Bryce, 1 The American Commonwealth 309–10 (New York: Macmillan, 1921); Clinton Rossiter, ed., The Federalist No. 8, at 70–71 (New York: New American Library, 1961) (Alexander Hamilton); Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America 168, 170, 222, 278 (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1969).Google Scholar

25 See William E. Nelson, The Fourteenth Amendment: From Political Principle to Judicial Doctrine 27 (Cambridge: Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1988) (“Nelson, Fourteenth Amendment”).Google Scholar

26 For a discussion of the considerable merits of the argument for placing sovereignty in the state governments before the Civil War, see David M. Potter, The Impending Crisis 1848-1861 at 479–83 (New York: Harper &. Row, 1976) (“Potter, Impending Crisis”).Google Scholar

27 James H. Kettner, The Development of American Citizenship, 1608–1870 at 334 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1978) (“Kettner, American Citizenship”).Google Scholar

28 For definitions of the state, see Poggi, Modern State 1, and Skocpol, States 29 (both cited in note 12). For a summary of the common elements of definitions of the state, see Hall &. Ikenberry, State 1–2 (cited in note 12).Google Scholar

29 My own definition tries to capture elements common to most definitions and is not intended to be suitable for identifying all states during all historical periods. It is limited to the case of the modern democratic state.Google Scholar

30 See Skocpol, Theda, “Bringing the State Back In: Strategies of Analysis in Current Research,” in Evans et al., Bringing State Back In 3, 28 (cited in note 12).Google Scholar

31 Alford, &. Friedland, , Powers of Theory 41 (cited in note 12).Google Scholar

32 Id. at 1.Google Scholar

33 Krasner, 16 Comp. Pol. at 224–25 (cited in note 12) (describing five characteristics of recent literature on the state).Google Scholar

34 For purposes of this article, the national state denotes what is usually meant by the term federal government. The term American state is used to denote all levels and branches of government in the United States, considered as a single system.Google Scholar

35 Krasner, Defending National Interest 55–58 (cited in note 12).Google Scholar

36 Hall & Ikenberry, State 13 (cited in note 12).Google Scholar

37 See generally , Griffin., 10 Oxford J. Leg. Stud, (cited in note 22).Google Scholar

38 See, e.g., Alfred H. Kelly, Winfred A. Harbison, & Herman Belz, The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development, 6th ed. (New York: W. W. Norton, 1983) (“Kelly et al., American Constitution”).Google Scholar

39 See , Griffin., 10 Oxford J. Leg. Stud, at 214–17.Google Scholar

40 See Casper, Gerhard, “Constitutional Constraints on the Conduct of Foreign and Defense Policy: A Nonjudicial Model,” 43 U. Chi. L. Rev. 463, 481–82 (1976); Dam, Kenneth W., “The American Fiscal Constitution,” 44 U. Chi. L. Rev. 271, 272–73 (1977); Munzer, Stephen R. & Nickel, James W., “Does the Constitution Mean What It Always Meant?” 77 Colum. L. Rev. 1029, 1046–50 (1977).Google Scholar

41 See Koh, Harold Hongju, “Why the President (Almost) Always wins in Foreign Affairs: Lessons of the Iran-Contra Affair,” 97 Yale L. J. 1255, 1282 (1988).Google Scholar

42 Casper, 43 U. Chi. L. Rev. at 482.Google Scholar

43 Koh, 97 Yale L.J. at 1282 n.127. See Budget and Accounting Act, ch. 18, 42 Stat. 20 (current version in scattered sections of 31 U.S.C. (1982)); National Emergencies Act, Pub. L. No. 94–412, 90 Stat. 1255 (1976) (codified at 50 U.S.C. sec. 1601 (1982)); War Powers Resolution, Pub. L. No. 93–148, 87 Stat. 555 (1973) (codified at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1541–1548 (1982)). Other examples include: Administrative Procedure Act, ch. 324, §§1–12, 60 Stat. 237 (1946) (current version in scattered sections of 5 U.S.C. (1982)); National Security Act of 1947, ch. 343, 61 Stat. 495 (current version in scattered sections of 5, 10, & 50 U.S.C. (1982 & Supp. V 1987)); Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93–344, 88 Stat. 297 (current version in scattered sections of 1, 2, & 31 U.S.C. (1982 &. Supp. V 1987)).Google Scholar

44 See Paludan, Philip S., “The American Civil War Considered as a Crisis in Law and Order,” 77 Am. Hist. Rev. 1013, 1021 (1972); Stampp, Kenneth M., “The Concept of a Perpetual Union,” 65 J. Am. Hist. 5, 20 (1978). See also Kettner, American Citizenship 231–32 (cited in note 27) (Constitution left status of national citizenship uncertain).Google Scholar

45 Huntington, Political Order 110 (cited in note 21).Google Scholar

46 Krasner, Defending National Interest 70 (cited in note 12).Google Scholar

47 See Richard Hofstadter, The Idea of a Party System viii, 16–18, 39 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969).Google Scholar

48 See Richard L. McCormick, The Party Period and Public Policy 153 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986) (“McCormick, Party Period”).Google Scholar

49 Potter, Impending Crisis 479 (cited in note 26).Google Scholar

50 See William Nisbet Chambers, Political Parties in a New Nation: The American Experience, 1776–1809 at 198–200 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1963) (influence of sectionalism in disintegration of first party system in 1820s); Richard P. McCormick, “Political Development and the Second Party System,” in William Chambers & Walter Dean Burn-ham, eds., The American Party System 90, 113, 2d ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1975) (influence of sectionalism in decline of second party system in 1850s).Google Scholar

51 See William M. Wiecek, “The Witch at the Christening: Slavery and the Constitution's Origins,” in Leonard W. Levy & Dennis J. Mahonet, eds., The Framing and Ratification of the Constitution 167, 183–84 (New York: Macmillan, 1987).Google Scholar

52 Nelson, Fourteenth Amendment 29–30 (cited in note 25).Google Scholar

53 See, e.g., Nell Irvin Painter, Standing at Armageddon: The United States, 1877-1919 at 112 (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987) (“Painter, Armageddon”).Google Scholar

54 E. J. Hobsbawm, The Age of Capital 1848-1875 at 157 (New York: New American Library, 1975).Google Scholar

55 Foner, Reconstruction 425–26, 442–44, 558–63 (cited in note 2); George C. Rable, But There Was No Peace: The Role of Violence in the Politics of Reconstruction xii (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1984).Google Scholar

56 See Leonard D. White, The Federalists 466 (New York: Macmillan, 1948); id., The Jacksonians 4–5 (Chicago: Free Press, 1954).Google Scholar

57 See Farnham, Wallace D., “‘The Weakened Spring of Government’: A Study in Nineteenth-Century American History,” 68 Am. Hist. Rev. 662 (1963).Google Scholar

58 See Charles C. Bright, “The State in the United States during the Nineteenth Century,” in Bright & Harding, Statemaking 121, 138 (cited in note 12).Google Scholar

59 See Harold M. Hyman, A More Perfect Union: The Impact of the Civil War and Reconstruction on the Constitution 380–82 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1975) (“Hyman, A More Perfect Union”).Google Scholar

60 Skowronek, Building 27–28 (cited in note 11).Google Scholar

61 Krasner, Defending National Interest 66 (cited in note 12).Google Scholar

62 Skowronek, Building 25.Google Scholar

63 McCormick, Party Period 3–4, 139 (cited in note 48).Google Scholar

64 Id. at 164, 218–19; Joel H. Silbey, The Partisan Imperative: The Dynamics of American Politics before the Civil War 53, 71, 100 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985).Google Scholar

65 McCormick, Party Period 215.Google Scholar

66 Skowronek, Building 41.Google Scholar

67 See Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers 248 (New York: Random House, 1987) (“Kennedy, Rise and Fall”).Google Scholar

68 Garraty, New Commonwealth 179–80, 200–201 (cited in note 1); Link &. McCormick, Progressivism 59 (cited in note 3).Google Scholar

69 See generally E. J. Hobsbawm, The Age of Empire 1875-1914 at 85–87, 92, 102–3, 116–17 (New York: Pantheon, 1987). On the link between the extension of suffrage and increased political mobilization and voter turnout, see Stein Rokkan, “Geography, Religion and Social Class: Crosscutting Cleavages in Norwegian Politics,” in Seymour M. Lipset & Stein Rokkan, eds., Party Systems and Voter Alignments 367, 379–86 (New York: Free Press, 1967). On the present high level of voter turnout in Europe, as compared with that in the United States, see G. Bingham Powell, Jr., “American Voter Turnout in Comparative Perspective,” 80 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 17 (1986).Google Scholar

70 McCormick, Party Period 179, 222 (cited in note 48); Walter Dean Burnham, “The Turnout Problem,” in A. James Reichley, ed., Elections American Style 97, 98, 109, 116–18 (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1987) (“Reichley, Elections”).Google Scholar

71 Link & McCormick, Progressivism 56.Google Scholar

72 See William R. Brock, Investigation and Responsibility: Public Responsibility in the United States, 1865-1900 at 46–47 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984); James Willard Hurst, The Growth of American Law: The Law Makers 31, 49–52 (Boston: Little, Brown, 1950) (“Hurst, Growth”).Google Scholar

73 Keller, Affairs of State 244–45 (cited in note 2).Google Scholar

74 Samuel P. Hays, American Political History as Social Analysis 225 (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1980).Google Scholar

75 Keller, Affairs of State 290; Richard L. McCormick, From Realignment to Reform: Political Change in New York State, 1893-1910 at 269 (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1981) (“McCormick, Realignment”).Google Scholar

76 “Democracy and Social Justice,” 8 Brit. J. Pol. Sci. 1, 2–3 (1978).Google Scholar

77 Id. at 4–7.Google Scholar

78 Id. at 5. See also Robert A. Dahl, Democracy and Its Critics 125 (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1989).Google Scholar

79 See Michael E. McGerr, The Decline of Popular Politics: The American North, 1865-1928 at 45–47 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986) (“McGerr, Decline”); Arnold M. Paul, Conservative Crisis and the Rule of Law: Attitudes of Bar and Bench, 1887-1895 at 229–30 (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1960).Google Scholar

80 Keller, Affairs of State 527–29.Google Scholar

81 Nelson, Roots of American Bureaucracy 87–89 (cited in note 11).Google Scholar

82 Id. at 88–89; R. Jeffrey Lustig, Corporate Liberalism: The Origins of Modem American Political Theory, 1890-1920 at 151–52 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982) (“Lustig, Corporate Liberalism”).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

83 Link & McCormick, Progressivism 116 (cited in note 3).Google Scholar

84 McCormick, Party Period 179 (cited in note 48).Google Scholar

85 See Link & McCormick, Progressivism 50–52; McCormick, Realignment 251, 269 (cited in note 75).Google Scholar

86 , McGerr., Decline 66, 71, 88–89.Google Scholar

87 Walter Dean Burnham, The Current Crisis in American Politics 109–10 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982) (“Burnham, Current Crisis”); McCormick, Realignment 261–83; McCormick, Party Period 177.Google Scholar

88 J. Morgan Kousser, The Shaping of Southern Politics: Suffrage Restriction and the Establishment of the One-Party South, 1880-1910 at 57, 200, 251–52 (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1974) (“Kousser, Shaping Southern Politics”); C. Vann Woodward, Origins of the New South 1877-1913 at 53, 330, 347 (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1971) (“Woodward, Origins”).Google Scholar

89 Lawrence Goodwyn, Democratic Promise: The Populist Movement in America 299–300, 333–37 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976) (“Goodwyn, Democratic Promise”); Woodward, Origins 244, 277, 288.Google Scholar

90 Goodwyn, Democratic Promise 304–5; Kousser, Shaping Southern Politics 39–44, 91–92, 120; Woodward, Origins 55–56.Google Scholar

91 Kousser, Shaping Southern Politics 78.Google Scholar

92 McGerr, Decline 186 (cited in note 79).Google Scholar

93 Id. at 207–8.Google Scholar

94 See V. O. Key, Jr., Southern Politics in State and Nation 507–8 (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1984) (originally published 1949); McCormick, Realignment 269 (cited in note 75).Google Scholar

95 , Burnham, Current Crisis 11, 29, 46 (cited in note 87).Google Scholar

96 McGerr, Decline 186.Google Scholar

97 Hays, Response to Industrialism 152–58 (cited in note 1); Link & McCormick, Progressivism 48–49 (cited in note 3); Martin J. Schiesl, The Politics of Efficiency: Municipal Administration and Reform in America 1880-1920 at 192 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977) (“Schiesl, Efficiency”); Robert H. Wiebe, The Search for Order 1877-1920 at 297–98 (New York: Hill & Wang, 1967).Google Scholar

98 For the distinction between European mass membership parties that have dues-paying members and a permanent bureaucracy and American “cadre” parties that have no “members” as such and lack a strong organization, see Frank J. Sorauf & Paul Allen Beck, Party Politics in America 69–71, 6th ed. (Glenview, III: Scott, Foresman, 1988) (“Sorauf & Beck, Party Politics”).Google Scholar

99 Id. at 24.Google Scholar

100 Goodwyn, Democratic Promise 299–300, 353 (cited in note 89).Google Scholar

101 The Rise and Decline of Nations 47–53 (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1982).Google Scholar

102 Id. at 51. For the same argument, see Robert A. Dahl, Dilemmas of Pluralist Democracy: Autonomy vs. Control 190–91 (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1982) (“Dahl, Dilemmas of Pluralist Democracy”); Fitts, Michael A., “The Vices of Virtue: A Political Party Perspective on Civic Virtue Reforms of the Legislative Process,” 136 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1567, 1603–7 (1988).Google Scholar

103 See, e.g., E. E. Schattschneider, The Semisovereign People 31–35 (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1960). Schattschneider argues: “The flaw in the pluralist heaven is that the heavenly chorus sings with a strong upper-class accent. Probably about 90 per cent of the people cannot get into the pressure system.” Id. at 35.Google Scholar

104 Martin J. Sklar, The Corporate Reconstruction of American Capitalism, 1890-1916 at 438 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

105 See, e.g., Thomas K. McGraw, Prophets of Regulation 18–19 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1984).Google Scholar

106 Skowronek, Building 149 (cited in note 11).Google Scholar

107 Id. at 41.Google Scholar

108 Hyman, A More Perfect Union 227–28 (cited in note 59).Google Scholar

109 Keller, Affairs of State 343 (cited in note 2).Google Scholar

110 Hurst, Growth 431–32 (cited in note 72).Google Scholar

111 See Lawrence Baum, The Supreme Court 180, 3d ed. (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1989). Baum records that 23 state laws and local ordinances were held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1860-69, 36 in 1870-79, 46 in 1880-89, 36 in 1890-99, 40 in 1900-1909, and 118 in 1910-19. Id. By contrast, during the same decades the number of federal laws held unconstitutional was 4, 8, 4, 5, 9, and 5, respectively. Id. at 177.Google Scholar

112 , Keller, Affairs of State 289, 312.Google Scholar

113 Loren P. Beth, The Development of the American Constitution 1877-1917 at 249 (New York: Harper &. Row, 1971).Google Scholar

114 , Keller, Affairs of State 318(emphasis in original).Google Scholar

115 Leonard D. White, The Republican Era: A Study in Administrative History 1869-1901 at 20–21, 48, 84–92 (New York: Macmillan, 1958) (“White, The Republican Era”)Google Scholar

116 Id. at 1, 19, 131.Google Scholar

117 Garraty, New Commonwealth 250–51 (cited in note 1); Kennedy, Rise and Fall 281–82 (cited in note 67).Google Scholar

118 , Painter, Armageddon 157(cited in note 53).Google Scholar

119 Skowronek, Building 45–46 (cited in note 11).Google Scholar

120 Id. at 167–75.Google Scholar

121 Id. at 284.Google Scholar

122 Id. at 172–76, 287.Google Scholar

123 Id. at 290.Google Scholar

124 Id. at 198–99. The displacement of authority was granted by the Overman Act, which gave President Wilson the power “to abolish, create, or combine agencies within the federal government without specific reference to Congress.” Id. at 199.Google Scholar

125 Id. at 200.Google Scholar

126 , Karl, Uneasy State 39(cited in note 11).Google Scholar

127 Ellis W. Hawley, The Great War and the Search for a Modern Order 20 (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1979).Google Scholar

128 Id. at 100–101.Google Scholar

129 Id. at 10–11.Google Scholar

130 Karl, Uneasy State 70.Google Scholar

131 Martin L. Fausold, The Presidency of Herbert C. Hoofer 113 (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1985).Google Scholar

132 Theodore J. Lowi, The End of Liberalism 77–78, 2d ed. (New York: W. W. Norton, 1979) (“Lowi, End of Liberalism”).Google Scholar

133 Id. at 68; Grant McConnell, Private Power and American Democracy 75–76 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966) (“McConnell, Private Power”).Google Scholar

134 Hurst, Growth 243–44 (cited in note 72); Keller, Affairs of State 111–13, 319–20 (cited in note 2).Google Scholar

135 Jon C. Teaford, The Unheralded Triumph: City Government in America, 1870-1900 at 103–4, 111–12, 113–14, 116, 118–20 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1984).Google Scholar

136 Hurst, Growth 31.Google Scholar

137 Schiesl, Politics of Efficiency 3–4, 9, 191, 195 (cited in note 97).Google Scholar

138 Jon C. Teaford, City and Suburb: The Political Fragmentation of Metropolitan America, 1850-1970 at 10, 76–77, 184 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979) (“Teaford, City and Suburb”).Google Scholar

139 Id. at 86.Google Scholar

140 Hurst, Growth 228–30 (cited in note 72).Google Scholar

141 , Foner, Reconstruction 598(cited in note 2); Goodwyn, Democratic Promise 299–300, 304–5, 535 (cited in note 89).Google Scholar

142 See Forbath, William E., “The Shaping of the American Labor Movement,” 102 Harv. L. Rev. 1109, 1151, 1160–61, 1185, 1190 (1989).Google Scholar

143 Id. at 1184.Google Scholar

144 Harold G. Vatter, The Drive to Industrial Maturity: The U.S. Economy, 1860-1914 at 280–81 (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1975).Google Scholar

145 Id. at 296.Google Scholar

146 , Burnham, Current Crisis 46(cited in note 87).Google Scholar

147 See generally Lustig, Corporate Liberalism (cited in note 82). See also James A. Morone, The Democratic Wish: Popular Participation and the Limits of American Government 112 (New York: Basic Books, 1990).Google Scholar

148 Griffin, 10 Oxford J. Leg. Stud, at 211–13 (cited in note 22).Google Scholar

149 Id. at 214–16.Google Scholar

150 Matthew A. Crenson & Francis E. Rourke, “By Way of Conclusion: American Bureaucracy since World War II,” in Galambos, ed., New American State 137, 139 (cited in note 11) (“Crenson & Rourke, ‘Conclusion’”).Google Scholar

151 William E. Leuchtenburg, Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal 1932-1940 at 27 (New York: Harper &. Row, 1963) (“Leuchtenburg, Roosevelt”).Google Scholar

152 Karl, Uneasy State 116–17, 119–21 (cited in note 11).Google Scholar

153 , Morone, The Democratic Wish 131,Google Scholar

154 Ikenberry, Reasons 41–42 (cited in note 12); Krasner, Defending National Interest 61–70 (cited in note 12).Google Scholar

155 Reorganization Act of 1939, ch. 36, 53 Stat. 561 (current version at 3 U.S.C. §§701, 1101 (1982)).Google Scholar

156 Barry Dean Karl, Executive Reorganization and Reform in the New Deal 257 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963).Google Scholar

157 An Act of Aug. 7, 1939, ch. 501, § 302, 53 Stat. 1223 (current version at 48 U.S.C. §§ 332 & 601–610 (1982)).Google Scholar

158 Peter Graham Fish, The Politics of Federal Judicial Administration 228 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1973).Google Scholar

159 Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, ch. 753, 60 Stat. 812 (current version in scattered sections of 2, 10, 31, 40 & 44 U.S.C. (1982 SL Supp. V 1987)).Google Scholar

160 Richard Franklin Bensel, Sectionalism and American Political Development 1880-1980 at 351–53 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1984) (“Bensel, Sectionalism”).Google Scholar

161 Anthony G. McGrew, “Foreign Policy and the Constitution: ‘Invitation to a Perpetual Institutional Struggle?’” (“McGrew, ‘Foreign Policy’“) in Richard Maidment & John Zvesper, eds., Reflections on the Constitution: The American Constitution after Two Hundred Years 172, 178–79 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1989) (“Maidment & Zvesper, Reflections”).Google Scholar

162 Id. at 181–82.Google Scholar

163 David R. Mayhew, Congress: The Electoral Connection 122–23 (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1974).Google Scholar

164 Max Hastings, The Korean War 59–62 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987); James L. Sundquist, The Decline and Resurgence of Congress 92–93, 118–19, 155 (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1981); Lobel, Jules, “Emergency Power and the Decline of Liberalism,” 98 Yale L.J. 1385, 1408 (1989).Google Scholar

165 Lobel, 98 Yale L.J. at 1406–7; Koh, 97 Yale L.J. at 1306–6 (cited in note 41).Google Scholar

166 Sundquist, Decline and Resurgence of Congress 457.Google Scholar

167 McGrew, “Foreign Policy” at 180–81.Google Scholar

168 Frank J. Donner, The Age of Surveillance 53–54, 77 (New York: Random House, 1980); Richard Gid Powers, Secrecy and Power: The Life of J. Edgar Hoover 228–34, 274 (New York: Free Press, 1987) (“Powers, Secrecy and Power”).Google Scholar

169 John Ranelagh, The Agency: The Rise and Decline of the CIA 115–17, 133–34 (New York: Simon &. Schuster, 1987) (“Ranelagh, The Agency”).Google Scholar

170 James Bamford, The Puzzle Palace 15 (New York: Penguin Books, 1983). The NSA is nominally a part of the Department of Defense, but in reality it is an independent intelligence agency. Id. at 105.Google Scholar

171 Id. at 16–17.Google Scholar

172 , Leuchtenberg, Roosevelt 327(cited in note 151).Google Scholar

173 Paul K. Conkin, FDR and the Origins of the Welfare State 84 (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1967); Robert J. McKeever, “Obituary for the ‘Living’ Constitution? Policy Making and the Constitutional Framework Two Hundred Years On,” in Maidment & Zvesper, Reflections 198, 208 (cited in note 161).Google Scholar

174 John A. Garraty, The Great Depression 203–4 (Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1987); Karl, Uneasy State 119–21 (cited in note 11).Google Scholar

175 William H. Chafe, The Unfinished Journey: America Since World War II 67 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986) (“Chafe, Unfinished Journey”).Google Scholar

176 , Lowi, End of Liberalism 144(cited in note 132). For commentary on the wars on poverty and the energy problem, including the use of military metaphors in the war on poverty, see David McKay, Domestic Policy and Ideology: Presidents and the American State 1964-1987 at 49, 110 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989) (“McKay, Domestic Policy”). For the war on drugs in the Bush Administration, see Philip Shenon, “‘War on Drugs Remains Top Priority,’ Bush Says,” N.Y. Times, 6 Sept. 1990, at A12.Google Scholar

177 See Karl, Uneasy State 119–21.Google Scholar

178 Conkin, FDR 101–2.Google Scholar

179 See , Karl, Uneasy State 154, 160.Google Scholar

180 “Textbooks tend to emphasize the legislative triumphs of Wilson, Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson. But a closer examination of these presidential efforts suggests that they occurred usually during very brief periods (1913-1915, 1933-1935, 1964-1965).” Thomas E. Cronin, The State of the Presidency 88 (Boston: Little, Brown, 1975).Google Scholar

181 Ikenberry, Reasons 75–76 (cited in note 12).Google Scholar

182 Alan Brinkley, “The New Deal and the Idea of the State,” in Steve Fraser & Gary Gerstle, eds., The Rise and Fall of the New Deal Order, 1930-1980 at 85, 86, 102 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1989) (“Fraser & Gerstle, New Deal Order”); Kenneth Finegold & Theda Skocpol, “State, Party, and Industry: From Business Recovery to the Wagner Act in America's New Deal,” in Bright & Harding, Statemaking 159, 172–73, 183 (cited in note 12).Google Scholar

183 Otis L. Graham, Jr., Toward a Planned Society: From Roosevelt to Nixon 67, 73–75 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976).Google Scholar

184 Kelly et al., American Constitution 677–78 (cited in note 38); Paul P. Van Riper, “The American Administrative State: Wilson and the Founders,” in Ralph Clark Chandler, ed., A Centennial History of the American Administrative State 3, 28 (New York: Free Press, 1987).Google Scholar

185 John E. Chubb & Paul E. Peterson, “American Political Institutions and the Problem of Governance,” in Chubb & Peterson, Can Government Govern? 1, 15–16 (cited in note 4).Google Scholar

186 William M. Lunch, The Nationalization of American Politics 166 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987) (“Lunch, Nationalization”).Google Scholar

187 , McGraw, Prophets of Regulation 210(cited in note 104).Google Scholar

188 Lunch, Nationalization 133.Google Scholar

189 Harold Seidman & Robert Gilmour, Politics, Position, and Power 120–22, 4th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986). Seidman and Gilmour note that the trend toward using nonfederal personnel to implement national programs “reflects political expediency because third-party arrangements permit the president and the Congress to take credit for acting without assuming responsibility for program design, administration, and results.” Id. at 121–22.Google Scholar

190 Crenson & Rourke, “Conclusion,” at 155 (cited in note 150).Google Scholar

191 , Dahl, Dilemmas of Pluralist Democracy 74(cited in note 102).Google Scholar

192 Sorauf, & Beck, , Party Politics 152 (cited in note 98).Google Scholar

193 , Dyson, State Tradition 273(cited in note 12); Lowi, End of Liberalism 40 (cited in note 132).Google Scholar

194 , Krasner, Defending National Interest 18(cited in note 12).Google Scholar

195 , McGraw, Prophets of Regulation 212(cited in note 104).Google Scholar

196 , Bensel, Sectionalism 149(cited in note 160).Google Scholar

197 See generally Nordlinger, , Autonomy of Democratic State 12 (cited in note 12).Google Scholar

198 , Ikenberry, Reasons 189(cited in note 12) (example of decision by President Carter to decontrol price of oil).Google Scholar

199 Id. at 41–42, 105–6, 200–207 (study of U.S. energy policy); Krasner, Defending National Interest 11, 20, 70, 247, 267, 330–33 (study of U.S. foreign policy with respect to raw materials).Google Scholar

200 Morris P. Fiorina, Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment 7, 2d ed. (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1989) (“Fiorina, Congress”); Polsby, Nelson W., “The Institutionalization of the U.S. House of Representatives,” 62 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 144, 146, 164 (1968).Google Scholar

201 Fiorina, Congress 44.Google Scholar

202 See Bruce Cain, John Ferejohn, & Morris Fiorina, The Personal Vote 14, 99, 187 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1987) (“Cain et al., Personal Vote”).Google Scholar

203 Fiorina, Congress 112–13.Google Scholar

204 See , White, Republican Era 1, 20–21, 48 (cited in note 115). See also Thomas McGraw's comments on congressional support for the ICC in Prophets of Regulation 63 (cited in note 104).Google Scholar

205 Bensel, Sectionalism 351–53.Google Scholar

206 Seidman, & Gilmour, , Politics 39 (cited in note 189).Google Scholar

207 See John A. Ferejohn, Pork Barrel Politics: Rivers and Harbors Legislation, 1947-1968 at 251–52 (Stanford, Cal.: Stanford University Press, 1974); Fiorina, Congress 108.Google Scholar

208 , McConnell, Private Power 200(cited in note 133); Marc Reisner, Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water 120–23, 173–74, 209, 498 (New York: Penguin Books, 1986) (referring to Washington Public Power Supply System bond disaster and exhaustion of Ogallala aquifer in Plains states).Google Scholar

209 March & Olsen, Rediscovering Institutions 79–82 (cited in note 13).Google Scholar

210 Peri E. Arnold, Making the Managerial Presidency: Comprehensive Reorganization Planning 1905-1980 at 359 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1986).Google Scholar

211 Karl, Barry D., “Constitution and Central Planning: The Third New Deal Revisited,” 1988 Sup. Ct. Rev. 163, 191.Google Scholar

212 Richard Polenberg, Reorganising Roosevelt's Government: The Controversy over Executive Reorganization 1936-1939 at 44–45 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

213 Graham, Toward a Planned Society 211–19 (cited in note 183).Google Scholar

214 Cain et al., Personal Vote 57–76, 99–100 (cited in note 202).Google Scholar

215 Id. at 104.Google Scholar

216 Id. at 189–94.Google Scholar

217 Fiorina, Congress 93–94 (cited in note 200).Google Scholar

218 Karl, Uneasy State 226–27 (cited in note 11); Leuchtenberg, Roosevelt 331 (cited in note 151).Google Scholar

219 See David M. Abshire, Preventing World War III: A Realistic Grand Strategy 4–5 (New York: Harper & Row, 1988).Google Scholar

220 , Chafe, Unfinished Journey 185(cited in note 175); Barbara Sinclair, The Transformation of the U.S. Senate 52–53 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989) (“Sinclair, Senate”).Google Scholar

221 It should be noted that the “consensus” in politics referred to here is not the consensus on fundamental values among Americans that is suggested by survey research. For a review of this research, see Griffin, 62 S. Cal. L. Rev. at 523–27 (cited in note 9). Here consensus refers to a situation where agreement exists over the scope of the policy agenda and extends to a wide variety of specific issues on that agenda.Google Scholar

222 Chafe, Unfinished Journey 79; Nelson Lichtenstein, “From Corporatism to Collective Bargaining: Organized Labor and the Eclipse of Social Democracy in the Postwar Era,” in Fraser & Gerstle, New Deal Order 122, 137–39 (cited in note 182).Google Scholar

223 “In 1960 an estimated 29 percent of the South's eligible blacks were registered, still leaving the vast majority of black southerners politically immobilized.” Earl Black & Merle Black, Politics and Society in the South 112 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1987).Google Scholar

224 Arend Lijphart, Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-one Countries 39 (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1984) (U.S. did not qualify as a full-fledged democracy until the restrictions on the voting rights of black citizens were removed).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

225 Allen J. Matusow, The Unraveling of America: A History of Liberalism in the 1960s 376–77 (New York: Harper & Row, 1984).Google Scholar

226 Eddie N. Williams & Milton D. Morris, “Is the Electoral Process Stacked against Minorities?” in Reichley, Elections 134, 137 (cited in note 70) (success of Voting Rights Act of 1965 in registering more black citizens); Sinclair, Senate 59.Google Scholar

227 Kay Lehman Schlozman & John T. Tierney, Organized Interests and American Democracy 387 (New York: Harper & Row, 1986).Google Scholar

228 Kelly et al., American Constitution 602–34 (cited in note 38).Google Scholar

229 Id. at 534–49, 643–57.Google Scholar

230 Schlozman & Tierney, Organized Interests 374–76.Google Scholar

231 Sinclair, Senate 54–57 (cited in note 220); Sorauf & Beck, Party Politics 468–69 (cited in note 98).Google Scholar

232 Domestic Policy 1 (cited in note 176).Google Scholar

233 End of Liberalism 271 (cited in note 132).Google Scholar

234 G. Bingham Powell, Jr., Contemporary Democracies: Participation, Stability, and Violence 22 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1982) (table showing rates of political violence and number of riots in U.S. in 1958-67 and 1967-76 to be relatively high and comparable to the rates in such countries as the Philippines, Ceylon, Turkey, France, India, and Italy). Powell, id. at 130–31, states: It is hard to resist the inference that protest activity is very frequently an organized mass alternative to the electoral system, when the latter seems unresponsive or inaccessible… In countries where the party systems do not effectively organize the various social groups, yet which are modernized and possess large numbers of citizens with the personal skills and organizational connections to make protest organization feasible, protest activities are highly likely. The United States is the prototype of such a country.Google Scholar

235 End of Liberalism 114 (cited in note 132).Google Scholar

236 William W. Keller, The Liberals and J. Edgar Hoover 5 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

237 Powers, Secrecy and Power 373–74 (cited in note 168).Google Scholar

238 Keller, , The Liberals and J. Edgar Hoover 115.Google Scholar

239 , Ranelagh, The Agency 534(cited in note 169).Google Scholar

240 Stanley I. Kutler, The Wars of Watergate 121 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1990).Google Scholar

241 Bamford, The Puzzle Palace 317–18 (cited in note 170).Google Scholar

242 Kutler The Wars of Watergate 126-27.Google Scholar

243 Martin P. Wattenberg, The Decline of American Political Parties 1952-1988 at 18–23, 155–57, 163, 167 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1990).Google Scholar

244 Kutler, The Wars of Watergate 133–54.Google Scholar

245 Id. at 79, 101, 218.Google Scholar

246 Id. at 227–35 (detailing White House efforts to frustrate investigation by Representative Wright Patman).Google Scholar

247 Id. at 260–62, 307–11, 335–38, 380.Google Scholar

248 Id. at 601–2.Google Scholar

249 Id. at 585–88.Google Scholar

250 See generally Alan I. Abramovitz, “The United States: Political Culture under Stress,” in Gabriel Almond & Sidney Verba, eds., The Civic Culture Revisited 177 (Boston: Little, Brown, 1980); Sundquist, James L., “The Crisis of Competence in Our National Government,” 95 Pol. Sci. Q. 183 (1980).Google Scholar

251 James D. Wright, The Dissent of the Governed 168, 188–89 (New York: Academic Press, 1976).Google Scholar

252 These are the two dimensions of political alienation measured by political scientists: political efficacy, or the belief that you have the power to influence government and political trust. Id. at 4.Google Scholar

253 Seymour Martin Lipset & William Schneider, The Confidence Gap 3, 18, 419, 425 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987) (“Lipset & Schneider, Confidence Gap”).Google Scholar

254 Id. at 368.Google Scholar

255 Id. at 404–5.Google Scholar

256 Paul R. Abramson, Political Attitudes in America 14 (San Francisco: Freeman, 1983).Google Scholar

257 , Lipset & Schneider, Confidence Gap 27, 309, 378, 384.Google Scholar

258 See Michael Oreskes, “As Problems Fester, Voters Send Pink Slips,” N.Y. Times, 23 Sept. 1990, sec. 4, at 5 (self-perpetuating cycle develops as Americans distrust politicians and politicians are afraid of voters who elected them).Google Scholar

259 , Burnham, Current Crisis 51(cited in note 87).Google Scholar

260 Ruy A. Teixeira, Why Americans Don't Vote: Turnout Decline in the United States 1960-1984 at 85, 103–4 (New York: Greenwood Press, 1987).Google Scholar

261 Id. at 61, 88–89, 103–4, 112–13.Google Scholar

262 Lipset, & Schneider, , Confidence Gap 342, 349–50.Google Scholar

263 John J. Kirlin, The Political Economy of Fiscal Limits 30–33 (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1982) (“Kirlin, Fiscal Limits”).Google Scholar

264 Rudolph G. Penner & Alan J. Abramson, Broken Purse Strings: Congressional Budgeting 1974 to 1988 at 64 (Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press, 1988) (“Penner & Abramson, Broken Purse Strings”). See also R. W. Apple, Jr., “Taxes and Political Peril,” N.Y. Times, 8 May 1990, at A1.Google Scholar

265 Teaford, City and Suburb 173–74 (cited in note 138).Google Scholar

266 Jon C. Teaford, The Twentieth-Century American City 128, 137 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986).Google Scholar

267 Id. at 140–42.Google Scholar

268 Kirlin, Fiscal Limits 16.Google Scholar

269 Thomas E. Cronin, Direct Democracy: The Politics of Initiative, Referendum, and Recall 3 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989) (noting dramatic increase in use of initiatives and referenda in 1980s); Robert Pear, “Number of Ballot Initiatives Is the Greatest Since 1932,” N.Y. Times, 5 Nov. 1990, at A11.Google Scholar

270 A Machine That Would Go of Itself: The Constitution in American Culture 18 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1986) (quoting James Russell Lowell).Google Scholar

271 Walter Dean Burnham, “Elections as Democratic Institutions,” in Kay Lehman Schlozman, ed., Elections in America 27, 30 (Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1987).Google Scholar

272 William J. Keefe, Parties, Politics, and Public Policy in America 73, 5th ed. (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1988).Google Scholar

273 Sorauf, & Beck, , Party Politics 144 (cited in note 98).Google Scholar

274 Lunch, Nationalization 225–27 (cited in note 186).Google Scholar

275 Gary Jacobson, The Politics of Congressional Elections 217 (Boston: Little, Brown, 1987).Google Scholar

276 Cain, et al, Personal Vote 199 (cited in note 202).Google Scholar

277 Congress 132 (cited in note 200).Google Scholar

278 Politics by Other Means: The Declining Importance of Elections in America 1 (New York: Basic Books, 1990).Google Scholar

279 Id. at 4.Google Scholar

280 Id. at x.Google Scholar

281 Id. at 30.Google Scholar

282 Id. at 32–33.Google Scholar

283 Id. at 143.Google Scholar

284 Cain et al., Personal Vote 228.Google Scholar

285 See Louis Galambos & Joseph Pratt, The Rise of the Corporate Commonwealth 222 (New York: Basic Books, 1988).Google Scholar

286 , Ikenberry, Reasons 135, 138 (cited in note 12) (citing examples of Synfuels Corporation and energy research and development).Google Scholar

287 John E. Chubb, “U.S. Energy Policy: A Problem of Delegation,” in Chubb & Peterson, Can Government Govern?, 47, 49 (cited in note 4).Google Scholar

288 See Matthew L. Wald, “Why America Still Hates the Words ‘Energy Policy,’” N.Y. Times, 17 Feb. 1991, sec. 4, at 4.Google Scholar

289 , Penner & Abramson, Broken Purse Strings 75(cited in note 264).Google Scholar

290 Id. at 69–70. This provision of the law was held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Bowsher v. Synar, 106 S. Ct. 3181 (1986).Google Scholar

291 David P. Calleo, Beyond American Hegemony 219 (New York: Basic Books, 1987).Google Scholar

292 See Michael deCourcy Hinds & Erik Eckholm, “80's Leave States and Cities in Need,” N.Y. Times, 30 Dec. 1990, at 1; Kirk Johnson, “Take Our Poor, Angry Hartford Tells Suburbs,” N.Y. Times, 12 Feb. 1991, at A1.; Dick Kirschten, “Philadelphia Squeeze,” Nat'l J., 22 Dec. 1990, at 3080.Google Scholar

293 “California Survey,” Economist, 13 Oct. 1990, at 1, 4–5, 18–21; Robert Reinhold, “California Tried Democracy, and Look What's Happened Now,” N.Y. Times, 18 Nov. 1990, sec. 4, at 1.Google Scholar

294 James K. Glassman, “The Great Banks Robbery,” New Republic, 8 Oct. 1990, at 16, 17.Google Scholar

295 Martin Mayer, The Greatest-Ever Bank Robbery 1 (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1990).Google Scholar

296 Brooks Jackson, Honest Graft: Big Money and the American Political Process 262–86 (Washington, D.C.: Farragut Publishing Co., 1990); Michael M. Thomas, “The Greatest American Shambles,” N.Y. Rev. Books, 31 Jan. 1991, at 30; Lawrence J. Haas, “Full Disclosure,” Nat'l J., 22 Sept. 1990, at 2252, 2253–54.Google Scholar

297 Kennedy, Rise and Fall 524–25 (cited in note 67); Lawrence J. Haas, “Behind the Times,” Nat'l J., 30 March 1991, at 722. Even those who question the case for America's “decline” concede that the political system constitutes one of the most serious obstacles in adapting to changing conditions in the world economy. See Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power 219–30 (New York: Basic Books, 1990).Google Scholar

298 Michael J. Glennon, Constitutional Diplomacy 285 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1990); Ely, John Hart, “Suppose Congress Wanted a War Powers Act That Worked,” 88 Colum. L. Rev. 1379, 1384–85 (1988).Google Scholar