User:Francetic1/sandbox

WIKI FINAL CONTRIBUTION: Federal Independent Agencies Independent agencies of the United States federal government are those agencies that exist outside the federal executive departments (those headed by a Cabinet secretary) and the Executive Office of the President.[1] In a more narrow sense, the term may also be used to describe agencies that, while constitutionally part of the executive branch, are independent of presidential control, usually because the president's power to dismiss the agency head or a member is limited. Established through separate statutes passed by the Congress, each respective statutory grant of authority defines the goals the agency must work towards, as well as what substantive areas, if any, over which it may have the power of rulemaking. These agency rules (or regulations), when in force, have the power of federal law. This is a president appointed position, so the assumption is that The addition of independent agencies was intended on creating law for specific areas dictated by the executive branch. These agencies better benefit and represent the peoples wants and needs, because their sole purpose is to hear the needs of the people they manage and to come up with a solution to any issue [Fed-Age.26]. The agency consists of masters in the area in which they are working, which leads to better results when it comes to policy making, because they fully understand and are dedicated to their area of interest. For example, the Education Department works specifically to improve every aspect of the education system. This department works with the executive branch to improve the education system and make sure that our students are receiving the proper education. They dictate what it is important for children to receive in the system [U.S. Dept. Ed]. Though overseen by congress they have more freedom within their decision makings because they fall under the executive branch [loc-fedgov]. Though these agencies are under the executive branch, and subject to congressional oversite, they are very much self-governed [Investopedia]. There are agencies for every important policy that needs attention. Some have more focus then others, such as the United States Department of Defense, Department of education, Department of Agriculture, Department of Health and Human Services, and many more. They all work within their specialized units to ensure the best policies for the section they represent [Investopedia]. A full list of federal agencies can be found Here.

Independent agencies can be distinguished from the federal executive departments and other executive agencies by their structural and functional characteristics.[2] Congress can also designate certain agencies explicitly as "independent" in the governing statute, but the functional differences have more legal significance.[3] Francetic1 (talk)Francetic 1Francetic1 (talk) While most executive agencies have a single director, administrator, or secretary appointed by the President of the United States, independent agencies (in the narrower sense of being outside presidential control) almost always have a commission, board, or similar collegial body consisting of five to seven members who share power over the agency.[2] (This is why many independent agencies include the word "Commission" or "Board" in their name.) The president appoints the commissioners or board members, subject to Senate confirmation, but they often serve terms that are staggered and longer than a four-year presidential term,[4] meaning that most presidents will not have the opportunity to appoint all the commissioners of a given independent agency. The president can normally designate which commissioner will serve as the chairperson.[4] Normally there are statutory provisions limiting the president's authority to remove commissioners, typically for incapacity, neglect of duty, malfeasance, or other good cause.[5] In addition, most independent agencies have a statutory requirement of bipartisan membership on the commission, so the president cannot simply fill vacancies with members of his own political party.[4] In reality, the high turnover rate among these commissioners or board members means that most presidents have the opportunity to fill enough vacancies to constitute a voting majority on each independent agency commission within the first two years of the first term as president.[6] In some famous instances, presidents have found the independent agencies more loyal and in lockstep with the president's wishes and policy objectives than some dissenters among the executive agency political appointments.[7] Presidential attempts to remove independent agency officials have generated most of the important Supreme Court legal opinions in this area.[4] Presidents normally do have the authority to remove heads of independent agencies, but they must meet the statutory requirements for removal, such as demonstrating that the individual has committed malfeasance. In contrast, the president can remove regular executive agency heads at will.

Francetic1 (talk)Francetic1Francetic1 (talk) EDIT Stewarts. “Independent Agnecies .” Hg.org, www.hg.org/independent.html. https://www.usa.gov/federal-agencies/a https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/federal-agencies.asp https://www.loc.gov/rr/news/fedgov.html https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/federal-agencies-commissions/

Wiki Draft: The executive is the organ exercising authority in and holding responsibility for the governance of a state. The executive executes and enforces law.This branch also has the power to make decisions on the laws that are being enforced.

In political systems based on the principle of separation of powers, authority is distributed among several branches (executive, legislative, judicial)—an attempt to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of a small group of people. In such a system, the executive does not pass laws (the role of the legislature) or interpret them (the role of the judiciary). Instead, the executive enforces the law as written by the legislature and interpreted by the judiciary. The executive can be the source of certain types of law, such as a decree or executive order. Executive bureaucracies are commonly the source of regulations.

The president is the head of the executive branch. There are specific executive powers that no other branch of government have, such as to sign or veto legislation, adjourn congress, allow cabinet opinion,grant pardons, and receive ambassadors (Cornell Law). These are powers specific to the president that need no permission from the other branches.

In the Westminster political system, the principle of separation of powers is not as entrenched. Members of the executive, called ministers, are also members of the legislature, and hence play an important part in both the writing and enforcing of law.

In this context, the executive consists of a leader(s) of an office or multiple offices. Specifically, the top leadership roles of the executive branch may include:

head of state – often the supreme leader, the president or monarch, the chief public representative and living symbol of national unity. head of government – often the de facto leader, prime minister, overseeing the administration of all affairs of state. defence minister – overseeing the armed forces, determining military policy and managing external safety. interior minister – overseeing the police forces, enforcing the law and managing internal safety. foreign minister – overseeing the diplomatic service, determining foreign policy and managing foreign relations. finance minister – overseeing the treasury, determining fiscal policy and managing national budget. justice minister – overseeing criminal prosecutions, corrections, enforcement of court orders.

In a presidential system, the leader of the executive is both the head of state and head of government.[1] In a parliamentary system, a cabinet minister responsible to the legislature is the head of government, while the head of state is usually a largely ceremonial monarch or president.[2]

Article Evaluation This article was fairly solid for the majority of it. The section on her early life is a bit irrelevant. The information does not help establish much about her. I would guess some of the information was included to show her interest in politics began at an early age, however that information could be integrated in a different, less distracting way. The early life and early career section very much clash, and could be organized in a way that makes the information flow nicer. I felt as if I back tracked after reading about her early life. There is a point in the article where the author states "Pelosi represents one of the safest Democratic districts in the country," which may be true, but could also be considered a bias. This statement feels as if it is really catering to Pelosi's success.The paragraph continues to discuss how she did nothing but sweep all of the elections, and there never appears to be a counter argument. Her success appears to never be challenged, despite all of the recent doubts against Pelosi late 2016. I checked a large portion of the sources, only finding one that seemed questionable, however it was just a source regarding her early life, so nothing too crucial to her relevancy. The sources did however have a heavy democratic pull. There did not appear to be much diversity, again creating a bias in support of Pelosi. This discredits the article a bit because of how one sided it is. The bias is not directly noted, however it can be assumed that when researching Nancy Pelosi, the Minority Leader of the United States, you will more then likely be reading some democratic material. That is defiantly some obvious information, however this makes for a weaker article.

After looking at the talk page, I have found that other readers feel similarly that this article is not necessarily a good article. The lack of counter argument for Pelosi's greatness raises red flags for a lot of readers. The article was nominated for good article award, but just did not meet the criteria. There have been many comments suggesting some serious edits to be made, which is surprising for such a vastly viewed page. The article is considered valuable and important, which is valid. It offers a lot of information, in just a wildly bias way. Francetic1 (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)Francetic1

Article Selection: 1. Minority Leader --This article is neutral in tone, not appearing to have partisanship bias. It is a small article. There is accurate information with what appear to be reliable sources, it could just use some expansion. The article does not link any information to the current minority leader, which could be a useful source of reference. There is a good platform of information, however an entire chunk of information is missing i.e. how one becomes the minority leader, why we have one, what their specific jobs are, etc. This is a good candidate for improving because it is an important topic with little information. This article has also not been updated since 2008.

2. Historical congress --The historical congress page is very vague in information. It discusses the formation of congress, but has no information about the progression of congress or what establishing rules have stuck around. The page has not been edited since 2005, and the sources are now irrelevant. The page could defiantly use some updating to make the information more relevant and easy to understand. The source right now is not reliable, but with the addition of some legitimate sources and an expansion of information more relevant to today. The page talks more about the large strides of congress rather then the establishment.

3. Floor Leaders The article on floor leaders has no citations or sources at all. a vague definition is used just comparing the position to a caucus leader, but no definition of a caucus leader is given. It is just circled information. The article is written neutrally, however there is just not a lot of writing. It could definitely be expanded on to describe the exact role of a floor leader. Francetic1 (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)FRancetic1