Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: In 1993 the House of Representatives adopted rules permitting Delegates to vote in Committee of the Whole. As a result of suit brought against those rules in Michel v. Anderson, Federal Courts in 1993 and 1994 permitted them to stand, but in a form that left Delegates' votes with little real effect in the legislative process. This paper examines implications of these rulings both for the representation of non-State areas in Congress and for the constitutional status of the Committee of the Whole. We first sketch the history of representation of non-State areas, noting the limitations of the role of Delegates for this purpose. We then turn to the operation of the Committee of the Whole, focusing on ways in which its procedural actions and capacities may be viewed as identifying it with or distinguishing it from the House proper. We compare this analysis with ones adopted in opinions and supporting briefs in Michel v. Anderson, especially the opinion of the District Court.
The opinions of both the District Court and Circuit Court of Appeals in effect "pierce the veil" of the Committee of the Whole, concluding that actions it takes must be considered those of the House proper, because they constitute an exercise of "legislative power" constitutionally reserved to the House and its Members. We argue, however, that the Courts' analyses overlook key elements of the procedures relating the House and the Committee of the Whole, especially the operation of (1) the separate vote on amendments in the House and (2) the motion for the previous question. Our analysis supports distinguishing, rather than identifying, the Committee of the Whole and the House. While the Courts' rationale may cast broad doubt on the constitutional propriety of the manner in which the Committee of the Whole functions, our alternative analysis avoids this consequence. Although our account is also broadly favorable to Delegate voting, reconciling it with accepted readings of the Constitution severely constrains the capacity of the office of Delegate to afford full representation for the District of Columbia.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Benedict Anderson, in a seminal work on nationalism, argued that nations should be seen as imagined communities. Unfortunately, while many of his observations remain the touchstone for researchers who wish to understand the nature of national identities across time and space, the community aspect of his concept is severely underdeveloped. More substantively, by leaving the process of community-building underspecified, his model is not useful for those who wish to study nationalism as a contemporary political force (rather than a finished historical certainty, as Anderson tends to do). In this project, I argue that the notion of an imagined community can (and must) be transformed from a heuristic into an active research tool for those who wish to investigate how national identities are formed and maintained. I demonstrate the utility of this model by demonstrating its use in a wide array of contemporary contexts. For example, a precise delineation of the community aspects of an imagined community allows us to understand why Wales, despite a separate language (spoken by nearly one-fifth of the population) and a strong sense of pride, is unable to forge a strong nationalist movement, whereas an overwhelming majority of Scottish people believe that Scotland will become an independent nation-state within two decades. Similarly, it can illuminate many of the critical challenges that the European Union faces as it attempts to forge a meaningful supra-national identity among its citizens. Furthermore, this approach yields important insights into the political contestation that multinational nation-states, such as the former Yugoslavia, Nigeria, and Iraq, face as they attempt to deal with various forms of ethnic strife.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Benedict Anderson, in a seminal work on nationalism, argued that nations should be seen as imagined communities. Unfortunately, while many of his observations remain the touchstone for researchers who wish to understand the nature of national identities across time and space, the community aspect of his concept is severely underdeveloped. More substantively, by leaving the process of community-building underspecified, his model is not useful for those who wish to study nationalism as a contemporary political force (rather than a finished historical certainty, as Anderson tends to do). In this project, I argue that the notion of an imagined community can (and must) be transformed from a heuristic into an active research tool for those who wish to investigate how national identities are formed and maintained. I demonstrate the utility of this model by demonstrating its use in a wide array of contemporary contexts. For example, a precise delineation of the community aspects of an imagined community allows us to understand why Wales, despite a separate language (spoken by nearly one-fifth of the population) and a strong sense of pride, is unable to forge a strong nationalist movement, whereas an overwhelming majority of Scottish people believe that Scotland will become an independent nation-state within two decades. Similarly, it can illuminate many of the critical challenges that the European Union faces as it attempts to forge a meaningful supra-national identity among its citizens. Furthermore, this approach yields important insights into the political contestation that multinational nation-states, such as the former Yugoslavia, Nigeria, and Iraq, face as they attempt to deal with various forms of ethnic strife.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: I will be evaluating the Public Heath Care Systems in the United States, Canada and Great Britain from the perspective of Esping-Anderson’s model of Capitalist Welfare States. In his research, Esping-Anderson groups countries under three models of the capitalist state: The Liberal Regime Model, the Social Democratic Regime Model and the Corporatist Regime Model. Although the United States, Britain and Canada are all ‘anglo-saxon’ or, ‘Liberal’ regimes, I found that their public health systems do not correlate with this. When is comes to health care, Britain and Canada maintain universal systems, which associate better with the Social Democrat Model of Capitalist Regime while the US in fact, identifies with Esping-Andersons’ description of a ‘liberal’ means-tested program. I have selected these three nations because I wanted to understand if Esping-Anderson was correct when he clustered these three nations together although they have distinctive differences in social policy. I will begin by defining the concepts of the ‘welfare state’ and the ‘liberal regime’ capitalist welfare model. I will then discuss Health Care in the United States, Canada and Britain which, will illustrate why I have concluded that the ‘liberal regime’ cluster is inaccurate when applied to the delivery and coverage of health care.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Tracing two broad assumptions within Anderson’s Imagined Communities, the essay argues that the form of the nation is inadequate to contemporary politics, and the transference of this form across societies rests on an erasure of cultural difference.