A walk through the whole topic. The two chambers and how they differ, the powers Congress holds and increasingly fails to use, the running fight with the executive, fifty years of polarisation, and the question at the heart of every 30-mark essay: is Congress now a broken branch, or doing exactly what the framers designed?
Congress was designed to be the first branch. Article I of the Constitution comes before Article II for a reason: legislative power was where the framers expected the action. Today, students and journalists alike call Congress "the broken branch", citing record-low approval ratings, repeated government shutdowns, and the steady drift of power to the presidency. The honest answer to whether Congress is broken depends on which test you apply: counting bills, observing oversight, or asking whether the institution still does the structural job the Constitution gives it. This walk-through takes the topic in order, with comparative comparison as the spine: House against Senate, Congress against the President, and the institution today against the framers' design.
The terms the examiner expects, before any vote count is given.
Congress is the legislative branch of the US federal government, created by Article I of the Constitution. It is bicameral - two chambers with different rules, terms and powers, designed to slow legislation and to balance the interests of large and small states. The House of Representatives has 435 voting members, apportioned to states by population, elected for two-year terms in single-member districts. The Senate has 100 members, two from each state regardless of size, elected for staggered six-year terms; the Vice President is its ex officio President.
Congress has both enumerated powers (those listed in Article I, Section 8) and implied powers (those reasonable to fulfil enumerated ones, under the Necessary and Proper Clause). The enumerated list includes taxing and spending, regulating commerce, declaring war, raising armies and navies, and "making all Laws which shall be necessary and proper". Each chamber also has exclusive functions: the Senate confirms presidential appointments and ratifies treaties (two-thirds); the House initiates revenue bills and articles of impeachment. Both must pass identical text for a bill to reach the President.
Same Congress, two very different chambers. Scroll - each light up in turn.
Bicameralism is the structural feature most worth understanding first. The two chambers were designed to do different things, and they still do. Comparative essays on the chambers turn on five dimensions: size and term, constituency, procedure, exclusive powers, and contemporary partisanship. The diagram beside you holds all five.
Bicameralism is not just two doors into the same room. The House and Senate have different sizes, terms, constituencies, procedures and exclusive powers - all by design. Scroll, and the comparison builds dimension by dimension.
The House: 435 voting members, two-year terms, all up for election every cycle. The Senate: 100 members, six-year terms, one-third up for election every two years. The House was designed to be the popular chamber, close to voters and responsive to public opinion; the Senate was designed as the cooler, more deliberative chamber, insulated from the immediate passions of the electorate. Both designs are visible in contemporary behaviour - the House moves on legislation faster and more partisan; the Senate moves slower and (in theory) more bipartisan.
The House is apportioned by population, with seats reallocated after each decennial census. California has 52 seats; Wyoming has one. The Senate gives every state two seats regardless of population - the foundational Connecticut Compromise of 1787. The result is a chamber where Wyoming voters have roughly 70 times the per-capita Senate representation that California voters have. The malapportionment is constitutional and entrenched (Article V says no state can be deprived of equal Senate representation without consent), and it shapes every contemporary Senate fight.
The House operates by majority rule; the Speaker and Rules Committee control the floor; debate is limited and bills move on simple majorities. The Senate operates with unlimited debate in theory, ended only by a cloture vote requiring 60 senators. The filibuster means almost all legislation needs 60 votes, not 51 - a supermajority requirement nowhere in the Constitution. Budget reconciliation is the workaround Congress uses for tax and spending bills, requiring only a simple majority. The procedural asymmetry shapes every contemporary policy fight.
The Senate alone confirms federal judges (including the Supreme Court), Cabinet and ambassadorial nominees, and ratifies treaties (two-thirds majority). The House alone originates revenue bills (the "power of the purse") and brings articles of impeachment. Both chambers participate in the Senate trial that follows an impeachment. The Senate's confirmation role explains why Senate majorities matter beyond legislation - the Garland blockade of 2016 and the Barrett confirmation of 2020 turned on which party controlled the Senate, not who held the presidency.
Both chambers have polarised since the 1980s, but in different ways. The House has become more rigidly partisan in voting: party-line voting now exceeds 90% in most years. The Senate has retained more of its individualist tradition - moderates like Susan Collins (R-Maine), Joe Manchin (D-WV, retired 2025) and a handful of others can swing 50-50 outcomes - but those moderates are vanishing. The 2024 election produced a 53-47 Republican Senate; the House was narrowly Republican by mid-2025. Both chambers under unified Republican control after January 2025 have struggled to legislate cohesively even so.
The House is the mass body, partisan, responsive, fast. The Senate is the deliberative body, malapportioned, slowed by the filibuster, decisive on appointments. A strong 12-mark comparative essay names the dimension first (representation? procedure? exclusive powers?) and runs the comparison on that line, with at least one named example per chamber.
Legislation, oversight, representation, confirmation. Scroll through each.
Congress does four constitutional jobs. The strongest essays name them and ask, for each, whether Congress today is succeeding or failing. The diagram beside you holds the four.
Legislation, oversight, representation and confirmation. Each is in the Constitution; each runs differently in 2026 than it did in 1989. Scroll through them.
Congress passes far fewer significant laws than it once did. The 116th Congress (2019-21) enacted around 344 public laws, the lowest figure in modern history; recent congresses have hovered around the same level. Government shutdowns are now a recurring feature - 1995-96, 2013, 2018-19 (the 35-day shutdown, the longest in US history), continuing-resolution brinkmanship through 2024-25. The filibuster in the Senate explains much of this: ambitious legislation needs 60 votes, and 60 votes are rarely available. On legislation, the "broken branch" critique is at its strongest.
Congress oversees the executive through committee hearings, investigations and the power to subpoena. Recent examples: the January 6 Select Committee (2021-23) investigated the Capitol attack with extensive bipartisan staff and public hearings; the Senate Judiciary Committee scrutinises judicial nominations. But oversight has also become more partisan - both parties have used investigations as political weapons, and witnesses regularly refuse to appear, defying subpoenas with limited consequences. Verdict: oversight still happens; its credibility is contested.
Members of Congress are caught between two models. The delegate model holds that they should vote the way their constituents would; the trustee model holds that they should exercise their own judgement. In practice, the dominant force is now party: members vote with the leadership 90%+ of the time, regardless of district preferences. Gerrymandering at the state level (after the 2020 redistricting, the post-Allen v Milligan litigation, and the 2026 Louisiana v Callais ruling) shapes who can win in the first place. Representation in the modern sense is mediated by primary electorates, not general electorates.
The Senate confirms judges, Cabinet, ambassadors and senior agency officials. Judicial confirmations have become its most politically charged work. The 2016 refusal to hold hearings for Merrick Garland and the 2020 confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett eight days before an election together produced the 6-3 conservative Supreme Court majority that delivered Dobbs (2022) and Callais (2026). Cabinet confirmations under unified government move quickly; under divided government they can take months. Where legislation has slowed, confirmation has become the durable expression of Senate power.
On legislation, Congress is performing well below historical norms. On oversight, it is still functioning but contested. On representation, the institution has been captured by primary politics and gerrymandering. On confirmation, it is still decisive. A strong essay distinguishes the roles - "Congress is broken" is true on one dimension and false on others.
The central comparative axis behind every 30-mark essay on either institution.
The framers designed Congress to be first among equals; the modern reality is that the presidency has grown into the dominant branch. The diagram beside you sets the running fight on five dimensions.
Congress and the President are tied together by checks and balances, but the balance has shifted decisively. Five dimensions: lawmaking, war powers, executive action, appointments, and removal. Scroll, and each lights in turn.
Congress passes bills; the President can veto; Congress can override with two-thirds of each chamber. The override threshold is high. Trump issued 10 vetoes in his first term and was overridden once (NDAA 2020); Biden issued 14 vetoes in his term and was overridden zero times. Vetoes are rarely defeated, which means a determined President can block almost any legislation that lacks supermajority support. Congress as the original lawmaker is now structurally constrained by the executive's negative power.
Article I gives Congress the power to declare war. The last formal declaration of war was June 1942, against Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania. Every major conflict since (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Libya intervention) has been waged under presidential authority alone, or under broad Authorisations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs) that successive Presidents have stretched far beyond their original scope. The War Powers Resolution 1973 tried to claw back congressional control; every President since has rejected its constitutionality. War-making is now a presidential power in practice.
Where Congress will not legislate, modern Presidents act unilaterally. Obama on DACA (2012), the Iran deal (2015), and emissions standards. Trump on the travel ban (2017, upheld in Trump v Hawaii 2018) and the southern border wall (2019 emergency declaration). Biden on student loan forgiveness (struck down 2023). Trump from January 2025 on tariffs, immigration, federal hiring and the Department of Government Efficiency. Executive orders are not legislation - the next President can reverse them - but they show the route around a deadlocked Congress that every recent President has used. Congress has yielded the policy initiative not by formal change but by inaction.
The Senate's confirmation power is the one congressional function the President cannot route around. Senate majorities decide who sits on the Supreme Court, the courts of appeals, the Cabinet and the senior executive branch. Garland 2016 and Barrett 2020 are the two most consequential moments of contemporary American politics, and both were Senate actions. The same Senate that struggles to legislate confirms judges quickly when one party holds 51 seats. Verdict: on appointments, Congress is not broken; it is decisive.
The House impeaches; the Senate tries; conviction needs two-thirds of senators present. Andrew Johnson 1868, Clinton 1998, Trump 2019 and 2021, Mayorkas 2024 are the modern impeachments. No president or senior official has ever been convicted: the supermajority threshold is too high to clear in a polarised Senate. Impeachment now functions as a political signal rather than a removal tool. After Trump v United States (2024), which held former presidents have broad immunity for "official acts", the criminal route to accountability has also narrowed. Verdict: removal exists in theory; in practice, Congress cannot reliably remove a president.
Congress is structurally constrained by the presidential veto; it has ceded war-making in fact; it watches executive action route around its inaction; it remains decisive on appointments; it cannot reliably remove a president. The framers' first branch is now the second. But Congress retains the power to act decisively when it chooses to - and the Senate confirmation power means presidential ambition still runs through it.
Is Congress dysfunctional, or doing exactly what the framers designed?
The phrase "the broken branch" comes from Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann's 2006 book of that name. Twenty years on, the diagnosis has only sharpened. But the strongest essays test the verdict against the alternative reading: that Congress is doing exactly what the framers designed it to do - protect a constitutional system through deliberation, slow lawmaking and check executive ambition. The diagram beside you holds the five strands of evidence and the corresponding counters.
The "broken branch" critique and the "designed for friction" defence look at the same five facts and reach opposite verdicts. Scroll through the contrast.
Broken: party-line voting now exceeds 90% in both chambers; ideological overlap between the parties has collapsed since the 1980s. Cross-party deals (Reagan-O'Neill, Clinton-Gingrich) are now historical. Designed: the framers expected factions; what is dysfunctional from one angle is responsive party government from another. Verdict: polarisation is real and consequential, but it is not what the framers protected against - they protected against tyranny, not against partisan voting.
Broken: 35-day shutdown 2018-19; debt-ceiling crises in 2011, 2023; continuing resolutions instead of regular appropriations. The federal government is funded by emergency measure year after year. Designed: the appropriations power IS the legislature's leverage over the executive - shutdowns prove the power still exists. Verdict: the leverage is real, but the cost (federal workers unpaid, agency function impaired) is large; this is dysfunction even on a charitable reading.
Broken: Kevin McCarthy was ousted by his own party in October 2023 - the first time in US history a sitting Speaker was removed by motion to vacate. Three weeks of paralysis followed before Mike Johnson was elected. The 2025 Speaker fight under unified Republican control still ran multiple ballots. Designed: speakers being accountable to their conferences is healthy. Verdict: the McCarthy ouster was unprecedented and the symptom of conference indiscipline, not institutional health.
Broken: Congressional approval has hovered around 20% for two decades, and the institution itself rates last among federal branches in trust. Designed: Americans have always disliked Congress while liking their own member. Verdict: the public disdain is genuine and durable, and shapes the electoral incentives in a way the framers did not anticipate - members run against Congress itself.
On legislation and the appropriations function, Congress is genuinely broken. On confirmation, oversight and the formal check on executive ambition, it still functions. The institution is broken AT some things and working AT others - the strongest essays specify which test they are applying. The "broken branch" claim is partly true; it is not the whole truth.
The questions this topic produces and the three-theme comparative structure that answers them.
Paper 3 USA examines this topic in Section A (12-mark comparative) and as a 30-mark essay.
Trap: "broken" against which test? Three comparative themes: legislation against confirmation (broken on one, decisive on the other); House dysfunction against Senate dysfunction (different kinds, different causes); the contemporary Congress against the framers' design (designed for friction, not for the modern executive ambition that has filled the gap).
Trap: "more powerful" on which axis? Three themes: lawmaking against war powers (Congress retains formal control of lawmaking; has ceded war-making); executive action against appointments (President acts unilaterally; Senate alone confirms); the modern presidency against the framers' first branch (the running shift since 1942).
Trap: "more powerful" comparative within Congress. Three themes: confirmation and ratification (Senate exclusive) against revenue (House exclusive); filibuster as power against filibuster as obstruction; long terms and statewide constituencies against short terms and population-based ones. The Senate wins on profile and durability; the House wins on the power of the purse.
Approach: three named dimensions, one example per chamber. Size and term; constituency basis; procedure (Speaker control against the filibuster). Avoid the trap of listing facts without comparison; explicitly state which chamber is stronger on each dimension.
Approach: a synoptic 12-mark across the Paper 3 comparative axis. Both bicameral; both with lower house populated by district; both with constitutional supremacy in lawmaking (in formal terms). Differences (separation of powers, Senate confirmation, parliamentary sovereignty) are where the marks live, but lead with what the question asks - similarities.
Three directly comparative themes - each pits the affirmative against the counter on a single dimension.
Other comparative themes you could substitute: divided against unified government (whether dysfunction is institutional or partisan); the role of leadership (Speaker McCarthy / Johnson against Majority Leaders); the appropriations process against the authorisations process (regular order against continuing resolutions); Congress now against Congress in the 1980s (Reagan-era cross-party deals as the comparator).
You have walked the topic. Now check your recall and structure your answers.
The vocabulary the examiner expects you to define and use.
Congress - the legislative branch of the US federal government, established by Article I of the Constitution.
Bicameralism - the two-chamber structure of Congress, with different rules, terms and powers in each house.
House of Representatives - 435 voting members, apportioned to states by population, elected for two-year terms in single-member districts.
Senate - 100 members, two per state, six-year staggered terms; the Vice President is President of the Senate.
Enumerated powers - powers explicitly granted to Congress by Article I, Section 8 (taxing, regulating commerce, declaring war).
Implied powers - powers reasonably necessary to carry out enumerated powers; grounded in the Necessary and Proper Clause.
Filibuster - the Senate procedure allowing unlimited debate; ended only by a cloture vote requiring 60 senators. Effectively makes most Senate legislation require a supermajority.
Cloture - the procedure to end a Senate filibuster; needs 60 votes.
Budget reconciliation - a Senate procedure allowing certain budget legislation to pass on a simple majority, bypassing the filibuster.
Speaker of the House - the presiding officer; elected by the House majority. Controls floor scheduling and committee assignments.
Power of the purse - Congress's control over federal spending, exercised through the appropriations process. The House originates revenue bills.
Advice and consent - the Senate's exclusive role in confirming presidential appointments and ratifying treaties (two-thirds).
Impeachment - the constitutional process by which the House charges (impeaches) federal officials, and the Senate tries them. Conviction requires two-thirds of senators present.
Oversight - Congress's function of scrutinising executive action through committees, hearings and subpoenas.
Delegate model - the theory that a member of Congress should vote the way their constituents would.
Trustee model - the theory that a member of Congress should exercise their own judgement on behalf of constituents.
Gerrymandering - the drawing of legislative district boundaries to favour one party. Shaped by post-2013 Shelby County, 2023 Allen v Milligan and 2026 Louisiana v Callais.
Pork barrel politics - the practice of inserting district-specific spending into broader legislation to win votes; restricted but not eliminated since the 2010 earmark moratorium.
The "broken branch" - the diagnosis by Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann (2006) that Congress no longer performs its constitutional functions effectively, especially on legislation.