2‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‍‍‌‍‍ PARTS- PART 1- Original discussion post answering the following with works cited link (see part 2 at bottom) Congress, a national institution, seems increasingly incapable of presenting constructive responses to national problems such as health care, drug policy, revision of social services, changing orientation of the military, and other issues. Can this be overcome within the existing institutional structure of Congress? Please explain why or why not with citations from your textbook? Think of an event that Congress was not able to address, what trend did this even reveal, what was the underlying structure for this trend, and what analogy or other mental model can you give to summarize. PART 2 Respond to other student post below using the A,B,C format to answer other student’s responses. ABC stands for: -Acknowledge what the other students has contributed -Build on the ideas of the original poster by adding your own thoughts or analysis -Contribute to the discussion by asking a probing question to conclude your post The following is other students discussion post to reply to: Congress must operate in a spirit of compromise to be effective and to achieve anything. The intention of the framers was for the constitution to encourage negotiating so that the legislation was reflective of many, not just the powerhouse (Patterson 338). Congressional reform has probably never been more needed, as the publics image of Congress decreases the more partisan Congress becomes. As can be seen in a Pew Research survey showing only two in ten people approve of how congress does their job, compared to the late 1980�‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‍‍‌‍‍�s before they were crippled by partisanship and had a six in ten approval rating (Patterson 335). Congress has three main functions of their policymaking role. Lawmaking, representation, and oversight are their main objectives. Each one requiring the necessity of working together, some more than others, but none of the functions can be timely, or effective if there isn’t some agreement between the two chambers. More often than not, we are facing delay or potential deadlock and threatened government shutdowns. The intent of the framers was for Congress to be more deliberate than the President, believing Congress would pass better legislation, more refined and precise laws as a result of taking their time (Carrington). The design of Congress is to operate by working together, taking a healthy amount of time to make decisions, and gaining different perspectives from the varying number of members each chamber has. The design was intentional and would work apart from the influx of partisanship and the ongoing internal competition. Overcoming the brokenness of the branch seems as overwhelming as reforming health care. Changing the structure of Congress doesn’t seem to feel right, perhaps moving forward with certain reform actions and correcting one area at a time would be a more realistic approach. Carrington, Adam. “3 Reforms For Repairing Congress, The ‘Broken Branch'”. Thehill, 2022, to an external site.. Patterson , Thomas E. We the People: An Introduction to American Government. McGraw-Hill Education‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‌‌‍‍‍‌‍‍‍‍‌‍‍, 2022.