本課程乃是通識社會科學的選修課程。其內容主要在探討民主憲政體制下（不論是總統制，議會制抑或是半總統制），國會（立法機關）必然是政府權力中心的事實。在民主憲政體制下，法律必須由民選的國會所制定，國會藉由法律的制定，為整個社會做權威性的價值分配，因此民主政治的統治必須以贏得國會的多數支持為前提。不過，國會雖然具有立法的權力，而其如何立法則需視國會內部的結構(structure)，以及國會與其他政治機構(political institutions)之間的互動關係而定。基本上，國會的立法過程(legislative process)乃是政治過程(political process)的一環。本課程旨在介紹國會內部的結構，並說明影響國會立法的政治因素，以期學生具備相關的政治知識，決策分析，協商與領導的能力。This course is an elective course for general social sciences. Its content mainly discusses the fact that under a democratic constitutional system (whether it is a presidential system, a parliamentary system or a semi-presidential system), the Congress (legislature) must be the center of government power. Under a democratic constitutional system, laws must be enacted by the democratically elected Congress, which makes authoritative value distribution for the entire society through the enactment of laws. Therefore, democratic political rule must be predicated on winning the majority support of Congress. However, although Congress has the power to legislate, how it legislates depends on the internal structure of Congress and the interaction between Congress and other political institutions. Basically, the legislative process of Congress is part of the political process. This course aims to introduce the internal structure of Congress and explain the political factors that affect Congressional legislation, so that students can acquire relevant political knowledge, decision-making analysis, negotiation and leadership abilities.
通識課程不同於專業課程，實乃著重引導學生主動關懷、探索與實踐人類的終極價值與智慧；同時通識課程所提供的知識，不是專業課程的淺薄化，而是具有厚實感的基礎知識。本校根據創校傳統、校訓與辦學理念訂定通識教育定四大基本素養：求真素養、篤信素養、力行素養與宏通素養，以具體落實本校通識教育之理想。希望本校學生能發揮自主學習精神，在通識課程老師的引導下，逐漸培養其通識教育基本素養，並期待能終身學習。各種基本素養並訂有具體的學習成效指標，以做教學與學習成效之自我檢證的具體指標，分述如下：求真素養（自然領域）：1.學習自然科學的方法或哲學以探索物理與生命世界的微妙，2.發揮就事論事的精神，3.能參與科學議題相關的公共事務。篤信素養（人文領域）：1.學習人文精神以探索內在自我與領會人類文明的深層價值，2.發展自律精神，3.能運用理性進行道德推理。力行素養（社會領域）：1.運用社會科學的方法或哲學以激發學生的傾聽與溝通能力，2.承認與尊重多元差，3.實踐民主審議的精神。宏通素養（跨領域）：1.追求人類的整體價值，2.融通求真、篤信、力行等素養於個人生命之中。各領域的課程對於學習成效指標可以跨選，不必拘泥。
General courses are different from professional courses. They actually focus on guiding students to actively care for, explore and practice the ultimate value and wisdom of mankind. At the same time, the knowledge provided by general courses is not the superficiality of professional courses, but basic knowledge with a solid sense. . Based on the school’s founding tradition, school motto and school philosophy, the school has formulated four basic qualities for general education: truth-seeking quality, belief quality, practical quality and general quality, in order to concretely implement the school’s ideals of general education. We hope that our students can develop their independent learning spirit and gradually develop their basic literacy in general education under the guidance of general education teachers, and look forward to lifelong learning. Each basic literacy has specific learning effectiveness indicators for self-examination of teaching and learning effectiveness, which are described below: Truth-seeking literacy (natural field): 1. Learn the methods or philosophy of natural science to explore physics and the subtleties of the living world, 2. Use the spirit of discussing matters as they are, 3. Be able to participate in public affairs related to scientific issues. Belief literacy (humanities field): 1. Learn the humanistic spirit to explore the inner self and understand the deep value of human civilization, 2. Develop a spirit of self-discipline, 3. Be able to use reason for moral reasoning. Practical literacy (social field): 1. Use social science methods or philosophy to stimulate students' listening and communication skills, 2. Recognize and respect diversity, 3. Practice the spirit of democratic deliberation. Hongtong literacy (cross-field): 1. Pursue the overall value of human beings, 2. Integrate qualities such as truth-seeking, faith, and practice into personal life. Courses in various fields can choose from different learning outcome indicators, so there is no need to be rigid.
(1) Dalton, Russell J. and Martin P. Wattenberg. 2000. Parties without Partisans Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. New York: Oxford University Press.
(2) Dodd, Lawrence C. 2012. Thinking about Congress: Essays on Congressional Change. New York: Routledge.
(3) Dodd, Lawrence C. and Bruce I. Oppenheimer. ed. 2013. Congress: Reconsidered. London: Sage.
(4) Hazan, Reuven Y. ed. 2011. Cohesion and Discipline in Legislatures. New York: Routledge.
(5) Jenkins, Jeffery A., Eric M. Patashnik. 2012. Living Legislation: Durability, Change, and the Politics of American Law Making. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
(6) Keefe, William, and Morris S. Ogul. 2001. The American Legislative Process: Congress and the States. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
(7) McKay, William, and Charles W. Johnson. 2012. Parliament and Congress: Representation and Scrutiny in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Oxford University Press.
(8) Oleszek, Walter J. 2014. Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process. London: Sage.
(9) Schickler, Eric and Frances E. Lee. 2013. The Oxford Handbook of The American Congress. New York: Oxford University Press.
(10) Smith, Steven S., Jason M. Roberts, and Ryan Vander Wielen. 2011. The American Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.
(11) Stewart III, Charles. 2012. Analyzing Congress. New York: W.W. Norton.
(12) Stratus, Jacob R. 2012. Party and Procedure in the United States Congress. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
(13) Thurber, James A. ed., 2009. Rivals for Power: Presidential-Congressional Relations. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
(14) 王中天（2010），＜當社會信任遇見政治信任—對政治文化觀點的整合與檢驗＞，（台灣民主季刊）第7卷第4期，頁47~83。
(15) 任冀平（2014），＜司法審查存立的制度性基礎＞，（全球政治評論）第48期，頁27~62。
(16) 任冀平（2011），＜法院與政治：美國司法政治初探＞，（全球政治評論）第33期，頁73~95。
(17) 廖達琪、陳月卿、李承訓（2013），＜半總統制下的國會監督－從法制面比較台灣與法國國會的監督能量＞，（問題與研究）第52卷第2期，頁51~97。
(18) 彭錦鵬（2001），＜從歐美經驗論國會議員人數及「立委席次減半」＞，（政治科學論叢）第15期，頁171~190。
(19) 黃秀端、何嵩婷（2007），＜黨團協商與國會立法：第五屆立法院的分析＞
(1) Dalton, Russell J. and Martin P. Wattenberg. 2000. Parties without Partisans Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. New York: Oxford University Press.
(2) Dodd, Lawrence C. 2012. Thinking about Congress: Essays on Congressional Change. New York: Routledge.
(3) Dodd, Lawrence C. and Bruce I. Oppenheimer. ed. 2013. Congress: Reconsidered. London: Sage.
(4) Hazan, Reuven Y. ed. 2011. Cohesion and Discipline in Legislatures. New York: Routledge.
(5) Jenkins, Jeffery A., Eric M. Patashnik. 2012. Living Legislation: Durability, Change, and the Politics of American Law Making. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
(6) Keefe, William, and Morris S. Ogul. 2001. The American Legislative Process: Congress and the States. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
(7) McKay, William, and Charles W. Johnson. 2012. Parliament and Congress: Representation and Scrutiny in the Twenty-First Century. New York: Oxford University Press.
(8) Oleszek, Walter J. 2014. Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process. London: Sage.
(9) Schickler, Eric and Frances E. Lee. 2013. The Oxford Handbook of The American Congress. New York: Oxford University Press.
(10) Smith, Steven S., Jason M. Roberts, and Ryan Vander Wielen. 2011. The American Congress. New York: Cambridge University Press.
(11) Stewart III, Charles. 2012. Analyzing Congress. New York: W.W. Norton.
(12) Stratus, Jacob R. 2012. Party and Procedure in the United States Congress. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
(13) Thurber, James A. ed., 2009. Rivals for Power: Presidential-Congressional Relations. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
(14) Wang Zhongtian (2010), "When Social Trust Meets Political Trust—Integration and Testing of Political and Cultural Perspectives", (Taiwan Democracy Quarterly), Volume 7, Issue 4, pp. 47~83.
(15) Ren Jiping (2014), "The Institutional Basis for the Existence of Judicial Review", (Global Politics Review) No. 48, pp. 27~62.
(16) Ren Jiping (2011), "Courts and Politics: A Preliminary Study of American Judicial Politics", (Global Politics Review) No. 33, pp. 73~95.
(17) Liao Daqi, Chen Yueqing, and Li Chengxun (2013), "Congress Supervision under Semi-Presidential System - Comparing the Supervision Energy of Taiwan and France Congresses from the Legal Aspects", (Issue and Research), Volume 52, Issue 2, pp. 51~97 .
(18) Peng Jinpeng (2001), "On the number of members of Congress and the "halving of legislative seats" from European and American experience", (Political Science Series), Issue 15, pp. 171~190.
(19) Huang Xiuduan and He Songting (2007),
| 評分項目 Grading Method | 配分比例 Grading percentage | 說明 Description |
|---|---|---|
| 出席上課出席上課 attend class |
5 | |
| 報告報告 report |
33 | |
| 期中考期中考 midterm exam |
33 | |
| 期末考期末考 final exam |
33 |
