component 3

Question 1

is the amendment process effective today?

Answer 1

the ammendment process allows the constitution to remain updated with the modern world. can be done through passing a proposed ammendment in both houses with a supermajority or by a national constitutional convention calling an amendment by two thirds support of state legislatures and then the ammendment is ratified by a simple majority in three quarters of state legislatures. THERE HAVE BEEN MISTAKES IN THE PROCESS SUCH AS 1902 THE INTRODUCTION OF PROHIBITION WHICH WAS REPEALED 13 YEARS LATER

+ broad support is gained for amendments: for example, the suggestion of repealing the 2nd amendment doesn’t have much support: in a 2018 YouGov poll only 1/5 Americans wanted it.
encouraged by the need for supermajorities: amendments need to reflect the political and cultural beliefs of as many Americans as possible. because America is so diverse, not everyone will be happy but broad support ensures that the constitution remains as relevant as possible
- no: necessary ammendments have been prevented for example on campgain finance reform WE THE PEOPLE MOVEMENT. is necessary because 2020 election cost an estimated $14 billion versus in 2008 election cost 2008. shows that the supreme court ruling of citizens united vs. federal election commission is out of date with todays times and needs to be changed.

• no: a difficult amendment process allows for a powerful supreme court to seemingly create new laws. for example supreme court ruled to uphold free speech Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.
  + protects the principles of the constitution. 2022 joe biden signed a moratorium on evictions. his actions declared unconstitutional. shows that the complexity of the amendment process means that it cannot be manipulated for political gains

+ prevents tyranny of large states or single parties by recognising eachh stat eindicidually rather than just through its population. and by requiring a supermajoirty at proposal level, a single party is prevented form dominating the ammendment process and therefore ensuring bipartisanship.
- tyranny of the minority. requirement of a supermajority, it is possible for a minority of state to block n ammendment. the equal rifhts ammenmdnet passed the hor and senate only 35 states ratified the ammendment within the time limit and the 15 states that didnt accounted for 28% of the population

Question 2

is campgain finance good for american democracy?

Answer 2

NO whilst the system does allow for freedom of speech it is an elitist system because ultimately those who fund campaigns can influence laws.

• money raised is a measure of candidates’s capability. candidates can only raise money if they are good options
• donations through superpacs do not have to be disclosed and are therefore free from scrutiny
• being the highest spender doesn’t guarantee winning. in 2020 Bloomberg spent over $1 billion and dropped out after super tuesday
• can use money for wrong reasons, even hush money as long as it is declared it is okay. donald trump gave money to an adult movie star in the 2016 election
• campaigns can be fully funded by corporations, therefore promoting an elitist democracy
  + citizens v mccutheon: money is free speech. corporations and people should have their voices heard. the US system recognises corporations as stakeholders in a democracy and therefore they should have a say in the democratic system

Question 3

is the electoral college good for american democracy?

Answer 3

• weaker argumement: disagreement: smaller states are overrepresented, for example, Wyomingite’s vote is worth 3.74x more than cali’s
• stronger argument: agreement prevents against the tyranny of the big states to prevent them from taking over the election because small states matter too
  the argument that smaller states are overrepresented is weaker to a greater extent as the founding fathers intended it to be this way and didn’t want popular democracy

advanatges: - encourages a two party system and preventing extreme candidates
- winner takes all, also ensures widespread support from majority of states
- encourages wide geographical support for all candidates

disadvantages:

• winner takes all: 48/50 states use FPTP: the republican vote in California is wasted and there is no representation in the electoral college vote
• no diversity in ideology
• can win without winning the popular vote. dems have won the popular vote all but once since 1992 but have not had the presidency every single time
• electors could go against who they are meant to vote for: but this would rarely happen and would not have made too much of a difference

Question 4

are primary and caucuses good for democracy?

Answer 4

YES
weaker argument: well scrutinised
stronger argument: - not formally representative 90% of Iowa was white. frontrunners will often win because of name recognition
argument that it is well scrutinised is limited to a greater extent. the media can sensationalise things and candidates may use the media to get free publciity by saying outlandish things, such as Trump and his wall

weaker argument is that they are bad: - only those who are politically motivated- not ideologically representative of all of America - for example Iowa is called the guns and bibles caucus
stronger argument is that it is effectove in ensuring accountability, for example, in michigan 12% of democracts didnt vote for biden over palestine
the argument that only the politically motivated will turn out is weak to a limited extent. Whilst they may not encourage turnout from everyone, it is a system that is working. the argument that primaries and caucuses are good for democracy is stronger to a greater extent because they encourage accountability and makes candidates listen to votes: for example biden promised to appoint the first black female scj to win over voters in south carolina

• the weaker argument is that caucuses are complicated and required commitment: therefore elderly, parents and the disabled wont turn out
  the stronger argument is that the structure is good, smaller states are first and then there is super tuesday. therefore this gives unknown candidates a chance and reduces the incumbency effect

Question 5

to what extent do checks and balances work?

Answer 5

• congress has the weakest check
• SC is the most significant check

weaker argument: congress’ check of veto override. FOR EXMAPLE, IN 2020 TRUMPS VETO ON THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT WAS OVERRIDEN shows that congress can hold the executive to account.prevents tyranny of the minority
power of the president to veto is stronger as it shows the tyranny of the majority. for example turmp used his veto power 10 times, 75% of veto threast by obama led to the threatened legislation not passing

weaker argument: the check of congress on the executive of declaring war, for example, congress officially declared war in 1945
the stronger argument is that the president has the power of commander in chief and can therefore move troops anywhere he likes in case Congress doesn’t fund the troops, for example trump ordered an attack on an Iranian general

the weaker argument president can check the supreme court through his appointments process. for example, trump appointed amy coney barret for her pro-life stance
the stronger argument is that the SC’s check on

Question 6

to what exent are checks and balances dysfunctional

Answer 6

• inability of P to suggest legislation. for example obama crying over sandy hook and advocated for gun control. shows that the power of the president to suggest legislation is limited in its function due to the entrenched nature of the constitution
  the stronger argument is that c+b are working as congress funds important bills.
  the argument that the P can’t suggest legislation is weaker to a greater extent because he soley shouldnt have the power to reverse the constitution, the founding fathers made it entrenched for this reason
• the weaker argument is that the constitution isnt dysfunctional as the P as CinC is moving troops and congress is funding troops. for example, the war in afghanistan was donw by the P moving troops and congress funding this instead of congress declaring war. this shows that the process is effective as there is no gridlock between the two branches - arguably it is more efficient this way.
• the stronger argument is that congress is dysfunctional because congress should be the one declaring war - but hasn’t. for example congress has only declared war 21 times and the last time was in 1945 but america has engaged in lots of conflict since. this shows that the constitution is dysfunctional since the founding fathers intended the legislature - who are representatives of the country- to declare war unanimously. the reason they may not be gridlock is because it may be seen as unpatriotic for congress not to agree to fund the troops
  the argument that congress isn’t dysfunctional is limited to a greater extent- whilst this process may be more efficient , there is a threat that the president may have too much power - this may have been true in trump’s case which lead to political instability and fears that he would cause a war with north korea or iran. the stronger argument is correct to a greater extent as the check on the president exists to make sure that the country isnt being pulled into unnecessary conflicts and it has failed at doing so: iraq

the weaker argument is that congress checks supreme court justices by ratifying them and therefore the check of impeachment of justices is unnecessary. for example, the last time a scj was impeached was in 1805, samuel chase was found not guilty of arbitary and oppressive conduct of trials. this may be because of the rigourous process of ratifying scj.
the stronger argument is that scj have not been impeached and should be scrutinised more. for example, clarence thomas’ children tuition fees were paid by harlan crow

Question 7

is federalism working today?

Answer 7

NO

yes: states have the power to determine how elections are run including: setting their own boundaries for districts within states or using any method (electronic voting, paper ballot, etc.) for example, colorado wanted to remove trump from the ballot. this shows that states are being given their article 1 right to run their own elections
no: states have to abide by landmark legislation that is upheld for example the affordable care act.
the argument that states can run their own elections is weaker because the supreme court ruled that colarado does not have the power to remove trump from their ballot, thus showing the freedom of states is being infringed upon.

the weaker argument is that a majority of citizens’ rights are decided at a federal level, for example obergefell v hodges in 2015 legalised gay marriage in every state. this shows that ultimately the federal government’s legislation and supreme court decisions can be used to enforce decisions on states. since the supreme court is the arbiter of the constitution, the federal government needs to enforce this because the constitution has the final say on how the country should be run
the stronger argument is that the conservative supreme court is more willing to give power to the states, for example overturning roe v wade meant that states ultimately have the right to decide abortion laws. this shows that the supreme court is helping to increase federalism in america today by limiting the power of the government and increasing the size of the power of states. the argument that citizens’ rights are decided
the stronger argument is correct to a greater extent, since the ideological stance of the sc majorly influences whether sc protects states rights - in obergefell v hodges the court was more liberal and wasnt that concerned with protecting states rights.

no: national issues demand a national response for example covid pandemic
federal law ultimately supersedes state law
yes: states have their own autonomy in holding national crisises. for example 32 state governors issued their own state of emergency before trump. in addition sanctuary citi
no: national issues demand a national response for example covid pandemic
federal law ultimately supersedes state law

Question 8

to what extent does the constitution uphold liberal democracy?

Answer 8

liberal democracy refers to the protection of rights constitutionally and separation of powers. the founding father created a reactionary constitution from the British and intended it to be more liberal

YES

yes weaker argument: BILL OF RIGHTS ENTRENCHES RIGHTS AND THE SUPREME COURT PROTECTS THEM, for example synder v Phelps uphelf the right to free speech and burwell v hobby lobby upheld corporations’ right to religious freedom. this shows that the constitution effectively upholds liberal democracy by ensuring individual rights and freedoms are protected

no stronger argument: NOT ALL RIGTHS ARE EFFECTIVELY PROTECTED BY THE SC . for example, boumediene v bush guaranteed the guantanemo bay detainees the right to habeaus corpus, but guantanemo bay is still open. this shows that the supreme court is ineffective at upholding liberal democracy in other cases
argument that sc upholds rights is weaker to a lesser extent, the constitution also implements a process of checks and balances and therefore ensures that the supreme court is effective in its job and can uphold rights without fear for their jobs. however, the supreme court can choose which cases to hear, repeatedly hear cases concerning free speech which shows this is something they are willing to protect.

no weaker argument :
CHECKS AND BALANCES ARE OVERPOWERING AND THEY CEASE TO MAKE GOVERNMENT EFFECTIVE for example there have been 21 government shutdowns since 1974. democracy should grant people a working government and shutdowns show that the government is ineffective at upholding democracy.

yes: CHECKS AND BALANCES ENSURE A LIMITED GOEVRNMENT- A PRINCIPLE OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY , for example obama wanted increased gun legislation after crying about sandy hook but he achieved nothing. this shows that president’s inability to achieve everything they want show that checks and balances are effective and necessary because the 2nd amendment is a right entrenched by the constitution, checks and balances are preventing the tyranny of the minority
argument that checks and balances makes government ineffective is weaker to a significant extent, whilst it does take into account that shutdowns hinder effectiveness, if shutdowns occur and no bills are being passed, this is arguably a good thing because it shows that bipartisanship is being taken into account which was the founding fathers intention

no: ELECTORAL COLLEGE UNDERMINES THE IDEA OF FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS. for example, since 1990, the democrats have won the popular for every single election except one, yet have not been in power for that same amount of time. this shows that the electoral system and by extension the constitution, does not effectively uphold democracy as leaders are being elected with a democratic deficit and are ignoring the popular vote.
yes stronger argument: THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS EFFECTIVE AT UPHOLDING LIBERAL DEMOCRACY AND PREVENTING TRYANNY OF THE MAJORITY . for example, a wyomingite’s vote is worth 3.74x more than cali’s. this shows that the constitution is preventing tyranny of the majority and smaller states are not ignored and thus enhances democracy
the argument that the electoral college undermines democracy is limited to a greater extent, as the founding fathers did not intend for there to be popular democracy and wanted to make the system more equal.
the argument that the electoral college protects the voice of smaller states is limited to an extent, whilst it does effectively protect their rights, there is a threat that larger states are too unrepresentated and voters may feel their vote is wasted

Question 9

to what extent does the constitution effectively uphold liberal democracy?

Answer 9

yes: the senate is now elected, thus ensuring a greater degree of popular soverignty
no: the senates represents the USA by state rather than population means states with smaller populations are overrepresented

no: the requirement of the supermajority at numerous points means that there is tyranny of the majority
yes: amendments cannot be made without the approval of states and each of their votes is valued equally

SUPREME COURT FINAL ARBITER OF CONSTITUTION BUT IS UNELECTED. for example, Donald trump appointed amy coney barret to the sc a few days before the election because of her pro-life stance and so many argue he stole a seat. the supreme court is arguably politically influenced due to its appointments process.

Question 10

to what extent is congress fulfilling its representative function?

Question 11

what is the interest group American Israel Political Action committee?

Answer 11

• bipartisan, advocates for positive relations between Israel and the US
• donate to congress: 17.3 million to support candidates, start very early on in their career for long term relations. they can do this by sending candidates to Israel in 2005 more than 100 went
• spent 3.5m in 2018 on lobbying congress members. they claimed to provide the government with credible and reliable research
• accused of Islamophobia in 2021 due to attacks on ilhan omar and that omar doesn’t know the difference between America and the taliban and received hate speech
• 98% of candidates that they supported won in 2022
• threatened 13 pro Palestine candidates
• lobby for financial aid for Israel and have been very successful, Israel has been the largest recipient of foreign aid since ww2 and have received 2 billion. trump set up the embassy in jursulem which formally recognises
• unrepresentative of the Jewish population only 38% of American Jews believe that Israel is trying to achieve peace. Accused of being a hate group and have neem called antisemitic

Question 12

how are immigration rights/ latino rights protected?

Answer 12

+ sc extended rights in texas vs biden. niden trying to remove trump policies, biden can do this

• garland vs gonzales 2022. each asyum seeker must petition individually to stay in the us whilst waiting for asylum outcome they cannot be given the right together. this shows that the sc doesn’t protect the rights of immigrants

Question 13

What is the heritage foundation’s influence?

Answer 13

• formulate and [remote [public policy on new right principles, strong national defense. leading role in con movement in 1980s
• support 10 amendment. small govt. all other powers should be reserved for the states, for example healthcare I
• tactics: [policy research and proposals. propose lower tax, lower regulation
• Clinton: inc in personal responsibility and work opportunity act. SHOWS THE INFLUENCE OF A NEW RIGHT THINK TANK INFLUENCING A DEMOCRATIC P
• trump: 66 heritage employees in trump administration. hired formal officials SHOWS THE REVOLVING DOOR IN POLITICS AND ACCESS POINTS OF THE THINK TANK
• tactic: file amicus curae briefs gonzales vs gooles: paris isis attack 2015
• policy: research ad influence influenced development of tax reform proposals: tax cuts and jobs act 2017
• healthcare: free market healthcare options, influenced conservative healthcare proposals
• many judges appointed y trump have been supported by the heritage foundation
• recommendations in foreign policy have influenced
• 100% elitist: primarily funded by wealthy corporate donors can in fluence conservative poic and academia
• bad for de,ovracy? advocates for policies that a;lign w interests of donors rather than representing a diverse range of viewpoints. policies reflect that wishes of conservative elies rather than the population. mccutcheon v citizens

Question 14

What is the rational theory?

Answer 14

Focuses on a individuals within a political system, the rational approach suggests that individuals will act rationally and choose to act in a particular way as it will give them a beneficial outcome

Question 15

What is the cultural theory?

Answer 15

Focuses on groups within a political system: voters, pressure groups, parties. Suggests that the shared ideas, beliefs and values of these groups often determines the actions of the individuals around them.

Question 16

What is the structural theory?

Answer 16

Focuses on the institutions within a political system and the processes within them.
A structural approach suggests that political outcomes are largely laid out within a political system

Question 17

Are interest groups good for a representative democracy?

Answer 17

+ interest groups van represent minority groups and their interests which might have been overlooked in a winner takes all system. For example, AIPAC represents American Jews who are a minority in American society
+ interest groups can encourage election turnout because they will pressurise their supporters to vote
- interest groups can undermine the power of legitimately elected local representatives
- the power of interest groups over the legislature can lead to over representation of the minority. For example, only 38% of American Jews actually believe that Israel is trying to achieve peace

Question 18

Are interest groups good for liberal democracy?

Answer 18

+ can raise issues about rights and and work to protect them, such as by bringing cases to the Supreme Court. ACLU represented the NRA in NRA v Vullo because the govenrment tried to blacklist the NRA
+ can raise issues that hold the government to account thereby limiting its power
+ and wide range of interest groups on directly competing issues is tolerated
- free and fair elections undermined by the money that interest groups pump into elections for example, AIPAC donated 17.3 million for supporting candidates
- tolerance of more extremist groups undermines the rights of other groups
- interest groups that use illegal methods undermine the rule of law

Question 19

Are interest groups good for a pluralist democracy?

Answer 19

+ nature of us politics gives interest groups a number of access points
+ smaller interest groups have success in gaining national attention for their issues if not achieving legislatitive change
+ issues raised by interest rates b=provide an important link between the people and the government and therefore ensures that the govenrment is responsive

• the interest groups with more money have a disproportionate level of influence
• the same interest groups seem to retain influence over the political prices
• focus of action is in Westminster and thus centralises power

Question 20

Is the appointment process for the Supreme Court good?

Answer 20

+ the length of the process ensure that all candidates are suitable and well qualified. Senate ratification is thorough which can produce bipartisan results. For example, the nomination of rbg had 0 dems against and only 3 republicans against
- the stronger argument is that ratification th=akes between 2 and three months and this can be a big problem if someone on the court passes away. For example, when obamas DAPA executive order was challenged, Antonin Scalia had just passed and there were only 8 judges to hear the case. The 4-4 split led to the DAPA executive order being struck down as the court was upholding the decision id the lower court. If merrick garland had been appointed, perhaps he would have upheld Obamas decision
The weaker argument is wrong because the length of the process does not always ensure that candidates are well qualified: Harriet miers withdrawal was partly because of her lack of experience as a judge and therefore unlikely that she would have made it through the vigorous process.

• + the weaker argument is that the politicisation of the Supreme Court is necessary to give the judges legitimacy in order to give them a mandate to judge.
  This means that their decisions are enforced by the other branches of government
• the stronger argument is that the process of appointing justices has become politicised as appointments since 2006 have become party line ans have relatively few defections. For example the appointment of Jackson by Biden. had 0 votes against by democrats and 47 republic votes against.
• the media can how politicsicatuon. Demand justice launched a $1 million camogain to support Jackson’s nomination and judicial crisis network gave $7 million to suppose the appointment of merrick garland
  The weaker argument is correct to an extent because in jan 2022 an unsigned note from the sc defied trumps request to prevent congress from accessing White House documents from jan 6. Only Thomas opposed, not any of trumps appointed judges. Thus showing that judges do not remain loyal to the president that voted for them. However, this argument is limited because the president still has the ability to influence the ideological direction of the constitution and they will likely appoint those that share their ideologies.

+ the ABA offers a rating of judicial nominees in their professional opinion. All but one hold a well qualified rating
- however does not properly investigate allegations, Thomas not only was the only one just qualified but he also faced allegations of sexual harassment yet he still was appointed.
Weaker argument is wrong because its not even a constitutional requirement

Question 21

Should judges act with judicial restraint?

Answer 21

No: because the constitution was written eons ago and therefore it is not able to keep up with changing times
Yes: there is fears that whilst the scj can should change with the climate but not the weather.
Weaker argument is wrong because sometimes judicial activism is not excerisied in order to keep up with the changing times, but rather for judges to excercise their own political views as they have the power to choose the cases they hear. The overturning of roe v wade was not favoured by everyone

Yes: judges are not elected by the public and therefore this may be seen as undemocratic as constitutional changes are being made by those who the public did not what and are unaccountable.
No: judges have the mandate of the president and congress to legislate how they interpret teh constitution. The president arguably should have this his power as he was elected on it, for example, joe Biden won in South Carolina on the promise that he would put a black woman on the Supreme Court

Yes: need to uphold stare decisis because otherwise the reliability of the courts will be undermined
No: the sc is the only body that can answer constitutional issues and that is willing to. Because of election cycles, the president may be unwilling to pass controversial bills himself.

Question 22

Are civil and constitutional rights upheld effectively by the Supreme Court?

Answer 22

• may be argued that one groups rights are protected at their detriment of another. Obergefell v hodges protects gay marriage whilst the religious rights of people were compromised
• the court only hears about 1% of cases a year and chooses which cases to hear. If they are not hearing certain cases, for example they declined to hear a case from a florist who refused to make an arrangement for a same sex couple which arguably left rights unprotected
• WEAK ARGUMENT court has no power to enforce its rulings. Some decisions are not enforced, such as the cases relating to Guantanamo bay ruled in favour of the detainees yet congress tried to pass military commissions act to try and get past it.
• judicial action from the Supreme Court is bound by the constitution for example, roe v wade was overturned and the right to an abortion was removed because the constitution does not specifically protect the right to an abortion, it just protects medical history

Question 23

Should the constitution be interpreted in a living constitution way?

Answer 23

• the amendment process exists and has been used successfully, for example
  + the Supreme Court is the most successful branch at protecting minority rights whilst the elected branches may favour the majority
  Weaker argument is wrong because the amendment process is too difficult, and requires bipartisanship. Political decisions are increasingly hyperpartisan
• the constitution is out of date without modern interpretations as it was not written in todays context
  + the stringer argument is that interpreting the constitution to personal political beliefs of judges makes it a political constitution and limits their ability to rule in a living constitutionalist way, it may be argued they are ruling in a partisan way.
• people cannot br held accountable if they dont know the law because it is constant evolving and changing
  + the principles of the constitution can be upheld despite the wording of the document

Question 24

How has the Supreme Court upheld voting rights?

Answer 24

Shelby County v Holder 2014 : struck down aspects of the voting rights act 1965 which required areas with historic records of making it difficult for minorities to gain federal clearance . Some states used this ruling to change their voting regulations: North Carolina changed their voting regulations to requiring photo identification, low income and minority groups lack identification

Husted v Randolph Institute 2018: allowed Ohio to continue voter caging. If someone hasn’t voted in a while, they will receive a notice. If they do not vote in the next two federal elections, they cannot vote in the next one.
Minority voters disproportionately affected according to NAACP.

Brnovich v DNC 2021: Arizona laws on ballot collecting and banning out of precinct voting did not violate the voting rights act and wasnt racially discriminatory: naacp called it an attack on democracy and will disporportionately impact people of colour

Question 25

How is the Supreme Court a measure of promoting equality?

Question 26

How does the Supreme Court protect immigration?

Answer 26

+ Arizona vs US 2012: the court struck down arizonas law that immigrants must carry registration documents as this conflicted with federal law. Impact was that it showed opportunities for state action on immigration were limited

• Texas vs US 2016: court split 4-4 which meant that the order of the lower court stood and obamas DAPA executive order wasnt passed. Obama had little success in achieving immigration reform
• Trump vs Hawaii 2018: court ruled that trumps executive order on Muslim bans was constitutional because it fell within the remit of executive power. This ruling could have curbed presidential power and it was believed that the ban went against the first amendment and was religiously motivated

Question 27

How successfully does the Supreme Court protect the 1st amendment?

Answer 27

Free speech: Snyder v Phelps 2011: free speech in public, even if it is considered offensive is not limited. 8-1 ruling to protect free speech
Religion: Burrell v hobby lobby 2014: government cannot require employers to provide insurance to cover birth control if it conflicts with their beliefs. This challenged Obamacare and all three female justcises dissented because it restricted women’s rights

Question 28

How successfully does the Supreme Court protect the 2nd amendment?

Answer 28

Gun control: d.c v heller (2008) there is a right to individual gun ownership without connection to the militia and use in the home for self defence. However the sc decision did rule that it is not an excuse to keep a gun who whatsoever purpose

Chicago v McDonald 2010: the right to keep arms for self defence is applicable to the states as well as federal government law. D.c v heller applied to Washington as well

Question 29

How does the Supreme Court uphold the 14th amendment?

Answer 29

Women’s rights:
Whole woman’s health v hellerstedt: requirements placed on abortion centres by Texas law have.b were an undue burden and therefore unconstitutional. Ruling was notable, sc was upholding roe v wade but overturning a law of the state, therefore challenging federalism.

Dobbs v Jackson women’s health organisation 2022: Mississippi 15 week abortion ban law. Overturned roe v wade and retired decisions on abortion sto states. Trigger laws ready to go in many states.

LGBTQ+ rights:
Obergefell v hodges: the right to marry is guaranteed to same sex coup,e. Furthered the ruling of United States v Windsor before which same sex marriage was only legal in 12 states, this ruling made it legal in all 50 states

Question 30

Is the president the most dominate branch over foreign policy?

Answer 30

Important topic as since 2001 it is argued that presidents have become imperilled due to the increasing importance of foreign policy to America which would be seen as undemocratic to be blocking.

• limited by checks from congress. For example only congress has the right to declare war and the power of the purse: they fund the military . For example, congress formally declared war in 1942. This prevents the country from engaging in conflicts just because the executive wants.
  + but the president is the commander in chief and can deploy troops into active combat without consulting congress. It is less likely that congress will refuse funding for military action as it would be deemed unpatriotic. This is because the president has the power to respond to danger swiftly, such as trump attacking the Iranian general
  The weaker argument is wrong: the USA has participated in countless military conflicts around the world without consulting parliament which shows that the check on the president is weak. To an extent. Congress can still have impact on policy: they blocked obamas attempts to close Guantanamo bay.
  The stronger argument is that congress debating and deciding to declare war may take too long and thus the president can react quicker.
• the weaker argument is that the Supreme Court has upheld the presidents power to conduct foreign affairs. For example, Curtis v wright ruled that the president should have supremacy over foreign affairs: in the case it was over Roosevelt selling arms to Bolivia. This shows that
• the stronger argument is that congress can limit the presidents foreign policy power. For example the war powers act 1973. Which acted as a check on Obama’s military intereference in Libya.
  The stronger argument is correct to a greater extent as it shows that the president only has power in the short run, congress can recall troops after 6 months
• the weaker argument is that the senate needs to confirm/ ratify treaties. For example, although the trans pacific trade agreement was signed by Obama, it was not ratified thus making it easy for trump to pull out of it when he became president
  + the stronger argument is that the president dominates foreign policy by the increased use of executive orders. For example, Obama entered the us into the Kyoto agreement with an executive order, trump pulled out with an xo and Biden back in with xo. This shows that they can dominate policy with their personal agenda as they have a special power of executive orders.

presidents have diplomatic powers and can recognise countries, for example trump moving embassy to jerusalem was influencing foreign policy

Question 31

How successful are presidents at achieving their aims?

Question 32

Are informal powers of the president important?

Answer 32

POWER OF PERSUASION

+ the weaker argument is that power of persuasion is a strong informal power.for example, the presidents prestige and status allows them to use the white house as a bully pulpit. For example,Biden said in his state of union address he wants to crack down on insulin prices and on junk items. Following this a number of companies reduced their insulin prices.
+ the president can phone congressional leaders and have meetings with them. For example, trump sent aide Conway to speak to whips in congress which advances their legislatitive agenda
+ the president can use the media to speak to the public, who can in turn put pressure on congress they can give interviews or speak in conferences. For example, Biden has only had 22 interviews and 9 press conferences fewer than his predecessors.
+ president may offer inducements to members of congress, such as promises to make legislation more agreeable such as Obama deporting more people than any former president to show that he could be trusted with immigration policy.

HOWEVER, A PRESISENTS POWER OF PERSUAION IS DEPENDENT ON THEIR PERSONAL CHARISMA, STYLE AND POPULARITY. ALSO ON CURRENT EVENTS

VICE PRESIDENT: role is to cast the tie breaking vote and to act in the presidents place when necessary: Kamala Harris had cast more tie breaking votes than any other vice president in history and was the first woman to hold presidential powers when Biden underwent a health check in nov 21.

EXOP: staged be people the president is closest to and are very loyal to and organised by the president himself.

Office of management and budget: develop annual budget for the president for submission to congress, oversees finding and effectiveness of federal programmes gives the president advice on policy budget and legal matters
OMB needs senate confirmation

National security council: advises the president on matters of national security and foreign defence and provides security briefing for the president. President trump accused of politicisation of the council and claimed he didn’t need the briefing

WHO

Question 33

Is the cabinet a source of power

Answer 33

Cabinet is simply an advisory body for the president and the president chooses additional members that re reflective of personal priorities or the political circumstances when they take over.

• can have disagreements between president and cabinet: Obama and his secretary for defence hagel had disagreements, such as Obama felt like hagel was not transferring people out of Guantanamo bay fast enough.
  + source of power because they should be policy specialists and therefore offer support on policy. Timothy geithner was obamas choice for secretary of the treasury and has preciously been president of the federal reserve bank of ny
  Weaker argument is wrong because the cabinet ultimately has no constitutional significance and the president has final say over policy

Question 34

Is the president accountable to congress?

Answer 34

As of recent years it has been argued that the president is now post- imperial. So dominant over foreign policy yet accountable to congress over domestic policy

• no: weaker: congress have few and relatively insignificant powers to hold the president accountable. For example, the check of power of the pure and declaring work has not worked
  + yes: the stronger argument is that over domestic policy =, congress is far more dominant

+ congress can hold the president accountable through impeachment
- in times of national crisis the presidents power may increase

+ the power of congress veto override
- the presidents power of the veto is much stronger.

Question 35

Are limitations on the presidents power strong?

Answer 35

• no: the stronger argument is that the vast majority of of checks on the president are weak, allowing the president to become dominant in foreign policy and dominant in domestic policy for the first election cycle
  + yes: the stronger argument is that checks like judicial review are strong and curb the presidents power
• no: the weaker argument is that the president has a national mandate to rule and therefore he can create legislation that affects people on a federal level.
  + the stronger argument is that the principle of federalism in the constitution significantly limits the power of the president. for example trump said to chuck schumer. that the role of the federal government is to back up the state governments and they had a very devolved response to covid.
  the weaker argument is correct to a certain extent there is a supremacy clause stating that federal law should have supremacy over state laws
• yes: the president has to be responsive to electoral pressure. For example, during the caucus stage of the 2020 election, North Carolina demanded that Biden put a black scj on the sc and Biden complied.
• no: the stronger argument is that president often ignores displays of public disobedience and public opinion: for example, Palestine protestors.

Question 36

Is the president accountable to the Supreme Court?

Answer 36

• no: president can influence appointments process
• no: the weaker argument is that the president has the power to grant pardons for example, grated lil Wayne a pardon.
  + yes: the president is limited by judicial review

Question 37

How successfully can presidents achieve their aims?

Answer 37

+ yes: they can use their power of persuasion and bully pulpit: for example Biden in state of union address said he wanted to cut insulin prices and cut the prices of junk items, many companies subsequently lowered their prices.
- no: the stronger argument is that the power of power suasion is very limited. For example, Obama started crying during a speech about sandy hook shooting and hoped to influence congress into legislating on gun control but this obviously didn’t happen because it is a right protected by the constitution.

+ have the power of executive orders. Thus allowing them to shape policy how they want: trump pulled out of Kyoto protocol and Biden put the us back in.
This argument is correct to an extent, the Supreme Court has scrutinised executive orders, and whilst they said that Biden executive order on student loans was unconstitutioal because it say that decisions with economic and political significance must have congressional authority. However, in trump v Hawaii the Muslim ban was within the remit of executive powers.

Question 38

Are presidents limited in their ability to legislate over domestic policies?

Answer 38

+ reached his promised milestone of 100m Covid shots in the first 100 days but couldnt ensure patient safety because of backlog of booster shots and shortage of workers
+ American rescue plan $1.9 trillion. Aimed to support the economy and lowered unemployment to 3.8%
- inflation reduction act increased inflation
- federal reserve had yo increase interest rates in order to slow down the economy but has also increased corporation tax and reduced the deficit
+ build back better plan: aimed to strengthen nato

• dominate legislation through executive orders and bully pulpits. Biden wants to make education cheaper and signed an executive order
  Weaker because the Supreme Court struck it down however, executive order allowed trump Muslim ban as seen in trump v Hawaii
  xos mean that the president can only act where congress gives them power.

+ state of union address: Biden over insulin. However Obama crying didn’t work.

• veto override t national defense authorisation act
  + veto power of p is much stronger

Question 39

What are the formal roles of the president?

Answer 39

+ appointments. Recess appponyments allows them to make temporary appointments to vacancies that would usually need senates approval but they cannot get it because senate is in recess. For example, in 2017 trump threatened to make an appointment during the senate break

Question 40

What did the citizens united vs fec 2010 case say?

Answer 40

5-4 that the freedom of speech clause in the first amendment means the government cannot limit spending on campaigns by corporations

Question 41

What did the case mccutchein v fec rule?

Answer 41

The government cannot limit how much individuals can contribute to election campaigns

Question 42

Are parties significant in congress?

Answer 42

• views of constitutents could arguably outweigh party loyalty. represntatitives are reelected every 2 years and so they could be voted out
  + votes are becoming increasingly partisan. for example, not a single democrat voted to ratify the appointment of amy coney barret as a scj

+ presidents power of patronage is very weak and so politicians may be more ;oyal to their lobby groups or caucuses: freedom caucus: inn 017 the american health care act didnt have enough support from the freedom caucus and therefore didnt pass.
- berinie sanders and trump gaine dpopularity because they went against their parties mainstream beliefs
+
+ need to be part of a political party in order to be elected to congress because of fptp. currently only 4 as independents. 6/10 members of the public do not feel represented by a mainstarim political parties

Question 43

What are the strengths and weaknesses of congress’ legislatitive function?

Answer 43

+ requires a supermajority o ensure that bills passed are not just what teh president wants buyt are approved by represntatives of everyone and of the states.
- lenthy and time consuming process.. especially with teh short election cycle of just 2 years means that relatively few bills are passed. only 2-3% of bills introduced pass. even after the requirement of the supermajority, the bill can just be vetoed because the president’s individual control of legilsation is more importnt

• highly partisan and influenced by the minority. during the introduction stage ths speaker of the house can choose whether to limit a bill or bot and which committe it goes to or split referral which can mean that the bill takes longer to process and makes it less likely that it will pass. HOWEVER, THIS DOESNT HAPPEN IN THE SENATE BECAUSE UNANIMOUS CONSENT IS REQUIRED. but in the senate bills are fillibustered. for example, bild back better was struggliung to get past ebcause of rebellious joe manchin
  + the equality of both houses means that the needs of all people and all states is heard and therefore prevents the tryanny of the presidents party even during a united government.

+ committees are very important for scrutinising a bill. go through mark ups and considerations in each house, which ensures that bills are properly scrutinised. this can be seen as very few bills are vetoed or struck down by the supreme court
- pigeon holed bills. they have been recieved by the committee but little or no action has taken place. AROUND 90% this bills will simply die

Question 44

What factors influence the relationship between congress and the president?

Question 45

What extent is the institutional effectiveness of congress checks on the other branches of government?

Question 46

What is the most important factor that affects voting behaviour within congress?

Question 47

To what extent is the USA federal today?

Answer 47

• fourth stage of federalism: massive federal programmes that have increased the powers of the president. For example, Biden America recovery act.
  Reserved states powers: conduct elections, ratify amendments, healthcare and education.
• yes: WEAKER federal govt can’t make legislation in areas that are outside the constitution. for example, national federation of independent business vs sebellius ruled that obamacare exceeded congress’s commerce clause and therefore cant be extended federally
  no stronger federal law supersedes state law because of the supremacy clause. for example, the Respect for marriage act means that laws are uniform and the government can ensure universal protection.
  stronger argument is correct because the supreme court upheld federal law in altria group vs good in which they said that state laws that conflict with federal law have no effect.
• yes: weaker states have the power to legislate on issues that are imcluded in article 10. for example, states npw the raight to legalise cannabis for example washington in 2012. beccause they have the right to determine healthcare legislation and how elections are run
  the weaker argument is wrong teh sc ruled that colarado has to have trump on the ballot which means that they are restricting states rights to run election.
  mo: states are now becoming ruled by
  increased national programs, such as build back better which would mean tha th state governemnts have to carry out bbb
  however the argument is true as the increasing conservtaive right has upheld laws like san francisco vs trump
• the weaker argument is NO
  +yes: STRONGER: the increasingly conservative supreme court is giving power back to the states: for example, by reversing roe v wade with jackson vs dobbes they have legislated that abortion is now a states rights issue

Question 48

How does the Supreme Court uphold rights?

Answer 48

Citizens united vs fec upholds the right that money = free speech for corporations
- Tinker vs des Moines’s says that free speech can be limited in certain situations like schools

5th 14th something shouldn’t be taken away woithout due process for example roe v safe shows that the Supreme Court was willing to take away women’s right to abortion without a reason. Jackson v doubles states that the states can make laws on abortion as there is nothing n the sconstitiution that inherently gives people the right to privacy

8th amendment timbs vs Indiana state cannot impose an onerous fine to stop drug dealers taking back their property
8th amendment right to freedom from cruel and unusual punishment: glossing vs goss established that death by lethal injection

Question 49

What is the policy significance of congress?

Answer 49

Make legislation an ant area given to under article section 10. All other powers reserved to states.

+ can override a veto. for example congress overrode trumps veto of the defense authorisation act. this shows that congress can check the presidents check of congress, thus implying that congress has more powers than the president.
- president has the power of the veto. for example biden vetoed the sec resolution. this shows that president has more power than any other politician to make legislation more individualised to his personal agenda thus showing that he has a more domineering impact on legislation

• judicial review by Supreme Court: DOMA overturned by Windsor vs us
  + senate ratification of judges

+ can make legislation in any area given in article 10. for example states cannot enter into treaties but congress has the power to.
- can’t make legislation in areas that are outside the constitution. for example,
the weaker argument is limited to an extent, whilst the constitution gives congress the supremacy clause which means that federal laws have supremacy over state laws. however, judicial review has constantly upheld state rights. for example, SAN FRANCISCO V TRUMP where trump tried to withold funding for law enforcement in san franscisco because it is a sanctuary city was unlawful.

• military action: can withhold military budget if it doesn’t agree with something WEAK highly unlikely they would disagree.
  +ways around congress disapproval of foreign piled such as Obama signing a Iran deal t get around congress

Question 50

has affrimative action been significant in promoting racial equality?

Answer 50

fisher v u of t 2016 says that race can be a factor in university admissions but would need to be confirmed by a court that it was necessary
schuette v coalition to defend affirmative action 2014: the ban on affirmative action in michigan was not unconstitutional. this shows that there are increasing limitations on affirmative action

+ affirmative action has been upheld in the supreme court through cases like
this allows programs to give popel an equal chance where race is factor in admissions. rulings like thi sportect equal rights aand make sure that one race is not favoured the other
- howeverthe first black scj was chosen without affirmative action and so his appoitmnent has led to a far more effective coat tails effect

• may be argued that one gorup is being given an advnatge over aother gorup as seen in student for fair admissions v harvard in which the supreme court ruled that race based affirmative action violates the 14th ammendement
  + statistics show that there has been an improvement in radial equality since affirmative action began.
  this suggests that to get there the access to opportunities in education and employment was necessary which wouldnt have been available without affirmative action

-

Question 51

how effectively does immigration reform protect rights?

Answer 51

• Obama failed to pass DREAM act amd the bipartisan security, economic opportunity and immigration act 2013 which would have given undocumented citizens a pathway to citizenship.
  however in order to be trusted with immigration, obama had to show he was competent and deported the highest number of undocumented immigrants
• presidents do not support rights, biden using an executive order to close the border.

+ Obama introduced DACA and extended this in 2014 to try to introduce DAPA but key aspects struck doen in 2016. one of bidens first executive orders was to strengtehn DACA
- trump tried to repeal daca

• trump wanted to build a wall and increase the funding for border security

Arizona vs US 2012: the court struck down the law that said that immigrants must carry registration documents becuase that conflicted with federal law. shows that state action over immigration is limited

texas vs us 2016: court split 4-4 and the lower court ruling stood which repealed DAPA

trump v hawaii: the court ruled that trumps muslim ban was not unconstitutional and fell within the remit of executive power: even though the liberal judges on the court believed that this was religiously motivated. a bipartisan compromise proposal was blocked by congress just three days after its public release. this hsows that immigration topic has become highly hyperpartisan and it is difficult for the parties to reach an agreement

• congress is inefficient at passing immigartion reform bills.