The Constitution

Question 1

When was the constitution ratified?

Answer 1

The US Constitution was ratified by the colonies between 1787 and 1790, bringing the 13 separate colonies together into a new country: the United States of America.

Question 2

Overview of the seven articles of the original constitution

Answer 2

• The first four deal with the four key institutions of government in the United States: Congress, the presidency, the Supreme Court and the states.
• Article outlines the amendment process.
• The ‘Supremacy Clause in article VI established the US Constitution as the highest law in the land.
• Article VII outlines the ratification process - nine of the 13 colonies were required to agree the new framework for governing the US before it could begin.

Question 3

Summary of amendments since original constitution

Answer 3

Beyond this, the Constitution has only 27 changes, known as amendments. Most of these amendments can be seen as additions to the Constitution, creating new rules or requirements.
Some amendments - shown in Figure 1.1 - represent major social change or are the end product of huge conflict, violence and death. Others make extremely important alterations, such as the 25th amendment (1967), passed after the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963, at the height of the Cold War. This amendment allows the vice president to become the president on a temporary basis.

Question 4

What is the Bill of Rights made up of?

Answer 4

The Bill of Rights is made up of the first ten amendments of the US Constitution. They were all passed in 1791, shortly after the Constitution was created.

Question 5

Purpose of the Bill of Rights

Answer 5

A bill of rights is usually seen as a method of protecting the rights of the individual against government power. However, the US Bill of Rights also focuses on protecting the power of the states against federal government.

Question 6

Why were some states reluctant to join the union?

Answer 6

Several colonies were reluctant to join the newly created Union and a discussion of new provisions helped to reduce state concerns regarding the power of a new central governments.

Question 7

What is a constitution?

Answer 7

A set of rules determining where sovereignty lies in a political system, and establishing the precise relationship between the government and the governed.

Question 8

Key bill of rights amendments

Answer 8

• 1st amendment - freedom of expression and religion
• 2nd amendment - right to bear arms
•4th amendment - no unreasonable searches or seizures of people or property
• 5th amendment - protection against double jeopardy and self-incrimination (ensures due process of law and just compensation)
• 8th amendment - right to provide freedom from cruel and unusual punishment
•10th amendment - right of the states to have reserved powers, as opposed to the federal government.

Question 9

Amendments 13-15

Answer 9

Ratified 1865-1870. The civil war amendments end slavery (13th), provide equal treatment to all citizens regardless of race (14th) and give people the vote regardless of ‘race, color or previous servitude’ (15th).

Question 10

18th and 21st amendments

Answer 10

Ratified in 1919 and 1933. The first of these amendments prohibits the manufacture o sale of alcohol which is then repealed by the later amendment.

Question 11

16th amendment

Answer 11

Ratified 1913. Gives Congress the right to levy federal income tax.

Question 12

19th amendment

Answer 12

Ratified 1920. Gives women the vote.

Question 13

22nd Amendment

Answer 13

Ratified 1951. Limits the president to two terms in office.

Question 14

25th amendment

Answer 14

Ratified 1967. Allows the vice president to assume the office of president temporarily while a president is unable to fulfil their duties.

Question 15

Features of a codified constitution

Answer 15

• authoritative - it is on a higher level than ordinary law, so it sets out the basis for all political institutions, including those that create everyday legislation
• entrenched - entrenchment means it is hard to amend or abolish
• judiciable - as a higher form of law, other laws can be judged against it. The judiciary is responsible for this, judging whether other laws are constitutional or not.

Question 16

Why did the Founding Fathers design the flexibility of theconstitution?

Answer 16

The Founding Fathers deliberately entrenched the Constitution
to prevent it being changed too easily by a single institution or political party in their own self-interest - for example, by centralising excessive power in the hands of the government of
the day.

However, the founding fathers realised that there would need to be some mechanism for changing the constitution to meet the chasing needs of society - an amendment process- and this is outlined in article v.

Question 17

What is entrenchment?

Answer 17

A system by which a constitution is protected from change by law.

Question 18

What is codification?

Answer 18

Writing a constitution down
in one document

Question 19

What are enumerated powers?

Answer 19

Powers explicitly stated
- such as article I, section 8 in the US Constitution, which provides a list of congressional powers.

Question 20

Why is the Constitution unclear?

Answer 20

There are many clearly enumerated powers, but the Constitution is often unclear. This is partly because it Is a compromise between Founding Fathers who sometimes disagreed, and partly because there was a deliberate decision to allow room for the Constitution to evolve. However, this lack of clarity means there is often significant disagreement over its meaning.

Question 21

Which powers exist other than enumerated powers?

Answer 21

The Constitution has many enumerated powers. However, many implied powers have been found in the Constitution too - powers that are not expressly written down in the Constitution but are needed to perform an enumerated power or are suggested by the wording.

Question 22

Enumerated powers of Congress

Answer 22

•Collection of taxes and duties, which provide for the debts of the United States, as well as for the common defence and welfare of the country.
• Borrowing money on behalf of the United States.
•Regulation of commerce, both on the international and interstate levels. This also includes Native American tribes.
•Establishing currency and coin money and fixing common weights and measures.
•Establishing post offices.
• Provision for and maintenance of an army and navy.
• Organising, training and arming a militia.
. Exclusive powers to legislative matters of the country.
•Establishing courts that are subordinate to the Supreme Court.
• Declaration of war.
• Amendment of the Constitution (shared with states).
• 16th amendment allows Congress to raise income tax.
• A number of other powers are clearly laid out in the Constitution, but are given to one of the two chambers only.

Question 23

Implied powers of Congress

Answer 23

• The necessary and proper clause
• Interstate commerce clause

Question 24

Enumerated powers of the President

Answer 24

• Heads the executive branch.
• Nominates cabinet members, ambassadors and the judiciary.
• Proposes measures to Congress.
• Vetoes legislation.
• Grants pardons.

Question 25

Implied powers of the President

Answer 25

• Commander in chief of the armed forces

Question 26

Enumerated powers of the courts

Answer 26

•Rule on cases arising under the Constitution, the Laws of the United States, or Treaties.

Question 27

Implied powers of the courts

Answer 27

•The power of judicial review

Question 28

What is the The ‘necessary and proper’ or elastic clause

Answer 28

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress has the power ‘to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers. This clause is also known as the ‘elastic’ clause because it allows Congress to stretch its powers. It has been a source of great controversy, being used to justify major expansion of the power of federal government. In McCulloch v Maryland 1819, the Supreme Court tested the necessary and proper clause and ruled that Congress has the power to create a national bank, even though the right to create a bank is not explicitly stated in the Constitution. It gave a broad interpretation using implied powers to allow Congress to act. The interstate commerce clause is often described as elastic because of the way in which it has been used to justify the expansion of federal power.

Question 29

Advantage of the necessary and proper clause

Answer 29

This vagueness could be seen as a considerable advantage. It has arguably allowed the Constitution to survive for such a long time as its meaning can be adapted without the need for formal amendments. A more detailed Constitution would perhaps have been harder to apply to the needs of modern society.

Question 30

Concerns about the vagueness of the constitution(3)

Answer 30

•The Constitution could fail to regulate political practice: The Constitution is meant to regulate politicians and set the rules of the political game. The vagueness of the Constitution can undermine its authority - and that of the Supreme Court - as people reject newly established rulings or political practices. For example, in Obergefell v Hodges 2015, in stating that gay marriage was a constitutional right, some politicians and even a member of the Supreme Court claimed that the Supreme Court was no longer following the Constitution, essentially making up new rules as it went along. A loss of respect for constitutional rules can have dire effects.
•The Supreme Court could become too powerful: The vagueness of the Constitution allows individual justices to apply their own ideologies when ruling on a case. Each of the nine justices is associated with a particular ideology, consistently ruling with a clear bias. For example, liberal justices typically interpret the Constitution to achieve liberal outcomes. A more detailed Constitution would give less room for this bias. For example, the 8th amendment ‘cruel and unusual’ phrase has been used by some justices to allow the death penalty, while others say the death penalty is unconstitutional.
•There could be significant conflict: The lack of clarity leads to strong disputes, with each side claiming that their particular view of the Constitution is more legitimate. This is often based on ideology and allows further divisions in US society. Conservatives and liberals continue to argue about how far the Constitution allows the federal government to control the states. For example, there is an increasing divide between the Democratic and Republican Parties over issues such as gay rights, race and policies such as the Affordable Care Act.

Question 31

Amendment process if coming from states

Answer 31

1. Amendment is proposed by a national convention called by Congress at the request of two-thirds of
   the state legislatures
2. Amendment is ratihed by three-quarters of the state legislatures.

OR

Amendment is ratified by three-quarters of the state conventions

Question 32

Amendment process if coming from Congress

Answer 32

1. Amendment is proposed by a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress.
2. Amendment is ratihed by three-quarters of the state legislatures.

OR

Amendment is ratified by three-quarters of the state conventions

Question 33

Where are amendments usually initiated from?

Answer 33

Either states or Congress can propose, but only states can ratify. In practice, all of the successful amendments to the US Constitution have been initiated by a congressional vote, and all but one were ratified by three-quarters of the states in state legislatures. Only the 21st amendment, which repealed prohibition, was ratified by state conventions.

Question 34

Are there time limits between amendment proposal and ratification?

Answer 34

The Constitution makes no reference to time limits between congressional proposal and state ratification. Modern practice is for Congress to give a deadline for state ratification of proposed amendments, beginning with the 18th amendment (ratified in 1919).

Question 35

Proposals passed by Congress that failed to receive sufficient state support (2)

Answer 35

-ERA
-The District of Columbia Voting Rights amendment

Question 36

What was the The District of Columbia Voting Rights amendment?

Answer 36

Would have given District of Columbia full representation in the United States Congress as if it were a state. DC would also be able to participate in the amendment process. Failed in 1985.

Question 37

What was the ERA?

Answer 37

Would have provided equality of rights by the federal or state
governments on account of sex. Congress took it up again recently with a number of proposed measures that never came to congressional vote. Failed to reach required number of states in 1982.

Question 38

Proposals voted on in Congress that did not receive a 2/3 majority in each chamber (2)

Answer 38

-The Flag Protection amendment
-The Federal Marriage amendment

Question 39

What was The Federal Marriage amendment?

Answer 39

Introduced into Congress several times between 2002 and 2013.
Seeks to define marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. Failed to receive the required votes in both the House and Senate in 2006. Issue seen as central in 2004 presidential elections, with George W. Bush strongly for the amendment and John Kerry arguing that individual states should decide.
Introduced in 2015, without congressional vote, by Tim
Huelskamp. a social conservative in the House

Question 40

What was The Flag Protection amendment?

Answer 40

Would allow Congress to make it illegal to desecrate the US flag. Hotly disputed issue. Supreme Court in US v Eichman 1990 overturned the Flag Protection Act on the basis of
1st amendment freedom of expression rights. Constitutional
amendment proposal was an attempt to overturn this.
Successfully passed in the House six times up to 2006, but
always failed to be voted on or gain enough votes to pass the
Senate.

Question 41

Proposals introduced in Congress but not voted on by both chambers of Congress (2)

Answer 41

-Right to vote amendment
-Saving American Democracy amendment

Question 42

What was the Saving American Democracy amendment?

Answer 42

Proposed by Senator Bernie Sanders in 2011. Aimed to overturn Citizens
United v FEC ruling of 2010 in which the court removed regulations on funding of elections. Aims to limit influence of corporate donors in United States elections.

Question 43

What was the Right to vote amendment?

Answer 43

Introduced to prevent restrictions on voting. Would end felony voting restrictions and help protect voting rights after Shelby County v Holder Supreme Court ruling in 2013 overturned sections of the Voting Rights Act 1965. Representatives Mark Pocan and Keith Ellison reintroduced it in 2013.

Question 44

What is a key principle of federalism that protects states’ powers?

Answer 44

Of particular importance is the US requirement that both federal government (Congress) and the
states need to agree. This is a key principle on the protection of federalism. Federal government cannot restrict the power of states without state- level agreement

Question 45

How many operating amendments in last 200 years?

Answer 45

Given that the first ten amendments were passed in 1791 - almost at the same time as the writing of the Constitution itself - and that the 18th and 21st amendments (prohibition and its repeal) cancel each other out, there have been only 15 operating amendments passed in over 200 years.
In those 200 years the social, political and economic life of the US has transformed in a manner that was unimaginable at the time of writing the original.

Question 46

How many proposals vs accepted?

Answer 46

Members of Congress have introduced over 11,000 amendment proposals since the Constitution was first established.
Congress has accepted only 33 of those proposals, with 27 making it past the states for constitutional inclusion

Question 47

Disadvantages of the amendment process (5)

Answer 47

-It is difficult to remove outdated aspects
-It is difficult to incorporate new ideas
-The amendment process is undemocratic
-It gives the Supreme Court excessive power
-Hard to respond quickly to urgent situations

Question 48

Why is difficulty removing outdated aspects from the constitution a problem?

Answer 48

When a part of the Constitution is outdated or unpopular, it is difficult to get wide support to make necessary changes. The original document is over 200 years old and US society has changed dramatically, as have key principles like democracy.

Question 49

Example of outdated aspect of constitution that would be hard to remove?

Answer 49

An obvious example of this is the rules surrounding the election of the president, which make use of the electoral college. This mechanism was established when there were fears that the people would not make rational decisions, allowing the people only to vote for an electoral college of voters who would decide who the president would be. It is inconceivable that the electoral college would reject the will of the people today, but it has left the US with a number of undemocratic problems. The state-based system makes it possible for one candidate to get the most popular votes, but for another candidate to win (as happened with the election of Bush in 2000 and Trump in 2016)
In addition, the system over-represents smaller states, so people in some states have greater voting power than in others. A lack of political quality in voting undermines core principles of modern democracy, yet the system cannot be changed due to a lack of support among
over -represented states

2nd amendment, over 500 mass shootings in 2023 alone

Question 50

Why is difficulty to incorporate new ideas into the constitution a problem?

Answer 50

Views have changed dramatically since 1787, as have the needs of society, but it is difficult to incorporate additions that may improve the workings of the Constitution due to its entrenched nature.

Question 51

Example of difficulty to incorporate new idea into the constitution

Answer 51

In a modern society there is huge consensus over the idea of gender equality. Despite the change in values regarding women’s rights, the Equal Rights amendment failed as recently as 1982, with persistent attempts to reintroduce the ERA in Congress making little progress.
An easier process would allow the United States to respect fundamental rights, show that the US politicians and the Constitution value equality, and enable the US to become a more modern, liberal democracy.

Question 52

How is the amendment process undemocratic?

Answer 52

The amendment procedure goes against the concept of majoritarian democracy. To block an amendment, only 13 of 50 states have to oppose it. It would be possible (even if unlikely) for the 13 smallest states to block an amendment proposal. This is also true in Congress where some amendments (such as the Flag Protection amendment) have received over 50 per cent of the votes in both House and Senate, but have not reached the super-majority threshold.

Question 53

How does the amendment process give the Supreme Court excessive power?

Answer 53

Entrenchment allows nine unelected judges to have the final say on key issues of Institutional
over and human rights. Rulings by Supreme Court justices are extraordinarily difficult to overturn, rendering their word final. This might be acceptable if justices were neutral interpreters of the Constitution, but they are not - they use their own personal biases. The ambiguous nature of the Constitution, outlined above, exacerbates this problem. This has led Edwin Meese to argue that the US has an imperial judiciary with no effective constitutional limits, because it is virtually impossible to change their rulings.

Question 54

Intervention of Robert Court

Answer 54

The Roberts Court arguably has an activist agenda to overturn any regulations that aim to limit the use of money in US elections. In cases such as Citizens United v FEC 2010, the majority overturned the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, and Obama explicitly denounced the ruling before it took place. The act was passed by the elected Congress of 2002 with the approval of the elected president and the support of the current president at the time of the Supreme Court case. Due largely to this level of entrenchment, the Supreme Court is above elected institutions

Question 55

Advantages of the amendment process (4)

Answer 55

-It protects key principles of political processes
-It protects states and upholds federalism
-It prevents abuse of power
-It prevents ill-thought-through amendments

Question 56

How does the constitution protect key principles of the political processes?

Answer 56

Some political principles are so important that it should be difficult to change them. Basic democratic ideas - such as elections every four years and separation of powers - could be seen as essential principles. The Founding Fathers made some ideals almost completely immune from change, such as the requirement for a republic to be a guaranteed form of government, going further than the entrenchment outlined in article V.
However, the Constitution does allow for change. These principles can be altered when there is very broad support, through the formal amendment process or by the Supreme Court setting precedents to the Constitution, without the need to pass amendments.

Question 57

How does the constitution protect states and uphold federalism?

Answer 57

The US has a tradition of respect for states’ rights, and entrenchment helps to maintain this.
While this could be seen as an extension of the idea of protecting key principles of the political process, for many it is the key process. This is ensured through the 10th amendment and the amendment process, as well as small states receiving equal representation in Senate and the electoral college. Proposals to undermine the power of states have failed through the amendment process, such as attempts to remove the electoral college. The Supreme Court has successfully upheld state rights partly due to the entrenched nature of the Constitution.

Question 58

How does the constitution prevent the abuse of power?

Answer 58

An entrenched Constitution stops an individual from one political party changing constitutional rules for their own benefit. This was a key aim of the Founding Fathers. The current US process requires bipartisan support - a single party is highly unlikely to have a two-thirds majority in each chamber of Congress. President George W. Bush requested a line-item veto power in 2006, a measure that would have allowed him to veto just parts of a bill, rather than a whole bi. This enhanced power was not approved by Congress.

Question 59

Example of constitution preventing abuse of power

Answer 59

President George W. Bush requested a line-item veto power in 2006, a measure that would have allowed him to veto just parts of a bill, rather than a whole bi. This enhanced power was not approved by Congress.

Question 60

How does the constitution prevent ill-thought-through amendments ?

Answer 60

The amendment process involves several institutions and requires cross-party agreement.
This prevents short-term or irrational thinking entering the Constitution. Several amendment proposals can be seen as knee-jerk reactions to a current event or Supreme Court ruling. Many commentators felt this about the proposed inclusion of gay rights into the Constitution or their proposed exclusion (as in the federal marriage amendment). Given how quickly values change, a federal marriage amendment passed in the early 2000s could easily be seen as outdated today.

Question 61

What is a principle?

Answer 61

a fundamental and organising idea that runs throughout something.

Question 62

What is federalism?

Answer 62

system in which sovereignty is shared between a central government (federal government) and individual states, with each having . their own specific rights.

Question 63

Why are the key principles of the constitution important?

Answer 63

The key principles of the Constitution can be seen as the values that drive its content. They show the underlying beliefs of the Constitution’s authors, and should be reflected in US political practice today. There is one overriding principle behind the development of the Constitution, which is to ensure that power is shared among different political bodies. The five key principles of the Constitution can all be linked to this single idea of sharing power.

Question 64

What are the five key principles of the us constitution?

Answer 64

Federalism
Separation of powers
Checks and balances
Bipartisanship
Limited government

Question 65

How does federalism work?

Answer 65

The US Constitution attempted to balance the need for central government control with the desire ofthe original colonies to protect their own interests. A system of federalism was created, with Fier divided between central government (the federal government) and regional government the states). This means that citizens are ruled by two governments. Some policies are made at a federal level, by president and Congress, and other decisions are made by the state governments. ich state is like a smaller version of the US, with its own Constitution, head of the executive (tanch (Governor), legislature (State Congress) and Supreme Court. Each state is subiect to the Constitutional rules of the US, but has a huge degree of control over its own affairs.

Question 66

Federalism in constitution clarity and implications

Answer 66

The Constitution is particularly unclear in relation to federalism and the protection of state power. The power of the federal government has grown hugely as a response to economic crisis, increased demands for civil-rights protection and greater provision of social policy. The states are increasingly controlled by federal institutions, but the Constitution has barely changed in
these areas

Question 67

What is the separation of powers?

Answer 67

The separation of powers refers to the complete division of a system of government into three branches: the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. In the case of the US, the Founding Fathers created a president, Congress and Supreme Court. In the US system, no one is allowed to be in more than one branch at the same time. So, for example, it is not possible to be both a member of Congress and work alongside the president in the executive branch. On becoming president in 2009 Barack Obama had to give up his Senate seat, and in becoming attorney general in 2017 Jeff Sessions had to give up his Senate seat to join the executive branch. This contrasts with the centralisation of power of an absolute monarchy, or the fusion of powers in which separate branches are created, but have significant overlaps.

Question 68

Examples of separation of power resignations

Answer 68

On becoming president in 2009 Barack Obama had to give up his Senate seat, and in becoming attorney general in 2017 Jeff Sessions had to give up his Senate seat to join the executive branch.

Question 69

Why is the separation of powers important?

Answer 69

The separation of powers is based on a desire to share power, preventing any one institution or politician from dominating the political system. For many of the Founding Fathers it was a guiding principle that allowed the preservation of the liberty of individuals in society.

Question 70

What is the checks and balances system?

Answer 70

With the three branches separated in terms of personnel, the Founding Fathers created a series of checks and balances that each branch could impose on another. Each branch of government has exclusive power, limiting the ability of other branches to operate in an unrestrained manner.
These checks - or restrictions - ensure a high degree of balance between the three branches of government, so no one institution is dominant. Working alongside the separation of powers, they force the three branches of government to share power.
Power is balanced not just by the provision of checks, but also by the denial of certain powers to each of the three branches. For example, the president can propose legislation, but cannot amend legislation, lacking what is known as a line-item veto, which would allow the rejection of certain lines (or provisions) of a bill. Under the Constitution, it is Congress that can initiate, amend and reject legislative proposals. Fearing an unrestrained president, the Founding Fathers gave Congress significant checks, allowing them to restrain the president heavily.

Question 71

Meaning of checks and balances

Answer 71

the division of power between the three branches of government, where each branch has a direct ability to prevent action from another branch.

Question 72

Meaning of separation of powers

Answer 72

where the three key bodies of government - legislature, executive and judiciary - each have their own powers, personnel and buildings. The principle behind the separation of powers ensures that a system of checks and balances prevents too much bower residing with
any one body.

Question 73

How does the constitution encourage bipartisanship?

Answer 73

While it makes no mention of political parties, the Constitution itself means that compromise is inevitable if decisions are to be made. The division of power between president, House and Senate means that parties need to co-operate in order to govern the country. In addition, the Constitutio requires cross-party support through the need for super-majorities for amendments, and for the Senate to ratify treaties. The original Constitution makes it possible for rival political groups to control the three bodies with most legislative influence. As James Madison put it in his essay Federalist 51, ‘Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. the US, bipartisan control between these institutions is common. When divided government occurs - when the House of Representatives, Senate and presidency are not all controlled by one party - parties have to work together to pass policy. This has worked effectively over the history of the US as parties have often found legislative compromises.

Question 74

What has bipartisanship principle led to today?

Answer 74

Today the constitutional requirement for bipartisanship has led to a major constitutional challenge. With parties becoming more polarised, there is less scope for compromise and Congress has been less able to legislate.
leading to weak government. some critics have questioned the desirability of
a constitutional system, arguing that current constitutional arrangements are no longer suitable whereas others see this as a crisis of political parties in which the parties themselves are the problem.
Rkof willineness to comoromise has meant that Adams’s ‘political evil’ is present today.

Question 75

Meaning of bipartisanship

Answer 75

attempts within the structure of the US
Congress to try to ensure that the two main parties must work together in order to fulfil congressional functions.

Question 76

Legislative CAB powers over judiciary

Answer 76

• Can refuse judicial appointments
• Has authority to impeach judges
• Can create lower courts
• Can propose constitutional amendments to overrule Supreme Court decisions
-
• Can determine number of justices

Question 77

Legislative powers over executive

Answer 77

• Can override presidential veto
• Can control appropriations
• Can ratify treaties
• Can declare war
• Can refuse presidential appointments
•Can impeach and remove the
president rom office

Question 78

Judicial power over legislative

Answer 78

Interprets laws and may declare laws
unconstitutional

Question 79

Judicial power over executive

Answer 79

• May rule that presidential action is unconstitutional
• Judges appointed by the
president serve for life

Question 80

Executive power of legislative

Answer 80

The president is the
‘commander in chief’ who can
•Veto bills
• Recommend legislation
•Call special sessions of
Congress

Question 81

Executive power over judiciary

Answer 81

• President appoints judges to fill vacancies
• President can grant reprieves and pardons

Question 82

Meaning of limited government

Answer 82

the role of government is limited by checks and balances, and a separation of powers, as a bulwark against corruption.

Question 83

Limited government principle on US constitution

Answer 83

One of the core principles of liberal democracy is that of limited government: the role of government should be limited by checks and balances and a separation of powers, because of the corrupting nature of power. In the context of the US, limited government means that the power of the federal government is subject to limitations as laid out in the Constitution, so that it cannot simply impose its policy on the state and its citizens.
The Bill of Rights also prevents the federal government from restricting the rights of the individual or the rights of states. Amendments such as the 1st (freedom of expression) and 4th (freedom from unreasonable searches) can be seen as limiting government by protecting individual freedoms. The 10th amendment is clearly designed to protect the power of the states by stating that any power not given to the federal government is reserved for the states or the people

Question 84

Modern conceptions of limited government idea

Answer 84

Modern conceptions of limited government cover the extent to which the federal government plays a role in social and economic policy. For conservatives, and particularly for libertarians, there is a desire to reduce government involvement in areas such as expenditure (for example, on welfare provision). Social programmes are frowned on as being part of a ‘big government’ agenda, which is rejected by many in the US.

Question 85

Why did federalism emerge?

Answer 85

Federalism grew out of a desire to protect the interests of each of the original colonies when the union was created, and to ensure that the power of the central (federal) government was limited.

Question 86

Two essential features of federalism

Answer 86

• The power of regional governments or states is protected by the Constitution. This means that the federal govefnment is unable to reduce the power of the states without their consent.
There is shared sovereignty between the federal government and the states. The amendment process prevents any change to state power without the consent of two-thirds of states.
• Regional powers are equal. All states are given the same level of power. This means that, for example, either all states can set their own tax rates or none of them can, or all states will determine electoral rules or none of them will. States are free to apply their powers differently to each other, but all states have the same level of decision-making power.

Question 87

How clear is the line between federal and state power?

Answer 87

The Constitution is supposed to provide the US with a dividing line, explaining what is federal power and what is state power, but in reality the division is unclear. The relationship remains very fluid. This has been a major factor in allowing the power of the states to change hugely since the Constitution began.

The nature of federalism means that in some areas there is a clear division between federal and state power. Each level of government operates relatively independently from the other.

Question 88

Historical division between federal and state power

Answer 88

Historically this has been the case with a reasonably clear division between the roles of the two.
Arguably, state powers have had a higher level of impact on the lives of citizens than the federal government. The states would deal with most aspects of domestic policy, including education and economic policy (the original Constitution did not grant the federal government the right to levy

Question 89

Key aspects to federal-state relationship (5)

Answer 89

-Over time the power of the states has been eroded.
-The federal government and states are interconnected, with the two having to work together in order to govern the US. Some individual policy areas are now controlled and carried out by both the federal government and the states. This creates interdependence, where they have to work together. These grants often come with criteria, however, allowing the federal government to restrict states.
-Commonly this involves the federal government providing resources, usually in the form of money, to carry out policies that the federal government would like to see put in practice.
-In other cases the federal government passes laws that force states to comply. These are known as federal mandates and often lead to conflict between the federal government and the states.
States can try to overturn these restrictions in the Supreme Court.
-States create a range of their own laws independently from the federal government. sometimes
this also creates conflict the federal government challenging these laws. The federal government may be ideologically opposed to these laws and try to undermine them.

Question 90

Turning point in growth of federal power

Answer 90

The major turning point was the economic crash of 1929 and the response of the Roosevelt presidency. Roosevelt’s New Deal policies meant huge growth in the role of the federal government and greater federal control over the states. The dominant trend since then has been an erosion of state power.

Question 91

Example of federal grants criteria

Answer 91

These grants often come with criteria, however, allowing the federal government to restrict states. For example, in his Race to the Top initiative in 2009, Obama and Congress created
54.3-billion-worth of grants that states could compete for, but money was awarded according to which states met 20 educational goals set by federal government.

Question 92

Example of federal mandate being overturned

Answer 92

In Shelby v Hoider 2013, federal law was overturned when parts of the Voting Rights Act were declared unconstitutional.
This gave states greater freedom in electoral law

+FEC vs Citizens United

Question 93

Example of Federal gov trying to overturn state law

Answer 93

The
Obama administration attempted to ensure that North Carolina respected transgender rights by threatening to withhold some of the federal education funding it provides to the state.
Alternatively, the federal government may feel that the states are carrying out roles that, constitutionally, belong to the federal government

Question 94

Case study: The commerce clause, federal power and marijuana

Answer 94

When California legalised marijuana, the federal government claimed that this was in fact Afederal responsibility, not a state one. The ensuing Supreme Court case featured a battle betvreen the federal and state government in Gonzales v Raich 2005. In this case the Supreme Court interpreted the power of Congress in a broad manner, stating that the interstate commerce clause allowed the federal government to regulate California. This was because, the Court aroued the lepalisation of production of mariuana in California would have an impact on
he supply and demand of the drug across the Us. us affectno interstate commerce
While the federal government has the ability to regulate mariuana, the situation is more mplex. Despite this ruling, Congress has not acted to regulate mariuana on a national scale ten though the Supreme Court has given it the constitutional authority to do so. Referring to the legalisation of marituana for recreational use in Washineton and Colorado (since ioined bu Oregon and Alaska), Obama decided not to intervene, saying that there were ‘bigger fish to fry:
State law has a huge variety of practices, with some states legalising marijuana for recreational and many others only allowing it for medical purposes. In many states any sale of marijuana is a criminal offence, with Illinois making this a misdemeanour while its neighbour
Iowa classes this as a felony. Florida law punishes sale of marijuana by up to six years in prison with very heavy fines for possession of small quantities
On the other hand the clause protects the powers of the states to regulate business and trade within each state (intrastate commerce). There are court cases in which the federal government has lost. such as the Lopez case on gun controls

Question 95

Areas relevant to democracy within the constitution

Answer 95

Elections
Checks and balances
Rights protection
Diversity?

Question 96

How does the constitution uphold democracy through elections?

Answer 96

The US Constitution upholds fundamental principles of a representative democracy by creating free and fair elections. The system of separation of powers and federalism has led to a huge number of elections, allowing US citizens to vote more often than in any other country in the world. The Founding Fathers also created short two-vear terms for the Rouse of Representatives who must exercise high levels of sensitivity to public opinion. With the Senate and president also elected, there is a significant representation.

Question 97

How does the constitution not uphold democracy through elections?

Answer 97

However, a number of criticisms can be raised. The electoral college is an out-dated voting method, based on a reluctance to give power to the people. Many aspects of the electoral college offend fundamental principles of a representative democracy.

+campaign finance

+FPTP, safe seats and gerrymandering

Question 98

How does the constitution uphold democracy through checks and balances?

Answer 98

Checks and balances, backed by the separation of powers, could be said to serve the interests of democracy by maximising the power of the people.
Checks and balances may prevent one person, party or institution from holding all of the power, with the potential to abuse their position for their own benefit, or for the benefit of limited groups in society. Checks and balances can be used to prevent such corruption by blocking any such attempts, as when President Bush requested a line- item veto power, but Congress denied him.
Checks can also ensure that everyone’s interests are considered. In a separated system where it is common for different parties to control the main office of government, policy is more likely to be based on the consideration of the many, not the few. Collectively, when policy is eventually passed,
there is a greater representation for all

Question 99

How does the constitution not uphold democracy through checks and balances? Example

Answer 99

On the other hand, the system of checks and balances may damage US democracy. Democrat voters vote for Democrat policies, and Republican voters vote for Republican policies, but neither set may feel that they get any policies that reflect their wishes or interests. For example, in 2012, the public voted for a Democrat president who argued for comprehensive immigration reform.
When immigration reform was introduced into the House, the then Speaker John Boehner refused to allow the House to debate the full proposal.

Question 100

Case study: The Affordable Care Act and electoral democracy

Answer 100

Obama received a mandate for health care reform in 2008, yet was forced to abandon major aspects of his policy in light of opposition from Congress, including Democrats. The elected House prevented the elected president from achieving his policy goals, as outlined in the 2008 campaign. In 2014 the Republicans took control of the Senate in the mid-term elections. When they subsequently sent legislation to the president to repeal health care laws, he vetoed it. In 2016 Republicans were elected, gaining control of the House, Senate and presidency, campaigning to repeal the ACA.
The Republican Party did not, however, give a clear idea of what they would replace it with and could not agree on an alternative in March 2017, meaning that it failed to repeal and replace Obamacare. Conservative Republicans were arguably representing constituency views by rejecting the proposal that maintained many of the key aspects of the ACA, but ended by achieving no
reform at all.
Is this positive or negative for democracy? In this case, some would argue that members of Congress were responding to shifting public opinion and that House members, with their two-year terms, were ensuring that policy was based on the latest views and values of voters

Question 101

How does the US Constitution uphold democracy through rights protection?

Answer 101

his clear that the US has a very strong system of rights protection, with a powerful Supreme Court hat is able and willing to promote liberties as outlined in the Constitution. The Bill of Rights, alongside the 14th amendment, gives legal protection to those in the US. Democracy, in seeking To maximise the power of the people, is based on a liberal idea of individual freedom. Rights allow people to have power, giving them control over their own lives, free from excessive government control. This can be seen in the religious freedom clause of the 1st amendment, the right to remain slent in the 5th and freedom from racial discrimination in the 8th. Rights also protect certain towers the people have, giving them the ability to have influence over the government.

Question 102

How does the US Constitution not uphold democracy through rights protection? (2)

Answer 102

On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence of a lack of rights protection in the United States, and thus the undermining of the political power of the people. The Shelby ruling has allowed states to create laws that undermine the opportunity for poor or racial-minority voters to participate. in addition, rights protection itself may contradict principles of democracy. If the electorate vote for a policy, arguably the laws of democracy say they should have it. If voters choose politicians who want to introduce voter ID laws, support laws to prevent the burning of the flag or prevent anti-immigrant marches, then arguably, the rules of democracy should allow those politicians to carry out the will of the people. Much depends on which type of democracy is most highly valued.

Further to this, a criticism from liberals suggests that the system of checks and balances deliberately protects the interests of the few, not the many. Creating any change is made extremel
difficult, which means that the conservative nature of the constitution protects the status quo - the economic elite hold all of the power. The failure of those such as Sanders to change such rules or the extremely limited nature of banking reform passed by Congress after the banking crash of
2007-08 provide evidence of this view of the constitution. conservatives argue that the system is fair because all groups have equal democratic rights to participate in the system through the right to vote, and the protection of richts such as freedom of speech.

Question 103

Pluralist democracy

Answer 103

The ‘pluralist’ principle sees majoritarian democracy as over-
simplistic. instead there is an attempt to base policies on a compromise of different views and interests. This can be seer in. for example, the use of proportional representation (PR) electoral systems, which allow those who are not in the maiorit to gain some political influence. PR tends to create multiparty politics and coalition governments where compromise is required. The power of the people is maximised by attempting to give all or most proups an influence in determining any final outcomes.

Question 104

Majoritarian democracy

Answer 104

The ‘majoritarian’ principle is the one that most people commonly
associate with the word democracy. in simple terms. the majority gets what the majority wants. People sclect representatives to act on their behalf; if over 50 per cent of those representatives vote for more tax, this is what the people get. This principle is present in majoritarian electoral systems in which the winner takes all’ in a constituency. This creates a national parlament in which one party typically has over 50 per cent and the majority of voters get what they have voted for. It maximises the power of the people b eiving the largest group what they have voted for.

Question 105

Key questions about strengths and weaknesses of constitution (5)

Answer 105

-Effective guide to political practice: Does contemporary political practice reflect the rules? Do politicians follow the requirements of the Constitution?

-Flexibility: Can the Constitution adapt to new social, political and eronomic circumstances? Is it easy to amend? Is it too easy?

-Strong government: Is the government able to function? Can it provide effective leadership? Is government too strong? Can it make decisions so that it can govern the country?

-Democracy versus tyranny: Does the Constitution maximise the power of the
people Are there sufficient checks and balances? Does one politician or institution have too much power?

-Civil liberties: Are the right rights being protected?

Question 106

General debates about the constitution

Answer 106

conservatives and liberals will disagree over the criteria and the relative importance of each of them. This. then. is a debate about what makes a desirable constitution. as much as the US
constitution itself. Liberals will accept the need for checks and balances and for power to he shared. Their liberal vision, however, is of a society in which government has a key role to play in
orneing about social justice
the desirability of the Constitution has been disputed by liberals and conservatives, with different views regarding which rights are prioritised by the Constitution. Liberals will tend to emphasise the 14th amendment and conservatives will tend to emphasise the 2nd. In addition, there can be
conflict between state rionts (which are constitutional rights) and individual rights. Conservatives have often challenged developments in individual rights as a restriction of the rights of the states.
iris clear that the Foundine Fathers emphasised checks and balances as a key criteria. The chapters
on the three main institutions, as well as poutical parties, will exolore the extent to which these
Thecks and balances operate effectively. There are many reasons to believe that those checks and alances are not functioning properly. The imperial presidency theory, for example, argues that
here are no signincant constitutional restraints on the president. On the other hand, in the age of rolarisation of parties, there is a view that these checks and balances are now excessive, leading to
egislative sclerosis and a lack of political leadership

Question 107

Areas constitution affects government today (5)

Answer 107

•democracy
• civil rights
•federalism/state power
•the power of political institutions, especially in preventing tyranny
•Making laws - ettective government and the role of political parties in it

Question 108

Positive impacts on gov today of the constitution

Answer 108

-frequent elections, short terms for the House and the separation of powers creates a highly representative government.
-Checks and balances ensure that branches work together. This prevents tyranny and means that policy is based on a compromise of different interests
-A powerful Supreme Court alongside
constitutional rights ensures a high level of protection of civil rights.
-The amendment process prevents politicians in changing the rules to award themselves more power.
-The vagueness of the Constitution has allowed government to operate effectively by allowing changing political practice to suit the needs of modern society.
-The states are well protected, allowing government to meet the needs of each state.

Question 109

Negative impacts of gov today of the constitution

Answer 109

-The electoral college can produce a government that does not reflect the wishes of the majority.
-Policy-making is very difficult, leading to ineffective government in the form of gridlock. Partisanship in Congress has made this considerably worse.
-The power of the supreme Court means that the government may be prevented from carrying out policy, leading to ineffective government and claims of limited democracy.
-The amendment process prevents necessary changes. This might mean that government is not responsive to the needs of modern society
-The vagueness of the Constitution has meant ‘loopholes’ have been exploited, such as executive orders, which has allowed for the dominance of one branch over another.
-There is insufficient protection of state power. The federal government therefore dominates policy-making.

Question 110

Arguments US doesn’t remain truly federal

Answer 110

-States can no longer protect their powers from an increasingly powerful federal government. For federalism to still exist and to be thriving, it must be evident that states are making a significant amount of laws/polices for themselves and that their powers are protected by the Constitution and the Supreme Court.

-The power of states has been eroded so much that the US cannot be considered to be a true federal system. This argument is based on the idea that constitutional protections of state power are largely meaningless, with the federal government able to take control in virtually any policy area, with limited likelihood that they will be blocked. The federal government has taken more control by imposing national policies on all states, with laws such as the Clean Air Act 1970 and the Affordable Care Act 2010 which requires all states to set up health exchanges to ensure that everyone has insurance.

Question 111

Arguments US remains federal

Answer 111

-States have a great deal of control over health, education, law and order and even economic policy.

-For others, federalism is alive and kicking, with states that have huge policy control, which is well protected by the Constitution.

Question 112

Examples of states stetting own policy

Answer 112

For example, states set their own sales tax, with some states like Montana having no sales tax and California having the highest rate at 7.5 per cent.

For example, states have different laws on marijuana. In 2016 California, Nevada and Massachusetts joined a growing list of states that have legalised personal use of marijuana. Other states, including Florida and Georgia, only permit its use if prescribed by a doctor, whereas in Idaho, marijuana is not legally permitted for any use at all, with fines of up to $1,000 or one year in prison.

Question 113

Case study: Liberals versus conservatives and the federalism debate

Answer 113

The conflict over transgender bathroom laws shows a division between liberal (typically Democrat) and conservative (typically Republican) views on federalism. North Carolina restricted transgender individuals from using bathrooms of their adopted gender, and New York State took the opposile approach, providing legal protections. At the start of 2017, 14 states had restrictive laws while many others were in the process of passing such laws. This can be seen as federalism in action with a diversitv of state laws. When in office, President Obama had attempted to place restrictions on states by threatening to withhold federal education funding if discriminatory practice was present On the other hand, President Trump lifted all attempts at federal regulations on this issue. He argued that he was not opposed to transgender rights, but that this was a states’ rights issue.
Liberals criticise the states’ rights argument as an excuse to restrict civil rights. Typically they have been supportive of greater centralisation of state power. Many central government controls have had liberal goals, which have typically promoted the interests of poorer sections of society, racial minorities or individual liberty. They claim that this does not destroy the concept of federalism as states are still free to pursue a huge range of policies for themselves.
Conservatives have tended to resist such programmes, claiming that they restrict federalism.
On moral issues such as abortion, gun control or gay rights, conservatives will typically oppose federal standards, arguing that it should be a state’s responsibility to choose. Conservatives often criticise such interventions as a limit to states’ rights. The conservative case argues that the intent of the Founding Fathers and the fundamental meaning of the Constitution are being ignored.

Question 114

How does the Constitution protect state power?

Answer 114

The Constitution does not mention the word ‘federalism’, and there are very few specific sentences that seek to outline the power of the states. The Constitution covers some details of the enumerated powers of Congress, such as the power to coin money, declare war and regulate business relationships between states. It also forbids the federal government from certain practices, such as using titles of nobility or abandoning republican principles. However, rather than enumerating the power of states, it simply gives a statement that all other powers reside with the states or the people.

Question 115

Areas in which constitution protects state power (3)

Answer 115

-Powers denied to congress
-The 10th amendment
-The amendment process

Question 116

How do powers denied to congress protect state power?

Answer 116

The Constitution provides limitations on Congress, allowing freedom for state power. The interstate commerce clause implies that states are free to regulate their own internal business policy. In addition, constitutional amendments such as the 2nd amendment (the right to bear arms) can prevent the federal government from imposing gun regulations on the states.

Question 117

Example of power denied to congress protecting state oower

Answer 117

In US v Lopez 1995, the federally imposed Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 was successfully halted by states that objected to its imposition. The court ruled that the commerce clause did not allow Congress to ban possession of a gun near a school because gun possession by itself is not an economic activity that affects interstate commerce. This was the first time since Roosevelt’s Presidency that the Supreme Court found in favour of state rights under the commerce clause.

Question 118

How does the tenth amendment protect state power?

Answer 118

The 10th amendment states that any powers not reserved for the federal government should be Considered a state power. This implies that Congress only has those powers that the Constitution tards it; all other powers belong to the states. States have successfully taken a number of cases the Supreme Court allowing them to overturn federally imposed policy.

Question 119

Example of 10th amendment protecting states’ rights

Answer 119

In Printz v United States 1997, the Supreme Court overturned the Brady Act requirement that state officials must perform fickground checks on those wishing to purchase a gun. The 10th amendment meant that this was a state, not federal, policy.

Question 120

How does the amendment process protect state power?

Answer 120

The amendment process protects state power because it is impossible to reduce the power of states without their consent. States can also block amendments they are ideologically opposed to. Any proposed amendment to the Constitution requires three-quarters of states to agree. The failure to remove the electoral college through constitutional amendment shows how smaller states can protect their political influence. This is the main reason why amendments relating to the electoral college system are unlikely to be passed. The current voting system over-represents smaller states such as Wyoming and Alaska, which will not vote to amend the Constitution on this practice.

Question 121

How does the constitution limit state power overall?

Answer 121

Some provisions of the Constitution award powers to the federal government and allow for clear limits on state power. These enumerated powers of the federal government represent areas where states have little or no control, including the power to collect tax and coin money. Key constitutional amendments have contributed to an erosion of state power. The 14th amendment applies the standards of the Bill of Rights to the states - previously it only restricted the federal government. The 16th amendment allowed the expansion of federal power through its right to impose federal income tax. There have also been several areas where the power of the states has been eroded.

Question 122

How do federal mandates limit state power?

Answer 122

Federal mandates are federal laws, in the forms of Acts of Congress, which impose national standards on the states. These laws limit state power because all states are required to comply.
There has been an increasing number of federal mandates since President Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930s. Not only do federal mandates create policy restrictions on the states, they can also limit states financially. In some cases states are required to pay for the policy imposed upon them, taking up valuable resources that could have been spent elsewhere.

Question 123

Example of federal mandate limiting state power

Answer 123

The Affordable Care Act 2010, President Obama’s flagship policy requiring everyone to have health insurance, limits state choice in health care. All states are required to set up health exchanges (or allow citizens to use the federal health exchange) in which they can purchase health insurance.

Question 124

How does the fiscal power of the federal government limit state power?

Answer 124

With the creation of the 16th amendment allowing federal income tax and the expansion of the role of the federal government, states become increasingly reliant on the federal government for funding.
Central government provides states with approximately a quarter of their total expenditure in the form of federal grants, sometimes referred to as federal aid. In itself this is not necessarily a restriction on state power, as states may simply be receiving more financial benefits. The restrictions mainly come from the conditions imposed upon such federal funding of the states.
If states are to maintain access to this huge financial resource they often have to adhere to policy requirements imposed by the federal government.

Question 125

How does the Interstate commerce clause limit state power?

Answer 125

Article I, section 8 gives power to the federal government to regulate commerce with foreign governments and between the states. So what is covered by interstate commerce (in other words, the buying and selling of goods across state borders? Would this allow Congress to regulate home grown marijuana (which, for example, is allowed in California for medical purposes) or the sale of marijuana for medical purposes? Can it be used to allow the federal government to force motels to accept guests from all racial groups? The answers to these questions is yes, yes and yes.
This clause has been used to justify a huge range of federal laws that go beyond the intentions of the Founding Fathers. This includes many areas that arguably exceed the basic idea of commerce.

Question 126

Case study: State power and the environment - the Trump effect

Answer 126

The Trump presidency has made major cuts to federal regulations, notably in environmental areas, meaning that states no longer have to comply to the same standards on carbon emissions, preventing coal mining waste being dumped in rivers or complying with fuel efficiency standards for cars. All of this can be seen as returning power to states. On the other hand, the major cuts in environmental funding under Trump have left many states unsure whether they still have to comply with federal environmental regulations (or wanting to maintain high environmental standards, but being unable to do so due to a lack of financial resources). Trump has proposed cutting the Environmental Protection Agency budget by a third. To make things even more complicated, many states are now more directly involved in trying to meet international climate change targets, albeit on a voluntary level. When Trump withdrew the USA from the Paris climate change agreement in June 2017, many US cities and states committed to continuing to honour the goals of the agreement. It thus appears that the level of state power can be positively or negatively affected when the federal government reduces its role.