To what extent does the Constitution ensure a Limited Government? Flashcards
How does the constitution ensure a limited government? (4 Points)
1) Through the separation of powers
2) Through Checks and Balances
3) Through Federalism
4) Through the Bill of Rights
How does the separation of powers ensure a limited government?
Each branch carries out different functions of government, therefore in theory all the branches need to work together, which means that no branch has total control the way a dictatorship would.
In order to end segregation, the Supreme Court needed to declare segregation unconstitutional in Brown v Board of Education (1954), then Congress had to pass the Civil Rights Act (1964) to legitimise and provide funds for desegregation, then President Johnson had to implement desegregation.
What is the significance of seperation of powers ensuring a limited government?
Helps to reduce adversarial politics and increase consensus politics.
Increases positive attitudes of government, which helps to reduce apathy.
What is the rebuttal against separation of powers causing a limited Government?
In practise, one branch may not need the help of the other branches, therefore a branch could gain a lot of control in the way a dictatorship could.
In December 2014, Obama reestablished diplomatic relations with Cuba without any input from other branches
How does the Constitution ensure a limitied government through checks and balances?
Each branch carries out checks and balances on the power of the other branches, therefore in theory no branch can go beyond their powers:
1) Congress can prevent the President’s legislation, appointments and treaties from being passed.
a) Obama’s 2009 executive order aimed to close Guantanamo Bay within the year, but Congress passed the Supplemental Appropriations Act (2009) to block funds for transfer or release of detainees.
b) In March 2016, Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, however Republicans in the Senate have said that they won’t consent to any of Obama’s nominees.
c) In 2012, the Senate rejected the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities treaty.
2) The President can prevent the Congress’s legislation from
being implemented.
Obama vetoed the Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act (February 2015).
3) The Supreme Court can strike down legislation and Presidential actions.
United States v. Lopez (1995) – held that the federal government’s Gun-Free School Zones Act (1994) was unconstitutional because this went beyond Congress’s “Commerce Clause” powers, so was an issue that was reserved for the states.
What is the significance of ensuring a limited government by checks and balances?
Increases government scrutiny, which should reduce corruption.
Could make it harder to get things done and could cause
government shutdowns, such as the 2013 Government Shutdown and the 2018/19 shutdown (which lasted 35 days).
Could increase adversarial politics, which could put off voters, causing apathy and low turnout.
What is a rebuttal for checks and balances causing a limiting government?
In practise, checks and balances are not always effective, therefore one branch could go beyond their powers.
The last time that Congress formally rejected a President’s Supreme Court appointment was in 1987 with Robert Bork.
The President’s veto requires a 2/3 majority to overturn, which is hard so is rarely achieved, for example President Bush used 11 vetoes but only had 4 vetoes overturned.
The Supreme Court usually uses judicial restraint and upholds legislation and Presidential actions, so rarely acts as a check and balance, for example National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012) upheld Obamacare (2010).
How does the constitution ensure a limited government through federalism?
The federal and state governments each have their own jurisdictions, therefore in theory neither can go beyond their powers.
1) The federal government cannot pass any laws it likes because, under the 10th amendment, any powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states.
United States v. Butler (1936) – held that the Agriculture Adjustment Act (1933) was unconstitutional because agriculture was reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment.
New York v. United States (1992) – held that the federal requirement for states to assume liability for toxic waste generated within their borders was unconstitutional because it violated the 10th Amendment.
2) The supremacy clause means that states governments must
follow federal laws, court rulings or executive orders that are
within the federal government’s jurisdiction.
Cooper v. Aaron (1958) – held that states had to follow Brown v Board of Education (1954) because it was a federal decision and federal law is supreme.
Nevada v. Hibbs (2003) – held that states can be sued for failing to obey the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (1993) because federal law is supreme.
Arizona v. United States (2012) – struck down provisions of Arizona’s “Papers Please” Law, which required immigrants to carry immigration paperwork at all times, because it went against Congress’s power to set the US’s immigration laws.
What is the significance of the constitution ensuring a limited government via federalism?
Helps to further separate powers, which helps to prevent a tyrannical dictatorship.
Increases the efficiency of government as the federal government can focus on national issues whilst the state government focus on local issues.
Should help to put conservative voters at ease as they are concerned about the federal government infringing on “states’ rights”
What is the rebuttal for the argument that limited government is ensured by federalism?
In practice, federalism hasn’t recently ensured limited government because the power of the federal government has grown.
1) No Child Left Behind (2001) – required schools to meet federal standards to receive federal funding.
2) Department of Homeland Security (est. 2002) – developed new federal standards for emergency preparedness, communications and response.
3) Medicare Modernisation Act (2003) – expanded healthcare coverage to include prescription drugs.
4) Gonzales v. Raich (2005) – held that Congress can criminalise the production of cannabis under the “Commerce Clause”.
5) President Bush intervened in the 2007-2008 economic crisis, such as by nationalising two huge mortgage companies and by bailing out the banks with $700 billion.
6) President Obama intervened in the economic crisis via his $787 billion economic stimulus.
7) Obamacare (2010) vastly increased federal power over healthcare.
How does the constitution ensure a limited government through the bill of rights?
The Bill of Rights prevents the federal and state governments from
enacting laws that infringe on rights.
Boumediene v Bush (2008) – held Bush’s Military Commissions Act (2006) to be unconstitutional as it infringed on habeas corpus. [which protects against indefinite or unlawful imprisonment]
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) – held that the District of Columbia’s firearms ban was unconstitutional as it infringed on the 2nd Amendment (right to bear arms).
United States v. Windsor (2013) – held that the Defense of Marriage Act (1996), which restricted marriage to being between one man and one woman, was unconstitutional as it infringed on the Due Process clause of the 5th Amendment.
What is the significance of the bill of rights limiting government?
Protects the rights of minorities, therefore prevents tyranny of the majority.
Should help to put minorities at ease, which could decrease apathy and increase turnout.
