Unit 2 FRQs Flashcards
- The framers of the US Constitution created a legislative system that is bicameral. However, it is not just bicameral; the framers also established two houses of distinctly different character and authority. (6 points)
A. Discuss two reasons why the framers created a bicameral legislature.
B. Identify one power unique to the House of Representatives and explain why the Framers gave the House that power.
C. Identify one power unique to the Senate and explain why the Framers gave the Senate that power.
A. The Framers created a bicameral legislature consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate in order incorporate a system of checks and balances and provide a compromise to the issue of representation. In order to prevent a branch from becoming too powerful, the bicameral legislature prevents the legislative branch from becoming too powerful and dividing the responsibilities of the branch between the two chambers. Additionally, there was a large debate on whether states should have equal or proportional representation. The establishment of two chambers allowed both to exist and motivate smaller and larger states to ratify the constitution.
B. One power unique to the House of Representatives is the power to initiate the impeachment proceedings of federal officials. The Framers gave them this power to hold federal officials accountable and serve as a check on the executive and judicial branches. In addition, this power reflects the popular will as the chamber is directly elected by the people and serve for shorter terms and can therefore reflect the opinion of the people better.
C. One power unique to the Senate is the power to ratify treaties. The Framers gave the Senate this power to place checks on the executive branch which negotiates and proposes treaties. They also represent the states’ opinions on the matter and can provide stable deliberation on the matter as they serve longer terms than those in the House of Representatives and have political expertise.
- Following the 1990 census, Texas gained seats in the United States House of Representatives. The redistricting plan included three new districts, two of which had a majority of Latino voters, and another that had a majority of African American voters. In addition, they reconfigured a fourth district to make it predominately African American. The Texas plan was approved by the Department of Justice under the requirements of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. However, the plan was challenged in the federal courts as racial gerrymandering. In Bush v. Vera (1996) the Supreme Court concluded that the state of Texas had violated the US Constitution in the drawing of the districts. (4 points)
In the majority opinion, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said that the redistricting was “so extremely irregular on its face, that it rationally can be viewed only as an effort to segregate the races for the purposes of voting without regard for traditional redistricting principles.”
A. Identify a constitutional clause that is common to both Bush v. Vera (1996) and Shaw v. Reno (1993)
B. Explain how the facts in both cases led to similar holdings.
C. Explain how the decision in Bush v. Vera could affect the process of redistricting for congressional representation in other states.
A. The Constitutional clause that is common to both Bush v. Vera and Shaw v. Reno is the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment which states that all citizens are equal under the law.
B. The facts in both cases led to similar holdings because both cases changed voter districts to benefit a particular race. In both cases, the governments attempted to follow the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and assist the black population in electing black officials. In doing so, they used racial gerrymandering to redistrict the states. The Supreme Ruled in both cases that despite the effort to assist a historically discriminated group, under the Equal Protection clause, racial gerrymandering was not constitutional and therefore the redistricting violated the Constitution.
C. The decision in Bush v. Vera could affect the process of redistricting for congressional representation in other states because it sets the precedent for future cases in ruling that racial gerrymandering is not lawful at any point. While the Voting Rights Act of 1965 aims to help historically discriminated groups vote, the laws stated in the Constitution override the act. Therefore, any attempt to alter voting for historically discriminated groups must first follow the Equal Protection Clause rather than the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
- One of the most cherished safeguards of liberty in our government is–the right of a political minority to have a voice. Until now, this has always been the defining characteristic of the Senate. That’s why all senators traditionally defended the Senate as an institution, because they knew that the Senate was the last legislative check for political minorities and small states against the kind of raw exercise of power large states and majority parties have always been tempted to wield.
–Senator Mitch McConnell
A. Describe the viewpoint expressed in the quote.
B. Describe one advantage of the filibuster in the lawmaking process.
C. Explain two reasons why the filibuster has been criticized.
A. As stated in the quote, the Senate gives more power to smaller states and minority groups because there are two representatives for each state compared to the proportional assignment of representatives in the House of Representatives. This gives both small and large states equal representation in the Senate and prevents larger states from overpowering smaller ones in voting.
B. The filibuster is when Senate members debate for an extended period to delay or fully stop the passing of a bill. The filibuster can be stopped and the bill immediately voted on by a three-fifths vote, which requires majority support. An advantage of the filibuster is that it can prevent the majority party from passing legislation that disregards the minority party, encouraging bipartisanship and a more balanced representation in decision-making.
C. The filibuster has been criticized for its ability to obstruct legislation and prevent proper representation in the Senate. The filibuster can prolong debates and prevent legislation from being passed even though it may have majority support. Furthermore, the filibuster allows minority outliers to prevent the passing of legislation that may have majority support or benefit a larger portion of the population.
- The United States Supreme Court receives many appeals, but it hears and rules on a small percentage of cases each year. Numerous factors influence the actions of the Court, both in deciding to hear a case and in the decisions it hands down. (5 points)
A. Define judicial review.
B. Explain how judicial review empowers the Supreme Court within the system of checks and balances.
C. Describe the process through which the Court grants a writ of certiorari.
D. Explain how each of the following influence decisions made by individual justices when deciding cases heard by the Court.
a. Stare decisis
b. Judicial Activism
A. Judicial review is the power of courts to examine government actions and invalidate those that are unconstitutional.
B. Judicial review empowers the Supreme Court within the system of checks and balances because it allows the Supreme Court to invalidate actions or decisions made in the government. This prevents Congress from creating laws that do not follow the Constitution and prevents the president from taking unconstitutional actions. For example, the Supreme Court can rule that a piece of legislation is unconstitutional and therefore eliminate it. Additionally, the Supreme Court’s decisions set precedents and prevent the same unconstitutional behavior from occurring again.
C. The process through which the Court grants a writ of certiorari begins when a group files for a writ of certiorari, a formal request for the Supreme Court to review a decision made by a lower court. In response, the opposing party may file a response that includes counterarguments to the Court to prevent the petition from being granted. Furthermore, other interested parties who have a stake in the outcome of the case may file an amicus curiae brief, a brief that describes their position to the Court to provide insight into whether or not the Court should grant the writ of certiorari. Next, the Supreme Court meets to decide which writs to grant. The rule of four is followed, the rule that at least four justices must vote in favor of the writ for it to proceed to a hearing. Then, the court issues a writ themselves that states they are reviewing the case. This allows all parties involved to formulate briefs with their legal responses, which the Court then reviews and decides their final response.
D.
Stare decisis
Stare decisis means that the Court will stand by their prior decisions, or follow the precedent they have set in prior rulings. Based on this, Courts will often be influenced by prior cases that have set a precedent for future cases. They will follow the same ruling or principles of a ruling in order to set stability and reliability of the Court.
Judicial activism
Judicial activism is when judges follow their own opinions on policy versus their interpretation of the law. Their personal opinions will therefore guide their ruling. Judicial activism influences the Court by potentially broadening their interpretation of the Constitution, seeing the document as a living document that evolves with society. This may expand their use of judicial review to invalidate actions and “correct” previous injustices. Finally, judicial activism may influence the court to make more controversial decisions that align with their personal opinions, as they do not have to face scrutiny at reelection.
