American politics -

James Madison (a founding father) wrote in 1788 -

"In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpation are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. "Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people" The different government will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled bu itself."

In the Declaration of Independence (1776 by Jefferson) -

"We hold these truths self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and happiness. That to secure these rights, Government are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organising, its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.' Liberal ideas: -equality -limited government -social contract theory -foundational equality

A new interpretation of the constitution -

-"We are under a constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is." - Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, 1907. -The supreme court can't change the text of the US constitution (only congress + states can). But the supreme court can determine how the US constitution is interpreted. -When the supreme court creates a new interpretation of the US constitution, this is known as an interpretive amendment. The text remains the same, but from that point onwards it takes on a new meaning. -Recently debated amendments: -a requirement to balance federal budget. -banning flag desecration (burning) - it got through to the house 6 times but failed each time in the senate. -Campaign finance reform: several occasions (inc sanders in 2011 and 2016)

The senate -

-100 senators (2 from every state no matter the size of the state) -1/3 of the senate is up for re-election every 2 years.

The house of representatives -

-435 congressmen (1 from the east popular states e.g Wyoming up to 53 from the most popular state - California). -Each representative represents a distinct part of their state. -The whole house is up for re-election every 2 years. -Laws can only be passed if both chambers of congress agree to them. There is no equivalent of the 'parliament act' allowing one chamber to bypass the other.

The USA today -

-50 states -Population 326 million -Racial make up according to 2017 census: white: 60.7% Hispanic or Latino: 18.1% Black or African American: 13.4% Asian: 5.8% Native Americans and Alaskans: 1.3% -a lot of migration -2012 95% of Black voted for Obama

The bill of rights -

-Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. -Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. -Amendment III No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. -Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. -Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. -Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. -Amendment VII In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. -Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. -Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. -Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Bipartisanship -

-Another way the Constitution limits the power of a single politician or group of politicians, is the way it creates a need for bipartisanship. Bipartisanship refers to close cooperation between the major parties to achieve political goals. -The constitution demands bipartisanship in a number of ways: -Divided government: Because the president, the House and the Senate are all elected separately, it is quite common for one party to control the presidency, and the other party to control at least one chamber of Congress. so, to get legislation passed by Congress and signed by the president, bipartisanship is usually required. -constitutional amendments: need 2/3 majorities in the house of senate; it is very unusual for a party to have a 2/3 majority in both chambers, so constitutional amendment usually depends on bipartisanship. -treaty ratification: also needs a 2/3 senate majority. -Given the above, some elements of bipartisanship is usually necessary. And in the mid 20th century, bipartisanship was sometimes possible because the parties overlapped in ideologically - the Democrats has a conservative wing, and the Republicans had a liberal wing. -The problem nowadays is that the parties have diverged from each other more starkly, and are much less keep to cooperated. According to the www.govtrack.us, in 2017, 46 Republican Senators' voting record was more conservative than any Democrats, and 42 Democrat Senators voted more liberally than any republicans. This leaves just 12 senators (5 democrats, 1 independent and 6 republicans) in an 'overlapped' zone. -In this context, bipartisanship is now somewhat harder to achieve: -The parties often cannot compromise on bills, resulting in legislative gridlock. -When supreme court justice Antonin Scalia died in February 2016, Obama tried to nominate a judge to replace him - Merrick Garland. Garland was politically moderate, well-qualified and older than most supreme court nominees. But senate republicans refused to even consider the nomination, arguing that the country must wait until the new president was inaugurated in January 2017. That said, there are still examples of bipartisanship. In 2001, Republican President Bush was able to work with congressional Democrats to enact his educational reforms - the No child left behind act. When the scheme later became controversial ( for not giving the federal government too much control over school testing.), it was replaced in 2015 by another bipartisanship law - the Every child succeeds Act.

Limited government -

-Arguably, the main principle which runs through the IS constitution, it the desire to establish limited government. This is where the power of the US federal government over its states and citizens is subject to constitutional limitations. Remember, the US constitution was written in 1787, shortly after the American war of independence (1775-1783). Having just lifted the tyranny of London, the states did not wish to replace it with the tyranny of their own making.

Arguments that the US states have lost much power -

-Article 1 section 8 clause 18: the necessary and proper clause: The vagueness of this 'elastic clause', has allowed the federal government to claim all sorts of implied powers, not specifically enumerated in the constitution. -Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3: The interstate commerce clause: This part of the constitution gives Congress the power to regulate commerce (trade) between states. -The combination of these two clauses has been used by the federal government as a justification to regulate: 1.Home grown marijuana 2.racial equality in making bookings at motels -The 16th Amendment (1913): This gave Congress the power to levy federal income tax. Many states, by comparison, have suffered financial difficulties. The federal government ($22k per year) now spends over four times as much per citizen as the average state ($5k). The federal government uses this expenditure to: 1. Fund major schemes, such as Medicaid and Medicare. 2.Impose conditions on the states - who must meet these conditions or else lose their federal funding. -Federal mandates: These impose national standards on the states. For example: 1.The no child left behind act (2001) required states to assess students annually between grades 4 and 8. 2.The Affordable Care Act (2010) requires all states to either set up a health exchange, or allow its citizens to access the federal health exchange. However: Trump has proposed lifting many mandates from the states on environmental protection.

Argument that the USA remains truly federal -

-Article 5 of the constitution: Makes clear that the constitution can only be amended with the ratification of three quarters of states. This is completely different to the UK, where the devolved institutions could be abolished by Westminster. -The 10th Amendment (1791): Stipulates that all powers not explicitly given to the federal government or altogether banned, belong to the states (or the people). The constitution 'default setting' therefore, is that a power belongs to the states (or the people). -There is significant legislative diversity amongst the states: To give two striking examples: 1.31 states use the death penalty, 19 states do not. 2.California imposes on 13.3% state income tax on its top earners; neighbouring Nevada levies no state income tax. -Supreme Court protection for the states: In the US v Lopez (1995), the supreme court ruled that the gun free School Zone Act 1990, which made it an offence to possess any gun near a School, could not be constitutionally justified under the interstate commerce clause. In Federation of Independence Business V Sebelius (2012), the supreme court rules that the Affordable Care Act could not constitutionally compel states to expand Medicaid.

The main provisions and principles in the constitution (e.g. separation of powers, checks and balances) similarities -

-Both constitutions establish representative democracies. USA: The house is elected every 2 years, the senate has been elected by the people since the 17th amendment (1913), and the president is now elected virtually directly. There are also a host of state elections. UK: The house of commons is directly elected at least every 5 years. There are also elected devolved assemblies, local majors and councils, and police and crime commissioner elections. Impact: The rational approach would point out that rational self-interested politicians in both countries will be responsive to the wishes of their constituents, in order to be re-elected. -Both constitutions have some separation of powers. USA: No one can be a member of more than one federal branch e.g. Obama stepping down as a senator in 2008. UK: The 2005 constitutional reform act created a separate supreme court (from 2009), and stopped the Lord Chancellor from being in all three branches of government. Cause: The cultural approach might suggest that the two countries are becoming more similar in ways, because the US political culture has begun to spread to the UK - e.g the expectations so some separation of powers - so British traditions like the lord Chancellor now seem hopelessly out of date. Impact: The rational approach might suggest that judges in both countries now make judgement against the executive/legislature, in a way that would not rationally do if they we more heavily controlled by those branches. -Both constitutions involve checks and balances. USA: The presidents legislative proposals are regularly amended or rejected by Congress (which may be controlled by the other party.) UK: On rare occasions, Parliament does stand up to the Prime minister and ministers. For example, May was defeated in July 2018 in a vote on part of her Brexit legislation.

The US federal system and the UK system of devolution similarities -

-Both constitutions share powers between national and sub-national governments USA: Law making is shared between the federal government and the states. The states create, for example capital punishment. UK: Law making is also shared between Westminster Parliament and the devolved institutions. Cause: The cultural approach would point out that both countries now has an expectation of power for the region. In the USA this is ingrained into Republican thinking, and even the Democrat party feel a certain obligation to conform to this expectation. In the UK, the cultural expectation that Scotland should have its own powers, means that Scottish devolution us unlikely to be repealed, even though the Westminster parliament is still sovereign. Impact: The structural approach might suggest that power sharing with the regions improved democracy in both countries, by bringing power closer to the people. -Both constitutions are surrounded by debate about where the balance of power should be. USA: There have been significant debates between Democrats (often viewing the federal government as a force for good in society) and Republicans (often more protective of state rights). UK:There are demands from Welsh nationalists for more powers to be devolved, and, more strikingly demands from Scottish and Irish nationalists for independence from the UK altogether. Cause: The structural approach could explain this debate in the USA: the Constitution is quite vague on where the federal/state balance lies.. The cultural approach might better explain the debate in the UK: there is tension between (for example) Scottish nationalism and unionism associated most with the UK Conservative party (also the labour party).

Disadvantages of the formal amendment process -

-Harms democracy: the will of the majority can be blocked by a relatively small minority of states (13/50) which may be the very least populous. Tried to pass banning burning the American flag 6 times. -Flawed amendments still pass: The difficulty of amending the constitution doesn't stop bad amendments getting through. The 18th amendment (prohibition) proved so problem some it had to be repealed 14 years later by the 21st amendment. -Leads to out of date constitution: the 2nd amendment right to bear arms may have been more appropriate before the invention of assault rifles. It is now arguably out dated, dangerous and incredibly hard to amend. Similarly the electoral college is now seen as outdated, because it is possible for a candidate to win with fewer votes than their rival (Bush 2000 ad Trump 2016) -Gives too much power to the supreme court: if much of the UK was unhappy with the way the UK supreme court is interpreting a statute law, it is easy enough for parliament to just change that statue law. By contrast, once the US supreme court has interpreted as an aspect of the constitution, it is incredibly hard for congress to do anything about it. (the supreme court is also unelected)

Executive -

-Headed by the President -Every four years there is a presidential election -This election picks both the president and vice president (they run on the same 'ticket' they win together or lose together) -Ever since 1951, no one can be elected president more than twice. -The president nominates the Cabinet.

The US constitution is undemocratic -

-Legislative gridlock: The separation of powers often leads to divided government. Divided government often means (when bipatisanship fails) the bill cannot be passed. Even when there is united government, the separation of powers can still frustrate presidents trying to implement their campaign pledges. Trump arguable received an electoral mandate to "repeal and replace Obamacare" in 2016, but failed to achieve this in 2017, when a small number of senate Republicans sided with the democrats. (this also has lead to a declining turn out in the US) -Entrenchment: Inequality within the states which means the constitution struggles to adapt to an even majority opinion. -The electoral college (Article 2, section 2-3): The elector (of the college) can just say no to who their state had chosen; the electorate chooses the the president. -An imperial judiciary: The constitution means what the supreme court says it means. Justices have shown increasing willingness to strike down state and federal law. Judges are thus highly powerful. They are also, of course, entirely unelected.

Political ideas in the USA -

-Liberalism and conservatism are the main two ideologies in the USA -Socialism is not a major player in the marketplace of American political ideas. The socialist Party USA received just 5,000 votes in the 2016 house of representatives election. -The term 'liberal' and 'conservative' means something slightly different in the USA (compared to the UK) -Economics Liberal: state economic stimulus Conservative: laissez-faire Welfare - Liberal: The ability of government to do good - open opportunities for less off individuals. Conservative: social Darwinism Morality - Liberal: moral tolerance Conservative: traditional moral values Federal power vs states rights - liberal: federal power (typically) Conservatives: states right (typically) -American politics is more right overall.

Changing conventions -

-Like the UK, the USA does rely somewhat on unwritten conventions. The first president, George Washington, refused to stand for a third term. -Every president honoured this convention, until the 32nd president Franklin D Roosevelt. FDR set aside the convention, and stood for a third term (in 1940) and even a fourth in 1944. FDR was able to change this aspect of the 'small c' constitution by simply refusing to stick to convention. (Congress proposed a formal constitutional amendment in 1947, ratified in 1951, which create term limits for president: the 22nd amendment)

The US Constitution is democratic -

-Regular elections for a wide range of posts give the public many opportunities for political participation. The constitution achieves this by: 1. requiring congress men and Congress women to contest re-election every two years (Article 1, section 2, clause 1) 2.Establishing popular election of senators (17th Amendment) 3.Establish a system of federalism (which created opportunities for elected governors and state legislatures) -Checks and balances: Arguable the separation of powers promotes democracy by requiring bipartisanship. This means that the interests of a wider selection of the public are taken into account - unlike in the UK where a government need only pander to the interests of its own supporters. -Free speech protected - a necessary element of democracy: Democracy is absolutely dependent upon free speech. How else can voters have the information available to make informed choices? The US constitution entrenches free speech in the 14th Amendment. -It deliberatly limits the government.

The principles of the US constitution and an evaluation of their effectiveness today -

-Some constitutions are designed around a . principle (or a set of principles). A principle is a fundamental and 'organised' idea that runs throughout a constitution e.g democracy or accountability. -The UK constitution has probably evolved too haphazardly to have an underlying principle which runs through it. Perhaps the UK constitution is based more on pragmatism than any principle.

The US federal system and the UK system of devolution differences -

-Sovereignty is located differently in the two countries. USA: There is a federal system: this means sovereignty is shared between Washington DC and the 50 states. This means that congress cannot make 'any law it likes'. Washington DC cannot unilaterally take away the powers of any of the 50 states. UK: There is a unitary system with devolution: this means that the Westminster Parliament alone is legally sovereign. This means that the Westminster parliament can make any law of its choosing, whereas the devolved institutions only have the law making powers given to them by parliament. Although the Westminster Parliament has delegated some powers to Scotland, Wales, NI, it could legally rescind these powers. Cause: The cultural approach would remind us of the greater desire for limited government in the USA than in the UK. The fight for state rights in the USA is, in part, a fight against federal government becoming too powerful. The cultural approach might also point out that much of the UK population (namely most of the English) do not have a strong English-political-identity. Thus, many in the UK, are more comfortable with unitary constitution than proud Texan/New Yorker/Californians would be. -US federalism is systematic, where as UK devolution is asymmetrical: USA: Each state has identical law making powers. UK: The Scottish parliament has more powers than the Welsh or Northern Irish assemblies. England has no devolved institution at all. Cause: The cultural approach might point to different cultural demands for powers from the different nations of the UK. The Scottish have appeared, typically, more keen for powers (and in some cases independence), than the Welsh. Impact: The structural approach might focus on the issue this constitutional set up creates in the UK: the West Lothian question. There is no such issues in the UK.

Entrenchment -

-The UK constitution is incredibly easy to change and since 1997 (Blair) it has gone under multiple changes such as: -devolution -house of lords reform -supreme court -fix term parliament act -human rights act 1998 -European union Act 2017 (to leave). -By contrast, the US constitution has only been amended 27 times since 1787. Beating in mind that 10 of these amendments came almost immediately (ratified in 1791) and one (prohibition of alcohol) was cancelled by another, we are only left with 15 operating amendments since 1791.

The main provisions and principles in the constitution (e.g. separation of powers, checks and balances) differences -

-The US constitution gives more opportunities for political participation that the U. USA: The senate has been elected by the people since the 17th amendment (1913), and the president is now elected directly. There are also a host of state elections. UK: The house of lords is entirely unelected. The PM is not directly elected. England has no devolved assembly. Cause: The cultural approach might point out the greater yearning for popular (people) sovereignty in the USA in the 18th century than in the UK at that time. The structural approach might point out the 10th amendment. Impact: The rational approach might suggest the US voters have more opportunities to pursue their own self interests than UK voters. -There is a greater separation of powers in the USA than the UK. USA: The US has a thorough separation of powers (separation of personnel, would be more accurate) no one can be amemebr of more than one of the federal branches e.g, Obama stepping down as senator in 2008. A presidential system: the US president is elected seperatly from the legislature. UK: The UK has a fusion of powers instead, due to its parliamentary system. The UK government are all both members of the executive, and also the legislature ( as they are all MPs or peers) A parliamentary system: the UK government is drawn from the legislature. Cause: The cultural approach would point to the fear of tyranny at the time of the US founding fathers, which meant that they were keep to divide powers amongst separate institutions. The Uk lacks this culture of fearing government power, and in any case had never had a 'fresh start' like the USA in 1787. Impact: a structural approach would point out that separation of powers often leads to divided government in the USA - whereas in the UK the government usually has a majority in the house of commons. US divided powers stops the president from dominating; whereas the UK prime minister's usually commons majority means the executive dominance is common in the UK. -There are much stronger checks and balances in the US than the UK. USA: the president's legislature proposals are regularly amended or rejected by congress (which may be controlled by the other party). The president's power of patronage is also checked by congress. UK: The government's legislative agenda is usually 'nodded through' the HOC (gov usually had a majority) and the Lords (lacks democratic legitimacy). The PM's patronage powers aren't checked by Parliament. Cause: The cultural approach would point to the fear of tyranny at the time of the US founding fathers, which meant that they were keep to divide powers amongst separate institutions. The Uk lacks this culture of fearing government power, and in any case had never had a 'fresh start' like the USA in 1787. Impact: The rational approach would suggest that this might lead rational US presidents to compromise with Congress, acting in a bipartisanship way. BY contrast, most prime ministers do not need to make as many compromises.

But there is an amendment process -

-The US constitution in entrenched but it is not entirely fixed. -To change the US constitution, the following steps must be followed: 1.First it would have to be proposed by 2/3 of the house of 2/3 of the senate or by a national convention requested by 2/3 of the states. 2.Then it would be ratified (agreed to): by 3/4 of state legislatures or by 3/4 of the state conventions. -Over 10,000 amendments have been debates in congress. 33 of these have been accepted by congress and only 27 of those were ratified by the states. -All of the 27 successful amendments were proposed by Congress, rather than a 'national convention'. On one occasion (the 21st amendment), state conventions then ratified the Amendment. In the other 26 cases, it was the state legislature who ratified the change. -Interestingly, Section 5 of the constitution seems absolutely fix one part of the constitution: "No state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the senate" - so, all the states get the same number of senators, and this cannot be changed by the constitutional amendment process. -Some amendments also take a very long time to get passed such as the 17th amendment which means they cannot vote for their own pay increase or decrease. This was proposed (the congressional pay amendment) in 1789 and was ratified in 1992 and so took 2020 years, 7 months and 10 days to be ratified

Legislature -

-The US equivalent of Parliament in Congress. It is bicameral (complied of 2 chambers), comprising the senate (the upper chamber) and the house of representatives (the lower chambers). Unlike in the UK, both are elected, and both have similar levels of power.

Separation of powers and checks and balances -

-The USA is said the have a separation of powers. The ideas is that the three key bodies of the state - the legislature, executive and judiciary - each have their own personnel, buildings and powers. But many scholars have doubted whether the USA really has a 'separation of powers'. -One one has the USA does meet this definition: 1. separate personnel: no one can be in more than one branch. When Senator Obama became president in 2009, he had to step down from his senate seat. The same applied when Senator Jeff Sessions became Attorney General in 2017. 2. Separate buildings: Congress is based in Capitol Hill, the president in the white house, and the Supreme court in the Supreme court Building. -But arguably the USA does not fully meet the third part of the definition. 1.shared powers: Professor Richard E. Neustadt wrote "the constitutional convention of 1787 is supposed to have created a government of "separate powers". It did nothing of the sort. Rather, it created a government of separate institutions sharing powers.". -a really good example of this comes in legislation: both the legislation (congress) and the executive (the president) share legislative powers. Congress votes on bills, but it is typically the president who signs them into law (or refusing to do so). -another shared power comes in time of war: Congress has the power to declare war, but the president is the Commander-in-Chief.

Supreme court case -

-The case: Federation of independence Business V Sebelius (2012) -Relevant part of the constitution: the commerce clause (in Article 1, section 8) "The congress shall have power... to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with Indian tribes/" -The legal question: Does this clause allow congress to impose a penalty on Americans who refuse to get health insurance? -IN 2012 the supreme court has to decide! Was this aspect of the Affordable care act (Obamacare) constitutional, or not? -The arguments and judgements: President Obama and his supporters argued that the affordable care act (Obamacare) was constitutional because the constitution gives congress the power to regulate inter-state commerce. The supreme court was unconvinced by this argument: by penalising those who do not buy healthcare, Obama care was not regulating commerce, it was compelling it. Fortunately for Obama, the supreme court found a different reason why the Affordable care act was mostly constitutional.

Judiciary -

-The most senior courts in the US supreme court. -It has 9 justices (of whom is the chief justice) -Justices serve for life, until they die (Antonin Scalia Feb 16) or retire (Anthony Kennedy, July 2018) -can declare laws 'unconstitutional' and can ban them.

Federalism -

-The power of the US federal government is limited in another very important way. Not only does the federal government have to share power with the states - it even shares sovereignty with them. Whereas the Westminster parliament could unilaterally withdraw the constitutional powers of the devolved administration, Congress can do no such thing to the states. -This sharing of sovereignty between a central 'federal' government and the individual states is known as federalism. -The constitutional powers of the states can only be taken away via a constitutional amendment. And, as we have seen, amendments only pass if ratified by 3/4 of the states! So, the US sates' powers are constitutionally entrenched to a much greater extent than Scotland's/Wale's/Northern Ireland's. -The power of the states are also considerable. The constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." -In other words, while the federal government has certain powers, all other powers belong to the states or the people (so long as the Constitution doesn't specifically say otherwise). The chart below may help you inn thinking about who has which power.

Comparative theories -

-When comparing the US and the Uk we look for similarities and differences. -Examples question: 'American voters vote even more overwhelmingly for the main two parties than Uk voters. The approaches: -The structural approach: focuses on institutions and systems Political outcomes are largely determined by the informal process in a political system. -The rational approach: focuses on individuals political outcomes are largely determined by what individuals see as beneficial to them. -The cultural approach: Focuses on Ideas Political outcomes are largely determined by the shared ideas, beliefs and values of society / groups in society.

But vagueness! -

-While the US constitution is infinitely more codified that the UK constitution, it does not provide a definitive guide to absolutely every aspect of US political progress. -Firstly, the key parts of the US political system are simply not referred to in the constitution. The document makes no reference to: -Political parties -Congressional committees -The presidential cabinet -exact numbers of the supreme court -Secondly, 'the necessary and proper clause' - has opened up the door to all sorts of debates. -The necessary and proper clause - "The Congress shall have power... To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the Government of the United states, or in any department or office thereof." Meaning: the constitution might explicitly give congress power A, but if carrying out power A also requires power B, then the necessary and proper clause gives congress power B too.

The power of the federal government is limited in three ways -

-by separating the parts of the federal state (separation of power) and having them control each other (checks and balance) -by requiring compromising between parties (bipartisanship) -by sharing sovereignty between the federal government and the states (federalism).

The creation of the USA -

-founded on the throwing off of the monarchy. -The origins of the USA are to be found in the 13 separate British colonies on the East coast of North America. -A number of grievances mounted for the colonists , most famously the taxes they had to pay to London, without receiving any Parliamentary representation. Hence the famous slogan "taxation without representation is tyranny!" Between 1775 and 1783, the 13 colonies successfully fought Britain for their independence in the American war of Independence. So, from the USA's very origins we see a destruction of (oppressive) government, combined with some desire for democracy. -Part way through the war , the colonies declared their independence.

Advantages of the formal amendment process -

-no power hungry president, or congressional majority, can unilaterally change the constitution to award themselves more power (Bipartisan support) -protects the rights of the states: no amendment can be make constitution with out 3/4 of the states (protecting federalism) in particular, the amendment process protects the interests of the smallest states, who have a magnified voting power (through the senate's and state's rile in the amendment process) Prevents ill-thoughts through amendments: the need for cooperation between institutions and parties means that amendments cannot be passed on a whim. Supporters of the rights to bear arms regard the tricky amendment process as a vital protection against knee-jerk reactions following high profile shootings. -Are there principles that are timeless and that are worth enshrining?

Famous examples of the necessary and proper clause -

1. "Congress shall have power to collect Taxes" - power B would be to create a national bank to hold the money. 2."Congress shall have the power... to raise and support armies" power B is the power to draft (conscript) people into the army. -Example 1 comes from the famous McCulloch V Maryland (1819) case. The second example was tested in Aver V United states in 1917. In both cases, the supreme court sided with the federal government. -The vagueness, and the big controversy, comes in deciding what is "necessary and proper" for Congress to do in order to utilise its enumerated powers.. E.G is it really "necessary and proper" for congress to create military draft?

Who has which power -

1. Is the power denied to all by the constitution? e.g the power to inflict cruel and unusual punishment - no one. 2.Does the constitution explicitly give this power to the federal government? e.g the power to declare power - The federal government: these are its enumerated powers. 3. Can the power be reasonably implied from the powers the Constitution does not explicitly give? e.g the power to collect taxes to help defend the USA. - The federal government: these are its implied powers. 4.All other powers...e.g the power to choose the age of consent - The states (or the people): these are the states reserved powers.

A history of the USA -

1780's-1920's: Most political power exercised by the states who jealously guarded their rights. Was over the slaves and between the north ans the south. A reconstruction period followed the war to re-assert the supremacy of the federal government and resulted in the 13th,14th,15th and 16th amendments. 1930s-1960s: Following the wall street crash (1929) the federal government became much more active in trying to deal with unemployment. The federal government would make categorical grants. 1970s-early 1990's: -President Nixon (1969-1974) launched a drive for 'new federalism': a returning of power to the states. -Categorical grants were replaced by 'block grants' - dollars with fewer-strings-attached. Later Republicans presidents follow this agenda (Ford, Reagan, George H. W. Bush) -But: this didn't empower the states for long. From the 1980's, the federal government began cutting its expenditure (e.g neo-liberalism), including its grants to the states. This left the states with unfunded mandates - this federal government legally required them to perform functions without giving them the money to do so. George W.Bush (2001-09): -Surprisingly for a Republican president, there is a lot of evidence that Bush claims extra power for the federal government. -Federal spending: The largest inflation-adjusted increase in federal government spending since the mind-1960's. -Education: The no child left behind Act (2001) created a federal requirement that all states annually test students in grades 4 (yr3) to 8 (yr 7), and move children in failing schools to better ones. -Medicare: During Bush's presidency, Congress expanded Medicare - a federal health progrmme for over 65s. This included spending over $400bn on prescription drug costs over 10 yrs. -The economy: Following the financial crash of 2008, Bush authorised the secretary of the treasury to nationalise two mortgage companies. Barack Obama (2009-2017): -The Affordable care act: Obama's ACA tried to compel states to expand Medicaid, supporting more of the poorest who could not afford to buy health insurance. States wh0 refused would lose all their federal Medicaid funding. -But in Federation of Independent Business V Sebelius (2012), the supreme court rules that compelling the states in this way was unconstitutional, so struck down this aspect of the ACA.

Codification -

A codified constitution: a constitution written in one document. -The US constitution is codified into a single document. The text of the US constitution is about 7,000 words long. -In place, the constitution is very clear. For example, it sets out a number of enumerated powers. This is where the US constitution specifically gives a power to some part of the federal government - for example Article 1, Section 8 provides a list of congressional powers. -authoritative: seen as higher law and sets out laws. -entrenched: incredibly difficult to change. -Judicialiable: higher law, other laws judged against it..

Constitution

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

Separation of Powers

Constitutional division of powers among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, with the legislative branch making law, the executive applying and enforcing the law, and the judiciary interpreting the law

A key historical note -

Despite the progressive principles in the Declaration of Independence, the franchise was heavily restricted in the USA for many years. Many states imposed a property qualification barring the poor from voting. Women could not vote until 1920. In parts of the country, black Americans were denied the right to vote until at least 1964.

The nature (codified/uncodified) and sources of the constitution differences -

Differences: -The US constitution is largely codified, the UK constitution is not: USA: The 7,000 word long US constitution is a single document establishing the framework for US government, setting out the powers of the: -congress -president -the supreme court -the states -as well as establishing an amendment process, and entrenching the rights of citizens. UK: There is no equivalent document to this. The UK constitution can be found in: -EU treaties -Statute laws -common law -conventions -authoritative texts. Cause: The cultural approach might explain how the difference emerged by pointing to the UK's culture of pragmatism. (particularly within traditional conservatism), as compared to the high principles fought for in the American was of independence. Impact of difference: the structural approach might point out that the existence of a codified constitution has created greater clarity about the rules of politics in the USA, than in the UK. However, the vagueness of the US constitution means there is remarkable debate about what the clauses in the US constitution really mean, so it may not provide much more clarity than the UK's uncodified constitution There is possibly more legal debate about the federal state balance in the USA than there is about the Westminster-devolved assemblies balance in the UK. -Like most codified constitutions, the US constitution is entrenched, the UK constitution is not. USA: A difficult amendment process is outlined in Article 5 involving super majorities; the most challengingly, 3/4 of the states. For example, it would be very difficult to change the term length of US senators. UK: The various elements of the UK constitution can be changes easily. For example, a simply majority in the commons and lords was enough t create the fixed term parliament act in 2011. Cause: The cultural approach could suggest that the 18th century America's highly individualistic culture created a constitution which entrenches various protections from tyranny and rights of the individual. UK culture has involved acceptance of the constitutional monarchy, as well as a much greater emphasis on collectivism, so there has never been an overwhelming call for constitutional entrenchment. Impact: a rational approach might point out that, because Americans know it is hard to secure a formal constitutional amendment, they are more rational to ask the supreme court to make an interpretive amendment. By contrast, Brits know that in the UK system it is somewhat easier to change the constitution in parliament, so rationally lobby MPs instead.

Check and Balance -

Each branch if government have the same power and they could check over other branches work to prevent one branch becoming too powerful.

categorical grants -

Federal grants for specific purposes, such as building an airport

Evaluate the extent to which 'new federalism' achieved its objectives -

It has: -Article 5: constitution has to have 3/4 of the states votes to be amended. -10th Amendment: Powers that aren't explicitly listed belong to the states e.g tax rates federal gov cant suprcede. e.g California imposes 13.3% tax on high earners where as Nervada has none. It hasn't: -The necessary and proper clause; federal can claim all sorts of implied powers e.g drafting men into the army/ -Regulate commerce between states (interstate commerce clause) e.g home grown marijuana -Impose national standards (federal mandates) e.g no child left behind act (2001) and Affordable care (2010)

Pros and cons of the constitution -

Pros: -allows the constitution to be accepted and modified. Cons: -can end up with too much power -what about a matter not in the constitution? -where is the lime between implied power and congress just making a new power? e.g conscription -what counts as a cruel and unusual punishment? -These ambiguities combined in 'elastic cases' give the supreme court significant sway.

Pros and cons of the US Constitution -

Pros: -Regional adaptions for geopolitical variety. -freedom from Tirane, further limits the government. -more democratic -It a large country so there's a lot of diversity of opinion -it limits the powers of the federal states -can try out policies. Cons: -amount of representation doesn't change with increasing population -complicates accountability -creates political incoherence -can lead to serious conflict (civil war) -a extra costly layer of bureaucracy -can create issues of jurisdiction -low turn out (25% for state elections)

The nature (codified/uncodified) and sources of the constitution similarities-

Similarities: -neither country has a single document with absolutely every constitutional rule in it. USA: the constitution doesn't even mention the exact number of Supreme court justices. UK: The is 'no single document' at all. Cause of similarity: no country has a constitution that contains everything. -both constitutions involve conventions: USA: The two-term limit, until it was brought into the constitution by the 22nd Amendment UK: The convention that the PM is an MP not a peer. Impact: The cultural approach might suggest that maintaining conventions can help promote a culture of fair play between the parties in both countries, which might make occasional bipartisanship possible. -Both constitutions have written elements: USA: the 7,000 word constitutional document itself. UK: Statue laws (e.g the Parliament Act 1911), common law written judgements (e.g. the brexit case 2017), authoritative texts (e.g Erskine May), EU treaties (e.g. the Maastricht treaty) Cause of similarity: almost all countries have this Impact: The structural approach could point out that the significant part written law play in both constitutions make judges powerful political players in both countries.

Federalism definition -

Sovereignty is divided between central bodies and regional institutions.

Separate elections -

The USA has separate elections for their President (executive), and the USA's executive (white house) has less control over the legislature (congress) than number 10 has over parliament through its built in majority.

enumerated powers

The powers explicitly given to Congress in the Constitution or that are specific

Supremacy cause -

Trities, federal law and the constitution are supreme.

The constituitional framework (powers) of the US branches of the government -

US politics is structured by the constitution, including its various amendments. For example, some of the president's power comes directly from the constitution, and all of the president's power must be compatible with the constitution. -Was written in 1787 by the founding fathers -Article 6: The supremacy clause, making the US constitution the highest law in the land.

Other weaknesses of the US constitution -

When it was written (modernity): -its outdated e.g the 2nd amendment -population differences -electoral college is not democratic as electors can over rule the people. Protection of rights: -The constitution is difficult to 'modernise' -rights for groups, they were not originally considered in the constitution.African american were put in in the 17th amendment and native American and women are still not equal. -its given the supreme court too much power. Effectiveness of government: -Gov slow to react due to the long amendment process. -checks and balances stop carrying out needed measures -A divided government can lead to a complete shut down.

Other strengths of the constitution -

When written (modernity): -it was written after the enlightenment so it contains liberal principles. -Based on the information and experiences the USA had under Britain with no rights which meant they enshrined rights. -are some principles time less? Protection of rights: -Entrenched bill of rights with enforcement from the supreme court -free speech, press and religion -no cruel or unusual punishments -states rights -enough vagueness to modernise Effectiveness of government: -the process is clearly laid out. -As long as there is bipartisanship the government can run effectively. -If you define effectively as well scrutiny then checks and balances fur-fill this purpose.

Asymmetrical devolution -

Where the devolution of powers from central to subnational governments is not uniform, and the powers devolved vary from region to region

Marble cake federalism -

programs and authorities are mixed among the national states and local governments.