POLS 0010: Final Exam

Three main things that regulate Federalism

(1) Supremacy Clause: *Makes the Constitution, plus all laws and treaties made under the Constitution, supreme over state law. If federal law conflicts with state law, the federal law (assuming it is within the powers of Congress) is supreme. *The supremacy clause also allows for the preemption of state laws. If Congress and the states both seek to regulate an area, such as pollution control or the minimum wage, states must meet national standards if they are higher than state standards. (2) 10th Amendment: *While the 10th Amendment states that all powers not delegated to the national government under the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people.... The Articles of Confederation had a similar clause, but it included the word expressly before the word delegated. Because the Tenth Amendment omits the word expressly, the implication is that the national government retains the sort of implied powers granted by the necessary and proper clause. *Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Marshall noted that Congress possessed unenumerated powers not explicitly outlined in the Constitution. Marshall also held that while the states retained the power of taxation, "the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme. . .they control the Constitution and laws of the respective states, and cannot be controlled by them." (3) 11 Amendment: *prohibits federal courts from hearing suits against a state by citizens of another state. Not absolute: Congress can allow suits based on provisions in constitutional amendments such as the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment.

Second Amendment

-"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" -intending anything beyond arming of local militias? -Court finally decided that issue in 2008, ruling in D.C. v. Heller that there is an individual right to possess a gun, at least for self-defense in one's home -The pro-gun sentiment in the U.S. is strong, the lobby NRA is powerful

Key Amendments from the Bill of Rights (Civil Liberties + Rights)

-1 - religion, speech, press, assembly, petition the government -2 - bear arms -4-8 - trial amendments/rights of the accused *5: due process -9 - any rights not listed still belong to the people -10 - any powers not enumerated belong to the states

Presidency and the Military

-2/3 original cabinet positions dealt with international relations -President is known for being in charge of the military and the bureaucracy -BUT, Congress has the power to declare war though -War Powers Act after the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution during the Vietnam War *Gulf of Tonkin had said that executive can send troops anywhere without Congress officially declaring it a war; Congress can refuse to fund it *BUT, pass the WPA to say that the war must be confirmed by Congress 90 days after president notifies Congress *have bypassed this by not notifying Congress or by saying "consistent with" instead of actually looking at Constitutionality of it

Local Government Powers

-Allows for forms of direct democracy b/c small enough *Ballot Initiative: a petition signed by a certain minimum number of registered voters can force a government to choose to either enact a law or hold a public vote *Referendum: direct vote in which an entire electorate is invited to vote on a particular proposal. This may result in the adoption of a new law. *Recall: voters can remove an elected official from office through a direct vote before that official's term has ended. *Town Halls: think new england, school board meetings, general community meetings

History of President/Congress Budget struggle

-Almost immediately was hard for Congress to enforce the appropriations "clause" -The executive branch happily incurred debts on behalf of the U.S. without regard to actual appropriations *Agencies issued "coercive deficiency" requests to Congress for payment of their bills and Congress grudgingly paid the bills -Congress complained, but the federal budget was still small and simple enough that the status quo was accepted -Finally, in 1870, the Congress acted to seize control of the appropriations process and the budget --> The Anti-Deficiency Act of 1870 (really officialized their constitutional power over the purse) -However, until 1921, the federal government operated without a comprehensive presidential budget process *Executive agencies presented their budget request directly to the Congress *The president had no real role in shaping the budget -Financial stability was maintained despite a lack of a presidential budget system to coordinate revenues and spending because government was still small and its financial needs modest -The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 required the submission each year of a budget request from the president to Congress — his first formal role in the budget process *It created the Bureau of the Budget, which today is OMB to assist the president in his budgetary responsibilities and oversee the new executive branch budget process -Beginning with FDR, presidents used new budget power to promote own policy agenda, but the Congressional process remained confusing -The 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act became the law: (1) Created fast-track (expedited procedures) for developing an annual Congressional Budget *Budget resolution must be passed by both Houses *The President does not sign the resolution and it does not become law and does not bind the executive branch --> it is primarily the Congress's budget blueprint *You can't use filibuster/cloture since there is limited time *It is a concurrent resolution that must be passed in both houses (2) Created the CBO to advise Congress and become the scorekeeper — CBO produces annual budget forecast, forumates the budgeting baseline, scores all pending legislation, and review the president's budget *While the budget resolution prepared by the Budget Committee sets out a broad blueprint for the Congress with respect to the total levels of revenues and spending for the government as a whole, other Committees prepare legislation that actually encats specific tax and spending policies (3) Created for the first time a Congressional budget timetable to promote order and coordination in the process (ex/ Congress is required to enact its concurrent budget resolution prior to April 15th each year) *But very often ignore or miss this deadline (only six occurence where Congress has adopted a budget resolution on time) *To a degree probably not foreseen in 1974, the Budget Act has institutionalized and expanded budget conflict between the president and Congress, and between the parties within Congress, helping to accelerate the process of party polarization (4) Created a second-track optional process known as "reconciliation" *also afforded expedited process this is especially significant in the Senate *circumvents the Senate's regular order, allowing a majority to pass major legislation by permitting only limited debate (20 hours) *requires two steps: (a) reconciliation instructions are included in the budget resolution to direct committees to carry out budget objectives (b) specific provisions pursuant to the instructions are included in a bill which is then considered under fast-track procedures (no filibuster) and if passed and signed by the President becomes law *ex/ How Republicans passed Trump tax cuts and attempted to repeal Obamacare (failed bc of McCain vote)

Presidents and the Economy

-Americans expect their president to protect and/or provide a vibrant economy -BUT, presidents don't have that much control over the economy (business cycle) -still, evidence that Obama's stimulus package in 2009 played an important role in preventing a major recession -Generally, actions along party lines are: *Republicans way of reducing deficit with the goal of slowing down the debt, is to cut spending pretty much across the aisle except for national security *Democrats say that we need to raise revenue (through tax increases and resistant to changes in entitlement programs; want to match foreign spending with domestic spending) to reduce the deficit and slow down the debt -Disagreements create impasse and more omnibus bills; constrains options for government -power of the purse is with legislative branch -"president's budget" is actually budget request -create requests that are 10 years long but that really only matter for the first year because make a new one every year -DOES general initiative of setting blueprint budget resolution and having influence over the top line numbers (how much spent and how much revenue and especially deficit numbers, because it is hard for Congress to increase the deficit beyond the president's number) -DOES have ability to veto appropriations (even just veto threat might influence) -DOES have bully pulpit to try to define terms of specific fights -DOES have a seat at the table for omnibus bills because can't run the risk of a veto when such a large bill and right around Christmas but breaches the checks and balance -BUT, when house is opposite party budget is often "dead on arrival" -Struggle over budget by Congress and President is fully intended by the founders as check

Judiciary

-Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution which lays out the judicial powers of the federal government is the briefest article establishing a branch -Supreme Court and inferior Courts established by Congress -Serve during good behavior -Established a lot of what we now have through Judiciary Act of 1789 *established district courts with trial authority; circuit courts (today 13) with both trial and appellate authority between the district court and Supreme Court *In 1978, Congress established the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (FISA) Court entertains applications made by the government for approval of electronic surveillance, physical search, and certain other forms of investigative actions for foreign intelligence purposes. *Also, in 1980 Congress created the Court of International Trade in 1980. -Judicial Review is strongest power of the courts (ex/ Brown v. Board) -Legals issues are resolved through an adversary process *Judges decide some cases, jury determines the outcome *right to trial by jury dates to Magna Carta, where it replaced trial by ordeal (protects accused from arbitrary detention and unjust punishment -questions of fact and questions of law *trial court decisions about questions of fact are presumed valid because the judge or jury directly hears the evidence; but because mistakes about questions of law are sometimes made, appeals can be made from trial court rulings *courts of appeals and Supreme Court hear appeals, which involved issues of law, these courts do not retry the facts as established by the trial court -trials resolve two different types of disputes *in criminal case, the government prosecutes an individual for breaking the law (based almost exclusively on prohibitions written into statutes (law) adopted by federal, state, or local legislatures) *in a civil suit, a plaintiff sues a defendant to enforce a right or to win monetary damages -criminal law is based on statutory authority, when there are gaps in statutory law, courts rely on judge-made law known as common law *such cases are decided on precedents, because like cases get decided similarly, following precedent promotes greater equality, predictability, and stability in law --> *Stare Decisis* *the Supreme Court will usually defer to its previous decisions even if the soundness of the decision is in doubt *doctrine operates both horizontally and vertically - horizontal stare decisis refers to a court adhering to its own precedent; vertical stare decisis is when a court applies precedent from a higher court -trials in the district courts are either criminal or civil -outside interests can file amicus curiae briefs arguing their views; most influential from Solicitor General -A small number of federal criminal trials proceed to trial; the accused has the right to a trial by jury but is free to request a bench trial, in which the judge decides guilt or innocence *A jury in a federal felony case consists of twelve individuals who must reach a verdict unanimously -the defendant can appeal a guilty verdict, but the double jeopardy clause of the Constitution prohibits the government from appealing a verdict of not guilty *if the defendant is found guilty, the judge determines the sentence based on guidelines *in death penalty cases, the decision on the punishment is left to the jury; that is, following a guilty verdict, the jury hears new testimony by the prosecutor and defense attorney about whether death is the appropriate punishment -each state has its own court system, and unless a case involves federal law or the type of parties that create federal jurisdiction, cases get resolved in state courts, each of which has its own hierarchy of trial and appellate courts -cases that involve federal issues that begin in one of the fifty separate state court systems can be appealed to the federal court in one of two ways: (1) Criminal defendants who have exhausted their state appeals can file a writ of habeas corpus with a U.S. District Court, which then allows the court to determine whether one or more of the defendant's federal legal rights have been violated (2) Any parties who have exhausted their state appeals can file a request for review, known as petition for a writ of certiorari, directly with the Supreme Court

Presidency

-Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution states that the president must be a natural-born citizen, at least 35 years old, and a resident of the US for at least 14 years -The Twenty-Second amendment (1951) limits the president to two elected terms; until 1940, presidents followed the precedent established by George Washington when he stepped down after two term *FDR chose to run for a third term and won, and also won election to a fourth term in 1944 *Many Americans, especially Republicans, worried that a long-standing president could become too powerful, so they sought a way to limit president terms o serve -In 1946, Republicans captured a majority in the House and Senate, and on the very first day of the new Congress, they proposed a constitutional amendment limiting the president to two full terms in office -25th Amendment provides the procedures for replacing the president or VP in the event of death, removal, resignation, or incapacitation *invoked several times during Watergate Era *when a nominee is chosen by the president to assume the office of vice president, that appointment must be confirmed by a majority vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate. *If the president were to resist that declaration by asserting that he/she is capable of discharging the duties, the president would resume his/her powers and duties unless by a two-thirds vote of each chamber, Congress determines the president is unable to do so. *Congress, under the Constitution has always had the power to remove a president through impeachment and conviction. *The 25th amendment is meant provide a way for the vice president, the cabinet, and the Congress to remove a president temporarily or permanently under dire circumstances when the president is ill or otherwise incapacitated. This provision has never been invoked to remove a president.

LGBTQ+ Rights and Public Opinion

-Bowers v. Hardwick: May states prosecute consensual sexual activity by members of the same sex? *Hardwick (original defendant) argued the Georgia law violated privacy rights established in the Griswold birth-control case (1965) *The Court ruled that the "ancient roots" of the anti-sodomy tradition excluded sodomy from the privacy rights established in Griswold *At the time only 32% of the American public thought that homosexual relations should be legal -Lawrence v. Texas (2003): reverses Bowers decision; rules Texas' antisodomy laws unconstitutional -U.S. v. Windsor (2013): struck down DOMA's provision restrictions of marriage rights to only heterosexual couples as unconstitutional violation of the 5th amendment due process clause; same sex married couples now receive federal benefits -Obergefell v. Hodges (2015): Struck down state bans on same sex marriage. The 14th Amendment requires States to license a marriage between two people of the same sex. States must recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. (Roberts Court) -During this time, these changes coincide with a more than **quadrupling of support for marriage equality in the U.S. during that time**

Civil Liberties vs. Civil Rights

-Civil liberties provide a gate or barrier that protects people against interference by the government in fundamental liberties, such as freedom of speech or religion -Civil rights often require active involvement of the government in opening gateways to full civic participation by all, regardless of race, gender, or religion (ex/ voting, access to public accommodations) -Freedom through civil liberties can conflict with order and civil rights (ex/ baker vs. same-sex couples) -Attempts to limit civil liberties are more frequent in wartime or times when public security appears threatened *Popular support for civil liberties usually rebounds after the crisis ends, though the terrorism crisis shows no signs of ending *ex/ PATRIOT ACT after 9/11 being passed overwhelmingly (provided far more ability to tap telephone calls and emails; regulated financial transactions conducted overseas and ability to deport immigrants suspected of terrorism) *Bush claimed right to detain alleged enemy combatant indefinitely, whether U.S. citizens or foreign nationals (Court rules that can't do the latter)

Federalism in the States

-Constitution requires that states maintain a republican form of government -all have done so by adopting a structure similar to the national government (with separate legislative, judicial, and executive branches) -Except for referendum and recall, state governments look remarkably like the federal government -Local governments, however, use a greater range of organizational options. *First, there can be several different levels of local government, with residents regulated by villages, cities, and towns or townships at the most local level and by counties above that; the responsibilities of counties varies widely across the country *Second, local governments, unlike state governments, don't necessarily use three branches Many local governments have elected leaders of the executive branch — mayors for villages and cities, county executives for counties, and supervisors for townships — but many use a city-manager system in which the legislative branch appoints a professional administrator to run the executive branch -ex/ New England town hall meetings —> only works in small towns but this form of direct democracy eliminates concerns about whether the policies pursued are for the people because they are done by the people -ALSO, the recall — another form of direct democracy, permitted in 18 states, citizens gather enough petition signatures, they can force a special vote to remove state or local officials from office ex/ Scott Walker from Wisconsin *Members of Congress cannot be recalled They can only be removed from office by their respective bodies by a ⅔ vote (under the Constitution) -Initiative → a process that allows citizens who collect the required number of petition signatures to place proposed laws directly on the ballot for the state's citizens to vote on Sometimes, this can be very problematic → initiative questions can be very long, confusing, misleading In modern era, see a whole lot of money put behind these initiatives -All 50 states require referenda (state legislatures put on ballots) on some issues Only 24 states allow initiatives

Federalism in Courts

-Crime: *Federal agencies - focus on international and interstate crimes *State agencies - focus on intrastate crimes, and crimes that occur in multiple localities *Local agencies - crimes within certain areas, low level infraction (ex/ parking tickets) -How cases end up in the Supreme Court: (1) Cases involving a foreign diplomat or state government --> straight to U.S. Supreme Court (2) Cases involving federal laws (a) --> U.S. district courts --> U.S. Court of Appeals --> U.S. Supreme Court (b) --> Special Federal Courts --> U.S. Supreme Court (3) Cases involving state and local laws --> State Trial Courts --> State Appeals Courts --> State Supreme Courts --> U.S. Supreme Court -Original jurisdiction (first hearing, see the case) vs. appellate jurisdiction (second hearing, "an appeal," no jury, a set of judges)

Policy Making Process

-Ideas are one thing, implementation is another -The goal of the government is to pass laws and enact policies *these come with costs *the policy-making process resembles that of the budgetary process -Process: (1) Identification - a problem in politics, the economy, or society is recognized as warranting government action (2) Agenda - the problem gets the attention of policy makers (3) Formulation - those with a stake in the policy area develop and propose a solution (4) Enactment - Congress passes a law that authorizes a specific governmental response to the problem (5) Implementation - the executive branch develops the rules that will put the policy into action (6) Evaluation - the policy is evaluated for its effectiveness and efficiency; if changes are needed, the issue is placed back on the policy agenda and the cycle starts again

The Federal Budget

-Deficit: difference between the amount of money the government takes in (revenues) and the amount of money that it spends (outlays) *When the federal government runs a deficit, it must borrow money to make up the shortfall; then the federal government has to pay interest on this borrowed $ -Debt: the combined amount of borrowed money and the interest that accumulates over time (1) the $ that comes from issuing debt instruments, such as U.S. Treasury bonds, that investors buy with a promise of getting a set amount of interest on the bonds at a later date (2) intra-government held debt, which is the amount of $ that the federal government borrow from itself when it transfers $ from one program to another or uses built-up reserves in one program as collateral for borrowing -Debt ceiling: cap on the amount of money that Congress authorizes the president to borrow to pay the federal government's bills *This is $ that has already been allocated, but Congress has to authorize the actual borrowing of the $ *What happens if Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling? U.S. defaults on its debt, its credit rating drops, could cause a recession, greatly increases borrowing costs *ex/ 2011: House Republicans rejected Obama's plan because it involved tax increases; eventually party leaders reached a deal raising the debt ceiling in exchange for cutting $900 billion over 10 years from the budget; but barely before the deadline and U.Q. credit rating was downgraded from AAA to AA by a credit agency Current debt: 23 trillion dollars

The Bureaucracy

-Definition: the large collection of executive branch departments, agencies, boards, commissions, and other government organizations that carry out the responsibilities of the federal government -The President's Cabinet are the group of individuals (Cabinet secretaries) who are in charge of a specific set of agencies *ex/ Secretary of State (Pompeo, our main person when it comes to foreign relation, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Energy) -Regulatory Agencies: provide government oversight and ensure that federal standards are met *ex/ FDA, TSA, FAA, etc. -Three original positions of president's cabinet: state, treasury, defense (originally war) *Pillars of what Founders had wanted after AoC; needed no matter size of country -Independent Agencies and Commissions: EPA, EEOC -At first, nation did not require many employees to fulfill the government's duties, which were limited to large national issues such as defense, tariffs on imported goods, and settling western land -As the nation's lands and economy grew, so did the need for a more complex structure at the federal level to oversee government activity -these responsibilities are established by laws passed by Congress and signed by the president; however, for execution, they often entail expertise, so the legislature relies on specialists—the bureaucrats—to write the regulations that implement the law -President builds a cabinet—his set of key advisers who are responsible for the areas under their jurisdiction *oversee entire departments constructed to implement federal policy *most cabinet members are cabinet secretaries and head executive departments *relates to Executive's constitutional power to appoint, have opinions on federal policies, and execute the laws -Executive departments: cabinet-level branches *responsible for implementing laws and policies in specific areas through the regulatory and enforcement process *regulations are the guidelines that detail how a law will be carried out, and what has to be done to comply with the law *go through several versions, and after a lengthy review process, the final regulations are printed in the Federal Register, which is the government's official publication for implementation of laws *Congress has the authority to create a cabinet department, but once created, it is under the control and supervision of the president as head of the executive branch *consists of subdivisions arranged in a hierarchical form to divide up its tasks and theoretically maximize efficiency and responsiveness -Other types of federal organizations: *Independent organizations: ex/ Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has final authority over the entire federal budget, and each agency and department must submit its proposed budget to OMB for approval before it is included in the president's official proposed budget; the OMB's director is part of the president's cabinet, although OMB is not a cabinet department; additionally, all regulations must go through OMB before they take effect *Independent agency: a type of federal organization established by Congress with authority to regulate an aspect of the economy or a sector of the federal government; do not operate within a cabinet department and designed to operate with their own authority (ex/ EPA) *Federal regulatory commission: an agency typically run by a small number of officials, known as commissioners, who are appointed by the president for fixed terms and are responsible for overseeing a sector of the economic or political arena (ex/ SEC) -Roles of the Legislative and Judicial Branches *Congress does oversight and power of the purse *can request that departments testify *ex/ Justice Department appoints Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller to continue looking into the issue of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government *can ask members of executive branch to resign or be impeached *through powers to authorize and appropriate, give Congress a chance to evaluate federal agencies and to withhold or reduce funds if there are dissatisfactions *judiciary can intervene if there is unfair implementation against a certain group or if disagreement between Congress and executive over implementation -slow because wants transparency and input from all sectors (ex/ FDA) -whistleblowers --> to encourage more candid disclosure of wrongdoing in federal agencies, Congress passed the Whistleblower Protection Act in 1989 to protect whistleblowers, government employees who report mismanagement, corruption, or illegal activity within their agencies; the act established grievance and appeal procedures for employees who believe they have been retaliated against for reporting wrongdoing in their agencies *In 2010, Congress extended protection to employees in the financial services industry who act as whistleblowers, but they did not extend such protection to TSA workers or federal marshals

How is the Federal Budget Passed

-Departmental Budget Process (April-Sept.) (1) Preliminary Agency Planning (2) Department and OMB Guidance (3) Agency Budgets submitted to Department (4) Summer Decision Process (5) Senior Staff Budget Reviews (6) Secretary's Decisions and Allowances (7) Send Budget Justifications to OMB -Negotiating with OMB: (Sept-Oct) OMB Staff Review (Nov) OMB Director's Review (Thanksgiving) OMB Pass-back (Dec) Departmental Appeal (Early Jan) Final Decisions (First Mon in Feb) President's Budget is Published -THEN, the president proposes their budget -Congress (specifically the Budget Committee) take it into account when creating the congressional budget; they use the CBO to study costs *Passes concurrent resolutions; these are not Acts and are not signed by the President (Thus, not laws); belongs to both chambers of Congress, not the president -The appropriations committee regulates expenditures -Appropriations Measures: (1) Regular *Enacted each fiscal year *Includes the 12 appropriations bills to cover Federal Expenditures *Supposed to pass by Oct. 1 (the start of the fiscal year) *Omnibus appropriations bills (or "Consolidated appropriations") bills are hybrid forms of these regular appropriations bills (bad bc president is at the table for this kind of bill because can't risk a veto) (2) Supplemental *Any needed additional funds that were not provided by the Regular appropriations bills at the beginning of the Fiscal Year (ex/ disaster relief) ïn recent years, they have been used to fund war making in what many consider an abuse of the budget system (often designated as "emergency" in order not to exceed limits under the budget act; doesn't count against the cap) *ex/ Bush w/ Iraq troops (3) Continuing Resolutions *Funds the government if appropriations bill(s) have not been signed into law by the end of the FY *Continues spending at the same level as the previous year *The government can operate under a CR for days, weeks, months, or a year *Last time all appropriations bills were passed on time occurred in 1994 *The last time all appropriations bills passed to cover an entire year without CRs was 2009 *bad because doesn't take into account new needs, inflation, or new programs that Congress had planned on starting -There are 12 annual appropriations bills, each with their own subcommittee *in fact in 38 of the past 42 years, Congress did not complete action on a majority of the appropriations bills by the start of the fiscal year

Education policy

-Education is considered the Great Equalizer, yet it is implemented in an in-egalitarian manner -Each state supports education differently (resources, devolution of decision-making) -Common Core -Federalism: *Federal government: protect student rights, provide funding, NAEP test *State Government: decide standards, provide curriculum, ensures development plans meet policy requirements *County - oversees districts, connects them to the states, ensures development plan meet policy requirements *District - funding, district plans, lead schools through policy changes *Schools - implementing policy and teaching ("street-level bureaucrats") -The federal government funds only about 10 percent of all elementary and secondary education spending -The Department of Education not created until 1953 (some have called for its abolition) -Funding for elementary and secondary education became based on local property taxes and local government play the dominant role in most states -The federal government has intervened in public education for two main reasons: (1) to overcome the denial of equality of educational opportunity by the states and to improve the quality of education (Brown v. Board)

Domestic Policy

-Entitlement Programs: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid -The Affordable Care Act -Immigration Policy: legal channels, immigration court, "unauthorized immigration" channels -Energy, Environmental Policy, Climate Change -Usually there is a trade-off between domestic policy and foreign policy ("guns vs. butter")

Policy Diffusion

-Federalism: division of power between the federal government and state governments -Policy diffusion: when ideas spread from one state to another (ex/ same-sex marriage laws started in Massachusetts in 2004) -Race to the Bottom: assumes citizens can move to areas that offer the best tax and public good policy "packages" --> this is when states offer policy packages to incentivize business to come to the state, or keep "undesirables" out (ex/ punitive welfare systems to keep low-income individuals out)

Economic Policy: Keynesian Economics

-Fiscal Policy: Interventions in the business cycle (usually during inflation or depression/recession) *ex/ The Great Depression and Great Recession *In a recession, the government should spend more and tax less *During an inflationary period, the government should spend less and tax more -GDP: gross domestic product, everything that is produced in a country *GDP = consumption + investment + government + nx (exports - imports) -Monetary policy: how much money is circulating within the economy *Controlled by the Federal Reserve — a central bank and 14 district banks *Influences interest rates and the amount of money that banks must keep in reserve (controls borrowing) *Current Chairman of the Federal Reserve: Jerome Powell -Federal Spending, Fiscal Year 2019: around 50+ % entitlement programs, 15% defense discretionary; 15% non-defense discretionary

Line-Item Veto

-If the president were to veto only certain portions of a bill -Declared unconstitutional in Clinton v. City of New York (1998) -Unconstitutional because the president would be acting as a legislator, thus infringing on the powers of Congress

Snyder v. Phelps (2011)

-IMPORTANT: Court held that speech on a public sidewalk, about a public issue, cannot be liable for a tort of emotional distress, even if the speech is found to be "outrageous" -QUESTION: May antimilitary and antigay protesters be sued for the distress they caused to the father of a Marine killed in action in Iraq when they picketed at the Marine's funeral? -OUTCOME: The protesters are protected by the First Amendment because they are speaking out on a question of public concern -WHAT HAPPENED: For 20 years, Westboro Baptist Church had been picketing funerals of members of the U.S. military to show opposition to establishment of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" --> this picketing aggravated father of Matthew Snyder, who sued the church and minister + family (Phelps) for "intentional infliction of emotional distress" --> a jury awarded Snyder nearly $11 million in damages; U.S. Court of Appeals overturns the verdict and Snyder appeals to the Supreme Court --> Court rules 8-1 in favor of the protesters, declaring that the church's views on homosexuality in the military were a matter of public concern, and as such, it did not matter how crudely those concerns were expressed --> They compared this intentional infliction of emotional distress to an earlier case upholding a suit dealing with an individual's credit report, which was purely a private matter AND they did not find that the Westboro protests involved "fighting words," which the Court has ruled to be beyond the protections of the First Amendment --> In an earlier speech case, Court ruled that the function of First Amendment is to "invite dispute;" the boundary between "inviting dispute," which is protected, and "fighting words," which are not, is not always clear

Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)

-IMPORTANT: Equal protection and due process not extended to same-sex relationships. -QUESTION: May States prosecute consensual sexual activity by members of the same sex? -OUTCOME: There is no right to homosexual sodomy (5-4) -WHAT HAPPENED: When the police came to Michael Hardwick's home looking for him, his roommate let them in; when the police got to Hardwick's room, they observed him engage in sexual behavior with another male; they arrested him under Georgia's anti-sodomy statute, which prohibits "any sexual contact involving the genitals of one person and the mouth or anus of another" --> Hardwick argued that the statute violated the right to privacy that the Court established in the Griswold birth control case, which the Court later held to protect rights that were "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." --> Noting that prohibitions on sodomy had "ancient roots," the Court voted 5-4 against the claim, calling the argument that homosexual sodomy is among those traditions "facetious;" Chief Justice Burger cited medieval English sources that declared sodomy as an offense of "deeper malignity" than rape --> At the time, only about 32% of the American public agreed with the opinion that homosexual relations should be legal

Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company v. Sawyer (1952)

-IMPORTANT: President Truman issues executive order to have Sawyer seize all steel mills to avert suspected strikes. Result: The President does not have the power to do this because he does not have the power to seize private property. - infringes on 5th A rights. -QUESTION: Can the president seize steel mills to prevent a strike during wartime? -OUTCOME: No, the seizure was overturned (6-3) -WHAT HAPPENED: After North Korea's invasion of South Korea in June 1950, President Harry Truman sought and received a UN resolution permitting intervention on behalf of South Korea; in 1952, with the Korean War still raging, the United Steelworkers announced plans for an April strike; President Truman feared that the strike would severely harm America's war effort; one alternative for putting off the strike was to seek a temporary court order prohibiting a strike when national security is at stake, a provision allowed under the Taft-Hartley Labor Act --> Uncomfortable with what was perceived to be an anti-labor policy, Truman instead ordered Secretary of Commerce Charles Sawyer to seize the steel mills and run them under the flag of the U.S.; because steelworkers preferred working at the steel mills under the government to the Taft-Hartley alternatives, they agreed to come back to work after the seizure --> The steel mill owners then brought suit challenging the seizure; Truman claimed the authority to do this under his power to make sure that the laws were faithfully executed and under his power as commander in chief of the armed forces --> the Court's decision rejected the president's authority to seize the steel mills, noting that Congress had not passed a law allowing the seizure so there were no laws involving the seizure to be faithfully executed; the Court also ruled that the president's authority to rule as commander in chief did not extend to domestic seizures during foreign wars; without congressional authorization, the president could not seize the steel mills; a separate concurring opinion, since treated as the heart of the case, noted that the president's authority is at its peak when he acts under the express authority of Congress, is in a middle category when Congress has not acted, and is at its lowest when the president acts contrary to congressional will; as Congress had rejected granting the president the authority to seize property in labor disputes, Truman was acting under the lowest level of authority; without congressional authorization, the president could not seize the steel mills --> The Steel Seizure case still stands as the leading decision on presidential authority; the Court relied heavily on it in deciding that Bush did not have the authority to hold enemy combatants from the war in Afghanistan at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay without a hearing, since Congress had not authorized the action

Cooper v. Aaron (1958)

-IMPORTANT: States cannot nullify decisions of the federal courts; Several government officials in southern states, including the governor and legislature of Alabama, refused to follow the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision. They argued that the states could nullify federal court decisions if they felt that the federal courts were violating the Constitution. The Court unanimously rejected this argument and held that only the federal courts can decide when the Constitution is violated. *The Court's expansion of its authority—adding its interpretation of the Constitution to those items that are the "supreme law of the land"—has drawn criticism of judicial overreaching from people on the right and the left -QUESTION: Does the threat of violence negate a school district's obligation to desegregate? -OUTCOME: No desegregation is required, even when mobs threaten violence (9-0) -WHAT HAPPENED: Despite substantial opposition in the South to the 1954 Brown desegregation decision, the Little Rock school board approved a plan in May 1955 that would begin to integrate its schools as of September 1957; in response the state legislature declared that no student could be required to attend an integrated school; nevertheless the NAACP selected John + Thelma Aarn + seven other exceptional African American students to attempt to integrate Central High School --> As September 1957 approached, Governor Orval Faubus called out the Arkansas National Guard to physically prevent the students from entering the school; for three weeks, the Guard kept the school off limits to the nine students; this action encouraged segregationists, who took to the streets around the school to protest integration --> On September 20, 1957, a federal district court issued an order prohibiting the Arkansas Guard from interfering with desegregation efforts; in response, Faubus withdrew the Guard, leaving the streets under the control of a dangerous and angry mob --> On September 23, the African American students entered school under police protection, but the police were unable to control the mob and quickly removed the students; two days later, Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock to disperse the mobs and protect the students; eight of the nine black students remained at the school for the remainder of the school year --> Given the unrest, Williams Cooper and other members of the Arkansas Board of Education filed suit to thwart the board's own desegregation plan; in June 1958, the district court upheld its request; in August, the court of appeals reversed the district court; the Supreme Court granted the board's petition under a writ of certiorari --> In an unusual opinion signed the day after oral argument by all nine justices, the Supreme Court refused to allow the board to back out of its desegregation plan due to the threat of violence; the Court declared that the U.S. Constitution and the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution are supreme law of the land --> In response, Governor Faubus closed the school for the year, but it reopened as an integrated school in 1959 --> The Court's expansion of its authority—adding its interpretation of the Constitution to those items that are the "supreme law of the land"—has drawn criticism of judicial overreaching from people on the right and the left

Reconciliation

-the 1974 Budget Act also created a parallel budget bill, known as Reconciliation, which does require the president's signature *Specifically designed as umbrella legislation to bring all bills that contain changes in the tax code or entitlement programs in line with the congressional budget *This type of bill has special procedural protections in the Senate, where it cannot be filibustered and can be debate for no more than 20 hours -In 1985, the budget process was modified to include the Byrd rule, which required that reconciliation be used only to reduce the federal deficit (which at the time was $212.3 billion)

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

-IMPORTANT: Struck down state bans on same sex marriage. The 14th Amendment requires States to license a marriage between two people of the same sex. States must recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. (Roberts Court) -QUESTION: May states prohibit same-sex marriage? -OUTCOME: States may not prohibit same-sex marriage (5-4) -WHAT HAPPENED: Court reversed the Bowers v. Hardwick decision in Lawrence v. Texas (2003); voted 6-3 that the Texas law prohibiting sodomy was unconstitutional, with the majority opinion resting the decision on the liberty protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment --> In the Obergefell case (2015), the Court struck down state laws that prohibited same-sex marriage; citing the Supreme Court's 1967 Loving v. Virginia decision striking bans on interracial marriage as well as the Court's 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision overturning Bowers v. Hardwick, the Court ruled that the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment includes the right to marry a partner of the same sex --> In fewer than thirty years, the Court had gone from holding that states could criminalized homosexual activity to determining that states may not prohibit same-sex marriage; these changes coincide with a more than **quadrupling of support for marriage equality in the U.S. during that time;** whether this new result was directly due to the change in public opinion or due to new justices from a different generation who reflected that changed opinion, the Court's decision aligned with changes in public opinion

United States v. Windsor (2013)

-IMPORTANT: Struck down the federal Defense of Marriage of Marriage Act's (DOMA) restrictions of marriage rights to only heterosexual couples as unconstitutional violation of the 5th amendment due process clause; same sex married couples now receive federal benefits (Roberts Court) -QUESTION: Does the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines the term "marriage" under federal law as a "legal union between one man and one woman" deprive same-sex couples who are legally married under state laws of their Fifth Amendment rights to equal protection under federal law? -OUTCOME: DOMA denies same-sex couples the rights that come from federal recognition of marriage, which are available to other couples with legal marriages under state law. The Court held that the purpose and effect of DOMA is to impose a "disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma" on same-sex couples in violation of the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. (5-4) -WHAT HAPPENED: The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), enacted in 1996, states that, for the purposes of federal law, the words "marriage" and "spouse" refer to legal unions between one man and one woman. Since that time, some states have authorized same-sex marriage. In other cases regarding the DOMA, federal courts have ruled it unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment, but the courts have disagreed on the rationale. --> Edith Windsor is the widow and sole executor of the estate of her late spouse, Thea Clara Spyer, who died in 2009. The two were married in Toronto, Canada, in 2007, and their marriage was recognized by New York state law. Thea Spyer left her estate to her spouse, and because their marriage was not recognized by federal law, the government imposed $363,000 in taxes. Had their marriage been recognized, the estate would have qualified for a marital exemption, and no taxes would have been imposed. --> On November 9, 2010 Windsor filed suit in district court seeking a declaration that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. At the time the suit was filed, the government's position was that DOMA must be defended. On February 23, 2011, the President and the Attorney General announced that they would not defend DOMA. On April 18, 2011, the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the House of Representatives filed a petition to intervene in defense of DOMA and motioned to dismiss the case. The district court denied the motion, and later held that DOMA was unconstitutional. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed.

Hernandez v. Texas (1954)

-IMPORTANT: Supreme Court decision that extended protection against discrimination to Hispanics -QUESTION: Does the equal protection clause allow Texas to exclude Mexican Americans from juries? -OUTCOME: No. The equal protection clause protects MExican Americans (9-0) -WHAT HAPPENED: Texas systematically excluded Mexican Americans from the murder trial of Pete Hernandez --> Attorney and activist Gus Garcia told the Supreme Court that while the intent of the equal protection clause was to prevent racial discrimination against former slaves and their descendants, Texas treated Mexican Americans as a "class apart;" they therefore should be shielded against discriminatory laws by the equal protection clause --> Court agreed

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)

-IMPORTANT: To libel a public figure, there must be "actual malice" -QUESTION: What level of negligence must be found when public officials sue newspapers for libel? -OUTCOME: Actual malice must be found to convict for libel, thus overturning the libel conviction of the New York Times -WHAT HAPPENED: Libel is the publication of false and damaging information about someone; prior to libel laws, the defamed person often responded to libel by challenging the libeler to a duel (ex/ Burr vs. Hamilton) --> To prevent such acts, various states made libel a criminal act; today libel is almost exclusively a question for a civil suit, in which one person sues another for monetary damages --> The Sullivan case derived from an advertisement placed in the March 29, 1960, New York Times by an ad hoc group of civil rights supporters called the Committee to Defend Martin Luther King; the ad condemned the "wave of terror" against nonviolent civil rights activists by unnamed "southern violators" --> Because some of the actions against MLK included arresting him, the chief of the Montgomery, Alabama, police department claimed that all of the allegations were about him and that he had been libeled --> Under Alabama law, once damaging statements were found, the only defense was for the publication to prove that all the particulars were true; the ad in this case was not true in all particulars (ex/ it claimed that protesting students sang the wrong song); the jury thus found against the Times, awarding the police chief $500,000 in damages --> the Court reversed the verdict, declaring that a law holding a newspaper liable for criticism of a public official only if the paper could prove that every statement in the article was true would lead to massie self-censorship by the press; INSTEAD, the Court declared that libel against a public official required a finding of actual malice (that is, knowledge that the statement was false or reckless disregard of whether it was true or false) --> Under this standard, the Court found that the ad was substantially true, but even if it had not been substantially true, there was no evidence that the Times acted with malice --> This decision has made it much easier for newspapers to criticize public officials; the Court has expanded the ruling to cover public figures as well

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

-IMPORTANT: the Supreme Court upheld the power of the national government and denied the right of a state to tax the federal bank using the Constitution's supremacy clause. The Court's broad interpretation of the necessary and proper clause paved the way for later rulings upholding expansive federal powers -QUESTION: May the federal government establish a bank? If so, does a state have the right to tax that bank? -OUTCOME: Yes, the bank is constitutional, and no, Maryland may not tax it (6-0) -WHAT HAPPENED: Following the decision of Congress to establish the Second National Bank, the state of Maryland imposed a tax on the Maryland branch; the bank manager, James McCulloch refused to pay the tax, and Maryland brought suit; the Maryland Supreme Court ruled that the bank was unconstitutional because the Constitution does not grant Congress the specific authority to create a bank; McCulloch appealed to the Supreme Court --> The Court's decision began by accepting the nation-centered view of the Constitution's founding: rather than a compact of states, the government established by the Constitution "proceeds directly from the people; is 'ordained and established, in the name of people" --> Regarding the power to establish a bank, Marshall noted that while the Constitution makes no reference to a bank, it does provide for coining and borrowing money, paying government debts, and levying tawed; it allows Congress to pass all laws that are "necessary and proper" to any of the enumerated powers; declaring that "necessary and proper" does not mean "absolutely necessary," Chief Justice John Marshall read the necessary and proper clause to mean "ordinary and appropriate" --> In explaining the scope of the necessary and proper clause, Marshall declared, "Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution..." Thus, creating a bank was an appropriate means of legitimate ends: regulating money and collecting taxes --> As for state taxation of the bank, Marshall based his response on the supremacy clause, observing that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy;" because states cannot destroy creations of the federal government, neither can they tax them --> The McCulloch decision created a broad scope for implied powers under the Constitution — powers that are not explicitly in the Constitution but are related to powers that are; without this broad set of implied powers, Congress could not establish criminal laws for most offenses, investigate executive wrongdoing, provide student loans, establish administrative agencies, or conduct many of the other activities it routinely engages in today _______ FACTS FROM SECTION: -Facts of the case: in 1816, Congress chartered The Second Bank of the U.S.; In 1818, the state of Maryland passed legislation to impose taxes on the bank; James W. McCulloch, the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the bank, refused to pay the tax; the state appeals court held that the Second Bank was unconstitutional because the Constitution did not provide a textual commitment for the federal government to charter a bank -Question: Did Congress have the authority to establish the bank? Did the Maryland law unconstitutionally interfere with congressional powers? -Ruling: 6-0 in favor of McCulloch -Implication: *Congress had the power to incorporate the bank and that Maryland could not tax instruments of the national government employed in the execution of constitutional powers *Marshall redefined "necessary and proper" to mean "appropriate and legitimate," covering all methods for furthering objectives covered by the enumerated powers *Marshall also held that while the states retained the power of taxation, the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme and cannot be controlled by the states

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

-IMPORTANT: unanimously held that the racial segregation of children in public schools violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Brown claimed that Topeka's racial segregation violated the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause because the city's black and white schools were not equal to each other and never could be. Overruled Plessy v. Ferguson's "separate but equal" doctrine and would eventually led to the desegregation of schools across the South -QUESTION: Can states provide segregated schools for black and white school children? -OUTCOME: No. Separated educational facilities are inherently unequal (9-0) -WHAT HAPPENED: When Linda Brown was in third grade, her father + the NAACP brought a suit against the Topeka school board for refusing to allow her to attend the local school that white children in their neighborhood attended --> In Plessy (1896), the Court had ruled that the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did not prohibit states from establishing separate-but-equal facilities for whites and blacks; the Court did not really begin to look at whether the facilities were equal or not until 1938, when it held that Missouri's paying for blacks to go to law school out of state was not the same as providing facilities within the state that were equal to its white law school --> A pair of 1950 cases declared, first, that admitting a black to an all-white school but forcing him to sit in a separate row and dine at a separate table was unconstitutional, and second, that the equality of separate schools had to be compared on both objective factors that could be measured, such as the number of faculty members, and subjective factors that could not be measured, such as the reputation of the faculty --> The Brown cases came to the Court with similar desegregation cases from South Carolina, Virginia, Delaware, and Washington, D.C.; Thurgood Marshall argues it; he readily admitted that the schools in Linda Brown's case were roughly equal in objective characteristics but argued that segregation in and of itself denied black students the equal protection of the laws by creating a feeling of inferiority among them --> the Court's preliminary vote following the arguments showed a majority favoring striking down segregation, with two or three dissenters; Chief Justice Earl Warren, however, though that a decision that was bound to be met with resistance in the South should be unanimous if at all possible; SO, following several months of bargaining and persuasion, he eventually got every member of the Court to agree that the Court should strike down school segregation

War Powers from Book

-In 1964, LBJ presented evidence to Congress that the North Vietnamese Communists were attacking U.S. ships on patrol duty in international waters in the Gulf of Tonkin off the shore of North Vietnam -LBJ asked Congress for the authority to fight back, and Congress responded with the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, essentially stating that the President, as commander in chief, can take all necessary measures -By 1968, the U.S. had more than five hundred thousand troops in Vietnam, and the conflict was commonly referred to as the Vietnam War, although there was never a formal declaration of war by Congress -The conflict had become highly unpopular, and LBJ was forced to give up his bid for reelection -Nixon was elected president and promised to end the Vietnam War; however, he actually broadened the conflict to the neighboring countries of Cambodia and Laos in his efforts to win the war -By 1971, Congress had repealed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, and, following the Paris Peace Accords signed in January 1973, U.S. troops were withdrawn from Vietnam -In October 1973, Congress passed a more formal proposal to limit presidential authority to engage in military conflict for more than a total of ninety days without seeking a formal declaration of war, or authorization for continued military action, from Congress; president Nixon vetoed the act but Congress overrode the veto -FLAWED: *90 day limit does not begin until the president has officially reported the troop engagement to Congress (could just not report) *The act did not really give Congress the power to end a military conflict except by denying all funding for it, which would be a bad political move for public support; impossible to end the war after they declare it

How can polls be erroneous?

-Margin of Error: the confidence interval (40 +/- 3 --> 37-43 is the confidence interval with 95% certainty) *statistical range with a given probability that takes random error into account *determined by the sample size (larger sample, smaller margin of error) *need representative, random sample -Why should we care about it? *take things with a grain of salt *can affect whether opinion is at majority or not and therefore affect actions of representative -What can introduce bias? *sampling error *wording of question *nonattitudes (feel compelled to answer even tho don't have opinion or know enough about subject) -Two large problems impacting reliability: (1) Many voters use cell phones exclusively (under represents young people) (2) The response rate is dropping as fewer voters are willing to participate in polls (might be because of recent surge in automated telemarketing calls) -growing reliance on internet surveying which is less reliable

Technology and the News

-Media changes as technology changes *successful politicians learn quickly how to adapt and utilize the new media/tech *Ex/ Trump Twitter, FDR fireside chats, JFK televised debate -in the 1950s, television was a new option, but there were only three networks (CBS, NBC, ABC) *were trying to get the widest audience possible with objectivity -pace at which news spreads and grown is even faster *internet has worsened this (ex/ blogs are more polarized) -this proliferation has led people to gravitate to sources that they most already agree with ("news bubbles/scilos") -highetened ideological media outlets driven by want for money and sponsorship; heightened false information; trust in media has sunk -hosts of most popular partisan shows have defined extremes on the left and the right *shared facts between extremes seem minimal *creates "echo chamber" in which ideologically inclined public officials repeat what's heard on the media that supports their views and the media quotes those public officials (ex/ Trump's tweets that suggest he is live watching Fox News and Breitbart) -how to solve the mess that it is currently? *can't do too much because would breach First Amendment *de-politicize *ameliorate education so that people can learn from that source and identify bias more effectively *quantity vs. quality

War Powers Act

-Prior to WW2, because no large-standing army, Presidents required some means of raising the requisite number of troops and then providing their equipment --> SO, needed the approval of Congress (practically constrained)-After WW2, circumstances have been considerably different --> Congress has put itself into a reactive role because they have already supplied the troops, agreed to the based, produced equipment, and consented to the alliance structures necessary to pursue military policies abroad, SO president has a much freer field of action in national security policy*becomes consensus that Presidents might have to declare war as they see fit (favored broad presidential authority over the use of armed forces)*largely shaken by the Vietnam War and Gulf of Tolkien Resolution-SO, in reaction to Vietnam War --> War Powers Resolution reasserts Congress's Constitutional authority and requires presidents to seek approval whenever possible before using war declaration powers-BUT, most presidents have refused to follow its dictates on constitutional grounds and Congress, has been happy to let presidents take the blame-Presidents have never accepted this as constitutional-have asked for "CONSISTENT WITH" rather than directly recognizing the constitutionality of it-Presidents post-9/11 can appropriate for terrorism-enacted because of Vietnam Gulf of Tolkien Resolution-pre-WW2 needed Congress

Federalism and Civil Rights

-School integration, freedom rides, desegregation of the military, various SCOTUS rulings -FDR Welfare programs designed to get southern support allowed states to only provide benefits to those they chose to include (usually white) -Current welfare programs disproportionately applied across states

The 14th Amendment in depth

-Section 1: all persons born or naturalized in the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the U.S. and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the U.S.; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws -Section 2: Representation/ending the 3/5ths compromise -Section 3: Confederate leaders cannot hold office -Section 4: The U.S. Gov. will not pay slave owners for their lost workers -Section 5: Congress can do what is necessary and proper to enforce this amendment -Although the 14th Amendment ratified after the Civil War guaranteed "equal protection under the law," the amendment was narrowly construed and little was done to ensure equal treatment -end of slavery did not make former slaves equal citizens -immediately after the war, southern states wrote new constitutions that severely limited the civil and political rights of the freedman -Congress also established military rule over the former Confederate states, which would end in a state when it passed a new state constitution that guaranteed black suffrage and when it ratified the 14th Amendment -with former Confederates barred from voting, blacks constituted a majority of the electorate in several states, and more than six hundred freedmen served in state legislatures during Reconstruction -Racist opponent turned to violence (ex/ KKK) -Reconstruction ended with a deal to resolve the 1876 election between Republican Rutherford B. Hayes and Democrat Samuel Tilden *Democrats allowed Hayes to become president in return for the withdrawal of federal troops from the South *Freed from military rule, white supremacist groups such as the KKK embarked on a campaign of lynching and other forms of terrorism against blacks (ex/ poll taxes, literacy tests) -Plessy v. Ferguson was one of the worst Supreme Court in our history (established separate but equal) -MLK identified four factors that kept African Americans from voting -LBJ signed Civil Rights Act of 1964 -general trend toward greater civil rights, though always progress to be made

Court Limits to Liberties

-Should the rights of an individual come at the expense of the whole of society? -Suspension of rights during times of war? -What are some examples of court decisions that limited liberties? *Alien and Sedition Acts *Schenck v. U.S. (Espionage Act of 1917 is not violation of First Amendment and is appropriate use of Congress' wartime authority) -What are examples of court cases that expanded liberties? *Roe v. Wade *Obergefell v. Hodges *TInker v. Des Moines (prohibition of armbands protesting Vietnam war in a public school is violation of first amendment) -How do courts decide? (1) The Lemon Test and Establishment Clause *three parts to the Lemon Test: (a) Does the law have a secular purpose? If not, it violates the Establishment Clause. (b) Is the primary effect either to advance religion or to inhibit religion? If so, it violates the Establishment Clause. (c) Does the law foster an excessive governmental entanglement with religion? If so, it violates the Establishment Clause. *if the government wants to do something that involved religion, it had to be relatively neutral (cannot promote somebody to engage in religion nor detract from or prevent it (2) Tinker v. Des Moines Test and Freedom of Speech *substantial disruption test *political, non-disruptive speech is allowed *The Court wrote: "Certainly where there is no finding and no showing that engaging in the forbidden conduct would materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school," the prohibition cannot be sustained.

What Drives Public Opinion

-Socialization: the social environment influences an individual's beliefs (ex/ friends, family, etc.) -Generational Effects: the Great Depression, the Great Recession and Millennials -Self-interest and rationality -Elites and their messages (via the media, via agenda setting, ex/ Medicare for All) -Polarization and partisanship -Are people informed? *10% of the public know the Speaker of the House *33% can name a Supreme Court Justice *Only 50% known which party controls Congress *Less than half know the names of their representatives -At the aggregate-level: *public makes reasonable choices *they know the candidate's stances on issues that are salient to them *the public learns, especially when it is headline news *the public's stance is more stable than originally polled *as informed as we are for decision we make on personal matters -Group differences: *Public opinion is more than just partisanship and ideology (socio-economic status, age, religion, gender, race and ethnicity, education)

Crime and Federalism

-States have authority to define and prosecute most crimes, but the federal government may do so too, with the most prominent examples including federal laws relating to guns, drugs, bank robbery, and terrorism

Shelby County v. Holder (2013)

-Struck down provision that established which jurisdictions needed to obtain preclearance (of Voting Rights Act of 1965 requiring states engaged in past discrimination to get federal preclearance before instituting changes in voting laws or practices; allowed restrictive state voter ID laws to go forward) -has served to depress black turnout in covered state by the passage voter identification laws and other voter suppression efforts that were previously blocked under the VRA by the Justice Department (has increased voter purging) -profound threat to democracy

Expansion of Executive Power

-There has been a study broadening of executive powers over the course of American history, it has been a steady expansion. -Though overall Washington was pretty temperate, he established federal authority in the Whiskey Rebellion by sending troops to PA in order to impose the federal taxes. -Established the idea that federal law was the supreme law of the land. -Then you have Jefferson expanding the executive's power through the Louisiana purchase which not only added territory to the United States but declared that all those who were residents of the territory would be US citizens. Downright illegal. -Jefferson opposed judicial review, he tried to impeach judges he disagreed with and opposed the lifetime appointment. -Andrew Jackson who really expanded the executive, with the Bank Wars and sent ships to the harbor in order to enforce tariffs. -Also, he began to see the importance and use of public opinion and using that to his advantage. -Lincoln was the first to declare emergency or war powers and suspended the writ of habeas corpus and after the attack on Fort Sumter, he immediately took action without Congressional approval. -Then you have Roosevelt and the Panama Canal, who also can be considered the first modern president. He used the president's bully pulpit, capitalized on the rhetorical nature of the presidency, and supported the stewardship theory of the president, viewing himself as a steward of the people and being able to anything the nation needed unless it was directly prohibited by the Congress.

Nuclear Option Growth

-This period 2003-2005 marked a new escalation of the polarized battle between the president of one party and the opposing party in the Senate -As partisan and ideological polarization infected other issues and event, the judicial confirmation process became even more overtly partisan in nation; this had been brewing since the Bork nomination in 1987 and the Thomas nomination in 1991 -led to slow down in judicial nominations -partisan and ideological antagonisms between Clinton and far-right conservatives led Republican senators to delay even the most qualified nominees -And then, Democrats' obstruction of several of Bush's nominees in the 108th Congress (2003-2004) was also attributed to ideological conflict and partisan pique, as liberal Democrats criticized Bush for nominating extremely conservative judges -a nomination, once made by the president, is referred by the Senate to the Senate Judiciary Committee *when the chair is held by party in opposition, the committee is likely to move slowly -in addition, Judiciary Committee procedures have institutionalized the veto power of the home state senators *the Committee issues a "blue slip to each home-state senator" *the committee asks the two home-state Senators to take a position on the nomination; the Senators check off the appropriate — either approve or disapprove — and return the slip to the Judiciary Committee *dates back to at least 1917 *other chairs have said they would give blue slips strong consideration but that, but that a negative blue slip or one not returned by a Senator would not necessarily kill a nomination *Some Senators have declined to return a completed blue slip to the committee in an effort to delay action on the nomination *McConnell and Grassley essentially stopped honoring these for Circuit Court nominees *Once the hearings are held, there can be considerable delay before a vote is scheduled on the nominee and even after the nomination is reported to the Senate floor, it may languish for months on the Senate calendar. *It is largely up to the Majority Leader to move to what is called the "Executive Calendar" to take up a nomination. *If "holds" are placed, the nomination is likely to held up for an even more lengthy period. -As you know, in November 2013 the Democrats employed the so-called "nuclear option" *And in 2017, Mitch McConnell used it again to change the interpretation of the filibuster rule on all nominations.... *Under the precedent, ending debate on judicial nominations requires only a simple majority. *Democrats used their simple majority cloture to end debate on judicial nominations more than 100 times to place President Obama's nominees on the federal bench for life. *All of this lays bare why using the nuclear option to distort Rule XXII was a huge mistake. --> *Throughout history, presidents because of Senate rules they must take into account the views of minority senators. *Typically, they selected nominees sufficiently within the mainstream to be acceptable to at least some senators on the other side of the aisle. *Now any president whose party is in the majority in the Senate can freely nominate partisan ideological choices with the confidence that the majority will back them. *In our most recent nomination process.... Merrick Garland was not given the courtesy of a meeting with many senators.... No hearings were held.... And McConnell made clear before Obama even nominated Garland, that no Obama nominee would be confirmed... *McConnell seized the moment after the death of Scalia in February 2016 to announce there would be no confirmation hearings until after the election.... *In 2017 the Democrats filibustered Neil Gorsuch who President Trump nominated in Garland's place.... *And McConnell twisted the filibuster rule and Gorsuch was confirmed 54-45.

Judicial Nominations

-Under the Constitution, the president appoints federal judges with the advice and consent of the Senate *Federal judges serve during "good behavior" which effectively means for life *For the most part, the president and the Senate accommodate each other on district court appointments, but sometimes clash on circuit court nominees *when a vacancy occurs in a district court, the president consulted the senators (often, in the past, of both parties) from the state in which the court is located *if one of them is opposed to the nomination, he or she could usually invoke the norm of senatorial courtesy and receive the support of other members of the Senate in blocking that nominee -conflict over the selection of federal judges has been increasing for more than 20 years *we have seen "fierce controversies" over the confirmations of Supreme Court nominees like Robert Bork (who was defeated) and Clarence Thomas (who was not) which are "emblematic of an intensely divisive political climate in Washington" *there have been many more struggles in recent years over lower court nominees with each of the parties when in control of the Senate Judiciary Committee holding nominees hostage, often by failing to agree even to give them hearings in the committee (ex/ Garland) -we are at a historically low point for vacancies because McConnell's goal to leave no vacancy behind -length of time it took presidents to nominate and Senate to confirm candidates had greatly increased

Federalism

-We have marbled (cooperative) federalism -sharing responsibilities and powers that overlap (not just layered/dual) -ex/ Race to the Top federal education funding and state enforcement -Dual federalism (layer cake): programs and authority are clearly divided among the national, state, and local governments -Cooperative federalism (marble cake): programs and authority are mixed among the national, state, and local governments -Federalism: the separation of powers between federal, state, and local *multiple layers of government where we identify as national citizens as well as subnational categories -Unitary: central government has power -Confederal: states have power -In Constitution, states' had final decision over matters that pertained to them and not granted to the national government; all powers not attributed to federal government reserved to the state and people -in matters shared between both or granted to the national government, national government reigns supreme -Amendments that pertain to states: *Tenth: reserved rights *Eleventh: prevents citizens from one state from suing another state in federal court *Thirteenth: prohibits slavery in the U.S. *Seventeenth: direct election of senators -Division of Powers: *National: regulating interstate commerce; raising armies; declaring war; coining money *Shared: taxing; borrowing; spending; regulating health; regulating education; licensing; setting time, place, and manner of congressional elections *State: regulating interstate commerce, regulating family law; handling most criminal law

Public Opinion

-What is public opinion? *The aggregate of individual attitudes or beliefs about certain issues or officials -Efficacy: whether people believe their participation in government matters; believe that their actions affect the course of government -Political Trust: the extent to which people believe the government acts in their best interests -areas where it isn't listened to (ex/ background checks) -political polling has been around since the 1940s *in today's campaign environment, polling can be said to be the norm *expanded as television use grew, needed to know how to maximize costly TV spots and fine-tune political messages delivered -can be used to craft both policy and communications -newer method of focus groups have greatly influenced political strategy -Real Clear Politics -president's approval rating is very sensitive to public opinion (nowadays, very partisan) -What should the role of public opinion be? *republican trustee model where you have representative in the middle vs. allowing public opinion to rule everything -Types of polls: *Tracking polls: seek to gauge changes in opinion of the same sample size over a period of time; they are common during the closing months of presidential elections *Exit polls: polls that survey a sample of voters immediately after exiting the voting booth to predict the outcome of the election before the ballots are officially counted *Push polls: those that are designed to manipulate being polled (seek to move opinion rather than measure it)

Federal Budget Key Takeways

-When passing policies, the government strives for a balanced budget for the country's fiscal health *Overspending can influence the value of the U.S. dollar, international spending, etc. -The president proposes a budget based off of projections from bureaucratic agencies and the OMB; Congress actually passes their budget then seeks to reconcile the planned and the actual expenditures -While we want a balanced budget, we also want to pass policies and achieve our policy goals -Difference between budgetary and appropriations process: (1) Budgetary: *PLAN *Foundational blueprint provided by the President with the advice and projections of bureaucratic agencies and the OMB *"What's in your bank account" *Sets the top-line for how much we are going to spend VS. (2) Appropriations: *SPENDING *12 bills/committees *doesn't have to align with budgetary process, though it should; when it doesn't, we enter the deficit and so the national debt increases *authorization is also part of appropriations process (in order for money to be given to committees, need to make sure that money is there an available and that specific programs are authorized) -Reviewing the Budgetary Process: *the OMB (Office of Management and Budget) is an independent organization in the bureaucracy, but the OMB's director is part of the cabinet *how does the OMB work in the budgetary process? (1) prepares the president's budget which he then present to Congress (2) gather information by listening in on other departments -How can the president influence the budgetary process? (1) issues budget plan/resolution, which sets the limit on how much can be spent (2) using the bully pulpit (3) veto budget (4) if omnibus bill, president gets to be a part of the discussion (to avoid risk of veto on such a large bill)

Media and Social Media

-Why is a free media necessary for a democracy? *Hold government accountable ("watchdog") *Hear about things that government doesn't want you to hear about *Democracy highlights opinion of individual, and media is necessary to educate individuals so that they may engage in the democracy to the best of their ability -Can a market-based media provide accurate information? *want ad revenue, so most sensationalize and clear POV as possible *but is there a market for impartiality (Reuters and politico) -Why is there less objectivity in the media now than in the past? *Polarized public *Lower overhead costs - easier to publish news now for a much lower cost so there are more opinions out there - used to have to appeal to everyone to be profitable *Lack of fact-checking - people care less about their reputation on social media than did major news sources *Profit - record viewership these days; stir controversy; create an echochamber loop and microtarget

Authorization and Appropriation

-both in Congress after blueprint budget plan/resolution from president -Authorization: provides the structure, continuation, and/or modification of agencies and programs -Appropriations: provide the funding for agencies and programs previously authorized -large chunk of federal budget is pre-determined to be appropriated into entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid) *discretionary (non-entitlement) account for about 40% of total federal spending for a fiscal year *why it can often feel like changes in discretionary spending will not do much, but no one wants to be the party that cuts entitlement programs

Filibuster in budget process

-can't filibuster in budget resolution passage because of Budget Act of 1974 that limits debate to 20 hours -can filibuster in appropriations *where the partisan struggle often comes in *caps aren't high enough for what they want so they make temporary "borrows" but then have to fill them in again --> build deficit

What's wrong with 1947 Succession Act?

-potentially puts a president in the White House from the opposition party -person could be well of advanced age -"bumping rights" for Constitutional officers at the top of the line of succession *Any cabinet officer acting as President may be supplanted by a "qualified and prior-entitled individual" at any time; this means that if a cabinet officer is serving and a qualified speaker or president pro tempore is elected, they may assume the acting presidency, supplanting the cabinet officer

Political Polling

-when done correctly, public opinion polling is an accurate social science with strict rules about sample size, random selection of participants, and margins of error -but, even the best is just a snapshot -begins with a random sample *relatively small number of people who are polled are likely to be representative of the whole target population — in this case registered voters or likely voters *random samples are derived in a number of ways, but the most common are random digit dialing and random selection from the voter registration rolls *at times random selection does not produce a completely representative sample as measured by age, gender, race, or geographical region; so, pollsters will weight the results -NO analysis of a poll should ever be deemed credible unless it accounts for MARGIN OF ERROR *the margin of error is a statistically proven number based on the size of the sample; it has nothing to do with the accuracy of the poll itself; this is statistical sampling error and is distinct from the many other sources of bias which can creep into political polling *the larger number of respondent interviewed, the smaller the margin of error *MOE ranges are usually reported at the 95% confidence level *As the confidence level drops to 90% or 85% fewer interviews are required for the same MOE -The point should be made that the common practice of doubling the MOE to determine whether a race between two candidates is within the MOE, of reported as a "statistical deadheat" is not quite right *while this is the correct conclusion when there are only two possible survey responses, it is not correct when there are more than two possible responses, which is in fact virtually always the case, especially in primary races -MOE increases with subgroups because smaller sample -MOE underestimates degree of uncertainty in the results if other errors are introduced -Hard to tell who leader is because margins of error can cause confidence intervals to overlap around the majority -Proportional estimates closer to 50% are subject to more variability than estimates near the end of the spectrum

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

A 2010 landmark Supreme Court case that ruled that individuals, corporations, and unions could donate unlimited amounts of money to groups that make independent political expenditures.