EXAM # 2 Politics

What is a PAC? What is its purpose? What are Super PACs? How do they differ from regular PACs? Why is this difference significant?

A PAC are private groups that raise and distribute funds to either elect or defeat a candidate. PAC stands for political action committee. PACs are legally allowed to coordinate their activity with the candidates campaign, but the amount of money they received and spend is regulated. Super PACs are a fund raising organization that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money from individuals, corporations, and unions. This type of PAC is different from the regular one because they cannot directly contribute to or coordinate with the candidates running for office while regular PACs can. This difference is significant because with the money and resources super PACs have they are more likely to influence who people vote for and Super PACs votes actually count.

Discuss at least three steps in the process by which a bill becomes a law, and explain why these steps are important.

A bill is drafted and submitted to a Clerk. Without a bill being drafted there would be nothing to debate over or change. The bill is then sent to be debated in the House and Senate. The bill is now presented which means they have to vote. This step is important because without voting on new bills there wouldn't be any laws. It is important because it shows that the representatives are voting on behalf of the people of what they could possibly want. Without this step bills wouldn't be changed or signed. The final step is for the bill to be signed by the president. This is important because the president can decide to veto this bill. Without the president no bills would be passed since everything needs to be signed by the president, or the legislative branch has to override the presidents veto. This is a checks and balance which prevents tyranny and each branch checks each other.

What is an interest group, and how does it differ from a political party? What role do interest groups play in a democracy?

An interest group is made of individuals that makes policy related appeals to the government. These groups organize to try and influence the governments programs and policies. Basically they all share similar views on an issue.Interest groups differ from a political party by them first being small and more focused on one issue or a few. They petition the government as outsiders. While political parties are bigger and are focused on many issues. Interest groups play an important role in our democracy. Interest groups help encourage elected official to vote the way they want. They also help with campaigns for people running for office, and endorse candidates.

Define "concurrent powers" and discuss two concrete examples of concurrent powers.

Concurrent Powers are powers shared between the federal and state governments. Between the two they only share some powers, because states can not do the same thing the federal government can do. An example of concurrent powers shared between the states and the federal government is taxing. Both sides can tax citizens with things like tariffs, on property, goods,etc. They can also set up court systems. At the federal level there is the Supreme Court, while at state levels there are minor courthouses that deal with many different issues.

According to conservatives, what should government do, and why? According to contemporary (social) liberals, what should government do, and why?

Conservatives believed that they should do what their ancestors have always done. They believed that they should conserve their ancient institutions and traditions. Some of these things were the Church, monarchy, marriage because they are reliable sources of knowledge. Classical liberals believed that one main purposes of government is to protect private property. They also thought that too much government interference, threatens liberty. Conservatives felt that too much social and political change is bad and that it upsets ancient traditions. Conservatives share with liberals that too much government inter fence in the economy threatens individual liberty.

In class, we discussed two contemporary political conflicts around federalism. Pick one of these conflicts, and explain — in detail — why it is a federalism conflict. (Your response should include a definition of federalism.)

Federalism is the separation of powers that are divided between the state government and federal government. Gay marriage is a federalism conflict because there is conflict on whether or not this should or shouldn't be allowed. A few states can feel that they don't want to legalize gay marriage, while the federal government can say its legal. Both sides have a right to decide what they want in their state as well as across the US. This is a federalism conflict because many people have different views on gay marriage.

Where in the Bill of Rights does freedom of speech appear? What does it mean, and why is it an important democratic value? How, specifically, does Justice Brandeis (in his 1927 Whitney v. California opinion) explain the importance of freedom of speech in a democracy?

Freedom of Speech appears in the first amendment.It means you have the right to express yourself and your opinions without being censored or blocked. It is an important democratic value as without it, the people would not have an opportunity to impact the political system, and thus their voices would be left useless. Justice Brandeis says that "It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears." He argues that Freedom of Speech functions as an essential part of democracy in order for it to remain effective.

In class, we discussed the Snyder v. Phelps (2011) decision. What civil liberties issue was at the center of that case? What was the Court's majority opinion, and how, specifically, did Chief Justice John Roberts justify that opinion?

Freedom of speech and rights to protest were the civil liberties at the center of the issue. The Court's majority opinion was in favor of Phelps, the protesters in front of Snyder's funeral. John Roberts quoted the Constitution and said that "the Constitution does not permit government to decide which types of otherwise protected speech are sufficiently offensive to require protection for the unwilling listener or viewer"

Why does Alexander Hamilton argue in Federalist 78, argue that in the Judicial Branch will be the "least dangerous" of the three branches of government? What can the Supreme Court do? What can the Supreme Court not do?

Hamilton argues that the Judicial Branch would be the "least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution." He argues this because he fears that the judiciary branch has no influence over the sword or the purse. He also says the Judiciary Branch will only give judgement when needed. The Supreme Court can review court cases. They can also review acts of Congress, state actions, and presidential actions. The Supreme Court can not make military decisions but it can provide insight into the presidents actions. The Supreme Court can decide whether something is constitutional or unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has the power to overturn cases. They can not enforce laws or make them. The Supreme Court isn't political.

In class, we discussed what Justice Brennan called the "counter-majoritarian difficulty." What did he mean by this? What is Justice Brennan saying about the critical role of the Supreme Court in a democracy? And why might the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court be particularly attuned to this difficulty? What special role does the Chief Justice have?

Hdhd

Broadly, how would you define civil liberties? Where do they appear in the Constitution?

I'd describe civil liberties as a set of protections that citizens have against improper government interference. Basically they are individual rights they promise freedom and is protected under the law. Civil liberties first appears in the First Amendment.

In class, we discussed three fundamental values and principles that animate American political culture. Discuss two of these principles, being sure to explain what they mean.

In class we talked about three fundamental values and principles. The three we talked about were equality, liberty and democracy.Equality is the idea that all men are created equally. It also means that you get the same treatment, advantages, and benefits as the next person no matter your race, or gender. In this practice no matter your status, you are just as significant as the next person. You also have the same rights as your other fellow citizens. Liberty is having the freedom to be able to do whatever you want. Liberty is having self-rule over your self as long as it doesn't bother anybody else's rights. The practice of liberty is in the individual and can be defined by themselves.

Translate the following passage from the Declaration of Independence, being sure to specify where in the passage we can find references to three key political principles and values discussed in our unit on American Political Culture: "We hold these truths to be 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 the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of 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 organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

In the passage we can find references to three key political principles and values which are liberty, equality,and democracy. The part where it talks about what your unalienable rights are says that among them are life,liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Democracy is mentioned when in the excerpt it said that "...that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." The very first line references equality by explaining that all men are created equal. The first two lines in the paragraph means that all people are created equally and they have rights that can't be taken away from them. These rights are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The government is set up by the people and they get their powers from the people with their knowledge. The last few lines basically says that people can abolish or change the government if it becomes detrimental.The people can make a new government that benefits their happiness and safety.

What is incorporation, and why is it important? How does the Fourteenth Amendment play a pivotal role in the process of incorporation?

Incorporation is the process by which the Bill of Rights is applied to the states. Incorporation is important because it prohibits states from violating civil liberties. Another reason it is important because it limits restriction that the state government can put on their citizens. The 14th amendment enabled incorporation through its Due Process clause.

Discuss some of the reasons for the migration of war-making authority away from Congress and towards the Executive Branch.

Jjd

Identify the author of the following statement: "It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial department to say what the law is." What was the context of this statement? What did the author mean, and why is this statement significant?

John Marshall made this statement. He said this during the Marbury v. Madison case. The author meant that it was the duty of the Judicial Branch to review laws that are created. His statement is significant because it created precedent for the Judicial power of Judicial review.

Why did many (but not all) Americans think that we needed a new constitution? What was wrong with the Articles of Confederation?

Many American thought that we needed a new Constitution because the Articles of Confederation were weak. A lot of things were wrong with the AOC. Many Americans thought that our government should be strong, because at the time states functioned like independent countries. Another reason many Americans wanted a new constitution was to correct the errors in the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation made the government weak and gave most of the power to the states. The federal government wasn't able to tax the people, because of the whole "no taxation without representation".They also couldn't pay for expenses that had to request money from other states. Under the AOC, the government couldn't pass any laws unless 9 out of 13 states agreed. In the AOC they didn't have an executive branch or national courts to carry out justice. Congress couldn't control trade between the states or with other countries. The government could also not pay their debts.

Who do members of the House of Representatives represent? Who do members of the Senate represent? What do their different constituencies — and the different rules governing each chamber — tell us about the governing priorities in both chambers? How are they similar/different?

Members of the House of Representatives represent the population of the people.If the population of a state is bigger, then it will have more representatives to represent them in Congress. The Senate represents each state. Each state is given two Senators that represent them in Congress. Their different constituencies and the different rules governing the chambers tells us that they both must know and understand the people. They also tell us that they consider public opinion with careful thought. They want to get re-elected They both are similar because they are elected into office. The difference between the two is that one, serves six years while the other only serves two years. They both are similar because they are meant to be made up of Congress. They also together help laws become passed and propose new bills.

In class, we discussed several of the Article II powers and responsibilities of the president. Discuss two of these powers, describing, in detail, what they entail and how the other branches can check the exercise of each of these presidential powers.

One of the powers that we talked about in class of the President is that he is head of state. The President is the country's Chief representative when dealing with foreign nations. In this power it is basically saying the president is the figure for the country. Being head of the state gives the President the power to make formal agreements which are basically treaties. He can do this with or without the Senate's approval. This power was assumed over time, which the Senate intentionally started passing this power on to the President. Another thing about these Executive agreements is that they can be undone by future presidents. A power that is listed in the Articles is that the President is Commander in Chief. The President is head of the entire defense establishment and intelligence network like the CIA. The President can also send troops into conflicts, citing their inherent powers as Commander in Chief. The president can only do this if its an emergency or its super important. This is kind of outside of what he can do but Congress lets him have that power although he can't declare war.

According to originalists, how should a judge interpret the Constitution? Why? Compare the originalist position to that taken by living constitutionalists. According to living constitutionalists, how should a judge interpret the Constitution? Why?

Originalists believe a judge should interpret the Constitution according to the original text and intention of the Framers. Originalists feel this way because they want to limit judicial discretion and stop judges from overstepping their boundaries. Living constitutionalist believed that the constitution is a living document. They feel judges should interpret the laws in a way that could apply to our society today. They argue that the amendment process is long and that the Constitution itself doesn't specifically say how it should be interpreted. Originalists believe how you interpret laws should be strictly by the books while Living. constitutionalist believe that you interpret laws by the Constitution whose meaning constantly changes.

What is political polarization? How does it impact our political institutions and our democracy? And what are some of the potential causes of polarization?

Political Polarization is the widening divide between Democrats (Liberals) and Republicans (Conservatives). It divides the population based on political ideology. Our political institutions are will take a stance and not move from it. Our democracy becomes super hostile and divided which leaves no room for compromise. Polarization can be caused by big issues like abortion or gun rights. The media is a cause of polarization because it too highlights the good/bad of a party and it sways a voter's opinion.

Describe the relationship between political knowledge, political efficacy, and trust in government. What does each mean, and how, specifically, are they connected?

Political efficacy is the belief that ordinary citizens can affect what government does, and they can make the government listen to them. Political efficacy has the ability to influence government and politics. Having trust in government is influenced by people's political knowledge and efficacy. Political knowledge isn't just having a few opinions to vote on a candidate, which can guide your decision in a voting booth. With political knowledge you have to know the rules and strategies that govern political institutions. It is also knowing the principles they are based on and how they relate to your own interests. All three of these are connected because in order to have trust in government you need to have political knowledge to know what is going on and then using political efficiency you can decide whether the government is doing a good job or not.

First, explain the purpose and process of "redistricting." Second, explain how redistricting can transform into "gerrymandering." What is "gerrymandering"? Why might some observers argue that gerrymandering harms our democracy?

Redistricting happens after a consensus in order to find out how many members of the House will that state have. If the population has gone up then the number of Representatives will go up and vice versa.For each district there is one representative elected Gerrymandering-redrawing the districts in order to obtain votes for certain parties. It harms our democracy because the voters voices are not being heard equally because the district is drawn to drown out other voters with voters of the desired party.

Why, according to the political scientist E.E. Schattschneider, is democracy "unthinkable" without parties? Discuss two important functions that parties serve for themselves, and two important functions that parties serve for voters

Schattschneider thought that government became progressively more democratic as parties formed. He thought that parties was like an umbilical cord that links citizens to the government. Parties give candidates voter recogaiznation. Being apart of a party helps make your decision making so much easier. Parties build unity, they raise money and fund their nominees campaign. For voters parties help them join together with people who share the same ideas and beliefs as them. It raises voter participation.

Federal courts are highly attuned to "suspect classifications" in the law. Define "suspect classifications" and explain the approach that federal courts, including the Supreme Court, use to interrogate these classifications.

Suspect Classification refers to a class of individuals that have been subjected to discrimination on the basis of race, religion, national origin and alien-age. Courts will look for historical factors of discrimination, whether the person is of a minority, whether they have an inherent or highly visible trait and whether the person is apart of a group who is historically left out of the political process.

Where in the Bill of Rights does the free exercise clause appear? What does it mean? What does it prohibit government from doing? And has it always been easy for the Supreme Court to interpret the free exercise clause? Why or why not?

The Bill of Rights is in the Constitution. The Free Exercise clause appears in the 1st amendment. This clause means that the people of the United States can freely practice their religion. It also means that the government can't interfere with any person because of their practice of faith. This clause prevents the government from supporting, endorsing, or becoming too involved with a certain religion and their activities. I'd say that it hasn't always been easy for the Supreme Court to interpret the free exercise clause. I say this because they weren't exactly sure if the free exercise clause protects against religious actions since it did for religious beliefs. Another reason I'd say it hasn't always been easy for the Supreme Court to interpret the free exercise clause is because their was always controversy over which way they should rule.

What is the "bully pulpit"? Who first described the Executive Branch as a bully pulpit, and why? What kind of power is exercised from the bully pulpit and why is it important?

The Bully pulpit is a term which meant that a president had a terrific platform to advocate an agenda. The bully pulpit was basically a way to communicate with the people.Theodore Roosevelt described the Executive branch as a bully pulpit because he believed that it was a powerful platform that directly influenced the people and advocated for change. Executive power is exercised from the bully pulpit. This is important because it further justifies the president's decisions and roles.

The Constitution gives the power to appoint Supreme Court justices to one branch, and the power to confirm justices to another branch. Which branch appoints and which branch confirms? Why do you think that the Framers of the Constitution wanted to divide appointment and confirmation powers in this way

The Constitution gives the power to appoint Supreme Court Justices to the President. The president is the executive branch. The power to Confirm that appointment comes from the Senate. The Senate makes up the Legislative branch and is also apart of Congress. I think the Framers of the Constitution wanted to divide appointment and conformation this way so that not one branch has more power or say than this one. I believe they did it this way so the president can't just pick anybody that they have friendship ties with because if the president had the power to approve of the Justices as well the Supreme Court would be a mess. The Framers gave the confirmation power to the Legislative branch because they'll look to see if this person is worthy candidate and whether they are someone that the Supreme Court needs.

In class, we discussed the Supreme Court's United States v. Windsor (2013) decision. What civil rights issue was at the center of that case, and why was the Court's decision significant?

The Fifth amendment's Due Process clause was the Civil rights issue of the case. DOMA violated Windsor's Fifth amendment. The Court's decision was significant because it resulted in the legalization of gay marriage across the United States.

According to Alexander Hamilton, writing in Federalist 70, why did the United States need a president? What was to be the purpose of the Executive Branch? What are its animating characteristics

The United States needed a President because they didn't want a king, but they needed someone who could make decisions the legislative branch couldn't make without taking so long. Hamilton reasoning was that Congress was too slow and that one branch needed to act quickly. He wanted it like this do one person could he to blame if something goes wrong. The executive branch is supposed to be protected against security threats both domestic and foreign. This branch also has to put into action and enforce all acts of Congress. The animating characteristics are energy, secrecy, decision, activity, and dispatch.

In class, we discussed the Supreme Court's Reed v. Reed (1971) decision. What civil rights issue was at the center of that case, and why was the Court's decision significant?

The case of Reed v. Reed was about a mother wanting to take hold of her dead son's estate. She challenged the Constitution of the Idaho law that preferred men over women in administration for estates. This court case focused on the 14th amendment equal protection clause. This case is significant because it was the first time that the equal protection clause protected women's rights.

What is the "equal protection clause"? What does it mean? Where in the Constitution can we find it? And how does this clause protect our civil rights?

The equal protection clause is apart of the 3 parts of the 14th amendment. This clause ensures that you can not deny any person within their jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This means that a person will have the same rights, privileges and protections like everybody else. You can find this clause in the 14th amendment in the Constitution. This clause protects our civil rights by guaranteeing that our rights are recognized no matter our gender, race, religion, etc.

Where in the Bill of Rights does the establishment clause appear? What does it mean? What does it prohibit government from doing? And has it always been easy for the Supreme Court to interpret the establishment clause? Why or why not?

The establishment clause appears in the First Amendment. This means that the government can't make a national religion that people have to obey. The Establishment clause prohibits the government from not having a government church meaning they can't have any favoritism. They also can't provide financial assistance to religious groups. No it has not always been easy for the Supreme Court to interpret the Establishment Clause. I say this because they had to come up with the Lemon test in order to clarify what the establishment clause meant in the case of Lemon v Kurtzman.

What is the principle of the "separation of powers"? What does it mean? How, in very clear and specific terms, would the separation of powers — and checks and balances — preserve citizens' liberties? Where in the Constitution can we see these principles at work?

The principle of "separation of powers" is to make sure the government doesn't abuse their power. Separation of powers and checks and balances preserve citizens liberties by ensuring that not one branch abuses their power or exceeds it. An example of this could be Congress passing a law that violates a Citizen's 14th amendment. The Judicial Branch would then review it and determine that the law is unconstitutional. We can see these principles at work in Articles 1,2,and 3 in the Constitution.

What is the "supremacy clause"? What does it mean? What is its main purpose?

The supremacy clause is located in Article 6 section 2. It says that all laws made by the federal government are "the supreme law of the land". This means that everyone has to follow this law, no matter their social standing or position. It also means that the laws given to us by Congress are absolute. The main purpose of this is to ensure that the states obey all laws passed.The purpose of this clause is to let states know that federal law prevails over any law they pass.

In class, we discussed two main types of elections. What are they, and how are they different? What kinds of candidates do we choose in each type of election?

The two main types of elections we discussed in class were the General Election and the Primary election. The General election is a regularly scheduled election in which voters of most districts elect a variety of office holders at the local and federal level. A primary election is when voters choose what candidate they want to represent a party in the general election. This is basically a winner takes all. These elections are both different in three ways. The first way being that one election is scheduled and the other isn't. Another way these elections are different because one is in the constitution while the other one isn't and was created by political parties. In each kind of election we choose people whose views on certain issues match up to our own as well as the policies. In the primary we choose a president. In the general we choose senators, mayors, and representatives.

What are third parties? Why is it often difficult for third parties to compete and win in American elections?

Third parties are minor parties that aren't well known, like the two majority parties Democrats and Republicans. Third parties run for president but never really win the election. An example of a third party is the Green party. It is difficult for third parties to compete in American elections because America has a winner takes all system. It is hard for third parties to actually win the election because voters feel that voting for a third party is wasting their vote when they are least likely to win.

Explain the meaning and significance of the following passage from Justice Kennedy's majority opinion in Citizens United v. FEC (2010): "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech. All speakers, including individuals and the media, use money amassed from the economic marketplace to fund their speech." What was the Citizens United case about? And why, specifically, did the dissenting justices disagree with the majority? What was their argument?

Under the first amendment congress can not charge or throw citizens in jail because they are giving their opinions/ views about things in politics. The Citzens United court case was about the use of corporations using their funds to finance political advertising. The Supreme Court settled that this right was protected under the First amendment. The Citizens United Case was about a non-profit organization trying to broadcast a film that was highly critical of Hillary Clinton. The dissenting judges argued that these actions would "threaten to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation." Corruption concerns regarding elected officials and deals with corporations also arose.

James Madison believed that the Bill of Rights would serve an educative function. What did he mean by this? What, for Madison, is the link between civic virtue and civil liberties?

When James Madison said that the Bill of Rights would serve as an educative function he meant that