component 3 Flashcards
is the amendment process effective today?
the ammendment process allows the constitution to remain updated with the modern world. can be done through passing a proposed ammendment in both houses with a supermajority or by a national constitutional convention calling an amendment by two thirds support of state legislatures and then the ammendment is ratified by a simple majority in three quarters of state legislatures. THERE HAVE BEEN MISTAKES IN THE PROCESS SUCH AS 1902 THE INTRODUCTION OF PROHIBITION WHICH WAS REPEALED 13 YEARS LATER
+ broad support is gained for amendments: for example, the suggestion of repealing the 2nd amendment doesn’t have much support: in a 2018 YouGov poll only 1/5 Americans wanted it.
encouraged by the need for supermajorities: amendments need to reflect the political and cultural beliefs of as many Americans as possible. because America is so diverse, not everyone will be happy but broad support ensures that the constitution remains as relevant as possible
- no: necessary ammendments have been prevented for example on campgain finance reform WE THE PEOPLE MOVEMENT. is necessary because 2020 election cost an estimated $14 billion versus in 2008 election cost 2008. shows that the supreme court ruling of citizens united vs. federal election commission is out of date with todays times and needs to be changed.
- no: a difficult amendment process allows for a powerful supreme court to seemingly create new laws. for example supreme court ruled to uphold free speech Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.
+ protects the principles of the constitution. 2022 joe biden signed a moratorium on evictions. his actions declared unconstitutional. shows that the complexity of the amendment process means that it cannot be manipulated for political gains
+ prevents tyranny of large states or single parties by recognising eachh stat eindicidually rather than just through its population. and by requiring a supermajoirty at proposal level, a single party is prevented form dominating the ammendment process and therefore ensuring bipartisanship.
- prevents tyranny of the minority. requirement of a supermajority, it is possible for a minority of state to block n ammendment. the equal rifhts ammenmdnet passed the hor and senate only 35 states ratified the ammendment within the time limit and the 15 states that didnt accounted for 28% of the population
is campgain finance good for american democracy?
NO whilst the system does allow for freedom of speech it is an elitist system because ultimately those who fund campaigns can influence laws.
- money raised is a measure of candidates’s capability. candidates can only raise money if they are good options
- donations through superpacs do not have to be disclosed and are therefore free from scrutiny
- being the highest spender doesn’t guarantee winning. in 2020 Bloomberg spent over $1 billion and dropped out after super tuesday
- can use money for wrong reasons, even hush money as long as it is declared it is okay. donald trump gave money to an adult movie star in the 2016 election
- campaigns can be fully funded by corporations, therefore promoting an elitist democracy
+ citizens v mccutheon: money is free speech. corporations and people should have their voices heard. the US system recognises corporations as stakeholders in a democracy and therefore they should have a say in the democratic system
is the electoral college good for american democracy?
- weaker argumement: disagreement: smaller states are overrepresented, for example, Wyomingite’s vote is worth 3.74x more than cali’s
- stronger argument: agreement prevents against the tyranny of the big states to prevent them from taking over the election because small states matter too
the argument that smaller states are overrepresented is weaker to a greater extent as the founding fathers intended it to be this way and didn’t want popular democracy
advanatges: - encourages a two party system and preventing extreme candidates
- winner takes all, also ensures widespread support from majority of states
- encourages wide geographical support for all candidates
disadvantages:
- winner takes all: 48/50 states use FPTP: the republican vote in California is wasted and there is no representation in the electoral college vote
- no diversity in ideology
- can win without winning the popular vote. dems have won the popular vote all but once since 1992 but have not had the presidency every single time
- electors could go against who they are meant to vote for: but this would rarely happen and would not have made too much of a difference
are primary and caucuses good for democracy?
YES
weaker argument: well scrutinised
stronger argument: - not formally representative 90% of Iowa was white. frontrunners will often win because of name recognition
argument that it is well scrutinised is limited to a greater extent. the media can sensationalise things and candidates may use the media to get free publciity by saying outlandish things, such as Trump and his wall
weaker argument is that they are bad: - only those who are politically motivated- not ideologically representative of all of America - for example Iowa is called the guns and bibles caucus
stronger argument is that it is effectove in ensuring accountability, for example, in michigan 12% of democracts didnt vote for biden over palestine
the argument that only the politically motivated will turn out is weak to a limited extent. Whilst they may not encourage turnout from everyone, it is a system that is working. the argument that primaries and caucuses are good for democracy is stronger to a greater extent because they encourage accountability and makes candidates listen to votes: for example biden promised to appoint the first black female scj to win over voters in south carolina
- the weaker argument is that caucuses are complicated and required commitment: therefore elderly, parents and the disabled wont turn out
the stronger argument is that the structure is good, smaller states are first and then there is super tuesday. therefore this gives unknown candidates a chance - only those who are politically motivated- not ideologically representative of all of America - for example Iowa is called the guns and bibles caucus.
the arguent that the structure is good is stronger to a greater extent, as the process diminishes the incumbency effect.
to what extent do checks and balances work?
- congress has the weakest check
- SC is the most significant check
weaker argument: congress’ check of veto override. FOR EXMAPLE, IN 2020 TRUMPS VETO ON THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT WAS OVERRIDEN shows that congress can hold the executive to account.prevents tyranny of the minority
power of the president to veto is stronger as it shows the tyranny of the majority. for example turmp used his veto power 10 times, 75% of veto threast by obama led to the threatened legislation not passing
weaker argument: the check of congress on the executive of declaring war, for example, congress officially declared war in 1945
the stronger argument is that the president has the power of commander in chief and can therefore move troops anywhere he likes in case Congress doesn’t fund the troops, for example trump ordered an attack on an Iranian general
the weaker argument president can check the supreme court through his appointments process. for example, trump appointed amy coney barret for her pro-life stance
the stronger argument is that the SC’s check on
to what exent are checks and balances dysfunctional
- inability of P to suggest legislation. for example obama crying over sandy hook and advocated for gun control. shows that the power of the president to suggest legislation is limited in its function due to the entrenched nature of the constitution
the stronger argument is that c+b are working as congress funds important bills.
the argument that the P can’t suggest legislation is weaker to a greater extent because he soley shouldnt have the power to reverse the constitution, the founding fathers made it entrenched for this reason - the weaker argument is that the constitution isnt dysfunctional as the P as CinC is moving troops and congress is funding troops. for example, the war in afghanistan was donw by the P moving troops and congress funding this instead of congress declaring war. this shows that the process is effective as there is no gridlock between the two branches - arguably it is more efficient this way.
- the stronger argument is that congress is dysfunctional because congress should be the one declaring war - but hasn’t. for example congress has only declared war 21 times and the last time was in 1945 but america has engaged in lots of conflict since. this shows that the constitution is dysfunctional since the founding fathers intended the legislature - who are representatives of the country- to declare war unanimously. the reason they may not be gridlock is because it may be seen as unpatriotic for congress not to agree to fund the troops
the argument that congress isn’t dysfunctional is limited to a greater extent- whilst this process may be more efficient , there is a threat that the president may have too much power - this may have been true in trump’s case which lead to political instability and fears that he would cause a war with north korea or iran. the stronger argument is correct to a greater extent as the check on the president exists to make sure that the country isnt being pulled into unnecessary conflicts and it has failed at doing so: iraq
the weaker argument is that congress checks supreme court justices by ratifying them and therefore the check of impeachment of justices is unnecessary. for example, the last time a scj was impeached was in 1805, samuel chase was found not guilty of arbitary and oppressive conduct of trials. this may be because of the rigourous process of ratifying scj.
the stronger argument is that scj have not been impeached and should be scrutinised more. for example, clarence thomas’ children tuition fees were paid by harlan crow
is federalism working today?
NO
yes: states have the power to determine how elections are run including: setting their own boundaries for districts within states or using any method (electronic voting, paper ballot, etc.) for example, colorado wanted to remove trump from the ballot. this shows that states are being given their article 1 right to run their own elections
no: states have to abide by landmark legislation that is upheld for example the affordable care act.
the argument that states can run their own elections is weaker because the supreme court ruled that colarado does not have the power to remove trump from their ballot, thus showing the freedom of states is being infringed upon.
the weaker argument is that a majority of citizens’ rights are decided at a federal level, for example obergefell v hodges in 2015 legalised gay marriage in every state. this shows that ultimately the federal government’s legislation and supreme court decisions can be used to enforce decisions on states. since the supreme court is the arbiter of the constitution, the federal government needs to enforce this because the constitution has the final say on how the country should be run
the stronger argument is that the conservative supreme court is more willing to give power to the states, for example overturning roe v wade meant that states ultimately have the right to decide abortion laws. this shows that the supreme court is helping to increase federalism in america today by limiting the power of the government and increasing the size of the power of states. the argument that citizens’ rights are decided
the stronger argument is correct to a greater extent, since the ideological stance of the sc majorly influences whether sc protects states rights - in obergefell v hodges the court was more liberal and wasnt that concerned with protecting states rights.
no: national issues demand a national response for example covid pandemic
federal law ultimately supersedes state law
yes: states have their own autonomy in holding national crisises. for example 32 state governors issued their own state of emergency before trump. in addition sanctuary citi
no: national issues demand a national response for example covid pandemic
federal law ultimately supersedes state law
to what extent does the constitution uphold liberal democracy?
liberal democracy refers to the protection of rights constitutionally and separation of powers. the founding father created a reactionary constitution from the British and intended it to be more liberal
YES
yes weaker argument: BILL OF RIGHTS ENTRENCHES RIGHTS AND THE SUPREME COURT PROTECTS THEM, for example synder v Phelps uphelf the right to free speech and burwell v hobby lobby upheld corporations’ right to religious freedom. this shows that the constitution effectively upholds liberal democracy by ensuring individual rights and freedoms are protected
no stronger argument: NOT ALL RIGTHS ARE EFFECTIVELY PROTECTED BY THE SC . for example, boumediene v bush guaranteed the guantanemo bay detainees the right to habeaus corpus, but guantanemo bay is still open. this shows that the supreme court is ineffective at upholding liberal democracy in other cases
argument that sc upholds rights is weaker to a lesser extent, the constitution also implements a process of checks and balances and therefore ensures that the supreme court is effective in its job and can uphold rights without fear for their jobs. however, the supreme court can choose which cases to hear, repeatedly hear cases concerning free speech which shows this is something they are willing to protect.
no weaker argument :
CHECKS AND BALANCES ARE OVERPOWERING AND THEY CEASE TO MAKE GOVERNMENT EFFECTIVE for example there have been 21 government shutdowns since 1974. democracy should grant people a working government and shutdowns show that the government is ineffective at upholding democracy.
yes: CHECKS AND BALANCES ENSURE A LIMITED GOEVRNMENT- A PRINCIPLE OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY , for example obama wanted increased gun legislation after crying about sandy hook but he achieved nothing. this shows that president’s inability to achieve everything they want show that checks and balances are effective and necessary because the 2nd amendment is a right entrenched by the constitution, checks and balances are preventing the tyranny of the minority
argument that checks and balances makes government ineffective is weaker to a significant extent, whilst it does take into account that shutdowns hinder effectiveness, if shutdowns occur and no bills are being passed, this is arguably a good thing because it shows that bipartisanship is being taken into account which was the founding fathers intention
no: ELECTORAL COLLEGE UNDERMINES THE IDEA OF FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS. for example, since 1990, the democrats have won the popular for every single election except one, yet have not been in power for that same amount of time. this shows that the electoral system and by extension the constitution, does not effectively uphold democracy as leaders are being elected with a democratic deficit and are ignoring the popular vote.
yes stronger argument: THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS EFFECTIVE AT UPHOLDING LIBERAL DEMOCRACY AND PREVENTING TRYANNY OF THE MAJORITY . for example, a wyomingite’s vote is worth 3.74x more than cali’s. this shows that the constitution is preventing tyranny of the majority and smaller states are not ignored and thus enhances democracy
the argument that the electoral college undermines democracy is limited to a greater extent, as the founding fathers did not intend for there to be popular democracy and wanted to make the system more equal.
the argument that the electoral college protects the voice of smaller states is limited to an extent, whilst it does effectively protect their rights, there is a threat that larger states are too unrepresentated and voters may feel their vote is wasted
to what extent does the constitution effectively uphold liberal democracy?
yes: the senate is now elected, thus ensuring a greater degree of popular soverignty
no: the senates represents the USA by state rather than population means states with smaller populations are overrepresented
no: the requirement of the supermajority at numerous points means that there is tyranny of the majority
yes: amendments cannot be made without the approval of states and each of their votes is valued equally
SUPREME COURT FINAL ARBITER OF CONSTITUTION BUT IS UNELECTED. for example, Donald trump appointed amy coney barret to the sc a few days before the election because of her pro-life stance and so many argue he stole a seat. the supreme court is arguably politically influenced due to its appointments process.
to what extent is congress fulfilling its representative function?
what is the interest group American Israel Political Action committee?
- bipartisan, advocates for positive relations between Israel and the US
- donate to congress: 17.3 million to support candidates, start very early on in their career for long term relations. they can do this by sending candidates to Israel in 2005 more than 100 went
- spent 3.5m in 2018 on lobbying congress members. they claimed to provide the government with credible and reliable research
- accused of Islamophobia in 2021 due to attacks on ilhan omar and that omar doesn’t know the difference between America and the taliban and received hate speech
- 98% of candidates that they supported won in 2022
- threatened 13 pro Palestine candidates
- lobby for financial aid for Israel and have been very successful, Israel has been the largest recipient of foreign aid since ww2 and have received 2 billion. trump set up the embassy in jursulem which formally recognises
how are immigration rights/ latino rights protected?
+ sc extended rights in texas vs biden. niden trying to remove trump policies, biden can do this
- garland vs gonzales 2022. each asyum seeker must petition individually to stay in the us whilst waiting for asylum outcome they cannot be given the right together. this shows that the sc doesn’t protect the rights of immigrants
