5368984
Descripción
Fichas por Bethany Fieldhouse, actualizado hace más de 1 año
|
Creado por Bethany Fieldhouse
hace más de 8 años
|
|
| Pregunta | Respuesta |
| Why and to what extent has there been disagreement about the constitutional importance of federalism? | PRO-FEDERALISM - Widely held rightist view = liberty best protected by policies being made in local communities - locally accountable - Greatest threat to freedom = powerful central government FEDERALISM = KEY CONSTITUTIONAL DEVICE TO PROTECT LIBERTY. DILUTION OF FEDERALISM = UNDERMINING FREEDOM ANTI-FEDERALISM - - Consistent application of Bill of Rights only possible from central government. - Under 'states rights' = tyranny of the majority, eg white communities in the South |
| To what extent is there disagreement about how effectively the constitution protects freedom? | - Different definitions of 'FREEDOM' - CONSERVATIVES: define in negative term (non-interference). Believe Const was designed to limit power + size of national government - IT HAS BEEN LARGELY INEFFECTIVE - Each national crisis since 1930's has seen growth of national government - LIBERALS: Define in positive terms (fulfilment of potential) - believe Const designed to protect rights - 'MIXED RESULT AT BEST'. Infringement of rights = bigotry at local levels - Const. made it difficult for national gov to intervene e.g. North Carolina v Federal government, over 'bathroom bill' 2016 - NC said federal intervention was a “baseless and blatant overreach” of its power. - CENTRISTS: Const. strikes perfect balance between freedom and effective government. Times when balance has been lost (E.G. JAPANESE INTERNMENT CAMPS, WWII) but always been restored |
| Can the Bill of Rights be respected while the threat of terrorism remains? | Attitude to civil liberties at times of national crisis - determined by ideology. - CONSERVATIVES: more favourable to restrictions on liberties to protect national security. - Security = highest priority of government, so accept measures such as investigating library records under Patriot Act (2001) - Courts are available as a safeguard should excessive measures take place - KOREMATSU - past erosions of liberity have not been permanent - LIBERALS: protection of liberty = fundamental value - oppressive measures (eg coercive interrogation) = undermines America's claim as beacon of freedom - may exacerbate conditions which give rise to terrorism - greatest risk: rights of vulnerable minorities eg TRUMP - BANNING MUSLIMS FROM ENTERING USA - courts are an inadequate safeguard - danger that 'temporary' measure may become permanent |
| Explain the ways in which the Constitution seeks to prevent 'tyranny of the majority' | - originally: senate and president not elected by popular vote - SEPARATION OF POWERS = difficult for one group to dominate - CHECKS AND BALANCES = no single institution can dominate political system - FEDERALISM = reserves significant power to the states - BILL OF RIGHTS = guarantees individual freedoms - CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT PROCESS = requires super-majorities in Congress and state legislatures - SUPREME COURT = appointed, responsible for interpreting the Constitution |
| How and why is federalism enshrined in the Constitution? | FEDERALISM: THE SEPARATION OF THE STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT INTO TWO MORE OR LESS AUTONOMOUS LAYERS - THE POWERS OF EACH ARE ENTRENCHED IN THE CONSTITUTION Not explicitly mentioned in the constitution, but role of states is established principally by: - equal representation of each state in the Senate - Electoral College for electing President - State boundaries cannot be changed without state permission - Constitution can only be amended with consent of 3/4 of the state legislatures - 10th Amendment reserves to the states anything left out of the Constitution Framers of Constitution wished to establish a political system which protected role of the state as well as creating a strong central government to pull country together as a functioning whole - both granted significant powers within a federal system |
| Explain the advantages and disadvantages of the process of amending the Constitution? | Two routes, as outlined in ARTICLE V (although second - summoning of a constitutional convention by 2/3s of state legislatures - never been used.) Other route: 2/3 majority in both Houses, and approval of 3/4 of state legislatures. Very demanding = only 27 AMENDMENTS. ADVANTAGES: - safeguarded from short-lived sentiments - amendment is possible - it works = world's oldest functioning constitution DISADVANTAGES: - can become 'fossilised' - desirable reforms difficult eg Equal Rights Amendment (1923) - encourages SC to take role of updating - uncertainties: length of time to secure a 3/4 maj of state legislatures |
| To what extent is the constitutional system of checks and balances an obstacle to effective government? | Makes each branch of government dependant on the others to exercise its powers eg pres power to veto congressional legislation. Congress = internally checked by composition of two equal chambers, and further checked by powers reserved to the states (AM. 10) CRITICISMS: - liberals - too many checks, gov can become gridlocked and important change impossible to enact - conservatives - system inadequate to prevent expansion of fed gov at expense of states, and of power of SC - United gov: Cs&Bs may cease to be effective IN SUPPORT: - survival of system provides proof of effective purpose (preventing one branch of gov gaining disproportionate power - change can occur dependent on broad based enduring support |
| To what extent has federalism been eroded as a constitutional principle? | EVIDENCE FOR: - since constitutional convention of 1787, model of dual-federalism undermined by increasing power of federal government - states lost power to Federal Gov during Roosevelt's New Deal - Bush presidency saw further expansion of federal government and imposition of federal demands on the states eg No Child Left Behind - Obama: expanded fed government through healthcare insurance mandate EVIDENCE AGAINST: - New Federalism attempted to reverse trend following New Deal - increased use of financial measure (eg block grants) after Nixon - greater independence to the states - 1990s: States benefited from rising economy and influx of tobacco money - several states introduced innovative social measures (indicates a revival of confidence in their role) |
| What is the 'separation of powers'? Does it help or hinder the US system of government? | DEFINITION: - Separation of legislative, executive, judicial functions of government - US thought to exemplify, BUT EXTENSIVE CHECKS & BALANCES DILUTES DEGREE OF SEPARATION - "SEPARATE INSTITUTIONS SHARING POWER" - most important = separation of personnel - NO INDIVIDUAL CAN BE A MEMBER OF MORE THAN ONE BRANCH CONSEQUENCES: - safeguard against tyranny - no one individual can dominate the political system - congress members are elected on a separate mandate from the president -- A HINDRANCE, as pres only has limited power over Congress, creates potential for gridlock -- A POSITIVE - legislation is the product of compromise and consensus - better founded than legislation whipped through House of Commons - weakness of parties = greater PG influence - separated judiciary = able to keep an effective check on both the other branches |
| What are Constitutional rights, and how effectively are they enforced? | - BILL OF RIGHTS - 13th, 14th, 15th Reconstruction amendments - 'Read into' by SC (e.g. right of children to attend non-segregated schools) - to be meaningful, need to be enforced through political system (COURTS). Sometimes courts can enforce rights despite pressure from other parts of system eg HAMDI and BOUMEDIENE SOMETIMES NOT ENFORCED: - SC unable to cope with sustained resistance e.g. 15th Amendment asserted right of all to vote, but only realised 100 years later through the passage of the Voting Rights Act - Court has ignored evidence which did not support its judgement in order to deny rights eg PLESSY v FERGUSON - dependence on the enforcement of other branches can further erode rights eg rights established through BROWN = only realised through congressional actions 10 years later - enforcement of the rights of one individual is often at expense of rights of others eg Snyder v Phelps |
| 'Transformed beyond recognition from the vision of the Founding Fathers'. Discuss this view of the modern US constitution. | EVIDENCE FOR: - FF created a system in which the 'popular passions' were filtered and diffused; senate and presidential electors not directly elected - POPULAR PASSIONS NOW MUCH FREER REIN - congress was preeminent branch of gov; president only suggest legislation 'from time to time', power to declare war reserved to Congress - SINCE WW2, PRES ASSUMED A DOMINANT ROLE - federalism in 10th Amnd- DILUTED SINCE NEW DEAL - judicial review not in constitution - CREATED AN 'IMPERIAL JUDICIARY' EVIDENCE AGAINST: - pres' constitutional powers unaltered - expansion at expense of congress with acquiescence, remains significantly dependent on Congress - Sep of powers and Cs&Bs continues fundamentally unaltered - Expansion of congress power through 'necessary and proper' clause was anticipated by FF in federalist papers, state govs retain a significant degree of autonomy -power of judicial review is implicit in constitution & was established v soon after ratification |
| How difficult is it to amend the US constitution? | TWO STAGES: - PROPOSAL - either by a 2/3 majority vote in BOTH HOUSES, or by a CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION applied for by 2/3 of state legislatures - RATIFICATION - either by 3/4 of state legislatures, or by 3/4 of specially convened STATE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTIONS BOTH STAGES REQUIRE A 'SUPER-MAJORITY' - means that only 27 have ever been approved, out of 1000s put forward HOWEVER: can be amended other ways - SC (ROWE v WADE) |
| 'The US constitution is no longer fit for purpose'. Discuss. | NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE: - too many Cs&Bs = gridlock - difficulty of amendment = survival of archaic elements e.g. 2nd Amd. - judicial review = IMPERIAL JUDICIARY - unrepresentative nature of Senate - ELECTORAL COLLEGE = archaic mechanism, winner of pop vote is denied presidency eg 2000, Gore Bush - house elections too frequent, meaning that reps are constantly campaigning - lack of term limits in congress = unrepresentative elite FUNCTIONING EFFECTIVELY: - degree of gridlock = ill-thought out policy cannot be rushed through - vague nature = allows necessary changes to occur - amendments to reflect changes in social values eg senate now elected by popular vote - senate and electoral college important elements of federal identity of Constitution - survived 200+ years |
| Explain the key principles of the US constitution | - Sets up system of LIMITED GOVERNMENT - attempts to ensure POWER IS DISPERSED - protection of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS KEY PRINCIPLES 1) SEPARATION OF POWERS - three branches are administered by separate institutions and no individual can be a member of both 2) CHECKS AND BALANCES - each branch has extensive checks over the others e.g. pres power of veto over congressional legislation 3) FEDERALISM - powers of fed gov are enumerated, 10th Amd guarantees all other power is reserved to the states and the people 4) PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS - through BILL OF RIGHTS |
| How far was New Federalism successful in achieving its aims? | - Begun under Nixon = an attempt to reverse the trend towards a dominant federal government over states created by New Deal SUCCESSES: - increased use of financial measure (eg block grants) after Nixon - greater independence to the states - 1990s: States benefited from rising economy and influx of tobacco money - several states introduced innovative social measures (indicates a revival of confidence in their role) - Welfare Reform Acts (Clinton) placed restrictions on fed gov, returned significant powers to the states - SC DECISIONS eg US v LOPEZ re-affirmed constitutional role of the states - states continue to exercise considerable degree of independence on variety of issues eg marijuana use in Colorado NOT SUCCESSFUL: - Bush presidency = expansion of fed gov and imposition of federal demands on states through measures such as No Child Left Behind - Obama presidency = expanded scope of fed gov through requirement for states to run health insurance exchanges - many states in financial difficulty, making them more dependent on fed gov |
| 'The strengths of the US constitution now outweigh its weaknesses'. Discuss. | STRENGTHS: - produced stable political system for 200 + years - diffusing power throughout fed gov and preventing tyranny or an unbalanced concentration of power - balancing need for effective central gov and protection of state rights - sufficient vagueness to allow evolution with society - amendment process prevents short-lived sentiments WEAKNESSES: - too vague, principles have been subverted eg 2nd Amd - amendment process too demanding - imperial judiciary - allows unelected judiciary excessive power - frequent occurrence of gridlock |
| Why has the relationship between the federal government and the states since 2000 been controversial? | - controversial because of POWER SHARING and CLASH OF POLICIES - lead to apparently contradictory positions eg GOP supporting DOMA goes against usual support for states' rights ASSERTION OF FEDERAL GOV UNDER BUSH AND OBAMA (2000-08) BUSH: - fed gov spending rose by about 1/3 under Bush - NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND - fed gov expanding its reach - 9/11: increase in defence spending, creation of Dept of Homeland Security, banking crash - GOP-controlled Congress also willing to override states' rights to pursue policy goals eg TERI SCHIAVO OBAMA: - marijuana controversial as initially Obama attempted to enforce federal laws over state laws, but then adopted softer approach - state laws on immigration - legal action taken over Arizona's SB 1070 'show me your papers' law - Affordable Care Act - required states to set up health insurance exchanges - fed gov intervened when some states refused - SC ruled in SEBELIUS that fed gov could NOT force states to expand MEDICAID |
| How effectively has the Bill of Rights been upheld in the USA in recent years? [Recent years = post WW2] | - judicial system = ultimately responsible for uphold BoR - 'effectiveness' depends on ideological perspective eg LIBERALS - 2nd Amnd right upheld too effectively in recent years, 1st Amnd right to freedom of speech to corporation (CITIZENS UNITED v FEC) CONSERVATIVES - Unhappy that 8th Amnd use to restrict ways some states can apply the death penalty - expansion of surveillance by the security agencies = infringement of bill of rights CONTROVERSIAL CASES: - 1st Amnd: rights of flag burners (Eichman), protestors at military funerals (Snyder), corporations (Citizens United) - 2nd Amnd: Heller, MacDonald - 5th Amnd: Miranda rights upheld in Dickerson - 8th Amnd: Roper, Graham, Miller - rights of states to set their punishments have been eroded - 10th Amnd (states' rights): Raich - curtailed, Sebellius - upheld |
| What is the 'living constitution' approach to judicial interpretation and why has it been criticised? | - holds that the constitution was written in broad and flexible terms to enable it to adapt with society. Elizabeth Warren: "evolving standards of decency" - contrasts with an originalist or strict constructionalist view CRITICISED: - justices 'legislating from the bench' - gives SC the appearance of a political/legislative role - UNDERMINES SEPARATION OF POWERS - if free to read values into constitution, v likely that justices will just impose their own values - unelected and unaccountable - undermines legitimacy if seen to be advancing its own agenda - IMPERIAL JUDICIARY - rights which 'living constitution' justices read into their |
| To what extent is the US constitution anti-democratic? |
¿Quieres crear tus propias Fichas gratiscon GoConqr? Más información.