Jamari Washington
Velasquez
Political Science 001
1/31/21
CPA Chapter 2
1. The single most influential act that led to the Colonies rebelling was what the colonists
called “taxation without representation.” They felt that because they did not directly
elect members to Parliament in representation of themselves, they should be subjected
to direct taxation by the Crown. On the mainland, British citizens considered the
colonists to have virtual representation and this mismatched perspective caused tension
between the two groups. The British government saw their taxation as righteous and
necessary for the continued protection of the colonies. The Seven Years War had
recently ended and though Britain defeated the French, there were still enemy Native
American tribes all around. The soldiers were getting expensive to keep stationed in
America and so the taxes began. The colonists did not like the taxes and began to see
the soldiers stationed there as a show of British force. And so began a revolution.
2. Discuss two reasons the. There are many reasons the Articles of Confederation failed.
Some of the more important reasons include an inability to tax citizens directly as well
as too high of a bar to make changes to the direct rules of the federal government. The
founders, still reeling over England’s taxation, overcorrected in their stance on the
matter. Because the federal government could not tax citizens directly, it had to request
funds from the states themselves. The states often did not follow through with requests
for funding, leaving the federal government severely underfunded. There was no money
for a national defense, international obligations, or other federal functions such as
espionage. This all left the newly formed nation vulnerable and weak while still
surrounded by enemies. It was also very difficult to make any changes to the foundation
of the government, the Articles of Confederation, as a unanimous vote from all
representatives was required to do so. As we see so often, there was almost never a
situation where all people present completely agreed with a proposal. The United States
was left with a weak, barely functional government and no room to improve.
3. Explain the difference between the separation of powers and checks and balances.
Provide an example of what each one is. Separation of powers is a system in which the
different branches hold separate powers exclusive to the branch. This means that the
Executive branch may do things that the others may not, and vice versa. For example,
the Judicial branch can decide that a law put into effect by Congress is unconstitutional
and revoke the law unilaterally. The President has some ability to veto any law signed by
Congress, but can still be passed over. Just the same, the President controls the military
forces of the nation without input from the other branches. In contrast, checks and
balances is a system that seems similar but has a different purpose. It prevents any
branch from obtaining too much power by giving the other branches certain powers
over the first. The Supreme Court ruling any law Unconstitutional is an example of this.
The president has the power to appoint Supreme Court Justices, giving him control of
who makes up the Court. However, the Senate must confirm any appointments,
ensuring the President does not have complete control over the branch.
4. Identify a current check and balance in American government. Explain why it is an
example of a check and balance. Which branch is checking the other branch to ensure
balance? **Remember to cite the sources you use at the end of your response.
Currently, the Legislative Branch is able to check the Executive Branch via Impeachment
of the President or Vice-President. If the president oversteps his bounds or acts in a way
that harms the country or is unconstitutional, the House of Representatives may choose
to raise charges against him. The Senate then holds a trial to determine the legality and
severity of his actions. If found guilty, the President is removed from office and is open
to criminal prosecution. This all keeps the President focused on his duties to the country
and in theory, ensures his loyalty to the people of the country. Halstead, T., 2005. CRS
Report for Congress. [Manuscript] 98.
5. Describe the position of the Federalists and the Anti-Federalist. Which group, if any,
would you align with and why? Federalists were of the stance that the Federal
government needed to be strong in order to provide a better economic base for the
country as well as a strong national defense. A well-powered federal government would
be able to regulate trade and place tariffs on imported products to support local
production. Well regulated trade would provide a strong base for the states to trade
internally as well as provide some encouragement to export and make even more
money for the country. However Anti-Federalists thought that a strong federal
government would favor the elite too much. With the already powerful backed by a
strong government, an wealthy elite would rise and take an ever growing amount of
control over the rest of the nation. Along with these fears were thoughts that the strong
government would impose taxes on those poor citizens that could not afford it and
place heavy burdens on the majority of the country, mirroring the harsh treatment so
many citizens remembered feeling under England.