Chapter 1 - This is my 13th reason
Globalization - the increasing interdependence of citizens and nations across the world,
basically nations are beginning to interact more. However this can also be seen as a threat to
the national sovereignty of nations.
Standard Definition of Government - The legitimate use of force whether it be firearms
imprisonment execution etc within specified geographical boundaries to control human behavior.
National sovereignty - A political entity's externally recognized right to exercise final authority
over its affairs. Or simply put its the right to govern people as government wishes without
interference of other nations.
As briefly mentioned, national sovereignty is under threat because of the growth of
Globalizations. Because of starving refugees the UN authorized the use of troops to end
conflicts which caused this. However this action threatened the national sovereignty of Sudan.
Governments at any level require the forfeiting of some freedoms as a part of being governed
and this was the original conflict of government, the management of individual freedoms vs
order.
Why would people give up their rights to the government though? Because they benefit from it.
Government has served to protect 2 major factors, maintaining order( protection of life and
property) and providing public goods. More recently is the maintaining of equality but that is
something controversial.
Order - Maintaining established ways of social behavior. It is also meant to protect life and
property. Maintaining order is one of the oldest objectives of government. The current
government in power is the established order.
Government protects our order (life and property) first and foremost, without order the
government cannot go ahead to establish its other plans.
Libertarianism - The belief that Government should leave individuals free to follow their
individual pursuits (this differs from liberal).
Communism - A theory in which ownership of land and productive facilities are controlled by
people and not private entities, all goods will be distributed equally. The production and
distribution of these said goods are controlled by an authoritarian government. This theory was
created by Karl Marx, a German philosopher. Basically all goods are under control of the
government.
Public goods - Benefits and services like parks which benefit all citizens but are unlikely to be
produced through voluntary work by individuals.
After the establishment of public order governments can start to pursue other ends like taxation
using their coercive powers. These taxes will then go into public goods and such which will help
citizens through some form or another. Sometimes the providing of public goods can be
controversial depending on what its being used for.
Promotion of equality as mentioned is one of the newer objectives to some governments, in fact
until the 20th century it really was disregarded. However promotion of equality is a very
controversial subject, while in some countries it is used like in the provision of health care for all
it also results in heavier taxation to promote equality for all. The inclusion of equality as one of
the jobs of government has created the MODERN DILEMMA OF GOVERNMENT which is the
balancing of freedom over equality.
Freedom is used in two major senses
- Freedom of which is the absence of constraints on behavior so freedoms of speech or
freedom of religion
- Freedom from is immunity of things like fear oppression or oppression and such.
Order can extend beyond just the preservation of life and protecting property, this extension can
come in the form of things like social order which can be things like established patterns of
authority and society and behavior. I.e who can marry who, what can you wear and such. Social
order is subject to change as well, an example of such is swimsuits, modern bikinis would have
caused scandals decades ago. Government can also use its power to protect the current
established order through police power, its authority to safeguard residents health safety welfare
and morals. The extent to which they can use this power however is debatable.
Social equality - Equality in wealth, education, and status
Political equality - Equality in political decision making one vote per person and each vote
counted equally
Equality of opportunity - The idea that each person is guaranteed the same chance to succeed
in life
Equality of outcome - the concept society must ensure that people are equal and governments
must design policies to redistribute wealth and status so that economic and social equality is
actually achieved
Rights- the benefits of government to which every citizen is guaranteed
Going back to the original dilemma for a bit (Order vs Freedom) its found that im communist
governments people were less scared of crime that those in democratic governments. This is
because the order of the communist governments was much higher compared to american
government. But then think about it like this, how much freedom do they lose in order to achieve
such safety? Strict control of guns and the ability to keep surveillance on their citizens allowed
for this safety but at the same time the citizens lose so much freedom of expression or owning
to stay so safe. So balancing the protection of lives(order) and freedom often collide because
they are inherently conflicting.
Now briefly touching on the modern dilemma of freedom vs equality. Many people think these
two things go hand and hand with each other, But the reality is much different. Often like we
mentioned with health care examples the implementation of health care for all would eliminate
the point of privately owning health care so even though it improves equality it removes the
freedom of some.
Political ideology - A consistent set of values and beliefs about the proper purpose and scope to
the government, differing ideologies can be based on how much of the three values we want in
the end. So now we get to talk about these political bullshit terms, have fun.
- Totalitarianism(Political Theory) is the belief that governments should have unlimited
power, totalitarian governments control all sectors of society from jobs to education,
religion , sports etc. and true totalitarian governments will have laws that guide all
aspects of individual behavior. Basically the trade off would be like Order > Freedom and
I guess possibly Equality > Freedom
- Socialism(Economic Theory) only refers to the governments control on the economy, like
communism socialism is based on marxism where the government plays a strong role in
the regulation of existing private industry and directing the economy although it does
allow some private ownership unlike communism 50/50 equality and freedom i guess?
- Democratic Socialism - A socialist form of government that guarantees civil liberties such
as freedom of speech and religion, citizens determine the government activity through
free elections and competitive parties.
- Capitalism (Economic Theory) capitalism relates to governments role in the economy but
in contrast to socialism and communism capitalism supports free enterprise - private
businesses operating without government regulations - Libertarianism (Political Theory) Libertarianism opposes all government action except
what is necessary to protect order (life & property). Libertarians grudgingly recognize the
need of government but believe it should be limited as possible and shouldn't try to
promote order or equality. I.e yes we understand we need traffic laws however we don't
like seatbelt laws don't do that. Basically just set up the basics to our society and don't
try to interfere unless needed. They believe government should take a laissez faire
economic idea which basically says government should be hands off in the economy
- Anarchism (Political Theory) is the opposite of totalitarianism where it says all
governments should basically not exist. They value absolute freedom, where libertarians
would say yes we get we need traffic laws atleast anarchists say nah we dont need that
shit fuck government bro!
Ranking these ideologies by least to most government involvement
Anarchism < Libertarianism < Conservatism < Liberalism < Liberal < Democratic Socialism <
Totalitarianism i'm sure communism falls between Democratic Socialism and totalitarianism
It should be noted totalianarism and anarchism are rarely brought up in political discussions
probably cause they are fucking stupid ideas. However most debate is actually between 2
groups, conservatives and liberals which is like a narrow in between of them all.
- Liberals favor more government, support generous public spending, and education,
social programs etc. they like actions that promote equality but also tend to swap sides
on things on regulations, i.e Liberals like activism but dont like regulation on things like
abortion of AIDS. Summed up they like equality actions by the government such as
minority house spending but do not like regulations on things like mandatory testing for
aids
- Conservatives are opposite to liberals, they favor less government and want less
government spending on programs while also wanting free enterprise and going against
regulation of the market. Yet although they oppose government activism they are fine
with the government moderating phone calls for safety. In Summary, they like things that
impose order and dislike things that attempt for equality or regulation of the market.
You could think of liberals and conservatives like this
Liberals like Freedom > Order and Equality > Freedom promote equality not order
Conservatives like Order > Freedom > Equality promote order not equality
There is a 2 dimensional framework to ideology which im too lazy to write so here
Communitarians - those who are willing to use government to promote both order and equality
Chapter 2 - Im going to put you in the fucking stew
Origins of democratic theory lie within ancient Greek political thought, Greek philosophers
classified governments based on the number of people involved within the process.
- At the far end of the spectrum is an Autocracy in which one individual has the power to
make all powerful decisions. The concentration of power in one person was more
common in early time periods. Monarchs count as autocracies.
- Then there's Oligarchies which put the power of government into a group of elite people.
Things like aristocracies are examples of an oligarchy.
- Finally there are democracies which are ruled by the people. We probably don't need to
talk too much about this but yeah.
Procedural view of Democracy - A view of democracy as being embodied in a decision making
process that involves universal participation. That involves political equality, majority rule, and
responsiveness. It also sets forth principles that describe how the government should make
decisions. Under the procedural view of democracy falls participatory democracy and
representative democracy
- Who should participate in decision making?
- How much should each participants vote count
- How many votes are needed to reach a decision
Universal Participation - the concept that everyone in a democracy should participate in
governmental decision making.
Universal participation and political equality differ from each other however, it's not enough for
everyone to be able to vote but also to make it so all their votes carry an equal weight
Majority Rule - The principle that the decision of a group must reflect the preference of more
than half of the people participating.
Responsiveness - A decision-making principle necessitated by representative gov't, that implies
that elected representative should do what the majority of people wants
Main thing is to remember that a procedural view of democracy requires political equality,
universal participation, and majority rule to function as they are recognized as necessary for
democratic decision making.
Participatory democracy - all members of a group, rather than representatives, meet to make
decisions while at the same time observing political equality and majority rule. Such systems
usually tend to work within small groups, say like a town hall. Although the idea is popular it is
rarely truly found because it is thought that within a larger setting we need more professionals to
study problems than citizens, and also it is thought that only few people will end up taking part in
participatory governments.
EGovernment - Online communication channels that enable citizens to easily obtain information
from government and facilitate the expressions of opinions to gov't officials
Representative democracy - A system of government where citizens elect public officials to
govern on their behalf. Much more tightly tied to representative democracy than participatory is
the idea of responsiveness, responsiveness in this would mean formulating complex legislation
based on the peoples opinion and responsiveness is the basis of how indirect democracy
works.
The framers of the US constitution had their own idea of democracy however besides from
participatory, it was called a representative democracy. Note the difference again. Participatory
citizens directly vote on things that will impact them without the usage of representatives, but
the Representative government is using the representatives the people vote for to vote for
things the people would want.
Substantive view of Democracy is the view democracy is embodied in the substance of
government policies and government policies rather than the policy making procedure.
Substantive view brings in the idea that limits should be placed on government responsiveness
to public opinion so certain problems don't happen, i.e biggest religion in america is Christianity,
so what happens if a religious piece of legislature needs to be voted on, most likely Christians
will sway it to what they want and the minority religions will not be represented. The core
substantive principles lie in the bill of rights which are things they want to protect.
Minority Rights - The benefits of government that cannot be denied by majority decisions to any
citizen
Both substantive and procedural democracy have problems to them, Substantive has a very
vague definition of what democracy is, meaning its left up to argument over government policies
which are truly democratic. However Procedural democracy can create undesirable social
policies like ones that prey on minorities, which ends up clashing with minority rights
Interests groups - an organized group of individuals who seek to influence public policy, also
called a lobby.
Institutional models of democracy. Honestly even the smallest nation has too many citizens to
allow a participatory democracy so they have to usually achieve democracy through
representative democracy. This leads to some other models of democracy.
- Majoritarian model of democracy. The majoritarian model of democracy relies on our
intuitive notion of what's fair. It interprets government by the people to mean government
by the majority of the people. It relies on 7 mechanisms that allow people to participate
directly.
- The popular election of government officials is the primary mechanism, citizens
are expected to control their representatives' behaviors by choosing wisely.
-
Reelection or dismissal should be based on performance which should motivate
officials to be responsive.
- The majoritarian model also contends that citizens can control their government if
they have adequate mechanisms for popular participation. Assuming that citizens
are knowledgeable about government and politics however critics content
americans are knowledgeable enough for majoritarian model to work
Pluralist democracy is the other side to models of democracy. Pluralist democracy is
based around the concept of pluralism, that modern society consists of innumerable
groups that share economic, religious, ethnic, or cultural interests and these people will
organize formal groups. The idea is that these groups will then try to shape public policy
in a way. Two major mechanisms in pluralist models is the interest groups and a
decentralized structure of government that provides access to public officials and is open
to hearing a group's arguments. Overall pluralism is government by the people and when
we say people we mean people operating through competing interest groups.
So let's summarize, in the majority model the mass public - not interest groups - control
government actions. Citizens must have some understanding of their government and must
participate in the electoral process. Majoritarian democracy relies on electoral mechanisms that
harness the power of the majority to make decisions. Centralized structure of government also
aids the majority rule and well defined programs contribute to majoritarian democracy. In
congress American parties are becoming more majoritarian at the moment. Pluralism however
does not demand much knowledge from citizens, it requires specialized knowledge only from
groups of citizens, particularly a group's leader. Contrasting from majoritarian rule, pluralist
democracy limits majorities' action so interest groups can be heard and relies on decentralized
government structure so citizens can communicate more clearly with the government. Pluralism
also allows some minority rule because it has mechanisms to interfere with majority rule
therefore protecting minority interest.
Besides Majority and Pluralism there exists a third undemocratic model to government called
the Elite Theory which is a view that a small group of people actually makes most of the
important government decisions. This small group will typically share characteristics like large
wealth or business connections. This model argues that these few individuals wield power
because they have control of key financial, communication, industrial, and government
institutions. According to this the American government is an oligarchy, and situations where a
logging business and environmentalists where to clash over a policy the logging business would
win. Basically this is wealth dominates politics theory.
Over time more and more countries are becoming democratic. No government actually achieves
the high degree of responsiveness needed for majoritarianism and it doesn't achieve equal
access to claims of competing groups but some nations which approach the ideals are able to
be called practicing democracies.
Democratization - the process of transition as a country attempts to move from an authoritarian
form of government to a democratic one. Although it can be seen as a good thing when a
country moves towards this, they often face opposition due to conflict which can cause opposing
groups to want to reestablish a government which keeps opponents oppressed rather than give
them equal power.
Just to note but the american government is more pluralist than majoritarian.
Referendum - An election on a policy issue
Authoritarianism - a form of government characterized by the rejection of political plurality, the
use of a strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in the rule of
law, separation of powers, and democratic voting.
Initiative - When citizens circulate petitions and gather the required minimum number of
signatures to put a policy question on a ballot (referendum).
Recalls - a special election on a sitting governor or judge on the removal or not of him, was put
in to make sure voters could remove dishonest incumbents or incomptetant incumbents.
Philosophy Bullshit idk Im gonna kms
Classical Republicanism - Classical republicanism is basically the idea the community is greater
than the individual, everything you should do should be done to benefit the community. It
believes in the creation of small homogeneous communities which share similarities through
race or occupation or thoughts so views are aligned. A cultural value is placed upon acts done
for the community such as why we honor veterans. And also widespread access to education
from a young age for morals.
Aristotle - A Greek philosopher viewed man as an (political) animal, and that overall all men
were not created equal, he thought that everyone served a purpose but at the same time. He
believes the government had right and wrong forms for each form of it. Good to note he was
also a Classical Republicanism Philosopher.
- For rule by 1 Monarchy was the proper form while Tyranny was a corrupt form of it
- For rule by few he believed in an Aristocracy and Oligarchy as the corrupt form
(Aristocracy is power passed through family and education + raising and such, but
Oligarchy doesn't need to be based on the passage of power through family so anyone
can become oligarch)
- For rule by many he believes a polity is proper and democracy is corrupt
Cicero - Builds off of Aristotle Best forms of government combines the three Aristocracy:
Senators, Judicial Branch Democracy: House members Monarchy: Executive Branch.
Government mixed can be one person ruling who was elected by the people while also having a
representative government.(classical republicanism philosopher)
Natural Rights Philosophy - Society is made up of individuals. You can choose to be a part of it
or not but joining it will require the forfeit of some individual freedoms. And society exists only
because individuals want it. Meaning if they don't want it they can destroy it. It entails a state of
nature where the society doesn't exist and in it there are rights but they aren't protected yet
(Natural rights include Life, Liberty, Property). Upon the formation of society/government we
create a social contract where we give the government the power to protect the rights we decide
upon, we willingly give up freedoms for our rights to be protected. The government will have the
consent of the governed( we decided to join it) and the people have say and control over the
government) because we gave it power.
Thomas Hobbes - An English Philosopher who believed the preservation of life was one of the
most important functions in government. Wrote Leviathan; social contract, people had to give up
certain liberties for the protection of the government, thought people were by nature were selfish
and would act in self-interest if necessary, thought the natural world was evil and harshgovernment should protect people from it, believed it was the government's duty to protect the
weak from the strong; influenced by Aristotle. Believed life in a state of nature would be solitary,
poor, and short and believed in the establishment of a single ruler who must have unquestioned
authority to protect the weak (Monarchy). Also a natural rights philosopher(?)
John Locke - believed in individual rights, natural rights, separation of powers, monarchy
wouldn't work because one person can't have absolute control over another, majority rule,
government shouldn't have absolute power- limiting government, legislative body should help
not hurt people, can't take someone's property without consent; "life, liberty, pursuit of property";
influenced by Thomas Hobbes. Think he was the one who said we choose to opt in and out of
society (Natural rights philosopher)
Jean Jacques Rousseau - The bridge between natural rights philosophy and classical
republicanism. Everyone should serve a purpose in the new society they will end of creating and
emphasizing popular sovereignty through civic virtue.Created The Social Contract lose some
liberties to gain others (civil liberties/rights), people should have relationships with themselves,
can't destroy nature; influenced by Aristotle.
Chapter 3 - STUNNA BOY REAL HOLLYWOOD N
The constitution defines our basic structure to our national government in a mere 4.3k words
(other constitutions are a fucking mess longer fyi) The constitution splits our government into 3
branches, describes the powers of the branches, their connections, interactions between
government and the governed, and the relationship between the national government and
states. The Constitution makes itself the supreme law of the land.
The constitution has pretty much become a symbolic meaning so much so that politicians will
sometimes abandon their party values or their own values to uphold principle when
constitutional issues are at stake. It was designed to prevent Anarchy by forging us into a union
of states.
Much of the constitution was based around colonial America, so let's list a few things. American
colonists had freedoms like transferring of properties, no compulsory taxes to pay for church, no
ceilings on wages and complete freedom of speech, press, and assembly. In 1763 agreements
were also reached so that America's foreign and overseas trade affairs would be left to the king
and Parliament and the rest would be left to the Americans. And here's the funny thing,
Americans needing protection had it provided by the English but the costs and such from
protecting them from the French and Indians led to substantial costs which is why the British
believed taxing colonies was the right choice. This eventually led into all the shit that caused the
whole split of America and Britain because Colonists were pissy about taxation from a
government they had no say over.
This later led to the Sons of Liberty which I guess could be counted as a terror group, they
destroy taxable items and beat the shit out stamp distrbutors and such. This led to events like
the Boston tea party which led to one of the major pushes towards the American Revolution.
The British in response to this passed the Coercive acts (Intolerable acts), Which imposed
blockades on Boston till the tea was paid for, and gave royal governors the ability to quarter
soldiers within Americans homes. This led to the meeting of the first continental congress which
met in Philadelphia in 1774 with all colonies except Georgia to try to restore harmony with
Britain.
This continental congress had a president which they elected and the American government
begins to trace its roots to this first continental congress. They adopted a statement of rights
and principles and claimed a right to life, liberty and property, and a right to peacefully assemble
and consider their grievances as well as be able to petition the king. They then adjourned and
planned to meet by 1775.
By 1775 however the colonists had already begun to start the revolution with the start of
Concord and lexington. At this second continental congress they debated whether or not to go
to war or reconcile with britain. They then decided to remain in session as things went on to
serve as a government for the colony states. Then in 1776 it was called upon that Americans
could write to the British Crown to tell them they are free independent states and absolve their
allegiance to the Crown. This was the beginning of the declaration of independence.
Declaration of Independence - Drafted by Thomas Jeffereson it was a document that
proclaimed the right of the colonies to be separate and free from Britain. Much of the inspiration
and roots from this document came from the ideas of John Locke and the Social Contract
Theory.
Social Contract Theory - The belief that the people agree to set up rulers for certain purposes
and thus have the right to resist or remove rulers who act out against these purposes.
Opening paragraph of the declaration - "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"
The declaration went on to list the many deliberate acts of the king that exceeded the legitimate
role of government (List of grievances). Originally the last and longest portion on the document
was condemning the kings support of the slave trade but that got taken out to appease other
people. And the major premise of this document was that the people have a right to revolt if they
determine their government is denying them legitimate rights.
Republic - A government without a monarchy. A government rooted in the consent of the
governed, whose power is exercised by elected representatives responsible to the governed
After the declaration that they were independent the colonists found they didn't have any real
central government so they proclaimed they were now a republic. They didn't consider
democracy at the time because that was associated with mob ruling and instability.
Confederation - A loose association of independent states that agree to cooperate on specified
matters. In a confederation, states retain their sovereignty, this means there's no one strong
Central Government and that it can only coordinate, not control the action of the states.
Articles Of Confederation - The compact between the 13 states that established the first
government of the united states
A week after the Declaration was signed the Second Continental Congress received a
committee report entitled the Articles Of Confederation and Perpetual union. They debated it for
a year before finally adopting them. Under the articles which jealously guarded state sovereignty
in fear of a strong government every state had a single vote in congress, votes on financing and
important issues required 9/13 votes to pass. This first effort at government was pretty shitty and
made the national government more useless than a cripple.
Reasons the articles ended up failing
- The national government had no power to tax people which led to congress having to
plead for money from the states which could barely give anything.
- The Articles did not make a provision for an independent leadership position to direct the
government ( president ). They deliberately left a leadership position out in fear of
another monarchy but still left the nation without a leader.
- The articles did not allow the national government to regulate interstate and foreign
commerce. Meaning that for a commercial treaty each state would have to make one
independently.
-
And finally it was made so the articles could not be amended without the unanimous
agreement of the congress and assent of all state legislatures. So pretty much it was
impossible to amend because one state could veto the whole system.
Because the government could regulate anything, like the over-purchasing of foreign goods
which they tried to restrict but where shut down, high debts began to build up. The high debts
were forcing farmers into bankruptcy and led to Shays' Rebellion. Shay was a veteran from the
Revolutionary War. and he led a march onto a courthouse armed and protesting against the
high taxes levied by the states. An attempt to create a national army was made but was shot
down by every state but Massachusetts, Eventually a militia was called and peace was restored
but the rebellion showed the impotence of the confederation and led to a sense of urgency to fix
the Articles.
In 1787 12 of the 13 states sent their delegates to convene in Philadelphia. To draft up revisions
to fix the articles. This was the beginning of the constitutional convention. At first they had
wanted to fix the AOC but after realizing what a tedious process that would even be, they
decided it would be better to scrap it and start from the top which eventually led to the creation
of the constitution.
The Virginia Plan was one of the key documents which were drafted up in the creation of the
constitution. It dominated the deliberation for a long time but made 7 strong points for central
government
- It split the government into 3 separate branches. Legislative to draft laws, executive for
the enforcement of laws, and a judicial branch for interpreting laws.
- The Legislative house is composed of 2 houses, one which would be chosen by the
people and a second one chosen by members of the first house (House Of Reps,
Senate)
- Each state's representation in the legislature would be proportionate to the taxes it paid
to the national government or in proportion to its free population.
- Executive branch consisting of an unspecified number of people would be selected by
the legislature and serve for a single term.
- National judiciary includes one or more supreme courts and other lower courts with
judges appointed for life by the legislature.
- The executive and number of national judges serve as a council of revision to approve or
veto legislative acts. Their veto could be overridden by a vote of both houses.
- The scope of powers for all three branches be far greater than the ones assigned by the
AOC and legislature could be empowered to override state laws.
By proposing national legislation they could override state laws. The Virginia plan featured a
mixed structure with a government having more power over the states and authority over the
people. A lot of debate over this plan was around the legislative branch, mainly the method of
choosing them and the representation in it. A lot of the opposition was by small states knowing
the Virginia plan ended up favoring larger states.
In response to the Virginia Plan, the New Jersey Plan was created which was almost like an
opposite to the Virginia Plan. The New Jersey Plan was written more to preserve the spirit of the
AOC rather than replace them. It was made up of the following proposals
- A single chamber legislature then has the power to raise revenue and regulate
commerce
- States have equal representation in the legislature and choose its members
- A multi person executive branch be elected by the legislature with powers similar to
those in Virginia plan but without the ability to Veto
- A supreme tribunal be created with limited jurisdiction ( no provision for a system of
national courts)
- The acts of legislature is binding on states, they had the supreme law of the respective
states with the option for force obedience
Comparing the two plans
The New Jersey plan was struck down quickly but it had enough support to bring in a
compromise which led to the creation of the Connecticut Compromise / Great Compromise. In
which.
- Representation in the house of representatives would be apportioned to the population
of the state. Revenue raising acts would originate in the house. Representatives would
be chosen by the people.
- States would be represented equally in the senate, which is the other branch of the
legislature with two senators each. Senators would be chosen by their states legislatures
not by the people
While the small states would end up reigning over the senate, the larger states would
predominate in the house of representatives, and because of a system of Checks and Balances
the two couldn't pass laws without the other approving it first.
There was also a debate over the president, the one person executive that they agreed on to
direct the government. There was disagreement over how the president should end up being
selected. The delegates distrusted the people's judgements and feared that popular elections of
the president would arouse public passions. At the same time representatives of small states
feared that elections by legislature would allow big states to control the executive. The work
around to this was the electoral college.
Electoral College - A body of electors chosen by voters to cast ballots for president and vice
president. Under the system a group of electors would be chosen for the sole purpose of
selecting the president and VP. Each state legislature would choose their electors equal to the
number of its representatives in Congress. Each Elector would then vote for two people and the
candidate with most votes would become the president, provided the votes constitute a majority.
The person with the second most votes became vice president ( this was fixed after the election
of 1804 with the creation of the 12th Amendment after opposing parties won President and Vice
President which led to stale mates when they tried to do anything. The 12th amendment for your
info was basically making so elections for Vp and Prez happened on separate ballots )
They also came up with the process of impeachment which would occur when the president
would be tried with Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes by the house of representatives. The
Senate would then try the president on the charges and a ⅔rd vote (super majority) would be
required to convict the president.
The final product was finally made and gave 4 major elements which continue as the foundation
of the American Political Tradition.
- From the line "we the people" it was a "people" and is a big jump away from the loose
confederation of states.
- It explains the reason for the constitution's creation in the line “in order to form a more
perfect union” basically saying the AOC sucked
- It articulates the goals in the lines “ to establish justice, Insure Domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings
of liberty to ourselves” basically saying government to protect order and freedom
The creation of the constitution was based around 4 political principles, republicanism,
federalism, separation of powers, and checks and balances.
- Republicanism is a form of government in which power resides in the people and is
exercised by their elected representatives. Found in the house of representatives and
also in the senate I suppose.
- Federalism is the division of power between central governments and regional
governments. Citizens are therefore subject to both bodies of law. While the constitution
-
-
divides the powers between states and the central government it gives more powers to
the national government.
Separation of powers is the assignment of lawmaking, law enforcing, and law
interpretation to the separate branches of government. (Legislative, Executive,
Judiciary). This separation safeguards things by making it so one group or person is not
incharge of all powers.
As briefly mentioned there's also checks and balances which give the government of
each structure some scrutiny over each other to prevent exclusive exercise of certain
powers by a branch. I.e congress can make laws but the president can veto them.
Big Boy Time talking about the fucking
ARTICLES OF CONGRESS
There are 7 articles of congress, the first three establishing the separate branches of the
government and specifying their internal operations and powers. The remaining four define the
relationships among the states, explain the process of amending, declare supremacy of national
law, and explain the procedure for ratification of the constitution.
- Article one is the legislative article because the Framers thought lawmaking is the most
important function of the government, it is the most detailed and longest article. It grants
substantial and limited legislative power to congress, and defines the bicameral
character of Congress. The functions of the House Of Reps, and articulates the
enumerated powers, meaning congress can only exercise the powers given to it by the
constitution. The last clause in Article one is called the Necessary and proper clause. It
gives congress the means to execute the enumerated powers.This clause is the basis of
the implied powers of congress which are the powers congress needs to execute the
enumerated powers. This means congress can basically say we have this ability
because its needed to push other things, i.e the power to collect tax and regulate its
value mixed with the necessary clause gives the implied power congress can make a
bank.
- Article two is the executive article that grants the executive power to the president. It
establishes the term of office and the procedure to elect the president by the means of
electors, qualifications for becoming president, and the presidential duties and powers
including the creation of treaties (which require a 2/3rd vote in senate). There's also stuff
like state of the union which is where the president informs congress of policies and
programs the executive branchs wants to advocate.
- Article three is the judicial article which is left pretty vague; it establishes the Supreme
Court as the highest court in the land, but beyond that frames were kind of unsure on
what is needed for the national judiciary. It actually left these problems to congress and
resolved it by giving them the power to create systems of federal courts separate from
the state courts. Federal judges serve for life unless impeached. The President appoints
the justices to the supreme courts with the advice and consent of the senate and also
the judges of the lower federal courts. Finally there's article 3 which although doesn't
explicitly give the court the power of judicial review - the power to declare congressional
-
-
and presidential acts invalid because it violates the constitution - Its been inferred so
yeah.
Article four requires all judicial acts and criminal warrants be honored in other states.
And forbids discrimination against citizens of one state by another state.
Article Five specifies the methods of amending the constitution and guarantees equal
state representation in the senate.
Article Six is the supremacy clause which asserts when the constitution, national laws, or
treaties conflict with state or local laws the first three will take precedence over the last
two
The last article, article seven just describes the ratification process stipulating that
approval by conventions in 9 states are necessary for the constitution to take effect.
One of the biggest issues in getting the constitution to pass was the issue of slavery, The
question of representation in the house brought the slavery issue up so they just implemented
the ⅗ ths compromise which stated that a slave was worth ⅗ ths of a person to the overall
population of the state. The ⅗ ths clause also taxed states with large slave population less.
But also since the framers were lazy cunts they said “eh we’ll deal with the slave trade in like 20
years lol”
Then after the constitution was drafted they had to sell it to the public. And people who wanted
strong national government called themselves federalists, while the opponents to strong
national government called themselves Antifederalists. And out of these groups rose the papers,
the Federalist and Brutus. The most famous federalist paper AND THE ONE YOU NEED TO
KNOW Is federalist 10 written by James Madison.
Federalist 10 - This baby is about the purpose of the constitution and also how factions / interest
groups are bad things and warns against them forming and also how to control them by
passing laws to minimize their effectiveness since trying to remove their roots would remove the
idea of democracy and government.
Federalist 51 - Dont know how much you need to know about this one but basically just talks
about the 3 branches of government: legislative, executive, and judiciary and how they should
have a system of checks and balances to manage them and all. And also says ambition needs
to be made to counteract ambition and also how checks and balances would disrupt tyranny.
Brutus 1 - Brutus 1 argued that federal power was bad and that the Constitution gives too much
power to the federal government. ... That's why Brutus said a representative democracy would
only create an elite group of people that lead the country because they would concentrate
power.
Despite all this anyways the thing people were most concerned about was with the passing of
the bill of rights which they wanted just in case because they literally just fought Britain just to
make sure their basic rights were maintained. So with the implementation of the bill of rights the
constitution passed. The bill of rights was added to protect them from the national government
tampering with fundamental rights and civil liberties.
The founders also realized that from time to time the constitution would require change and
hence they created an amendment process. It has 2 stages: the proposal and ratification. The
proposal can be through a ⅔ rds vote in both houses of congress or through a national
convention called by congress. It is then ratified by 3/4ths of the state legislatures or through
constitutional conventions in 3/4ths of the states.
Chapter 4 - Im going to fail my midterm
American federalism (the system that ended up becoming added with the creation of the
constitution) is kind of hard to truly find so there's two theories of it since they can't really
capture its “true” meaning. The two theories are Dual Federalism and Cooperative Federalism
- Dual federalism sums up a theory about the proper relationship between national
government. It has 4 essential parts to it.
- First is the national government rules by enumerated powers only.
- Second the national government has a limited set of constitutional purposes
- Third Each government unit - nation and state- is sovereign within its sphere
- Forth the relation between nations and states is better characterized by tension
rather than cooperation.
Dual federalism portrays the states as powerful components of the federal system pretty
much equals to the national government Mainly in the theory of dual federalism is the idea of
states rights which reserve the states all rights not conferred on the national government by the
constitution.
-
Cooperative federalism is a view holding the constitution as an agreement among
people who are citizens of both state and nation, so there is overlap in state and national
powers. It has 3 elements
- First national and state agencies typically undertake government functions jointly
rather than exclusively.
- Second the nation and states routinely share power between each other
Just a quick note buddy but the Elastic Clause is also known as the Necessary and Proper
Clause ( Article 1 Clause 8)
The proper balance of power between nations and states has been more debated than set in
stone. The Constitution merely sets it up but doesn't specify the size of each one. There's 3
reasons why this is so.
- First, rather than operating in a mechanical fashion American federalism is flexible and
dynamic.
- Second Because of the flexibility both elected and appointed officials across levels of
government make policy decisions based on pragmatic considerations without regard to
theories of what American Federalism looks like.
-
Third, there is a growing recognition among public officials and citizens that the public's
problems cut across governmental boundaries.
Let's look at some scenarios, yea?
Typically in times of National Crisis or National demands state governments cannot handle all of
the burden and therefore the national government takes on a heavier role to account for all of
these situations. I.e great Depression was too much for state governments to handle alone so
the national government stepped in to put in relief programs. In times of war as well the National
government can overstep its bounds to implement silencing of the press and such.
There's also situations of Judicial interpretation where a matter can leave a state court and be
appealed to in the US Supreme court where the action of state government can be knocked out
because they rule it wrong.
Commerce Clause - The third clause of Article 1 Section 8 which gives congress the ability to
regulate interstate commerce
Grants oh yeah yeah
Grants are another way in which the national government and state government intertwine;
state governments can appeal to the national government for a grant in aid.
Grant in aid - Money provided by one level of government to another to be spent for a given
purpose. Most grants in aids are given with a certain requirement or standard that needs to be
met as prescribed by congress. Many are awarded on a matching basis, i.e someone makes a
contribution of their own to something, which the government will then match. There are two
forms of grants
- Categorical grants which target specific purposes and restrictions on their use, typically
leave the recipient little formal discretion.Recipients can include state governments, local
governments, and public/private non profits. There's two sub categories of categorical
grants
- Formula grants are distributed according to specific rules that define who's
eligible for the grant and how much each eligible applicant gets. The formula may
weigh factors such\ as stature per capita income, number of school children, or
urban population, etc.
- The majority of grants are actually Project Grants which are awarded through a
competitive application process where applicants will give the specific task or
function its needed for. Such project grants have focused on things like health
programs, natural resources, and environment, etc.
- Block grants are the other end of the spectrum for grants; they are given for much
broader general purposes. They allow the recipient government considerable freedom
on how they want to spend the money. While a categorical grant may be given for
something like the creation of a school course a block grant could just be oh spend this
money for like anything in the school system lol.
Grants in aid are like a method of redistributing income, Federal tax money is collected by the
national government from the taxpayers of all 50 states and then the money is funneled back
into state and local governments. And sometimes the government also uses these grants for
force agendas, i.e if states don't limit the drinking age then they will take away millions of dollars
meant for highway construction in grants.
Oh yeah if you forgot btw we were talking about the relationship between state government and
national government ( federalism ) and one final important factor in it has been the increase of
state governments as more capable policy actors than in the past. Several factors have made
states a more prominent force in the government hence increasing their power
- First states have made many internal changes that have fostered capabilities. Both
governors and legislators now employ more capably trained and experienced staff.
- Second is that legislatures meet more days during the year
- Third the appeal of higher salieres has helped attract more highly qualified people to run
for state office.
- Fourth, the increasing ability of states to raise revenue as a result of state tax and
budget reforms have given states more leverage in designing and direction of policy.
- Fifth the unelected officials who work in state departments and administer system
programs have become better educated through the years
- (the book fdoesnt mention the other 2 reasons)
Another reason that American federalism appears to be in constant motion is due to policy
entrepreneurs who are citizens, members of interest groups, or public officials who champion
particular policy ideas. The american federal system provides a bunch of opportunities for
interested parties to get involved and push their ideas. In essences the existence of national
and state governments specifically their executive, legislative, and judicial branches offer there
entrepreneurs doors to where they can try to influence the policy and politics.
Preemption - The power of congress to enact laws by which national government assumes total
or partial responsibility for a state function
Mandate - a requirement that a state undertake an activity or provide a service in keeping with
minimum national standards, i.e the mask mandate.
Restraint - A requirement laid down by act of congress prohibiting a state or local government
from exercising a certain power
Both of the following are examples of the Preemption the government can apply to gain semi
control of states and this is a relatively new thing that has begun to show up. This has also led
to the creation of the coercive federalism idea where they see the national government may
impose its policy preferences on states through regulations and mandates.
States also tend to fucking hate this coercive bull shit because typically the federal government
puts these down without any funding meaning that the state government has to implement this
but doesnt get paid for doing so.
Redistricting - the process of redrawing political boundaries to reflect changes in population.
These restrictions can also be used to draw more advantageous zones or disadvantageous
zones for a person to preside over which can make it harder for someone to be reelected; this
process is called gerrymandering.
CHAPTER 5 - I HATE THE FACT IM ALIVE
Public opinion - a collective attitude of the citizens over a govern issue or question
- Public opinion can vary over time
- Public opinions puts boundaries onto allowable types of policy you can make
- Governments often will respond to public opinions but obviously will ignore in some
cases
- Obviously expresses the will of the majority of people so 50% or higher
Public polling - interviewing a sample of citizens to estimate the public opinion
Exit Poll - A poll taken as one leaves a voting structure to ask who you voted
Bills passed obviously also do not need to follow the will of the people and semi often they don't
Classic Majoritarian Model - The government should do what the majority of the public wants
Pluralist Model - Public as a whole seldom demonstrates clear consistent opinions on the day to
day issues of government but also realizes the existence of subgroups which will express
opinions on specific matters and requires the government to give freedom of expression by
these minority publics
Democracy is at work when the opinions of many different publics clash openly and fairly over
government policy
Political socialization - the complex process by which people acquire their political values
Agents of Early Socialization
- Primary Principle (What is learned first is learned best)
- Structuring principle (What is learned first structures later learning)
-Examples of Early Socialization: Family
- Exposure/communication, learning opinions from parents and when parents are
active in public affairs their children also become more active in politics. One of the most
important things children learn from parents is party identification very often children identify ith
their parents opinions
-Examples of Early Socialization: School
- Schools have an equal if not greater influence on political learning than that of
parents, schools prepare children students for the social order and it is more like political
indoctrination as they come out with a sense of pride for the US. What the ultimate point is, that
basically people come out of schools with a heightened understanding of the government which
affects their views ig?
-Examples of Early Socialization: Community
- Community is anyone you come into contact with because they work/live near
you, make up of communities that have a lot to do with political opinions, Homogenous
communities will be similar in ethnicity,race, religion , or occupation and can exert strong
pressure on children/adults to conform to the dominant attitude. I.e people with strong
conservative parents can go to college and a strong community of liberals can make them
conform to their views as liberal and that person will stay so to fit with the community
Regardless of how people learn politics they gain new perspectives on government as they
grow older, they measure new candidates against ones they remember and their values also
change reflecting their own self interest
Factors that influence political choices include
-Education (higher education typically attributes to more lenient when hearing opinions
they disagree on and a deeper understand of political issues)
-Income (social classes can can affect how people choose like those with lower income
will be more leaning for government to supply jobs for them)
-Region (People in certain regions tend to vote more for one group because it gets set in
stone and they tend to believe in the beliefs of the area (maybe something to do with
Communities))
-Race and Ethnicity (Certain races also tend to follow things their communities do and
parents will prob teach them but each race have different priorities like how african americans
typically vote democrat because their race has strong past ties to them)
-Religion (Once again like communities they favor certain acts over others yeah)
-Gender (Arnav Im sure you fucking know this you just did a whole ass assignment on
this shit fucking like oh women prefer acts on equality and affirmative action + gov spending on
social programs and what not yknow just like your gender things)
Liberals - Gov action should be brought in to protect liberties, Government needs to correct
inequalities, Gov action should control some aspects of market, Due Process(open
interpretation to law and order), Equality over Freedom, Freedom over Order
Libertarians - A political ideology that is opposed to all government action except ones
necessary to protect life and property. They are opposed to using government to promote order
and equality
Communitarians - favor government activities that promote equality and order even at the cost
of individual freedoms.
Conservatives - Personal responsibility for maximizing opportunities, individual is protected from
gov action, market self regulates, Law and Order, Order over Freedom
Again typically a linear line to determine Liberal or Conservative isnt enough so we have the
political compass with x axis being freedom and order and y being freedom and equality
Top left is Liberals, Top Right is Communitarians, Bottom Right is Conservatives, and Bottom
Left is Libertarians.
Self Interest Principle - The implication that people will choose what benefits them personally
most prevalent on how people form opinions of government policies, i.e Poor want taxes on rich
and more cash directed to them. Rich want less taxes and fuck else they need I guess.
CHAPTER 6 - CALL ME CARSON CAUSE I JUST GROOMED A 6 YEAR OLD
Mass media - refers to the means of communicating to audiences, they are divided into print
media (Publication of things like newspapers or magazines not general the mass medium for
people to use now) or broadcast media ( Sounds and images like broadcast media news and
shit its the mass medium as most use it now)
In totalitarian governments information flows more freely in one direction (government to people)
than the other. But in a democratic government to respond properly the people need to make
their opinions known so the media is a two way flow in the American government.
Media has the ability to reflect and shape political views and the media is the only linkage
mechanism that specializes in communication unlike parties and campaigns which foster
communication in both directions.
Newspapers
The first newspapers were originally political organs financed by parties and those advocating a
party's cause. The first shift to independent newspapers didn't happen until 1830. Although
originally popular with the increase of radio and television news, newspapers started to drown
out and hence why they added comic strips and scandal stories to keep pulling readers in but
this can lead to exaggerated news as well.
Magazines
Magazines differ from newspapers in both their frequency of publishing but also the nature of
coverage. Magazines are typically forums for opinions and not straight news. Magazines even
with limited readers wield political power because they may influence Attentive policy elites
(leaders who follow news in specific policy areas).
Two Step Flow Of Communication - The process in which a new policy elites gather information
then inform their numerous followers which mobilizes them to apply pressure onto the
government for it. Typically it ends up influencing public opinion because they will air their
opinions onto live media. It is an example of pluralism.
Radio
Before television got big Radio was what was killing newspapers. They were used by Franklin D
Roosevelt for his fireside chats and stuff and people liked it because they could get a feel of a
reporter's personality in a way they couldnt from words. Still a relatively popular form of media
for news and info. However, radio has been criticized for polarizing politics and publicizing
extreme views.
Television
Television is probably the 2nd biggest form of news currently if not. Almost every household
today has a television and really does claim the biggest audience outside of the internet. News
channels typically built their news around an anchorman to inspire trust in viewers. But many
people actually listen to more opinionated networks now, especially MSNBC for leftists and Fox
news for the right and actually cable news is becoming a throwback because they are starting to
resemble the old newspapers which were exclusively political organizations. In short news is
very biased or atleast the news people choose to watch is.
Internet
This is probably the biggest used thing for news currently in the 20th century. Many current
users are well educated and believe that news organizations (especially traditional) are
politically biased. On the web about 12% of people have blogs on which 35% of them discuss
political views but these people have literally been given the protections of news journalists so
god damn.
Although people would probably consider government ownership of the media to be a terrible
thing, many don't realize that private ownership can just as closely be connected to the
government. I.e Google cooperated with the chinese government to limit things chinese users
could do and such. A consequence of privately owned media ends up being the trade of in
advertising to gain funds just to keep up and typically over 60% of media content in news now
actually ends up being devoted to advertising and only a small portion is news actually
dedicated to politics. A lot of stories are cut because they don't make newsworthiness standards
which are how well a story is expected to do and its sensationalism. This means that even
relatively important political issues can be drowned behind a headline story about scandals or
crime. Media typically chase ratings over other things which has been deemed as market driven
journalism, roughly only 4% of media makes up on government and 30% is elections the rest is
fluff stories of violence and shit.
Infotainment - A mix of information and diversion oriented to personalities or celebrities and not
linked to the days events and usually unrelated to public affairs or policy often called soft news
Media has some government regulations the main 3 being Technical considerations, ownership,
and content. Early examples where regulations on who could use Airways and stuff (control of
technical) which eventually led to the creation of the FCC- Federal Communications
Commission- An independent federal agency that regulates communication interstate and
internationally. Ownership wise its controlled in that companies can own as much as long as it
isn't over 35% of the market nationwide but I mean its still a regulation I suppose. Then getting
to regulation of content there is the first amendment which obviously is freedom of speech and it
extends over to the press. Typically there is little control of content unless its in wartime
situations in which the government is allowed to restrain press from publishing strategic info like
when a ship will take off, however because still v little regulation US press is one of the freest in
the world. But there's still other stuff like the equal opportunity rule which makes a broadcast
station have to give equal time to other candidates available to other candidates should they
give or sell their time to a candidate.
Gate Keepers - Media Executives, News Editors, and Prominent Reporters who Direct the Flow
of News. They choose which topics go through the gate to be reported and are expected to
uphold standards of careful reporting and journalism however on the internet since that doesn't
exist factual errors and rumors can be much more prevalent on the internet.
Horse Race Journalism - Occurs during elections where mass media focuses on candidates that
are ahead or have raised more money rather than national issues, but Americans typically say
they actually want to hear more about issues than this but its done anyways.
Media Event - A situation so newsworthy that the mass media wants to cover it, Candidates will
often create such situations to garner the media's attention to their campaign.
Television Hypothesis - The belief that television is to blame for the low level of citizens'
knowledge on public affairs because they typically squeeze public policy issues into 1 - 2 minute
fragments and don't explain candidates' positions.
Political Agenda - A list of issues that need government attention. In the context of the media
people believe that the media's greatest influence in politics is found in setting the political
agenda for people and the government.
The media's power to shape public opinion is ultimately based around the fact they define the
“news”
Going Public - A strategy whereby a president seeks to influence policy elites and media
coverage by appealing directly to the public
Mass media is an important factor of Political socialization as well
Watchdog Journalism - Journalism that scrutinizes public and business institutions and publicize
perceived misconduct, constantly on the lookout for overreaches by anything like government or
social issues.
Scorekeeper Journalism - The national media who keep track of and help make political
reputations, note who is being “mentioned” as a presidential candidate, and help decide who is
winning and losing in Washington politics.
CHAPTER 7 - I JUST GOT KILLED BY TYLER “NINJA” BLEVIN
Political Participation - Actions of private citizens by which they seek to influence or support
government and politics. However this definition embraces both conventional and
unconventional forms of it.
- Unconventional participation is relatively uncommon behavior that challenges or
defies established institutions or the dominant culture (it's stressful to its
participants and opponents)
- Conventional participation is relatively routine behavior that uses establishes
institutions of representative government, especially campaigning for candidates
and voting in elections.
Unconventional forms of participation can be like linking arms to prevent entrance, or marching
50 miles in protest and campaigning, and are typically used by disadvantaged groups that resort
to them in lieu of conventional methods. They accept the government while seeking to influence
it. In contrast terrorism isnt participation because terrorists seek to destroy the government
rather than change.
Things like peaceful movements that do not fight can gain attention and support because they
are the ones being attacked and are innocent compared to groups which fight others which will
garner less support and more hate.Typically demonstrations which turn ugly can actually result
in more hate to the group. Honestly unconventional methods are kind of common, things like the
Boston tea party were considered unconventional and such.
Direct Action - Unconventional participation that involves assembling crowds to confront
businesses, and local governments to demand hearings.
Conventional Participation can fall into 2 major categories: supportive behavior (which
expresses allegiance to government and county), and those that try to change policies or
influence them.
- Supportive behavior can be things like reciting the pledge of allegiance and by
implication its political system. However problems in supportive behavior occur when
“Superpatriots” show up which are people who could attack people doing unconventional
methods of participation labeling them unpatriotic. These kinds of supporters can be
dangerous because they deny others the nonviolent means to dissent.
-
Influencing behavior is one that obviously seeks to reverse or modify government
policies to serve one's political interest. They will try to modify things for benefit like how
one might pressure their alderman to rebuild curbs on the street. Serving one's self
interest is acceptable in democratic because a single voter cannot do much unless the
idea is mutual. Americans typically demand more from their local government than
national and examples can be petitioning or mobilizing against projects they dont like.
Contributing money to one's campaign can also be another form of influencing behavior
because it can be done for benefits.
Voter turnout - The percentage of eligible citizens who actually vote in a given election.
Despite Americans being as likely as citizens to be engaged in politics we always come
deadlast when it comes out to voting turnout.
Suffrage/Franchise - The right to vote
Despite the fact the 15th amendment was created to give enfranchisement to african americans
southern states worked their way around it with poll taxes and literacy tests.
Smith v. Allwright - A supreme court case on laws preventing blacks from voting in primary
elections being unconstitutional
Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Followed 5 months after Selma’s bloody sunday and preventing the
discriminatory voting tests.
Womens Enfranchisement was cool I guess but not that cool I'm sorry but Im too tired to
summarize shit you learned last year Arnav anyways blah blah blah women's suffrage used
unconventional methods (remember thats what we started with) uh blah blah blah 19th
amendment
Mentally checked out but 3 more chapters to go yahoo…
Progressivism - A philosophy of political reform based on the goodness and wisdom of the
individual citizen opposed to the special interests(railroads, corporations) and political
institutions(political parties, legislatures). Was predominant during the progressive era of the
1900-1925’s.
Direct Primary - A preliminary election run by the state government in which the voters choose
each party's candidates for the general election. Was brought up by progressives who didn't
want to vote for candidates chosen by party leaders.
Recall - Backed by progressives it was a special election initiated by states to provide for recall
elections. Its really rarely used but it's there I guess
Progressives also championed the power of the masses to propose and pass laws. They used 2
mechanisms which are still in use for policy making
- Referendum which is a direct vote by the people on either a proposed law or amendment
to a state constitution. 24 states permit popular referenda on laws.
- Initiative is a procedure by which voters can propose a measure to be decided by the
legislature or the people in a referendum. Typically involves the gathering of specified #
of signatures from registered voters and then submitting the petition to a state agency.
At many times however politicians will oppose the initiative of citizens mayb connecting back to
the whole public opinion thing and ignoring it.
It is found that people with more education, higher income, and white collar jobs or professional
occupations tend to be more aware of the effect of politics on their lives and thus will take the
necessary things to take action on it so they are more likely to participate than others who are
not as well educated or paid etc. this is called the Stand Socioeconomic Model Of Participation
and obviously there are other things to be considered but you probably know it and I dont care.
Just like age, gender all that shit will be a part of it idk. However Education proves to be the
biggest impact on political participation.
Low Voter turn outs are kind of a mystery and to be honest I kind of skipped these pages cause
I dont fucking care but like one reason is people are unaware of their methods to vote or find the
process to be rather burdensome as its “harder” to register to vote than to actually vote.
There are links to participation and freedom because individuals should be free to participate as
much as they want, and should be free not to participate as well. But in theory freedom also
means that individuals should be able to use wealth connections etc to influence government
decisions. Making individual votes the weakest ig? I'm too tired to care
Your going to be seeing a lot of “I'm tired kill me now” because I will quite literally be up to 3AM
writing this
There's links to participation and equality people's ability to influence government should be
equal and personal resources shouldn't give an advantage (which seems contradicting to the
last thing).
Participation and order uh I don't know i guess like yeah Im just gonna is a little more
complicated (IGNORE THIS I CANT MENTALLY READ AN UNDERSTAND THIS RN)
Participation and Majoritarianism - Although the Majoritarian model assumes government
responsiveness to popular demands comes through mass participation marjoritarian views
participation rather narrowly and favorts conventional behavior and yhyahfeayfahwfhafafafa :)
Theres one for pluralism but I dont care next chapter pls
Tea Party movement, conservative populist social and political movement that emerged in
2009 in the United States, generally opposing excessive taxation and government intervention
in the private sector while supporting stronger immigration controls.
CHAPTER 8 - LIFE IS NOT GREAT.
Americans have a love hate relationship with political parties as they deem it “necessary” but
still prefer no parties yet vote for parties?? I dont fucking know dude, But eitherway it doesnt
make sense.
Political Party - An organization that sponsors candidates for political office under the
organizations name
True political parties select individuals to run for public office through a nomination process
which designates them as the parties official candidates. This actually differentiates parties from
interest groups because interest groups support candidates but do not nominate them to run as
their avowed reps.
In short the designations of sponsoring and holding someone as a representative of an
organization is what makes it a party
Interest Group - A group of people that seeks to influence public policy on the basis of a
particular common interest or concern.
Political parties contribute through functions they perform for the political system- a set of
interrelated institutions that links people with government- They do 4 major things which are
nominating candidates for office, structuring the voting choice in elections, proposing alternative
government programs, and coordinating the actions of gov officials
- Parties nominate people pretty much to provide quality control to elections so that not
just anyone can run. I mean you can if you want too but in many cases people ill believe
your under qualified to having a party select you is like quality seals on bread bags or
something.
- They help structure voting choice by reducing the # of candidates to those who have a
realistic chance of winning. Established parties will have a loyal base of voters who can
guarantee votes to candidates. P much with the cut down of candidates the information
for bcom becomes less of a load
- They propose alternative gov programs/action. Even if voters know nothing about the
qualities of the parties candidates they can vote rationally for the candidates of the party
that has policies they favor
- Coordinate the actions of gov officials, through separations of powers a government the
house and senate will not really work together but if a party holds majority in them the
chances they work together increase because they align on the same party to form
policy.
Alright so I think they are saying the only way for a group of ambitious politicians to be
successful and achievements cannot go long without a party to back them up in their goals.
Electoral College - A body of electors chosen by votes to cast ballot for the vice president and
president, typically most states have a winner takes all policy in which all ballots will go to the
majority choice
Caucus - A closed meeting of the members of a political party to decide questions of policy and
selections of candidates for office
Brief History of parties cause idgaf bro
- Parties were seen as something a part of the process back then but they were also
considered dangerous and did exist and what not. Presidential elections back then were
decided by a handful of political leaders who met in small secret groups called caucuses.
The first group of people who made parties were the federalists and the republicans (no
the same repubs we have now)
- Washington warned about them again before he left office and blah blah blah we ended
up having the current ballot because of a problem when Adams won presidency but his
VP would be Jefferson because he received 2nd most votes. But this stalemates the
situation cause Jefferson can cuck Adams now because they shared diff parties. So in
1804 the 12th amendment was passed to prevent issues like what happened. It made it
so that VP and Pres would be chosen through different ballots.Federalists were losing
power in the 1800's.
- Fucking uh god damn so now that the federalists are gone rdemocratic republicans no
longer have competition and begin fighting within and lead to a split in factionalism in th
leaders leading to the Democrats and Whigs.
- K so now there's the Democrats which is the Jackson side of the former democrat
republicans and then there's the whigs and keep in mind this democrat party is now the
one we have currently. So anyways, relaxed voting laws meant more people were voting
and no longer could parties rely on political leaders and state legislature so they had to
actually campaign for votes. Instead of selecting the candidates in closed Caucuses now
it was done with the National Convention which was a gathering of delegates from a
single political party to choose candidates for prez and vp and then would adopt a
statement of policies called a party platform which is the policies of a national platform.
Also there was the first third party at this time called the Anti Masonic Party. Anyways the
whig party then lost to the democrats. For the next 30 years then the democrats and
whigs kept alternating in th horse until the issue of slavery eventually destroyed the
whigs. The antislavery portion of the whigs wnet to become the Republicans I guess and
the others joined the democrats (this is the modern republicans we have now btw).
- Republicans become popular as they try to stop to spread spread of slavery and also
democrats where conflicted on slavery as well and they spllit into southern democrats
and northern. Then in 1860 1 of 4 Critical elections occurred critical elections are
elections that produce a sharp urn in the existing pattern of party loyalties, Which leads
to electoral realignment which is the change in voting patterns that occur after a critical
election. After the win of Abe Lincoln democratic base was cemented in the south and
not since for 40 years did a republican win southern states.
Two Party System - A political system in which two major political parties compete for control of
the government, and candidates from third party have very little chance of winning office.
Eras of party dominance except I'm just putting down the eras it happened because I could
really give no shits about why it happens
- 1860 to 1894 rough balance republicans keep winning oh yeah oh yeah.
- 1896 to 1930 Critical election occurs and makes republicans true majority
- 1932 to 1964 Republican majority ends because of the Great Depression and thres a
huge dub with FDR gaining presidency a(democrat) then starts a democrat majority with
him
- 1968 to present rough balance yeah idk its like back and forth I think thats cool
12AM now but here I am still going
Electoral dealignment - a lessening of importance of party loyalty in voting decision happened
between 1970-1980.
Bolter Parties - Factions that split off major party and basically groups that want to challenge
their original party after they split but they don't do much in elections
Farmer Labor Parties - represent farmers and urban worked who arent getting their share of
societys wealth but honestly fuck off no on cares dude like ohh we want to criticize the establish
structure bro we are farmers like eat shit idc.
Parties of ideological protest go further than farmer labor parties in criticizing the structure of
government and reject prevailing doctrines while proposing radically difference principles.m sure
they didn't do much
Single Issue Parties - why do these exist where literally are formed to promote on principle and
not a philosophy of government.
Literally not a single minor party listed has ever one and the closest it got was with Bolter parties
but it was still far off
Majority Representation - the system by which one office, contested by two or more candidates
is won by the single candidate who collects most votes. A feature of most state legislature
Proportional Representation - sometimes states like to do it so that seats are awarded by % of
votes they got so if there's 10 seats and repubs get 30% theyll get 3 seats out of those 10.
Although its kind of strange a lot of democratic parties actually used this in comparison to the
majority representation
Party Identification - a voters sense of psychological attachment to a party. Its an important part
of political science. 3 major things stand out about this identification
- NUmberof republicans and democrats combined far exceed independents each year.
- Number of democrats has consistently exceeded that of republicans
- The number of democrats has shrunk over time mainly due to the independents.
Even though party identification can make peoples instantly go for their favorite party obviously
factors can still make them hop parties and if they vote against their party often enough they
might rethink their identification
National Committee - A COMMITTEE OF A POLITICAL PARTY COMPOSED OF
CHAIRPERSONS AND PARTY OFFICIALS FROM EVERY STATE. I dont know whymy caps
lock was on. But like it governs the party between conventions.
Ok so each party has 4 main organizational components
- National convention which occurs every 4 years where the party assembled thousands
of delegates from states and territories in a national convention with the intention of
nominating a candidate for president. The convention is p much the supreme governing
body of the party because it determines the partys policy through platform formulates
rules to govern the operation and designates the national committee which will govern
the party till next election
- National committee which we mentioned already just helps governor the party between
lections and stuff
- Congressional party conferences which is at the beginning of each session of congress
where a meeting to select party leaders and decided committee assignments is held.
Had no structural relationship to its national form.
- Congressional campaign committees to maintain separate congressional campaigns to
raise funds to support its own candidates in congressional elections and shit.
Party Machine - A centralized party organized that dominates local politics by controlling
elections. Sometimes by illegal means by providing jobs or social services to urban workers in
tun for their votes
A responsible party government is a set of principles formalizing the ideal role of parties in a
majoritarian democracy these principles are
- Parties should present clear and coherent programs to voters
- Voters should choose candidates on the basis of party programs
- The winning party should carry out its program once in office
- Voters should hold the governing party responsible at the next election for executing its
program
CHAPTER 9 - ALMOST TIME
Election Campaign - An organized effort to persuade voters to choose a candidate over another
competing for office. An effective campaign involves sufficient resources to acquire and analyze
information about voters interests, develop a strategy, and matching tactics to appeal to these
interests.
Candidates now actually rarely rely on their political parties to manage campaigns now. They
contract public opinion polls and hire polical consultants to decisive clever sounds bites to
capture voter attention on TV. Essentially campaigns have become less party centered and
more candidate centered. And people now not only campaign for votes but also for their parties
nomination.
Primary election - A preliminary election conducted within a political party to select candidates
who will run for public office in a subsequence election
Alright so theres diff ways to get nomination depending on if your running for Congress or
president I guess.
Closed Primary - Primary elections in which voters must declare party affiliation before they are
given the primary ballot containing the parties potential nominees
Modified Closed Primaries - Primary Elections that allow individuals state parties todecide
whether they permit independents to vote in their primaries and for which offices
Open Primaries - Primary elections in which voters need not declare their political affiliation and
can choose one party's primary ballot to take into the voting booth.
Modified Open Primaries - Primary elections that entitle independent voters to vote in a parties
primary
These are the four major types of primary elections to be found used to nominate State and
congressional offices . It is believed that types of primaries can affect the strength of its party
organizations like open elections can weaken parties more than closed parties. Also in both
parties only about ½ the party will end up actually voting in these congressional elections
Nomination for president though that's something else, like we mentioned a candidate must
campaign for the party's nomination for president and each chooses its prez and Vp at the
national convention held every 4 years.
Ok so the way I understand the process is that primaries are carried out and the top however
many people are pulled from that and taken to their party's national convention where the
nominee will be chosen based on their likelihood of winning the elections?
I would like it point out it is 1:43 AM
Presidential Primary - A special primary election to select delegates to attend the party's
national convention which in turn nominates the presidential candidate.
Caucus/Convention - a method used to select delegates to attend a parties national convention.
Generally a local meeting selects delegates for a county level meeting, which in turn selects
delegates for a higher level meeting. Which leads to the state convention which leads to the
national convention.
Candidates win their delegates proportionally based on how many votes they won. But that's
only for democrats, republicans have a winner take all strategy which gives all state delegates
to candidate who wins the plurality of its vote
Front Loading - States practice of moving delegate selection primaries and caucuses earlier in
the calendar year to gain media and candidate attention
General election - a national election held by law in November of every even numbered year.
The electoral college isn't actually mentioned in the constitution
The electoral college is basically how we choose the president, every state has a certain # of
representatives based off their population and it sums up to 538. For a nominee to win the
presidency they must win 271 votes during this process, now there is where voting comes in
because many states use winner take all policy in which the nominee who wins the majority in
that state will receive all the reps and once a candidate has a majority they win the house.
(Im p sure this is how it works)
On ballots there will also be voting for other things like congressional elections, now this is
where straight and split ticket voters comes in. Straight ticket voters vote for the same party and
split is when you vote different from your other choices.
Straight Ticket - In voting a single parties candidates for all the offices
Split ticket - in voting candidates from different parties for different offices
First past the post elections - A british term for elections conducted in single member districts
that award victory to the candidate with the most votes
Open election - An election that lacks an incumbent
What the fuck is an incumbent
There are 4 parts to election campaigns to recap the candidate, the candidates issues, the
campaign organization, and money. You absolutely need money to keep your campaign running
because you can hire the best of the best with such, doesnt guarantee win but helps.
Regulation of campaign financing - Early campaign financing laws had a lot of flaws and didnt
really have enforcement. So in 1971 during a period of party reform FECA(Federal Election
Campaign Act) was passed which limited media spending and imposed stringent rules which
required full reporting of campaign contributions. The new legislature then led to the creation of
FEC (federal election committee) which was an independent agency of 6 members appointed
by the president which were charged with enforcing limits on financial contributions and getting
full disclosure of campaign spending and also specified that non party groups known as PACs
(Political Action Committees) could contribute to election campaigns and imposed limits for
contribution by individuals and organizations. The law was to target hard money(Direct
contributions given to the guy running for presidency) in contrast to ssoft money (financial
contributions to party committees for capital and operational expenses). No person could
contribute over 1k dollars (later bumped up to 2.7k).
Later BCRA(Bi Partisan Campaign Reform Act) was passed BCRA replaced the FECA and
raised limits from 1 to 2k and indexed for inflation. But kept the 5k for PACS still. BCRA banned
large soft money contributions which had been growing. But allows 527 Committees which were
tax exempt organizations to spend unlimited amounts of money for media advertising as long as
they did not expressly advocate candidates election or defeat. Currently 501 (c)4 social welfare
organizations are being exploited to make it so they don't have to disclose their donors
CHAPTER 10 - unga
Interest Groups - An organized group of individuals who seek to influence public policy, also
known as a lobby. They can be things like labor unions or what not.
Lobbyist - a representative of an interest group
Each interest group follows its own selfishness. I guess its similar to parties in a way? And really
isn't that uncommon as well since pursuing self interest is common to be found in democracy.
These groups provide a means which like minded citizens can pool resources anc channel
energies into collective political action. And in a related role interest groups bring new issues
into the political limelight through agenda building. Through interest group advocacy they make
the government aware of problems and try to see that something is done to fix it. And finally
interest groups engage in program monitoring. Lobbies follow gov programs that are important.
While interest groups can provide positives we shouldn't assume that the positive side balances
the negative.
Interest Group entrepreneur - The lederer/organizer of an interest group which succeed or fail
much like how businesses can fail because they need something attractive to pull the interest of
people to join them, Like the United Farm Workers who related to those who struggled under
back breaking work and offered a chance for them to increase their wages or whatever or get
help should they join.
Free rider problem - The situation in which people benefit from the activities of an organization
such as a interest group but do not contribute to activities
Trade association - an organization that represents firms within a particular industry.
PACS (political action committees) - an organization that pools campaig contribution from group
members and donates those funds to candidates for political office. Paca can give as much as
5k to a candidate for each separate election. Corporations have been prohibited from running
PACS
How the fuck do 3.6k pacs who can only donate 5k dollars give 413 million?
I cant find my chapter 11 notes
My fault og.
Chapter 12 - Conductor we have a problem
As you know when the presidency was created there was a huge debate about the scope of the
executive branch, they wanted strong leadership but feared the idea of a monarchy again. The
articles of confederation as you know was the failed first attempt to address this which gave too
little power to the central government, but they still feared how much power was too much
power. To address this problem they created some initial conceptions, for example one idea was
a 7 year term president who was elected by the Congress and who couldn't be reelected. But
some still said the president needed more power who would be elected independently from the
legislative branch. The final structure they made reflected the checks and balances of the
government that shapes the constitution which is the system we use now.
Powers of the president are set in the 2nd article of the constitution and also states the
responsibilities and the requirements.
● The president must be a US born citizen who is at least 35 years old and lived in the US
for a minimum of 14 years.
● The president's duties are rather vague, however, which leads to a lot of conflicts about
what the president can and can't do.
○ Serve as administrative head of the nation - It gives little guiden e about what
these said administrative duties are but it says the executive power shall be
vested in a president of the united states of america and what he shall take care
that the laws be faithfully executed and spends time making policy decisions
rather than enforcing existing policies
○ Act as commander in chief of the military - the president is literally made the
highest ranking officer in the armed forces. But it should be known that he can't
wage a war without the approval of congress.
○ Convene congress - The president can call congress into special sessions on
extraordinary occasions , he must also periodically inform congress of the State
○
○
○
○
of the Union which is just an address by the president to congress about the state
of the nation currently and what the proposed legislature should be about this
year.
Veto legislation - The president can veto (disapprove) of bills enacted by
congress with the exception of joint resolutions that propose constitutional
amendments. Congress can override vetoes if they get a ⅔ majority vote to
overturn the veto.
Appoint various officials - the president can appoint federal court judges,
ambassadors, cabinet members, and other key policy makers; however a lot of
these decisions need to be approved by congress.
Make treaties - With the advice and consent of at least ⅔ rds of the senate the
president can make treaties with foreign powers.
Grant pardons - the president can grant pardons to individuals who have
committed offenses against the United States, except if it is impeachment.
There are 2 types of powers the president has, formal and inherent/implicit powers. Formal
powers are ones clearly outlined within the constitution while inherent powers are those which
can be derived from the constitution, typically these inherent powers are subject to a lot more
debate because of the fact many people can determine the same passage of a constitution
means different things.
Vetoes are one the most used types of formal powers, it provides a threat to congress on
passing bills because if they are vetoed they either need to get a 66% majority to support it to
override the veto, or they need to rewrite the bill to accommodate what the president wants. But
there's other ones which I really don't want to write about but they are listed up above anyways
so go look back up there.
Inherent powers are pretty cool, they are usually gained from a president trying to use a power
not yet considered a part of his authority, in which case he needs congress and the courts to
recognize his claim to the power or restrict it. But whenever a president succeeds in gaining a
new power such benefits go down to all their successors as well. Executive orders (which are
directives that create or modify laws and public policies without the direct approval of congress)
are an example of inherent powers, they're not specified within the constitution but I mean like
now we got it.
Unitary executive - the belief that the president inherent powers allow him to overrule
congressional grants of independent authority to agencies
Delegation of powers - the process by which congress gives the executive branch the new
additional authorities needed to address new problems
Whenever congress concludes the government needs flexibility in its approach to a problem the
president is usually given more freedom in how or when to implement new policies to fix such
problems. However, in other cases congress can believe that too much power has accumulated
in the executive branch and can enact legislation to reassert congressional authority.
So pretty much the executive branch is like congresses B***** sometimes. But as of recently
they agreed the president were exercising proper amounts of power and because of that
congress's role has declined.
Presidents usually have a chief of staff behind him along with key aids which advise him of
crucial political choices. And consequently he needs to trust these people he staffs. Chief of
staff are one of the first or equals in some administrations to the president who can be effective
only if the president decides to give him the power to be so. Presidents also usually have
national security advisers to provide briefings about foreign and military affairs and longer range
analyses of the issues confronting the administration. He also has thre council of economic
advisors and national economic council who I think you can guess report on the economy and
the best ways he can grow the economy. Theres also senior domestic policy advisors who help
determine the basic approaches to things needed to be done by congress.
All of these staff are apart of what is known as the executive office of president which usually
has about 1.7K staff and a budget of roughly 800 million yearly.
Now lets talk about the vice president, whos main role is literally just to take over the presidency
in the case of the president dying or getting removed or something. Vice presidents usually don't
do a bunch to be honest, they are pretty much used for like chores such as campaigning,
fundraising and all. Honestly a lot of VP’s are chosen just to help out with elections because
they appeal to different people, like biden choose kamala harris (IM NOT FUCKING SAYING
SHES NOT HELPFUL) because her biracial heritage can help improve the support he gets. But
they can help with advising the president as well, like how Carter realized Mondale's experience
in the Senate could be useful to him.
Cabinet - A group of presidential advisers; the heads of executive departments, and other key
officials.
Divided Government - the situation in which one party controls the white house while one
controls one house of congress or more.
Gridlock - a situation in which government is incapable of acting on important problems
Chapter 13 - jeff
Bureaucracy - The bureaucracy is a large complex organization in which employees have
specific job responsibilities and work within a hierarchy of authority
Bureaucrat - an employee to a bureaucracy
A bureaucracy is basically various departments, agencies, bureaus, offices, and other
government units. And pretty much includes the entirety of the government underneath the
executive, congress, and legislative. Stuff like cabinet departments, agencies, government
corporations, etc. and a centralized bureaucracy reflects a need to survive, the more highly
organized it is the more successful in its jobs it does.
Bureaucracies have gained power in the last century, the EPA at this point has more staff than
the first administration of washington. In the past the bureaucracy was a lot weaker, the main
reason for the increase in the bureaucracies scope has been due to the increase in the
complexity of society. Another reason for the growth has also been that public attitude towards
business is different now. Business used to be without any government regulation but they
started to do things like creating trusts and such which led to intervention by the government. In
the wake of regulating all of these things, the government created new administrative agencies
to handle the influx of responsibilities they would take on. This led to an expansion of
government and therefore the bureaucracy, in return to shrink the power of the government that
would also mean that bureaucracies would have to be eliminated or shrunk in size.
Budget cuts in bureaucracies will lead to cuts in the policies they can dish out effectively. And
once again we face the whole problem with conservatives and liberals again. The growth of the
government will promote social equality and protection of citizens. But cutting size can provide
more freedom overall to the people. And the problem also faces the problem of pluralism and
majoritarianism. Even when the public might want a smaller government different segments of
society undermine that by calling for stronger government.
Regulatory commissions - Agencies of the executive branch that control or direct some aspect
of the economy
Fun fact the Bureaucracy is split into multiple collections of departments, agencies, bureaus and
offices, and also commissions (yes all of this shit makes it up good like remembering it fucktard)
●
●
Departments are the biggest unit to the executive branch which govern a broad area of
government responsibilities. The heads of departments along with some other key
figures end up making the president's cabinet. Theres about 15 executive departments
the departments of State, Treasury, Defense, Labor, Interior, Agriculture, Justice,
Commerce, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development,
Transportation, Energy, Education, Veteran Affairs, and Homeland Security. These
departments are broken down even further into subsidiary agencies, bureaus, offices,
etc.
Independent agencies within the executive are not a part of any cabinet department.
They stand alone and are controlled to some degree by the president. Stuff like the CIA
or FCC are also called regulatory commissions which are commissions which are run by
small numbers of commissioners (in odd numbers to prevent ties) appointed with fixed
terms by the president. Some commissions were formed to guard against business
●
practices and protect the public from unsafe products. The president doesn't really have
direct control over regulatory agencies but he can exert some influence onto them.
Government corporations are created by congress. These sectors of the government
could technically be done by the private sector but were decided to be created because
the public is better served when the organizations are linked to the government. For
example the US postal service is government run and gives Americans low cost door to
door services for mail, a private company may not care about this because it doesn't
have enough financial incentive to provide such a service.
Civil Service - The system by which most appointments to the federal bureaucracy are made, to
ensure that government jobs are filled on the basis of merit and that employees aren’t fired for
political reasons.
An important feature to the bureaucracy which hires all sorts of people from FBI agents to forest
rangers is that they are given the job off the requirements of civil service. This was because
when James Garfield was killed by a dejected job seeker who wanted to be put into a
government position through the spoils system, congress passed the Pendleton act which
established the civil service commission with the intention to reduce patronage (giving
government positions to political allies).
The federal bureaucracy has had a lot of criticism claiming it is too unresponsive, big, and
inefficient. There's also concerns that the quality of civil service could decline as agencies find
fewer superior candidates.
Whenever a new president comes in he gets to fill about 3000 spots in the government. These
people fill the top policy making positions in the government but also require senate
confirmation. However, nowadays most appointees actually come from a background in which
they are qualified and compatible with their job.
Presidents can find that the bureaucracy is not all that efficient as well for multiple reasons
●
Pluralism can be a main cause, Pluralism can pull agencies in a direction other tahn
what was favored by the president. The department of transportation may want to
support mass transit but politically it cannot afford to ignore the preference of highway
builds. So an agency administration must often try to create a compromise between the
groups rather than hold to what the president wanted to do.
Agencies have the power to set policy as well as in the case of Inez Tennebaum who requires
manufacturers to make changes to cars which were causing accidents.
Agencies are actually authoritative policy making bodies and their decisions on substantive
issues are legally binding. Executive agencies like cabinet departments, independent agencies,
and government corporations are all creatures of congress. Congress can create a new
department or agency by enacting a law that describes the organizations mandate or mission,
and in doing so Congress grants the agency authority to make policy desicions, because
congress realized a long time ago they cant give 2 fucks to deal with all the shit that comes in.
The ability by congress to give agencies the power to make policy is in the spirit of the
legislative mandate called administrative discretion.
Congress is often vague about the intent behind setting up a new agency but they usually
create one to show they are concerned and responsive to the issue. For example, by giving the
FCC its administrative discretion they left it to deal with a problem and went on with their day.
Rule making - The administrative process that results in the issuance of regulations by
government agencies.
Regulations - Administrative rules that guide the operation of a government program.
Agencies exercise their power of administrative discretion typically through rule making which
leads to regulations. Rule making has procedurals guidelines requiring that proposed
regulations first be published so that interested parties can comment on them making
recommendations. And because they are authorized by congressional statutes, regulations end
up having the effect of a law.
Incrementalism - Policy making characterized by a series of decisions. Each instituting modest
change
Implementation - The process of putting specific policies into action
Implementation of regulations can be problematic because to put them into action it requires
many different layers of government and agencies, like state and such. I.e the clean air act
intended to help Los Angeles fix its smog problem had to be approved by the California Air
Resources board, city governments, and the state government. There's also implementations
through incentives, like reducing pollution by offering discounts or cash to those who buy
environmentally friendly things.
Deregulation - a bureaucratic reform by which the government reduces its role as a regulator of
business
Competition and outsourcing - Procedures that allow private contractors to bid for jobs
previously held exclusively by government employees
Government Performance and Results Act - A law requiring each government agency to
implement quantifiable standards to measure its performance in meeting stated program.
Chapter 14 - its over for me bro I aint even gonna lie like Im not making it past today broNow that im done feeling suicidal lets work
Judges face conflicting values typically when they craft their decisions, as they (mainly supreme
court justices) end up making policy and precedents other judges will use to rule over similar
cases. America's courts involved in the life of the country and the supreme court ultimately
makes fundamental policy decisions fundamental to the freedom, safety, and equality of the US.
Section 1 of article III creates the one supreme court and the founders didnt know about the
need of other national courts, so they deferred to congress the decision to make a national court
system. The opposers to such were afraid the national courts would usurp the state courts.
Congress considered the issue in its first session and gave life to it in the Judiciary Act Of 1789,
which created the system of federal courts which would coexist with existing state courts and
allowed a lifetime appointment to the court to avoid the influence of their judges to be under
popular influences.
At the start the federal judiciary was kind of weak and it was hard to get supreme court justices
because a lot of them spent time as traveling judges and and also only met a few weeksin feb
and august and eventually john jay got so sick of it he literally refused to meet because he
thought it didnt have enough power to even help the national affairs. But it changed in 1801 with
the Marbury vs Madison case.
Shortly after the appointment of justice marshall the supreme court faced a problem, if a law
enacted by congress conflicted with the constitution which should prevail. The question showed
up in the case of Marbury vs Madison (1803) caused when William Marbury was signed to
become the next justice of peace for Columbia but never received his appointment. Taking to
court he invoked an act of congress to attain their appointment papers which was to force the
court to force the papers out of James Madison. Justice Marshall saw that the act of congress
Marbury used (judiciary act of 1789) was in conflict with the constitution in article III which
prevented such suits. This case created the concept of judicial review, by declaring the judiciary
act of 1789 invalid because it conflicted with the constitution.
The judicial review power they had created by doing so expanded the power of the supreme
court to equal or exceed the power of other branches. With the power given to void a law which
conflicted with the constitution, the judicial branch gained grip over the legislative and executive
branches consistent with the system of checks and balances. The constitution allows for some
overrides however to judicial review in the form of constitutional amendments and controlling
excesses of the justices through impeachment. In addition the court can respond to the struggle
among competing interests by reversing itself.
The establishment of the judicial review made the courts the umpire of the government. But
what would happen if the state laws happened to go against the national laws or federal
treaties? The court answered that they could in fact strike down such laws in 1796, this was
addressed when a british creditor was trying to collect a debt from the state of virginia but
virginia has canceled debts owed to british subjects. Yet the treaty of paris which had affirmed
the ability of the British creditor to such conflict with it. So according to article VI what court ruled
using the supremacy clause that national laws and treaties stand over state laws.
States, however, continued to be little shits going against national supremacy.
And also national supremacy required the Supreme court to impose uniformity on national law
otherwise constitutions meaning would vary.
The components of judicial review are as follows
● The power of the court to declare national, state, and local laws invalid if they violate the
constitution.
● The supremacy of national laws or treaties when they conflict with state and local laws.
● The role of the supreme court as the final authority on the meaning of the constitution.
Foreseeing concern and problems, Hamilton wrote in federalist 78 about the concern that the
people have over the power to overturn the decisions of the representative branches of the
government coming from an elected group of people which they cant choose. He did so by
calling the judiciary the weakest of the branches in the government The Judiciary Wrote
Hamilton neither force nor will but merely judgment.
Although Hamilton defended legislative Supremacy he argued that the judicial review was
essential to avoid oppressive legislation. he argued that their lifetime service freed the judges of
influence of the president and Congress and said the judicial power of judicial review has many
checks and place and extraordinary majorities and are rarely used.
Criminal case - a court case involving a crime or violation of public order
Civil Case - a case that involves a private dispute arising from such matters as accidents or
divorces.
I cant fucking take writing anymore im going to voice dictate it, if something goes wrong its not
my fault
A crime is a violation of a law that forbids or commands and activity some crimes are consistent
with every state such as rape murder or arson others are not such as marijuana use . courts
decide both criminal and civil cases .
Plea bargain - a defendant's admission of guilt in exchange for less severe punishment
Common or judge made law - legal precedents derived from previous judicial cases
U.S district courts - courts within the lowest tier of the three tiered federal court system. Where
litigation begins
U.S court of appeals - courts within the second tier of the three tiered federal court system, to
which decisions of the district courts and federal agencies may be appealed to review
Most civil and criminal cases never go to trial in most criminal cases a defendant's lawyer and
the prosecutor plea bargain and negotiate the severity and number of charges to be brought
against the defendant. in a civil cases one side may only be using the threat of a lawsuit to
enact a concession from the other. Often the parties settle because of uncertainties and
litigation. settlements can even occur at the level of the Supreme Court. When cases are neither
solved nor abandoned they end with an adjudication, a court judgment resolving the party's
claims and enforced by the government. Judges make policies in two ways, the first is the
rulings on matters. Such rulings set precedent which judges rely on in the future on similar
cases such is called common or judge made law. The second area of judicial lawmaking
involves the application of statutes by legislature. The judicial interpretation of legislative acts is
called statutory construction; the proper application of the statute is not always clear from its
wording to determine how the statute should be applied; judges look for this legislature's intent.
federal courts are organized into three tiers as a pyramid at the bottom of the pyramid are the
US District Courts where the litigation begins. In the middle are the US Court of Appeals where
cases that lose can apply to be looked at again. And the top is the supreme court of the US. the
courts of appeals and the Supreme are appellate courts with few exceptions. They only decided
cases which have been decided on in lower courts.
There are 94 federal district courts in the US.Each state has at least one District Court. In 2006
there were 678 full-time federal district judge ships which received over 350,000 cases in both
civil and Criminal. District courts are the entry point for the federal court system When Trials
occur in the federal system they take place in federal district courts. each case is tried With a
single judge.
All case is resolved in the US District Court and all decisions of federal administrative agencies
can appeal to one of the twelve Regional us courts of Appeals these courts with 167 judgeships
received nearly 58,000 cases in 2009 each Court hears from a geographic area known as the
circuit.
Stare decisis - let the decision stand decision making according to precedent
Original jurisdiction - the authority of a court to hear a court before any other court does, it is
derived from article three section 2 of the constitution which gives the court the power to hear
and decide all cases in which a state shall be a party. Stuff like state vs state suits or Situations
where suit cannot be taken place in 1 States allow for the usage of original jurisdiction.
Appellate jurisdiction - Appellate jurisdiction is the authority of a court To hear cases that have
been tried decided or examined in other courts this is how the majority of cases end up in the
Supreme Court typically as Last Resorts. In the case of the Appellate system courts can
overturn the decision that was made in a lower-court before it however litigants cannot jump
from a state to National Arena of Justice second the case must raise Federal questions that is
an issue covered by the Constitution federal laws or national tradies but even these cases that
me both these conditions do not guarantee review by the court.
Federal question - an issue covered by the constitution national laws or us treaties
Docket - a courts agenda
Rule of four - an unwritten rule that requires at least 4 justices to agree a case warrants
consideration before its taken to supreme court.
Solicitor general - The solicitor-general is the third highest official of the US Department of
Justice and the one who represents the national government before The Supreme Court. Mr.
above the hinge between the administration legal project and its policy objectives they are
appointed by the president. the solicitor General's duties include determining whether
government should appeal Lower Court decisions for viewing and modifying when necessary
the briefs filed in government Appeals I'm deciding whether the government should file an
amicus curiae brief in any appellate court.
Amicus curiae - a brief filed with permission of court by an individual or group that is not a party
to a legal action but has interest in it.
Judicial restraint - A Judicial philosophy by which judges tend to defer to decisions of the
elected branches of government.
Judicial activism - A Judicial philosophy by which judges tend not to defer by the decision of
elected branches of government resulting in the invalidation OR emancsculation of those
decisions
Argument - The heart of a Judicial Kenyon, it's a logical contents separated from fax rhetoric
and procedure.
Concurrence - The agreement of a judge with the Supreme Court's majority decision for a
reason other than the majority reason.
Dissent - The disagreement of a judge with a majority decision.
After a car after the case is heard and the decision is made the Chief Justice or most senior
Justice in the majority decides which Justice will write the majority opinion. opinion writing is the
justices most crucial function is not surprising that they spend most of their time drafting the
opinion . their opinion after all is very important and can give insight about why the judge has
made a certain decision there's also the ability to write dissenting or concurring opinion or
something however they aren't as common now as they used to be.
The chief justice is only one of nine justices but he serves very important functions based on his
authority apart from his role in forming the docket and directing the course conferences; the
Chief Justice can also be a social leader. the Chief Justice can embody meet worship and by
policy.
Senatorial courtesy - A norm under which a nomination can be accessible to the home state
senator from the president party
I'm pretty sure that all nominees to be judges from the president have to be confirmed by
Congress
I think it's important to mention as well and that the US government uses an adversarial system
mean that people can bring up cases against each other or something like that I'll look more into
it Okay so I was kind of right two groups can bring up their case in front of an impartial judge
and go against each other and the judge will determine the truth
Chapter 15 - I am hiding 12 bodies in my basement but the 4th amendment protects me
Disclaimer these notes exist to make me feel better I did work but I have 0 clues if they work.
Oh yahhha baby time to get another 75 on a test les gooooo
So do you remember the Bill of Rights, that useless old thing that may or may not impact all of
our civil liberties in the US? We’ve already kind of talked about why the founders didn't include it
because they believed the constitution spelled out the extent of the government's power. But
because of ratification debates, they ended up adding it which created the first 10 amendments
to the constitutions. One thing to note is that the bill of rights only restricted the national
government at the time and not the state government but then the 14th amendment marked a
change where amendments also started to restrict the powers to state governments.
The US constitution guarantees multiple liberties and rights and such, there are Civil liberties
which are referred to as negative rights, and then there are positive civil rights. Civil liberties are
called negative rights because they restrained the national or state government like how the first
amendment opens with congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, but Civil
rights are positive rights because they are privileges guaranteed to the individual and protected
against the removal from government or individuals like how the right to vote and the right to a
jury trial are rights that don't exactly bind down the government.
Civil Rights - Powers and privileges guaranteed to the individual and protected from arbitrary
removal at the hands of government or individuals also referred to as positive rights.
Civil Liberties - Freedoms guaranteed to the individuals taking the form of restraint on the
government also referred to as Negative rights.
Just for some distinction, a person can possess rights while a government possesses powers.
And if governments may lawfully regulate a person's behaviors that behavior is called a
privilege.
Freedom of religion is a big thing in the US the majority of why people came at the start also
stemmed from the want for Religious freedom which England didn't have, The importance of
Religious freedom is reflected in the first amendment, which guarantees religious freedom with
2 clauses: the establishment clause and the free-exercise clause. The establishment clause
forbids the government establishment of a religion and the free exercise clause prevents the
government from interfering with the exercise of religion. Both of these together ensure the
government can neither promote nor inhibit the religious beliefs of people. The supreme court
has refused to interpret the religion clauses definitively though, which leads to a bunch of
different rulings but the overall thing is that Religion cant benefit directly from the government
but it can indirectly benefit from stuff.
The establishment clause requires the government to hold a neutral stance on every religion
and maintain that position that involves choices between religion and nonreligion. The
establishment clause is also where we get the whole idea of separation of church and state. The
lemon test was created to help make sure that this separation was happening, the 3 “prongs” of
the lemon test make sure laws have a secular purpose, their primary effects can not inhibit or
advance religion, and they must not entangle the government excessively with religion. This
problem however has always been a major thing for the courts, multiple cases have met
borderline conclusions because the supreme court often met a 5-4 decision over religion
showings on government property.
The Free-Excercise clause of the first amendment states that congress shall make no law
prohibiting the free exercise of religion, the supreme court in part has struggled to avoid
absolute interpretation of thing clause because if congress grants exemptions from the military
service to individuals who have religion problems against war such exemptions could be a
violation of the establishment clause because they favor some religious groups over others. A
neutral law that burdens the free exercise of religion is subject to strict scrutiny though meaning
the law can only be upheld if it is justified by a compelling governmental interest, if the law is
narrowly tailored to achieve a legitimate goal, and the law is the least restrictive means for
achieving the interest.
Strict Scrutiny - A standard used by the supreme court in deciding whether a law or policy is to
be adjudged constitutional. To pass strict scrutiny a law must achieve 3 things the law is
narrowly tailored to achieve a legitimate goal, and the law is the least restrictive means for
achieving the interest.
“Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or the press, or the right of the
people to peacefully assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances”
These are like the other lines to the first amendment freedom of expression namely the
Free-Expression clauses of the first amendment. But it's something to note that a reason that
people don't test free expression too much is out of fear of ostracization by peers and family for
things they will say. Anyways in today's time, the Supreme court does have things on speech
that they can restrict. For example, if speech can be found to prompt lawless action and
demonstrate a high probability that such action will occur it can infringe on your freedom of
speech. And second is the government may impose reasonable restrictions on the means for
communicating ideas, for example, people can protest but if their physical presence would block
the entrance to a public occupied building or something then they can be moved and such, or if
someone tries yelling very loudly at 3 am in a residential area they can be stopped from
speaking because they are a fucking nuisance.
The starting point for analysis of free speech at this point starts with the “clear and present
danger test” which is a means by which the supreme court distinguishes between speech as
advocacy of ideas which is protected and speech of incitement of violence or something which
is protected. Think about Schneck v US in that case his passing around leaflets to say disobey
the draft threatened the public order, especially because during wartime, it can produce
draft-dodging (an illegal action). Or think about Gitlow v New York, Gitlows speech advocated
for a violent uprising against the US which wasn't a form of protected free speech but often the
decision about when to use the Clear and Present danger test is a little thin.
Symbolic expression receives even less protection than free speech commonly does as well
btw.
Fighting words - Speech that is not protected by the first amendment because it inflicts injury or
tends to incite an immediate disturbance of the peace.
Again though the court likes to give me fucking seizures so the application of this shit is
confusing sometimes like how the courts didn't convict some dick after he called Jews Dirty
Kikes and advocated the death of them, they said let's convict some dude who called a city
martial a damn fascist. Do you see what I fucking mean holy shit the law is so confusing bro.
Ok so freedom of the press is also guaranteed within the first amendment and this even extends
to the state and supreme courts so whoop de doo. The ability to collect and report information
without government interference was thought essential to a free society so print media
continues to use this freedom. Defamation of character however is found to be a restriction on
this “freedom of the press,” A person who believes that their name or character has been
harmed by false statements in a publication can institute a lawsuit against the publication and
seek monetary compensation against whoever did it. This is just a way that freedom of
expression is also restricted to a certain extent. However, this is also kind of flawed because
they agreed that the first amendment protects the publication of all statements even false ones
about the conduct unless the statements are made with actual malice with knowledge about
their falseness.
I don't know if I mentioned this earlier but the US freedom of the press is also protected against
prior restraint or censorship. Prior restraint is just like striking down articles from being published
before being censored or whatnot. But they have acknowledged that in some extreme cases
prior restraint may be applied if anything most likely during wartime. The most extreme case I
can think of is the NYT vs US in which they were going to publish a government classified
document which case called the pentagon papers which entailed what the US was doing in
Vietnam, however, the Supreme Court allowed the publication because it didn't show an
immediate inevitable and irreparable harm would follow in the publishing of the document.
Holy shit what the fuck we are still on the first amendment
The final clause of the first amendment is the right to peacefully protest and petition the
government for something. Today the right to peacefully protest is equated with the right to free
speech and a free press independent of whether the government is petitioned. Precedent has
merged these rights and petty much made then indivisible. Uh, there's more to this chapter but I
kinda skipped over it, if you feel like checking it out go ahead.
Holy shit is raining so hard outside lol I hope I didn't leave anything out there.
Ok, now we move on to another amendment, the right to bear arms. The second amendment
states “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.” This is basically why guns are so
prominently associated with America and why gun control debates are so fucking weird, on one
hand, it mentions that its the right of the states to maintain a collective militia but also says s the
right of the people to keep and bear arms so like, which one is it bud. Firearm regulations didn't
exist until the 1930s when federal law required the taxation and registration of machine guns
and such. The court sees that the second amendment protects a citizen's right to own ordinary
militia weapons but things like sawed-off shotguns don't count. But it was found in the 2008 DC
v Heller case that there is a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for
self-defense.
The major purpose of the constitution was as you know, to structure the division of power
between the national government and state government following the AOC. Even before it was
amended though the constitution had set limits on both the nation and the states regarding
citizens' rights. IT barred birth governments from passing out bills of attainder which made it so
people can be guilty of crimes without a trial. It also barred ex post facto laws that declare an
action a crime after it has been performed. And it barred both state and the nation from
impairing the obligation of contracts, the obligation of the parties in a contract to carry out its
terms. But uh the Bill of rights at the time seemed to only apply towards the national
government, not that state government, which was addressed with the creation of the 14th
amendment, which the due process clause of the amendment is the linchpin that holds states to
the provisions of the bill of rights.
So the 14th amendment by the way is probably one of the most important amendments in the
modern era and an insanely huge amount of cases have been argued around it.
Ok, so the 14th amendment, more specifically the due process of law, “No State shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states
nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Most freedoms protected in the bill of rights today function as limitations on the states and many
standards that limit the national government serve equally to limit the state government. These
changes were achieved by the 14th amendment and through the supreme court's interpretation
of the due process clause of the 14th amendment: Nor shall any state deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property without due process of law.” This clause has 2 big meanings, It required the
government to adhere to appropriate procedures, in a criminal trial the government must
establish the defendant's guilt. Second, it forbid unreasonable government action. The courts
have used the due process clause to spread specifics of the bill or rights onto the states.
These rights also need to be applied properly in criminal trials, We have instances where
citizens have been denied proper rights and in the courts that can lead to re-trials, for example,
Gideon v. Wainright or Miranda v Arizona. Both cases where the citizen was denied proper
constitutional rights lead to retrials for both cases. The Miranda trial even led to the creation of
Miranda warnings which is the stuff police say to suspects now when they arrest. In both these
cases, justices had to grapple with two steps in the application of constitutional guarantees to
criminal defendants: the extension of a right to the states and the definition of that right, Gideon
the court applied the 6th amendment right to counsel uniformly in all states, and in Miranda, the
court declared that all governments, national, state and local have a duty to inform suspects of
the full measure of their constitutional rights. The exclusionary rule has been created because
not everyone who gets a pass based on a violation of their civil rights and liberties gets to go
free, the exclusionary rule states that evidence obtained in an illegal search and seizure cant be
used in the trial, however in certain cases this rule can be ignored, especially if the evidence is
concerning like if they found 12 bodies, in my basement, by accident they weren't supposed to
be down there they can't be allowed out they won't get out. But there is also the good-faith
exception to the exclusionary rule saying that the holding of evidence attained on a mistakenly
issued search warrant can be used in a trial if the mistake was made in good faith, that is, if the
parties had a reason at the time to believe the warrant was proper.
I'm gonna be honest the rest of this chapter is like specific examples I don't care about so ill only
write what I think I should so bear with me. And also probably read it if you feel like that's a good
idea.
Chapter 16 - obamna
So quick recap do you remember the equality of opportunity which is the idea that people
should have an equal chance to develop their talents and that effort and ability should be
rewarded equitably. This form of equality offers all individuals the same chance to get ahead
and glorified personal achievement and free competition and allows everyone to play on a level
field where the same rules apply to all. Americans support this idea of equality of opportunity but
they are much less committed to the equality of outcome which means greater uniformity in
social, economic, and political power among different social groups. People believe that equality
of outcome in today's society can only occur if we restrict the free competition that is the basis of
the equality of opportunity. And this was pulled up when Justice Harry Blackmun articulated his
position on the bench, “To get beyond racism we must first take into account race. There is no
other way. And to treat some persons equally we must treat them differently.” Uh, there's more
to this but I don't want to write it but there are key terms ig.
Invidious Discrimination - Discrimination against persons or groups that works to their harm and
is based on animosity.
Equality of Outcome - the concept that society must ensure that people are equal and
governments must design policies to redistribute wealth and status so that economic and social
equality is achieved
Equality of Opportunity - The idea that each person is guaranteed the same chance to succeed
in life.
Ok so lemme try to focus up and burst through this shit.
The civil war amendments were adopted after the civil war (obviously) to provide freedom and
equality to black Americans. The Thirteenth Amendment ratified in 1865 provided that “Neither
slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist within night United States or any place subject to
their jurisdiction.” The fourteenth amendment was adopted three years later and provides first
that all freed sales were citizens, which if you remember the Dred Scott decision wasn't the
case. The fourteenth amendment states “All persons born or naturalized in the United States
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein
they reside.” And as we saw in the chapter before it also prohibits the states from infringing on
rights listed in the bill of rights and also stops them from depriving any person of their junk
without due process of law. The amendment goes on to guarantee equality under the law
declaring that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws. It also added the measure of political equality with the statement that the rights of citizens
of the united states to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State
on the account of race, Color, Or previous condition of servitude. So this was the big daddy of
equality in amendments, especially for the former slaves. Though their rights were constantly
thwarted by courts and states.
However the country was fighting amongst itself about the rights of blacks in the US, for
example, Congress went to work trying to pass civil rights acts which gave the government
some authority over the treatment of blacks by state courts. This legislation was in response to
the black codes which existed to restrict the rights of blacks. Yet as you know these problems
continued for a long ass time as more and more problems erupted and states pretty much said
yeah we are racist lol. The court's decisions about the 15th amendment only provided the
grounds on which the right to vote could not be held against, and they struck down parts of the
civil rights act and such. These decisions gave states enough room to go around civil rights
laws. And one popular tool of avoiding it was poll taxes which was 1 or 2 bucks for every citizen
who wanted to vote, to whites this wasn't a problem but for blacks who were much poorer this
served as a cuck to them. Cell before the civil war even racial segregation had been a big thing.
And in 1892 there was a Plessy v Fergusson case which only drove to drive that separation
further in the US as it created the “separate but equal doctrine”
Wait what is this chapter just about the civil rights movement wtf.
Im not writing this shit dude read it, Im 2 lazy to summarize the civl rights movement.
Yeah I dont wanna write this chapter like Im sure part of it will be on it but I dont really want to
summarize a bunch of movements sorry, looks like you’ll need to read this one champ.
I was just looking at my Ap study book my fucking god you do nee to know this good luck
dumbass.
AMENDMENT SECTION/ OTHER SECTION SHIT LIKE CASES
First 10 Amendments are apart of the bill of rights - * indicates probably important
*1st Amendment - Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.
2nd Amendment - Right to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a well regulated militia.
3rd Amendment - No quartering of soldiers.
4th Amendment - Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
5th Amendment - Right to due process of law, freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy.
6th Amendment - Rights of accused persons, e.g., right to a speedy and public trial.
7th Amendment - Right of trial by jury in civil cases.
8th Amendment - Freedom from excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishments.
9th Amendment - Other rights of the people.
*10th Amendment - Powers reserved to the states not listed by the enumerated powers.
12th Amendment - Replaced old system of voting for Prez and VP to separate ballots for each
*15th Amendment - Road to citizenship shall not be denied by race, color, etc.
*19th Amendment - Women can vote
21st Amendment - Limited the amount of terms for presidency to 2
*24th Amendment - Eliminated Poll Taxes
*26th Amendment - People of the age of 18 and higher can vote and it cannot be denied
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tRLIyRVv130_epv8eAjvEhu_hhY4JcT3W4QI0R7Wz84/e
dit?usp=sharing
The 50 cases we did as a class, not all are required but they are useful.
CASES REQUIRED ( USING MICAHS STUFF LOL NO FUCKING WAY AM I WRITING MORE)
Marbury V Madison (1803)- Not gonna bother with details, it made judicial review basically (
the facts were that Marbury was one of the midnight judges who never received his commission.
He wanted court to issue a write of mandamus to make James Madison give the commission but
although they said yes what james is doing is illegal you shouldn't even be here you twat but
Marbury was like what about the Judiciary act of 1789 that conflicts with the constitution and the
supreme court said oh yeah your right also that law is unconstitutional now fuck you hence the
judicial review)
McCulloch V Maryland (1819)- The First Bank of the United States opened a Second Bank of
the United States in Maryland, Maryland tried to tax it, the head of the bank (McCulloch) refused
to pay and Maryland took it all the way up to SCOTUS which ruled that the federal government
can override the state government under the necessary and proper clause.
Shaw V Reno (1963)- After the Attorney General rejected a district plan with only one majority
black district, North Carolina sent in a second plan with two majority black districts that was
basically one thin, long road. Five North Carolinans took it to three courts in the state and then
SCOTUS ruled that they… probably shouldn’t do that and sent it to district courts, so no
gerrymandering.
US V Lopez (1995)- A twelfth grader (Lopez) brought a concealed gun into his school, he was
supposed to be tried in state court but he was then tried in a federal court due to him breaking the
Gun Free School Zones Act, and was sentenced anyways. The question was then if the GFSZA
was legal or not, and the court ruled that no, it’s not legal, because why would it have anything to
do with commerce?
Baker V Carr (1961)- Baker, a republican living in Tennessee, realized his state hadn’t redrawn
their districts since 1901 and the votes from the people that lived in low population districts were
worth more than his, so he took it to court against Carr (the Secretary of State), and SCOTUS
just said that they should probably do it and sent the case back down to lower courts. This case
basically made it so states have to make districts with even populations.
Citizens United V FEC (2010)- Citizens United wanted to release “Hilary: The Movie” shortly
before the election and wanted to withhold the BCRA (Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act) which
limits donation caps and film close to elections. The result is a bit iffy, but just know that they
overturned a previous case on this issue to say that the first amendment allows for corporations
to speak and donate money to political campaigns.
Citizens United Vs. FEC
Citizens United sought an injunction against the Federal Election Commission in the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia to prevent the application of the Bipartisan
Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) to its film Hillary: The Movie. The Movie expressed opinions
about whether Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton would make a good president.
In an attempt to regulate "big money" campaign contributions, the BCRA applies a variety of
restrictions to "electioneering communications." Section 203 of the BCRA prevents corporations
or labor unions from funding such communication from their general treasuries. Sections 201
and 311 require the disclosure of donors to such communication and a disclaimer when the
communication is not authorized by the candidate it intends to support. Citizens United argued
that: 1) Section 203 violates the First Amendment on its face and when applied to The Movie
and its related advertisements, and that 2) Sections 201 and 203 are also unconstitutional as
applied to the circumstances. The United States District Court denied the injunction. Section
203 on its face was not unconstitutional because the Supreme Court in McConnell v. FEC had
already reached that determination. The District Court also held that The Movie was the
functional equivalent of express advocacy, as it attempted to inform voters that Senator Clinton
was unfit for office, and thus Section 203 was not unconstitutionally applied. Lastly, it held that
Sections 201 and 203 were not unconstitutional as applied to The Movie or its advertisements.
The court reasoned that the McConnell decision recognized that disclosure of donors "might be
unconstitutional if it imposed an unconstitutional burden on the freedom to associate in support
of a particular cause," but those circumstances did not exist in Citizen United's claim.
Campaign Finance Events & Terms to Know
1907 -- Tillman Act
1939 -- Hatch Act
1943 -- Smith-Connally Act
1947 -- Taft-Hartley Act
1971-’74 -- FECA
1976 -- Buckley v. Valeo
2002 -- BCRA (McCain-Feingold Act)
2010 -- Citizens United v. FEC
2014 -- McCutcheon v. FEC
~“1907 when Congress passed the Tillman Act, which prohibited corporations and national banks from
contributing money to Federal campaigns.” https://transition.fec.gov/info/appfour.htm
~“The Hatch Act of 1939 and its 1940 amendments asserted the right of Congress to regulate primary
elections and included provisions limiting contributions and expenditures in Congressional elections. The
Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 barred both labor unions and corporations from making expenditures and
contributions in Federal elections.”
~“The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (P.L. 92-225), together with the 1971 Revenue Act (P.L.
92-178), initiated fundamental changes in Federal campaign finance laws. The FECA, effective April 7,
1972, not only required full reporting of campaign contributions and expenditures, but also limited
spending on media advertisements.2 (These limits were later repealed.)
The FECA also provided the basic legislative framework for separate segregated funds,3 popularly
referred to as PACs (political action committees), established by corporations and unions. Although the
Tillman Act and the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 banned direct contributions by corporations and labor unions
to influence Federal elections, the FECA provided an exception whereby corporations and unions could
use treasury funds to establish, operate and solicit voluntary contributions for the organization's separate
segregated fund (i.e., PAC). These voluntary donations could then be used to contribute to Federal
races.”
~Buckley v. Valeo -- ”The Court upheld contribution limits because they served the government's interest
in safeguarding the integrity of elections. However, the Court overturned the expenditure limits, stating: "It
is clear that a primary effect of these expenditure limitations is to restrict the quantity of campaign speech
by individuals, groups and candidates. The restrictions. . . limit political expression at the core of our
electoral process and of First Amendment freedoms." Acknowledging that both contribution and spending
limits had First Amendment implications, the Court stated that the new law's "expenditure ceiling impose
significantly more severe restrictions on protected freedom of political expression and association than do
its limitations on financial contributions." The Court implied, however, that the expenditure limits placed on
publicly funded candidates were constitutional because Presidential candidates were free to disregard the
limits if they chose to reject public financing; later, the Court affirmed this ruling in Republican National
Committee v. FEC. 445 U.S. 955 (1980).”
~BCRA -- On March 27, 2002, President Bush signed into law the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of
2002 (BCRA), Public Law No. 107-155. The BCRA contains many substantial and technical changes to
the federal campaign finance law. The Commission's implementation of BCRA included rulemakings
(listed below) on the following topics:
●
"Soft Money"— i.e., solicitation and use of nonfederal funds by parties, candidates and
officeholders
●
"Electioneering Communications" — e.g., issue ads
●
Increased and indexed contribution limits
●
Prohibited contributions — i.e., from minors (overturned) and foreign nationals
http://classic.fec.gov/pages/bcra/bcra_update.shtml
~Citizens United v. FEC -“The Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission helped unleash
unprecedented amounts of outside spending in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles. The case, along with
other legal developments, spawned the creation of super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions
from corporate and union treasuries, as well as from individuals; these groups spent more than $800
million in the 2012 election cycle. It also triggered a boom in political activity by tax-exempt "dark money"
organizations that don't have to disclose their donors. You can listen to the decision (see "Opinion
Announcement - January 21, 2010") as read by Justice Kennedy and the dissenting opinion read by
Justice Stevens. Read on to learn more about how the Supreme Court transformed the campaign finance
landscape with this decision, and how it is now affecting U.S. politics.”
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/reports/citizens_united.php
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J5Zx5YotBU&t=1s
~McCutcheon v. FEC -- In the Court’s plurality opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “The right to
participate in democracy through political contributions is protected by the First Amendment, but that right
is not absolute. Our cases have held that Congress may regulate campaign contributions to protect
against corruption or the appearance of corruption. See, e.g., Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 26-27 (1976)
(per curiam).”
Roberts went on to write, “Congress may target only a specific type of corruption—‘quid pro quo’
corruption . . . Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an
effort to control the exercise of an officeholder’s official duties, does not give rise to quid pro quo
corruption. Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner ‘influence over
or access to’ elected officials or political parties.”
As a result, the Court concluded that “the aggregate limits on contributions do not further the only
governmental interest this Court accepted as legitimate in Buckley. They instead intrude without
justification on a citizen’s ability to exercise ‘the most fundamental First Amendment activities.’”
While the Court’s decision removes the overall cap on individual contributions, it does not affect the Act’s
base limits on individual contributions to federal candidate campaigns, PACs or party committees.
Currently, individuals may contribute up to $2,600 per election to a federal candidate, $10,000 per
calendar year to a state party committee, $32,400 per calendar year to a national party committee and
$5,000 per calendar year to a PAC.
https://transition.fec.gov/law/litigation/McCutcheon.shtml