AP Free Response Analysis
Questions, Answers, & Trends
NOTICEABLE TRENDS:
1) At least one graph, chart, quote, or cartoon has shown up on 8 of the 10 AP exams I have
seen.
Yes – 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2009
No – 2005, 2007
2) Recurring topics (how many times it has appeared in some shape or form on the 10 AP
exams – year or years that it appeared)
- Congress (13)
War making powers, how limited presidential power due to War Powers
Resolution (1 – 2007)
President is Commander in Chief – in charge of the armed forces
Also proposes budget for Pentagon
Appoints heads of the federal bureaucracy (Secr of Defense)
Creates treaties
Appoints ambassadors (Ambassador Crocker in Iraq)
Congress: Senate must approve treaties with 2/3rd vote
Declare war
Control over appropriations & budget
Senate approves presidential appointments (“advice and consent
provision”)
War Powers Act gives them special powers
As related to Federal Agencies and the Bureaucracy (Iron Triangles) (1 –
2006)
Iron Triangle:
Congressional Committees
/
\
Special Interest Groups
Executive Agency
How do Congressional Committees influence Special Interest
Groups? Create laws that help or go against the policy
stances of interest groups, create laws that limit
their ability to influence Congressmen (i.e. gift
limits, campaign contributions, how quickly
members of the government can be lobbyists)
How do Congressional Committees influence Executive Agencies?
Determine their budgets (can add or get rid of programs),
create or adjust laws that provide the power to executive
agencies, re-organize the bureaucracy, approve
appointments to the heads of the agencies, have oversight
over the executive agencies
How do Interest Groups influence Congressional Committees?
Specialization – they are professional that provide
expertise and information on topics that relate to their
mission, Lobbying, Campaign contributions
How do Interest Groups influence Executive Agencies?
Specialization – they are professional that provide
expertise and information on topics that relate to their
mission, Lobbying, offer lucrative jobs for staffers to leave
after working cooperatively with them when in the
bureaucracy.
How do Executive Agencies influence Congressional Committees?
Specialization – have the experts that help create policy
and influence budgetary process, The success of an agency
is needed for the success of a Congressional Committee
(FNMA)
How do Executive Agencies influence Interest Groups?
Can create policies that directly affect the policy stances of
Interest Groups, Can limit interest groups by creating new
policies that affect how quickly members of the
bureaucracy can transition to the private sector.
As related to Federal Agencies and the Bureaucracy (Oversight) (1 – 1999)
Congress is EFFECTIVE in overseeing the Bureaucracy by:
1) General Accounting Office. The General Accounting Office is
a non-partisan staff agency that “helps Congress perform
its oversight functions by reviewing the activities of the …
[bureaucratic agencies]…by investigating the efficiency
and effectiveness of policy implementation.” (text) It also
sets standards for accounting, provides legal opinion, and
settles claims against the government. In simple terms, the
GAO reviews the costs of programs to determine if they are
exceeding what was previously budgeted by Congress and
it also determines the effectiveness of the programs. For
example, the GAO evaluated the costs and quality of the
Veteran Affairs’ (VA) disability system and it found glaring
problems in accounting and implementation of the
program.
2) Hearings. Congressional committees and their respective subcommittees hold hearings in regard to creating the budgets
for, writing laws that affect, and for overseeing the actions
of executive agencies. In each of these hearings, the
legislative entity has influence over the executive agency
and can affect changes in its operations. Specifically in
regard to oversight, the committee will bring in key
members of the agency, often times the heads of that
agency, to get greater clarity on a situation. Recently, Tim
Geitner, the Secretary of the Treasury, was called to testify
in front of the House Committee on Financial Services to
explain the actions taken by the Treasury to help rectify the
nation’s current financial crisis in April 2009.
Congress is INEFFECTIVE in overseeing the bureaucracy because:
1) Not as much publicity in oversight hearings. Frequently doesn’t
make the news (which is what politicians want to get reelected). The hearings that get the most attention are the
ones that occur after a problem has been uncovered by
someone else, typically the media. By this point in time, the
damage has already been done. Ex. House Committee on
Financial Services questioned former Secretary of the
Treasury Paulson (Bush’s Secretary) about the collapse of
the lending market and the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers.
2) Not a high priority. There is only a finite amount of time for
Congressmen to accomplish everything that they need to
do. There is less of a priority in doing oversight, instead
congressmen spend much more time campaigning, raising
money, credit claiming, working to get airtime from media
sources. Because of (1) above, it is much less of a priority
since it does not help politicians achieve the primary goal
of getting themselves re-elected.
Bi-cameral structure (2 – 2006, 2009)
Why bi-cameral? (Two houses)
Compromise at the Constitutional Convention
Ct. Compromise (a.k.a. Compromise)
Merged different ideas from the NJ & Va. Plans
NJ Plan – equal representation
Va. Plan – representation based on population
Allows for different forms of representation
House – 2 year terms, smaller districts, directly elected,
closer to the people, more democratic. (More of a
descriptive representation)
Senate – 6 year terms, entire state is the district, rotating
elections, were indirectly elected by the state
legislatures (More substantive representation)
Allows for an extra level of checks and balances (in regard to
passing legislation)
Different rules/features:
House: House Rules committee (limits debate,
amendments); sole power of Impeachment
Senate: filibuster (unlimited debate); trial during
impeachment proceedings; “advice & consent
clause” (approves treaties, appointments)
Foreign policy powers (1 – 2004)
Ratify treaties – 2/3rd majority vote by the Senate
Declare War - Congress
Approve Ambassadors - Senate
Control Foreign trade through the Commerce clause – Congress
Controls size of the military
Controls budget allocation and appropriations for war endeavors
War Powers Act
Party Leadership in Congress & Congressional Committees (2 – 2003, 2010)
Speaker of the House (only one listed in the Constitution)
Responsibilities:
1) Appoint all committee chairs
2) Decide on all committee assignments (in regard to
people)
3) Decide on the calendar (what bills get scheduled
or shelved)
Very powerful, House is more hierarchical, 3rd in line to president,
elected by the majority party members in the House.
House Majority Leader: Organizes party members, (ex. Tom DeLay –
“The Hammer”)
House Majority Whip: Round up support for bills, get party members in
line
Senate Majority Leader: same responsibilities as the Speaker
Senate Majority Whip
Committee Chairmen: Leaders of the Standing committees
Typically selected by the seniority (less so in the Senate)
They can assign bills to the committee calendar and to specific
sub-committees
Assign sub-committee chairs
They can shelve a bill
(Every committee is comprised of a majority of members from the
majority party. Also, every chair is a member of the majority
party)
As related to how influenced by Special Interest Groups (1 – 1999)
See above – Iron Triangles
Obstacles for Congress in relation to Campaign Finance Reform (1 – 2000)
Buckley v. Valeo – Supreme ruled that a part of the FECA 71/74 was
unconstitutional. Specifically, individuals can contribute as much
as they want to their own campaigns & can not set a maximum
expenditure of a campaign unless they take matching funds.
Supreme Court ruled a portion of the BCRA unconstitutional. Congress
can not prohibit minors from contributing to political campaigns.
As part of branch’s influence over fiscal policy (budget) (1 – 2000)
Fiscal policy – taxes and creating the budget
Congress and the CBO receive the president’s budgetary proposal from
the OMB. Congress ultimately all spending measures related to
the budget and extra supplementary funding.
Congress also creates taxes. All taxes start in the House.
Ways and Means Committee – creates taxes
Appropriations Committee – all spending bills go thru these committees
As part of Checks & Balances with Executive over domestic policy (1 -2008)
Congress affects Domestic policy (policy within the nation) by:
- creating and passing budget resolutions: Budget is created and
ultimately signed by the Executive branch, but Congress
and its committees are responsible for the creating the final
version of all budgetary measures, Specifically, it is the
Budget Committee and the respective standing committees
that determine the fiscal policy for the nation. Also, thanks
to the Congressional Budget and Impoundment and
Control Act of 1974, the executive branch must spend the
money allocated by the budget.
- passing laws that create, refine, or do away with programs:
Congress created programs like Medicare, Social Security,
…through the passage of legislation and the executive
branch will carry out its implementation
- Senate confirmation or rejection of cabinet secretaries:
- Congress’ Oversight of the Bureaucracy:
In regard to reapportionment, redistricting, and gerrymandering (1 – 2008)
Congressional reapportionment: The reallocation of the number of
representatives each state has in the House of Representatives. Occurs
after the census that is required to take place by the Constitution every
10 years.
Why congressional reapportionment is important to states are:
Reapportionment increases or decreases the number of seats a state has
in the House/Congress (not the Senate).
More representatives mean that a state has more influence.
Reapportionment increases or decreases a state’s number of electoral
votes.
Congressional redistricting: The drawing/redrawing of House/congressional (not
Senate) district lines. This is done by the respective state legislatures
Gerrymandering: Redistricting in order to:
Specifically benefit one particular party,
To enhance political party strength/to minimize the strength of the
opposition party.
To protect incumbents/to discourage challengers.
To increase minority representation/to decrease minority representation.
To punish foes/to reward friends.
Ex. Texas utilized the process of gerrymandering in 2003. Tom DeLay, the
Republican House Majority leader, funneled money into the state legislature
races in his home state of Texas. With this extra finances, coupled with the
ideological environment of the late 1990’s and early 2000, Republicans became
the majority in the Texas state legislature for the first time in 130 years. As a
thank you for DeLay’s assistance, the Texas Republicans in the state legislature
redrew the district lines to benefit their party. Before gerrymandering, the
Democratically controlled districts outnumbered Republican districts 17 to 15.
After the gerrymandering and the following Congressional election, the
Republican districts outnumbered the Democratically controlled districts 21 to
11.
(2002 & 2005 were the only two tests that did not have a Congressional question
on them) (In other words, 80% of the time there is at least one essay related to
Congress)
- Political Parties (12)
Fundamental goal & how work with interest groups (1 – 2006)
Goal: To get their members elected to government positions
Interest groups assist political parties by:
Providing Monetary contributions or PAC donations
Organization or mobilization of people (GOTV)
Media Campaigns
Endorsement or recruitment of candidates
Provide expertise
Electioneering communication through 527 or 501(c)4 groups
(527 Committees – independent groups that attempt to influence an
election, but money for these groups must be disclosed although
contributions have no limits)
(501 (c) 4 groups are interest groups that also attempt to influence
the political process, but donations to these groups are not
required to be disclosed – the NRA, AARP, and MoveOn.org all
501 (c) 4 groups)
Third Parties, obstacles to victory, contributions (1 – 2004)
How affected as a result of divided government, decline in trust and confidence in
government (1 – 2004)
As a method of political participation (1 – 2003)
As a linkage institution, ways political parties connect citizens to the government
(1 – 2010)
Provides cues to voters
In closed primary systems, registration provides ability to vote in primary
Provides access to like-minded people (share information, access to
politicians that are similar to constituent)
As part of a question on how the majority party in each chamber of Congress
affects the leadership and legislative process (1 – 2003, 1 - 2010)
As part of question on Divided government (1 -2002)
How they helped and hindered minorities in achieving their political goals (1 –
2002)
As part of its influence on gerrymandering (1 – 2008)
As part of Supreme Court nominees’ previous experience (1 – 2000)
Regions they are dominant and why (1 – 2000)
(Appears on 70% of the tests, but mostly as part of a free response, NOT as an
entire question.) (40% of tests had 2 questions related to it.)
- knowledge of Specific Legislation (12)
War Powers Resolution (1 -2007)
Expands power of the Legislative Branch
Occurs during time of Watergate
President must notify Congress within 48 hours of sending troops into a
warzone.
Within 60 days, president must get permission from Congress or a
declaration of war from Congress to allow troops to stay
Invoked in the multinational forces in Lebanon in the early 1980’s & in
November 1993, the Congress used its power to withdraw US
troops from Somalia.
President George W. Bush asked for Congress to authorize military
action in Iraq as a tool to negotiate Saddam Hussein. Congress
did NOT want military action, but gave permission to the president
as a last resource. This satisfied the requirements of the War
Powers Resolution.
Campaign Finance Reform Acts (1971/74 FECA & 2002 BCRA) (1 – 2005)
FECA 1971/74
Limits the possibility of corruption in raising money for campaigns
& increases transparency.
Created matching funding for primaries & general election\
Hard money maximum of $1000
Creates FEC – bi-partisan group to oversee & enforce
implementation of FECA
Hard money maximum applies to individuals contributing to own
campaign (Buckley v. Valeo rules this unconstitutional)
Limits amount spent by a campaign (Buckley v. Valeo rules this
unconstitutional. Only constitutional if accepted federal
funding.)
Outlaws campaign contributions from businesses and unions
FECA laws lead to the creations of:
PAC’s
Soft Money – money for party building activities
BCRA (McCain-Feingold bill) of 2002
Outlaws Soft Money in federal elections
Raises hard money contributions to $2000 per person per election,
increasing $100 every other year. $5000 for PACS
Outlaws donations by minors (found unconstitutional)
Electioneering communication – money spent/advertising spent to
help one candidate or to hurt another without official
permission of the campaign.
As part of First Amendment question, need to know laws that were parts of
each case (1 – 2007)
Establishment clause: NYS’ creation of a non-denominational prayer
Freedom of speech/press: Shield laws – reporters do not have to reveal
their sources.
Freedom of religion – free exercise clause: Florida law that outlawed
animal sacrifice was deemed unconstitutional because it targeted
Santeria. Oregon law that outlawed peyote was constitutional
because it did not specifically target tribal religions.
As part of Federalism, how used to increase state power (Welfare Reform
Act of 1996) (1 – 2007)
Commerce Clause: federal government regulates interstate commerce.
Civil Rights Act of 1964: utilized commerce clause to protect
people based upon race, sex, ethnicity, national origin and
religion in terms of hiring & firing
Americans with Disabilities with Act: Congress forced businesses
to change their structures (wheel chair ramps, handicap
bathrooms). This is an unfunded mandate.
Welfare Reform Act of 1996: Passed by the Conservative Republicans in
Congress under the leadership of Newt Gingrich and signed by Bill
Clinton. Required strong work requirements of welfare recipients,
limited the amount of time that states could keep individuals on
welfare rolls. Allowed states to create their own programs to
attain the requirements & benchmarks established by the federal
government.
As part of Federalism, how used to expand federal power (Americans with
Disabilities Act, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Clean Air Act) (1 – 2005)
Americans with Disabilities Act: Unfunded mandate. Commerce clause
used to require the businesses of a state to comply with this federal
legislation. Required, a company with more than 20 people must
have handicap entrance and accessibility (ramps, elevators in
multi-story businesses, handicap bathrooms). Sidewalks must also
have handicap ramps.
Civil Rights Act of 1964: Commerce clause used to enforce. Outlaws
literacy test in federal elections; segregation in public places; the
discrimination of race, sex, religion, national origin, and ethnic
background in employment hiring & firing. Also, provision that
required integration of public schools or it would result in a loss of
federal funding.
Clean Air Act of 1990: George H. W. Bush, standing in front of Grand
Tetons – example of a media event. Unfunded mandate.
Established national air quality standards, but required the states
to administer them and appropriate funds. This re-newed and
strengthened the 1970 Clean Air Act.
As part of Selective Incorporation question, need to know state laws that
were part of each case (1 – 2005)
Selective Incorporation: Applying the Bill of Rights to the states after
Gitlow v. NY in 1925 utilizing the 14th Amendment’s due process
clause.
As part of federal mandates (2 – 2007, 2003)
Medicare:
Cross – cutting mandates: ex. Raising of drinking age to 21 otherwise
states lost transportation funding. (Money is tied to categorical
grants)
As part of Federalism question, helping and hindering minorities (1 – 2002)
Voting Rights Act of 1965: Main purpose was to increase voting of blacks.
Outlaw literacy tests in state election. The Justice Dept was
allowed to utilize federal Marshalls to implement. Public servants
were commissioned to register black voters. States that had
historically disenfranchised minorities could not change their
election laws without oversight from the federal government (ex.
Georgia Voter ID, Texas’ redistricting)
As part of Civil Rights question, state voting restrictions (1 - 2008)
Poll taxes:
Literacy Tests:
Grandfather Clauses:
White primaries:
As part of Expansion of Voting Rights (1 – 2010)
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (ends literacy tests in federal elections)
Voting Rights Act of 1965
As part of Federalism question, environmental policy, gun control, disability
access (1 – 2000)
Gun control is a reserved state power, but the federal government has
often created federal regulations of their own. Ex. The Brady Bills
– required a 5 day waiting period before buying a gun. Ex. The
Assault Weapons Ban – banned automatic weapons.
(Heavy emphasis on 1/3rd of AP tests, but need to know specifics as part of
questions on at least 66% of the AP tests, with many occurrences on some exams,
like 2007)
(Simply, you need to know examples of key legislation to
support other concepts that make connections to other aspects of this course.)
- Executive Branch (9)
Electoral College (1 – 2007)
Required in the Constitution
Winner take all for all states except Maine and Nebraska
(Plurality vote in states)
Helps major parties and small states
Hurts 3rd Parties – nothing for less than first place (Except above)
Focus on large, swing states (ex. Florida, Ohio, Missouri)
Need majority vote to determine the ultimate winner, (270 or above)
If no majority, House decides – 1 vote per state (choose between top 3
vote getters)
Distorts popular votes
Problem, popular vote winner doesn’t always win (Gore in 2000)
Electoral college votes = # in House + # in Senate
Executive Power – war making limited by War Powers Resolution (1 – 2007)
See Specific Legislation
Foreign Policy powers (formal & informal) (1 – 2004)
Formal:
Chief Diplomat – meet foreign leaders, treaties, appoint
diplomats
Commander in Chief
Proposing foreign aid for other countries (ex. Israel,
Pakistan)
Informal:
Executive Agreement
Crisis Manager
Presidential approval ratings (1 – 2003)
Typically, highest at the beginning of a presidency (Honeymoon period) –
electorate is willing to give new president the benefit of the doubt
on his policies, greater sense of hope. (i.e. Bill Clinton, Obama)
Also high during times of crisis (crisis manager) – After Sept 11th for
George W., after Persian Gulf War for George H.W.
Lowest during economic down turns (i.e. Hoover going into 1932 election)
Lowest when poorly handling a crisis (i.e. Hoover with Bonus Army, Bush
handling Hurricane Katrina)
Presidential election turnout rates (1 – 2002)
(1896 – greater than 80%, 1996 – less than 50%)
Presidential election turnouts are Higher than Congressional Midterm
elections
Campaigns have Get Out the Vote programs
Phone banks (Unions – like the Teamsters or the Teacher’s Unions
will make phone calls to registered Democrats and
members of their union to encourage them to go vote).
Now have “Robocalls”, computer calls targeted people.
Bus services (Organize free bus service from specific communities
like elderly communities to get them to the polls)
During primaries/caucuses, also might shovel walkways (i.e.
Hillary Clinton had several thousand volunteers prepared
to shovel in Iowa before the 2004 caucus)
Canvassing – volunteers will go door to door to explain the
positive attributes of their candidates and remind people to
vote.
Text Message – first utilized by Obama to announce his VP choise,
then used to remind people to go out and vote (emails from
the campaign and messages through Face Book and
MySpace also did the same thing)
Before 2004, turnout had been on the general decline – 1996 worst year.
Why? Era of Divided Government, Distrust of government
(Watergate & Vietnam), less people following the news, more
pessimistic – vote doesn’t matter.
2008 election – Greater than 60% turnout, a lot of newly registered &
young voters, high turnout of black voters (group consciousness –
think Colin Powell endorsing Obama)
Presidential election and its coverage (1 – 1999)
Presidential election voting patterns – regions dominated by one party (1 – 2000)
Democrats – not including 2008, solid Democrat region is the North East
(every member of the House from New England is a Democrat in
2009)
Why? Large # of urban areas with higher concentration of
minority voters, especially blacks. Blacks vote for
Democrats more than 90% of the time. (Didn’t finish yet)
Presidential control over fiscal policy (budget) (1 – 2008)
Appoints the head of the OMB
Directs OMB to create a budget proposal
Signs final budget passed by congress/making it to law
Use bully pulpit to gain support, influences congressmen to follow the
direction of a popular president
Checks & Balances with Congress over Domestic policy (1 – 2008)
President affects domestic policy
Appoints heads of bureaucracy (example: head of EPA)
Uses his bully pulpit to gain public support
Sets agenda by creating a budget (i.e. Obama wanted to reduce the
United States’ reliance upon foreign oil by developing
alternative energies so he allocated more than $100 billion
toward this in his budget over a period of years)
Legislative powers (example: proposes legislation, has veto
powers, and signs bills into laws)
Provides the State of the Union Address (required by the
Constitution)
(2005, 2006, & 2010 were the only 3 tests that did not have an Executive question
on them) (In other words, 70% of the time there is at least one essay related to
the presidency)
- Federalism (7)
Examples of how state power has increased (Welfare Reform Act, block grants,
Tenth Amendments) vs. how federal power has increased (due to
categorical grants, federal mandates, selective incorporation) (1 – 2007)
Welfare Reform Act 1996 - See specific legislation above
Grants provided from the federal government to the states as part of fiscal
and cooperative federalism
10th amendment reserves power to the states (examples: marriage laws,
gun laws, intrastate comers, education)
Categorical grants: grants from the federal government with
specific requirements (ex. Money for highway development)
Federal Mandates: mandates can but do not have to be tied to categorical
grants. They are requirements placed upon the states by the
federal government (example: Cross cutting, unfunded mandates)
Selective Incorporation makes the states follow the same rules the federal
government must follow (Example: The exclusionary rule, Mapp vs
Ohio.)
Expansion of federal power (tax and spend, elastic clause, commerce clause)
(Americans with Disabilities Act, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Clean Air
Act) (1 – 2005)
Related to the Bureaucracy (block grants, federal mandates) (1 – 2003)
Define, Describe feature, Example of how helped & hindered minorities (1 –
2002)
State voting restrictions (1 – 2008)
Compare Articles and Constitution & modern tensions (1 – 2000)
Articles: States have the most power, Federal govt is limited (only
legislative branch, fed could not raise taxes, cannot tell states what
to do, cannot regulate trade, cannot coin money)
Constitution: corrects these weaknesses
Modern Federalism tensions: Examples: Gun control laws, Gay marriage,
abortion, death penalty)
As a way that Madison limits the power of factions (Federalist Paper No. 10)
(1 – 2010)
(70% of the time there is at least one essay related to Federalism)
- Checks and Balances (8)
Congress v. President over Domestic policy (1 – 2008)
Congress v. President over Fiscal/Budgetary policy (1 -2008)
Congress v. President over War Powers Resolution (1 -2007)
Inside of Congress (Bi-cameralism) (1 -2006, 1 -2010)
purposely slows down legislative process
Congress v President over Foreign Policy (1 – 2004)
Congress v. President over Judicial Appointments during Era of Divided
Government (1 – 2002)
As part of the Madisonian Model, written about in Federalist Paper No. 10
Limits the power of factions over our government
(Appears on HALF the AP exams)
- Interest Groups (5)
Fundamental goal & how work with political parties (1 – 2006)
Fundamental Goal: to get their policy positions made into policy
How they work with political parties:
Campaign contributions
Lobbying
Providing expertise on policy issues
Techniques used to achieve goals (litigation, campaign contributions, grassroots
lobbying/mass mobilization) & specific methods of groups and why
(AMA, NRA, NAACP, Sierra Club) (1 – 2004)
Litigation: bringing lawsuits. Ex. NAACP with NAACP v.
Alabama. Acting as a counsel in other cases – Thurgood
Marshall was chief counsel that helped defend the rights of
Linda Brown in Brown v. Board of Educ. The NAACP also
files amicus curiae briefs in many other cases – ex. Univ of
Ca. v. Bakke
Campaign Contributions: Interest groups provide hard money
directly to candidates and to the parties at all levels, and
soft money to the state parties. They provide money to
politicians that represent their views to assist them in
getting them elected or re-elected. They heavily contribute
to members on committees and sub-committees, and
especially the chairmen, that have authority over their
policy issues. Ex. NRA, business interests (Ex. FNMA/AIG
donated heavily to Senator Christopher Dodd who is the
Chairmen of the Senate Finance Committee.)
As a method of political participation (1 – 2003)
What national policy makers they influence & how (1 – 1999)
(Appears on 40% of the AP exams)
- Supreme Court cases (4)
First Amendment cases related to religion clauses (1 – 2007)
All of the following cases expanded First Amendment rights:
Engel v. Vitale (1962):
In 1961 the Board of Regents of New York recommended a
nondenominational prayer be recited each day voluntarily
in school. The New Hyde Park Board of Education
demanded the prayer be said out loud daily in front of a
teacher. Ten students’ parents stated this violated the
separation of church and state under the First Amendment.
The issue was whether or not the two boards of educations
were in violation of the First Amendment’s prohibition of
laws involving the establishment of religion. The Supreme
Court ruled to get rid of the Regent’s prayer. The formation
of a prayer and the distribution throughout an institution of
the state violated the establishment clause of the First
Amendment that was applied to the states through the due
process clause of the 14th Amendment. (Earl Warren case)
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969):
In 1965 John and Marybeth Tinker wanted to wear black
armbands in protest to the Vietnam War. The school
officials became aware of their intentions and adopted a
regulation against wearing armbands, and if one wore an
armband they would be suspended until they returned to
school without the armbands. The Tinkers wore the
armbands anyway, and were punished accordingly. The
Tinkers claimed this violated their First Amendment right
of freedom of speech. The Court decided that students did
have a right to wear the armbands. They believed that
wearing the armbands was signified a student’s right to
free, silent, and symbolic protest protected under the First
Amendment. Students can express their opinions and views
in school as long as it does not disrupt the classroom.
“Schools are not enclaves of totalitarianism.” “Students
and teachers do not shed their rights at the schoolhouse
gate.” The 14th Amendment’s due process clause applied
these protections against the states. (Earl Warren case)
NY Times v. US (1971):
Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, ordered a topsecret paper be written to discuss the United States role in
Vietnam. This document became known as “The Pentagon
Papers.” In 1971, after the United States has been in war
with North Vietnam for six years, the New York Times
acquired the classified paper. They immediately began
publishing their findings beginning on June 13th, 1971. The
Times got an order to discontinue publication from a
District Court Judge that the Government requested,
believing the publication would wound the United Sates’
defense interests. Eventually the Times and Government
appealed to the Supreme Court. The issue was whether or
not there was enough justification to restrain the New York
Times publication, and attacking the newspaper’s First
Amendment right of freedom of the press. During the 20th
century several cases have created precedents creating
exceptions to the freedom of press. In Dennis v. the United
States the wording was altered so that any message
published that may cause a “grave and irreparable”
danger to America then the restraint would be acceptable.
Nonetheless, the Supreme Court upheld that both the
Washington Post and the New York Times had the right to
publish the classified material. Prior restraint is normally
not allowed. (Near v Minnesota established the limited
prior restraint precedent)
Texas v. Johnson (1989): During a protest, Greg Lee Johnson
burned an American flag. He was charged with vandalizing
a respected object. The Supreme Court found that the First
Amendment protected a person’s right to burn the
American flag because it is symbolic speech.
NAACP v. Alabama (1958): This Supreme Court case occurred
when Alabama’s Attorney General brought a case against
the NAACP for conducting business without qualifying with
the state, which went against the state statute. The state
subpoenaed information from the NAACP which included a
list of its members. The NAACP refused to give its records
to the state. The Court found that the First Amendment
protected the NAACP from having to hand over its
membership lists. (Freedom of assembly)
Supporting selective incorporation (2 – 2007 & 2005)
See Selective Incorporation below
Buckley v Valeo (1 – 2000)
Opponents of the 1971/74 Federal Election Campaign Act sought to
repeal its restrictions through the courts. The Supreme Court
ultimately ruled that two provisions of the FECA were
unconstitutional. Specifically, the limiting of how much
individuals could give to their own campaigns was deemed a
violation of the First Amendment’s Freedom of Expression. In
addition, the FECA had attempted to limit the maximum amount
that a campaign could spend, but again, this was deemed a
violation of the freedom of expression. The only way that the
federal government CAN limit the maximum amount spent by a
campaign is if the candidate accepts matching federal funds.
- Entitlement Programs & Mandatory Spending (4)
Social Security, demographic trends, raising age of eligibility (1 – 2006)
Social Security: Created by FDR, a New Deal program
Provides money to the elderly, sick, those that lost parents
Paid for by a dedicated payroll tax (employee pays 6.2% of his
income and employer pays the same 6.2%. Money goes
into the Social Security Trust Fund)
What is wrong with Social Security?
It is going to go bankrupt in the next 20 years unless
something changes
Why?
Fiscal Mismanagement. Congress has covered many of its
budgetary shortfalls by borrowing from the Trust
Fund over the last couple of decades with the
promise of paying it back, which it hasn’t.
Retirement of the Baby Boomers. The babies that were
born after WWII are now beginning to retire. This
increase in births was a big bubble and it will now
place a large strain on the system that the Boomers
have paid into their entire lives.
Elderly are living longer. Now add in the fact that the life
expectancy of Americans has increased
tremendously since the program was first created,
Americans are taking out of the system for many
more years than it was designed to accommodate.
How can Social Security be saved?
Since it is mandatory spending, meaning required by law,
this entitlement program will have to have its laws
written in a way to increase the contribution
amounts by individuals and/or employers, decrease
the pay outs, and/or increase the age when an
individual can start taking money from the system.
All of these answers are political poison because no
one wants to pay more and get less. Something will
have to get done, though, because retired
Americans are the most likely to vote and they are
supported by a very strong special interest group,
AARP. (FYI, as a candidate for the Democratic
nomination for president in 2008, Hillary Clinton
proposed the creation of a bi-partisan commission
to find the solutions to fix Social Security)
Distribution of benefits (elderly versus children) (1 - 2002)
Budgetary & non-budgetary barriers to creating more (1 – 1999)
President’s ability to influence domestic policy making in Congress (1 – 2008)
- Amendments (4)
First Amendment – religion clauses & Supreme Court cases (1 – 2007)
Establishment clause:
The Establishment Clause in the First Amendment states that
Congress can not make a law involving the establishment of
religion. Thomas Jefferson referred to this as a “Wall of
Separation” that had to exist between church and state.
Engel v. Vitale (1962):
In 1961 the Board of Regents of New York recommended a
nondenominational prayer be recited each day voluntarily
in school. The New Hyde Park Board of Education
demanded the prayer be said out loud daily in front of a
teacher. Ten students’ parents stated this violated the
separation of church and state under the First Amendment.
The issue was whether or not the two boards of educations
were in violation of the First Amendment’s prohibition of
laws involving the establishment of religion. The Supreme
Court ruled to get rid of the Regent’s prayer. The formation
of a prayer and the distribution throughout an institution of
the state violated the establishment clause of the First
Amendment that was applied to the states through the due
process clause of the 14th Amendment. (Earl Warren case)
Free Exercise clause:
The Free Exercise in the First Amendment states that Congress
cannot prohibit the exercise of a religion, or the belief in a
particular religion. Together with the Establishment Clause, these
two clauses make up the freedom of religion aspects of the First
Amendment.
Employment Division v. Smith (1990): (peyote case) Supreme
Court Case found that an employer could fire an employee
for using peyote, an illegal substance, regardless of the fact
that it was used in a religious ritual. Two men, Alfred Smith
and Galen Black, had been fired from a drug rehabilitation
clinic for consuming the substance and denied
unemployment benefits. They were living and working in
Oregon, a state where possession of peyote is illegal. The
state’s ban on peyote was not targeted toward a certain
religious group, so the Oregon law did NOT violate the
First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. (The case that
dealt with Santeria in Florida had the opposite decision
because the law that had outlawed animal sacrifice was
targeted at the Santeria practice; therefore, it violated the
free exercise clause.)
As part of selective incorporation – any First Amendment rights (1 – 2005)
See Selective Incorporation below
As part of Federalism – how used to expand state powers (Tenth Amendment) &
expand federal powers 14th due process clause (1 – 2007)
See Federalism above
Changes in voting (expansion of democracy) (1- 2010)
15th Amendment, 17th Amendment, 19th Amendment, 23rd Amendment,
24th Amendment
- Political Participation (4)
Two forms other than voting, advantages of each (1 – 2003)
1) Conventional Participation - voting; petition; political party affiliation;
running for office or assisting someone else; discussing issue /
persuading others to think a certain way; donating to parties,
lobbyists, candidates; canvassing
2) Unconventional Participation - violence /assassination; protest; civil
disobedience
Voter participation, why decline, why more during presidential election year
(1 – 2002)
Elderly vote most often
Younger vote the least
Group consciousness of blacks leads them to vote more than whites
(assuming all else is equal, which in reality it is not)
Other factors that increase an individual’s likelihood to vote:
Higher economic status
More education completed
Owning a home
Living longer in a community
More religious affiliation
Those that follow current events
During primaries, the extremes within the party are more likely to vote
(conservatives in Republican primary, liberals in Democratic)
Why decrease in voter turnout? (1896 – greater than 80%, 1996 – less
than 50%)
Disinterested young
Less interested in current events
Too many media sources now (inundated by other media)
Distrust of the Government
Era of Divided Government since 1968
Watergate
Vietnam
Complex Registration
Lack of strength of party system
- must know each candidate’s viewpoint, not just one
unified party (i.e. England)
Less of a difference between parties
- inability to create viable third parties
- less differences between parties than in Europe, Latin
America
Why higher turnout in presidential elections than any other?
Huge media attention focused on presidential primaries
Easier to know & identify candidates in presidential elections than
in Congressional elections
Greater importance of the position, more at stake
Differences between older & younger voter turnout (1 – 2010)
Government requirements that decrease voter turnout (1 – 2010)
prior registration, citizenship, disenfranchisement due to incarceration
- Divided Government (3)
Affect upon trust and confidence in government (1 – 2004)
Definition of Divided Government: Current Political Era that began in
1968 and is characterized by one party controlling the executive
branch and another controlling the legislative branch. Although
the Republicans have largely controlled the executive branch and
the Democrats have controlled the legislative branch, it has flipped
at different points in time.
Divided Government leads to:
Increased partisanship (more votes along party lines),
Decline of the middle (moderates) / more divisiveness
Frustration with the governmental process
Gridlock
Confirmation slowed, delayed, blocked
How Divided Government has influenced political behavior:
Decreased voting
Ticket splitting/less loyalty to a specific party
Growth of Third Parties
Increased rate of registration as Independents/decreased
registration for the two major parties
Increased rate of non-conventional participation
Problems for presidential appointments (1 – 2002)
Harder to get appointments approved since opposing party has majority in
Congress. Therefore, president must do the following:
Appoint moderates, NOT appoint ideologues
Consult with the Congressional leadership to get their
opinions/input on appointments
Compromise with opposition
Use the executive branch’s Congressional Liaison Office to lobby
senators to support the appointments.
Logrolling – support my appointment and we will promise you
something in return (A little different, but in order to get his
stimulus bill passed, Obama needed some Republican
senators to support the bill. Republican Arlen Spector of
Pennsylvania voted in favor of the stimulus bill after
Obama promised to add more than $10 million to the
budget of the National Institute of Health for cancer
research.
Part of question as a cause of lower voter turnout (1 -2002)
Era of Divided Government began in the wake of Vietnam and was
heightened after Watergate. The distrust created by these two
events let to de-alignment, lower voter turn out, & ticket splitting.
The results of the Era of Divided Government like gridlock,
increased use of the veto, the increased partisanship, the
expanding division between liberals from the Democrats and the
religious right that strongly influences the Republicans all
reinforce the public’s dismay
- Bureaucracy (3)
Relationship between Federal agencies and Congress (1 – 2006)
See Congress above
How affected by Federalism, especially block grants, federal mandates) (1 –
2003) See Federalism above
Congressional oversight – effective or not (1 – 1999)
See Congress above
- Judicial Branch (3)
Supreme Court related to public opinion – insulated from it but doesn’t deviate
too far from it (1 – 2005)
How insulated from public opinion:
- appointed or not elected
- serve life terms
- court’s ability to control its own agenda, to set its own docket (to
call up the cases that they want to rule upon – Rule of 4,
writ of certiorari
- salaries cannot be reduced
- limited access to court proceedings
Why judges can not deviate too far from public opinion:
- appointment and confirmation process (especially during this Era
of Divided Government)
- reliance upon public officials to carry on decisions
- Supreme Court decisions can be changed with the addition of
new judges and/or the creation of new amendments (i.e.
Federal Income Taxes were first ruled unconstitutional so
the 16th amendment was proposed)
- impeachment
- concern for reputation
- Congress can change the number of changes and/or pass a law
or a series of laws that would affect the federal court
structure (remember, the Judiciary Act of 1789 created the
federal court system)
As part of question dealing with presidential appointments (1 – 2002)
See above
Characteristics of Supreme Court nominees (1 – 2000)
Characteristics of nominees that need to be considered:
Competence/qualifications/ judicial experience: George W.
Bush’s first nominee, Harriet Meiers, was hated by both
conservatives and liberals because she lacked the
experience of being a judge. Also, because of this, she
lacked a track record; therefore, it was impossible to know
how she would rule on important cases.
Gender: To create better balance and diversity on the court,
presidents consider gender. Ronald Reagan appointed the
first woman to the court, Sandra Day O’Connor, in an
effort to gain the support of women for his policy
initiatives. Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg to
expand the number of women represented on the court.
Ideology / Issue orientation (litmus test): Senators like to know the
ideology and track record of nominees. They will ask
during the nomination hearings about why judges had
ruled the way they did in the past and how they would rule
in controversial cases, like on abortion, in the future.
Presidents like to nominate judges that reflect the same
ideology and interpretation (strict or loose) as they do so
that they will get a justice that for a conservative president
like George W. Bush would want a justice that believes in
judicial restraint and not one like Earl Warren who was an
activist judge.
Partisan identification: most nominees have been very involved
with their respective political parties. They have held party
positions, positions within previous administration. Ex.
Reagan’s nominee, Robert Bork, was a member of Richard
Nixon.
Race/Ethnicity: same as for gender. Example: Thurgood Marshall
was the first African American appointed to the court.
When Marshall retired from the Court in 1991, George
H.W. Bush was compelled to appoint another African
American so he nominated Clarence Thomas.
Role (activist vs. restraint)(a.k.a. Constitutional Interpretation OR
Judicial Philosophy: very similar to ideology above.
Judicial restraint means that a judge will base most of his
decisions on precedents. He/she will strictly interpreted
the Constitution. This is a more conservative judge. Ex.
John Roberts, Berger, Rehnquist, Samuel Alito, Clarence
Thomas.
Judicial Activism means that the judge will not be
constrained by precedents. He/she will broadly(loosely)
interpret the Constitution and will “legislate from the
bench” by creating new policies through his her decisions
(i.e. Miranda Rights, integration of public schools). Earl
Warren is the best example.
How can special interest groups influence the judicial branch (1 – 2000)
Influencing the Court:
Amicus Curiae briefs (NAACP wrote one in the Univ of Ca v.
Bakke case and the cases that concerned the effect of
Affirmative Action on the admission policies at the
University of Michigan Undergrad and Law schools.
Filing a lawsuit: the Sierra Club has sued individual corporations
and different levels of government in order to get
environmental policies enforced. NAACP v Alabama – the
NAACP sued the stated to protect its freedom of assembly.
Providing defense for an individual or group that has filed a
lawsuit: The NAACP and its Legal Defense team, led by
Thurgood Marshall assisted in numerous civil rights cases,
including Brown v. Board of Educ.
Influencing the nomination process:
Advertisement (any media), Campaign contributions to White
House or Senate, Mailings/e-mail, Op/ed pieces, Press
conferences, Protests/demonstrations, Talk shows (TV and radio),
Testifying after nomination, Writing to interest group members,
Lobbying EITHER White House staff/President OR lobbying the
judicial committee (NOT lobbying Congress in general; can say
“lobbying Senate;” can say “lobbying White House to influence
the President’s selection”), “Use of media” (does not count with
another form of media as second point)
- Selective Incorporation (2)
Define, examples that expand rights of the criminal defendants, First Amendment,
privacy rights
Selective Incorporation: the process of applying the protections
guaranteed by Bill of Rights to the state on a case by case basis
after the decision to Gitlow v NY in 1925 stated that the 14th
Amendment’s Due Process clause could do this.
All of the following cases expanded the rights of criminal defendants:
Mapp v Ohio: 4th Amendment – Freedom from unreasonable
searches and seizures, applies the exclusionary rule to
illegal searches made by state or local law enforcement
personnel.
Gideon v Wainwright: 6th Amendment – Right to counsel. States
must now provide legal counsel in all cases if the defendant
cannot afford one. (Florida just provided counsel when
needed for capital offenses). Why? Proper legal defense is
crucial in order to have a fair trial.
Miranda v Arizona: 5th and 6th Amendments – Freedom from selfincrimination (right to remain silent) and right to an
attorney. Excellent example of Earl Warren being an
activist judge and creating policy through his decisions
(now all law enforcement personnel must read a suspect
his/her Miranda Rights when he/she is suspected of a
crime.
All of the following cases expanded First Amendment rights:
Engel v. Vitale (1962):
In 1961 the Board of Regents of New York recommended a
nondenominational prayer be recited each day voluntarily
in school. The New Hyde Park Board of Education
demanded the prayer be said out loud daily in front of a
teacher. Ten students’ parents stated this violated the
separation of church and state under the First Amendment.
The issue was whether or not the two boards of educations
were in violation of the First Amendment’s prohibition of
laws involving the establishment of religion. The Supreme
Court ruled to get rid of the Regent’s prayer. The formation
of a prayer and the distribution throughout an institution of
the state violated the establishment clause of the First
Amendment that was applied to the states through the due
process clause of the 14th Amendment. (Earl Warren case)
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969):
In 1965 John and Marybeth Tinker wanted to wear black
armbands in protest to the Vietnam War. The school
officials became aware of their intentions and adopted a
regulation against wearing armbands, and if one wore an
armband they would be suspended until they returned to
school without the armbands. The Tinkers wore the
armbands anyway, and were punished accordingly. The
Tinkers claimed this violated their First Amendment right
of freedom of speech. The Court decided that students did
have a right to wear the armbands. They believed that
wearing the armbands was signified a student’s right to
free, silent, and symbolic protest protected under the First
Amendment. Students can express their opinions and views
in school as long as it does not disrupt the classroom.
“Schools are not enclaves of totalitarianism.” “Students
and teachers do not shed their rights at the schoolhouse
gate.” The 14th Amendment’s due process clause applied
these protections against the states. (Earl Warren case)
NY Times v. US (1971):
Secretary of Defense, Robert McNamara, ordered a topsecret paper be written to discuss the United States role in
Vietnam. This document became known as “The Pentagon
Papers.” In 1971, after the United States has been in war
with North Vietnam for six years, the New York Times
acquired the classified paper. They immediately began
publishing their findings beginning on June 13th, 1971. The
Times got an order to discontinue publication from a
District Court Judge that the Government requested,
believing the publication would wound the United Sates’
defense interests. Eventually the Times and Government
appealed to the Supreme Court. The issue was whether or
not there was enough justification to restrain the New York
Times publication, and attacking the newspaper’s First
Amendment right of freedom of the press. During the 20th
century several cases have created precedents creating
exceptions to the freedom of press. In Dennis v. the United
States the wording was altered so that any message
published that may cause a “grave and irreparable”
danger to America then the restraint would be acceptable.
Nonetheless, the Supreme Court upheld that both the
Washington Post and the New York Times had the right to
publish the classified material. Prior restraint is normally
not allowed. (Near v Minnesota established the limited
prior restraint precedent)
Texas v. Johnson (1989): During a protest, Greg Lee Johnson
burned an American flag. He was charged with vandalizing
a respected object. The Supreme Court found that the First
Amendment protected a person’s right to burn the
American flag because it is symbolic speech.
NAACP v. Alabama (1958): This Supreme Court case occurred
when Alabama’s Attorney General brought a case against
the NAACP for conducting business without qualifying with
the state, which went against the state statute. The state
subpoenaed information from the NAACP which included a
list of its members. The NAACP refused to give its records
to the state. The Court found that the First Amendment
protected the NAACP from having to hand over its
membership lists. (Freedom of assembly)
All of the following cases expanded privacy rights:
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965): A Connecticut statue of 1879
made it a crime for any person to use any drug, article, or
instrument to prevent conception. Suit was initiated by two
members of the Planned Parenthood League of
Connecticut. The executive director and medical director
had been convicted of violating the statute by giving
information, instruction, and medical advice to married
persons regarding means of preventing conception. The
conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Errors of
Connecticut. Although nowhere in the constitution does it
say people are guaranteed a right to privacy, the Supreme
Court decided the Bill of Rights cast an implied right to
privacy, and therefore includes a right to family planning
between a husband and a wife. (Establishes a Right to
Privacy)
Roe v. Wade (1973): (a right to privacy)
A woman from Texas attempted to end her pregnancy;
however, a Texas law made abortion a crime unless the
woman’s life would be endangered if her pregnancy
endured. Ms. Roe challenged the Texas law on the grounds
that the law violated her right of personal liberty from the
Fourteenth Amendment and her right to privacy protected
by Ninth Amendment. The issue is whether or not state law
which bans or regulates abortion violates a woman’s right
to privacy or personal choice in regards to family or
marital decisions. The Supreme Court decided that states
could regulate abortions only in certain circumstances, but
otherwise women had a right to privacy and reproductive
autonomy as guaranteed by the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th
Amendments. The Court divided a woman’s pregnancy into
three trimesters, and in the first trimester states cannot
interfere with a woman’s decision for abortion. In the
second trimester states can regulate abortion only if the
regulation was related to the woman’s health, and in the
third trimester states can regulate and ban abortions. Once
the fetus, in the third trimester, becomes “viable” the child
is given constitutional rights and thus states can ban
abortion.
- Linkage Institutions (2)
Voting (how affected by age & education) (1 – 2010)
See above – Political Participation
Examples of other linkage institutions (ways to link people to the government)
(1 – 2010)
Media, Political Parties, membership in an interest group
- Budget & Fiscal Policy (2)
Executive and Legislative influence over it (1 – 2008)
See Congress and Executive Branch above
Barriers to creating new spending (1 – 1999)
Justifying the cost of the program
Getting the Executive and Legislative leaders to place the initiative on the
policy agenda by getting it included into the budget.
“Pay as you go” – now required by law as of the 2009 budget. (Used to be
a rule.) Obama and the Congressional Democrats are requiring
that for all new spending, there must be new revenue or cuts equal
to the new spending.
Getting a law passed that creates & authorizes a new program.
- Campaign Finance Reform (2)
Need to know components of FECA of 1971/74 and 2002 BCRA (1 – 2005)
- see above under Specific Legislation
Obstacles for Congress in relation to campaign finance reform (1 – 2000)
- see above under Congress
- War Powers Resolution (1)
Provisions, limits on president’s power
- see above under Specific Legislation