[Agenda Suicide]

Did anybody do this exam today? Was just wondering about a few opinions.

[wikiellie]

I quite liked it...I answered the Executive and the Supreme Court sections, so fingers crossed for August!

[abbycsimkin]

Me and my politics group, and our two politics teachers, thought it was a very tricky paper - I did Constitution and Supreme Court, wasn't too fazed by the 30 markers but thought the 10 markers were surprising

[Agenda Suicide]

(Original post by abbycsimkin)
Me and my politics group, and our two politics teachers, thought it was a very tricky paper - I did Constitution and Supreme Court, wasn't too fazed by the 30 markers but thought the 10 markers were surprising

(Original post by wikiellie)
I quite liked it...I answered the Executive and the Supreme Court sections, so fingers crossed for August!

Can I ask what you talked about the the 30 marker on the constitution? It was pretty unclear in my opinion and a few of my friends, did it just want us to talk about how it federalism for the most part and how it's changed grown and arguments for and against the constitution still keeping government limited?

Edit: Sorry ellie I didn't realise you didn't do the constitution, did you find the executive question easy ? I thought the imperial or imperilled was a gift of a question!

[abbycsimkin]

Well the fact it was general limited government I thought gave you the scope to talk about other things, but I mainly concentrated on federalism, yes. I basically argued that whilst the theory of the Constitution - such as implied federalism and the separation of powers - encourages limited government, largely because it encourages many checks and balances and also divided government, which prevents central government becoming too dominative, in practice big government has become increasingly common due to the vast changes that the nation has undergone since the Constitution was written. (i.e. Wall Street crash, more states, higher population, greater communication so more of a feeling of national rather than state identity). But yes it was effectively federalism. I also mentioned that because the Constitution encourages federalism, it has multiple access points, so the fact that pressure groups can get invovled (bit of synopticity) on behalf of the citizens, and the fact that there's a distinct lack of party discipline in the US so members are free to be manipulated by outside influences, means that central government finds it difficult to build a cohesive agenda against the states, and therefore limited government is encouraged. But I concluded that in reality, the nation has changed too much, and the trend is towards greater levels of big government, party due to the two party system which encourages a 'two conflicting ways of life' mindset, thus one party advocates big gov, and one limited gov, but despite Bush being a Republican, he still presided over a big government, proof that limited government is becoming outdated.

[Agenda Suicide]

(Original post by abbycsimkin)
Well the fact it was general limited government I thought gave you the scope to talk about other things, but I mainly concentrated on federalism, yes. I basically argued that whilst the theory of the Constitution - such as implied federalism and the separation of powers - encourages limited government, largely because it encourages many checks and balances and also divided government, which prevents central government becoming too dominative, in practice big government has become increasingly common due to the vast changes that the nation has undergone since the Constitution was written. (i.e. Wall Street crash, more states, higher population, greater communication so more of a feeling of national rather than state identity). But yes it was effectively federalism. I also mentioned that because the Constitution encourages federalism, it has multiple access points, so the fact that pressure groups can get invovled (bit of synopticity) on behalf of the citizens, and the fact that there's a distinct lack of party discipline in the US so members are free to be manipulated by outside influences, means that central government finds it difficult to build a cohesive agenda against the states, and therefore limited government is encouraged. But I concluded that in reality, the nation has changed too much, and the trend is towards greater levels of big government, party due to the two party system which encourages a 'two conflicting ways of life' mindset, thus one party advocates big gov, and one limited gov, but despite Bush being a Republican, he still presided over a big government, proof that limited government is becoming outdated.

Pretty much what I wrote. I love you, hopefully that's a huge relief.

[abbycsimkin]

Lovely! Found it very very difficult though, particularly the 10 markers.

[04jharrison]

Hi, I took this paper last year and again this time. When I opened it i thought crap but as I got into it, it was'nt so bad (Last years was absolutly awful). I answered the constitution and Executive questions, both 10 markers werent great I'd never heard of 'Iron triangles' before but presumed it mean the relationship between the 3 areas of government. The Imperial question through I thought was great, perhaps not for analysis but certainly for knowledge based points. I did find the constitution question much more tricky

After taking a gap year and not doing any revision it wasnt as bad a paper as it could have been, but it couldnt have been worse than last years. :P

[IrisElm]

I totally agree about the 10 markers being difficult - I also did the Constitution and Supreme Court essays. For limited government I did paragraphs on separation of powers, checks and balances and federalism. Against I put the size of the USA and the abuse of power from big government which shows it is not limited for example Iran-Contra. I thought the judiciary 30 marker was a blessing. Fingers crossed and good luck everyone!