Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

A2-AQA GOV4A Politics 10th June 2013

Scroll to see replies

Hannahm1995

Oh yeah I saw that, it would have been worse for someone who didn't do parties though, so I suppose it's alright for you :smile:

Yeah exactly! I hope it went well! Good luck everyone with results!

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 81

octoberbaby

I did this exam today too. Did VB and political parties. Almost did Electoral Process as I'd been hoping Direct Democracy would come up but as a 10 marker... Didn't feel confident enough for 30 marks. Also was disappoint as no split ticket voting. I think I did okay though. How are people feeling about 4A? Also, any question predictions? :biggrin:

Reply 82

vanessap

Original post by Hannahm1995

The ten marker was a bit weird, it was about the new deal coalition? But I think it went well! It was a weird choice though, more likely to be in parties than VB

Posted from TSR Mobile

Do you have any possible questions for unit 4A?

Reply 83

vanessap

Does anyone have any possible questions for unit 4A?

Reply 84

vanessap

does anyone have any questions for unit 4A?

Reply 85

ChrissM

Original post by vanessap

Do you have any possible questions for unit 4A?

I think federalism will come up the Constitution, and for the Judiciary I think it will be judicial activism/restraint as that hasn't come up for two years. It's hard to tell though because there have only been 3 papers. I don't think it will be about wether or not the Court is political though because that came up last year, and it's unlikely they'd do the same two topics in a row.

I wouldn't have a clue on the other two as I'm not doing them

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Reply 86

vanessap

Useful revision
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUN71fflaFE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgB6-pVzOp4

Reply 87

vanessap

Does anyone have any predicitions for The executive branch and Congress

Reply 88

vanessap

Original post by ChrissM

Not doing those,but thank you anyway.

Reply 89

ineedtorevise127

“Our Constitution works!” Gerald Ford, post-Watergate President. To what extent and
why can a constitution written in and devised for the 18th century still work in the
21st century? (30 marks)

How would you answer this question? Finding it really difficult to plan and write about

Reply 90

vanessap

Original post by ineedtorevise127

http://filestore.aqa.org.uk/subjects/AQA-GOVP4A-W-SMS-07.PDF

Reply 91

octoberbaby

Original post by vanessap

got a different exam tomorrow but after that the rest of my g/p revision will get done. Will post useful things / question predictions here from thursday - monday

Reply 92

charlie142

Original post by ineedtorevise127

We did this one in class its quite straight forward when you break it down into parts!
Firstly look at the question pick out the key points

“Our Constitution works!” Gerald Ford, post-Watergate President. To what extent and why can a constitution written in and devised for the 18th century still work in the 21st century? [30]

The question is effectively asking you how does the constitution still work today when it was written 227 years ago!

This means you can write about how it works and doesn't work:
Firstly how the constitution does work today:

The US constitution is a 'living constitution' meaning it updates to suit the times. There are four methods of amending it to suit the time two formal and two informal.
Formal:
2/3 vote in congress then 3/4 of the states. Hard to achieve, but for good reason.
2/3 of the states and 3/4 of the states again. This has never been used

Informal:
Judicial review allows s.court to look at legislation and see if it applied to the constitution (Marbury v Madison allowed them is power). This allows them to adjudicate the vague language of the constitution to suit the times. For example in 18th century it wouldnt have been cruel and usual punishment (article 8) for someone to lose a hand for a crime, but now obviously it is!
Congressional legislation which allows congress to effectively amend an amendment if they so wish. For example they amended prohibition by passing new legislation allowing the sale and distribution of alcohol.

The fact the constitution has a method of change shows it is able to keep up with the 21st century, especially informal methods such as judicial review. If it wasn't able to change then it wouldn't be able to suit the times and void it as a 'living constitution. Plus the formal amendment process is beneficial to the upkeep of the constitution. It is hard to get amendment through but if one is needed then it is likely to pass with easy e.g. voting age lowered from 21 to 18. Furthermore not having it hard to change transcends into chaos like France who have had several constitutions since WWII.

It produces results as legislation although slow at times does allow congress and the executive to produce legislation such as the 2009 stimulus package which was massive and a considerable change to the country.

The quote in this question might put a lot of people off, but in actual fact its rather helpful, as it gives you another point! Nixon acted illegally and held to much power in a system that prides its self of the separation of powers. You can argue the constitution works as it forced Nixon to resign as it was likely he would have been impeached. Then you can further talk about impeachment.

To argue against suggesting the constitution isn't effective

The constitutions separation of power, adopted from the philosopher Montesquieu, is to rigorously enforce with checks and balances. Therefore leading to too gridlock in congress. Especially if their is divided government. This means its legislation that is required often stalls and the public suffer e.g budget 2013 was not passed in time to avoid the sequestration (automatic budget cuts and tax increases)

The constitution is to hard to change, unlike the UK which is flexible e.g. Blair moved s.court into separate building out of the blue one day! The rigidity of the constitution means it America is stuck with archaic laws such as the 2nd amendment; which blocks effective measures of gun control.

Failed to stop the growing power of the executive. The growth of America as a superpower has seen a rise responsibility relating to foreign policy; the constitution was written in a time of little foreign policy so the executive is relative strong in this area. E.g Obama has a comprehensive kill list and drone program nobody in congress has seen or approved.

Furthermore, political circumstances has seen a rise in Imperial presidency which grants the President more power over Congress. For example after 9/11 Bush was able to pass the patriots act. Equally Imperilled Presidents aren't going to have a good time as the congress will flex its constitutional right to defy the executive in an attempt to reign back power.

This is what I could come up with without looking at the mark scheme! I hope it makes sense to you, its in no particular order allowing you to structure it how you please!

My main part of advice with any question especially like this one is to break it down and don't let the quote put you off. My teacher said a majority of students avoid the question with a quote in it. Hope this helps!

Reply 93

vanessap

Original post by octoberbaby

got a different exam tomorrow but after that the rest of my g/p revision will get done. Will post useful things / question predictions here from thursday - monday

Could you please post predicted questions.

Reply 94

Jackathar

Could someone make a prediction on topic 2 and 3 please?

Reply 95

ineedtorevise127

What is likely to come up for 10 markers for Constitution and Judiciary
also 30 markers for both these topics??

Reply 96

ChrissM

Original post by ineedtorevise127

What is likely to come up for 10 markers for Constitution and Judiciary
also 30 markers for both these topics??

10 marker is pretty much impossible to predict, they could ask you anything. I already posted what I think will be the essays for the Constitution and Judiciary. Scroll up and you should be able to find it.

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Reply 97

Samzali1

I typed up an essay maybe someone could give me feedback if possible? I'm doing this exam in my gap year so i haven't had any teacher feedback! :frown:

Thank you!

The judicial branch of the government is given the power of judicial review which was found in Marbury V Madison, this rule allows them to declare acts of congress of the executive branch of government unconstitutional. The Warren and Burger courts saw hardly any politicization of the court due to the cases at the time, for example segregation however after and especially during the Bush administration the court has become more politicized and sees ‘nine politicians in robes.’

The court under Chief justice Warren saw judicial activism high and the constitution and the people’s rights come first; instead of it being politicized. The case of Brown V Board of education Topeka 1954 saw the court become a power court through liberalism. Segregation was starting to be tackled and the landmark decision saw the Court declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students unconstitutional. The judicial branch of government worked with President Eisenhower to enforce the ruling by sending troops in 1957 when the Governor of Arkansas attempted to block black student’s entry into a school. This point does illustrate how it is difficult for the Supreme Court to enforce its rules however under Warren the court was not politicized to due to the circumstances.

As there are less contentious subjects in the modern day and the issue of civil rights is not of debate as it once was the US Supreme Court is now seen to be ‘nine politicians in robes.’ Abortion is controversial in the US and the two political parties have politicized the issue and so has the Supreme Court. Under the Burger court a landmark decision was made with Roe V Wade giving women a constitutional right to an abortion. However due to the change in Chief justices and more appointments from Republican Presidents the court has begun to pick away at Roe V Wade. In 2007 Chief justice Roberts appointed by President Bush upheld the partial birth abortion ban act preventing women from having an abortion in their late terms demonstrating how the Justices act on behalf of the Presidents who have chosen them,. Clearly with the abortion cases the justices are just ‘Nine politicians sitting in robes,’ as their main role is to interpret the constitution, and the constitution does not allow for either of the three branches to decide on abortion as it is not mentioned in the constitution, in fact it separates state and church and politicians now have begun to base decisions on their religious views and even to an extent the justices.

The selection of the Supreme Court justices illustrates how they are just ‘Nine politicians in robes.’ The process becomes lengthy and controversial and politicized. This has been seen on numerous occasions and especially with Clarence Thomas. Instead of the Senate judiciary committee basing the hearing on Thomas’s ability as a judge the case was politicized by the committee and the media and saw it becoming a sexual harassment case. Clearly the way in which the justices are chosen illustrates the US Supreme Court justices as 'Nine politicians in robes.' The President will choose someone who is more likely to echo their views when they have left office. However to some degree there is judicial independence and in the case of Bush V Gore Souter illustrated how sometimes the justices to not reflect the views of the presidents who chose them. George H W Bush appointed him and Souter voted against his son’s legal position in the trial. In addition a point that evaluates the fact that the Justices are just nine politicians in more recent times is the Bush V Gore case. The justices effectively chose Bush to be president over Al Gore.

Overall in more recent cases the court has become more politicized its main role is simply to check the executive and legislative branch of government by declaring acts as unconstitutional. Prior to the Roberts court the court had done so achieving a variety of transformations. However with more Republican appointed justices the court has become politicized due its limitations of freedom, they can only declare an act unconstitutional, there is no way to enforce this and congress can even overturn a ruling with an amendment. The Supreme court justices over time have become 'Nine politicians in robes.'