A2-AQA GOV4A Politics 10th June 2013

was the Warren and Burger court clearly active while Rehnquist and Warren Courts are restraint?

Or is there any evidence to show that this is not always the case?

Thanks

Do you think it's possible they could ask us a 10 or even 30 marker on the composition of the Court, as in gender/ethnicity/social background/ age etc?


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

Do we honestly think a 30 marker on federalism could come up, I just think it would not have the same scope for discussion as an essay on the rigidity and flexibility of the US constitution

Do we honestly think a 30 marker on federalism could come up, I just think it would not have the same scope for discussion as an essay on the rigidity and flexibility of the US constitution

There are four aspects of a change in federalism defined in the textbook: the 'dual federalism' up until the Depression (so you could talk about how there was shared power up until FDR's top-down economic policies), 'cooperative federalism' from the 1930s-60s (talk about how there was an idea of fixing the nation post-war and national unity in the light of the cold war, led predominantly by Democratic presidents such as Kennedy and Truman), 'new federalism' from the 1970s (Reagan proposed to abolish the department of education, for example) and finally Bush's stance on federalism, which has been seen as a reversion to FDR-style economics and a typically liberal approach to medicare.

Then for top marks you'd want to talk about Obama and federalism: Obamacare was referred to by Republicans as "the end of federalism" (which is where my question came from) and his economic stimulus package was extremely similar to Bush's economic policies.




The question as I phrased it may be unlikely to come up, but the exam boards like to set quite controversial questions like that to make sure that you get a proper debate in your answer. As I said above I'd go through the phases of federalism, and decide at the end whether the approach taken by Bush (and followed by Obama) could arguably have led to a death of federalism in the US: is the US governed now at federal-level, rather than state-level? The income tax amendment (16th?) could arguably be seen as federal power outstripping that of state-level government.

(I'd conclude with no, federalism is not dead, but rather just declining and playing a less important role in the light of the US' development as a superpower - there is a need for national unity when the US is in an almost perpetual state of combat)

What could you put for federalism isnt dead apart from different laws on gun control, death penalty etc.

I think it's likely as it's such a large part of the course, and has never come up. There is a lot you could talk about as well. If it's about how federalism has changed, then you could write about federalism from themed 19th century up to the new deal, then how it changed with Roosevelt's new deal, and continued until the 60s. It then changed with Nixon/Reagan and new federalism. You could then bring in Clinton who allowed states to experiment with policies. You could talk about Bush who was arguably a 'big government conservative', in that he would push conservative policies. Then you would bring it to Obama and progressive federalism. You could also point out the criticisms from the right that he has given more autonomy to blue states than red states, which many have labelled 'patchwork federalism'.

If it was about the arguments for/against federalism you could support it by arguing that it protects states from an overbearing central government (which the FFs opposed). It also respects that different states have different cultures and allows themselves to express that in their laws (such as Texas being tough on crime and frequently using the death penalty, whereas Vermont, which is very liberal, doesn't use the death penalty). You could also mention that states can act as laboratories for experimentation of policy (Oregon introduced assisted suicide - Washington and Vermont then followed suit).

You could argue against by saying that it prevents the central government from responding to economic or social problems quickly and effectively (much of Roosevelt's New Deal was struck down SCOTUS, using the 10th amendment as justification). Also, some states aren't up to the job of having complete autonomy, and as result have struggling economies (use West Virginia and Mississippi, where there is an extremely low literacy rate. I think it's about one third that can't read, and as a result they have a low tax base, and couldn't raise the money to raise the unfunded mandates that Bush brought in). You could also mention that it allows states to discriminate against minorities, and there isn't a great deal federal government can do (loads of examples, Prop 8, HB56, Jim Crow Laws etc).

As you can see there is a lot to write about, so it definitely could come up as a 30 marker. I would still revise everything, as we're all just really guessing. I also think the essay you mentioned could come up, but we need to be prepared for anything that they throw at us!

Does anyone have any useful notes on Obama and Federalism?

Well he passed the Affordable Care Act which is a federal healthcare law. That's probably the major thing he's done in relation to federalism. He's a Democrat who believes in a federal government which takes an active role in helping citizens (economy, education, healthcare etc).

Could also mention how he has continued with Bush's post 9/11 federal govt security measures. Since 9/11 the federal government has become more powerful in many aspects and Obama hasn't attempted to reverse this trend. You only have to look at the current NSA scandal to see this.

Does anyone know exactly how to answer the questions properly to get A03 marks and Level 4 or 5? I would really appreciate it if someone could explain this to me.

In the specification it says "Relationship between federal government and the states". Can someone help me plan an answer on this please?