A2-AQA GOV4A Politics 10th June 2013

I really don't get this decision...why is it not defending right? Please explain (I'd be so grateful!)

I reckon they could use this quote
"Congress in session is Congress on public exhibition, whilst Congress in its committee-rooms is Congress at work"

What do you mean why is it not defending rights?

How would you go about answering that one?

As in why is it failing to protect rights...

As in why is it failing to protect rights...

Yes -
Committees debate and amend legislation before the house do
Conference committees produce the final copy of the bill
They decide if a bill is to go forward or not
They can arguably just pigeon hole bills

No -
The house's give the final vote
In the Senate filibuster can be used to block a vote
You can retrieve a killed bill with a majority
When it comes to appointments and treaties, the committees votes are mere recommendations

Not an exhaustive list but some ideas

I really don't get this decision...why is it not defending right? Please explain (I'd be so grateful!)

That does make a lot of sense, but I have been taught to stay away from the basic yes/no argument and split it into paragraphs. Just don't know how I old do hat in this question...

What do you mean exactly? SCOTUS ruled that Obamacare was constitutional, therefore it allowed the Act to continue as legislated by Congress. The court was therefore restrained.
If you mean what the reasoning behind the majority decision then I'm afraid I can't tell you much. I think they ruled that the individual mandate which was part of ACA amounted to a tax but I think this is an oversimplification as the ruling was not a simple yes/no.

It is Judicial Restraint because it upheld Obamacare, thus deferring to the other two branches of government.

Yeah sorry I wouldn't split it that way, I'd say why the work could be seen to be done in committees, then why it isn't, then why it is done on the floor, then why it isn't, then suggest other options such as appointments and treaties and also the influence the President has on Chamber and Committee stage.

How would you incorporate egs. Or synopticity into this?

How would you incorporate egs. Or synopticity into this?

What are the pros and cons of federalism

Pros - 1. Pragmatism - well suited to to geography and diversity of a large nation like the US - much easier to allow local officials to deal with local problems.

2. Creates 'laboratories of democracy' - state governments can experiments with policies and other states/ the federal government can learn from their successes and failures. California is a notable 'laboratory' for policies relating to environmental regulations. This is all key part of New Federalism where states are made to be 'incubators of fresh ideas'

3.Federalism respects that different states have different cultures and allows the national government to remove itself from potentially contentious issues. Allows states freedom to adopt polices which suit their culture and are not followed nationally e.g. gay marriage and assisted suicide. Although supremacy clause still allows federal government to form policy too.

4. Lastly and perhaps most importantly it does what the founding fathers intended it do. Ensures separation of powers and prevents tyranny and ensures liberty. Only once has federalism led to real trouble, Civil War.

Flip side 1. Lack of Political stability/ clear political jurisdiction - federalism lends itself to a constant struggle for power between fed gov and states. Peaks and troughs in federal power. Rise with New Deal, fall with new federalism and rise again under Obama and Bush even though Clinton claimed 'era of big gov was over'. Leads to confusion and disastrous consequences in 2005 with Katrina where no one knew who's job it was to help

2. Federalism prevents formation of overall programmes to deal with national concerns liek keeping country financially stable - some states in mass debt - California - $600 billion twice that of NY in 2nd most debt. Too many regulations between states leads to significant social problems - like inner city decline which really needs to be sorted nationally. Education (going off a previous poster said some areas of West Virginia and Mississippi had 1/3 illiteracy in some areas) Not equal punishment for laws etc murder in one state is death penalty whereas in another it's not. Not 1 policy - 51 polices.

3. (clutching at straws here) Encourages competition instead of cooperation between states. Conflict of Fed gov and states over gun control. States can become selfish and solely concerned with their own regional growth at the expense of another. Push for industrialisation and manufacturing in states like Texas creates pollution which can impact states in Mid West which depend almost solely on agriculture

4. Federalism allows for discrimination to minorities too Prop 6 in california banning gay marriage. HB56 anti illegal immigration laws and the infamous De jure segregation laws of Jim Crow in the south

Conclusion - Lots of advantages and disadvantages but at the end of the day the USA is simply too large and diverse to be governed by a unitary system