AQA GOV4A - The Government of the USA A2 Discussion

OP

Would a question such as "The Separation of powers hinders effective government in the US." Discuss, require you to assess the positives and negatives of checks and balances basically and how each check helps or hinders government???

Reply 21

ivybeetroot

Original post by Taliahart

It would be a really mean 30 marker but they asked about representation a few years ago which for me is even worse! :/

Definitely you could talk about committees.

I'd also mention impeachment (more of a threat than an actual power - it failed on Johnson and Clinton in the Senate)
They can also override the presidential veto - which is a major power.
Also they control the budget, stopping the executive from spending too much

For the other side of the argument you could talk about imperial presidents and how
Congress didn't act as an effective check! Especially Watergate.

You could compare to the UK where the executive IS the legislature so oversight is mainly provided by independent bodies or the shadow cabinet :smile:

That makes a lot of sense, thankyou :biggrin:

In my notes checks and balances are in constitution but does this mean there'd be relevant here too?

Reply 22

Taliahart

9

Original post by ellamorr

That makes a lot of sense, thankyou :biggrin:

In my notes checks and balances are in constitution but does this mean there'd be relevant here too?

Well, I'm not revising the constitution and I tend to use checks and balances a lot in my answers, so I'd say it was relevant! Even if it's not specifically "Legislature" it's still good synoptic stuff :smile:

Reply 23

ivybeetroot

Original post by Taliahart

Well, I'm not revising the constitution and I tend to use checks and balances a lot in my answers, so I'd say it was relevant! Even if it's not specifically "Legislature" it's still good synoptic stuff :smile:

Yeah I just had a look around the internet and it seems to be the general consensus obviously as it is legislature on executive which is what Congress does with oversight. Makes sense now!

Thankyou! Been a big help :smile:

Reply 24

Taliahart

9

Original post by ellamorr

Yeah I just had a look around the internet and it seems to be the general consensus obviously as it is legislature on executive which is what Congress does with oversight. Makes sense now!

Thankyou! Been a big help :smile:

No problem :smile:

Reply 25

safx41

Would would the for and against arguments be if a question such as ''Assess the suggestion that the US Constitution is too rigid'' were to come up? Can only think of the following...
Rigid - Difficult amendment process, much needed change can't happen as a result and it limits the scope of big government whilst favouring small government.
Flexible - Formal amendments occur, as do interpretive amendments via judicial review and at times of crisis, it can be bypassed (Executive orders, war, New Deal, Great Society programmes)

I feel as if I wouldn't be able to sustain a strong enough argument as to why it is too rigid... other than the point of a difficult amendment process.

Reply 26

ivybeetroot

Original post by safx41

Would would the for and against arguments be if a question such as ''Assess the suggestion that the US Constitution is too rigid'' were to come up? Can only think of the following...
Rigid - Difficult amendment process, much needed change can't happen as a result and it limits the scope of big government whilst favouring small government.
Flexible - Formal amendments occur, as do interpretive amendments via judicial review and at times of crisis, it can be bypassed (Executive orders, war, New Deal, Great Society programmes)

I feel as if I wouldn't be able to sustain a strong enough argument as to why it is too rigid... other than the point of a difficult amendment process.

Think those are good points but you'd obviously have to flesh them out a bit and you'd feel a bit more confident about your argument.
I think it is probable that 'does the US Constitution still work?' would be a potential question which is similar.

Federalism is a concept that is implicit in the Constitution so you could add bits about that in.

For rigid:

•

It's good that it's a struggle because this prevents ill-decided amendments/legislation coming through.

•

Constitution prevents tyranny and therefore needs to be rigid so that not one person can pass through lots of bills and there is equal share of power [Line-item veto act showed how the President could be perhaps too powerful and was declared unconstitutional]

•

Some parts would be difficult to change and are no longer relevant e.g. 2nd amendment

For flexible:

•

Allows for diversity and because of the implicit concept of federalism, is flexible in that it allows interpretation by different states and they can create their own legislation.

Just basic ideas, I think it's a complicated question so unlikely to come up.

Reply 27

Endless Blue

19

Original post by MSc0tt

Would a question such as "The Separation of powers hinders effective government in the US." Discuss, require you to assess the positives and negatives of checks and balances basically and how each check helps or hinders government???

Pretty much.

For:
- explain s.o.p and contrast to uk govt due to divisions etc
- go into checks and balances (plenty of examples) & how they hinder effective govt eg gridlock
- split-ticket voting + partisanship has exacerbated problem, use Obama govt as example

Against:
- failure of separation of powers to prevent concentration of power, ie Nixon arguably governed effectively as he controlled huge power
- they encourage a spirit of bipartisanship = positive for electorate and bills still get passed etc
- the founding fathers set out govt in this manner to prevent autocratic rule/tyranny and therefore it is 'effective' in terms of their aims

Badly written but those would be my key points either side.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 28

safx41

Original post by ellamorr

Think those are good points but you'd obviously have to flesh them out a bit and you'd feel a bit more confident about your argument.
I think it is probable that 'does the US Constitution still work?' would be a potential question which is similar.

Federalism is a concept that is implicit in the Constitution so you could add bits about that in.

For rigid:

•

It's good that it's a struggle because this prevents ill-decided amendments/legislation coming through.

•

Constitution prevents tyranny and therefore needs to be rigid so that not one person can pass through lots of bills and there is equal share of power [Line-item veto act showed how the President could be perhaps too powerful and was declared unconstitutional]

•

Some parts would be difficult to change and are no longer relevant e.g. 2nd amendment

For flexible:

•

Allows for diversity and because of the implicit concept of federalism, is flexible in that it allows interpretation by different states and they can create their own legislation.

Just basic ideas, I think it's a complicated question so unlikely to come up.

It does seem like a handful to be honest. I'm just trying to make out what would be the 30 mark since we've had one on federalism, limited govt and rights. What else could it be?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 29

MSc0tt

OP

10

Original post by safx41

It does seem like a handful to be honest. I'm just trying to make out what would be the 30 mark since we've had one on federalism, limited govt and rights. What else could it be?

Posted from TSR Mobile

"Michelle Obama's booty is bringing sexy back." Discuss. (30 marks)

Reply 30

Endless Blue

19

Original post by safx41

It does seem like a handful to be honest. I'm just trying to make out what would be the 30 mark since we've had one on federalism, limited govt and rights. What else could it be?

Posted from TSR Mobile

It could be anything that they've already asked. It's the only topic I've found where they've asked entirely different questions every year.

So it could be a similar take on any of the previous ones, or maybe a different federalism one about state vs federal power.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 31

safx41

Original post by Endless Blue

It could be anything that they've already asked. It's the only topic I've found where they've asked entirely different questions every year.

So it could be a similar take on any of the previous ones, or maybe a different federalism one about state vs federal power.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I suppose so! I wouldn't mind federalism for the 10 mark.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 32

ivybeetroot

Original post by Endless Blue

So it could be a similar take on any of the previous ones, or maybe a different federalism one about state vs federal power.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Do you think it's unlike to be about the phases of federalism? I just find that so boring I can't revise :frown:

State vs federal power wouldn't be too bad though.

Reply 33

Endless Blue

19

Original post by ellamorr

Do you think it's unlike to be about the phases of federalism? I just find that so boring I can't revise :frown:

State vs federal power wouldn't be too bad though.

Not just on the stages, although that does affect the balance of power.

If federalism does come up I think it would be something like

'Federal govt increasingly dominates state governments.' Discuss.

Or maybe pros/cons, although highly unlikely.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 34

ECO_LAB

Original post by safx41

Would would the for and against arguments be if a question such as ''Assess the suggestion that the US Constitution is too rigid'' were to come up? Can only think of the following...
Rigid - Difficult amendment process, much needed change can't happen as a result and it limits the scope of big government whilst favouring small government.
Flexible - Formal amendments occur, as do interpretive amendments via judicial review and at times of crisis, it can be bypassed (Executive orders, war, New Deal, Great Society programmes)

I feel as if I wouldn't be able to sustain a strong enough argument as to why it is too rigid... other than the point of a difficult amendment process.

you would mention the points u made then you would talk abt the effects it has,

E.G
RIGID- it can become outdated not being able to adapt and change organically-elastic clauses- due to the const being rigid
Limits Gov- Elected by people but restricited by the states=undemocratic- the rigid const causes this

Flexible- on the other hand it entrenches the rights and protects them better if its rigid.
Prevents overpowered Gov

Reply 35

ECO_LAB

i dont understand how to answer a question on this part:
The Supreme Court’s role as guardian of the Constitution through
constitutional interpretation.

How does SC protect the constituion?

Reply 36

MSc0tt

OP

10

Original post by ECO_LAB

i dont understand how to answer a question on this part:
The Supreme Court’s role as guardian of the Constitution through
constitutional interpretation.

How does SC protect the constituion?

PROTECTS:
*Judicial review, ensuring rights are not taken from citizens that go against the BoR etc
*Strict constructionists obstruct it from evolving too drastically

DOESN'T PROTECT:
*Loose constructionists alter the meaning rather drastically

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 37

ECO_LAB

Original post by MSc0tt

PROTECTS:
*Judicial review, ensuring rights are not taken from citizens that go against the BoR etc
*Strict constructionists obstruct it from evolving too drastically

DOESN'T PROTECT:
*Loose constructionists alter the meaning rather drastically