Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ILoveTehran)
    I really don't get this decision...why is it not defending right? Please explain (I'd be so grateful!)
    What do you mean why is it not defending rights?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adamgraver)
    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"
    How would you go about answering that one?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adamgraver)
    What do you mean why is it not defending rights?
    As in why is it failing to protect rights...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    how many cases should we use in a supreme court essay
    e.g. if it asks for how rights have been protected/how restrained/active they are..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by williamruse)
    How would you go about answering that one?
    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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ILoveTehran)
    As in why is it failing to protect rights...
    Just because it's judicial restraint doesn't been its not protecting rights
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ILoveTehran)
    As in why is it failing to protect rights...
    It is Judicial Restraint because it upheld Obamacare, thus deferring to the other two branches of government.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adamgraver)
    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
    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...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ILoveTehran)
    I really don't get this decision...why is it not defending right? Please explain (I'd be so grateful!)
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by williamruse)
    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...
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bord3r)
    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.
    Thank you! It makes sense now. I didn't understand why it was retraint but I do now
    One more thing... is the 'Dickerson v. US' and 'Baze vs. Rees'seen as conservative/restraint ruling?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scatach)
    It is Judicial Restraint because it upheld Obamacare, thus deferring to the other two branches of government.
    Thanks!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    If an essay came on federalism is dead and how active/restraint have courts become what would you say?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adamgraver)
    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?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by williamruse)
    How would you incorporate egs. Or synopticity into this?
    Compare it by saying obviously all the work is done in the House of Commons and Lords in the UK.
    Talk about how people like Robert Bork in appointments was rejected the same way in committee as it was voted in house showing its power
    Then bring in egs of legislation that's failed at that stage and egs of committees
    And examples of where the Chambers have called legislation back thats been killed
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by williamruse)
    How would you incorporate egs. Or synopticity into this?
    The best way to structure that sort of question would be to make a point, argue it and then counter-argue.

    So: Yes congressional committees can have a huge influence on the legislative process due to their ability to block bills and prevent them from coming to a vote in both chambers, such as with the recent 2013 bill providing for equal marriage for transsexual couples being blocked by a senate standing committee. However despite this appearance of a huge amount of influence, the House of Representatives can force a bill to be brought out of committee stage by 2/3 majority supporting a discharge petition, thus removing any committee influence and keeping all power over legislation on the floor of the House.

    (Obviously that paragraph was written in a minute or so, I'd expand and clarify things further there but that should be a good enough structure to provide a balanced argument while making judgements)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    What are the pros and cons of federalism
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ineedtorevise127)
    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
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    what would you write for an essay is courts restraint/active?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RobMoon)
    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

    Thankss
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.