Join TSR now and get all your revision questions answeredSign up now
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Marditeej)
    Hi. I made presentations for this Exam and it might be a bit late sharing it now considering the exam in is in about 30 hours lol. But yeah, feel free to check it out and see if it may be of help to you!

    http://prezi.com/uhr8lguzw5aw/us-gov...olitics-gov-4/

    Thanks helped me out alot!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Atkin94)
    I'd have difficulty with this question as Federalism is not dead, Constitutional Sovereignty ensures Federalism is very much alive by enumerating powers to federal government (Articles 1-3) and to state government (Amendment 10). Would the question rather be 'Federalism as we know it is dead. Discuss.'? With this being the question would it therefore focus on phases of Federalism culminating in a focus of Federalism under Bush?
    I just realised that you could just turn this into phases by first talking about duel and then talking about how the 14th, 16th and 17th amendments could effectively be leading to the death of federalism by talking about cooperative. A counter argument could be that new federalism could be said to suggest that the greater power of federal government may not be leading to the death of federalism after all. Finally you could then talk about federalism under bush and obama and how it appears the distribution of fragmented power whilst not fixed appears to be fluid, dependant on numerous factors suggesting it is impossible to suggest not only that federalism is dead now or that it ever will be.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scatach)
    I don't want to keep disagreeing, but my point is that because they were being judicially active (as to be restrained they would have needed to defer to the other branches, which they did not with the ruling) they were therefore being independent.

    Judicial independence, from my understanding, isn't whether the court issues partisan rulings or not: if they are being judicially active by stepping into an election dispute, they clearly signal that they are an independent branch of government. A court can still be partisan (as it will always be) while remaining independent from the other branches.

    The nine politicians in robes question would list Bush v. Gore as an example of them effectively deciding the election and doing so on a partisan basis: that doesn't mean that they are not an independent branch.
    As taken from the 2011 mark scheme;

    The concept of judicial independence has been subject to controversy in recent decades because it has been suggested that, far from being independent and detached from the political fray, successive courts have become embroiled in controversy. The Warren Court was both applauded and criticised in the 1950s for its interventions and judgements on racial segregation; a clear sign, in the eyes of some, of political interference. Conservatives and pro-life activists were outraged at the Roe vs Wade judgement in 1973. Liberals were equally outraged at the decision of the Supreme Court in the Bush vs Gore case in 2000, which delivered the US presidency to George W Bush.

    Far from being independent, it may be argued that the US
    judiciary is embroiled in political life. Indeed, it has led some commentators to refer to the
    Supreme Court as ‘politicians in robes’.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bord3r)
    So from what I can gather from this Thread and from past papers. Topics that seem most likely to come up are:


    Cabinet - Significance, composition etc.
    Note; Every 30 marker in this topic so far has been related to a President's power, so it wouldn't surprise me to see this come up again.
    Maybe something on bureacracy hindering effective govt. (?)


    I'll edit this if people give me other suggestions. Obviously the paper could still be on any topic.

    How would u go about answering a question like Bureaucracy hinders effective government? - Struggling to make a plan
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Samzali1)
    How would u go about answering a question like Bureaucracy hinders effective government? - Struggling to make a plan
    Sorry, I don't know much about The Executive as it's the one topic I haven't revised.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    anyone got any revision material for unit 4A?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bord3r)
    As taken from the 2011 mark scheme;

    The concept of judicial independence has been subject to controversy in recent decades because it has been suggested that, far from being independent and detached from the political fray, successive courts have become embroiled in controversy. The Warren Court was both applauded and criticised in the 1950s for its interventions and judgements on racial segregation; a clear sign, in the eyes of some, of political interference. Conservatives and pro-life activists were outraged at the Roe vs Wade judgement in 1973. Liberals were equally outraged at the decision of the Supreme Court in the Bush vs Gore case in 2000, which delivered the US presidency to George W Bush.

    Far from being independent, it may be argued that the US
    judiciary is embroiled in political life. Indeed, it has led some commentators to refer to the
    Supreme Court as ‘politicians in robes’.
    I think what's being confused here is the difference between judicial independence and judicial neutrality. This is from the June 2011 Examiner's Report:

    Good responses identified that judicial independence can also be controversial and these were often backed up by appropriate examples and cases. There is clearly a link with judicial neutrality. Supreme Court appointments are political in nature and clearly one could argue that this fact might influence the deliberations of the justices. Many good responses made reference to decisions by the courts of Rehnquist and Roberts in this respect. However this could be contrasted with the courts of Warren and Burger whose decisions often antagonised the presidents who appointed them. Some candidates became totally immersed in the issue of neutrality however and devoted virtually all of their response to this, thus limiting the marks they could achieve. Despite the links between judicial neutrality and judicial independence, the two conventions are distinct and should not be confused with each other.

    From what I gather, judicial independence is more about the relationship between the Supreme Court and it has between the other branches/layers of government and the extent to which the latter has political control over the former. Judicial neutrality on the other hand is about the political leaning of the judges themselves and their deliberations. A lack of judicial independence might lead to a lack of judicial neutrality yet judicial independence in itself does not guarantee neutrality.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This forum seems to focus far too much on the ruling of Bush v. Gore. As for a federalism questions of pros and cons, here's what I put together:

    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

    Hope this can help some people and encourages others to post their plans for questions that could come up. Happy revising guys!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stickker)
    I think what's being confused here is the difference between judicial independence and judicial neutrality. This is from the June 2011 Examiner's Report:

    Good responses identified that judicial independence can also be controversial and these were often backed up by appropriate examples and cases. There is clearly a link with judicial neutrality. Supreme Court appointments are political in nature and clearly one could argue that this fact might influence the deliberations of the justices. Many good responses made reference to decisions by the courts of Rehnquist and Roberts in this respect. However this could be contrasted with the courts of Warren and Burger whose decisions often antagonised the presidents who appointed them. Some candidates became totally immersed in the issue of neutrality however and devoted virtually all of their response to this, thus limiting the marks they could achieve. Despite the links between judicial neutrality and judicial independence, the two conventions are distinct and should not be confused with each other.

    From what I gather, judicial independence is more about the relationship between the Supreme Court and it has between the other branches/layers of government and the extent to which the latter has political control over the former. Judicial neutrality on the other hand is about the political leaning of the judges themselves and their deliberations. A lack of judicial independence might lead to a lack of judicial neutrality yet judicial independence in itself does not guarantee neutrality.
    I agree that Neutrality and Independence are not the same thing but the other poster was using Bush v. Gore as an example of judicial independence which it simply isn't. The nature of the case and its ruling drew SCOTUS into the centre of a massive political debate and controversy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bord3r)
    I agree that Neutrality and Independence are not the same thing but the other poster was using Bush v. Gore as an example of judicial independence which it simply isn't. The nature of the case and its ruling drew SCOTUS into the centre of a massive political debate and controversy.
    It would not have been an example I would have used to illustrate judicial independence, but at the same time I don't think it demonstrates a LACK of judicial independence either. I concur that the ruling was inevitably political and arguably the deliberations of the judges biased too. Yet judicial independence revolves more around the Supreme Court contextually, the position it holds in the US system of governance. Regardless of what it actually ruled in Bush v. Gore, the Court was able to deliberate without fear of retribution from the public or elected branches of government and was not subject to bribery from the parties involved.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    anyone got any tips on writing 10 markers, i think ive got the 30 mark essays down but i seem to not be able to get into the level 3/4 of 10 markers but im not sure where im going wrong? how much should you write and how much detail do you need?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Anyone know what topics are going to appear??
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stickker)
    It would not have been an example I would have used to illustrate judicial independence, but at the same time I don't think it demonstrates a LACK of judicial independence either. I concur that the ruling was inevitably political and arguably the deliberations of the judges biased too. Yet judicial independence revolves more around the Supreme Court contextually, the position it holds in the US system of governance. Regardless of what it actually ruled in Bush v. Gore, the Court was able to deliberate without fear of retribution from the public or elected branches of government and was not subject to bribery from the parties involved.
    Yes, I agree that in the strictest sense of the word, Bush v. Gore still retained judicial independence. However, the very fact that judges voted in line with their ideological leanings in choosing a President means there must be a question mark over the courts independence from the other branches. After all the conservative justices were chosen by Republican Presidents who then chose to give the Presidency to another Republican (Bush). I doubt this is judicial independence as the FF envisaged.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    How do you know if cases were active or restraint?
    What are some examples of active and restraint cases?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ineedtorevise127)
    How do you know if cases were active or restraint?
    What are some examples of active and restraint cases?
    Active- Roe v. Wade, Bush v. Gore, Brown V. Board of Education
    Restraint- Dickerson V. United States
    It's very difficult to define whether a case is active or restraint. However activism is seen as striking down policy decisions by other government officials or institutions
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Does anyone actually think there could be a 30 marker on congressional committees, it doesn't seem like there is enough to write or enough of a debate?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ineedtorevise127)
    How do you know if cases were active or restraint?
    What are some examples of active and restraint cases?

    Activism involves the overturning of precedent (stare decisis) and ruling current state or federal laws unconstitutional. It can take on both a liberal bias or a more conservative bias such as Rehnquist/Roberts.

    Examples during the Rehnquist and Roberts Court;

    Activism
    Bush v. Gore 2000
    Lawrence v. Texas 2003
    Reno v. ACLU 1997
    Clinton v. City of New York 1998
    Reich v. Gonzales 2005
    US v. Lopez 1996
    Citizens United v. FEC 2010 (good recent example)
    Hamdan v. Rumsfeld 2005

    Arguably DC vs Heller and McDonald v. Chicago were also activist as they reversed gun control laws. Texas v. Johnson also reversed the prosecution of a student who burnt the US flag thus could be considered activsm.

    Restraint
    NFIB vs. Sebelius 2013 (best example)
    Gonzales v. Carhart 2007
    Hamdi v. Rumsfeld 2004

    Casey v. Planned Parenthood 1992 also partially respected Stare Decisis in upholding a women's right to an abortion however this isn't the best example.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bord3r)
    Activism involves the overturning of precedent (stare decisis) and ruling current state or federal laws unconstitutional. It can take on both a liberal bias or a more conservative bias such as Rehnquist/Roberts.

    Examples during the Rehnquist and Roberts Court;

    Activism
    Bush v. Gore 2000
    Lawrence v. Texas 2003
    Reno v. ACLU 1997
    Clinton v. City of New York 1998
    Reich v. Gonzales 2005
    US v. Lopez 1996
    Citizens United v. FEC 2010 (good recent example)
    Hamdan v. Rumsfeld 2005

    Arguably DC vs Heller and McDonald v. Chicago were also activist as they reversed gun control laws. Texas v. Johnson also reversed the prosecution of a student who burnt the US flag thus could be considered activsm.

    Restraint
    NFIB vs. Sebelius 2013 (best example)
    Gonzales v. Carhart 2007
    Hamdi v. Rumsfeld 2004

    Casey v. Planned Parenthood 1992 also partially respected Stare Decisis in upholding a women's right to an abortion however this isn't the best example.
    Okay thanks what was the decision on the US vs Lopez case? And would you argue that the court is more active than restraint even with the Rehnquist and Roberts court?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bord3r)
    Activism involves the overturning of precedent (stare decisis) and ruling current state or federal laws unconstitutional. It can take on both a liberal bias or a more conservative bias such as Rehnquist/Roberts.

    Examples during the Rehnquist and Roberts Court;

    Activism
    Bush v. Gore 2000
    Lawrence v. Texas 2003
    Reno v. ACLU 1997
    Clinton v. City of New York 1998
    Reich v. Gonzales 2005
    US v. Lopez 1996
    Citizens United v. FEC 2010 (good recent example)
    Hamdan v. Rumsfeld 2005

    Arguably DC vs Heller and McDonald v. Chicago were also activist as they reversed gun control laws. Texas v. Johnson also reversed the prosecution of a student who burnt the US flag thus could be considered activsm.

    Restraint
    NFIB vs. Sebelius 2013 (best example)
    Gonzales v. Carhart 2007
    Hamdi v. Rumsfeld 2004

    Casey v. Planned Parenthood 1992 also partially respected Stare Decisis in upholding a women's right to an abortion however this isn't the best example.

    Why would Gonzalez VS Carhart and NFIB VS Sebelius be restrained?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ineedtorevise127)
    Okay thanks what was the decision on the US vs Lopez case? And would you argue that the court is more active than restraint even with the Rehnquist and Roberts court?

    (Original post by ineedtorevise127)
    Why would Gonzalez VS Carhart and NFIB VS Sebelius be restrained?

    US v. Lopez ruled that so called "Gun Free Zones" around schools were unconstitutional as it infringed on a person's right to bear arms. as it infringed on the commerce clause. (Thanks to ironicdays for pointing this out)
    It is definitely possible to argue that the Rehnquist court and Roberts Court have been conservatively active however you could also say that courts are only really labelled active when people disagree with their rulings.

    Gonzales v. Carhart upheld the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act which meant the court deferred to Congress' legislation.
    NFIB v. Sebelius held that the ACA (Obamacare) was constitutional, again meaning that the court deferred to the Executive/Congress' legislation.
 
 
 
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?

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.