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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Samzali1)
    I typed up an essay maybe someone could give me feedback if possible? I'm doing this exam in my gap year so i haven't had any teacher feedback! Thank you!

    X
    Just another student here so don't really know if what I'm saying is particularly relevant or good.
    This seems good and focused answer. Some recent examples of political activism from the Roberts Court such as Heller v. DC (2008), Citizens United v. FEC, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and from the Rehnquist court such as Clinton v. New York and Reno v. ACLU all demonstrate a politicisation of the court and could be added if you wanted. As a counter you can also mention the fact that in Sebelius vs. NFIB SCOTUS ruled in favour of Obamacare which was a restrained decision (Roberts said how he felt it wasn't the courts job to protect the people from their electoral decision).
    Bush v. Gore is the best example of politicisation, which you went in to depth on which is likely to get a lot of marks. Perhaps a mention of the nomination process and how that has led to a polticisation of SCOTUS in recent years would also be good as it shows another level of understanding.

    One minor issue I personally had with the answer was the bit on abortion where you said "Clearly with the abortion cases the justices are just ‘Nine politicians sitting in robes,’ as their main role is to interpret the constitution, and the constitution does not allow for either of the three branches to decide on abortion as it is not mentioned in the constitution". Whilst it is true that the Constitution doesn't explicitly say abortion is a legal right, Roe vs. Wade was not inherently an unconstitutional ruling and many would argue that the constitution's 9th amendment gives a woman a right to privacy and so the decision was not political. It would also be wrong to say that the three branches can't decide on abortion. Congress would have every right to pass a law restricting abortion (Partial Birth Abortion Ban act) and SCOTUS has every right to declare abortion a women's legal right.

    Hope this helps.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bord3r)
    Just another student here so don't really know if what I'm saying is particularly relevant or good.
    This seems good and focused answer. Some recent examples of political activism from the Roberts Court such as Heller v. DC (2008), Citizens United v. FEC, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and from the Rehnquist court such as Clinton v. New York and Reno v. ACLU all demonstrate a politicisation of the court and could be added if you wanted. As a counter you can also mention the fact that in Sebelius vs. NFIB SCOTUS ruled in favour of Obamacare which was a restrained decision (Roberts said how he felt it wasn't the courts job to protect the people from their electoral decision).
    Bush v. Gore is the best example of politicisation, which you went in to depth on which is likely to get a lot of marks. Perhaps a mention of the nomination process and how that has led to a polticisation of SCOTUS in recent years would also be good as it shows another level of understanding.

    One minor issue I personally had with the answer was the bit on abortion where you said "Clearly with the abortion cases the justices are just ‘Nine politicians sitting in robes,’ as their main role is to interpret the constitution, and the constitution does not allow for either of the three branches to decide on abortion as it is not mentioned in the constitution". Whilst it is true that the Constitution doesn't explicitly say abortion is a legal right, Roe vs. Wade was not inherently an unconstitutional ruling and many would argue that the constitution's 9th amendment gives a woman a right to privacy and so the decision was not political. It would also be wrong to say that the three branches can't decide on abortion. Congress would have every right to pass a law restricting abortion (Partial Birth Abortion Ban act) and SCOTUS has every right to declare abortion a women's legal right.

    Hope this helps.

    Hey! Yes that did help thank you so much! I agree with the part on abortion i did it timed and then thought crap why'd i write that not sure if it makes sense :blushing:. But thank you for clearing it - really did help and i'll look into the other cases you mentioned. :awesome:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Does anyone know how you would answer a ten mark question on limited government? For example, explain what is meant buy the term 'limited government' in US politics. I sort of know what it is, but wouldn't know what to write for a full answer.


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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vanessap)
    Does anyone have any predicitions for The executive branch and Congress

    (Original post by Jackathar)
    Could someone make a prediction on topic 2 and 3 please?
    The Legislature questions have never been on the role of Committees/their importance, so that could well be a 30 mark this year. It could also be a question on what the influences are on voting behaviour in Congress, although that has come up before.

    So far for the Executive they have focused on the power of the presidency, so that's a definite topic to revise. However if they are feeling particularly nasty, a question on the federal bureaucracy could well come up.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scatach)
    The Legislature questions have never been on the role of Committees/their importance, so that could well be a 30 mark this year. It could also be a question on what the influences are on voting behaviour in Congress, although that has come up before.

    So far for the Executive they have focused on the power of the presidency, so that's a definite topic to revise. However if they are feeling particularly nasty, a question on the federal bureaucracy could well come up.
    Thanks, good predictions. My teacher said pretty much the same. I have a feeling committees is going to come up
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Have the Courts become more restraint/active
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ineedtorevise127)
    How would you explain fundamental law, limited government and constitutional sovereignty if any come up as a 10 marker?
    Fundamental law is essentially what the Founding fathers came up with before the constitution there's not much to say but in a 10 marker you pretty much write what the constitution is. So codified document, written in 18th century, prevent tyranny via S of P,sovereign (e.g can't pass a law if it violates the constitution), can be changed and inspired by Montesquieu

    Limited government is whereby the federal government takes a backward stance on issues and let states and private companies work independently. Links to the american political culture as they are sceptical of big government and power concentrating in a tyrannical nature to one of the political institutions especially the executive. The S of P enforces bipartisanship which forces limit government- for example they have to work together to produce legislation.

    constitutional sovereignty is were the american constitution has the final say over any decision. For example if legislation violates it e.g line item veto the legislation has to go. It entrenches the rights of man and prevents against tyranny via the s of p. The constitution can evolve to suit the times and is a living document through the amendment process. which allows it to update formally and informally (briefly out the 4 amendment processes and give examples of being used).

    That's what I would write at least do check it otherwise though just to be 100% sure!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ineedtorevise127)
    Have the Courts become more restraint/active
    The current court is the Roberts court and it is argued to be restraint but not to the extent of Rehnquist court I would love it if someone could explain why it is more restraint, like an example?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Quick question, Bush v. Gore, why does this make Rehnquist court restraint? Like I understand it gave the victory to Bush but is that all there is to it? thanks people


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hannahm1995)
    Quick question, Bush v. Gore, why does this make Rehnquist court restraint? Like I understand it gave the victory to Bush but is that all there is to it? thanks people


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'd say it's activism. The case went to the Florida Supreme Court first, and they ordered ballot stations to start the recounts. SCOTUS then overturned this decision, which is activism, not restraint. You could use this as balance to say that a conservative court is sometimes willing to be an active branch of government. You could also use it to argue that the Court is political, in that it will go against the majority's judicial philosophy (of restraint) when it clashes with their political preferences (of a Republican President).


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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hannahm1995)
    Quick question, Bush v. Gore, why does this make Rehnquist court restraint? Like I understand it gave the victory to Bush but is that all there is to it? thanks people


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I would say its restraint because it went in favour of the status quo - the president is selected on the Electoral College, not on the popular vote. While it is defo politicised (5/4 in favour), in a way, it was acting in favour of the Constitution's meaning - ie strict constructionism.

    In truth, I would say it was just less activist ​in voting in favour of Bush.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    How many cases should you put in a Supreme Court essay?
    E.g. if question is how has court protected rights of citizens/how active/restraint they are?

    I only put around 3 or 4 it seems too low though
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inhopeless)
    I would say its restraint because it went in favour of the status quo - the president is selected on the Electoral College, not on the popular vote. While it is defo politicised (5/4 in favour), in a way, it was acting in favour of the Constitution's meaning - ie strict constructionism.

    In truth, I would say it was just less activist ​in voting in favour of Bush.
    Great! Thanks


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What Questions do you think will come up for each topic? Thank you!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ghowell13)
    What Questions do you think will come up for each topic? Thank you!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'm not sure for Congress/Executive, so if you're doing those then this won't be of much help to you. For the Constitution I think the essay will be on federalism. It hasn't come up yet and would make a good essay question. For the Judiciary I think it will be how active the Court is, or whether the Court is too powerful. It's unlikely that they will ask anything about if the Court is political as that came up last year, but I'd still revise everything just so you're covered


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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inhopeless)
    I would say its restraint because it went in favour of the status quo - the president is selected on the Electoral College, not on the popular vote. While it is defo politicised (5/4 in favour), in a way, it was acting in favour of the Constitution's meaning - ie strict constructionism.

    In truth, I would say it was just less activist ​in voting in favour of Bush.
    The court didn't vote in favour of Bush as such, they just voted to stop a recount, thus handing Bush the win. If they had ruled to Gore, it would not have definitively meant Gore won the Presidency but that there would have been a widespread recount. In that sense, Bush vs. Gore was more activist and political, after all their decision essentially made Bush President, surely that's about as active as it gets.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bord3r)
    The court didn't vote in favour of Bush as such, they just voted to stop a recount, thus handing Bush the win. If they had ruled to Gore, it would not have definitively meant Gore won the Presidency but that there would have been a widespread recount. In that sense, Bush vs. Gore was more activist and political, after all their decision essentially made Bush President, surely that's about as active as it gets.
    Thank you so much!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inhopeless)
    I would say its restraint because it went in favour of the status quo - the president is selected on the Electoral College, not on the popular vote. While it is defo politicised (5/4 in favour), in a way, it was acting in favour of the Constitution's meaning - ie strict constructionism.

    In truth, I would say it was just less activist ​in voting in favour of Bush.
    It seems like you've misunderstood what happened in Bush v Gore, or I've misunderstood your answer. Just to clarify, the issue wasn't that Bush won more EC votes despite Gore winning more votes nationally. It was that there was an issue with the ballot machines in some of the polling stations in South Florida (heavy Democrat support), where it wasn't 100% clear who a vote had been cast for. Jeb Bush (George Bush's brother, and Governor of Florida) ordered ballot stations not to count these votes as he knew the majority would be for Gore. Gore challenged it in the Florida SC, and was successful, meaning that recounts would begin. George Bush then took this to SCOTUS, where they ordered to stop the recounts. They didn't explicitly vote for Bush, they just said that recounts had to stop as the method of determining whether a vote was a vote or not couldn't have been consistent across all the ballot stations. They weren't necessarily siding with the winner of the EC vote, because had Florida been disregarded altogether, Gore would have won by around 25 EC votes. Bush only won the EC vote because of the SCOTUS decision. It is definitely an example of conservative activism, as they overturned a lower Court decision.


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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    My teacher has said NOT to mention the UK at all as it is unnecessary.. But i mean surely a sentence in reference to it will get you the marks?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Samzali1)
    My teacher has said NOT to mention the UK at all as it is unnecessary.. But i mean surely a sentence in reference to it will get you the marks?
    What!? You are aware that without synoptic links to the UK you cannot get above a D in the essay my teacher said?

    Always use it 2 or 3 should be enough I reckon but don't make it too simplistic
    e.g. UK has a uncodified constitution
    you should say unlike the USA, the UK has a uncodified constitution this makes it easier to pass legislation due to flexibility whilst in the USA the formal amendment process is argued to be more rigid e.g. the fact that only 17 amendments have been changed since 1791
 
 
 
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.