POLSC232 Study Guide

Unit 1: American Political Foundations

1a. Distinguish between different forms of government and democracy, underscoring the American political system

Define democracy and explain how a direct and representative democracy differ.
Define and explain how a parliamentary and presidential system differ.
What are the basic differences between majoritarian and pluralist models of democracy?

Democracy is a form of government where political authority is vested in the people. Derived from the Greek words demos (the people) and kratos (authority), we consider a government to be democratic if it serves the interests of the citizens.

In a direct democracy citizens make political decisions directly, rather than choose representatives to make decisions on their behalf. Direct democracy usually works more effectively among smaller groups because most citizens do not have the time, interest, expertise, or information necessary to participate in the government policy decision-making process. Examples of direct democracy include ancient Greece and the town meetings in New England where everyone has an opportunity to vote on all issues. State often governments organize a referendum to invite citizens to vote on specific ballot initiatives or to recall or remove individuals from office.

In a representative democracy citizens elect representatives who they authorize to create and enforce laws and policies on their behalf. Many consider this type of democracy more efficient and practical than direct democracy: the process tends to be less time-consuming because a smaller number of officials, rather than the entire populace, is charged with considering arguments for and against different proposals to make fair and informed decisions. There are two primary forms of representative democracy: parliamentary and presidential.

In a parliamentary system citizens directly elect representatives who serve in the legislature (such as the parliament or Bundestag), while legislators (members of parliament or the Bundestag) elect the prime minister or chancellor. A parliamentary system is characterized by a fusion of executive and legislative powers: politicians tend to support each other because the prime minister or chancellor needs the confidence of a majority of legislators to achieve and remain in power. In other words, the executive is accountable to the legislature because a majority of disgruntled members can easily remove them or "vote them out" of office via a "vote of no confidence."

In a presidential system citizens directly elect representatives who serve in each branch of government. They elect representatives who serve in the legislature (U.S. Congress), in addition to the president, or executive. In the United States these elected officials serve a fixed term. Each branch of government (executive, legislative and judicial) is separate, co-equal, and has its own authority via the concept of a "separation of powers" which we review later in Unit 1. Legislators can express opposition to the policies of the president, such as by using their fiscal powers to restrict presidential action, but they are generally forced to wait until the next election when citizens have the opportunity to elect a different president.

Review the descriptions of democracy and its forms in the lecture notes American Democracy and Citizenship and the lecture Introduction to Democracy I (scroll to 1:30) by Patrick Scott.

Review Majority Rule/Minority Rights: Essential Principles from the Democracy Web.

Review the lecture Introduction to Democracy II (scroll to 30:30) by Patrick Scott.

1b. Analyze the exercise and use of power within a society

Define power and political legitimacy.
Describe Weber's three types of legitimate authority: rational-legal authority, traditional authority, and charismatic authority.
Explain why rational-legal authority is often more stable than charismatic authority.

To understand politics and American government, we need to define power or the ability of an individual to influence the behavior of others despite resistance or disagreement. Max Weber (1864–1920), the German sociologist, distinguished three types of legitimate authority (where citizens or other types of followers deem the authority, and their use of power, just and appropriate).

Leaders derive rational-legal authority from the acceptance citizens have for the authority and rules of certain organizations or institutions, and the organizational structures that define them. Citizens typically put limits on the authority of these organizational structures, institutions, and the leaders who represent them.
Leaders derive traditional authority from their society's long-standing beliefs and practices. Citizens assign authority to these individuals in accordance with their community's customs and traditions.
Leaders derive charismatic authority from their charismatic personal qualities. These individuals typically exhibit a hold over followers because they revere or respect their charismatic personality.

Rational-legal authority is fairly stable than because it remains even after government leaders and bureaucratic officials change. Charismatic authority, on the other hand, is unstable because the authority the charismatic leader has may not extend to their successors after the leader dies.

Review the discussion of the types of authorities by Max Weber Power and Authority.

1c. Explain the fundamental principles in the Declaration of Independence

Define the Second Continental Congress and the Declaration of Independence.
Why did the American colonies declare independence from British rule?
Define the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
What theoretical and historical factors influenced the writers of the Constitution?

On July 4, 1776, the Second Continental Congress approved the Declaration of Independence. Perhaps the most revolutionary aspects of the Declaration were its assumptions that people have natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that governments derive their power from the consent of the governed; and that when a government "becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government."

The Declaration was the culmination of a series of conflicts between the American colonies and the government of Great Britain. In May of the previous year, the First Continental Congress had sent King George III (1738–1820) a petition for a redress of grievances essentially, a list of complaints about the British rule of the colonies that the colonists wanted resolved. When the King failed to respond, the Continental Congress began to take on the role of a federal government, forming an army and issuing a currency.

The first section of the Declaration lists the "abuses and usurpations" that made independence from Britain expedient for its writers. Many of the complaints registered in the Declaration of Independence would inform the writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights which we discuss in greater detail later.

The colonists listed several complaints in the Declaration of Independence:

The dissolution of legislative bodies in the colonies;
Refusing to allow the creation of new judiciary bodies;
Quartering troops in colonists' homes;
Keeping standing armies in the colonies in times of peace;
Refusing to allow colonists the right to a jury trial;
Cutting off colonists' trade with other countries; and
Taxing the colonists without their consent.

Review the History of the Declaration of Independence from the National Archives.

1d. Analyze the flaws in the Articles of Confederation

Describe the political system under the Articles of Confederation.
Name some inherent problems with the Articles.
What factors generated the need to replace this system of government?

The Articles of Confederation were the new nation's first attempt to create a federal government that would avoid the pitfalls and abuses of British rule. Americans considered this document to be the law of the land from the end of the Revolutionary War in 1783 until 1786. However, the Articles had several shortcomings that prevented them from being adopted as an effective, lasting way to govern the country.

Under the Articles, the United States functioned as a loose assembly of 13 independent countries. There was no executive branch of government at the federal level, nor was there a federal system of courts. Trade between states was unregulated and the government had no way to tax them, such as to pay for the debts of the war. States used different currencies, which made interstate and international commerce complicated and difficult.

Things came to a head in Massachusetts when Daniel Shays (1747–1825), a former captain in the army during the Revolutionary War, led a rebellion against the state government. Shortly after state troops defeated Shays' Rebellion in 1787, leaders decided it was time to establish a new form of government.

For more information, review The Need for the Constitution by J.W. Peltason and the Articles of Confederation.

1e. Explain the need for a Constitutional Convention to address the flaws in the current governmental system

In what ways did the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation affect the United States?

The Articles of Confederation created several negative impacts on the security and prosperity of the United States. For example, since the federal government was not allowed to tax its citizens, it could not raise money to defend the country. This made it vulnerable to Britain and Spain which still held neighboring territories, and to internal insurrections, such as Shays' Rebellion.

Since each state used a different currency and imposed alternative methods for taxing imports and handling debts, trade between states and with foreign countries was hampered. These complications disrupted the economic exchange, commerce, and growth that the country needed.

Review The Need for the Constitution by J.W. Peltason.

1f. Identify the various plans put forth by the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in regards to representation and slavery

Why was compromise necessary at the Constitutional Convention?
What major areas of disagreement led to compromise?
Define the three-fifths compromise.

Every state except Rhode Island sent delegates to attend the Constitutional Convention to replace the Articles of Confederation with a new, more stable, and effective government. The delegates came from a variety of backgrounds and brought divergent ideas about governance to the meeting.

Several key points of contention, such as how congressional representation should be allocated, emerged. States that has more citizens favored basing the number of representatives on population, while less populated states argued each state should have an equal number of representatives. The delegates debated whether all of the citizens of each state, or a certain select group of people, should elect their federal representatives.

They compromised by creating a bicameral legislature: citizens in each state would elect a designated number of representatives to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives based on their population, while each state legislature would select one senator to serve in the U.S. Senate. Note the 17th amendment to the Constitution changed the Senate selection process in 1913, so constituents in each state would elect two senators to serve in the U.S. Senate.

The issue of slavery was a major point of contention among the Founders. In the southern states slavery was integral to the plantation economy, but many white citizens in the North began to view the practice as immoral and untenable. Representatives from the southern states argued they should be allowed to include their slave population when calculating their state's number of congressional representatives. Northern states disagreed because the number of southern representatives in Congress would have significantly increased. The delegates agreed to only count three out of every five slaves when calculating each state's population for congressional representation: the so-called three-fifths compromise.

The delegates also tabled an initiative to abolish slavery. They voted to allow each state to decide whether to legalize slavery within its borders, but agreed the federal government could not address the issue of the need to abolish slavery on a federal basis for 20 years.

Review the pamphlet on the Constitutional Convention and The Constitution of the United States, Annotated, and the chapter The Constitution and the Structure of Government Power.

1g. Describe how the arguments put forth in The Federalist Papers advocated the need for a stronger government

Define the Federalist Papers.
Describe the key arguments put forth in the Federalist Papers.

The Federalist Papers were a series of essays Alexander Hamilton (1757–1804), James Madison (1751–1836), and John Jay (1745–1829) wrote and published in New York newspapers from October 1787 to April 1788. The three authors presented arguments for supporting the Constitution and described how ratification would benefit the states and the citizens of America.

The papers are divided into several sections that address different issues, such as the importance of the union, the defects of the Articles of Confederation, support for a republican form of government, and the descriptions of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches as presented in the Constitution.

Review the Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, paying special attention to numbers 10 and 51, which are considered some of the best examples of political writing in U.S. history. Numbers 16, 17, and 39 argued for the need to establish a strong central government.

1h. Compare and contrast the differences between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists during the Constitution's ratification process

Name the key concerns the Anti-Federalists had about the Constitution.
How did the Federalists compromise to win support from some Anti-Federalists?
How did the Federalists and Anti-federalists interpret the necessary and proper clause differently?

Anti-Federalists were concerned about the consequences of centralizing too much power in the federal government. They had just fought a bitter war against tyranny and government overreach and worried that a strong central government would become tyrannical in its rule over the states.

After much debate, the Federalists agreed to add a Bill of Rights to the Constitution, a series of amendments that would guarantee certain rights for individual citizens and state governments, to limit the reach of the federal government.

While the addition of the Bill of Rights convinced several delegates to ratify the Constitution, Federalists and Anti-Federalists interpreted several parts of the Constitution differently. They often disagreed about the scope of powers and authority of the federal government.

For example, they differed on the "necessary and proper clause," which established that Congress could pass any laws necessary to exercise the powers it is granted in the Constitution. Federalists felt the government needed this clause to allow it to adapt to new circumstances, while Anti-Federalists felt it gave the federal government too much flexibility to expand its power.

Review the The Bill of Rights: Its History and Significance by Doug Linder, and How the Federalist Papers Persuaded a Nation from the U.S. State Department.

1i. Explain the importance of minority rights in a democracy

Define minority rights and tyranny of the majority in the context of American democracy.
Explain why protections for minority rights are important.
How does the Constitution protect minority rights?
How have minority rights been abused in American history?

Democracy is a form of government that vests its power in the will of the people. But who are the people?

In most democracies, the majority rules: the candidate, bill, or policy proposal that has the most votes wins. But what about the rights of minority populations? When the majority decides, a substantial number of people are left unsatisfied by the outcome. A tyranny of the majority can occur when the majority disregards and tramples over the rights of individuals and minority groups. Majority rule threatens the notion of democracy when the government lacks guarantees that allow minority groups and individuals to engage in the system in a meaningful way.

The Constitution argues that support for regular and fair elections, and a system of checks and balances, can protect minority rights in American government.

Despite these protections, American history is full of examples where the government failed to protect and actively violated the rights of the minority. Examples include legal and legislative support for slavery, Jim Crow laws, and discrimination against native Americans and immigrant groups throughout history.

Review minority rights in the article Majority Rule/Minority Rights: Essential Principles.

1j. Describe the principles embedded in the Constitution, including separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism

Name the three branches of government.
Define separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism.
What was the rationale for the separation of powers and checks and balances in the Constitution?
Name some examples of checks and balances. Describe how each branch of government checks the powers of the other two branches?

The separation of powers refers to the division of power and authority which the Constitution grants to each of the three branches of government: the legislative, executive, and judicialbranches. Each of these institutions enjoys its own separate and independent powers and areas of responsibility. For example, in the United States the legislative branch (Congress) is responsible for creating laws, the executive branch (the office of the president) executes or administers these laws, and the judicial branch (the court system and the U.S. Supreme Court) interprets and applies the law. The Founders divided these governmental powers to prevent any one person or branch of government from becoming too powerful.

However, each branch lacks complete control over the powers the Constitution grants them: each branch has the power to limit or influence the authority of the other two branches. For example, a president does not have to sign every law Congress puts forward and can veto a law they dislike to prevent it from going into effect. If Congress feels the president is using their veto power unjustly, a two-thirds majority may overrule the veto. Similarly, the U.S. Supreme Court can declare a law unconstitutional and overturn it.

The founders created this system of checks and balances to prevent any branch from becoming all-powerful or tyrannical.

Federalism describes the division of powers between federal and state governments. For example, the Constitution designates that certain powers belong exclusively to the federal or state governments, while some are concurrent or shared.

Note that, as with disputes among the federal branches of government, state legislatures frequently disagree and debate whether an issue or concern falls under the jurisdiction of the local, state or federal government, since the Constitution could not have predicted every situation where government power would be necessary. In these cases, the judiciary may be called in to resolve these types of disputes.

Review the chapters The Constitution and the Structure of Government Power and Federalism, and Federalist Paper 51 by James Madison.

1k. Discuss how the Constitution has served as a living document by having the ability to be interpreted over time

Explain what we mean when we describe the Constitution as a living document.
Provide examples of how the Constitution has been interpreted over time, such as when the public changes its view about a certain issue.
Why did the Founders believe citizens and their representatives should have a process to amend the Constitution?
Name some key amendments to the Constitution.

Since the framers of the Constitution knew they could not anticipate every challenge or situation that would arise in their new country, they agreed future generations should be able to adapt the Constitution to keep it vibrant and relevant. Necessary modifications, or amendments, would help the Constitution maintain its status as the "Supreme Law of the Land," in line with future circumstances. Americans consider the Constitution a living document because the framers intended it to be interpreted and modified as necessary, according to the needs of the people.

The U.S. Supreme Court has the final say in the interpretation of the Constitution. Since it outlined the power of judicial review in the case Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the Supreme Court has deemed more than 125 federal laws, and hundreds of state laws, unconstitutional, preventing their implementation.

Presidents have enhanced their executive authority through their interpretation of the Second Article of the Constitution. For example, President George Washington (1732–1799) used his interpretation of executive power to establish that the president is the key figure in deciding foreign policy. Abraham Lincoln expanded the use of executive power to issue the Emancipation Proclamation and free enslaved people in the South in 1863.

The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution which were ratified in 1791, guarantee certain rights for Americans, and were an important addition to the Constitution. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery in 1865. The 14th Amendment guaranteed certain civil rights in 1868, and the 15th Amendment recognized the voting rights of African-Americans in 1870. These are just a few examples of how the Constitution has been shaped over time.

Review the Amendments to the Constitution, An Adaptable Document, and The Development of the Constitution from the U.S. State Department.

1l. Explain how federalism functions as a power-sharing arrangement between the national and state governments

What are the strengths and weaknesses of a federal system?
How is power shared between the federal and state governments in a federal system?

The U.S. federal system allows its states to become "laboratories of democracy," by giving them a certain independence and the ability to experiment with different ways of involving citizens in the decision-making process. Because state governments are more accessible to citizens (due to their relative size and geographic proximity to their constituents), they typically promote increased political participation and efficacy.

However, a federal system also allows state and local governments to block some important federal policies their legislators oppose. For example, differences of opinion were especially apparent and became violent in many areas when the federal government tried to implement civil rights legislation.

Federalism can also lead to major discrepancies in how people are treated at the individual state and local level by governments that are responsible for administering a program. For example, state and local governments that lack the political will, expertise, or a funding mechanism to support a certain proposal may prevent major, federal policy goals from being implemented or distributed in a fair and uniform manner.

For example, while the U.S. Congress passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010, its implementation has varied widely due to the level of support it received from state legislators who were responsible for putting its promises and guidelines into practice. Several states declined to receive funding from the federal government which limited the number of patients who could benefit from the legislation.

Review the article Federalism and two lectures Federalism I and Federalism II by Patrick Scott, and the chapter Federalism.

1m. Describe the various types of federalism that exist on the state and national levels

Define and explain how dual-federalism, nation-centered federalism, and cooperative federalism differ?
Define fiscal federalism.
Define and explain how block grants, categorical grants, and general revenue sharing differ.

Dual federalism (layer-cake federalism) refers to a system in which federal, state, and local governments have distinct spheres of authority and power, which do not overlap.

In contrast, cooperative federalism (marble-cake federalism), describes a system in which federal, state, and local governmental authority overlap and are shared.

Nation-centered federalism refers to a system where the federal government has more authority and is more powerful than the state or local governments, such as in many authoritarian governments.

Fiscal federalism refers to the funding of government programs. For example, many say Democrats support increasing federal government control over the funding and administration of federal programs and initiatives, while Republicans tend to demand greater state and local authority for these programs. In reality, political parties frequently change their stance depending on the issue at hand and whether they support the person who is in charge of implementing the policy.

Congressional funding can take several forms.

Block grants are grants which the federal government issues to state and local governments, to support broadly-defined programs, such as law enforcement or social services.
Categorical grants provide grant funding for more specific or narrowly-defined purposes or programs. These programs typically see greater federal government oversight as supporters try to ensure they are administered and implemented as planned.
General revenue sharing refers to a situation in which some of the revenue raised by the federal government is shared with state and local governments for them to use. It was introduced as part of a larger process of devolving more authority to the states.

Review the video Layer Cake Federalism, the video The Evolution of Federalism, and the report American Federalism, 1776 to 2000 by Eugene Boyd and Michael Fauntroy.

Unit 1 Vocabulary

Anti-federalist
Articles of Confederation
Bill of Rights
Block grant
Categorical grant
Charismatic authority
Checks and balances
Cooperative federalism
Constitution
Constitutional Convention
Declaration of Independence
Democracy
Direct democracy
Dual federalism
Executive branch
Federalism
Federalist
Federalist Papers
Fiscal federalism
General revenue sharing
Judicial system
Legislative branch
Living document
Majoritarian system
Max Weber
Minority rights
Nation-centered federalism
Parliamentary system
Pluralist system
Political legitimacy
Power
Presidential system
Rational-legal authority
Representative democracy
Separation of powers
Second Continental Congress
Three-Fifths Compromise
Traditional authority
Tyranny of the majority