Acknowledgments

The Princeton Review would like to thank AP U.S. Government and Politics teacher Deborah Linder and Princeton Review tutor Gina Donegan for their thorough content review and contributions to the 2017 edition of this book.

Contents

Cover

Title Page

Copyright

Acknowledgments

Register Your Book Online!

Part I: Using This Book to Improve Your AP Score

Preview: Your Knowledge, Your Expectations

Your Guide to Using This Book

How to Begin

Part II: Practice Test 1

Practice Test 1

Practice Test 1: Answers and Explanations

Part III: About the AP U.S. Government and Politics Exam

The Structure of the AP U.S. Government and Politics Exam

How AP Exams Are Used

Other Resources

Designing Your Study Plan

Part IV: Test-Taking Strategies for the AP U.S. Government and Politics Exam

Preview

1 How to Approach Multiple-Choice Questions

2 How to Approach Free-Response Questions

3 Using Time Effectively to Maximize Points

Reflect

Part V: Content Review for the AP U.S. Government and Politics Exam

4 The Constitutional Underpinnings

Enlightenment Philosophies

The Weakness of the Articles of Confederation

The Constitution As an Instrument of Government

Amendment Process

Amendments

State and Local Governments

5 Public Opinion and the Media

Characteristics of Public Opinion

Polls Measure Public Opinion

Where Does Public Opinion Come From?

Political Ideologies

Public Opinion and the Mass Media

6 Political Parties, Interest Groups, PACs, 527 Groups, and Linkage Institutions

Political Parties

Functions of Modern Political Parties

Interest Groups and Lobbyists

Political Action Committees (PACs) and Super PACs

527 Groups

7 Elections

The Election Cycle

Media Influence on Elections

Election Day

8 Institutions of Government

Congress

Notable Legislation

The President

The Judiciary and the Law

The Bureaucracy

9 Public Policy

Making Policy

Economic Policy

Trade Policy.

Domestic Policy

10 Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

First Amendment Rights and Restrictions

The Rights of the Accused

The Right of All Americans to Privacy

Civil Rights

11 Chapter Drills: Answers and Explanations

Glossary

The Constitution of the United States of America

Part VI: Practice Test 2

Practice Test 2

Practice Test 2: Answers and Explanations

Part VII: Additional Practice Tests

Practice Test 3

Practice Test 3: Answers and Explanations

Practice Test 4

Practice Test 4: Answers and Explanations

Register Your Book Online!

1 Go to Princeton​Review.​com/​cracking

2 You’ll see a welcome page where you can register your book using the following ISBN: 9781101920268.

3 After placing this free order, you’ll either be asked to log in or to answer a few simple questions in order to set up a new Princeton Review account.

4 Finally, click on the “Student Tools” tab located at the top of the screen. It may take an hour or two for your registration to go through, but after that, you’re good to go.

If you are experiencing book problems (potential content errors), please contact Editorial​Support@​review.​com with the full title of the book, its ISBN number (located above), and the page number of the error. Experiencing technical issues? Please e-mail TPRS​tudent​Tech@​review.​com with the following information:

Once you’ve registered, you can…

Part I

Using This Book to Improve Your AP Score

PREVIEW: YOUR KNOWLEDGE, YOUR EXPECTATIONS

Your route to a high score on the AP U.S. Government and Politics Exam depends a lot on how you plan to use this book. Respond to the following:

YOUR GUIDE TO USING THIS BOOK

This book is organized to provide as much—or as little—support as you will need, so that you can use this book in whatever way will be most helpful for improving your score on the AP U.S. Government and Politics Exam.

You may choose to use some parts of this book over others, or you may work through the entire book. This will depend on your needs and how much time you have. Let’s now look how to make this determination.

HOW TO BEGIN

Part II

Practice Test 1

Practice Test 1

Click here to download a PDF of Practice Test 1.

The Exam

AP^® U.S. Government and Politics Exam

SECTION I: Multiple-Choice Questions

DO NOT OPEN THIS BOOKLET UNTIL YOU ARE TOLD TO DO SO.

Instructions

Section I of this examination contains 60 multiple-choice questions. Fill in only the ovals for numbers 1 through 60 on your answer sheet.

Indicate all of your answers to the multiple-choice questions on the answer sheet. No credit will be given for anything written in this exam booklet, but you may use the booklet for notes or scratch work. After you have decided which of the suggested answers is best, completely fill in the corresponding oval on the answer sheet. Give only one answer to each question. If you change an answer, be sure that the previous mark is erased completely. Here is a sample question and answer.

Sample Question

Chicago is a

(A) state

(B) city

(C) country

(D) continent

(E) village

Sample Answer

Use your time effectively, working as quickly as you can without losing accuracy. Do not spend too much time on any one question. Go on to other questions and come back to the ones you have not answered if you have time. It is not expected that everyone will know the answers to all the multiple-choice questions.

About Guessing

Many candidates wonder whether or not to guess the answers to questions about which they are not certain. Multiple-choice scores are based on the number of questions answered correctly. Points are not deducted for incorrect answers, and no points are awarded for unanswered questions. Because points are not deducted for incorrect answers, you are encouraged to answer all multiple-choice questions. On any questions you do not know the answer to, you should eliminate as many choices as you can, and then select the best answer among the remaining choices.

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS

Section I

Time—45 minutes

60 Questions

Directions: Each of the questions or incomplete statements below is followed by five suggested answers or completions. Select the one that is best in each case and then fill in the corresponding oval on the answer sheet.

1. The Constitution as ratified in 1788 most clearly reflects the Framers’ commitment to

(A) the idea of direct democracy

(B) the principle of limited government

(C) the abolition of slavery

(D) protecting the rights of the accused

(E) maintaining the primacy of the states

2. Which of the following most accurately describes The Federalist Papers?

(A) The Federalist party platform during the presidency of John Adams, the first Federalist president

(B) A popular anti-British booklet of the pre-Revolutionary era

(C) A collection of essays arguing the merits of the Constitution

(D) A series of congressional acts defining the relationship between the federal and state governments

(E) The laws under which the South was governed during Reconstruction

3. A Supreme Court that demonstrates a willingness to change public policy and alter judicial precedent is said to be engaging in

(A) judicial activism

(B) due process

(C) judicial restraint

(D) ex post facto lawmaking

(E) judicial review

4. A writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court indicates that the Court

(A) will review a lower court decision

(B) has rendered a decision on a case

(C) has decided not to hear an appeal

(D) will recess until the end of the calendar year

(E) plans to overturn one of its previous rulings

5. All of the following statements about Congress are true EXCEPT:

(A) Only Congress can pass laws.

(B) A proposed amendment must be approved by two-thirds of the delegates in both houses of Congress.

(C) Congress can override a presidential veto if two-thirds of the House and Senate agree to do so.

(D) Congressional power over the bureaucracy is less than that of the president.

(E) Congress cannot establish an official church of the United States.

6. The Supreme Court issued the opinion quoted below in its ruling on which of the following cases?

“We conclude that in the field of education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”

(A) Gideon v. Wainwright

(B) Marbury v. Madison

(C) Engel v. Vitale

(D) Regents of University of California v. Bakke

(E) Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka

7. Which of the following conclusions about congressional job approval ratings since 1975 is supported by the data in the graph above?

(A) The approval rating of Congress was higher in the early 1990s than in the late 1990s.

(B) Congress was more popular in the mid-1990s than in the late 1980s.

(C) Americans are usually displeased with the performance of Congress.

(D) A majority of Americans disapproved of the performance of Congress immediately after September 11, 2001.

(E) The popularity of Congress has been stable since 2000.

8. Which of the following best describes the practice of “ticket splitting”?

(A) A presidential nominee selects a running mate who can appeal to voter groups whose support of the nominee is weak.

(B) A voter chooses the presidential nominee of one major party, but chooses congressional nominees of the other major party.

(C) A mayor orders the local police force to hand out fewer parking violations in the weeks leading up to the general election.

(D) A delegate to a national party convention supports the front-runner but remains uncommitted on the party platform.

(E) A member of Congress votes against legislation proposed by his or her party leader.

9. The House Rules Committee is considered among the most powerful in the House of Representatives because it has great power over the

(A) ethical conduct of House members

(B) selection of federal judges

(C) number of subcommittees that a standing committee may establish at any given time

(D) scheduling of votes and the conditions under which bills are debated and amended

(E) regulations governing federal elections

10. Compared with political parties in countries such as England and Israel, both of which have multiparty systems, American political parties are

(A) less interested in influencing the outcome of elections

(B) less clearly identified with consistent political ideologies

(C) less effective at raising money from political supporters

(D) better able to reflect the goals of their entire constituencies

(E) more likely to organize around a single issue or goal

11. Which of the following people would most likely be accused of influence peddling?

(A) A congressperson who retires to take a position teaching political science at a university

(B) A former president who advises a current president on a particular foreign policy issue

(C) A voter who researches the positions of all candidates in a race before choosing whom to support

(D) A judge who consistently hands down the maximum sentence to convicted felons

(E) An official who leaves the State Department to work as a paid consultant to foreign governments

12. The primary function of political action committees (PACs) is to

(A) contribute money to candidates for election

(B) coordinate local get-out-the-vote campaigns

(C) promote the defeat of incumbents in the federal and state legislatures

(D) organize protest demonstrations and other acts of civil disobedience

(E) contact Congress to suggest legislation

13. Voters who rely exclusively on television network news coverage of national elections are most likely to be aware of

(A) which special interest groups have endorsed which candidates

(B) the relative strength of each candidate’s support, as indicated by public opinion polls

(C) candidates’ positions on international issues

(D) candidates’ positions on domestic issues

(E) candidates’ congressional voting records

14. While best known for protecting freedom of speech and religion, the First Amendment also protects Americans’ right to

(A) due process of the law in any criminal case

(B) retain personal property unless justly compensated by the government

(C) not be subjected to excessive fines or unusual punishment

(D) petition the government for a redress of grievances

(E) not be searched without probable cause

15. Two related cases that focused on the right to privacy for all American citizens were

(A) Near v. Minnesota and New York Times v. Sullivan

(B) Texas v. Johnson and Morse v. Frederick

(C) Thornhill v. Alabama and Cox v. New Hampshire

(D) Epperson v. Arkansas and Lemon v. Kurtzman

(E) Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade.

16. Of the following, American federalism is most clearly exemplified by the

(A) system of checks and balances among the three branches of the national government

(B) process by which international treaties are completed

(C) special constitutional status of Washington, D.C.

(D) Tenth Amendment to the Constitution

(E) president’s power to grant reprieves and pardons

17. All of the following are specifically mentioned in the Constitution EXCEPT

(A) judicial review

(B) the national census

(C) rules of impeachment

(D) the State of the Union address

(E) length of term of federal judgeships

18. Which of the following correctly states the relationship between the federal and state judiciaries?

(A) Federal courts are higher courts than state courts and may overturn state decisions on any grounds.

(B) The two are entirely autonomous, and neither ever hears cases that originate in the other.

(C) The two are generally autonomous, although federal courts may rule on the constitutionality of state court decisions.

(D) State courts are trial courts; federal courts are appeals courts.

(E) State courts try all cases except those that involve conflicts between two states, which are tried in federal courts.

19. The line-item veto was found unconstitutional because

(A) it gave executive powers to the legislature

(B) it gave legislative powers to the bureaucracy

(C) it gave legislative powers to the president

(D) it delegated too many powers to the states

(E) it permitted the Senate to use judicial review to reverse the House of Representatives

20. Among the executive branch’s checks on the legislative branch is the president’s power to

(A) call special sessions of Congress

(B) introduce bills to the floor of Congress

(C) address Congress during its debate on bills

(D) vote on acts of Congress

(E) disband congressional committees

21. The amount of access cabinet secretaries have to the president is most likely to be controlled by the

(A) vice president

(B) president’s chief of staff

(C) national security advisor

(D) chair of the Federal Reserve Board

(E) president’s press secretary

22. Which of the following presidential powers is shared with the Senate?

(A) Deploying troops

(B) Drafting appropriations bills

(C) Negotiating treaties

(D) Forcing Congress into session

(E) Nominating vice presidents

23. Republican candidates for president who tend to be more successful in the primaries tend to be more conservative than rank-and-file Republicans because

(A) moderate Republicans are less likely than conservative Republicans to gain widespread support in the general election

(B) most moderate Republicans have approved of the Democratic presidential candidate

(C) most rank-and-file Republicans do not care whether their party’s nominee shares their political views

(D) party activists, whose political participation is disproportionate to their numbers, tend to be very conservative

(E) the Republican Party does not allow rank-and-file members to participate in the selection of the party’s nominee

24. What is the primary reason that the committees in the House of Representatives are more influential than they are in the Senate?

(A) The difference in size between the two chambers means that more work is done on the floor in the Senate and more work is done in committees in the House.

(B) The Senate as a whole has confirmation powers that the House does not have.

(C) Members are appointed to the committee in the House but are elected to committees in the Senate.

(D) A member of any party can serve a committee in the House, but only major party members can serve on committees in the Senate.

(E) Committee membership enables members of Congress to work for the special interests of their constituents.

25. Which of the following accounts for the fact that the power and prestige of the presidency have grown since 1932?

I. America’s increased prominence in international affairs

II. continually improved public confidence in the federal government

III. the New Deal and other programs that have expanded federal responsibility

IV. the president’s increased visibility, due to the development of mass media

(A) I only

(B) I and IV only

(C) I, III, and IV only

(D) II and IV only

(E) II, III, and IV only

26. Which of the following generally results when the Senate and House of Representatives pass different versions of the same bill?

(A) The president signs the version he prefers.

(B) The bill goes back to each house’s committee and restarts the legislative process.

(C) All amendments to the bill are invalidated, and the original version of the bill is sent to the president to sign.

(D) The Senate’s version of the bill is sent to the president because the Senate is the higher legislative body.

(E) The two legislative bodies form a conference committee.

27. All of the following statements concerning the likelihood that a person will vote are true EXCEPT:

(A) When there is a strong front-runner in a state, people in that state are less likely to vote.

(B) White-collar workers are more likely to vote than are blue-collar workers, with the exception of blue-collar workers who belong to unions.

(C) Voters who are registered as independent are less likely to vote than those who are registered Democrats or Republicans.

(D) Minorities with high incomes are as likely to vote as are whites.

(E) There is no difference in the likelihood of voting among those with undergraduate degrees and those with postgraduate degrees.

28. A member of which of the following demographic groups is most likely to support a Republican presidential candidate?

(A) Married white male

(B) Unmarried white female

(C) African American, male or female

(D) Youths under the age of 25, male or female

(E) Individuals earning below poverty-level wages, male or female

29. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed to reinforce the

(A) presidential veto

(B) system of checks and balances

(C) states’ power to challenge federal regulation

(D) Fourteenth Amendment

(E) Taft-Hartley Act of 1947

30. Which of the following best illustrates a use of the elastic clause?

(A) The Supreme Court allows a lower court ruling to stand by refusing to hear an appeal.

(B) A congressional committee prevents the full chamber from voting on legislation by delaying its report.

(C) Congress passes legislation establishing a national speed limit.

(D) A member of the House of Representatives introduces a bill to increase federal income tax rates.

(E) A governor issues an executive order requiring all state employees to submit to drug testing.

31. According to The Federalist Papers, federalism has which of the following effects on political factions?

(A) It provides a structured environment in which factions may flourish.

(B) It limits the dangers of factionalism by diluting political power.

(C) It allows factions to dominate on the national level while limiting their influence on state governments.

(D) It eliminates any opportunity for factions to form.

(E) It prevents factions by declaring them illegal.

32. The Constitution, as originally ratified, addressed all of the following weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation EXCEPT the

(A) lack of a chief executive office

(B) national government’s inability to levy taxes effectively

(C) absence of a central authority to regulate interstate trade

(D) insufficiency of the government’s power to raise an army

(E) omission of a universal suffrage clause

33. Congress’s power to determine national policy

(A) usually increases as a president’s popularity decreases, and vice versa

(B) has declined steadily since the ratification of the Constitution

(C) is severely limited by the “elastic clause” of the Constitution

(D) increases during times of war

(E) stems primarily from its control over the judicial branch

34. Which of the following statements about cabinet departments is FALSE?

(A) They are established by the legislative branch.

(B) Their members often don’t have much influence over presidential decisions.

(C) They cannot all be run by leaders who belong to the same political party the president does.

(D) Not every federal agency is a cabinet department.

(E) Their heads are appointed, and fired, by the president.

35. Which of the following statements about the electoral college is correct?

(A) Each state must split its electoral votes among all the candidates that receive votes.

(B) Each state is equally represented in the electoral college.

(C) The electoral college was created by an amendment to the Constitution.

(D) The results of electoral college voting tend to distort the winner’s margin of victory, when compared with the popular vote for president.

(E) Each state’s delegation to the electoral college consists of that state’s U.S. senators and representatives.

36. Which of the following statements is true of congressional incumbents who run for reelection?

(A) Incumbent senators are more likely to be reelected than are incumbent members of the House of Representatives.

(B) Incumbents are prohibited by law from spending more on their reelection campaigns than their challengers spend.

(C) Incumbents have a great advantage over challengers because they are better known and can raise campaign funds more easily.

(D) Ever since the 1994 election, the majority of congressional incumbents have failed in their reelection attempts.

(E) Most incumbents who run for reelection are unopposed in the general election.

37. Before serving in the House of Representatives or Senate, the greatest number of federal legislators

(A) own and operate small businesses

(B) are professional athletes

(C) teach political science at the college level

(D) work as journalists

(E) earn law degrees

38. A member of the House of Representatives wishing to influence tax policy would most likely try to serve on which of the following committees?

(A) Commerce

(B) Ways and Means

(C) Education and the Workforce

(D) Resources

(E) Judiciary

39. The spoils system of awarding civil service jobs was replaced by the merit system as a result of the

(A) Truman Doctrine

(B) Fair Labor Standards Act of 1961

(C) National Industrial Recovery Act

(D) Civil Rights Act of 1964

(E) Pendleton Act of 1883

40. The boundary lines of congressional districts must be redrawn every 10 years to

(A) reflect population shifts indicated by the national census

(B) guarantee the turnover of the majority of congressional seats

(C) make sure each state’s congressional delegation exactly mirrors its residents’ party affiliations

(D) determine which party’s leader will be named Speaker of the House

(E) increase the number of female and minority members of Congress

41. The chart above best supports which of the following conclusions?

(A) No more than half of all eligible voters ever participate in federal elections.

(B) The number of registered voters always increases between elections.

(C) Voters have been more dissatisfied with their electoral choices in the 1990s than they were during the 1970s.

(D) Voter turnout for midterm congressional elections is generally lower than it is for presidential elections.

(E) Voter turnout for the 1996 presidential election was the lowest for any presidential election during the twentieth century.

42. Interest groups representing businesspeople and investors are often among the most successful lobbying groups in Washington, D.C., for all of the following reasons EXCEPT

(A) Such groups have the financial resources to mount sustained campaigns on their own behalf.

(B) Many such groups have been in existence for several decades or more, allowing them to master the legislative system and to develop close ties with legislators.

(C) In many districts, these groups’ constituents make up the majority of voters.

(D) These groups’ constituents contribute heavily to many legislators’ campaigns, and in doing so, gain greater access to legislators.

(E) Economic lobbyists often campaign for obscure or minute changes to tax law about which the public knows little, and therefore frequently meet little opposition.

43. Among the following groups that have traditionally supposed the Democratic Party, which has the least liberal constituency?

(A) White Southerners

(B) Labor union members

(C) African Americans

(D) Northern ethnic minorities

(E) Environmentalists

44. Voters in which of the following categories would be LEAST likely to vote?

(A) Blue-collar workers who belong to a union

(B) Professionals

(C) Voters who are active in their political parties

(D) Voters aged 18–29

(E) Voters in swing states

45. People who join a political party other than the one to which their parents belong most often do so because of

(A) peer pressure

(B) economic issues

(C) religious beliefs

(D) pressure from their employers

(E) issues of international politics

46. Which of the following best describes the fate of most popular third-party movements?

(A) They displace one of the two major parties and become major parties themselves.

(B) They are ultimately abandoned by the public because their politics are perceived as too radical.

(C) Their supporters become frustrated and withdraw from the political process.

(D) They remain active participants in the American political system indefinitely.

(E) They disintegrate when one or both of the major parties adopt the third party’s goals.

47. A constitutional amendment would be required to ban flag burning because that activity is currently protected by the right to

(A) due process

(B) assembly

(C) free exercise of religion

(D) protection against confiscation of private property

(E) free speech

48. The Supreme Court’s decision in Miranda v. Arizona was based mainly on the

(A) Constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws

(B) incorporation of the Fifth Amendment through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

(C) Eighth Amendment restriction against cruel and unusual punishment

(D) abolition of slavery by the Thirteenth Amendment

(E) “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution

49. The Supreme Court has used the practice of selective incorporation to

(A) limit the number of appeals filed by defendants in state courts

(B) extend voting rights to racial minorities and women

(C) apply most Bill of Rights protections to state law

(D) hasten the integration of public schools

(E) prevent the states from calling a constitutional convention

50. The largest portion of the federal budget covers the costs of

(A) national defense

(B) the Department of Energy

(C) interest on the national debt

(D) entitlement programs

(E) tax collection

51. Which of the following accurately describes congressional committees?

I. The committee chairpersons always belong to the majority party.

II. Seats on each committee are divided between the two major parties in exact proportion to the parties’ representation in Congress.

III. They recommend whether Congress should pass various pieces of legislation, and those recommendations are always approved by the full congressional body.

IV. When a committee vote results in a tie, the vice president casts the tie-breaking vote.

(A) I only

(B) II only

(C) I and III only

(D) II and III only

(E) I, II, and IV only

52. The primary goal of the Gramm-Rudman Acts of 1985 and 1987 was to

(A) strengthen the military

(B) increase funding for social programs

(C) reduce the federal deficit

(D) limit the president’s ability to conduct foreign policy

(E) allow citizens easier access to government records

53. The term “iron triangle” refers to the interrelationship of the

(A) president, Congress, and the Supreme Court

(B) electorate, Congress, and political action committees

(C) local, state, and federal governments

(D) State Department, the Pentagon, and the National Security Council

(E) federal bureaucracy, congressional committees, and lobbyists

54. A sound bite would most likely be used during a presidential election in order to

(A) avoid “horse race” politics

(B) provide the audience with a candidate’s view in a limited amount of time

(C) reduce the amount of negative advertising used

(D) ensure a candidate is presented in the best light

(E) emphasize who won and lost presidential debates

55. Which of the following most accurately describes the right of American citizens to privacy?

(A) The right to privacy is determined entirely by the states on a case-by-case basis.

(B) The right to privacy is explicitly granted in the Preamble to the Constitution.

(C) The Supreme Court has ruled that the right to privacy is implied by the Bill of Rights.

(D) Common law requires the government to respect citizens’ right to privacy.

(E) Americans have no right to privacy, but the government rarely violates individuals’ privacy because to do so is not in the government’s interest.

56. The graph above supports which of the following conclusions about presidential elections?

(A) If only men had voted in the 1980 election, Jimmy Carter would have won.

(B) There is little difference in the level of support that the Republican Party receives from men and women.

(C) The gender gap was more prominent in the 1980s and 1990s than it was in the 1970s.

(D) In order for a Republican candidate to win, he or she must receive more votes from women than from men.

(E) The 1976 election was the closest in history.

57. Which of the following statements can be inferred from the table above?

(A) The dissemination of Medicare funding has continually increased across all regions between 2000–2012.

(B) The West received the most Medicare funding in 2012.

(C) In 2008, the Northeast received approximately one and a half times the amount of Medicare funding as the North.

(D) The South experienced the greatest increase in Medicare funding from 2000–2012.

(E) In 2004, the Midwest and the East received the same amount of Medicare funding.

58. The difference between a pardon and a reprieve is

(A) a pardon lasts 10 years, while a reprieve lasts one year

(B) a reprieve grants a release from legal punishment, while a pardon postpones it

(C) a pardon grants a release from legal punishment while a reprieve postpones it

(D) only state governors can issue pardons

(E) only state governors can issue reprieves

59. The government promotes preferential treatment for members of groups that have historically suffered from discrimination by means of

(A) the New Federalism

(B) affirmative action programs

(C) Social Security benefits

(D) bills of attainder

(E) gerrymandering

60. The exclusionary rule was established to

(A) create “separate but equal” facilities to facilitate racial segregation

(B) allow private organizations to restrict their memberships

(C) limit the government’s ability to use illegally obtained evidence

(D) deny control of interstate commerce to the states

(E) provide the president with greater independence in negotiating foreign policy

STOP

END OF SECTION I

IF YOU FINISH BEFORE TIME IS CALLED, YOU MAY CHECK YOUR WORK ON THIS SECTION.
DO NOT GO ON TO SECTION II UNTIL YOU ARE TOLD TO DO SO.

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS

SECTION II

Time—1 hour and 40 minutes

Directions: You have 100 minutes to answer all four of the following questions. Unless the directions indicate otherwise, respond to all parts of all four questions. It is suggested that you take a few minutes to plan and outline each answer. Spend approximately one-fourth of your time (25 minutes) on each question. Illustrate your essay with substantive examples where appropriate. Make certain to number each of your answers as the question is numbered below.

1. The advent of the Internet has greatly affected politics.

(a) Identify two ways that candidates are using the Internet in their campaigns.

(b) For each of the methods identified in part (a), explain the advantages to the candidates of using the Internet in this way.

(c) Identify and explain one way that the Internet can harm a candidate’s campaign.

2. The debate over soft money has been a common and important feature of American politics.

(a) Define “soft money.”

(b) Describe the opposing points of view expressed about soft money by the congressmen in this cartoon.

(c) Explain the arguments for and against soft money.

3. Using the above graph and your knowledge of U.S. politics, perform the following tasks:

(a) Describe the overall trend in citizens’ attitudes toward Congress. Assess the degree to which public opinion has changed since 1974.

(b) Explain the causes and results of ONE dramatic shift in public opinion indicated in the graph.

(c) Explain why, despite the shifts in public approval, incumbent members of Congress usually win reelection.

4. Since 1789, the United States Constitution has defined the organization and function of the government. Despite this continuity, there have been changes in the way the scope and purpose of the Constitution is interpreted.

(a) Describe two ways in which formal amendments can be made to the Constitution.

(b) Explain why formal amendments are rarely made.

(c) Explain two other ways through which the scope and purpose of the Constitution have been changed. Describe one specific example of each method.

END OF EXAMINATION

Practice Test 1: Answers and Explanations

ANSWER KEY

MULTIPLE-CHOICE SECTION: ANSWERS AND EXPLANATIONS

1. B The term limited government refers to the concept of defining government powers by means of a constitution. A constitution specifies what the government is allowed to do, and also what it may not do. In setting distinct limits on government power, the Framers of the U.S. Constitution hoped to prevent the government from achieving the same level of power as had the British monarchy.

Incorrect Answers:

(A) Direct democracy refers to a form of democratic government in which all citizens vote on all issues. The Constitution established a representative democracy, in which citizens vote for representatives who, in turn, act on their behalf and assume the nation’s legislative and executive duties.

(C) The abolition of slavery did not occur until 1865 with the ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment. The Framers of the Constitution did not seriously consider abolition.

(D) As ratified in 1788, the Constitution did not yet have a Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791; only then did the Constitution reflect a concern for protecting the rights of the accused.

(E) Compared with the Articles of Confederation (which it replaced), the Constitution weakened the power of the states relative to the power of the federal government. Under the Articles, the states were mostly autonomous and exerted great control over the national government. The Constitution shifted the balance toward the federal government.

2. C The Federalist Papers is the collective name given to a group of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay in support of ratification of the Constitution. The essays were published anonymously in newspapers in New York and Virginia, two states in which ratification was both critical and uncertain.

Incorrect Answers:

(A) The Federalist Party did not have a platform. Party platforms are the product of political conventions, which did not become a part of American politics until after the demise of the Federalist Party.

(B) This answer describes Common Sense by Thomas Paine and The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved by James Otis, among other documents.

(D) The relationship described in this answer is defined by the U.S. Constitution.

(E) The postwar South was governed under the Military Reconstruction Act of 1867.

3. A Judicial activism refers to the actions of a court that frequently strikes down or alters the acts of the executive and/or legislative branches. Activist judiciaries are also willing to overturn previous rulings. Judicial activism expands the court’s impact on public policy.

Incorrect Answers:

(B) Due process refers to those rules that protect individuals from unfair treatment by the government. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the states from depriving citizens of life, liberty, or property without a fair and impartial hearing. The clause was intended to protect the rights of newly freed slaves in the post-Civil War South.

(C) Judicial restraint is the opposite of judicial activism. The term refers to judicial action that demonstrates an unwillingness to break with precedent or to overturn legislative and executive acts.

(D) An ex post facto law allows governments to prosecute citizens for acts that were legal at the time they occurred, but were later deemed illegal. Ex post facto laws are prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.

(E) Judicial review is the Supreme Court’s power to overturn a law on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. Judicial review is not mentioned in the Constitution. The practice was established by Chief Justice John Marshall in the 1803 decision Marbury v. Madison.

4. A A writ of certiorari is a document issued by the Supreme Court that requests all the records pertaining to a case. When the Court issues a writ of certiorari, it indicates that the Court will consider the case. A writ of certiorari is issued when four of the nine justices agree to hear a case.

Incorrect Answers:

(B) The Supreme Court meets on Wednesdays and Fridays to vote on cases they have heard during the week. Afterward, one justice is chosen to write the majority opinion. Justices are given the chance to change their vote and to offer alternate concurring opinions (if they side with the majority but feel the majority opinion is either incomplete or incorrect) or dissenting opinions (if they disagree with the majority vote). Only when this process is complete does the Court hand down its final decision.

(C) When the Supreme Court decides not to hear a case, it simply rejects the appeal and the lower court decision stands. No writ is necessary.

(D) The Supreme Court meets 36 weeks a year, from the first week of October until June. It recesses occasionally to discuss cases and write decisions. No writ is necessary for a recess.

(E) The Supreme Court issues no official warning when it plans to overturn a previous ruling. When the Court agrees to hear a case concerning a subject on which it has already ruled, however, the possibility is great that the Court is considering altering at least part of its previous opinion.

5. D Be careful because this is an “EXCEPT” question. All of the statements about congressional powers are true except for choice (D). When it comes to control of the bureaucracy, Congress has more power than the president. For example, Congress has the power to affirm or reject presidential appointments, abolish agencies, determine the funding an agency receives, and change agency jurisdiction if unsatisfied with policy implementation.

6. E In 1954, the Supreme Court heard the anti-segregation case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, a lawsuit brought on behalf of Linda Brown (a black school-age child) by the NAACP. Thurgood Marshall, who would later become a Supreme Court justice, argued the case for Brown. In its ruling, the Court overturned the “separate but equal” standard as it applied to education; “separate but equal” had been the law of the land since the Court had approved it in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). In a 9 to 0 decision, the court ruled that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”

Incorrect Answers:

(A) Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) found that defendants in state criminal trials are entitled to legal representation even if they cannot afford it. Gideon thus resulted in the creation of state-sponsored public defenders.

(B) Marbury v. Madison (1803) established the principle of judicial review.

(C) Engel v. Vitale (1962) determined that forced prayer in public schools violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

(D) Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978) found that University of California’s racial quota system of admissions violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This ruling complicated the implementation of many affirmative action programs by rejecting the use of simple quota systems. However, the Court also ruled that University of California could consider race as one of many factors in determining admission policy.

7. C Upon quick scan of the graph, a simple deduction is that Congress is usually “flunking” in the eyes of the American people. There’s a burst in approval just after the attacks of September 11, 2001, but don’t be mislead by that answer choice—it is saying the opposite of what the graph is showing. Choice (C) is supported by the data, as a majority of Americans (that is, more than 50%) approved of Congress’s performance only from the late 1990s until about 2004; that’s less than 10 years, and the graph shows data for more than 30.

Incorrect Answers:

(A) This choice is incorrect because the approval rating of Congress was in the 20–40% range in the early 1990s and in the 30–50% range in the late 1990s.

(B) This option is incorrect because the approval rating of Congress was in the 25–35% range in the mid–1990s and between 35% and approximately 43% in the late 1980s.

(D) This choice is incorrect because approximately 85% of Americans approved of Congress’s performance immediately following September 11, 2001 and that choice says that Americans “disapproved” of Congress during that era.

(E) This is incorrect because the approval rating of Congress was less than 50% in 2000, rose to approximately 85%, then fell to below 30%; in no other period did the popularity of Congress see such dramatic changes.

8. B Ticket splitting has become a common phenomenon in the past 30 years. While Democrats enjoyed control over both houses of Congress in the decades following World War II, the years since the inauguration of Ronald Reagan have seen Congress split more often, more closely, and more contentiously than ever before due to the increase in ticket splitting.

Incorrect Answers:

(A) This answer choice accurately describes an action typically taken by presidential candidates. However, it does not define ticket splitting.

(C) This answer choice describes an action that few politicians would attempt and fewer would admit to trying. Although it mentions tickets, it has nothing to do with ticket splitting.

(D) This answer captures the basic idea of ticket splitting, which occurs when a voter does not adhere to the party line. However, it does not define the term ticket splitting as it is conventionally used.

(E) Congresspersons vote along party lines between 60% and 80% of the time (the number varies from Congress to Congress and from issue to issue). The action described in this answer choice, then, is exceptional behavior. However, it does not define the term ticket splitting as it is conventionally used.

9. D Because the membership of the House of Representatives is so large, the process by which bills are debated and amended must be limited (in the Senate, which is smaller, fewer rules govern this process). The task of setting these limits falls to the House Rules Committee. Because the Rules Committee controls the terms of debate and the scheduling of floor votes, it is considered among the most powerful House committees. The majority party dominates the Rules Committee. During the 105th Congress (in 1997), Republicans held nine seats on the committee, while Democrats held four (the number of Democrats and Republicans on any given committee is negotiated by the parties after each election. Generally, the majority party takes two-thirds of the seats on the most important committees to ensure the party’s dominance of those committees).

Incorrect Answers:

(A) The House Ethics Committee investigates ethics charges against House members.

(B) The Senate has the power to provide “advice and consent” to the president on judicial nominees. The House has no power in this area.

(C) There is no single committee that sets a limit for the number of House subcommittees. The number of subcommittees is limited by budget and staffing considerations.

(E) The House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight considers changes to federal election procedures.

10. B Parties in multiparty systems tend to be smaller and more closely identified with particular ideologies and political goals. Parties in a two-party system, on the other hand, present more general platforms in order to win a simple majority of the electorate.

Incorrect Answers:

(A) Influencing the outcome of elections is a primary goal of all political parties. American political parties are no exception.

(C) American political parties are extremely effective at raising money, and American elections are the costliest in the world.

(D) In a multiparty system, each party more closely mirrors the ideology and political goals of its members. The United States’ two parties reflect only a narrow range of political perspectives, and many Americans’ political views fall outside that range.

(E) American political parties rarely focus on a single goal or issue because doing so may alienate potential supporters. American political parties are organized around very general beliefs. The Democrats tend to believe that government intervention can be effective and so have a greater inclination toward regulation of businesses and social issues. Republicans tend to distrust government intervention and, in most instances, oppose government regulation. There are a few hot-button issues (abortion rights, gun rights) that cause some contradictions in these political party belief systems.

11. E When government officials resign from office, many remain in Washington to work as consultants. Such individuals can use the contacts they made while in government to influence public policy. Often they work as or with lobbyists. The term influence peddling is used to describe their actions when they exploit friendships with current government officials to achieve a political goal.

Incorrect Answers:

(A) Influence peddling refers specifically to actions that directly affect government policy.

(B) Although a former president may be trying to influence a current president, the action described does not define the term influence peddling as it is conventionally used.

(C) Influence peddling refers specifically to the actions of lobbyists. Therefore, this answer is incorrect.

(D) See the explanation for (C).

12. A Political action committees (PACs) are organizations created for the purpose of raising political funds and distributing them to candidates.

Incorrect Answers:

(B) The primary purpose of PACs is to raise funds for electoral campaigns. The action described in this answer choice is performed both by political parties and by state and local governments.

(C) The vast majority of PAC contributions go to incumbents. The goal of PACs is to endorse the election of those who represent their points of view. They do not try to defeat all incumbents per se, but rather those who are their political opponents.

(D) The primary purpose of PACs is to raise funds for electoral campaigns. Although many PACs are affiliated with the types of public interest groups that organize protests, this is not something that PACs themselves generally do.

(E) See the explanation for (B).

13. B Network news programs tend to favor information that changes regularly and can be communicated quickly. Public opinion poll results fit both of these criteria. In contrast, candidates’ positions on issues are often complex and difficult to capture in sound bites or TV-friendly phrases and clips. Furthermore, they rarely change. Therefore, news programs may report such information once during an election, but they will not report it repeatedly as they do poll results. As a result, the network news audience is most likely to be aware of where candidates stand in the current polls.

Incorrect Answers:

(A) The stances of special interest groups on positions is usually stable, so network news will usually report on the position once, then not again, since “no change” is not usually considered newsworthy. Contrast this with the low stability of public opinion toward candidates.

(C) Candidates’ positions on international issues tend to be stable and considered newsworthy one time only (except when a candidate switches).

(D) Candidates’ positions on domestic issues tend to be stable and considered newsworthy one time only (except when a candidate switches).

(E) Candidates’ voting records are stable and considered newsworthy one time only (except when a new vote is newsworthy or a switch from past votes).

14. D This is a simple memorization question. As the question stem says, most people think about only freedoms of speech and religion when speaking of the First Amendment, but it will benefit you on the exam to be familiar with the lesser-discussed facets of each Amendment. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law…abridging…the right of the people…to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Incorrect Answers:

(A) This choice probably looks familiar because it’s in the Fifth Amendment.

(B) Same here—Fifth Amendment.

(C) This choice is the Eighth Amendment.

(E) This one is the Fourth Amendment. Accordingly, they can all be eliminated. Be sure to reread those Amendments regularly!

15. E While the right to privacy is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, in Griswold v. Connecticut the Warren Court ruled that the Bill of Rights contained an implied right to privacy. In the case of Roe v. Wade, the Court established national abortion guidelines by extending the inferred right of privacy from Griswold v. Connecticut.

Incorrect Answers:

(A) You can eliminate this choice because Near v. Minnesota and New York Times v. Sullivan focused on freedom of the press, not privacy.

(B) You can cross off this choice because the cases of Texas v. Johnson and Morse v. Frederick were rulings regarding freedom of speech.

(C) Throw out this choice because cases Thornhill v. Alabama and Cox v. New Hampshire were related to the freedom of assembly and association.

(D) The cases of Epperson v. Arkansas and Lemon v. Kurtzman were related to freedom of religion, so you can eliminate (D) also.

16. D Federalism is a system under which the federal government shares power with the states. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution reserves to the states all powers not granted the national government by the Constitution. Therefore, it is instrumental in defining the relationship between the two levels of government, which is the essence of federalism.

Incorrect Answers:

(A) The system of checks and balances among the three branches of the federal government concerns the national government only. Because federalism involves the relationship between the states and the federal government, this cannot be the correct answer.

(B) International treaties are the sole responsibility of the federal government, and do not relate to the states in any way.

(C) Washington, D.C., does have special constitutional status as the nation’s capital. The federal government plays a role in governing the city, and the city is not represented in Congress. However, Washington’s constitutional status has little influence on American federalism.

(E) The president’s power to grant reprieves and pardons is solely a function of the federal government. Because federalism involves the relationship between the states and the federal government, this cannot be the correct answer.

17. A Judicial review is the Supreme Court’s power to overturn laws on the basis of their constitutionality. Judicial review is not mentioned in the Constitution. The practice was established by Chief Justice John Marshall in the 1803 decision Marbury v. Madison.

Incorrect Answers:

(B) The census must be taken every ten years, according to Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, which states the following:
“The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years.”

(C) The rules governing the impeachment of the president are contained in the body of the Constitution. To bring about an impeachment, the House of Representatives must vote to bring an impeachment trial (thus serving a role equivalent to that of a grand jury). The Senate serves as the trial jury, and the Supreme Court presides.

(D) Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution states that the president “shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union.”

(E) The Constitution states that federal judges “both of the supreme and inferior courts shall hold their offices during good behavior.” This means that judges are appointed for life and can be removed only for criminal or disgraceful behavior.

18. C Each state has its own set of laws, and violations of those laws are prosecuted in state courts. The federal government also has a set of laws, and violations of these are tried in federal courts. Occasionally, the two legal systems overlap. For example, the defendants in the Oklahoma City bombing trial destroyed a federal building and killed federal employees, all federal crimes. Clearly the bombing also violated state laws prohibiting murder, destruction of property, and reckless endangerment. When this happens, the federal and state governments negotiate to decide who will try the case.

State cases, however, may be appealed to federal courts on constitutional grounds. Thus, although the two court systems are generally autonomous, they are not completely independent of each other.

Incorrect Answers:

(A) Federal courts may overturn state court decisions, but only on the grounds that a defendant’s constitutional rights were violated. Federal courts may not rule on whether state courts have correctly applied state law (state Supreme Courts are the final arbiters of such cases).

(B) See the explanation for (C).

(D) This is an incorrect statement. Federal courts are not solely appeals courts.

(E) See the explanation for (C).

19. C The Constitution specifically delegates to the president the power to veto laws. It does not mention the power to veto parts of laws. The Supreme Court declared the line-item veto unconstitutional in Clinton v. New York on the grounds that the Constitution does not give the president the authority to cancel parts of taxing and spending bills because this would give the president too much legislative influence.

Incorrect Answers:

(A) The line-item veto gave legislative powers to the president, not executive powers to the legislature.

(B) The bureaucracy has no role in the line-item veto. The bureaucracy is responsible for carrying out the laws enacted by Congress and signed by the president. If the president’s line-item veto power had been upheld, the bureaucracy would have had to implement the law as passed.

(D) The line-item veto did not involve the states.

(E) Judicial review is performed by the Supreme Court, not the Senate. If the Senate objects to a House bill, it merely votes against the bill.

20. A The president may, “on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper.” Otherwise, the president’s powers to influence legislation are primarily political. As the most prominent political figure in the United States, the president can strongly influence public sentiment on legislation.

Incorrect Answers:

(B) The president may not introduce bills to the floor of Congress. He or she may recommend bills to Congress, but Congress is under no obligation to consider those bills.

(C) The president has no power to address Congress, except when he or she delivers his or her State of the Union address. Of course, the president does not need to speak on the floor of Congress to influence congressional votes, because his or her position on most bills is a matter of public record. As the leader of his or her party, the president also exerts some influence over the way congresspersons of his or her party vote.

(D) The president may not vote on congressional acts. He or she has a much greater power, however: the power to reject congressional legislation through a veto. The vice president votes in case of a tied vote in the Senate.

(E) The president has no power to disband congressional committees. Under extraordinary circumstances he or she may adjourn the entirety of Congress, but he or she has no special power to dissolve a committee. If the president did, he or she could stop any congressional investigation of his or her administration by dissolving the committee in charge of the investigation. That, needless to say, would run counter to the system of checks and balances.

21. B Access to the president is handled primarily by the chief of staff, who screens requests from other executive officers to meet with the president. The chief of staff is often the president’s closest confidant. He or she knows the president’s agenda and can help coordinate executive actions to best accomplish those goals. The close relationship between the two allows the chief of staff to filter reports and any requests headed for the president’s desk in an effort to keep the president from becoming overwhelmed. The chief of staff also mediates disputes among various cabinet offices.

Incorrect Answers:

(A) Vice presidents have as much or as little power as the president gives them. Former Vice President Al Gore was more active than most who preceded him. Other vice presidents have had very few official duties.

(C) The national security advisor is one of the president’s top foreign policy advisors. However, he or she does not control the president’s schedule.

(D) The chair of the Federal Reserve Board exerts tremendous influence over the American economy.

(E) The press secretary provides press releases and answers press queries on behalf of the president.

22. C Article II, section 2 of the Constitution says that two-thirds of the Senate must concur with a treaty, so choice (C) is correct.

Incorrect Answers:

(A) The president alone is responsible for deploying troops and forcing Congress into session.

(B) Congress is responsible for appropriations bills.

(D) See Choice A reasoning above.

(E) Vice presidents are chosen by delegates at the parties’ national conventions.

23. D Those most active in both the Republican and Democratic parties tend to be further from the political center than are average or rank-and-file party members. Because party activists control much of the nomination process and because they are more likely than others to vote in primary elections, successful presidential nominees tend to reflect the political agendas of these activists. This has been particularly true of the Republican Party in recent years; most candidates for the Republican presidential nomination focus great effort on winning support from the party’s small but powerful ultraconservative wing.

Incorrect Answers:

(A) The opposite is true. While conservative Republicans are generally more successful in the primaries, these same candidates have a more difficult time appealing to the moderate general electorate in November.

(B) Party members are expected to support their party’s presidential candidate. If (B) were true, no Republican could ever win the presidency, because most Democrats and moderate Republicans would vote Democratic. Such a sizable coalition would win every election.

(C) People join the political party that most closely reflects their political views. Most Republicans do care whether their presidential nominee shares their views, at least on a few issues they consider important.

(E) Rank-and-file members participate in the Republican nominating process by voting in primary elections.

24. A The large size of the House of Representatives means that more work can be done in committees than when all representatives are assembled on the floor.

Incorrect Answers:

(B) Confirmation powers are not relevant to committees, so eliminate this choice.

(C) In both the Senate and the House, members to committees are assigned by the majority party, so eliminate this choice.

(D) Committees in both the Senate and the House consist of members from both parties, although the majority party generally has more members.

(E) Finally, although choice (E) is true, it does not account for differences between the two chambers of Congress.

25. C America’s increased prominence in foreign affairs (I) has increased the power of the president. As chief of state, the president receives and negotiates with foreign leaders. Congress generally allows the president great leeway in handling foreign relations. Therefore, as America’s role in world affairs has increased, so too has the power of the presidency. Increased government responsibilities (III) are enforced and partly administered by the executive branch. As leader of the executive branch, the president has gained power as a result of this increased responsibility. Constant media exposure (IV) has given the American public greater awareness of each president since Franklin Roosevelt. The president is now better known and more widely heard than at any time in the past. This allows the president to influence voters in a way that no president before 1932 possibly could.

Incorrect Answers:

(A) This answer is partly correct. However, statements III and IV are also true.

(B) This answer is partly correct. However, statement III is also true.

(D) Statement II is incorrect. Public confidence in the government has been in decline since the 1960s. The Vietnam War, the Watergate scandal, the Iran-Contra affair, and the government shutdown of 1993 are just a few of the events that have resulted in increased public cynicism toward the government.

(E) Statements III and IV are true, but so is statement I, which is not included in this answer choice. Also, statement II is incorrect (see explanation for (D)).

26. E The House and the Senate must pass the same version of a bill before the president may consider it. Often, the two houses pass different versions of the same bill. They then meet in a conference committee to draft a compromise bill, which then returns to each house to be voted on again. Bills drafted by conference committees usually bypass the committee stage and are immediately scheduled for a floor vote in each house.

Incorrect Answers:

(A) The president may not sign a bill until an identical version of it has been passed by both the House and the Senate.

(B) Before a bill such as the one described returns to each house, the two houses meet to try to draft a compromise bill. Bills drafted by conference committees usually bypass the committee stage and are immediately scheduled for a floor vote in each house.

(C) See the explanation for (E).

(D) See the explanation for (E).

27. E Note that this is another “EXCEPT” question, so don’t let the phrasing trick you. Only (E) is false because there is a strong correlation between higher education and a tendency to vote. Therefore, individuals with postgraduate degrees are more likely to vote than individuals with only undergraduate degrees, so (E) is the right answer.

Incorrect Answers:

(A) This choice is incorrect because it’s true—people are less likely to vote if they believe one candidate is too far ahead of the others.

(B) This choice is also true, as white-collar workers do vote more often than blue-collar workers, but people who belong to unions are very likely to vote.

(C) A strong party affiliation makes one more likely to vote.

(D) Minorities, except those with high incomes, vote less often than whites, so this option is also true.

28. A Married, white males have preferred the Republican candidate for president in every election since 1972.

Incorrect Answers:

(B) While the voting habits of white females overall can vary, unmarried white females have favored the Democratic candidate in every presidential election since 1992 (Clinton, Gore, Kerry, and Obama).

(C) Since Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency, African Americans have overwhelmingly identified as Democrats in a trend that continues to the present. Barack Obama won a whopping 96% and 93% of the African American vote in 2008 and 2012, respectively.

(D) The majority of youths voted for candidates Jimmy Carter (1976), Bill Clinton (1996), and Barack Obama (2008 and 2012).

(E) Individuals earning below poverty-level wages tend to favor social programs for low-income individuals (Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act are examples) promoted and supported by Democratic candidates more than Republican candidates.

29. D The Fourteenth Amendment states that

“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The amendment proved ineffective, however, in preventing racial discrimination and segregation. Civil rights advocates had to struggle for almost 100 more years before the government banned all discrimination based on race, religion, gender, or national origin with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Civil Rights Act gave the government the power to enforce desegregation by cutting off federal funding to discriminatory programs. It also allowed the Justice Department to file desegregation suits.

Incorrect Answers:

(A) The presidential veto is a presidential action while the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prevents discrimination against citizens.

(B) The system of checks and balances ensures that none of the three government branches get too powerful. This system was unaffected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

(C) This answer choice is the opposite: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 empowered the federal government over state government.

(E) The Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 was designed to restrict some of the rights granted to unions by the Wagner Act of 1935. It prohibited closed shops (which required union membership as a prerequisite to hiring), restricted labor’s right to strike, prohibited the use of union funds for political purposes, and gave the government broad power to intervene in strikes.

30. C Among the powers granted Congress by the Constitution is the right to pass laws “necessary and proper” to the performance of its duties. This section of the Constitution is called the elastic clause because it allows Congress to stretch its powers beyond those that are specifically granted it (called enumerated powers) by the Constitution. When Congress passed a national speed limit law in 1974, it invoked the elastic clause by citing its enumerated power to regulate interstate trade.

Incorrect Answers:

(A) The elastic clause pertains to Congress, not to the Supreme Court.

(B) This answer describes a common event, but it does not illustrate the elastic clause as described in the explanation for (C).

(D) Raising taxes is among Congress’s enumerated powers. Therefore, the action described in answer (D) does not illustrate the elastic clause as described above in the explanation for (C).

(E) The elastic clause pertains to Congress, not to state executives such as governors.

31. B In “Federalist No. 10,” James Madison warns of the dangers of political factions. He also acknowledges that political factions are inevitable. He concludes that American federalism, as embodied in the U.S. Constitution, checks the dangers of factions through the separation of powers, making it difficult for a faction to control the entire governing process. According to Madison, so many different regional and economic agendas are represented in federal and state government that it would be impossible for any single group to gain undue control or disrupt the entire system.

Incorrect Answers:

(A) The Federalist Papers take a negative view of political factions and would not have approved of any political system that encouraged their growth.

(C) According to The Federalist Papers, Republican federalism limits the influence of political factions on all levels of the government.

(D) In “Federalist No. 10,” Madison acknowledged that political factions form whenever people disagree and whenever individuals put their personal welfare above the best interests of the state. Political factions, he concluded, are inevitable in any system so long as humans remain human.

(E) The Federalist Papers were written in defense of the U.S. Constitution, which does not ban political factions.

32. E Each of the answer choices correctly identifies a weakness of the Articles of Confederation. However, neither the Articles nor the original Constitution had a universal suffrage clause. Under both, blacks and women were among those who had no right to vote, and states could add further restrictions on the right to vote. Many states allowed only property owners to vote, for example.

Incorrect Answers:

(A) Under the Articles of Confederation the national government was entirely dependent on the states to enforce national law, as it had no executive powers of its own. The Constitution rectified this problem by establishing the executive branch of government.

(B) Under the Articles of Confederation state governments held the power to impose trade tariffs. The Constitution grants this power to Congress.

(C) Under the Articles of Confederation the national government had no authority to regulate interstate trade. The Constitution grants this power to Congress.

(D) Under the Articles of Confederation the national government was dependent on the states to provide soldiers for national defense. This system proved unreliable at best. The Constitution grants Congress the power to raise an army.

33. A The Constitution is not precise in explaining how the president and Congress are to share power. As a result this relationship is dynamic, relying partially on the political popularity of the two institutions. When a president is popular—as Franklin Roosevelt was when he first took office—he can parlay that popularity into political clout and may dominate national policy decision making. When a president is unpopular—as Truman was in the year preceding his reelection—then Congress gains the upper hand and can largely determine national policy on its own.

Incorrect Answers:

(B) Congress’s power to determine national policy relies on the relative political strength of Congress and the president. Since the ratification of the Constitution, Congress has seen its powers grow and shrink in conjunction with its political fortunes.

(C) Congress’s power is in fact expanded by the elastic clause, which grants Congress the right to pass laws “necessary and proper” to the performance of its duties. Congress regularly uses the elastic clause to broaden its scope of influence.

(D) During times of war, the president grows more powerful relative to Congress. Congress is hesitant to challenge the president in wartime, as most congresspersons believe that the country must remain unified during emergencies.

(E) Congress exerts little control over the judicial branch. It can pass laws, such as sentencing guidelines, that limit judicial action. The Senate confirms federal judicial appointments and so influences the judiciary in that way. By and large, however, the judiciary is independent of congressional influence.

34. C The president appoints cabinet leaders and can appoint whomever he or she chooses without regard for their political party membership, so (C) is the correct answer.

Incorrect Answers

(A) Although the leaders are appointed, the departments are established by Congress.

(B) Despite this connection, cabinet departments often have goals that differ from those of the president.

(D) There are 15 cabinet departments and numerous other sub-agencies or independent agencies with cabinet-rank status.

(E) This choice is true—the president appoints cabinet members and controls that.

35. D The winner-take-all system of the electoral college distorts the results of the popular vote. In 1992, Ross Perot received 19% of the popular vote but 0 electoral votes. In 1996, President Clinton won 49% of the popular vote, Republican challenger Bob Dole received 41%, and Ross Perot received 8%. In the electoral college, however, Clinton won 70%, Dole 30%, and Perot 0%. The discrepancy was also apparent in 2000.

The election of 2000 was one of the closest in American history. It was unusual because the winner of the popular vote lost the election in the electoral college. A difference of 400 to 500 popular votes in Florida would have given the election to Gore because he would have received all of Florida’s electoral votes. As it turned out, Bush won the presidency by the minimum number of electoral votes possible, with Gore winning the national popular vote.

Incorrect Answers:

(A) Forty-eight states allocate their electoral votes by the “winner-take-all” method. The two exceptions are Maine and Nebraska, which give two electoral votes to the candidate who wins a plurality of the statewide vote, and one vote to the winner of each of the state’s congressional districts. In 1996, Maine had four electoral votes, Nebraska had five.

(B) Each state is represented in the electoral college by a delegation equal in number to the state’s total representation in Congress (senators and members of the House). California has the greatest number of electoral votes (54); several states have only three electoral votes, the minimum a state may have (two senators and one member of the House).

(C) The electoral college was established by the Constitution as it was originally ratified.

(E) Senators and representatives are prohibited from the electoral college by the Constitution. Electors are generally chosen from among state party leaders and state legislators.

36. C Even in 2010, a reactionary and anti-incumbent election, 85% of Republican incumbents and 70% of Democratic incumbents were still returned to office. In short, incumbents have a huge advantage over challengers, primarily because voters are better acquainted with incumbents.

Incorrect Answers:

(A) Winning reelection to the Senate is considered slightly more difficult than winning reelection to the House. Because the Senate is a smaller legislative body than the House, each seat in the Senate is relatively more powerful than a seat in the House. As a result, Senate races are more hotly contested than House races.

(B) No such spending limits exist in House campaigns. Incumbents usually outspend their challengers by considerable sums during election campaigns.

(D) Even in anti-incumbent election cycles, such as 1994 or 2010, an overwhelming majority of incumbents were returned to office by voters.

(E) Of 362 incumbents who ran for reelection in 1994, only 26 were unopposed. The great majority of incumbents face a challenger in the general election.

37. E Of the members of the 111th Congress, 225 (42%) earned a law degree prior to serving in office. This fact should come as no surprise, given that the business of Congress is to pass laws. And as prominent members of the community, lawyers often have the standing to run for and win elected office.

Incorrect Answers:

(A) In the same Congress, 38% of members were former businesspeople, but given the purpose of Congress, lawyers are a safer guess.

(B) Given the percentages of lawyers and business people, 80% in total, a professional athlete could be a legislator, but the majority are not.

(C) See the explanation for answer (B).

(D) See the explanation for answer (B).

38. B The House Ways and Means Committee controls tax and trade legislation. It is considered one of the most powerful committees in Congress.

Incorrect Answers:

(A) The Commerce Committee considers legislation on such topics as consumer affairs, medicine and medical research, energy, and national and international trade. It is a powerful committee and as such has some influence on tax policy, but not as much as the Ways and Means Committee, which considers all tax legislation before it reaches the floor of the House.

(C) The Education and the Workforce Committee considers legislation concerning national testing, public schools, and workplace issues.

(D) The Resources Committee considers legislation concerning the United States’ natural resources.

(E) The Judiciary Committee considers legislation covering numerous topics such as patents, crime, immigration policy, telecommunications regulations, and Constitutional amendments.

39. E The Pendleton Act of 1883 was passed in response to charges of patronage in the awarding of government jobs (the “spoils system”). The Pendleton Act created the Civil Service Commission to oversee examinations for potential government employees.

Incorrect Answers:

(A) The Truman Doctrine was a foreign policy of the United States at the outset of the Cold War. Its goal was to contain Soviet expansion.

(B) The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1961 increased the minimum wage to $1.15 per hour.

(C) The National Industrial Recovery Act was a New Deal program that sought to revitalize U.S. industry during the Depression.

(D) The Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned discrimination in public places and gave the government the power to prosecute discriminatory institutions and businesses. It also allowed the government to cut off funding to segregationist and discriminatory programs.

40. A To maintain the “one person, one vote” principle of American government, Congress is required to redraw election districts every 10 years, in conjunction with the national census.

Incorrect Answers:

(B) Regardless of when congressional districts are redrawn, congressional incumbents are reelected at a rate of approximately 90% or more.

(C) Redistricting is a political battle in which the party in power attempts to draw districts in such a way as to increase their representation in Congress. Frequently, redistricting plans are challenged in court by the minority party.

(D) The Speaker of the House is chosen by the majority party in the House of Representatives.

(E) Redistricting can increase the number of female and minority congresspersons. In recent years, the courts have, on occasion, forced Congress to create minority districts and take other measures to increase minority representation. However, this has not historically been the purpose of redistricting. Congressional lines have been redrawn every ten years since the beginning of the republic, yet increased female and minority representation is a relatively recent phenomenon.

41. D The chart shows that between 66% and 78% of registered voters participate in presidential elections (1988, 1992, and 1996), but that only slightly more than half participate in midterm congressional elections (1986, 1990, and 1994).

Incorrect Answers:

(A) More than half of all eligible voters participated in the elections of 1988 and 1992. Furthermore, this chart provides information only for elections between the years 1986 and 1996. Therefore, any answer that draws a conclusion about elections in years before 1986, as answer (A) does, must be incorrect.

(B) The number of registered voters actually decreased between 1992 and 1994. Furthermore, this chart provides information only for elections between the years 1986 and 1996. Therefore, any answer that draws a conclusion about elections in years before 1986, as (B) does, must be incorrect.

(C) The chart provides no information about elections during the 1970s. Also, this answer assumes that voter satisfaction can be gauged by turnout rates, which is a disputable conclusion.

(E) Because this chart provides information only for elections between the years 1986 and 1996, answer (E), which requires you to draw a conclusion about all elections during the twentieth century, must be incorrect.

42. C Businesspeople and investors constitute a small but powerful segment of U.S. society. They are the majority of voters in only a very few, very wealthy voting districts.

Incorrect Answers:

(A) Lobbyists representing businesses and investors are typically better funded than those representing the interests of people with lower incomes.

(B) Business lobbies, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, are among the most enduring in Washington. Over their many decades in the capitol, these groups have made and maintained relationships with many important policy makers.

(D) Because election campaigns are so expensive, candidates must solicit funds. People who donate generously gain the candidate’s friendship in return. Although legislators do not always follow their donors’ suggestions—indeed they cannot because they have many different donors with diverse goals and interests—they must pay close attention if they expect to receive contributions to their next campaign.

(E) The most effective lobbies in Washington are those campaigning for obscure changes to regulations and tax codes. Because these issues are not widely followed by the public, lobbyists who pursue such changes encounter less opposition.

43. A Of the five groups mentioned, white Southerners are easily the most conservative. In recent years this group’s traditional support for the Democratic Party has dwindled to the point that many southern congressional seats that had been held by Democrats since the end of Reconstruction are now held by Republicans. Many Southerners joined the Democratic coalition after the Civil War ended (the Republicans, remember, were the party of the abolition movement). This allegiance was strengthened during the New Deal, but has weakened since. A large segment of the white South adheres to conservative fundamentalist Christianity and is uncomfortable with the government activism and social programs associated with the Democratic Party.

Incorrect Answers:

(B) Labor unions are traditionally perceived as liberal, particularly concerning government regulation of the workplace.

(C) The majority of African Americans support some form of the liberal social programs that Democrats generally support and most Republicans oppose.

(D) Northern ethnic minorities are traditionally liberal on economic issues. Some, particularly those that are predominantly Catholic, can be conservative on social issues. However, they are generally more liberal in this regard than are white southern fundamentalists.

(E) Environmentalism is strongly associated with liberalism, as many of its goals involve government regulation of America’s natural resources.

44. D Younger voters are less likely to vote than older voters. Politically active voters, such as those in unions or those who are active in party politics, are more likely to vote; therefore, you may eliminate (A) and (C). Generally, voters with more education and higher incomes are more likely to vote, so eliminate choice (B), since professionals earn more money than those without professional degrees. Voters in swing states are more likely to vote because they are more likely to feel that their votes matter; therefore, eliminate (E).

45. B People usually join their parents’ political party. When their political beliefs change, they do so as a result of economic issues. Of all political issues, economic issues have the greatest impact on personal politics.

Incorrect Answers:

(A) As people grow older, the views of their peers more greatly influence their political beliefs. Young people generally have little interest in politics, and as a result peer influence on their political beliefs is minimal. In any case, the economy has a greater influence on individual political outlooks.

(C) Because people generally have the same religious beliefs as their parents, religion is extremely unlikely to cause them to choose a party different from the one their parents have chosen.

(D) Employers rarely pressure employees to alter their party allegiance. They are somewhat more likely to seek their support for individual candidates or referenda. By and large, employers do not attempt to influence their employees’ political beliefs.

(E) Most Americans do not follow issues in international politics closely, and these issues have little influence on the political beliefs of most.

46. E Of the many popular third parties in American history, only the Republican Party has progressed to the level of a major party. All others were absorbed by one or both of the major parties. The Populists, for example, campaigned for direct election of senators, a graduated income tax, and shorter workdays. Eventually both major parties took up these issues. As they did, the Populist coalition fell apart.

Incorrect Answers:

(A) There have been at least ten prominent third parties in American history. Of them, only the Republican Party went on to become a major party.

(B) A few third parties have had radical goals, but most radical parties never gain enough support to become “popular third-party movements.” Some third parties grow around the popularity of a single individual: Ross Perot, George Wallace, and Theodore Roosevelt are some examples. Others champion progressive goals that are later adopted by one or both of the major parties. Examples of these include the Free Soil Party and the Populist Party. Even some of the Socialist Party’s goals (especially those concerning workplace conditions) were later adopted by the Democratic Party.

(C) Some supporters of third parties become disenchanted when their candidates fail, but most rejoin the political mainstream.

(D) See the above explanation for question 45, (E).

47. E Because flag burning is usually done as an act of political protest, it is considered speech and is protected by the First Amendment. Due process, (A), has to do with your rights as a prisoner. Assembly, (B), has to do with the freedom to gather in public. The free exercise of religion, (C), is just that, and the American flag is a part of the separation of church and state. And unless your flag is first being confiscated and then burnt, (E) remains the best answer.

48. B In Miranda v. Arizona, the main question was whether the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination should be applied to state law. The court sided with Miranda and decided that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment did apply to the Fifth Amendment, and that his confession was inadmissible in court. The Court then ruled that the police must advise a suspect of his rights before questioning begins. These rights have come to be known as Miranda rights.

Incorrect Answers:

(A) An ex post facto law allows governments to prosecute citizens for acts that were legal at the time they occurred but that later became illegal. Ex post facto laws are prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. For more on the issues in the Miranda case, see the explanation for answer (B).

(C) Miranda v. Arizona did not involve cruel and unusual punishment, so this choice is irrelevant.

(D) This case did not involve slavery in any way, so the Thirteenth Amendment is irrelevant here.

(E) The states are required by the Constitution to accept the court judgments, licenses, contracts, and other civil acts of all the other states. This obligation is contained in the “full faith and credit” clause.

49. C In 1833, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights applied to the federal government only and not to state governments. Since the early part of the twentieth century, however, the Supreme Court has used the “due process” and “equal protection” clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to extend some of the Bill of Rights protections, but has done so on a case-by-case basis. This process of incorporating some of the Bill of Rights protections to state law is called selective incorporation.

Incorrect Answers:

(A) See the explanation for (C).

(B) Voting rights have been extended to minorities and women by amendments to the Constitution and by various congressional civil rights acts.

(D) In the early 1970s, the Supreme Court upheld busing children to schools other than the ones closest to their homes to hasten integration. However, that is not what is meant by “selective incorporation.” For a definition of this term, see the explanation for (C).

(E) See the explanation for (C).

50. D According to the Congressional Budget Office, Social Security alone made up 24% of federal spending in 2014. Other entitlement programs, including Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP, added significantly to that percentage, making entitlement programs the “largest slice of the pie,” in terms of federal dollars.

Incorrect Answers:

(A) In 2014, the defense department took 17% of all federal spending.

(B) The Department of Energy is just a small slice of the 17% of federal money put toward non-defense discretionary spending.

(C) Interest on the national debt made up 6% of all federal spending in 2014.

(E) The Internal Revenue Service, part of the Department of Treasury, has the responsibility to collect U.S. taxes and is just a small slice of the 17% of federal money put toward non-defense discretionary spending.

51. A The majority party in each house controls all of that house’s committees. The committee chair is always a member of the majority party.

Incorrect Answers:

(B) The number of Republicans and Democrats sitting on each committee is determined by negotiation, but the majority party always dominates the most important committees (usually by a two-to-one majority).

(C) Congress takes committee recommendations into consideration, but it does not follow all (or even most) of those recommendations.

(D) See the explanation for (B). Also, Congress takes committee recommendations into consideration, but it does not follow all (or even most) of those recommendations. Thus, statement III is also incorrect.

(E) Statement I is correct, but statements II and IV are incorrect. When a committee vote results in a tie, the result simply remains a tie vote.

52. C The Gramm-Rudman Acts were intended to reduce budget deficits. Their best-known provision, in favor of automatic across-the-board budget cuts, was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Although the laws failed to substantially reduce the federal deficit, they did heighten public awareness of the deficit issue.

Incorrect Answers:

For this type of detail question, you really need to know what the Gramm-Rudman Acts were; the other choices are wrong because they don’t deal with budget deficits.

53. E Iron triangles are sometimes referred to as subgovernments. They are formed by the close working relationship among various interest groups, congressional committees, and executive agencies that enforce federal regulations. Working together, these groups can exert a powerful collective influence over legislation and law enforcement.

Incorrect Answers:

For this detail question, (A), (B), (C), and (D) are all wrong because they do not accurately describe the iron triangle.

54. B A sound bite refers to a brief remark, extracted from a longer piece of audio, that summarizes a politician’s comments, views, or beliefs. Accordingly, (B) is the correct answer. “Horse race” politics occurs when the press is more concerned about who is up or down in the polls than with reporting information on the candidates’ positions and qualifications. Eliminate (A). Sound bites can be negative or positive, so neither (C) nor (D) is necessarily correct. Choice (E) does not reflect a reason that sound bites are used; polling data shows who the public believes won or lost.

55. C In the 1965 Supreme Court case of Griswold v. Connecticut, the Court ruled that the Bill of Rights contained an implied right to privacy. The Court ruled that the combination of the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments added up to a guarantee of privacy. The Griswold case concerned a state law banning the use of contraception. The Court decision overturned that law.

Incorrect Answers:

(A) The right to privacy is guaranteed by the federal government. States must comply with this protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

(B) The right to privacy is implied by the Constitution; it is never directly stated. For more information, see the explanation for (C).

(D) Common law consists of the entire body of previous judicial decisions. It originated in medieval England and persists to this day, underlying much of American statute law (laws passed by legislatures). Common law does not guarantee the right to privacy.

(E) See the explanation for (C).

56. C The chart shows little difference between the presidential votes of men and women in both the 1972 and the 1976 elections. Starting with the 1980 election, however, a clear gender gap can be seen, with women consistently giving greater support to the Democratic candidate than the men do.

Incorrect Answers:

(A) The chart shows that, had only men voted, Ronald Reagan would have won the 1980 election by a greater margin than he actually did.

(B) The chart shows that from 1980 forward a smaller percentage of women than men voted for the Republican presidential candidate.

(D) Because the chart illustrates only the percentage of votes from each gender, it is impossible to draw a conclusion about the number of votes that the candidates received from men and women.

(E) Because the chart depicts election results only from 1972 to 1996, it is impossible to draw a conclusion concerning every presidential election in history.

57. D The graph shows that the South experienced the greatest increase in Medicare funding from 2000–2012, having increased by $6.6 million over the 12-year period. Eliminate (A) because the West did not experience a continual increase in funding; funding declined from 2004 to 2008. Choice (B) can be eliminated because the South received the most Medicare funding in 2012. Eliminate (C) because, in 2008, the North received approximately one and a half times the amount of Medicare funding as the Northeast. Finally, eliminate (E) because the Midwest and the East did not receive the same amount of Medicare funding in 2004.

58. C The right to pardon is extended to both presidents and governors and is the full release from legal punishment. Presidents and governors can also issue reprieves, but a reprieve is merely a postponement of legal punishment.

Incorrect Answers:

(A) As mentioned in the explanation for (C), pardons last forever.

(B) As mentioned in (C), pardons are permanent whereas reprieves are postponements, which makes this an opposite answer.

(D) Presidents have the ability to issue pardons.

(E) Presidents have the ability to issue reprieves.

59. B Programs designed to rectify social inequality based on past racial and gender discrimination are called affirmative action programs. Most such programs create special hiring and educational opportunities for women and racial minorities.

Incorrect Answers:

(A) The New Federalism was the name of Ronald Reagan’s attempted reorganization of the federal government. Its goal was to shift governmental power from the national government to the states. The plan failed. States feared that the New Federalism would result in higher state budgets, resulting in unpopular tax increases.

(C) Social Security benefits are payments made to the elderly, disabled, and other entitled beneficiaries from a government trust fund. The source of the fund is a tax (called FICA) collected on payrolls and individual paychecks.

(D) A bill of attainder is a legislative act that applies to an individual or easily identified group in such a way as to constitute punishment. (For example, if the legislature passed a law that prevents John Smith from driving because John Smith is a political agitator.) Bills of attainder are unconstitutional.

(E) Gerrymandering refers to the process of dividing a geographical area into political divisions in such a way as to achieve an unlawful or ulterior goal. (For example, redrawing voting districts so that minority voters are split into different districts and their power consequently diluted.)

60. C The exclusionary rule holds that evidence obtained in unwarranted searches must be excluded from trial. It also requires the government to have just cause to search private property and to demonstrate that cause before a judge. The rule was established by the Supreme Court decision Mapp v. Ohio. The case involved Dollree Mapp, who had been convicted in Ohio for possession of obscene materials. Her original conviction was based on evidence found by police who were looking for evidence of illegal gambling. The police had not obtained a search warrant to search for either evidence of gambling or pornography, so the search was illegal.

Incorrect Answers:

(A) The Supreme Court decision Plessy v. Ferguson established the principle of “separate but equal,” which was later overturned in Brown v. Board of Education.

(B) Because this involves excluding people, it is a tempting answer choice. However, this is not the meaning of the term exclusionary rule.

(D) Interstate commerce is controlled by the federal government under provisions of the Constitution. For an explanation of the exclusionary rule, see the explanation for (C).

(E) See the explanation for (C).

FREE-RESPONSE SECTION: ANSWERS AND EXPLANATIONS

Remember that you need to answer all four free-response questions in 1 hour and 40 minutes, so you do not have time to waste, nor can you skip any questions. Nevertheless, you should take time to brainstorm some ideas and to organize what you come up with before you start to write each response. Otherwise, your responses will probably be incomplete, disorganized, or both.

You should average about 25 minutes per question and that amount of time should be sufficient. Make sure you read each question carefully and respond directly to each of its components in your response. The questions are about broad issues, but they ask for specific information. A general free response that fails to address specific concerns raised by the question will not earn a high score.

Question 1

Let’s break this question down into its parts so that you don’t feel overwhelmed. First up, part (a), two ways that candidates are using the Internet in their campaigns. One point will be earned for each way that you identify how candidates are using the Internet. Possible answers may include the following:

That wasn’t so bad. You were probably able to rattle off the majority of reasons with no problem, just by thinking about what you see online in your day-to-day life.

For Each of These Methods, Explain the Advantages to the Candidate

Now let’s tackle part (b) of that question—based on these methods, what are the advantages of Internet campaigning? You should go ahead and brainstorm another list for this one. One point will be earned for each explanation of advantages to the candidate. Possible answers may include the following:

How Can the Internet Harm a Campaign?

Of course, while Internet campaigning has its advantages, there are also some negative aspects. This third part of the question is worth another two points. One point is earned for identifying how the Internet can harm a candidate’s campaign, and one point is earned for the explanation. An explanation point will not be earned if the answer does not connect the harm with how it affects the candidate’s campaign. So be sure that you don’t go off on a tangent with your discussion of potential drawbacks. Always bring it back to the question and give them the information that they are seeking. Possible examples may include the following:

Now you have a plethora of items to support your claims in the essay. All you have to do is flesh out each point to include everything you know about the effects of the Internet on politics.

Here’s How to Crack It

Always start by reading the question carefully. If necessary, reformulate it in your own words so that you are sure exactly what you are being asked. On the exam, the questions are in a green booklet; use some blank space in that green booklet to make lists from your brainstorming, as we just did. Outline your response, incorporating the best points from the list you brainstormed. Don’t skip this step: The best responses are well planned. In order for your reader to follow you, you have to know where you are going before you start.

When the question asks you to define or identify a concept, that is all you have to do. You don’t need to write a long paragraph or give an example. Simply define and identify.

Often, one of the four free-response questions will involve interpretation of some sort of graphic, whether it be a chart, a graph, data, or a cartoon. You may be asked to identify a trend in the chart or to interpret the cartoon. Usually, it will be quite obvious what the information in the graphic is about, so don’t overthink these aspects of such questions.

When the question asks you to explain or analyze a concept, you need to make sure that you have written an adequate response that addresses all parts of the question. This part of your answer should be at least a paragraph long. It is advisable to include an example in your response. Often that example you included can be just the tool you need to demonstrate your mastery of the material. And here’s what makes the AP Government and Politics exam so much fun: Your examples don’t necessarily have to be factual. Often you can make up your own example. If you can think of an actual example, that’s great; but if not, just make up a plausible sounding theoretical example.

So for part (c) you might talk about how Barack Obama had to combat viral e-mails during the 2008 presidential campaign claiming that he was not born in the United States and that he was a Muslim. Another strong example for (c) comes from George Allen’s 2006 reelection campaign for the Virginia Senate, when he was harmed by the ramifications of calling an opponent’s supporter “macaca.” Furthermore, it’s worth noting that the Internet can ruin a candidate’s chances for election before the campaign even begins. In 2011, New York Congressman Anthony Weiner, an advocate for 9/11 first responders’ issues and touted candidate for the 2013 New York City mayoral race, resigned from Congress in disgrace after a highly publicized scandal involving lewd photos and inappropriate messages sent via Twitter. But even if you couldn’t think of a real-life example, you could offer a hypothetical example of an imaginary candidate harmed in a similar case of the Internet being used to reveal evidence or spread word of negative incidents, real or alleged.

Note that no part of the rubric gives points for an introductory paragraph, thesis statement, or conclusion. You can include those if you must, but you will get no points at all for doing so. It is more advisable to put that time into writing thorough explanations or analyses for those sections of the question. Time wasted on writing content that will not contribute to your grade is time that you’re not thinking about and writing what the graders are looking for. Just because you don’t have to worry about the usual writing elements such as introductions, thesis statements, transitions, or conclusions, doesn’t mean that you won’t be expected to write cohesive responses.

One common mistake that students make is not addressing the question fully. For example, if a question asks you to explain how the commerce clause has allowed the federal government to strengthen civil rights, you must give a specific explanation that connects the commerce clause to federal power and civil rights. If you just wrote about the use of the commerce clause and didn’t connect it to civil rights, you will not earn the points. Or in the sample question about how the Internet might harm a candidate’s campaign, make sure that you clearly connect the harm to a candidate. This might seem obvious, but you’d be surprised how often students get off on a tangent and lose sight of what the question is asking about. So, don’t go on a rant about how blogs are coarsening political discourse and then forget to connect your answer to how blogs can harm a candidate.

Sample Excellent Free Response

Currently, candidates use the Internet to

1. Solicit donations from their supporters

2. Send out immediate responses to what their opponents have said

A candidate can save money by contacting his or her supporters through e-mail and asking them for donations. Previously, candidates would spend millions of valuable campaign dollars on mass mailings to potential supporters asking for money. Now, a candidate can just send out a mass e-mail that costs very little. These mass e-mails do not waste paper as a traditional mail pamphlet would, so this technique is more environmentally friendly as well. If you visit a candidate’s website, you will often be asked to sign up with your e-mail address. Once you do that, you can expect to receive countless e-mails with information about the candidate and requests for money. Sometimes the candidate will ask your opinion of various issues through polls on their websites. Then they can specifically tailor their requests for donations to the issues in which you’ve expressed interest. In 2004 Howard Dean jumped into a lead in the Democratic primaries through his ability to excite supporters and raise money through the Internet. Then in 2008, Barack Obama’s campaign was able to raise so much money, mostly through the Internet, that he was able to forego public financing for his presidential run.

Before the Internet, there would have been a time delay when a candidate wanted to respond to something that an opponent had said. A candidate might have sent out a fax or issued a press release to the media. Then he had to sit back and hope that the media would air his response. Now, to address immediate issues, a candidate can send out an e-mail blast to his supporters. He can send his press releases not only to the media but also to sympathetic bloggers. He can slip an answer to The Drudge Report. For example, if your opponent gave a speech advocating a federal health insurance program to protect all citizens, you could send out an e-mail detailing how much such a program would cost and how your opponent will have to raise taxes to pay for his program. Blogs and supportive opinion sites would then quote you directly or use your talking points to craft their own criticism of your opponent.

One way that the Internet can harm a candidate’s campaign is how it can amplify a candidate’s gaffes. With video-sharing websites such as youtube.​com, a video of a candidate making a mistake can be posted and then played over and over again. People can post that video on their own blogs and then make fun of the candidate. Networks can use that video to broadcast the blunder. Late-night comics can use the video to ridicule the candidate. We saw this happen to George Allen when he called a supporter of his opponent a “macaca.” Once the supporter was able to upload the video of that short interchange onto the Internet, Allen’s campaign was irrevocably damaged, as cable TV, political websites, and bloggers began to ridicule George Allen. The word “macaca” is a little-known word that is commonly understood to be a racial slur used in Francophile African nations. Allen’s mother grew up in the Francophile African nation of Tunisia, which led people to assume that he used this word as a racial slur. Allen insisted that he didn’t know the meaning of “macaca” when he said it, but the damage was already done. His campaign was completely thrown off stride and never fully recovered. No one cared about anything else he had to say; all they wanted to talk about was his “macaca moment.” Important issues and policies fell by the wayside, as the media and the constituents focused entirely on this bizarre exchange. All of this because someone posted a short video onto the Internet. Without the video, the interchange might have been described, but it wouldn’t have had the same impact that the video provided. In today’s video-sharing Internet age, candidates have had to become much more careful of everything they say or do. One misstep or poor word choice can spell the end of their campaigns.

Question 2

What Is Soft Money?

“Soft money” is money donated by corporations and unions directly to political parties. Soft money contributions are supposed to be used for such general purposes as get-out-the-vote campaigns, voter registration drives, expenses involved in the day-to-day running of party headquarters, and campaign propaganda that relates to the party rather than to specific candidates: For example, T-shirts and balloons that say “Vote Democrat” as opposed to “Vote Clinton.”

Corporations, unions, and trade groups are all prohibited by law from donating directly to candidates. Up until recently, they had been able to make unlimited soft-money contributions. According to the electoral watchdog organization Common Cause, the top 50 soft-money contributors in 1996 each donated an average of $800,000. Top donors such as Philip Morris, AT&T, and the Trial Lawyers Association each contributed more than $2 million. In 1996, the two parties raised a total of $260 million in soft money.

In 2002, Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), also known as the McCain-Feingold bill. This law made it illegal for the major political parties to raise and spend soft money, though other organizations still can and do. This law was upheld by the Supreme Court in McConnell v. FEC (2003), though some provisions were struck down in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010).

In the Citizens United case, the Court removed limits on groups that fund political action without explicitly endorsing or coordinating with specific candidates, declaring these to be free speech. The funds subsequently raised by these so-called Super PACs have increased considerably the amount of soft money spent on elections.

Why Do the Congressmen in the Cartoon Want to Defend Soft Money, and Who Doesn’t?

Soft money became an important source of campaign financing for several interrelated reasons.

Before the passing of BCRA, soft money was a hot topic on Capitol Hill. The 2010 Citizens United decision and subsequent development of Super PACS have triggered further debate. Most congressmen wanted to defend soft money because it was in their interest to do so. Incumbents always receive the vast majority of all campaign contributions, and soft money contributions strengthened their reelection chances.

Congress was not unanimous on the subject, however. The Democratic Party wanted across-the-board limits on donations, while the Republicans did not. Donation limits would have hurt the Republicans, who received more donations from wealthy Americans than the Democrats. Before the McCain-Feingold bill, the Republican Party raised 50% more soft money than the Democratic Party.

The Republicans, conversely, wanted a ban on soft-money contributions from labor unions, and would have also accepted a ban on donations in congressional elections made from outside the candidate’s district (House) or state (Senate). Democrats rejected the limit on contributions from labor unions for one obvious reason: Unions are strong supporters of the Democratic Party. They would have accepted such a ban if a similar one was placed on corporate donations. The Republicans, of course, rejected this idea; total corporate donations to the Republican Party far exceed union donations to the Democratic Party.

Democrats also rejected the Republican proposal for regional limitations on donations. This proposal would have particularly stung the Democrats in the House. Because many Republicans represent wealthy districts, a restriction on outside donations would not hurt them too badly; they would still be able to raise the necessary campaign funds from within their districts. Many Democrats, however, represent poor urban districts. A restriction on outside donations would deprive these Democratic candidates of much of their campaign funding. For these reasons, many Americans saw both sides of the debate as self-interested parties trying to gain electoral advantage, not as legitimate reformists trying to develop a fair system.

Despite the obstacles standing in the way of campaign finance reform, the collapse of Enron and other corporations created an atmosphere that allowed the McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan Campaign Finance Reform Act to make it through Congress. It is now known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, and the jury is still out as to whether it has truly curbed spending.

Should There Be Greater Restrictions on Soft Money? Why or Why Not?

Supporters of the ban on soft money argue that it is the only way to end the upward spiral of election costs. They also believe that such massive campaign contributions from corporations and unions make the average voter extremely cynical about the political process. Few voters believe that those who donate $1 million to a campaign expect nothing in return.

There are, however, legitimate arguments against limits on soft money. A recent Time magazine editorial pointed out that a limit on donations to political parties would merely increase the political power of issue advocacy groups, such as the Christian Coalition, the Sierra Club, and the National Rifle Association. These groups, like political parties, run televised advertisements and campaign for candidates. Unlike parties, issue advocacy groups are not required to disclose who donates to them or how much they donate. The net result, therefore, would be a system in which the public was less informed about corporate and union political donations.

Here’s How to Crack It

Any time a free-response question comes with a cartoon, chart, graph, or quotation, graders will be looking to see whether you understand it. Always make sure to convey an understanding of such material, aside from answering whatever questions you are asked about it. In the case of this cartoon by Markstein, if, at some point, you explain his depiction of Congress at large and of Senators McCain and Feingold, it will be clear that you get the point of the cartoon.

As with any response, you must define key terms in the question, whether or not you are explicitly asked to define them. Here you are specifically asked for the meaning of the term soft money, but you should have been prepared to define it even if you were not asked to do so.

Another component of the question has to do with the politics of soft money: Why do some in Congress favor it, while others seek to restrict it? You need reasonable explanations for holding each position.

Finally, you need to evaluate the arguments for and against soft money. You should explore both sides, and express your personal opinion on this issue. Whichever side you choose, you will have to justify your decision.

You should resist the tendency to answer each question separately in a series of unconnected paragraphs. Try to craft a response that addresses all the questions that comprise this topic. A logical way to organize your response would be to make each question the focus of one paragraph, with smooth transitions between them. The difference may not seem great, but the presentation is more impressive if you prove that you see the connections among the distinct questions by answering them all in one response.

Sample Excellent Free Response

“Soft money,” the funds that flow from unions and corporations to political parties, have been the target of reformers and satirists in recent years. Unlike the hard money that goes directly from individuals to candidates, soft money is not restricted. As such, it is supposed to be used for only general party purposes, such as get-out-the-vote drives and advertisements for the party as a whole, rather than particular candidates. Parties have nevertheless found ways to avoid the regulations and gain individual electoral advantage from soft money. For that reason, among others, political cartoonists may criticize soft-money contributions. Because incumbents in general, and incumbent Republicans in particular, tend to benefit more than challengers, much support for soft money, like much opposition to it, is self-interest masquerading as public spirit. Partisan politics aside, there are reasons to worry about unlimited money being funneled into the political system.

Most members of Congress want to defend soft money because, as incumbents, they benefit from it more than those trying to unseat them. Because of limits on individual contributions, candidates depend on soft money, even if they misuse it. The Federal Election Commission is too understaffed to catch misuse of funds until after the election has been won. The cartoonist points out that the majority of Congress is dismayed to find that the opposition persists in trying to limit such an advantageous technique for reelection.

Some members of Congress, such as Senators McCain and Feingold (pictured in the cartoon), favor limits on soft money. Many Democrats favor governmental oversight on soft money because they fear the greater fund-raising prowess of the Republican Party. A few good-government types on both sides of the aisle honestly worry about the corrupting influence of soft money, although some members win points with voters by speaking out against soft money while continuing to slyly accept such funds.

Those who argue in favor of less restriction on soft money donations can point to the Supreme Court’s 1976 ruling in Buckley v. Valeo. Here, the Court defined campaign contributions as a form of free speech and shot down many limits that had been put in place by the Congress of the 1970s. Many libertarians and others who believe in expansive definitions of speech are strong supporters of this ruling and are unperturbed by soft money and its role in American politics. Opponents of soft money cheered the passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002—the McCain-Feingold plan—for dramatically limiting the amount of soft money funneled to political parties from interest groups, but though the law was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2003 under McConnell v. FEC, some of its restrictions were struck down under the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC decision. This leads a third group, cynics, to point to the old adage that trying to stop the flow of money in politics is like trying to stop water from flowing downhill. Instead of stopping the flow of soft money to political parties, the McCain-Feingold Act and the Citizens United decision now mean soft money flows to “independent” 527 groups and political action committees (Super PACs) that are formally unaffiliated with the candidate they support. As a result, soft money’s influence in politics today remains pervasive—perhaps more than ever before.

Question 3

The first part of question 3 requires relatively little outside information. It is designed to test your ability to read a graph and draw conclusions based on your reading. You must then demonstrate a general understanding of the public’s perception of Congress. The second part of the question does require outside information, as it asks for a historical cause for the shift in public opinion demonstrated in the graph. You have more than one good option to satisfy the second question; these options are discussed below in more detail than you would need to earn the highest score on this question. The last part of the question asks you to go well beyond the data in the graph and relate public perception of Congress as a whole with voters’ perceptions of their own member of Congress. This part of the question demands information about the rate of reelection of incumbents and the recognition of an apparent paradox: People think little of Congress as an institution, but apparently like their own representatives well enough to reelect them quite often.

Describe the Overall Trend in Citizens’ Attitudes Toward Congress. Assess the Degree to Which Public Opinion Has Changed Since 1974.

The trends reflected in this chart are ambiguous enough to allow you a couple of options. You could emphasize the upward trend in public disapproval of Congress. Conversely, you could focus on the fact that the public’s approval rating of Congress, while fluctuating over the last 20 years, has generally hovered around the 30% mark, and so has not changed dramatically. Let’s explore both options.

There is also a third option: acknowledge both trends. Any of these three options, if well executed, will get you on your way to a 5 on this essay.

Explain the Causes and Results of ONE Dramatic Shift in Public Opinion Indicated in the Graph.

The graph illustrates several dramatic changes in public opinion about Congress. Let’s consider each.

Why Do Incumbent Members of Congress Usually Win Reelection?

Regardless of the way you described public opinion in answering the first two parts of the question, it’s clear that more people have disapproved of Congress than have approved of it, almost without interruption, for at least 25 years. From your study of congressional elections, however, you may recall that politicians that get elected to Congress, especially after they have gotten reelected once, tend to be quite successful at continuing to win reelection every two years after that, and for as long as they continue to run. This question asks you to consider whether disapproval of Congress as a whole translates into disapproval of individual representatives. The short answer is that it does not. Just as you may think little of professional athletes as a group yet still root for the home team, a negative assessment of the group does not translate into a negative assessment of every member. Members of Congress often run successfully for reelection by asking to be sent back to Washington to clean up the mess there, thus distancing themselves from Congress as an institution. Similarly, voters may see public spending elsewhere as a waste of their money while viewing spending in their own district as beneficial and a reason to reelect their representative who brought it home. You need to show in your essay that you are aware of and can account for the high rate of reelection of individual members of Congress in the face of the persistent disapproval of Congress as a whole.

Here’s How to Crack It

Graders evaluating answers to this question want to see, first of all, that you can read a graph and draw conclusions based on the information it presents. They will be looking at your response to the second part of the question to see if you can recall a single historical event or set of circumstances that you can link to a shift in the public’s opinion of Congress. You need to identify the event or circumstances as well as establish a probable connection to the poll data shown. In answering the third part of the question, you need to demonstrate your familiarity with the high reelection rate of members of Congress and explain how it can coexist with the data in the graph. It is possible to address the three parts of the question in a straightforward manner. If you don’t complicate your task with an elaborate introduction and conclusion, you could probably answer this question in less that 25 minutes, creating extra time for one of the other questions or for taking a short break between questions.

Sample Excellent Free Response

Generally, negative public opinion of Congress over the last 25 years has fluctuated somewhat as a function of various events, and has failed to translate into electoral difficulties for individual members of Congress running for reelection.

Two major trends are noticeable in the chart. First, public disapproval of Congress has risen since 1974. In 1974, disapproval ratings were below 50 percent. They even dropped below 40 percent in April 1974. Since then, however, disapproval ratings have generally been above 50 percent and at times have been much higher. Approval ratings, on the other hand, have remained near 30 percent. Overall, it seems that public opinion of Congress has changed slightly for the worse since 1974. More people formerly had no opinion of Congress; most of those people seem to have shifted over to the disapproval category. This is probably because media coverage of Congress has grown more extensive and more negative over the past 20 years. One dramatic shift in public opinion of Congress took place in December 1995, when the graph shows disapproval reaching the second highest peak recorded there, near 70 percent. The failure of both the president and Congress to agree on a budget caused a shutdown of all nonessential activities of the federal government. The Republican majority in Congress wanted to speed up deficit reduction and cut funding of social programs. When the Democratic president would not agree, Congress shut down the government rather than pass stop-gap appropriations bills. The public disapproved of the government shutdown and blamed Congress for it, resulting in much higher levels of disapproval.

Although disapproval of Congress has remained high, the public is not refusing to reelect incumbent representatives who seek to keep their seats. Members have expanded district office staffs, providing helpful, nonpartisan constituent services that keep their name recognition high and their individual popularity well above that of Congress as a whole. High levels of public spending allow representatives to claim credit for new buildings, roads, canals, and the like, and lead voters to appreciate the benefits their district is getting from their congressperson, even if they view Congress as a whole as spendthrift for repeating that spending in each of the other districts.

Thus Congress remains relatively unpopular, occasionally extremely so, but individual representatives are not tainted by that disapproval when they run for reelection.

Question 4

On this Free Response Question, students may earn a total of eight points on this question. Two points are available for part (a), two for part (b), and four for part (c).

Part (a) asks you to explain how formal amendments are made to the Constitution. You’ll earn one point for each of the two you explain. Although the question does not state so, one must be about the proposal and one must be about ratification.

Proposal may include

Ratification may include

Part (b) asks you to explain why formal amendments are rarely made. You will earn one point for stating a reason and other another point for elaborating on that reason. Some of the possible reasons you may choose to discuss include the difficulty of obtaining the number of votes needed, the cost incurred by having a convention, or time limits imposed for a bill to be approved as an amendment.

Part (c) asks you to describe two additional ways that the interpretation of the Constitution can be changed. You will earn one point each for identifying two possible ways and one point each for giving a specific example of those ways. Some of the ways you might discuss include the following:

Part III

About the AP U.S. Government and Politics Exam

THE STRUCTURE OF THE AP U.S. GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS EXAM

The AP U.S. Government and Politics Exam is a two-part test. The chart below illustrates the test’s structure.

The test is designed to test an overview of U.S. government. It doesn’t give all subjects equal weight, however. Here’s how the test questions break down.

While most of the questions deal with the institutions of government, the questions are nearly evenly divided among the four institutions. There are no definition questions, although you need to know the definitions of words to understand the questions. The questions tend to deal with the dynamics of how government operates within a political environment. For example, you may be asked how interest groups attempt to influence policy making in Congress and the bureaucracy or how the president attempts to influence Congress through public opinion. The test writers want to know whether you understand the general principles that guide U.S. government and the making of public policy.

In addition to the multiple-choice questions, there are four mandatory free-response questions. You’ll have a total of 100 minutes to answer all of them. You should spend approximately 25 minutes per question, but be aware that you must manage your own time. Additional time spent on one question will reduce the time that you have left to answer another. Writing more than is necessary to answer the question will not earn you extra points.

The graders assign each of your free-response answers a numerical score. Weighing the average on the free responses and the score on the multiple-choice questions each as 50%, the graders create a final score from a low of 1 to a high of 5. The chart below tells you what that final score means.

To score your multiple-choice questions, award yourself one point for every correct answer and credit 0 points to your score for every question you left blank. Remember that there is no longer a guessing penalty on the test. This will give you a raw score.

Here’s what that score would translate into on the AP U.S. Government and Politics Exam, assuming you performed as well on the essay questions.

Of course, if you follow our advice for how to write a good free-response essay, you could score higher on the free-response section than on the multiple-choice section and thus potentially increase your final score by one point.

HOW AP EXAMS ARE USED

Different colleges use AP Exams in different ways, so it is important that you visit a particular college’s website in order to determine how it accepts AP Exam scores. The three items below represent the main ways in which AP Exam scores can be used.

OTHER RESOURCES

There are many resources available to help you improve your score on the AP U.S. Government and Politics Exam, not the least of which are your teachers. If you are taking an AP course, you may be able to get extra attention from your teacher, such as feedback on your essays. If you are not in an AP course, you can reach out to a teacher who teaches AP U.S. Government and Politics to ask if he or she will review your essays or otherwise help you master the content.

Another wonderful resource is AP Students, the official student website for AP Exams. The scope of the information available on this site is quite broad and includes the following:

The AP Students home page address is: http://​apstudent.​collegeboard.​org/​home.

Finally, The Princeton Review offers tutoring, small group instruction, and admissions counseling. Our expert instructors can help you refine your strategic approach and enhance your content knowledge. For more information, call 1-800-2REVIEW.

DESIGNING YOUR STUDY PLAN

In Part I, you identified some areas of potential improvement. Let’s now delve further into your performance on Practice Test 1, with the goal of developing a study plan appropriate to your needs and time commitment.

Read the answers and explanations associated with the multiple-choice questions (starting at this page). After you have done so, respond to the following questions:

Part IV

Test-Taking Strategies for the AP U.S. Government and Politics Exam

PREVIEW

Review your Practice Test 1 results and then respond to the following questions:

HOW TO USE THE CHAPTERS IN THIS PART

Before reading the following strategy chapters, think about what you are doing now. As you read and engage in the directed practice, be sure to think critically about the ways you can change your approach.

Chapter 1

How to Approach Multiple-Choice Questions

THE BASICS

The directions for the multiple-choice section of the AP U.S. Government and Politics Exam are pretty simple. They read as follows:

Directions: Each of the questions or incomplete statements below is followed by five suggested answers or completions. Select the one that is best in each case and then fill in the corresponding oval on the answer sheet.

In short, you’re being asked to do what you’ve done on many other multiple-choice exams: Pick the best answer and then fill in the corresponding bubble on a separate sheet of paper. You will not be given credit for answers you record in your test booklet (by circling them, for example) but do not fill in on your answer sheet. The section consists of 60 questions, and you will be given 45 minutes to complete it.

The College Board also provides a breakdown of the general subject matter covered on the exam. This breakdown will not appear in your test booklet; it comes from the preparatory material the College Board publishes. Here again is the chart we showed you in Part III:

As you can see, the primary focus of the test is the nuts and bolts of the federal government. The test also emphasizes political activity—the factors that influence individual political beliefs, the conditions that determine how and why people vote, and the process by which groups form and attempt to influence the government. All these subjects, you should note, are important. As much as 30% (or as little as 10%) of your exam may focus on constitutional issues and civil rights.

TYPES OF QUESTIONS

The majority of questions on the multiple-choice section of the test are pretty direct. Here’s an example.

Sometimes, the College Board makes the questions a little trickier. One way it does this is by phrasing a question in such a way that four answers are correct and one is incorrect. We call these questions “NOT/EXCEPT” questions because they usually contain one of those words (in capital letters, so they’re difficult to miss). Here’s an example.

Another way the College Board tricks test takers is the Roman Numeral format question. This type of question can have more than one correct answer. Here’s an example.

Once or twice during the multiple-choice section, you will be asked to interpret an illustration, often a map or a political cartoon. These are usually rather easy. The key is not to try to read too much between the lines. Here’s an example.

Finally, there will be one or two questions on the test asking you to interpret a graph or chart. Again, these are usually very direct, and the most important thing for you to do is not to over-interpret the data. The correct answer will be indisputably supported by the information in the chart. Here’s an example.

Answers to these and other drill questions appear at the end of this chapter.

HOW TO CRACK THE MULTIPLE-CHOICE SECTION

The AP U.S. Government and Politics Exam is, by Educational Testing Service (ETS) standards, a straightforward test. Unlike the SAT, for example, on the AP U.S. Government and Politics Exam the questions and answers are not designed to trick you. The subject matter can be found easily in this workbook, often in the chapter summaries. You should, however, not be lulled into believing the test is easy because it covers material that can be readily obtained from reading the newspaper and watching television. This so-called “street knowledge” is not enough to ensure a passing grade on the exam. The AP U.S. Government and Politics Exam is an academic test that requires knowledge from the textbook. Information acquired from contemporary sources such as newspapers and television will probably not be needed in the multiple-choice sections of the test. It will, however, be needed for the essay sections of the test, particularly if you are asked for examples.

If you’ve paid attention in class, you should do well on this test. If you haven’t paid close attention, you may still be able to master the material if you review intensively. Use the subject review that appears later in this book as your guide. Either way, you will do better if you know what to expect of the test. On the next few pages, we’ll discuss some things that all AP U.S. Government and Politics Exam multiple-choice sections have in common.

The Questions Are of Mixed Difficulty

The examination is made up of questions of varying difficulty. It is not unusual to have many questions on the examination that fewer than 50% of the students answer correctly. Some are so difficult that fewer than 25% of students answer them correctly. There are also some very easy questions, which the vast majority of students answer correctly. But watch out for the really difficult questions that may involve very technical issues, such as committee seniority or campaign finance reform.

There Are No Trivial Pursuit Questions on This Exam

Here’s some more good news. The AP U.S. Government and Politics Exam doesn’t ask about trivial matters. You will probably never see a question on the exam such as this one.

To answer this question correctly, you would have to be fairly familiar with the British government. The AP U.S. Government and Politics Exam does not require such knowledge. This question is atypical in another way as well: It does not have a varied selection of possible answers. Even if you had known that the British Exchequer has something to do with money and government, you could not have eliminated any of the incorrect answers on this question. On an actual AP test, at least a couple of these answers would have been completely unrelated to finance, and you could have eliminated them to guess from among the remaining answers.

Process of Elimination

It is more important to focus on eliminating incorrect answers than on finding the correct answers because that is the most efficient way to take a multiple-choice exam. Use Process of Elimination (POE) to whittle down the answer choices to one, because incorrect answers are much easier to identify than the correct one. When people look for the correct answer among the answer choices, they have a tendency to try to justify how each answer may be correct. They’ll adopt a forgiving attitude, but this is a situation in which a savage brutality is needed. Eliminate incorrect answers. Terminate them with extreme prejudice. If you’ve done your job well, only the correct answer will be left standing at the end.

All of this probably sounds pretty aggressive to you. It is. Good test takers take multiple-choice tests aggressively. They sift through the answer choices, discard incorrect answers without remorse, guess with impunity, and prowl the test searching for questions they can answer, all with the tenacity and ruthlessness of a shark. All right, maybe that’s a bit overdramatic, but you get the point. So, eliminate as many answers as you can to increase your odds of answering difficult questions correctly.

Common Sense Can Help

Sometimes answers on the multiple-choice section contradict common sense. Eliminate those answers because common sense works on the AP U.S. Government and Politics Exam.

Think about which of the answer choices to the question below go against common sense.

Here’s How to Crack It

You should have been able to apply common sense to eliminate (D) and (E) pretty quickly. Congressional committees work on bills before they reach the floor for a vote, and this work takes up all their time. They would hardly have time to hear all disputes concerning bills that have already passed. Furthermore, such a system would violate the system of checks and balances, because the responsibility for interpreting laws belongs to the judiciary. All the same, the details of congressional legislation could never be worked out in the courts. There would simply be too many cases for the courts to be able to process them all. Similarly, (B) contradicts the principle of separation of powers. It is the executive branch’s responsibility to enforce the law; it is not required to confer with Congress on the manner in which it performs this task. Choice (C) is impractical. You have no doubt seen “photo ops” of politicians standing before the mountains of federal regulations on the books. Those regulations are created by the federal bureaucracy as guidelines for implementing legislation. They are not contained within the legislation itself. The correct answer, by POE, is (A).

Answer Key for Sample Questions in This Chapter

Summary

Chapter 2

How to Approach Free-Response Questions

OVERVIEW OF THE FREE-RESPONSE SECTION

You may be surprised to see the words “free response” at the start of this chapter. No essay? What is a “free response,” anyway? The first thing to be aware of is that this response is hardly free. The College Board wants a very specific type of writing, and it is one that you might not be used to. Forget the idea of crafting a fine piece of writing that convinces the reader of your opinion. Instead, think “just the facts, ma’am.” Your basic goal here is to read the questions and answer them to the best of your ability. Don’t get too hung up on crafting a perfectly organized essay with transitional phrases—this section of the AP should almost stand for “Answer the Prompt”—just crank out a straightforward, clear answer and show the graders that you know your stuff.

You will have 100 minutes to answer four questions, so be sure to budget your time well. Give as much detail as necessary to answer the question, but no more! Above all, don’t worry. So long as you know the basics of American government, this section should be a breeze.

WHAT ARE THE FREE-RESPONSE QUESTIONS LIKE?

The AP U.S. Government and Politics free-response section contains four free-response questions. Each counts equally. The entire free-response section counts as 50% of your examination grade. Even though the free responses are all mandatory, you may have some choices within a free-response question. For example, a question may look like this:

Choices within questions allow you to showcase what you know best, instead of having to write about many subjects, some of which you might not remember as well. Again, depth-not-breadth is the focus here. Think of this as a “data dump” where you can show off your knowledge and “wow” the grader. Note that you will not get a higher score for writing more than what the question requires. You cannot make up points lost in a previous free-response question, so be sure to focus on only the topic that the question asks about. If there is a choice within a question, make certain you choose the subject you know the most about. Be explicit. Also remember that if the question deals with a Supreme Court case, you shouldn’t worry about the background of the case. It is the ruling and the consequences that are important.

If you are confronted with a free-response question that you feel unprepared to answer, don’t panic. Skip it and come back to it later. Writing another free-response essay may get your juices flowing and prompt you to recall your knowledge of the first subject. Just remember to keep track of your time so that you have time to return to the question that you skipped.

You cannot be penalized for just attempting to write an answer. Therefore, never leave a free-response question blank. Write something about the subject, even if it is just basic knowledge you picked up from a magazine or a website.

The free-response essays are graded using an answer standard, to which only the graders have access. A certain number of points is given for each piece of information supplied correctly. The numerical grade of the essay is determined by adding the points earned for each part of the response.

Each free-response essay uses a different scoring standard. One essay could be graded using a total of five points, another a total of seven points, and another a total of ten points. While the total score for each question may differ, the value of each question is equal in determining the final score on the free-response section. Each of the four free-response questions is worth one-eighth of the total exam, or 12.5%. The highest possible score on the free-response section is 60 points.

A simple way for you to get an idea of the kinds of questions that might be asked, and the structure of an answer standard, is to visit the College Board website at www.​collegeboard.​com. In the section devoted to Advanced Placement, you will find AP U.S. Government and Politics free-response questions from the last five years, with the grading standard for each question. These are extremely helpful. They allow you to acquaint yourself with how the points break down and what the graders are seeking. Be sure to check them out.

Another way to understand the types of questions that may be asked is to look in the table of contents of an AP U.S. Government and Politics textbook. Test writers essentially take the concepts found in a few individual chapters and combine them into a question. For example, they may ask about the ways in which interest groups attempt to influence policy. Information about such a question will be found in the chapters on interest group politics, elections, and the branches of government. The test writers are trying to force you to synthesize (combine, analyze, and evaluate) many separate pieces of information into a coherent point of view. Therefore, the question may be written like this:

In the free-response section you will not be required to write a complete essay with a thesis statement, evidence, and conclusion: There simply isn’t time. This response is an opportunity to showcase your knowledge of U.S. government and politics, not a time to highlight your understanding of proper syntax and your hatred of dangling modifiers. You won’t be graded down if you do write a thesis statement, evidence, and conclusion, but this practice will waste precious time that you could have spent writing a more complete answer for what they do ask of you. Do exactly the tasks that the question asks of you. This may seem obvious, but many students get off track and neglect to address all facets of the questions with clear responses. If the question asks you to analyze data by explaining trends shown in a graph, do so. Make sure your analysis can be backed up by the data in the graph. If the graph question contains a Part B (it often does), it will probably ask for an explanation of the data in the graph. This part of the answer will come from your knowledge of the subject. Because time is a factor, and you will be awarded no more points for extras, do nothing more than what the question asks.

See the next page for an example of a stimulus-type free-response question.

Part (a): Answer (Keep in mind that this is just an outline.)

Part (b): Answer

Note that the question in Part (a) does not ask for a thesis statement. It simply asks you to analyze the data. Part (b) also does not require a thesis statement. It contains an explanation of the data and the impact of decreasing party affiliations on elections. You should now be able to see that the free-response essay on the AP U.S. Government and Politics Exam really is different from an essay that you might write in your normal English or History class: It doesn’t stress the importance of a thesis, supporting paragraphs, and conclusion. When answering a free-response question, you simply want to share as much information and as many strong, well-constructed examples as you can think of. Don’t stress yourself out worrying about the format and flow. Simply get the information from your brain onto the paper and show the grader that you have a strong grasp of U.S. governmental policies and precedents.

Be Optimistic

Both the exam writers and the graders realize that 25 minutes is not very much time to respond to a question. They understand that it will take about five minutes for you to understand the question and begin to organize your answer. Obviously, there is not enough time to give a very in-depth answer. Because of the time constraints, you will have to choose only those parts of your answer that give the strongest response to the question. The graders are not looking for the final word on the subject. Instead, they are checking to see whether you can

These should be your goals in writing your AP U.S. Government and Politics Exam free-response essays.

PLANNING AND WRITING YOUR FREE RESPONSE

There are two essential components to writing a successful timed free response. The first is to plan what you are going to write before you start writing. The second is to use a number of tried-and-true writing techniques that will make your essay better organized, better thought out, and better written.

Before You Start Writing

Read the question carefully and figure out what you are being asked. Then, brainstorm for a minute or two. In your test booklet, write down everything that comes to mind about the subject; there is room on the back pages of the booklet and in the blank space at the bottom of the question pages. Look at your notes and consider the results of your brainstorming session as you decide which points you will argue in your response. Tailor your argument to the information, but don’t make an argument that you know is wrong or with which you disagree. If you do either of these things, your response will probably be awful. Finally, go through the results of your brainstorming. Some of what you wrote down will be “big picture” conclusions, some will be facts that can be used as evidence to support your conclusions, and some will be interesting material that, nonetheless, will not fit into a well-organized free-response essay and should be discarded.

Next, make an outline. The outline should be brief—just a few words for each paragraph. You should plan to write as many paragraphs as are appropriate for answering the question. For example, some free responses will require two paragraphs on relevant issues; others will need five. Sometimes the question or part of the question can be answered with a couple of paragraphs and a bulleted list. If the question does not require a full essay, you should not write one.

As You Are Writing

Observe the following guidelines:

HOW TO CRACK THE FREE-RESPONSE QUESTIONS

Answering the free-response questions on the AP U.S. Government and Politics Exam is not very different from answering the essay questions you have been answering all your life. The keys to success are the following:

Summary

Chapter 3

Using Time Effectively to Maximize Points

Very few students stop to think about how to improve their test-taking skills. Most assume that if they study hard, they will test well, and if they do not study, they will do poorly. Most students continue to believe this even after experience teaches them otherwise. Have you ever studied really hard for an exam, and then blown it on test day? Have you ever aced an exam for which you thought you weren’t well prepared? Most students have had one, if not both, of these experiences. The lesson should be clear: Factors other than your level of preparation influence your final test score. This chapter will provide you with some insights that will help you perform better on the AP U.S. Government and Politics Exam, as well as on other exams.

PACING AND TIMING

A big part of scoring well on an exam is working at a consistent pace. The worst mistake that inexperienced or unsavvy test takers make is to come to a question that stumps them, and rather than just skip it, they panic and stall. Time stands still when you’re working on a question you cannot answer, and it is not unusual for students to waste five minutes on a single question (especially a question involving a graph or the word EXCEPT) because they are too stubborn to cut their losses. It is important to be aware of how much time you have spent on any given question and on the section on which you are working. There are several ways to improve your pacing and timing for the test.

Remember, when all the questions on a test are of equal value, no one question is that important. Your overall goal for pacing is to get the most questions correct. Finally, you should set a realistic goal for your final score. In the next section, we will break down how to achieve your desired score and ways of pacing yourself to do so.

GETTING THE SCORE YOU WANT

Depending on the score you need, it may be in your best interest not to try to work through every question. Check with the schools to which you are applying. Do you need a 3 to earn credit for the test? If you get a raw score of 43 (out of 60) on the multiple-choice section and do as well on the essays, you will get a 3.

AP Exams in all subjects no longer include a guessing penalty of a quarter of a point for every incorrect answer. Instead, students are assessed solely on the total number of correct answers. A lot of AP materials, even those you receive in your AP class, may not include this information. It is really important to remember that if you are running out of time, you should fill in all the bubbles before the time for the multiple-choice section is up. Even if you don’t plan to spend a lot of time on every question and even if you have no idea what the correct answer is, you need to fill something in.

Based on the most recent information available from the College Board, out of 120 points total for the four free-response and multiple-choice questions, students needed at least 93 points to get a score of 5, 82 points for a 4, 66 points for a 3, and 48 points for a 2.

Below is a table to give you an idea of approximately how many questions you must get right and how well you must do on the essays to get the score you need. Realize that these numbers are approximations and will vary from year to year depending upon test performance. From these data, it becomes readily apparent that you must attempt and perform well on the essays to have a chance to score a 4 or 5. As you take practice tests, you can use this information to evaluate how best to get the score you want and what areas of the exam are hindering your progress. There are multiple ways to achieve your desired score. It is important to remember that guessing is no longer penalized and that you must put in energy and effort on the essays to perform well.

TEST ANXIETY

Everybody experiences anxiety before and during an exam. To a certain extent, test anxiety can be helpful. Some people find that they perform more quickly and efficiently under stress. If you have ever pulled an all-nighter to write a paper and ended up doing good work, you know the feeling.

However, too much stress is definitely a bad thing. Hyperventilating during the test, for example, almost always leads to a lower score. If you find that you stress out during exams, here are a few preemptive actions you can take.

The best way to avoid stress is to study both the test material and the test itself. Congratulations! By buying or reading this book, you are taking a major step toward a stress-free AP U.S. Government and Politics Exam.

REFLECT

Think about what you learned in Part IV, and respond to the following questions:

Part V

Content Review for the AP U.S. Government and Politics Exam

Chapter 4

The Constitutional Underpinnings

CONCEPTS

ENLIGHTENMENT PHILOSOPHIES

The Framers of the Constitution lived in a unique time when new ideas on how government should be organized and run challenged conventional wisdom regarding the roles of people and their governments. The Enlightenment was an eighteenth-century philosophical movement that began in Western Europe with roots in the Scientific Revolution. The focus was on the use of reason rather than tradition to solve social dilemmas.

THE WEAKNESS OF THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION

The first government of the newly born United States of America was formed under the Articles of Confederation, the predecessor to the Constitution. These Articles were informally followed from 1776 to 1781 when they were ratified and so named. The government under the Articles achieved some notable accomplishments, including the following:

However, the Articles of Confederation had insurmountable weaknesses that placed the newly independent states at risk. The year 1783 was the official end of the American Revolution and the post-revolution transitional period was marked by states being wholly unprepared to manage their own affairs. By 1787, trade between the states was in decline, the value of money was dropping, potential threats from foreign enemies were growing, and there was the real threat of social disorder from groups within the country. The inability of the state of Massachusetts to effectively deal with Shays’ Rebellion, a six-month rebellion in which more than 1,000 armed farmers attacked a federal arsenal to protest the foreclosure of farms in the western part of the state, was a major concern at the Constitutional Convention. The nation’s leaders began to see the necessity of a stronger central government, as Shays’ Rebellion frightened the statesmen and exposed the weakness of the Articles of Confederation.

The federal government under the Articles

These deficiencies of the Articles of Confederation were the direct causes for calling a convention. But amending the articles became so difficult that James Madison did not have difficulty persuading the other delegates that a complete rewrite was necessary. The result was the Constitution, and the convention came to be known as the Constitutional Convention.

The Constitutional Convention

When the Framers of the Constitution met in Philadelphia in 1787, they were divided over their views of the appropriate power and responsibilities of government. Some saw the current government, formed under the Articles of Confederation, as weak and ineffective, while others believed that changes to the Articles would be infringements on the responsibilities of state governments and intrusions into the lives of citizens. Some historians (such as Charles Beard) see the convention as an elitist conspiracy to protect the wealth of the rich, while others see the convention as a meeting of political pragmatists who knew that by protecting everyone’s property and rights, they could best protect their own. Today, the generally accepted view is that the Framers were pragmatists.

The delegates agreed that a stronger central government was necessary but were fearful of the corrupting influences of power. How to control the federal legislature was a central theme at the convention. The large states seized the agenda at the beginning of the convention and proposed the Virginia Plan, a recipe for a strong government with each state represented proportionately to its population. The small states worried that a government dominated by the large states would be overly strong, so they proposed the New Jersey Plan, under which each state would be represented equally. The Great (or “Connecticut”) Compromise created the solution: a bicameral (two-house) legislature with a House of Representatives, based on population, and a Senate, with equal representation for all states.

Another major conflict arose over the representation of slaves. (Remember that slaves could not vote then.) Northerners felt that slaves should not be counted when determining each state’s number of electoral votes, while Southerners disagreed. The “solution” was the infamous Three-Fifths Compromise, in which the decision was made that slaves would count as three-fifths of a person when apportioning votes.

Under the Articles of Confederation there was no executive authority to enforce laws. The Framers of the Constitution corrected that problem by addressing the issue of a chief executive, or president. Under the Constitution, the executive is the enforcer of law and a second check on the power of the legislature. Before bills become law, they require presidential approval, and the president has the power to veto acts of the legislature. However, presidential power is not absolute. Congress can override a presidential veto if two-thirds of both houses of the legislature vote to do so.

In order to arbitrate disputes between the Congress and the president, between states, and between the states and the central government, the Framers created the Supreme Court.

Despite all of the compromises that were reached at the convention, acceptance of the Constitution was by no means assured. It had to be submitted to the states for ratification. Supporters and opponents of the Constitution broke into two camps, Federalists and Anti-Federalists. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote a series of newspaper articles supporting the Constitution, collectively known as The Federalist Papers. These essays are the primary source for understanding the original intent of the Framers. They were designed to persuade the states of the wisdom of a strong central government coupled with autonomous political power retained by the states.

The Anti-Federalists opposed the creation of a stronger national government, arguing that a Constitution would threaten citizens’ personal liberties and effectively make the president a king. Keep in mind that only 12 years prior, these people had declared independence from Britain, and many were fearful that a large government with a Constitution would recreate that same state of tyrannical control from which they had just escaped.

The opposition to the Constitution centered on the lack of a Bill of Rights that would protect the rights of individuals from government infringement. Once the Federalists guaranteed that a Bill of Rights would be added to the Constitution immediately after ratification, opposition diminished, and the Constitution became the foundation of American government.

THE CONSTITUTION AS AN INSTRUMENT OF GOVERNMENT

The Constitution is vague and skeletal in form, containing only about 5,000 words. It was intended to be a blueprint for the structure of government and a guide for guaranteeing the rights of citizens. It was written to allow change, anticipating unknown needs of future generations, through amendments that require widespread support. The branches of government have all grown and evolved since the ratification of the Constitution.

Federalism

Central to the Constitution is the idea that the United States government is a federal government. The term federalism describes a system of government under which the national government and local governments (state governments, in the case of the United States) share powers. Other federal governments include Germany, Switzerland, and Australia. Contrast this with a confederation, a system in which many decisions are made by an external member-state legislation; decisions on day-to-day matters are not taken by simple majority but by special majorities, consensus, or unanimity—and changes to the Constitution require unanimity. But let’s get back to federalism for now.

The Supreme Court (which we’ll discuss in depth later) handed down a few important decisions concerning the relationship between the national government and local governments. Know these two, in particular, for your exam:

Under federalism, some government powers belong exclusively to the national government, some exclusively to the states, and some are shared by the two. Those powers that belong to the national government only are called delegated, expressed, or enumerated powers. Among them are

Powers that belong exclusively to the states are called reserved powers. According to the Tenth Amendment, these powers include any that the Constitution neither specifically grants to the national government nor denies to the state governments. These powers are not listed in the Constitution; in fact, they are made up of all powers not mentioned in the Constitution. They include

Some powers are shared by the federal and state governments. These are called concurrent powers. Among them are the powers to

The Constitution specifies which powers are denied to the national government and which powers are denied to the states. Those powers are listed on the next page.

The Constitution also obliges the federal government to guarantee the states a republican form of government and protection against foreign invasion and domestic rebellion. The federal government must also prevent the states from subdividing or combining to form new states without congressional consent. The states, in turn, are required by the Constitution to accept the court judgments, licenses, contracts, and other civil acts of all the other states; this obligation is contained in the “full faith and credit” clause. The states may not refuse police protection or access to their courts to a U.S. citizen just because that person lives in a different state; this provision appears in the privileges and immunities clause. Finally, the states usually must return fugitives to the states from which they have fled; this process is called extradition.

The supremacy clause of the Constitution requires conflicts between federal law and state law to be resolved in favor of federal law. State laws that violate the Constitution, federal laws, or international treaties can be invalidated through the supremacy clause.

The nature of federalism has changed over time. For the first part of the nation’s history, the federal and state governments remained separate and independent. The relationship between the national and state governments during this period is called dual federalism. What little contact most Americans had with government occurred on the state level, as the national government concerned itself primarily with international trade; the construction of roads, harbors, and railways; and the distribution of public land in the West.

As with all parts of the Constitution, the definition of federalism is in the eye of the beholder. Ideological States’ Righters define federalism as a relationship in which the states retain most of the political power. Nationalists often see the federal government as being supreme in all matters and ultimately in control.

Most federal government programs, such as those to aid the poor, clean the environment, improve education, and protect the handicapped, are administered through the states. The federal government pays for these programs through grants-in-aid, which are outright gifts of money to the states. Nationalists prefer to tie strings to the grants, ensuring that the federal government maintains control over the money. States’ Righters want no strings attached, leaving decisions about how the grant money is to be used to state and local governments, who they believe know best how to use it.

Nationalists like categorical grants, aid with strict provisions from the federal government on how it may be spent. States’ Righters like block grants, which permit the state to experiment and use the money as they see fit. In the final analysis, however, the federal government can use a number of techniques, including direct orders and preemption, to force the states to abide by federal law. The federal government can also use a crossover sanction, which requires a state to do something before a grant will be awarded. An example would be to raise the drinking age to 21 before federal highway money to build state roads is released.

Separation of Powers

The Framers of the Constitution decided that no one faction of the government should be able to acquire too much power. To prevent this, they borrowed the concept of the separation of powers from the French political philosopher Charles de Montesquieu. The Framers delegated different but equally important tasks to the three branches of government. The legislative branch (Congress) makes the laws; the executive branch, led by the president, enforces the laws; and the judicial branch interprets the laws.

Separation of powers also prevents a person from serving in more than one branch of the government at the same time. A congressperson (legislative branch), for example, may not also be a judge (judicial branch), nor a cabinet member (executive branch). If a congressperson were appointed to one of these positions, he or she would first have to resign his or her seat in Congress.

The System of Checks and Balances

The system of checks and balances is another constitutional safeguard designed to prevent any one branch of government from becoming dominant. The system of checks and balances requires the different branches of government to share power and cooperate with one another to accomplish anything of importance.

AMENDMENT PROCESS

One reason that the Constitution has lasted more than 200 years is that it is flexible. (Think of the elastic clause!) Many of its provisions require interpretation, allowing the document to become more conservative or progressive as the times warrant. Furthermore, the Constitution can be changed through amendments (the addition of provisions to the document).

To amend the Constitution, a proposed amendment must be introduced to both houses of Congress and approved by a two-thirds majority in each. The amendment is then passed on to each of the fifty state legislatures. Three-fourths of the state legislatures must ratify (approve) the amendment for it to become part of the Constitution. The states themselves are allowed to determine how many votes are required to ratify an amendment. Most states require a simple majority of their legislatures, but seven states require either three-fifths or two-thirds majorities. Also, rather than use the state legislatures, Congress can mandate that each state use a ratifying convention, with delegates expressly elected to vote on the proposed amendment. This method was once used to ratify the Twenty-First Amendment, which ended Prohibition in 1933.

The Constitution allows for a second means of amendment. Two-thirds of the state legislatures could petition Congress to call a constitutional convention. Because no constitutional convention has ever taken place, nobody knows for certain how extensively conventioneers would be allowed to alter the Constitution. Could they rewrite it entirely, or would they be restricted to amendments mentioned specifically in their petitions for a convention? Fear that a constitutional convention could attempt drastic alterations has persuaded many state legislators to oppose any call for a convention. There are ongoing movements in many states to call a constitutional convention to add a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. While about 30 state legislatures have approved a convention, the movement has not yet met the bar of 34 states required to call the convention.

AMENDMENTS

The Bill of Rights (December 15, 1791)

The first ten amendments were added to the Constitution within three years of its ratification. These amendments are known collectively as the Bill of Rights. Originally written by James Madison, many provisions of the Bill of Rights have been expanded and clarified over the years.

The First Amendment

Supreme Court Justice (1932–1937) Benjamin Cardozo said that the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights contains “the fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all of our civil and political institutions.”

The Second Amendment

The Second Amendment to the Constitution, which protects the citizens’ right to bear arms, has led to a debate over whether the Constitution protects citizens’ rights to bear arms under all circumstances, or only when those citizens serve in “well-regulated militias.”

The Third Amendment

The most antiquated of all the amendments, though not at the time of its creation, the Third Amendment forbids the quartering of soldiers and the direct public support of armed forces. It was a direct reaction to the British practice of using civilian support to conduct military operations.

The Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment places restrictions on government agencies regarding criminal or civil procedural investigations and does much to protect an individual’s “person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures.” This amendment was most dramatically reviewed in the twentieth century, as evidenced in Mapp v. Ohio (1961). Questions regarding the use of probable cause, traffic-stop and stop-and-frisk searches, and the use of search warrants have led to challenges regarding the interpretation of the exclusionary rule regarding evidence seized without proper procedures. In its original form, the exclusionary rule holds that all evidence unlawfully gathered must be excluded from judicial proceedings.

The Fifth Amendment

The Fifth Amendment does the most to protect an individual from the broad powers of the federal government. It provides a guarantee of a grand jury when a suspect is held for a capital or other “infamous” crime. It eliminates the possibility of a person being maliciously prosecuted for the same crime again and again by prohibiting double jeopardy. It establishes the right of the government to seize property for public use under the auspices of eminent domain but only if such seizure can be “justly compensated.” Nor may defendants be forced to testify against themselves if on trial, thus prohibiting self-incrimination (commonly known as “pleading the fifth”). The most significant attribute of the Fifth Amendment is its mandate that the federal government not deprive an individual of “life, liberty, or property by any level unless due process of law is applied.”

The Sixth Amendment

This amendment allows persons accused of a crime to be prosecuted by an impartial jury in a “speedy” public trial. Individuals have the right to be informed of their charges, to confront witnesses, to subpoena witnesses for their defense, and to have a lawyer for their defense. The sixth amendment forms the basis for habeas corpus, which protects against unlawful imprisonment and ensures that a person cannot be held indefinitely without being formally charged before a judge or in a court, or without a legal reason to extend his or her detention.

The Seventh Amendment

Although statutory, or written, law has come to replace or supersede common law, which is law based on past court decisions, the Seventh Amendment allows for trial by jury in common-law cases.

The Eighth Amendment

The Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive bail in federal cases. Yet its most significant challenges have arisen from the clause that prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment.” Capital punishment is one of the most contentious issues of the modern day. At issue is whether it constitutes “cruel and unusual punishment.” Federal and state Supreme Courts have taken different positions on this debate.

The Ninth Amendment

The Ninth Amendment reaffirms the principles of a limited federal government. “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” means that rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution are still protected—everyone has the right to brush their hair, for example—even though that right is mentioned nowhere in the Bill of Rights. Although somewhat vague in its premise, the Ninth Amendment has led to the implied right to privacy and other questions regarding individual rights not identified or even understood at the time of the creation of the Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment

The Tenth Amendment defines the relationship between the states and the national government under the concept of federalism. It states that when powers are not defined or delegated by the Constitution, the states have reserved power to make their own individual judgments—so long as they do not infringe with the explicit rules of the Constitution and the federal government. State issues such as the death penalty, speed limit, and drinking age are within the jurisdiction of the states to decide so long as they do not contradict the Constitution.

Early Amendments (1795–1804)

The Eleventh Amendment (1795)

This amendment was passed as a response to the Supreme Court ruling of Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), which held that states did not enjoy sovereign immunity from lawsuits brought by residents of other states. In order to overrule Chisholm, the Eleventh Amendment provides that states may not be sued in federal court by citizens of another state or country without the consent of the states being sued.

The Twelfth Amendment (1804)

Originally, under Article II of the Constitution, those selected as electors for choosing the president got to cast two votes. The candidate who got the highest number of votes won the presidency, while the runner-up got the vice presidency as a consolation prize. The Twelfth Amendment was created following the debacle of the election of 1800—a tie between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, who split the Republican vote. This amendment ensured that electors would now have to cast separate votes for the president and the vice president.

The Civil War, Civil Rights, Civil Liberties Amendments (1865–1870)

The Thirteenth Amendment (1865)

This amendment prohibited the institution of slavery except as punishment for a convicted crime, and was a direct result of the Union victory in the Civil War.

The Fourteenth Amendment (1868)

Remember, the Bill of Rights did not originally apply to state law. After the Civil War, Northerners pushed for a constitutional amendment that would prevent the South from denying equal rights to the newly freed slaves. The Fourteenth Amendment was designed to accomplish this purpose, stating that

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The Fourteenth Amendment expanded the right to due process to all Americans; however, it did not immediately apply the protections of the Bill of Rights to all state laws. Instead, the Supreme Court has used the “due process” and “equal protection” clauses to extend most of the Bill of Rights protections but has done so on a case-by-case basis. This process of incorporating some of the Bill of Rights protections to state law is called selective incorporation.

The Fifteenth Amendment (1870)

The Fifteenth Amendment granted voting rights to males of all races, and was originally designed to extend voting rights to newly freed male slaves. Ultimately, the Supreme Court and southern states later narrowed, and in some cases eliminated, the provisions of this amendment during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Voter rights were only later made secure by the passage of the Twenty-Fourth Amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Progressive Era Amendments (1913–1920)

The Sixteenth Amendment (1913)

Before the passage of this amendment, most revenue was gathered through tariffs that placed a large burden on the poor. The Sixteenth Amendment gave Congress the power to collect taxes on income, which allowed for the creation of a progressive income tax that fell more on the rich.

The Seventeenth Amendment (1913)

This amendment provided for the direct election of United States senators. Previously, senators had been selected by the state legislatures. The Seventeenth Amendment shifted the responsibility for choosing senators from the legislatures to the general voting public.

The Eighteenth Amendment (1920)

Known as the Prohibition amendment, this amendment prohibited the manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcohol in or out of the United States.

The Nineteenth Amendment (1920)

This amendment granted voting rights to all American women.

Later Amendments (1933–1992)

The Twentieth Amendment (1933)

Before the passage of the Twentieth Amendment, there was a long gap in between when the new president was elected (early November) and when he took office (March 4). This gap proved especially damaging to the nation first in 1860–1861, when southern states seceded as Lincoln waited to take office, and again in 1932–1933 when the nation was in the grip of the Great Depression and anxiously waiting for Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) to take the reins. As a result, this amendment clearly defined the procedures regarding the specifics of presidential and legislative terms and shortened the amount of time between presidential election and inauguration (now January 20).

The Twenty-First Amendment (1933)

Prohibition had largely led to the rise of organized crime and widespread lawbreaking. The Twenty-First Amendment recognized the failure of this government experiment and repealed prohibition, allowing for the legalization of the sale of alcohol.

The Twenty-Second Amendment (1951)

In response to FDR’s unprecedented four presidential election victories, this amendment limited the president to two terms.

The Twenty-Third Amendment (1961)

This amendment allowed the residents of Washington, D.C., to vote in presidential elections, bringing the total national electoral count to 538.

The Twenty-Fourth Amendment (1964)

The Twenty-Fourth Amendment eliminated the racially discriminatory practice of forcing African Americans to pay poll taxes when attempting to vote in Southern state elections.

The Twenty-Fifth Amendment (1967)

Following the assassination of John Kennedy and given the age of his successor, Lyndon Johnson, this amendment provided clarity regarding the selection of a new vice president should the position become vacant. The Twenty-Fifth Amendment also formally permitted the vice president to assume the presidency temporarily in the event of a presidential disability.

The Twenty-Sixth Amendment (1971)

In response to the number of young people fighting in the Vietnam War, the Twenty-Sixth Amendment lowered the voting age from 21 to 18.

The Twenty-Seventh Amendment (1992)

This is a sleeper amendment that was passed more than 200 years after it was first proposed. If Congress votes itself a pay increase, that increase cannot take effect until after the next election.

Informal Changes to the Constitution

Some changes to the Constitution have been initiated either by changes in custom or interpretation of the document. Sometimes, these informal changes gradually give way to more formal changes. For example, when George Washington became president, he served two terms and elected not to serve a third term. Every president after Washington continued this custom until Franklin Roosevelt was elected president four times. Because of Franklin Roosevelt’s four terms in office, the Twenty-Second Amendment to the Constitution was proposed and ratified. In this case, an informal custom became a formal change.

STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

The Constitution does not stipulate the form state governments must take. The states are instead free to form whatever governments they choose, provided that the government is defined by a state constitution and that the constitution is approved by Congress. However, most state governments are structured after the federal government.

All states have an executive branch led by a governor, whose duties to the state are similar to the president’s duties to the nation. Governors direct state executive agencies, which oversee areas such as education, roads, and policing. They command the state National Guard and may grant pardons and reprieves. Most have the power to appoint state judges, with the “advice and consent” of one of the state’s legislative bodies. Governors have veto power over acts of the state legislature.

All states but one have bicameral legislatures modeled after the House of Representatives and the Senate. In the same way that Congress enacts federal law, the state legislatures enact state law. The legislatures have the power to override the gubernatorial veto (the word gubernatorial means relating to the governor). Governors have many of the same executive powers as presidents. However, many governors may use a line-item veto to reject only parts of bills. Presidents were denied this power by the Supreme Court under the ruling that a federal line-item veto would take too much power away from the legislative branch. We’ll discuss line-item vetoes in greater detail in Chapter 8.

All states also have state judiciaries to interpret state law. These judicial systems consist of trial courts and appeals courts, as does the federal judiciary. They hear both criminal cases (in which an individual is accused of a crime) and civil cases (in which disputing parties can sue to receive compensation).

KEY TERMS

Summary

Chapter 4 Drill

See Chapter 11 for answers and explanations.

REFLECT

Respond to the following questions:

Chapter 5

Public Opinion and the Media

CONCEPTS

Public opinion, simply put, is how people feel about things. Pollsters measure the public’s opinion of everything from television programs to commercial products to political issues. Networks, companies, and politicians commission these polls because they seek the approval of the public.

Obviously, public opinion is not uniform: Even the most popular television shows attract a minority of all Americans. Furthermore, many programs are designed to receive favorable ratings from a specific subgroup of society rather than from the public at large. Networks, for example, seek high ratings from young, middle-class audiences, as these are the audiences most sought after by advertisers. Because advertisers are less interested in senior citizens, networks seek their approval less aggressively.

The same holds true for political issues. Most Americans—the general public—care more about the political issues that affect their day-to-day lives directly. A political issue does not have to interest the majority of Americans, then, to be considered important by politicians. If an issue is of enough importance to a smaller group—the issue public—to cause those voters to become more politically active, that issue may well become an important political issue. Furthermore, very few politicians seek the approval of the general public as a whole. With the exception of the president, all politicians have much smaller constituencies, and they measure the public opinion of these constituencies in order to appeal to them. Members of the House of Representatives, for example, are interested primarily in the concerns of their home districts, which are often quite different from the concerns of the general public.

CHARACTERISTICS OF PUBLIC OPINION

Those who measure public opinion are not just interested in the direction of public opinion—that is, how the public is feeling at a given moment. They also want to know how strongly the public feels and how likely people are to change their minds. That is why they try to gauge the following characteristics of public opinion:

In the United States, public opinion is measured regularly through elections. Elections measure public opinion indirectly, however, because votes for—or against—candidates can rarely be translated into clear and specific opinions. Referenda measure the public’s opinion on specific issues (a referendum submits to popular vote to accept or reject a measure passed by a legislative body). Public opinion is measured most frequently and directly by public opinion polls.

POLLS MEASURE PUBLIC OPINION

Public opinion polls are designed to determine public opinion by asking questions of a much smaller group. Pollsters achieve this through random sampling, a method that allows them to poll a representative cross section of the public. When polling by phone, pollsters use a computer that dials numbers randomly. When conducting exit polls at polling places on election day, they target voting districts that collectively represent the voting public and randomly poll voters who are leaving the voting place. This method discourages bias, which may occur if pollsters were to approach only those voters who seemed most friendly or anxious to participate.

For a poll to accurately reflect public opinion, its questions must be carefully worded. A poll that asks, “Do you approve or disapprove of the death penalty?” would likely yield a very different response from one that asks, “Would you want the death penalty imposed on someone who killed your parents?” Most pollsters try to phrase questions objectively. Polls generally ask multiple-choice questions, which are closed-ended, as opposed to open-ended questions (such as, “Explain why you approve or disapprove of the death penalty”). Closed-ended questions yield results that are more easily quantifiable, providing a more accurate read of the direction and intensity of public opinion.

Even with those controls, polls cannot be 100% accurate. Polling organizations know how accurate their polls are and include this information with the poll results. The accuracy is measured as a sampling error and appears as a percentage with a plus and minus sign to the left (for example, ±4%). The sampling error tells how far off the poll results may be. Suppose a poll indicated that 60% of Americans favored the death penalty. If that poll had a sampling error of ±4%, the actual percentage of Americans favoring the death penalty could be anywhere between 56 and 64%. Generally, the more respondents a poll surveys, the lower the sampling error.

The best-known poll is the Gallup poll. Many major newspapers and television networks conduct public opinion polls, as do academic and public interest institutions.

WHERE DOES PUBLIC OPINION COME FROM?

Public opinion is made up of the views of individuals. Individuals develop their political attitudes through a process called political socialization. Why, and when, do they change? What factors influence a person’s political beliefs?

The first factor that influences individual political beliefs is family. Most people eventually affiliate with the same political party as their parents. Children’s political beliefs are also greatly affected by the moral and ethical values they learn from their parents. Political values learned in childhood stay with many Americans throughout their entire lives. Also important is their location—people born in rural states may develop political views that are more socially conservative than those of city dwellers.

As children grow, other factors influence their political socialization. In school they learn about history and government and are exposed to the political perspectives of teachers and peers. Religious institutions have a similar influence on many Americans. Mass media such as television, radio, magazines, and the Web further inform political attitudes. In general, however, youth is a time when many Americans pay relatively little attention to and have little interest in political issues. This is because most political issues have little direct impact on their day-to-day lives.

Those who progress to higher education often find themselves questioning their social and political assumptions for the first time. As a result, college can be a time of radical change in an individual’s political beliefs. Studies have shown that students retain many of the political attitudes they acquire in college throughout their lives.

As individuals reach adulthood, real-life experiences become the primary influence on their political beliefs. Family responsibilities and property ownership tend to make people more conservative. Conversely, individuals who experience bias based on their socioeconomic status, race, or gender may grow more liberal or more cynical about government. Adults continue to be influenced by participation in religious organizations, by the attitudes of their peers, and by what they learn through the news media.

POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES

The terms liberal and conservative in the previous paragraph refer to the predominant ideologies in the United States. An ideology is a coherent set of thoughts and beliefs about politics and government.

Compared with citizens of other Western democracies, Americans have fewer main ideological groups. The many extreme political parties that exist in Europe, ranging from right-wing nationalists to left-leaning communists, are practically nonexistent in the United States. Furthermore, perhaps because of the paucity of viable groups, Americans readily vote outside of their self-professed political beliefs. In 2008, for example, 20% of self-identified conservative voters chose the more liberal Barack Obama over conservative Republican candidate John McCain.

Americans who are strongly ideological tend to be the most politically active citizens. They are more likely than other Americans to join political organizations and participate in political activities, such as rallies and boycotts. One result of this phenomenon is that candidates in the presidential primaries must perform a balancing act. To win the primaries, they must first appeal to the more ideological party members. Then in the general elections, candidates must move back to the political center or risk alienating the general voting public.

See the next chapter for a more detailed explanation of political beliefs by party.

Determining Factors in Ideological and Political Behavior

Although there is no one-to-one correlation between people’s backgrounds and their political beliefs, people who share certain traits tend to share political beliefs. Here are some of the factors that influence people’s ideological and political attitudes.

PUBLIC OPINION AND THE MASS MEDIA

The news media play an important role in the development of public opinion. News media include all of the following:

These media provide most Americans with their most extensive exposure to politicians and the government. In many ways, they act as an intermediary between the people and the government, constantly questioning the motives and purposes of government actions and then reporting their findings to the public.

Throughout American history, public exposure to news media has consistently increased, both through higher literacy rates and through the expansion of news sources available in print, broadcast, and online. As a result, the media have played an increasingly significant role over the years in shaping public opinion.

Less clear is whether the media have the power to alter public opinion. It is generally believed that the media affect public opinion only when news coverage is extensive and is either predominantly negative or positive. For example, a constant barrage of negative images broadcast from Vietnam in the 1960s is credited with having turned many Americans against the war.

The news media can also alter public opinion when it is volatile: Studies have demonstrated, for example, that public approval of the president is quite volatile and changes depending on whether news coverage of the president is positive or negative. In most other instances, however, the media do not greatly impact public opinion. This is in part because the news media cover many stories simultaneously, thus diluting their ability to influence public opinion on any single issue. It is also due in part to the fact that most Americans choose those news media that reinforce their political beliefs. For example, conservative magazines such as the National Review are read almost exclusively by conservatives; liberal magazines, such as The Nation, are read primarily by liberals and progressives.

In addition to the news media, social media have become crucial tools for major grassroots political movements, both within the United States and abroad. Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Reddit, and other such social media sites can act as both a shaper and an indicator of public opinion, mostly with younger demographics (ages 18–25).

Are the News Media Biased?

Critics from both ends of the political spectrum claim that the news media interject their political beliefs into their reports. It seems that not a day goes by without political pundits accusing FOX of being wildly conservative, and MSNBC of pushing a liberal agenda. Conservatives cite polls that have consistently shown that news reporters are more likely to hold liberal views and vote Democratic than are average Americans. Liberals point out that the major news media are owned by large, conservative companies, such as General Electric (NBC) and Disney (ABC). They argue that these companies exert pressure on the networks to downplay or ignore stories that reflect badly on the companies or the economic and political forces that support them.

Many studies have shown that there is less ideological bias in news reporting than is claimed by critics, either in the stories news organizations choose to report or in the way they report them. Over the course of American history, the news media have in fact grown markedly less biased. Most newspapers in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were openly partisan; today, many news organizations attempt to maintain journalistic integrity by remaining as objective as possible.

Commercial concerns reinforce this trend toward objectivity. Biased reporting may appeal strongly to one segment of the population, but it would just as surely alienate another segment. Seeking to offend the fewest possible audience members, most news organizations attempt to weed out bias and represent both sides of every story in their reports.

This does not mean, however, that the news media achieve complete objectivity, which is impossible. News organizations must make hundreds of decisions each day about what to report and how prominently to report it. Many local newspapers, for example, ignore all but the most major international stories, and not because they are not newsworthy but rather because their readers are generally uninterested in such stories. Network news broadcasts shy away from more complex stories, both because of time constraints and out of fear that they may bore viewers and listeners.

Time and space constraints also result in bias in news reporting. Time and space concerns affect all news organizations, but they are most acutely felt by television news programs, which report up to 20 stories during their 18 minutes of broadcast time (some half-hour programs feature as many as 12 minutes of advertising!). News broadcasts increasingly use short sound bites to summarize information, with presidential candidates’ sound bites decreasing in length from about 40 seconds (in 1968) to about 7.3 seconds today.

Finally, news reports can be biased by the sources that reporters use for their information. Reporters in Washington, D.C., must rely heavily on politicians and government sources for information, for example. The effect of this reliance is complicated. On one hand, reporters try to not offend their government sources with uncomplimentary reports, because they will need to return to those sources for future stories. Furthermore, there is the danger that reporters in Washington will become too close to the people and events they cover, resulting in bias. On the other hand, reporters must maintain their credibility and so must demonstrate their independence. They cannot consistently file favorable reports on the subjects they cover and expect to remain credible to the viewer. Furthermore, surveys have demonstrated that reporters are more skeptical about the motives of politicians than average Americans are. This skepticism is reflected in their reporting. This may in part explain why public confidence in the government has decreased as the news media have grown more prominent.

Most modern politicians understand the power of the media and, accordingly, attempt to influence coverage. They stage events that yield appealing photographs (photo ops) and provide voluminous documented information in support of their positions (press releases). They plan appearances on shows with specific audience demographics that they are seeking, such as The Daily Show if they are seeking the youth vote. One famous photo op was President George W. Bush’s speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003. A banner reading “Mission Accomplished” hung behind the president as he spoke, and it caused much controversy, as that was the final day of combat operations in Iraq. Many politicians felt that the banner was irresponsible and misleading, because casualties have continued for many years afterwards. Attempts to manipulate media reports have grown more frequent and more sophisticated in recent years. Many politicians have studied the masterful way in which Ronald Reagan handled press coverage and have attempted to copy his successes.

KEY TERMS

Summary

Chapter 5 Drill

See Chapter 11 for answers and explanations.

REFLECT

Respond to the following questions:

Chapter 6

Political Parties, Interest Groups, PACs, 527 Groups, and Linkage Institutions

CONCEPTS

In the previous chapter we reviewed how individuals develop their political beliefs. Few political acts, however, are the work of a single person. Rather, most politically active people work within groups to achieve common political goals. The AP U.S. Government and Politics Exam expects you to know about four types of political groups. They are political parties, interest groups, political action committees (PACs), and 527 groups. This chapter reviews everything you need to know about the organization and activities of these groups.

POLITICAL PARTIES

As we’ve mentioned, few successful political accomplishments are the work of one person. More often, such a person joins with other like-minded individuals to form organizations that try to influence the outcomes of elections and legislative struggles. Political parties are unique among these groups in that they play a formal role in both of these processes. Although they are not mentioned in the Constitution, political parties became a mainstay of U.S. elections by the year 1800. Parties arose in the United States as a means of uniting those who shared political ideals, enabling them to elect like-minded representatives and pursue similar legislative goals. To those ends, parties endorse candidates for office and assist in their election efforts. In return for this support, parties expect candidates to remain loyal to goals defined by the party leadership.

The United States has two major political parties: Democrats and Republicans. This two-party or bipartisan system is reinforced by the nation’s electoral system. U.S. election rules, which have been agreed upon by members of the two parties, also make it difficult for all but the two major parties to win a place on the ballot, further strengthening the two-party system.

Party Characteristics

Don’t forget these facts about political parties.

The major purpose of political parties is to get candidates elected to office. In the past, candidates were chosen by the party hierarchy, with little or no public input. However, since 1960, more states have passed laws requiring parties to select candidates through state-run primary elections. These primaries have reduced the power of political parties. Candidates must raise their own money for primaries, campaigning for their party’s nomination with little to no support from the party itself. If the parties don’t control the money, they can’t control the candidates. This levels the playing field, but multiple candidates for the nomination can splinter the party membership.

FUNCTIONS OF MODERN POLITICAL PARTIES

Political scientists identify three major subdivisions of political parties.

Political parties perform all of the following functions:

U.S. political parties are not hierarchical. The national party organization and each of the state and local organizations are largely autonomous and serve different functions; one does not necessarily take orders from the other.

Party committees are organized by geographic subdivisions. Locally, committees at the precinct, town, ward, and electoral district levels coordinate get-out-the-vote drives, door-to-door canvassing, and leaflet distribution. These party committees are staffed mostly by volunteers, and their work is largely concentrated around election time. The next largest geographic grouping is the county. County committees coordinate efforts in local elections and organize the efforts of committees on the precinct level. They also send representatives to each polling place to monitor voting procedures.

State committees raise money and provide volunteers to staff campaign events. They provide support to candidates for both state and national offices. National legislative elections, however, are also the responsibility of the powerful congressional district and senatorial committees. These committees, chaired by incumbents and staffed by professionals, are part of the national party organization. They are most likely to become involved in these legislative elections when the possibility exists of gaining or losing a seat. Because incumbents usually run for reelection and are often reelected easily, the congressional and senatorial committees are active in a minority of election efforts during each electoral cycle.

The national party plans the national conventions held every four years to nominate a presidential candidate. It sponsors polls to keep party members informed of public opinion and manages issue-oriented advertising and propaganda.

Are Parties in Decline?

Some political scientists believe that the parties are no longer as powerful or as significant as they once were. Prior to 1968, one party typically controlled both the executive and legislative branches of government. Since that year, however, there have been only a few years of one-party control of these branches (1977 to 1980, 1992 to 1994, 2002 to 2005, and from 2008 to 2010). Americans are voting a split ticket (see this page) more frequently than ever before. They are more likely to consider the merits and positions of a particular candidate than to merely consider his or her party affiliation. As a result, no one party dominates government, and officials with different political agendas are elected to work together.

Increasingly, modern candidates have taken control of their own election campaigns, relying less on party support than did past candidates. They are now able to appeal directly to the public through television and the Internet. This has left the parties—which once wielded great power over the electoral process—with less power. In their place, media consultants have become the chief movers and shakers in political campaigns.

Party Coalitions

Political parties consist of combinations of groups, which consist of combinations of individuals. The larger the coalition, the more likely the candidate will win. Party candidates and party positions on policy are designed to attract more groups of voters, putting together a winning coalition.

In the presidential elections of 2008 and 2012, the Republican coalition included the following:

In the same elections, the Democratic coalition included the following:

While there are always exceptions to the rule, the two parties tend to rely on these groups as a base of support. Regionally, it appears that the east and west coasts and the upper Midwest are more Democratic, while the South and lower Midwest are more Republican.

Ideological Differences Between the Parties

While there are general ideological differences between the two parties, there are also a number of similarities. Neither party, for example, questions the validity of the nation’s capitalist economic system.

Although both parties tend to be centrist, there are nevertheless differences in the ways the two parties view the role of government. The greatest ideological differences are between the liberals in the Democratic Party and the conservatives in the Republican Party, the so-called party bases. While appealing to the independent centrist voter during election campaigns, each party counts on its base to get out and vote. Party leaders must use great care in choosing policy positions so they do not lose their party base. They must also avoid alienating the moderates of the party by taking extreme left or right positions.

Party Realignment

Party realignment occurs when the coalitions making up the two parties fall apart, such as when many of the groups that make up the majority party defect to the minority party. Realignments are very rare and usually occur as a result of some major traumatic event, such as an economic depression or a war. They are signaled by what is called a critical election, when a new party comes to dominate politics. Realignments occur over a period of time and show permanence. The New Deal coalition of the 1930s lasted for decades. There have been no realignments since the 1930s.

The trend today seems to be toward dealignment. Dealignment is usually a result of party members becoming disaffected as a result of some policy position taken by the party. These disaffected party members join no political party and vote for the candidate rather than the party he or she belongs to. Since the 1960s, membership in the Democratic Party has declined significantly, while the number of Republicans has declined modestly. During the same time period, the number of voters self-identifying as independents has increased dramatically.

Third Parties

New parties are occasionally formed in the United States. Unless and until these parties reach the level of a major party, they are called third parties. Third parties form to represent constituencies that feel disenfranchised from both of the major parties. These so-called splinter or bolter parties usually unite around a feeling that the major parties are not responding to the demands of some segment of the electorate. The Reform Party, under whose banner Ross Perot ran for president in 1996, was an example of a splinter party whose constituency was fed up with “politics as usual.”

Sometimes third parties form to represent an ideology considered too radical by the mainstream parties. These doctrinal parties reject the prevailing attitudes and policies of the political system. The Socialist Party, the Libertarian Party, and most recently the Tea Party are examples. Single-issue parties are formed to promote one principle. The American Independent Party, which sponsored the segregationist candidacy of George C. Wallace in 1968, is an example. Third parties can have a major impact on elections, especially in tight races. The Green Party, which favors strict environmental policies, more government social programs, and controls over big business, ran Ralph Nader for president in 2000. Some analysts have predicted, based on voter patterns and polls, that if Nader had not run, Al Gore would have received a greater number of votes, which would have allowed him to win the election against George W. Bush.

Third-party candidates should not be confused with Independent candidates. Independent candidates run without party affiliation. It is very difficult for Independent candidates to overcome the money and organization of the two major parties. Eugene McCarthy, an anti-Vietnam War candidate in 1968, and John Anderson, a fiscal conservative and social liberal in 1980, are two examples.

Why Third Parties Fail

The failure of third parties to elect presidential and other candidates to office is a direct result of an American political system designed to support only two major parties. National campaigns in countries using equal, single-member, plurality voting-district systems (like the United States) require huge sums of money and vast organizations. Also, in American presidential elections, almost all states have a winner-take-all system for electoral votes; the candidate who receives the most votes, even if it is only by one, wins all of the votes in that state. Because the losers get no electoral votes, the electoral count does not always accurately reflect the popular vote. During the 2000 presidential election (which featured the Florida voting controversy), Al Gore won the popular vote by about 500,000 votes nationwide, but George W. Bush was found to have won the Florida electorate, giving him all of Florida’s twenty-five electoral votes and, ultimately, the presidency.

INTEREST GROUPS AND LOBBYISTS

Interest groups are organizations dedicated to a particular political goal or to a set of unified goals. Group members often share a common bond, either religious (Christian Coalition), racial (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), or professional (American Medical Association). In other cases, they simply share a common interest, such as the environment (Sierra Club) or political reform (Common Cause). In any case, they are similar to political parties in that they try to influence the outcome of elections and legislation. Unlike political parties, however, they do not nominate candidates, nor do they normally try to address a wide range of issues.

When interest groups try to influence legislators, we say they are lobbying for a bill or issue. The term originated with the historical practice of early lobbyists; they waited in the lobby of the capitol so they could catch legislators coming in and out of session. Today, most lobbyists are highly paid professionals. A number are former legislators, whose experience and friendships in the Capitol make them particularly effective.

There are literally thousands of interest groups in the United States. Most groups fall under one of the following categories:

How Interest Groups Influence Government

Interest groups use a number of tactics to disseminate information and persuade Congress, the president, the judiciary, and federal bureaucrats. Those tactics include the following:

Limits on Lobbying

Several laws limit the scope of lobbyists’ activities. Most are ineffective, but stronger efforts to regulate lobbying run the risk of violating the First Amendment right to free speech. The 1946 Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act was intended to allow the government to monitor lobbying activities by requiring lobbyists to register with the government and publicly disclose their salaries, expenses, and the nature of their activities in Washington, D.C.

Other laws prohibit, for limited amounts of time, certain lobbying activities by former government officials. These laws are meant to counteract the appearance of influence peddling, the practice of using personal friendships and inside information to get political advantage. Former legislators must wait one year before lobbying Congress directly, for example. However, they may lobby the executive branch immediately after leaving office. Some groups complain of a “revolving door” that pushes former federal employees into jobs as lobbyists and consultants. A limit similar to that of the former legislators also applies to former executive officials. It prevents them from lobbying for five years after they leave the agency that employed them. These limits were determined in Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the case that equated donations with free speech. In this ruling, the Supreme Court upheld federal limits on campaign contributions and ruled that donating money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech.

Finally, federal laws prohibiting campaign contributions from corporations, unions, and trade associations can be sidestepped through the formation of a political action committee or PAC.

POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES (PACS) AND SUPER PACS

The 1974 Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) allowed corporations, unions, and trade associations to form political action committees as a means of raising campaign funds. FECA set restrictions on contributors and contributions, and stipulated that corporate, union, and trade PACs must raise money from employees and members and may not simply draw it from their treasuries. Corporations, unions, and trade associations are not the only groups that form PACs. Many other interest groups form PACs to collect and distribute contributions, as do legislators (these are referred to as leadership PACs). After that change, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002 (also known as the McCain-Feingold Act) further regulated campaign finance and PAC regulated campaign finance and PAC donations by prohibiting unregulated contributions (soft money) to national political parties and limited the use of corporate and union money for ads discussing political issues within 60 days of a general election and 30 days of a primary. Then in 2010, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court overturned BCRA’s limits on PAC fundraising for “corporate independent expenditures.” Under the terms of the Citizens United decision, PACs that donate to specific candidates must operate under limits on their contributors and their donations, but PACs that do not donate to specific candidates—as long as they do not directly coordinate with specific candidates—are not limited in their fundraising. In this context, political donations are considered free speech. These unlimited PACs have come to be known as Super PACs and are generally financed by the ultra-rich; however, because of disclosure laws affecting such Super PACs, it can be difficult to identify donors.

For regular PACs, donations from single-candidate PACs to individual candidates cannot exceed $2,500 ($5,000 for a multi-candidate PAC). Such PACs’ donations to national political committees cannot exceed $15,000 from multi-candidate PACs and $30,800 from single-candidate PACs. Though Super PACs avoid limits by not directly or officially coordinating with specific candidates, the Citizens United decision is vague on what constitutes coordination.

527 GROUPS

A 527 group (named after the section of the tax code that allows them) is a tax-exempt organization that promotes a political agenda, although they cannot expressly advocate for or against a specific candidate. The term is generally used to refer to political organizations that are not regulated by the FEC (Federal Election Commission) and are not subject to the same contribution limits as PACs. They avoid regulation by the FEC because 527s are “political organizations” but are not registered as “political committees” subject to campaign finance law contribution limits. Sounds confusing, huh? The line between issue advocacy and candidate advocacy is a huge source of contention and disagreement. Examples of 527s include Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, College Republican National Committee, and The Media Fund. The BCRA changed soft money rules to make establishing new 527s a more attractive option than traditional PACs and allowing outside organizations to circumvent the hard money limits of the BCRA (for more on soft money, see this page). The Citizens United decision, however, makes Super PACs another viable alternative for avoiding such limits.

KEY TERMS

Summary

Chapter 6 Drill

See Chapter 11 for answers and explanations.

REFLECT

Respond to the following questions:

Chapter 7

Elections

CONCEPTS

The federal government holds elections every two years. Each election gives voters the chance to select a new representative in the House of Representatives. Every other election allows them to vote for president. Each of a state’s two seats in the Senate is contested every six years; as a result, state voters select a senator in two out of every three federal elections.

To cut expenses and to encourage voter turnout, states often hold their elections at the same time as federal elections. Thus, voters choose not only federal officials at election time, but also state legislators, judges, the governor, and local officials. They may also be asked to vote on referenda and state bond issues.

Thus, many officeholders are chosen and many issues are decided during each election. When the AP U.S. Government and Politics Exam asks about elections, however, it nearly always focuses on the presidential election. This chapter will do the same.

THE ELECTION CYCLE

Elections consist of two phases: nominations, during which the parties choose their candidates for the general elections, and general elections, during which voters decide who will hold elective office.

The majority of states (39) use primary elections to select presidential nominees. All states use some form of primary election to select legislative and state nominees. These elections are usually held between early February and late spring of an election year, with the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary enjoying the coveted “first-in-the-nation” position. Each state sets its own rules for these elections, and there is considerable variation in primary procedures from state to state. There are several types of primaries.

In primary voting for legislators and state officials, the candidate who receives a plurality (greatest number of votes, but not more than half the total votes cast) or majority (more than half) in each primary is declared the winner. Some states require the winner to receive a minimum percentage of the vote, however. If no candidate receives the required share of votes, a runoff primary is held between the top two. Runoffs occur most often when many challengers vie for an open office, especially when none of them are well known.

In primary elections for the presidency, voters also choose delegates pledged to a particular presidential candidate. Winning delegates attend their party’s national convention. Some states select presidential convention delegates at state caucuses and conventions. This process begins with local meetings of party members, who select representatives to send to statewide party meetings. Compared with primaries, the state caucus and convention process usually attracts fewer participants. Those who participate tend to be more politically active and better informed than typical voters.

The Democratic Party uses a third method to choose some delegates to its national convention. It grants automatic delegate status to many elected party leaders, including congresspersons and important state leaders. These superdelegates generally support the front-runner. Critics complain that the superdelegates dilute the importance of the primary elections by making it easier for the party elite to control the nominating process. The Republican Party does not have superdelegates. To promote diversity within the delegate pool, the McGovern-Fraser Commission was created in 1968. It recommended that delegates be represented by the proportion of their population in each state.

General elections for federal office are held on the Tuesday after the first Monday of November. Elections in which the president is being chosen are called presidential elections. Those that occur between presidential elections are called midterm elections.

First Steps Toward Nomination

Nearly all elected officials first receive the endorsement, or nomination, of one of the two major parties. Nominees usually have extensive backgrounds in government. Some presidential candidates are current or former members of the Senate. Many have served as governors. Gubernatorial experience allows candidates to claim executive abilities, because governors serve many of the same government functions in their states as the president does in the federal government. Governors also have the advantage of being able to run as Washington outsiders, as opposed to senators, who usually have extensive federal experience (and whose voting records are often used against them). At a time when public distrust of Washington is high, outsider status can be a significant benefit. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush successfully exploited this factor in their presidential campaigns. Because Barack Obama had only been a senator for four years (as opposed to other candidates like Joe Biden, who had a 36-year tenure in 2008, or Rick Santorum, who had 16 years in 2012), he was also able to successfully campaign as an outsider in 2008.

On occasion, the major parties will pursue a candidate with little or no government experience. Such candidates are invariably popular and well-respected figures, often from the military. World War II General Dwight Eisenhower was such a candidate in his successful 1952 campaign.

A presidential run is an all-consuming endeavor that must begin up to two years before the first primary. As a result, most candidates devote themselves to the effort full time. Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan both left their governorships before running for the presidency; Bob Dole retired from the Senate in 1996 to commit himself more fully to his campaign. Others have remained in office and ran successful campaigns. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are two candidates who remained governors while successfully seeking their party’s nomination. Chris Christie’s recent White House run was made while he remained governor of New Jersey, and numerous New Jersey newspapers called for his resignation, claiming that he had neglected his gubernatorial duties while campaigning. Presidents running for reelection and vice presidents seeking the presidency benefit from the prestige of their offices.

Those considering a run for the presidency must first seek support among the party organizations. They must especially seek the aid of influential donors to the party because elections are extremely expensive. Candidates spend much of the early stages of the nomination process meeting with potential donors, establishing PACs to raise funds (more about fundraising below), and campaigning for the endorsements of important political groups and leaders. This entire process is often referred to as testing the waters.

In the year before the first primaries, potential candidates attempt to increase their public profile. They schedule public appearances and attempt to attract media coverage by taking stands on current issues and discussing the goals of their projected presidencies. Candidates are particularly vulnerable to the media during this period. Since the public knows little about most potential candidates, negative reports or media spin can quickly scuttle a campaign (see Newt Gingrich in 2012). As primary season begins, candidates try to raise as much money as possible and to garner as many votes in the primaries as possible, in an effort to win the nomination. Candidates who can’t raise their own money and don’t get enough votes are quickly forced out of the race. The candidates also begin to assemble campaign personnel—advisors, political consultants, public relations experts, speechwriters, fund-raisers, lawyers, and office administrators—who will help manage the campaign.

On occasion, wealthy candidates have attempted to run for the presidency without needing, or using, federal matching funds. Ross Perot in 1992 and Steve Forbes in 1996 used their own money to campaign, but both campaigns failed. Ross Perot’s 1992 campaign spent more money than the Democratic and Republican candidates combined.

Financing Campaigns

A successful presidential campaign requires much more than an appealing candidate. It needs a huge supporting staff, jets and buses, and the resources to hire consultants, pollsters, and advertising agencies. It should come as no surprise, then, that one of the most important skills a candidate can possess is the ability to raise money.

Presidential candidates who meet certain prerequisites may receive federal funding. Primary candidates who receive more than 10% of the vote in an election may apply for federal matching funds. These funds essentially double all campaign contributions of $250 and less by matching them. To receive matching funds, candidates must agree to obey federal spending limits: Any candidate who receives less than 10% of the vote in two consecutive primaries loses his or her eligibility for matching funds until he or she wins more than 10% of the vote in another primary.

The federal government funds the general election campaigns of the two major presidential candidates, provided those candidates agree not to accept and spend other donations (an exception is made for up to $50,000 of the candidate’s own money). The year 2004 was the first election in which both major party nominees declined public matching funds during the primaries. Independents do not receive federal funding for their campaigns. (In 2008, John McCain accepted matching funds while Barack Obama did not. In the subsequent 2012 race, neither Obama nor Mitt Romney accepted matching funds.) In the 2016 election, at the time of this book’s publication, only one presidential contender sought and qualified for public financing (Martin O’Malley).

Despite attempts at campaign finance reform, the trend toward high levels of election spending has continued through the 1990s and into the first decade of the twenty-first century. In the 2004 election, George W. Bush raised $272.5 million and John Kerry raised $250.3 million. Both candidates refused matching funds to avoid all spending limits. This precedent-setting high, however, was swiftly broken in light of the ability for corporations and unions to now donate directly and without limits. The combined expenditures for the 2012 campaign that set Mitt Romney against Obama totaled over $7 billion dollars—just about 14 times as much in only eight years. Without any sort of cap, future candidates may raise even more.

There is currently no public financing of congressional campaigns, and there are no spending limits for congressional candidates. There are, however, limits on the amounts that individuals and political committees may donate to candidates, but these limits have been revised in the twenty-first century, first by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) in 2002, and then by Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010. These limits are as follows:

¹ Political committees that do not meet legal requirements of a PAC (for example, donations from at least 50 contributors).

Many Americans believe that the current campaign finance system has a corrupting effect on government and a talking point among many of the candidates within the 2016 election has been that the public financing system is broken. Efforts to change the system, however, run into several obstacles. The Supreme Court ruled in Buckley v. Valeo (1976) that mandatory spending limits on campaigns violate candidates’ First Amendment rights to free expression. Furthermore, the system currently benefits incumbents, in that the incumbent’s job description is basically the stuff of reelections: meetings, events, talking to voters, photo ops, and so on. Accordingly, legislators are reluctant to make changes because changes would make their reelection more difficult. The permissible donations listed in the above table will change if campaign finance reform is enacted.

Primary Season

By January 1 of election year, candidates are campaigning widely among the public. From this point on, candidates participate in debates, campaign from state to state delivering their “stump speeches” (so called because campaigning is often referred to as “stumping”), and choreograph media events—in an effort to draw positive media coverage of their campaigns.

The earliest primaries (New Hampshire’s is a prime example) provide a great boost to the campaigns of whoever wins, increasing the candidate’s media exposure and making all-important fundraising chores easier. Major financial contributors usually desert the campaigns of the losers in early primaries. Furthermore, candidates who receive less than 10% of the vote in two successive primaries lose their eligibility for crucial federal matching funds. As a result, those who fare poorly in early primaries usually have to drop out of the race long before the majority of delegates have been selected.

Because early primaries are perceived to have grown increasingly important in recent years, many states have pushed forward the date of their primary elections. Many states even hold their primaries all on the same day in early March (called Super Tuesday). Large states such as New York and California have moved their primaries forward in hopes of having a greater influence on which candidates win the nominations. Political analysts refer to this strategy as front-loading, and the result has been to place increased pressure on candidates to succeed early. Critics argue that it unnecessarily forces voters to choose early in the election process, before they have gotten a chance to know the candidates well.

Primary elections and state caucuses continue into late spring. In many recent elections, however, the party nominee has been decided long before the last elections. Mitt Romney’s nomination in 2012 is an example of that very phenomenon.

National Conventions

After the primary season has ended, both parties hold national conventions to confirm their nominee. When no candidate has received the pledge of a majority of convention delegates, conventions decide who the nominee will be; such conventions are called brokered conventions. The parties have designed their primary systems to prevent brokered conventions, which can divide the party and cost it the election. The most recent brokered conventions are 1952 for Democrats (Adlai Stevenson) and 1948 for Republicans (Thomas Dewey) making them seem, at least for now, like historical relics.

One of the main purposes of a national convention, in fact, is to unify the party. Primary elections can damage each party, as candidates attack one another and thereby expose rifts within the party membership. Another main purpose of conventions is to make a show of party unity for political gain. Both parties’ conventions are nationally televised and are widely covered by the news media. Not surprisingly, most of what occurs on the convention stage is choreographed to appeal to the party faithful and undecided voters watching at home.

That does not mean that conventions are placid affairs, however. Conventions are the site of many political negotiations, as different factions of the party attempt to win concessions in return for their full support during the general election. There are often intense battles over the party platform, a statement of purpose and party goals, which, ironically, has little concrete significance. The conventions also offer some political drama, as nominees sometimes wait until the convention to announce their choice of running mates.

The greatest impact conventions can have on general election results is negative. In 1968, for example, rioting outside the Democratic convention in Chicago created a bad impression among voters, especially when contrasted with the unified display at the Republican convention in Miami weeks later. In 1992, ultraconservatives were able to control key elements of the Republican convention. The image the convention created was one of an angry and activist party, which frightened voters and hurt President Bush’s reelection campaign. Under normal circumstances, however, conventions usually help their candidates considerably. Polls taken immediately after conventions show the candidates’ approval ratings up significantly. This rise in public approval is called a post-convention bump.

Nonetheless, it is important to note that national conventions have been altered dramatically in the last century. Until about mid-century, conventions and convention delegates actually selected and nominated the candidate. With the adoption of primary elections, conventions have been transformed into mere coronations with the nominees generally being determined before the convention begins (as with Obama and Romney in 2012).

The General Election and the Electoral College

The remaining candidates continue to campaign for the general election in much the same way as they campaigned during the primaries: holding rallies, participating in debates, running campaign advertisements, and pursuing positive media coverage. There are several key differences between the primaries and the general election. First, during the primaries, candidates run against members of their own party. Because primary candidates are often in general agreement about big-picture issues, their campaigns focus instead on the subtler differences between them. During the general elections, candidates often emphasize the general policy and philosophical differences between the two parties. Put simply, a candidate courts his or her political base during the primary season and then usually attempts to move toward the center in the general election to win undecided votes in hopes of securing the majority.

The electoral college system places greater emphasis on election results in large states. Victory by a single vote in California wins a candidate all of that state’s 54 electoral votes; a similar margin of victory in Vermont yields only three electoral votes. Despite the number of votes at stake in the large states, candidates will often devote the bulk of their time to “swing” states—areas in which polling indicates a close race. This is the reason that during the 2012 presidential election, states like Ohio, Colorado, and New Hampshire were inundated with political ads while large states whose voters generally go with one party, such as New York, California, and Texas, were relatively quiet. Finally, candidates consider each other’s electoral strategies in planning their campaigns. In 1968, the Democratic Party relied on the support of its Southern base. Republican Richard Nixon realized that this support was weakening and campaigned aggressively in the region. Nixon’s “Southern strategy” worked in enough Southern states to swing the election to the Republicans.

² The two exceptions are Maine and Nebraska, which give two electoral votes to the candidate who wins a plurality of the statewide vote, and one vote to the winner of each of the state’s congressional districts. Maine has four electoral votes, Nebraska has five.

MEDIA INFLUENCE ON ELECTIONS

With nearly 240 million Americans of voting age, it is clear that candidates cannot come into direct contact with even a small portion of the electorate. Instead, they must rely on the media to get their political message across.

ELECTION DAY

There are nearly 219 million Americans of voting age. Of them, around 146 million are registered to vote. In the 2012 election, though, around 126 million actually turned out to vote (57.5% of the country). Voter turnout is even lower for midterm elections: Typically less than 40 percent of all eligible voters participated in 2012. American voter turnout rates are among the lowest of all Western democracies.

Certain patterns are detectable in American voters’ behavior. The likelihood that an individual will vote corresponds closely to his or her level of education: The more educated a person is, the more likely he or she is to vote. Age is also a factor: Turnout rates are highest among Americans over the age of 40, and lowest among those under the age of 20.

Voter turnout is also influenced in part by how close a race is. Voters are less likely to vote when they believe they know who will win the election. Such was the case in 1996, when many Americans were certain that Bill Clinton would be reelected. Remember, however, that many federal and state offices are up for grabs on election day. A closely contested race in any of those elections can be enough to motivate voters to participate. Voter turnout can also be affected by various legislation. The National Voter Registration Act (1993), also known as The Motor Voter Act, made voting easier by allowing voter registration at the time someone applies for a driver’s license. Conversely, the photo ID laws enacted in some areas at the state level depress voter turnout by requiring voters to show a photo ID before voting. These photo ID laws are controversial, with those who are for them saying it reduces voter fraud and those who are against them saying it decreases voting by impoverished Americans.

On election day, the media report not only election results but also the results of exit polls that break down the vote by age, gender, race, income level, region, and nearly every other demographic imaginable. They do so in an effort to determine the meaning of the results. Why did voters choose one candidate over another? How satisfied were voters with the choices presented them? Were the voters sending a clear message—a mandate—or not? Winners search the results for evidence of a mandate. In 1992, Bill Clinton interpreted his victory as a mandate for a more active and progressive federal government. Several historic failures—on efforts to integrate homosexuals in the military and to establish nationalized health care—demonstrated that voter mandates are not always so clear. The voters’ message has become more difficult to discern as split-ticket voting—voting for a presidential candidate of one party and legislators of the other—has grown more common.

KEY TERMS

Summary

Chapter 7 Drill

See Chapter 11 for answers and explanations.

1. In an open Republican primary

(A) only Republicans can vote

(B) only Democrats can vote

(C) only Republicans and Democrats can vote

(D) only Independents can vote

(E) every registered voter can vote

2. In a given election cycle, a political action committee (PAC) may contribute to a candidate no more than

(A) $2,000

(B) $3,000

(C) $4,000

(D) $5,000

(E) $6,000

3. At a nominating convention, the position that the political party will take is decided by the

(A) Platform Committee

(B) Committee on Permanent Organization

(C) Credentials Committee

(D) Rules Committee

(E) Ideology Committee

4. In order to win the election for the presidency, a candidate must

(A) receive a majority of the votes in the electoral college

(B) receive a majority of the popular vote

(C) receive a plurality of votes in the electoral college

(D) receive a plurality of the popular vote

(E) receive a unanimous vote from the electoral college

5. Which of the following people is most likely to vote in a general election?

(A) a 25-year-old high school dropout

(B) a 65-year-old professor

(C) a 19-year-old college student

(D) a 16-year-old high school student

(E) a 30-year-old college graduate

6. In a presidential election, state caucuses differ from state primaries in which of the following ways?

(A) Only primary winners send delegates to the convention.

(B) Caucuses usually have lower turnout.

(C) More states use caucuses than primaries.

(D) Winners of caucuses must get a majority of votes.

(E) Voters in primaries choose representatives to vote for them.

7. Results of the 1992 presidential election:

Based on the data in the table above, William J. Clinton won the election because

(A) he won a majority of the popular vote

(B) he won a plurality of the popular vote

(C) he won a majority of electoral votes

(D) he won a plurality of electoral votes

(E) he won the highest percentage of the vote

REFLECT

Respond to the following questions:

Chapter 8

Institutions of Government

CONGRESS

Concepts

Congressional Structure

Congress is the bicameral (two-house) legislature responsible for writing the laws of the nation. Congress also serves other functions, such as overseeing the bureaucracy, consensus building, clarifying policy, legitimizing, and expressing diversity. It is made up of a House of Representatives of 435 members and a Senate of 100 members.

Every 10 years, a census is taken by the federal government to count the population to determine the number of each state’s congressional districts. Each state must then redraw its congressional boundaries to ensure that each district is equal in population. Congressional redistricting is done by each state legislature. Therefore, the political party in control of the state legislature controls how the districts are drawn. As much as is legally possible, the legislature will gerrymander the district boundaries to give the majority party an advantage in future elections. This is true in every state with the exception of Iowa, which uses an independent commission to form districts. In some states, such as Alaska and Wyoming, the populations are so small that the entire state becomes a congressional district; all states are guaranteed at least one seat in the House.

Congressional Elections

Elections for all the 435 seats of the House of Representatives occur every two years. House members must reside in the district they represent, be a citizen of the state, and be at least 25 years old. Election to the House takes place within each congressional district. The constituencies of representatives are relatively small compared with those of senators, and the House incumbent election rates are very high, averaging more than 90%. Many House members have safe seats and are not seriously challenged for reelection.

Elections for one-third of the Senate occur every two years, with a senator’s term lasting six years. Every state is guaranteed two senators, elected on a staggered basis in statewide elections. Senate elections are generally more competitive, expensive, high profile, and draw candidates from other elected offices.

Important Voting Rights Court Cases

Smith v. Allwright (1944). The denying of African Americans the right to vote in a primary election was found to be a violation of the Fifteenth Amendment.

Wesberry v. Sanders (1963). Ordered House districts to be as equal as possible—enshrined the principle of “one man, one vote.”

Buckley v. Valeo (1976). The court ruled that giving money to a political campaign was a form of free speech and threw out some stringent federal regulations on fund-raising and election spending.

Shaw v. Reno (1993) and Miller v. Johnson (1995). Race cannot be the sole or predominant factor in redrawing legislative district boundaries.

U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton (1995). States cannot set term limits on members of Congress.

Bush v. Gore (2000). Florida’s recount in the election of 2000 was ruled to be a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause.

Shelby County v. Holder (2013). Invalidated part of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, clearing the way for the expansion of photo ID laws.

Congressional Districts and Representation

Descriptive representation means that the elected legislature should reflect the demographic characteristics of the constituency. Minorities and women have always been underrepresented in Congress and state legislatures, which is the reason that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 encouraged states to take measures to increase minority representation in Congress. Into the early 1980s, little progress had been made. Women, Latinos, and African Americans continued to be underrepresented. In 1982, Congress amended the Voting Rights Act to encourage states to create majority-minority districts, concentrating African American and Hispanic populations into distinct congressional districts. These districts were created to make it more feasible for minority candidates to get elected.

Following the 1990 census, many states redrew their congressional districts, which resulted in an increase of African American representation by 50% and Hispanic membership by 70 percent. Various districts were drawn to conform to the Voting Rights Act. However, the shape of these districts was sometimes quite bizarre. North Carolina District 12, for example, stretched in a narrow band 160 miles down Interstate Highway 85. A Duke University professor joined with four other white plaintiffs to challenge the constitutionality of District 12. In Shaw v. Reno (1993), the Supreme Court surprised many with a split decision. The court invalidated the district in question because its boundaries were neither contiguous nor compact and were drawn with the intent to discriminate through the use of racial gerrymandering. The court ruled that any racial gerrymandering by the state required a compelling state interest, and it did not see such a compelling interest in this district. On the other hand, the Supreme Court has heard other redistricting cases like this one, and has upheld the redistricting or simply declined to take the challenge.

Legislators in North Carolina, Georgia, Texas, and many other states have been accused of playing dirty politics with redistricting. African American and (to a lesser degree) Hispanic voters are overwhelmingly Democrat. (Cuban Americans in Florida tend to vote Republican.) Critics claim that Republican-controlled state legislatures were not motivated by any sense of duty. Instead, they stand accused of trying to remove racial-minority Democrats from other districts to ensure that more Republicans get elected. The political trade-off was to create a guaranteed Democratic district and at the same time gain more Republican seats from the surrounding districts.

To add to the representation controversy, population shifts in the last 20 years have given additional seats in the House to southern states while reducing the number from other regions. In addition, suburban representation has increased, at the expense of both rural and urban areas.

Finally, Congress draws its members primarily from the legal and business worlds. Almost half of the House and more than half of the Senate have a legal background. The reason seems to be that lawyers have many of the prerequisites needed for a successful run for Congress: interest and experience in the law, prominence within the community, and the personal wealth to at least partially fund an election campaign.

Congressional Powers

The Framers had a fear of the power inherent in legislatures. Because of that fear, the Constitution spells out the responsibilities of the legislature in more detail than those of the executive and judicial branches. To further guard against legislative usurpation (control of one house over the other), both houses have unique but complementary powers. The delegated powers, which require both houses to work in concert with each other, include taxing, borrowing money, regulating commerce, raising an army, creating and making rules for the federal courts, establishing naturalization laws, establishing post offices, providing for a militia, and making any law that is deemed necessary and proper for carrying out these powers.

Each house also has unique powers. Only the House of Representatives may initiate tax laws and spending bills. It is the House Ways and Means Committee that oversees taxing and spending legislation. The Senate has only amending powers on revenue bills.

The Senate’s unique powers include confirmation of presidential nominations to the federal courts and ambassadorships to foreign countries. The Senate must also ratify all treaties signed by the president.

There are also restrictions on congressional actions. Congress may not pass bills of attainder (laws that find people guilty of a crime and sentence them to prison without a trial) or ex post facto laws (that punish people for actions that occurred before the behavior was made criminal) and may not levy export taxes or grant titles of nobility. These same prohibitions apply to states.

The Non-legislative Tasks of Congress

Congress’s primary responsibility is to fulfill the legal needs of the nation by writing laws. However, Congress also performs other equally important functions. These include the following:

The Legislative Process

The legislative process is, by design, slow and complicated. This is to prevent Congress from acting hastily. The Framers intended for the process to foster compromise. The result has been that the final versions of bills are often radically different from the initial versions. Without compromise there would be no legislative process.

As many as 10,000 bills are introduced on the floor of Congress each year. Some are written by members of Congress and their staffs; others are drafted by the executive branch and are introduced by a sympathetic member of Congress. Many are suggested or written by interest groups and their lawyers. Regardless of who authors a bill, a bill can be proposed only by a member of Congress. Whoever introduces a bill is called the sponsor of the bill.

The legislative process requires the two houses to work cooperatively with each other. All bills must pass both houses in exactly the same form. While the bills must be the same, the debate and voting processes in the two houses differ. Because there are 435 members of the House of Representatives, the process by which bills are debated is limited. The Senate, which is smaller, has fewer rules governing the legislative process.

Unlike the Senate, the House has a Rules Committee, which is responsible for determining how long a bill will be debated and, whether to allow an open or closed rule for amending the bill. Open rules allow amendments; closed rules prohibit amendments. When Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives in 1994, they promised most bills would be debated under open rules. Allowing 435 members an opportunity to add amendments to bills became so cumbersome, however, that the House leadership returned to the closed rule process. Because the House Rules Committee controls crucial aspects of the legislative process, it is considered the most powerful committee in the House. The Rules Committee can kill a bill by delaying a vote or by making it easy for opponents to add poison-pill (or “killer”) amendments. The House Rules Committee can also bring bills up for an immediate floor vote.

While the House strictly controls debate, the Senate does not. There are no time restraints placed on senators. A filibuster is a tactic used to delay a vote on a bill and tie up the work of the Senate, usually by a senator making a speech that continues for hours on the Senate floor. A filibuster can also happen without actual continuous speeches, although the senate majority leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses. The only way to end a filibuster is to vote for cloture, but this requires the votes of sixty members, which is difficult to achieve when the two parties are evenly represented.

The Senate has no closed rules for amending legislation. Amendments, called riders, do not have to be relevant to a bill. This allows individual senators an opportunity to add amendments, such as “pet” issues or projects for their home state, or to prohibit the actions of executive agencies. “Pet project” riders designed to bring federal money to a home state are called pork barrels.

Earmarks—provisions within legislation that appropriate money to a specific project—appear in appropriation bills and authorization bills. There are a few groups that monitor earmarking in the U.S. Congress, but earmarks are no longer allowed by the House.

After debates, bills usually end up passing the House and Senate in different forms, so both versions are sent to a conference committee. The members of these conference committees come from the respective committees of the two houses that wrote the bill. The conference committee tries to negotiate a compromise bill, acceptable to both houses of Congress. Once a compromise version has been written, the bill is returned to the two houses for a vote. Failure to pass a bill from a conference committee will kill a bill. If the bill is passed in both houses, it is sent to the White House for the president’s signature.

The president has options. If he does nothing for 10 days, the bill becomes law without his signature. If a congressional session ends during those 10 days, the president must sign every bill into law. If he doesn’t, the bill will be pocket vetoed, requiring the bill go through the entire legislative process again. If there are more than 10 days left in a congressional session, and a president wants to prevent a bill from becoming law, he may veto the entire bill. The president must then give his reasons in writing and return the bill to the house of origination.

At that point, Congress has choices. The two houses may make the required changes, or they may attempt to override the president’s veto by a two-thirds vote. If the bill passes both houses by the required two-thirds vote, the bill becomes law without the president’s signature. If the house of origination (where the bill was originally introduced) does nothing with the presidential veto, the bill is dead.

In 1996, Congress gave the president the line-item veto, empowering the president to veto individual parts of a bill. The constitutionality of the line-item veto was immediately challenged in the Supreme Court (Clinton v. New York City). The court struck down the line-item veto as an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority to the president.

Congress has also attempted to give itself veto power over the actions of the president. In specific instances, Congress would write legislation giving the president broad powers to act but reserve to itself the right to void presidential actions by a vote of one or both houses. This legislative veto was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in INS v. Chadha (1983). The only form of veto mentioned in the Constitution is that used by the president.

Legislation by Committee

Most of the legislative business of Congress occurs in committees. Who serves on which committee and what position they hold is determined by a number of factors. The majority party of each house holds all the committee chairs. The majority party will also hold a majority of the seats on each committee, effectively controlling all the business of the committee. On the important committees, the majority usually holds two-thirds of the committee seats.

Generally, the committee member of the majority party with the most seniority becomes the chair and the senior member from the minority party becomes the ranking member. The ranking member becomes chair if the minority party becomes the majority party. This happened in 2001 when a member of the Republican-controlled Senate left the Republican Party to become an Independent. All Democrat ranking members of Senate committees became the chairs, while the Republican chairs became the ranking members. The same principle applies in the House of Representatives.

Committee assignments in the House and Senate are determined by the House and Senate leadership and a caucus of the two political parties. Members of Congress attempt to get on the committees that will allow them to do the most constituent service and help them get reelected. For example, representatives and senators from farm states try to get assigned to agriculture committees.

Committees serve as mini-legislatures, performing the tasks of investigating and debating bills that, due to time constraints, could never otherwise receive the consideration of Congress. Often, the congressional committee assigns the bill to an even smaller group, called a subcommittee, for initial consideration. Recently, there has been a proliferation of subcommittees. Subcommittees often determine how money is spent and have therefore become very powerful.

The fate of a new bill depends on much more than its content. The membership of the committee and subcommittee that first considers the bill is crucial. Bill sponsors attempt to draft bills in such a way as to steer them toward sympathetic committees. Supporters of a bill must also decide which house of Congress should consider their bill first, because with the exception of revenue bills, federal bills may originate in either house. To build political momentum, supporters attempt to have the bill introduced in the house most sympathetic to their cause.

The House has more committees than the Senate. House members, however, tend to become more specialized because they serve on fewer committees. As a result, they are considered to have more expertise than senators.

Most bills die almost immediately in a subcommittee due to lack of interest from committee members; unless a committee member takes a special interest in a bill, the bill will either be quickly rejected or ignored until it dies a natural death at the end of the congressional session.

Committees and subcommittees function by calling interested parties and expert witnesses who have some information to give. Lobbyists often testify as expert witnesses. Congress can subpoena reluctant witnesses, forcing them to appear in hearings and can grant immunity to compel them to testify. Once their investigations have concluded, committees begin amending and rewriting sections of bills in meetings called markup sessions.

Committees will sometimes refuse to vote a bill out, hoping to keep it from being considered by the House. A bill stuck in a House or Senate committee is said to be pigeonholed. The parliamentary mechanism to force a bill out of committee for a floor vote is called a discharge petition.

Committees have responsibilities in addition to writing laws. For example, they are responsible for the oversight of many bureaucratic agencies and departments. Heads of regulatory agencies, which are responsible for enforcing the laws, often appear to give testimony before congressional committees with oversight jurisdiction. If the agency has not followed the intent of the law, the agency head will be in for a rough time. A recent example comes from a congressional investigation of the Secret Service and subsequent resignation by Director Julia Pierson after multiple security lapses involving President Obama and the White House.

Committees also hear testimony from agency heads pleading for money and personnel. Congressional budget cutting and agency reorganization can have a profound impact on an agency’s ability to carry out its responsibilities. This is one way that Congress can use the budget to shape policy.

Congressional Leadership

The House

The leader of the House of Representatives is the Speaker, who is chosen by the majority party in a special election. The Speaker is powerful because he or she can direct floor debate and has influence over committee assignments and over the Rules Committee. The Speaker can also control which bills go to which committees. The majority leader of the House keeps party members in line and helps determine party policy and the party’s legislative agenda. The minority leader keeps the minority party members in line and helps determine the minority party’s legislative agenda. The House majority and minority whips also help their respective party leaders keep the members loyal to the party’s legislative agenda. They coordinate members of each party and help garner support for proposed legislation.

The Senate

The vice president is the president of the Senate, and this is his only constitutionally delegated responsibility. However, the vice president is rarely on the floor of the Senate and only votes to break a tie. When the vice president is absent during Senate sessions, the president pro tempore is the presiding officer. The president pro tempore is largely an honorary position and is usually given to the most senior member of the majority party of the Senate. The majority leader has the real power in the Senate because he or she controls the legislative agenda and acts as a power broker and policy initiator. The minority leader can act as a power broker but usually cannot initiate policy or control the agenda.

Why Do They Vote That Way?

Congresspersons are always cross-pressured to influence their vote. These pressures come from their own party and from the opposition. It also comes from the president through jawboning (trying to influence) and from their colleagues by logrolling (“you help me on this bill, and I’ll help you on yours”). PACs try to influence votes through contributions, as do constituents and interest groups. Personal ideology and religious beliefs can also impact their judgment. The most important factor in determining the vote of a congressperson is party affiliation. Members of Congress usually—but not always—vote with their parties.

NOTABLE LEGISLATION

National Growth, Expansion, and Institution Building

Regulation of Government and Industry

Rights and Freedoms

Government Aid to the People

THE PRESIDENT

Concepts

The Formal Powers of the Presidency

The powers delegated by the Constitution to the executive branch are in Article II, Section 2, but they are less specific than the formal powers of Congress. The broadly defined powers were intended to give flexibility but have instead resulted in greatly expanded power.

The president is responsible for enforcing the laws, handling foreign policy, and serving as the ceremonial head of state. He or she is also the administrative head of the government. He or she can force Congress into session, must brief Congress on the “state of the nation,” and can veto legislation, as well as grant reprieves and pardons. But regardless of these expansive powers, he or she must cooperate with Congress because the powers of the presidency are intermingled with the powers of the legislature. The president’s appointments of federal judges, Supreme Court justices, ambassadors, and department secretaries all require Senate approval. The president negotiates treaties, but they must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. Because Senate ratification is sometimes difficult to achieve—a good example is the defeat of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919—the broad powers of the president to initiate foreign policy came to include executive agreements (which do not require Senate approval). These are agreements between heads of countries; under international and U.S. law, they are as binding as a treaty. However, executive agreements usually deal with more routine, administrative matters.

The President as Commander in Chief

The president also serves as commander in chief of the armed forces. But the Framers created a complex institutional situation regarding armed conflict. Only Congress has the power to declare war, but only the president can make war. In the nuclear age, the power of Congress to declare war could very well be obsolete. Because missiles can destroy cities within minutes of launch, congressional debate of the pros and cons of declaring war seems impractical, if not silly. While the United States has been in numerous wars since that time, no declarations of war have been made.

While the president is the chief strategist and director of the military forces of the United States, he or she is at the mercy of Congress for the money to wage war. However, once the president has committed troops in conflict, it is unlikely that Congress would refuse to fund the weapons needed for the military. For members of Congress such an action would mean political suicide and probably lead to a constitutional crisis within the U.S. government.

In a national crisis, the other branches of government and the American people look to the president for leadership. Initially, presidents will have strong support for their policies. This helps explain why Congress, in 1964, passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, giving the president the broad powers to commit unlimited numbers of troops for an unlimited length of time in the Vietnam conflict. President Johnson was unable to bring that war to a conclusion. Strong criticism of his handling of the war led to a general lack of support for his policies, undermining his ability to govern. The same thing happened to President Carter when he was unable to successfully end the Iranian hostage crisis. As president during the Gulf War, George H. W. Bush’s ability to quickly bring the war to a conclusion while suffering relatively few casualties resulted in the second-highest approval rating of any president, at 89%.

The Informal Powers

The presidential powers that are not enumerated in the Constitution are referred to as the informal powers, and they are sometimes more important than the formal ones. How well presidents use the informal powers can determine the success of their presidencies.

Presidents are supposed to be morale builders. President Carter’s failure to improve the morale of the country contributed to his reelection defeat. President Reagan was a master at morale building, and this characteristic helps explain why he remained popular with the American people.

Presidents serve as legislative leaders and coalition builders. Failure to set and lead the legislative agenda and build coalitions in Congress can doom presidents, particularly when there is divided government (when one or both houses of the legislature are controlled by the opposition party). George H. W. Bush became the “foreign policy president” when he was unable to get his domestic policy agenda passed in a Democrat-controlled Congress. Ronald Reagan and his advisers were experts in building coalitions with Republicans and southern conservative Democrats. This coalition of Republicans and southern Democrats gave Reagan his legislative agenda.

Perhaps the president’s most important informal powers are as a policy persuader and communicator to Congress and the American people. Clinton and Reagan were superior communicators. The ability of a president to communicate well with the American people is a very powerful tool for pressuring Congress. Communicating with Congress is also important. Having the congressional leadership down to the White House for lunch and a photo op is another way that presidents try to persuade members of Congress to pass their legislative agenda.

Executive Office of the President

The Executive Office of the President helps carry out the president’s administrative responsibilities. It is made up of more than half a dozen agencies involved in the day-to-day operations of the White House and is basically divided into three areas: domestic, foreign, and military affairs. It is staffed by hundreds of personnel located in the White House and the Executive Office Building. All are directly responsible to the president or his designees.

The Cabinet

The cabinet is not mentioned in the Constitution but was created through custom and usage. Each cabinet department was instituted by an act of Congress to help administrate the responsibilities of the executive branch.

Each cabinet secretary is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Secretaries can be dismissed at the president’s will. Cabinet secretaries are supposed to run their departments and carry out the president’s policies. Those who disagree with presidential policy are expected to resign. Secretaries tend to be lightning rods to be used for deflecting criticism and are responsible for explaining and promoting presidential policies. Over time, secretaries tend to represent their own departments more than the president’s policies. They are expected to fight for their department’s budget, jurisdiction, and personnel. This creates competition and friction between departments and accounts for why presidents usually do not hold full cabinet meetings. Presidents just don’t have the time or inclination to listen to the bickering and arguing between department heads.

Still, despite these institutional shortcomings, cabinet secretaries do rule over vast departmental bureaucracies—each containing numerous powerful government agencies. With the recent addition of the Department of Homeland Security, there are now fifteen cabinet departments. After the September 11 attacks, it was felt that a cabinet-level department was necessary to counter possible threats to the United States, and more than twenty-two agencies were consolidated into the new department, making it the third-largest executive branch department. Agencies as disparate as the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (formerly the INS), the Coast Guard, and the Secret Service were consolidated to shape a coherent agenda to protect the United States against potential attacks. The Department of Homeland Security has four functions: to protect the borders; to support local agencies like police and fire departments; to detect chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons; and to analyze intelligence.

Impeachment

The Constitution gives Congress the power to remove the president from office for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The Constitution does not define high crimes and misdemeanors, leaving those definitions to politicians. The only direction in the Constitution is that the House of Representatives impeaches the president (or brings the charges) by a simple majority vote, and if the impeachment passes, the Senate holds a trial with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding. Removal of the president requires a two-thirds vote of the Senate. The entire process in Congress has been developed as a result of guesswork, custom, and usage.

Because the definition of an impeachable offense is left to the House, impeachment is a highly charged political process. Most constitutional scholars place the standard for impeachment as an act against the government or the Constitution, but there seems to be political disagreement over what standard should be used. Conservatives seem to have one standard, while liberals seem to have another. Every impeachment, or near-impeachment, has divided the Congress along party lines, and some scholars have accused members of Congress of using the process to try to undo the result of an election.

No president of the United States has been removed from office. While the House successfully impeached Andrew Johnson for his violation of the Tenure in Office Act, the Senate fell just one vote short of removing him from office. This act was later invalidated by the Supreme Court. The Watergate scandal caused Richard Nixon to resign before imminent impeachment proceedings could begin. He knew that the Senate would convict if given the opportunity to vote. The impeachment of President Clinton for lying under oath was very political. All parties knew before the trial began that there was little chance of a Senate conviction. Clinton’s defenders claimed that while Clinton’s behavior had been improper and had brought dishonor to the Office of the President, his conduct had not risen to the level of an impeachable offense.

Federal judges are appointed for life and can be removed only by the impeachment process. Only eight federal judges have ever been removed by the Senate. One of them is Alcee Hastings, who was impeached for bribery and perjury, and is now a member of the same House of Representatives who voted for his impeachment.

THE JUDICIARY AND THE LAW

Concepts

American Legal Principles

Although the United States plays host to the interlocking systems of state and federal law, a few underlying principles make up the foundation of our legal system. They are equal justice under the law, due process of law, the adversarial system, and presumption of innocence.

All who appear in court in the United States must be treated as equals. The founders were very concerned that the new nation avoid the hierarchical legal systems that plagued many other nations and, as a result, enshrined many amendments in the Constitution that establish equal justice under the law. For example, whenever jurors hear a criminal case, they are instructed not to privilege the testimony of a police officer over that of a defendant.

Due process can be divided into two types: substantive due process and procedural due process. Substantive due process law deals with the question of whether laws are fair. Fairness is determined by looking at the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment. A law that made it illegal for people with blue eyes to ride motorcycles would constitute a violation of substantive due process. Procedural due process law is concerned with the question of whether laws are fairly applied. This might seem less important than substantive due process, but procedural issues are actually at the heart of our legal system. If suspects in certain types of crimes were held for ten years before they ever had a trial, this would be a violation of procedural due process, because the law guarantees everyone a speedy trial. Even if a nation has laws that are fair and just, if they are not applied fairly, they are meaningless.

Strange as it may seem to those of us raised in the United States, many nations do not require both sides of legal cases to be represented by advocates. This inquisitorial system, as it is known, is alien to the United States, where we use the adversarial system. As you can probably guess from the name, this principle is based on the premise that the best way to work out questions of fact is to have two sides—or adversaries—debate the burden of guilt or liability in a situation. Some critics say that this system creates too many conflicts—particularly in areas such as family law and divorce, and recommend an increased role for mediators who seek rapprochement and can make legally binding decisions.

In his Commentaries on the Laws of England, English jurist and professor William Blackstone said, “Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer,” and this number became known as the Blackstone ratio. Benjamin Franklin expanded this, writing “that it is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer.” In both England and America, the idea that the accused are innocent until proven guilty—the presumption of innocence—is one of the bedrock principles of the legal system. As a result, the burden of proof is on the prosecutor in criminal cases, and if there is any reasonable doubt as to a person’s innocence, juries are instructed to acquit.

Types of Law

In the United States, most legal cases involve either civil law or criminal law. The distinction between these two types of law is very important, and knowing the differences and similarities can help a great deal when taking the AP Exam.

Anyone who watches television police or law dramas has at least some familiarity with the trappings of criminal law. This type of law deals with serious crimes that harm individuals or society. If physical violence is involved, then the action will probably end up in the criminal justice system, but fraud and extortion are also crimes. In criminal law, a suspect is arrested and must be indicted. This is done (in most states and at the federal level) by a grand jury: a group of 24 to 48 jurors who decide only one thing—whether a trial should commence. Since the grand jury is not deciding guilt or innocence, an accused person does not have many protections at the grand jury level. The prosecution usually has to meet a certain standard of evidence. In fact, defense attorneys are not even allowed to address grand juries. Once the accused is indicted, that person then has the option of plea bargaining with the prosecution to agree to a less serious crime and sentence. Still, many cases go to trial. Here it is important to note that in criminal trials, the state (at the state level) or the United States (at the federal level) is the party opposing the accused person. Even if your loved one has been killed, it is not you versus the accused killer, but the government against the accused killer—the government acts as the prosecution. This reflects the basic Lockean premise that when we enter into a society or community, we cede our fundamental right to vengeance and punishment to the state in exchange for protection. Since the presumption of innocence is so important to our legal system, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Criminal trials are held before petit juries as opposed to grand juries, (these are what most of us think of as simply “juries” that are composed of twelve people). The decision of the jury is known as the verdict, and a guilty verdict can be returned only if all twelve jurors vote to convict. A split jury is known as a “hung jury” and results in a mistrial.

Chances are that you haven’t seen a thrilling television drama about civil law (unless you watch Judge Judy), but that shouldn’t detract from its importance. The civil law system is what determines the results of disputes over things like contracts, property, custody of the children, or an issue of liability. Unlike in criminal law cases, the government is involved in a civil case only if it happens to be the party being sued. There is no prosecution; instead, a plaintiff squares off against a defendant. If a person thinks that they have been wronged, they issue a complaint in civil court. If that complaint is answered—that is, if a judge or jury thinks the complaint has merit—then the case moves forward. As with plea bargaining in criminal law, civil law also has a mechanism to avoid trial—the settlement. In a settlement, the parties negotiate and the issue becomes how much each party is willing to give up to end the lawsuit. If no settlement can be reached, the case goes to trial. Since the stakes in civil law are not nearly as high as in criminal law—a defendant cannot be jailed or executed—the burden of proof is lighter. In order to win a case, a plaintiff need not prove that he is right beyond reasonable doubt. Instead, he merely needs to show that a preponderance of evidence favors his side of the case. This is the equivalent of proving that 51 percent of the evidence points his way. Juries are also used in civil cases, but many states do not require twelve members; some allow as few as five or six. Winning can mean either the payment of monetary damages or equity, in which the loser may be forced to stop doing something that was annoying or harmful to the winner.

Structure and Jurisdiction

The federal courts are responsible for interpreting and settling disputes arising out of federal law; state courts are responsible for interpreting and settling disputes arising out of state law. It is possible for a citizen to commit a single act that violates both state and federal law—trading in drugs and tax evasion are two examples.

The Supreme Court does not have a jury. It is considered a collegial court because its decisions are made by the nine justices. When the Court acts in appellate jurisdiction, it can only decide issues of law and never the facts of a case.

There are 94 Federal District Courts, created by Congress to fulfill its delegated responsibility of creating courts inferior to the Supreme Court. Federal District Courts decide both civil and criminal cases in original jurisdiction. The trial court that determines guilt or innocence is the court of original jurisdiction. These courts hear evidence and can use juries to decide the verdict. Federal District Courts can also decide liability in civil cases where monetary losses have occurred. Civil cases can also have juries. It is always possible for a defendant to ask a judge to decide a case, but a judge can refuse the request and force the defendant to have a jury trial. (The Constitution guarantees a jury trial but not a trial decided by a judge.)

There are thirteen Circuit Courts of Appeals, which hear cases on appeal from the Federal District Courts or from a state Supreme Court. In these cases someone has to claim that a federal constitutional right has been violated. The Circuit Courts decide issues of law and never issues of fact. Circuit courts have no juries. The decisions of these courts are made by panels of appointed judges. In almost every case, the Circuit Court of Appeals is the court of last resort because the Supreme Court rarely agrees to hear cases appealed from the Circuit Courts. Additionally, most Supreme Court judges rise from the Circuit Courts.

The Politics of the Judiciary

All judges in the federal judiciary (only those on the Supreme Court are called justices) are appointed by the president for lifetime terms. Appointees must go through a confirmation process in the Senate. To maintain judicial neutrality and integrity, impeachment is the only method of removal.

The appointment process has become very political. Some presidents have required potential appointees to fill out a judicial questionnaire to determine their political and judicial ideology. Nominees are almost always of the same party as the president. In nomination hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, members of both parties try to determine how potential judges would rule in cases dealing with issues such as abortion rights, affirmative action, or school prayer. The American Bar Association is asked to evaluate a nominee’s qualifications and interest groups often present their opinions. Senators in a state where an appointee will sit have traditionally exercised senatorial courtesy—they submit a list of acceptable names of nominees to the president. Presidents usually choose a nominee from the list submitted. Senatorial courtesy is expected only when the president and senators are of the same party.

Liberals and conservatives often argue over a nominee’s judicial philosophy or level of judicial activism. The central point of the argument is whether the nominee is more or less inclined to second-guess a legislative enactment. As the conservatives see it, the courts are the least democratic branch of government (because judges are appointed, not elected), and when they overturn an act of a legislature, they are overruling the will of the people, as expressed in the most democratic branch of government (the legislature). Judges who are reluctant to overturn the acts of a legislature are said to practice judicial restraint. Liberals often see judges as constitutional interpreters who should reflect current values. A judge who has no qualms about overturning a legislative action is considered a judicial activist. Compromise over these two positions is sometimes very difficult to achieve. The nomination of Robert Bork to be a Justice of the Supreme Court was defeated by liberals because of his judicial philosophy. Clarence Thomas was confirmed by the closest Senate vote in U.S. history, over concerns related to his conservative judicial philosophy, lack of experience, and the allegation that he sexually harassed an aide.

Process by Which Cases Reach the Supreme Court

The process that the Supreme Court uses to hear cases is not part of the Constitution. The process is a result of custom and usage, time and tradition.

The Supreme Court will not grant an appeal until all opportunities have been exhausted in the lower appellate courts. In the vast majority of cases, the court refuses to hear the appeal because it agrees with the lower court decision. However, the court may choose to review the decisions of lower courts. If four justices agree to this review, the court issues a writ of certiorari, a legal document used to request the lower court transcripts of a case.

The Supreme Court will rule only in cases that are real and adverse, which means that the case must involve an actual legal dispute. Such cases are said to be justiciable. Disputes over political issues cannot be decided by courts—political disputes are not justiciable. The Supreme Court cannot give advisory opinions. It can rule only in an actual legal case involving litigants. In other words, the court will not rule on hypothetical cases.

The Court also places limits on who may bring cases before it. Simply disliking or disagreeing with a law is not sufficient to bring a case. The petitioner (the person who brings the case) must have some vested interest in the outcome of the case. Such petitioners are said to have standing.

Judicial Review

The Constitution does not specifically grant the Supreme Court the right to judge the constitutionality of laws. That power was established by the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). This extremely important power is called judicial review and was established by John Marshall, the fourth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (he served from 1800 to 1835). Marshall was a Federalist who worked to increase the powers of the federal government over the states.

Under Marshall, the court made several other rulings concerning the role of the court and the relationship of the federal government to the states. They include the following:

How the Court Hears Cases

Once the Supreme Court decides to take a case, a complicated legal dance swings into motion. Both sides of the case submit summaries of their arguments and legal foundations for them. These summaries are known as briefs. At the same time, interest groups affiliated with both sides of the case submit their own briefs to the Supreme Court. These amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs constitute an effort to sway the justices to one side or the other and can be quite influential in determining the outcome of the case.

Every year from October to April, the court hears oral arguments for the cases it has chosen to take. Usually in oral arguments, lawyers for each party have a half hour each to stand before the nine justices and present their arguments. Often, the federal government will take one side or the other, and in these cases the solicitor general gets a portion of that half hour to argue on the government’s behalf. The solicitor general is the second-ranking member of the justice department (after the attorney general) and typically makes many appearances before the high court—so much so that the solicitor general is sometimes called the “tenth justice.” After the oral arguments, the justices meet for a highly secretive conference. At this point, all the justices cast votes, and opinion-writing duties are handed out.

THE BUREAUCRACY

Concepts

The bureaucracy is responsible for ensuring that the policies and programs enacted by Congress and the executive departments are carried out. Because the bureaucracy is responsible for executing the laws, providing for defense, and administering social programs, it is considered part of the executive branch of government. To ensure impartiality, bureaucratic agencies are supposed to function above partisan politics and also ensure that the laws are administered without prejudice.

There are approximately 4 million bureaucrats who are salaried employees of the federal government, with about 2.7 million civilians and 1.4 million in the military. About 30% of the civilian employees work for the Defense Department, while about 15% work for various social agencies, including Social Security and Welfare. No bureaucrat is elected. The fifteen cabinet secretaries and the heads of independent agencies are appointed by the president with the consent of the Senate. Most of the hundreds of thousands of civilian employees who work for the government work for one of the fifteen executive departments or one of the other “cabinet level” agencies considered by the White House to be part of the cabinet (such as the Director of Management and Budget or the Director of the Drug Control Office). These other cabinet level offices are not actual cabinet departments.

The largest department, the Department of Defense, is administered by the Secretary of Defense, who must be a civilian and reports directly to the president. Each of the five military services is headed by a uniformed chief of staff, and the five chiefs work together as the Joint Chiefs of Staff, headed by a chairman. The Joint Chiefs and their chairman are responsible for carrying out defense policy and report directly to both the Secretary of Defense and the president. The military is therefore subject to civilian control.

Bureaucratic Structure

The bureaucracy is organized as a hierarchy of fifteen pyramids, representing the fifteen executive branch departments:

At the top of each pyramid is the secretary of the department, who is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Directly subordinate to the secretary is the undersecretary, who is appointed by the president without Senate confirmation. Because secretaries and undersecretaries are presidential appointments, they are replaced at the end of a president’s term. The position of undersecretary attracts young professionals. Because the pay is low compared with private industry, and the position is temporary, undersecretaries often use the appointment to step up to better positions in the private sector.

Below the secretaries are the personnel of the Senior Executive Service, including both appointees and non-appointees. Senior Executive Service appointees do not need Senate confirmation. These career officials are supposed to be responsive to the policy goals of the White House and help bureaucrats implement the policy preferences of the chief executive.

Government Corporations

Government corporations are hybrid organizations. They are a cross between a private business corporation and a government agency. Corporations are supposed to have freedom of action and flexibility and produce at least enough revenue to support themselves. Amtrak, the government corporation created to provide railroad passenger service, is an example. Unfortunately, Amtrak has never made a profit and must ask Congress for subsidies to keep itself from declaring bankruptcy and ending passenger rail service in the United States.

Originally created as a cabinet position, the United States Postal Service has become a government corporation. The intent of Congress was to create a mail delivery system that pays its own way without government assistance. Because of electronic messaging systems and competition from package delivery companies, the post office has had to increase its fees, but it is no longer solvent.

More successful, but at times controversial, is the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which produces and airs both television and radio programs. Funding for the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) comes from both private and government subsidies. Most of its programming is related to public affairs, news, and culture. The controversy often occurs when groups object to the content of programs. Still others object to the government being involved in any service that could be provided by private sector corporations.

Regulatory Agencies and Commissions

Government entities that are not within the fifteen cabinet departments fall into two categories: the independent agencies and the regulatory agencies, sometimes called independent regulatory commissions. While independent agencies are generally run-of-the-mill bureaucracies with broad presidential oversight, regulatory commissions are given an extraordinary degree of independence to act as watchdogs over the federal government. Congress and the president are not supposed to become enmeshed in the workings of regulatory commissions. The safety regulations for nuclear power plants or securities exchange should not be regulated by politics.

In contemporary societies, the difficulties and complexities of writing legislation are often beyond the abilities and expertise of lawmakers. The result is that legislation is often written in general terms with many gaps that need to be filled in by the agency with jurisdiction. Independent agencies who have the responsibility for filling in these gaps and writing rules are referred to as quasi-legislative agencies. Those responsible for rule enforcement and punishing violators are quasi-judicial agencies.

Members of Congress do not have the education to deal with the scientific details that are often required to implement legislation. For example, House and Senate members who sit on committees that deal with environmental issues do not generally have advanced degrees in chemistry. It is the experts who work in the enforcing agencies who have that knowledge. Compounding the problems for Congress are the many competing interests that surround every major issue. Environmentalists have their agenda, while the petroleum industry, electric utilities, and lumber interests have theirs. Even the regulating agency with jurisdiction has its own agenda. These competing interests often delay or prevent legislation. This is the clash of the special interests.

In an age of science and technology, it is the faceless bureaucrat the public knows nothing about who often has the answers for Congress. These bureaucrats, on the one hand, are asked for advice and expertise, and on the other hand, are often ignored because of the pressures from interest groups. Working within the regulatory commissions, they are the people responsible for writing and enforcing rules that regulate the environment, the economy, or industry. If they fail to implement the intent of Congress, they are criticized by Congress and the parties regulated, usually for being too restrictive with their rules and too strict in their enforcement policies.

Examples of regulatory agencies include the following:

Case Studies

Considered to be one of the most controversial government bureaucracies, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created in 1970 as an independent body. Its mission is the enforcement of the environmental laws passed by Congress. One of the agency’s first responsibilities was to enforce the 1970 Clean Air Act. The intent of the law was to reduce automobile pollution and increase automobile gasoline mileage. The automobile industry lobbied hard to defeat the bill and claimed that they could not meet the requirements of the law by the time specified. They were granted extensions and eventually complied, although trucks and SUVs are still exempt from the law.

The Clean Air Act was amended in 1990 as a result of scientific evidence indicating that the refrigerants used in air conditioners were instrumental in depleting the ozone layer. The EPA successfully pressured chemical companies and air-conditioning manufacturers to find alternatives to the ozone-destroying chemicals. The EPA has also been successful in reducing the pollutants that cause acid rain.

Clean air is not the EPA’s only problem. It is responsible for enforcement of the Endangered Species Act. This highly controversial law is intended to protect endangered wildlife habitats from human encroachment. To implement this goal, environmental impact statements are required whenever construction projects are planned. If there is any possibility that an endangered species could be adversely affected, the EPA has the power to prohibit construction. The EPA’s ban on lumbering in areas of the Pacific Northwest—the habitat for the spotted owl—and its decision to block the construction of a dam in Tennessee because of the endangered snail darter fish are two examples. In the Tennessee dam case, Congress overruled the decision of the EPA, even though the Supreme Court had sided with the EPA to stop construction. In addition, Congress further weakened the EPA’s enforcement powers by amending the Endangered Species Act to permit exemptions in the future.

Another agency that provokes political contention is the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC). Created by the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the EEOC is responsible for enforcing the antidiscrimination laws of the United States. This commission has been susceptible to political pressure from both Congress and the White House. It is the EEOC’s responsibility to implement affirmative action programs for minorities, to bring suits in cases of racial or sexual discrimination, and to enforce the Americans with Disabilities Act. The head of the EEOC is a presidential appointment and is supposed to carry out the policies of the president. If the law conflicts with presidential policy, the EEOC has a problem.

The critics of affirmative action claim the policy is a form of reverse discrimination. Feeling pressure from voters, Congress, and the president, the EEOC first promoted affirmative action and then discouraged the policy. The attempts by this agency to implement the will of Congress have been complicated because both Congress and the White House seem to change their mind at will.

The Americans with Disabilities Act requires the EEOC to enforce laws against employers who discriminate against disabled employees or job seekers. In addition, part of the Disabilities Act requires that public buildings and large businesses be accessible to the disabled. Critics claim that this attempt at helping the disabled live normal lives has cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars and the cost is too high in relation to the number of persons benefited.

Who Runs Regulatory Agencies?

Independent regulatory agencies are run by panels of administrators called Boards of Commissioners. These commissioners are appointed by the president with the consent of the Senate. The terms of these commissioners usually overlap the term of the appointing president. The staggered term is intended to minimize political pressure from the White House. Depending on the commission, terms can range from 3 to 14 years.

Perhaps the best-known regulatory board is the Federal Reserve Board (the Fed) because its policies directly affect the buying power of the public. The Fed accomplishes this by regulating banks, the value and supply of money, and interest rates. Its members serve 14-year terms. Its chairman serves a four-year term. One previous head, Alan Greenspan, has served both Democrat and Republican presidents. Today the Fed is run by Janet Yellen, who is the first woman to hold the position.

Because the Fed is an independent agency, its policies can sometimes conflict with the policies of the president. In 1993, in the first weeks of the Clinton administration, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan told the president that the condition of the economy was worse than the previous Bush administration had told the American people. In addition, the national debt, as bad as it was perceived to be, was actually even greater than anyone realized. Clinton wanted an economic stimulus tax cut to get the economy out of recession. Greenspan told the president a tax cut should not be pursued, and if the White House went forward with the plan, the Fed would raise interest rates. Clinton was forced to break his campaign pledge to lower taxes. Even though the chairman and the president disagreed over economic policy, the president was powerless to do anything about it. In time, the Greenspan policy helped to get the economy out of the recession and into the longest economic boom in American history. Things went so well that Clinton reappointed Greenspan as chairman. Greenspan’s legacy would later come into question as a result of the economic collapse of 2008–2009.

Who Controls the Bureaucracy?

Because most boards of commissions and regulatory agencies are appointed by the president with Senate consent, political considerations always play a part in the appointment process. However, presidents come and go with great regularity, as do the appointed governing boards and commissions. It is the rank and file bureaucrats who are permanent, and they do not like political meddling.

While in office, presidents do have the power to promote their supporters and to use the budget to increase or decrease the influence of an agency. Reducing an agency’s budget reduces its staff, which reduces its effectiveness. Increasing the agency’s budget can have the opposite effect. Presidents can also reorganize an agency.

Congressional power over the bureaucracy is greater than that of the president. The Senate can affirm or reject presidential appointments. Congress can also abolish an agency or change its jurisdiction if it is unhappy with policy implementation. Finally, it is the Congress, through the appropriations process, that has the final say over how much money agencies will receive.

Rule Setting, Alliance Building, and Iron Triangles

The regulatory agencies carry out their responsibilities by setting rules and regulations that industry must follow. Setting regulations is a participatory process in which industry becomes actively involved in determining the rules. Agencies welcome public participation by holding public hearings for testimony and advice. In most instances, the law requires agencies to consult with industry before rules and regulations can go into effect.

The groups that make up an iron triangle work together to formulate and implement policy in their area of interest. Lobbyists representing industry promote their special-interest agenda by claiming it is in the best interest of the American people. For example, drug companies may lobby the Food and Drug Administration to speed up the certification process for a medication because it will benefit the sick faster. Patients and drug companies will pressure Congress, which then pressures the FDA. These are powerful arguments, but speeding up the process can cause the FDA to overlook something dangerous about the medication.

Special interests also contribute money to congressional campaigns, and large contributors are never shy about asking for help from congressional representatives, who are asked to help put pressure on regulators, or at a minimum, to listen to the arguments that the special interests put forward for their cause.

Political scientists have recently seen a more complex political process at work. When issues affect many groups, pro and con coalitions of interest groups, members of Congress, and bureaucrats form a close working relationship. This political process is called either an alliance network or an issue network and is far more complicated than a simple three-part iron triangle.

For example, if a large factory was a polluter but had marginal profits, it would probably fight expensive environmental regulations. Compliance might drive the company into bankruptcy. But more is at stake than just the company. There are jobs involved and secondary industries that supply the raw materials for production at the company. A local government, which relies on the tax revenues from the company, also has something at stake. Environmental groups are going to be involved. This complicated situation would certainly result in the creation of issue networks for the purpose of influencing the regulatory agency’s decisions.

After all the opportunities for input and debate have been exhausted, the regulatory agency writes and publishes the rules (this is its quasi-legislative function). If the industry still objects to the regulation, it can seek remedies in the courts by suing the regulatory agency. In the above example, if the company is forced to comply with the environmental laws, it could appeal the decision to the courts.

Because regulatory agencies invite so much controversy, there has been a recent trend toward deregulating the marketplace (removing government restrictions and regulations). Those in favor of deregulation claim that the competition of the marketplace is all the regulation that is needed. The deregulators say that regulation is too expensive and time-consuming and involves too much unnecessary red tape. They note that over the past 25 years, the Civil Aeronautics Board, which was responsible for regulating the airline industry, and the Interstate Commerce Commission, which regulated railroads and the trucking industry, were successfully phased out with little negative impact on consumers.

The Civil Service and Maintaining Neutrality

Today, the majority of government jobs are filled through the competitive civil service system. This system was established in 1883 with the passage of the Pendleton Act, a law that ended the “spoils system,” or the practice of handing out government jobs in exchange for political support. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) acts as the bureaucracy’s employment agency. OPM administers the civil service examination, publishes lists of job openings, and hires on the basis of merit. The intent is to create a competent, professional bureaucracy instead of one based on the “spoils system.” A Merit Systems Protection Board investigates charges of agency corruption and incompetence and is supposed to protect “whistle blowers.”

To ensure bureaucratic neutrality, Congress passed the Hatch Act in 1939. This law permitted bureaucrats the right to vote but not the right to actively campaign for political candidates, work for parties, or run for office. The act’s revision of 1993 is less restrictive, allowing bureaucrats to join political parties, make campaign contributions, and display political advertising in the form of buttons and bumper stickers. Bureaucrats still cannot run for public office at any level, solicit campaign funds from subordinates, or make political speeches.

KEY TERMS

Summary

Chapter 8 Drill

See Chapter 11 for answers and explanations.

REFLECT

Respond to the following questions:

Chapter 9

Public Policy

CONCEPTS

The process of public policy making consists of first deciding what the problem is and then deciding how to solve it. Policy making can have the following three purposes:

Policy can be achieved by prohibiting certain kinds of behavior, such as polygamy, murder, rape, and robbery. It can also be achieved by protecting certain activities. Granting patents and copyrights to individuals for their intellectual property, protecting the environment, and setting rules for workplace safety are all examples. Policy can promote some social activity; giving tax deductions for donations to charities is an example. Policy can be achieved by providing direct benefits to citizens. These benefits may include building roads, libraries, or hospitals. Benefits can also take the form of individual government subsidies, student loans, and pensions for the elderly.

Policy making can be frustrating because it often depends on public opinion, which can be fickle and unpredictable. The issue-attention cycle requires policy makers to act quickly, before the public becomes bored and loses interest. Public complaints over high energy prices can cause a flurry of policy making. But when prices go down, the public forgets about it until the next time.

Policy making often involves trade-offs between competing goods. To find additional energy resources may require access to pristine wildlife reserves. The risks to wildlife and the environment may be too high of a price to pay for the additional energy. Conservation, smaller cars, and alternative energy sources may be better solutions, but each will have its supporters and opponents.

Because policy making can have unforeseen results and can touch off bitter disputes, legislators often use incrementalism—the slow, step-by-step approach to making policy—or legislators may decide to use the policy of inaction, because taking no action is one way of making policy. Conflicts over health care reform and Social Security entitlements can result in simply maintaining the status quo (or, not changing a policy).

MAKING POLICY

Policy making has a number of steps, and each is influenced by politics.

Policy can try to address the concerns of opposing sides. Establishing environmental standards for oil exploration and refining tries to address the concerns of two constituencies: the environmentalists and the petroleum producers.

A momentous event, such as a war, an oil embargo, or a collapsing stock market, may set the agenda. Issues such as universal health care, the war on drugs, or environmental concerns can resurface. Scholars can force issues into the agenda through research studies.

Obstacles to Policy Making

The United States is a pluralist democracy, with multiple centers of power for making policy. Those interested in affecting policy making concentrate their efforts at these many centers. Because the United States has a federal system of government, policy can be made at the local, state, and national levels. Separation of powers creates three policy making centers: the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary. There is also the general bureaucracy, with its multiple policy-making centers. Trying to influence legislation, thousands of interest-group lobbyists, like jellyfish in the sea, descend upon these policy-making centers at all levels of government.

In their efforts to prevent tyranny and corruption, the Framers created a policy-making nightmare by dispersing the power centers. Getting things done is cumbersome and frustrating. Multiple access points cause policy fragmentation, where many pieces of legislation deal with parts of policy problems but never deal with the entire problem. The War on Drugs has at least seventy-five congressional committees with some type of jurisdiction or oversight; local and state law enforcement agencies are involved, as well as the Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, Border Patrol, Immigration and Naturalization Service, customs service, DEA, and the FBI.

Because so many agencies of government are involved, the drug war requires policy coordination. Interagency task forces try to iron out policy problems and conflicts between competing agencies, and Congress uses its oversight powers to change agency jurisdiction and give coherence to policy.

ECONOMIC POLICY

Of all the issues that face politicians, the economy is often the most important. Success or failure usually rests with the person the public perceives as responsible for the condition of the economy; and whether it is true, the electorate usually holds the president responsible. In 1992, the economy was in recession and George H. W. Bush was blamed. In 1996, the economy was booming, and Clinton was given credit and reelected.

Because of the importance of the economy in the eyes of the voters, it is in a politician’s self-interest to make policies that will increase people’s standard of living. The electorate looks to Washington to achieve this objective. For the policy maker, the vexing question is how to achieve it.

Sound economic policy that achieves prosperity is probably the most elusive of all policies. There are many elements to the problem: inflation, deflation, interest rates, the supply of money in circulation, the profitability of corporations, foreign competition, international agreements, and consumer confidence, just to name a few. Complicating the problem are the various economic theories that drive policy decisions, and the various government agencies and institutions that make decisions affecting economic conditions.

Economic Theory

Capitalist free-market systems in which both government and private industry play a role are called mixed economies. Mixed free-market systems are characterized by both private and public (government) ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods and services. The price of goods and services is determined by the free-market interplay of supply and demand. The profits after taxes are kept by the owners.

Free-market economic systems are plagued by periods of prosperity followed by periods of economic contraction (decreased activity, economic downturn). Because the United States has a mixed free-market system, the major problem for policy makers is how to maintain prosperity and economic growth while reducing the impact of the inevitable economic contraction. In capitalist systems, the basic question is to what extent the government should intervene.

Laissez-faire economists believe that the government should never become involved in economic issues. They believe that the narrow pursuit of individual profit serves the broader interest of society. Central to laissez-faire economics is the belief that free markets are governed by the laws of nature and government should not interfere with those laws. In vogue with rugged individualists in the nineteenth century, laissez-faire economics disappeared as a viable government policy option during the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Perhaps the most influential economist of the twentieth century was John Maynard Keynes, an interventionist. Keynesian economics, on which FDR’s New Deal was based, holds that the government can smooth out business cycles by influencing the amount of income individuals and businesses can spend on goods and services.

Fiscal Policy

Fiscal policy refers to the government action of either lowering or raising taxes, which results in more or less consumer spending or enacting of government spending programs, such as building highways or hospitals. Keynesians believe that during economic downturns the government should spend money on projects to inject money into the economy. They are less worried about government deficit spending than about keeping the economy prosperous. A prosperous economy means a larger tax base, which will eventually correct deficit spending. In effect, the Keynesian school believes that when the economy is good, surplus taxes (money left over from tax revenues) should be saved to pay for the government spending that must take place during an economic downturn. Using this school of thought, the policy alternatives are obvious, but questions still remain: Should there be tax cuts? If so, how much, and who should get them? How much spending should the government engage in? How much deficit spending (funds raised by borrowing rather than taxation) should be allowed? The answers to these questions are extremely difficult, with major political consequences.

In the 1980s, the Reagan-Bush administration became the champion of the supply-side school of economic thought. The supply-siders take issue with supporters of Keynesian economics. Inflation is caused by too many dollars chasing too few goods. If the supply of goods is raised, the cost of the goods will decline. According to this theory, supply-siders argue that the government should cut taxes and spending on domestic programs to stimulate greater production.

Going along with supply-side theory, Congress in the 1980s enacted extensive tax cuts and reductions to social welfare programs, a policy later dubbed “Reaganomics.” Inflation was brought under control, but huge yearly budget deficits, caused in part by a defense buildup, created a four-trillion-dollar debt. In the 1990s, budget surpluses began to shrink the deficit but these gains were reversed as a result of policies enacted during the Bush and Obama administrations, particularly during the Great Recession. Tax cuts followed by rising costs associated with the War on Terrorism, the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, and government stimulus programs have resulted in record budget deficits. The most recent estimates of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) have warned against increasingly large budget deficits. In 2010, a $1.5 trillion deficit in the federal budget stoked political controversy and contributed to historic Republican gains in both houses of Congress in the 2010 mid-term elections. The next year, congressional Republicans forced a showdown over plans to increase the federal debt ceiling, generating concern over the United States’ international credit rating.

Monetary Policy

Monetary policy refers to the process by which the government controls the supply of money in circulation and the supply of credit through the actions of the Federal Reserve Board (the Fed). The Fed can increase the amount of money in circulation by lowering interest rates. Rate reductions make borrowing money less expensive because interest on the money is low. This action usually inflates (expands) the economy, resulting in higher prices and wages. If the Fed raises interest rates, the impact on the economy will be deflationary, resulting in either more stable or lower prices or wages.

Some economists believe that government should intervene only to manipulate the money supply, an idea championed by Milton Friedman. These monetarists believe that the money supply should be increased at a constant rate to accommodate economic growth. Monetarists do not believe that interest rate changes and manipulation of tax rates have much of an impact on economic conditions.

In the 1990s, the U.S. economy expanded without tax cuts, creating record employment levels with little inflation. Many gave the credit to the monetary policy of Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve.

The Tools of Economic Policy Making

The president receives advice on the state of the economy from the following departments and agencies:

The president can influence the fiscal and monetary policies of these departments and agencies through his appointment power and policy initiatives. Remember that fiscal policy involves the budget, and monetary policy involves the money supply.

Fiscal Policy Making

The Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is responsible for initiating the budget process. The director meets with the president to discuss his policy initiatives. The state of the economy is discussed, centering on government revenue projections, which is the predicted income from taxes. Based on the president’s priorities, some executive departments will receive more money than others. The OMB then writes the president’s budget and submits it to Congress. Upon its arrival the budget is sent to three committees. The House Ways and Means Committee deals with the taxing aspects of the budget. Authorization committees in both houses decide what programs Congress wants to fund. Appropriations committees in both houses then decide how much money to spend for those programs that have been authorized.

The budget process is complicated, politically divisive, and, in recent years, nearly impossible to conclude. The president’s projected revenues and expenditures often conflict with those of Congress. Congress often simply does not trust the president’s numbers, and conversely, the president does not trust Congress’s. These yearly budget problems forced passage of the Budget Reform Act of 1974, which created the Congressional Budget Office, with budget committees in both the House and Senate. The congressional committees set their own revenue and spending levels. Negotiations then take place among the White House and the two houses of Congress in an effort to get one budget acceptable to everyone. Failure to achieve a budget by the beginning of the fiscal year could mean shutting down the government and sending employees home. When this occurs, budget stop-gap bills are passed to temporarily appropriate money to keep the government operating.

The Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 was an effort to streamline the budget process and make it easier to arrive at a compromise budget. The law categorizes government expenditures as either mandatory or discretionary spending. Mandatory spending is required by law, to fund programs such as the entitlement programs, Social Security, Medicare, veterans’ pensions, and payment on the national debt. Discretionary spending programs are not required by law and include defense, education, highways, research grants, and all government operations. Discretionary programs are the primary targets for making cuts to balance the budget.

TRADE POLICY

The United States is by far the richest nation in the world. The output of the economy of the state of California alone ranks among the top ten nations in the world. The economic outputs of each of the three cities of Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York rank among the output of the top twenty nations. For better or for worse, the United States is the largest producer and consumer of products.

Foreign nations depend on the United States as a market for their products, as we depend on them for ours. The ratio of imported products to exported products is called the balance of trade. Trade deficits occur when imports exceed exports. Trade deficits cause wealth to flow from a nation. When nations face trade deficits, they often place restrictions on imported goods. The nation facing the restrictions can take retaliation by imposing high import taxes or unfair regulations on products, effectively keeping out foreign goods. Trade wars can result, stopping trade between countries. Trade surpluses are the result of more money flowing into a country than out. The oil-producing nations have huge amounts of money flowing into their treasuries and therefore have large trade surpluses when prices are high.

In an effort to promote trade, the United States signed the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which evolved into the World Trade Organization (WTO). The 125 members of the WTO account for 97% of the world’s trade. The organization works to lower tariffs and quotas and reduce unfair trade practices.

In an effort to promote free trade between the United States, Canada, and Mexico, the three nations signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994, effectively removing import tariffs from one another’s products. As an economic policy, NAFTA is controversial. It is opposed by U.S. industrial labor unions who fear that jobs will be lost to cheap Mexican labor. Others fear that the industrial capacity of the United States will be damaged because factories will move to Mexico where environmental laws are not strictly enforced. NAFTA supporters claim it will improve the U.S. economy and will also create jobs in Mexico, resulting in less illegal immigration. Supporters also claim that a richer Mexico will purchase more American products. NAFTA has proven to be something of a mixed blessing. Its passage has led to cheaper labor (in Mexico) for many U.S. companies and an increase in trade between the two countries. Nevertheless, many American jobs have undeniably been sent south of the border, and many Mexican farmers are losing their land in a futile attempt to compete with American agribusinesses.

DOMESTIC POLICY

While economic policy is contentious, domestic policy is sometimes even more so because it gets to the very essence of the purposes of government. Liberals believe government has an obligation to provide for social welfare, to help the needy. Conservatives believe social-welfare programs are encroachments on individual liberties and responsibilities. They think these programs turn the government into an instrument used to create a permanent class of the underprivileged, dependent upon government handouts. Somewhere in between are the moderates who believe government should provide opportunities and limited help during difficult times.

The twentieth century has seen a dramatic change in the way society perceives the role of government in providing for the basic needs of people. Before the Great Depression, there were no government programs to help people who suffered from the hardships of old age, disabilities, unemployment, and poverty. So many people needed help in the 1930s that the government enacted programs to create jobs, provide housing, and feed the hungry. Later on, the Great Society programs of the Johnson administration expanded government welfare programs, but because of the expense and questions about their effectiveness, many of the Great Society programs were eliminated or scaled back during and after the Reagan administration.

Social Security

Social Security is an entitlement program mandated by law. The government must pay benefits to all people who meet the requirements of the program. Changing the law would require congressional action. Because the largest voting block of the electorate is made up of those nearing or at retirement age, there is little chance of major changes to the system, even though some experts warn that the Social Security trust fund will go bankrupt in the near future. Currently, entitlement programs account for the largest expense in the federal budget.

In its original form Social Security provided benefits only to retired persons beginning at age 65.

The program has now been expanded to include four categories of persons.

Social Welfare

No matter how well intentioned the government has been, and no matter how much money has been spent, poverty has remained a perpetual problem for policy makers at both the state and federal levels. The first federal welfare programs were established by the Social Security Act in the 1930s. The largest and most controversial became known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).

All social welfare programs are designed to help targeted groups. Public assistance programs, known as welfare, target families whose total income falls below the federally determined minimum amount required to provide for the basic needs of a family. The present amount is approximately $17,000 for a family of four. The larger the family, the more income is required and the more money is paid out. Critics claimed that welfare was an incentive for families to have more children. Further complicating matters were complaints from recipients about a system that was degrading because investigators, looking for welfare cheaters, were invading their privacy.

In addition to AFDC, the federal government has established supplemental public assistance programs (known as SSI) to help the disabled and the aged who are living at or near the poverty level. To improve the diet and increase the buying power of the poor, the federal government also provides food stamps. Recipients use government-provided debit cards to help pay for food. Both SSI and the food-stamp program are federal programs administered through local and state agencies.

In an effort to reduce the number of people living on public assistance, the Welfare Reform Act was passed in 1996. Under the new law, social welfare programs are funded by both the state and federal governments, with the federal government contributing the greatest share in the form of block grants. Block grants are important because they allow states to experiment with new types of programs designed to get people off welfare and into work programs. The administration of programs (the distribution of cash payments) and the incentives for finding work and providing job training are left to the states. The intent of the law is to reduce the welfare rolls and force people to find work. This is accomplished by

The political debate over public assistance centers on two issues: Who pays how much, and what is the fair standard to be used for the recipient? Both Democrats and Republicans have tried to reduce these programs. Cutting them, however, places more people at risk, reducing food stamp programs and school lunch programs, causing increased hunger. To make matters more complicated, the Welfare Reform Act moved millions off the welfare rolls of the states as it coincided with a boom in unemployment.

Health Care

One of the most vexing problems for policy makers is what to do about the high cost of health care. Americans spend more than 17% of the nation’s gross domestic product, or GDP (the total of goods and services produced in a year), on health care. The United States has the most expensive health care system in the world and is the only fully industrialized nation without a national health care program. High costs have not guaranteed any longer life expectancy, nor better treatment than that found in other industrialized nations. Instead of a national program run by the government, most Americans have relied on various types of insurance programs to pay for health care costs. The premiums for these health care programs are paid by workers and employers. For many reasons, but primarily because of cost, 15.4% of the population was without health insurance in 2010.

As with other government programs, the electorate is divided on how to solve the two issues of universal health care and the burden of health care costs. Voters seem to want increased coverage but there is little evidence to indicate they are willing to pay for it. The only taxes the American electorate seems willing to pay are the so-called “sin taxes”—still fairly unpopular in some circles—on alcohol and tobacco products, which will not generate enough revenues to provide increased coverage. Proposals for “anti-obesity” taxes on sugary drinks and sodas have been met with mixed reactions from the public. Another basic issue for which there is no consensus is whether health benefits should be a government or privately administered program. With little public consensus, over the past two decades, reform has been extremely contentious.

An ill-fated attempt at health care reform was made in the first Clinton administration. The proposed policy called for universal coverage and strict cost controls. The policy would have required increased taxes coupled with cost-cutting limits on the types of medical procedures allowable. The lack of public consensus killed the proposal within a year.

The debate over health care continued during the 2000 presidential election. Both candidates agreed that something had to be done about both escalating costs and the increasing numbers of uninsured. The Democrats promoted a policy of a government-paid prescription drug program for senior citizens. The Republicans promoted a prescription-drug program run by insurance providers, but again there was no consensus.

The most significant health-care legislation in American history was signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010. The Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare, was passed over the course of several months and it generated significant political debate and controversy. The law was celebrated by most Democrats, who touted it as the much-needed solution to the long-term flaws in the American health-care system. Republicans and some independent voters criticized the law, claiming it was an expensive intrusion of the federal government into the public sector. The debate lasted until the midterm elections in November of 2010, when Republicans gained a large number of congressional seats partly as a result of voter discontent with the law.

The most important of the law’s provisions allows the federal government, beginning in 2014, to fine individuals who do not participate in an insurance program. This policy, known as the “individual mandate,” has been the basis of many Republican criticisms of the law. The attorneys general of twenty-eight states challenged this provision in the law in federal court, claiming that the Constitution prohibits Congress from taxing individuals for not purchasing a product (say, health insurance). However, the Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate is constitutional in the 2012 case National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius.

KEY TERMS

Summary

Chapter 9 Drill

See Chapter 11 for answers and explanations.

REFLECT

Respond to the following questions:

Chapter 10

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

CONCEPTS

How to Discuss a Court Case

The term civil liberties generally applies to those protections (enjoyed by all Americans) from the abuse of government power. The term civil rights is used specifically to describe protections from discrimination based on race, gender, or other minority status. Often, the term is used to refer specifically to the struggles of African Americans for equal status (for example, the Civil Rights Movement).

The Extension of Civil Liberties Through American History

In Barron v. Baltimore (1833), the Supreme Court determined that the Bill of Rights restricted the national government but not the state governments. It was not until 1925 that the court overturned this ruling, citing Fourteenth Amendment restrictions on the states (“no state shall…deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”). That case, Gitlow v. New York, concerned freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The court ruled that state limits on speech and the press could not exceed the limits allowed the national government.

Since then, the court has applied the Bill of Rights to state law on a case-by-case basis. This process is called selective incorporation. Currently, the following rights have NOT been incorporated and may thus be restricted by the states:

All other provisions of the Bill of Rights, however, apply equally to the states and the national government. In defining individual rights, the court has consistently weighed the rights of individuals against the needs of society at large. Therefore, none of the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights is absolute.

FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND RESTRICTIONS

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of petitioning the government, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion. None of these important rights, however, is absolute. Throughout the nation’s history, the Supreme Court has ruled that these rights may be limited in the interest of the greater public good. It has also ruled, however, that such restrictions must be well justified, well defined, and limited only to those few instances in which the public welfare is genuinely threatened.

Freedom of Speech

The most famous limit on free speech is the clear and present danger test. In the case of Schenck v. United States (1919), Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes argued that a person may not falsely scream “fire!” in a crowded theater, because doing so would likely result in panic. The court has also ruled that there is no constitutional protection for false defamatory speech (called slander when it is spoken and libel when it is in a more permanent form, such as print), obscenity, or speech intended to incite violence.

Since the 1940s, the court has followed the preferred position doctrine in determining the limits of free speech. The doctrine reflects the court’s belief that freedom of speech is fundamental to liberty; therefore, any limits on free speech must address severe, imminent threats to the nation. They must also be limited to constraining those threats; any restriction that fails to meet this test would probably be overturned by the Supreme Court. The court continues to protect offensive but nonthreatening speech such as flag burning (usually undertaken by protesters, who burn the flag as a symbolic indication that the country has failed to protect American values such as democracy and freedom for all).

Important Cases

Schenck v. United States (1919). This case, decided by Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, established that speech which evokes “a clear and present danger” is not permissible. He famously used the example of someone falsely yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater as an example of prohibited speech.

Gitlow v. New York (1925). This case created the “Bad Tendency Doctrine,” which held that speech could be restricted even if it only has a tendency to lead to illegal action. Though this element of the decision was quite restrictive, Gitlow also selectively incorporated freedom of speech to state governments.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969). Students in an Iowa school were suspended for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam war. The court ruled that this suspension was unconstitutional, and that public school students do not “shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door.”

Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986). This case gave public school officials the authority to suspend students for speech considered to be lewd or indecent.

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988). In this much-publicized case, the court held that intentional infliction of emotional distress was permissible First Amendment speech—so long as such speech was about a public figure and could not reasonably be construed to state actual facts about its subject. In other words, parody is not an actionable offense.

Texas v. Johnson (1989). Johnson established that burning the American flag is an example of permissible free speech, and struck down numerous anti-flag burning laws.

Morse v. Frederick (2007). This case was known as the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case, in which the Supreme Court limited students’ free speech rights. The justices ruled that Frederick’s free speech rights were not violated by his suspension over what the majority’s written opinion called a “sophomoric” banner.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010). The case established that corporations have a First Amendment right to expressly support political candidates for Congress and the White House.

Freedom of the Press

On occasion the government has tried to control the press, usually claiming national security interests. This occurred during the 1990 Persian Gulf War, when the Pentagon limited media access to the war zone and censored outgoing news reports. The media objected to these limitations. Such conflicts usually end up in the courts, where judges are forced to weigh conflicting national interests: the need to be informed versus security concerns.

An even more contentious issue involves the media’s responsibility to reveal the sources of their information. The Supreme Court has ruled that reporters are not exempt from testifying in court cases and that they can be asked to name their sources. Reporters who refuse to do so, as many have, can be jailed. A number of states have enacted shield laws to protect reporters in state cases, but in other states and in federal cases reporters have no such protection.

As mentioned above, libel and obscenity are not protected by the First Amendment. In the case of Miller v. California (1973), the court established a three-part obscenity test.

Important Cases

Near v. Minnesota (1931). Near established that state injunctions to prevent publication violate the free press provision of the First Amendment and are unconstitutional. This case is important in that it selectively incorporates freedom of the press and prevents prior restraint.

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964). If a newspaper prints an article that turns out to be false but that the newspaper thought was true at the time of publication, has the newspaper committed libel? This case said no.

New York Times v. U.S. (1971). When Defense Department employee Daniel Ellsburg leaked some confidential files indicating that the war in Vietnam was going poorly, the government sought to prevent the publication of these “Pentagon Papers” by The New York Times. In this case, the court held that executive efforts to prevent the publication violated the First Amendment.

Hazelwood School v. Kuhlmeier (1988). In Hazelwood, the court held that school officials have sweeping authority to regulate free speech in student-run newspapers.

Freedom of Assembly and Association

The First Amendment protects the right of people to assemble peacefully. That right does not extend to violent groups or to demonstrations that would incite violence. Furthermore, the government may place reasonable restrictions on crowd gatherings, provided such restrictions are applied equally to all groups. Demonstrators have no constitutional right, for example, to march on and thereby close down a highway. They may not block the doorways of buildings. In short, crowd gatherings must not unnecessarily disrupt day-to-day life. That is why groups must apply for licenses to hold a parade or street fair.

The court has also ruled that the combined rights of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly imply a freedom of association. This means that the government may not restrict the number or type of groups or organizations people belong to, provided those groups do not threaten national security.

Important Cases

Thornhill v. Alabama (1940). Labor unions have been controversial since the dawn of the industrial revolution—did their strikes constitute a form of unlawful assembly? In Thornhill, the court held that strikes by unions were not unlawful.

Cox v. New Hampshire (1941). When a group of Jehovah’s Witnesses were arrested for marching in New Hampshire without a permit, they claimed that permits themselves were an unconstitutional abridgment of their First Amendment freedoms. In Cox, the court held that cities and towns could legitimately require parade permits in the interest of public order.

Lloyd Corporation v. Tanner (1972). This case allowed the owners of a shopping mall to throw out people protesting the Vietnam War. The key element here is that malls are private spaces, not public. As a result, protesters have substantially fewer assembly rights in malls and other private establishments.

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000). Private organizations’ First Amendment right of expressive association allows them to choose their own membership and expel members based on their sexual orientation even if such discrimination would otherwise be prohibited by anti-discrimination legislation designed to protect minorities in public accommodations. As a result of this case, the Boy Scouts of America were allowed to expel any member who was discovered to be homosexual.

Freedom of Religion

The Constitution guarantees the right to the free exercise of religion, meaning that the government may not prevent individuals from practicing their faiths. This right is not absolute, however. Human sacrifice, to give an extreme example, is not allowed. The courts have ruled that polygamy is not protected by the Constitution, nor is the denial of medical treatment to a child, regardless of individual religious beliefs. However, the court has ruled that Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot be required to salute the American flag and that Amish children may stop attending school after the eighth grade. In all cases, the court weighs individual rights to free religious exercise against society’s needs.

The Constitution also prevents the government from establishing a state religion (the establishment clause). The establishment clause has been used to prevent school prayer, government-sponsored displays of the Christmas nativity, and state bans on the teaching of evolution (because such bans were religiously motivated). However, the wall between church and state is not rock solid. The court has allowed government subsidies to provide some aspects of parochial education (such as lunches, textbooks, and buses). It has also allowed for tax credits for non-public school costs. In deciding whether a law violates the establishment clause, the court uses a three-part test, called the Lemon test after the case Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971).

Important Cases

Engel v. Vitale (1962). This landmark case prohibited state-sponsored recitation of prayer in public schools.

Abington School Dist. v. Schempp (1963). Given the court’s ruling in Engel, it’s not surprising that in Abington they decided that the establishment clause of the First Amendment forbids state-mandated reading of the Bible, or recitation of the Lord’s Prayer in public schools.

Epperson v. Arkansas (1968). In line with the establishment clause, Epperson prohibited states from banning the teaching of evolution in public schools.

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). This case dealt with state laws intending to give money to religious schools or causes. The court held that in order to be consistent with the establishment clause, the money had to meet three qualifications: (1) it must have a legitimate secular purpose, (2) it must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion, and (3) it must not result in an excessive entanglement of government and religion. These qualifications are known as the “Lemon test.”

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972). This case dealt with the Amish community’s desire to pull their children from public school before the age of 16 so that they could help with farm and domestic work. The court sided with the Amish and held that parents may remove children from public school for religious reasons.

Employment Division v. Smith (1990). This case determined that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote, even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual. In short, states may accommodate otherwise illegal acts done in pursuit of religious beliefs, but they are not required to do so.

THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

Rights granted to the accused are a fundamental protection against governmental abuse of power. Many of the these rights are found in the Fifth Amendment. Without them, the government could imprison its political opponents without trial or could guarantee conviction through numerous unfair prosecutorial tactics. However, these rights are also controversial. Anti-crime organizations and politicians frequently decry these protections when arguing that it is too difficult to capture, try, and imprison criminals. These accusations have grown louder and more frequent since the 1960s, when the Warren Court (the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren) greatly expanded those protections that are granted to criminal defendants.

Important Cases

Weeks v. United States (1914). Though the Constitution is unequivocal when it forbids unlawful search and seizure, such ill-gotten evidence was still commonly used to prosecute defendants. Weeks established the exclusionary rule, which held that illegally obtained evidence could not be used in federal court.

Powell v. Alabama (1932). The Constitution is clear in the Sixth Amendment when it guarantees all those accused of a federal crime the right to have a lawyer. But what about those accused of state crimes? Should they get a lawyer if they can’t afford one? In Powell, the court ruled that state governments must provide counsel in cases involving the death penalty to those who can’t afford it.

Betts v. Brady (1942). The Betts case established that state governments did not have to provide lawyers to indigent defendants in capital cases.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961). By 1961, the exclusionary rule meant that any unlawfully gathered evidence could not be introduced in federal court, but such evidence was introduced all the time in state courts. The Mapp case extended the exclusionary rule to the states, increasing the protections for defendents.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963). This was a powerful repudiation of Betts v. Brady. Here, the Warren court strongly holds that all state governments must provide an attorney in all cases for those who can’t afford one.

Escobedo v. Illinois (1964). Escobedo is another important Warren Court decision. Here, the court held that any defendant who asked for a lawyer had to have one granted to him—or any confession garnered after that point would be inadmissible in court.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966). Miranda is the most dramatic and well-known of the Warren Court decisions. The court found that all defendants must be informed of all their legal rights before they are arrested. It is thanks to Miranda that we all know the phrase “You have the right to remain silent…” and you can’t get through an episode of Law & Order without hearing it at least once.

Protection from Self-Incrimination

The Constitution protects individuals from self-incrimination. A defendant cannot be forced to testify at trial, and the jury is not supposed to infer guilt when a defendant chooses to not testify. Furthermore, a defendant must be notified of his or her right to remain silent, his or her right to a lawyer, and his or her protection against self-incrimination at the time of his arrest.

For years, the courts rarely admitted into evidence confessions from arrestees who had not been properly “Mirandized.” In recent years, however, the Supreme Court has defined some situations in which such confessions are admissible. In 1991, the court ruled that a coerced confession does not automatically invalidate a conviction. Rather, an appeals court may consider all evidence entered at trial. If the court decides that a conviction was probable even without the confession, it may let the guilty verdict stand.

Protection from Unreasonable Search and Seizure

The Fourth Amendment limits the power of the government to search for evidence of criminal activity. When the police want to search private property, in most circumstances they must first go before a judge and justify the search. If the judge is convinced that the search is likely to uncover evidence of illegality—called probable cause—the judge issues a search warrant, which limits where the police may search and what they may take as evidence. Evidence found by police who disregard this procedure may not be admitted as evidence in trial. This is called the exclusionary rule. The Supreme Court applied the exclusionary rule to federal trials in 1911.

As with all constitutional rights, however, there are exceptions to this rule. In 1984, the Supreme Court established the objective good faith exception, which allows for convictions in cases in which a search was not technically legal (either because it violated the warrant or because the warrant itself was faulty) but was conducted under the assumption that it was legal. The court has also determined that illegally seized evidence that would eventually have been found legally is also admissible in court. This principle is known as the inevitable discovery rule.

There are also circumstances under which the police may conduct a search without a warrant. Police may conduct an immediate search following a legal arrest, for example. Police may also conduct an immediate search of private property if the owner consents to that search. Evidence found in plain view may be seized immediately; if, for example, a person is growing marijuana on his or her front lawn, the police may seize that evidence without first acquiring a search warrant. Finally, police may conduct an immediate search if they have probable cause to believe they will find evidence of criminal activity, especially when there are exigent circumstances, or reason to believe evidence would disappear by the time they received a warrant and returned. The police would later have to demonstrate that they had probable cause in court.

Rights to an Attorney and a Speedy Trial

The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the right to an attorney in federal cases. In 1932, the Supreme Court used the Fourteenth Amendment to incorporate this right in capital cases (“the Scottsboro boys” case). In the 1963 case Gideon v. Wainwright, the court ruled that all criminal defendants in state courts were entitled to legal counsel. In both cases, the court ruled that the state must provide a lawyer to defendants too poor to hire a lawyer. The court has since extended this protection to misdemeanor cases, provided those cases could result in jail time for the defendant. However, the court has held that states are not required to provide a lawyer to litigants in civil cases.

The Sixth Amendment also guarantees defendants the right to a speedy trial. The courts have become so overburdened with cases that the Supreme Court recently imposed a 100-day limit between the time of arrest and the start of a trial. The limit has had little practical effect, however, because both prosecutors and defense attorneys can request an extension to prepare their cases. Courts have generally granted such extensions. As a result, it is not unusual for a defendant to wait a year or more between his or her arrest date and a trial.

Protection from Excessive Bail and “Cruel and Unusual Punishment”

The Eighth Amendment states that “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The government is not required, however, to offer bail to all defendants. In 1984, Congress passed the Bail Reform Act to allow federal judges to deny bail to defendants considered either dangerous or likely to flee the country. The protection from excessive bail has not been incorporated, and states are therefore free to set bail as high as state law permits.

The cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Constitution lies at the heart of the debate over the death penalty. The court has placed limits on when the death penalty can be applied; however, it has upheld the constitutionality of the death penalty when properly applied. Critics point to statistics that those convicted of killing African Americans are far less likely to receive the death penalty than those convicted of killing Caucasians. The court has rejected this argument. In recent years, the court has moved to make it easier for states to carry out the death penalty by limiting the number and nature of appeals allowed by convicted murderers on death row. Recently too, however, some states have enacted moratoriums on the death penalty for reasons including methodology problems, flawed trial processes, and ethical objections.

Important Cases

Furman v. Georgia (1972). Here, the court looked at the patchwork quilt of nationwide capital punishment decisions and found that its imposition was often racist and arbitrary. In Furman, the Court ordered a halt to all death penalty punishments in the nation until a less arbitrary method of sentencing was found.

Woodson v. North Carolina (1976). North Carolina tried to satisfy the Court’s requirement that the imposition of the death penalty not be arbitrary—so they made it a mandatory punishment for certain crimes. The Court rejected this approach and ruled mandatory death penalty sentences as unconstitutional.

Gregg v. Georgia (1976). Georgia was finally able to convince the Court that it had come up with a careful and fair system for trying capital offenses. As a result, the Court ruled that under adequate guidelines the death penalty did not, in fact, constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Thus Gregg allowed the resumption of the death penalty in America.

Atkins v. Virginia (2002). Here, the United States lined up with most other nations in the world by forbidding the execution of defendants who are mentally handicapped.

Roper v. Simmons (2005). Building on Atkins, the Court declared the death penalty unconstitutional for defendants whose crimes were committed as minors, even if they were charged as adults.

THE RIGHT OF ALL AMERICANS TO PRIVACY

The right to privacy is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. However, in the 1965 Supreme Court case of Griswold v. Connecticut, the Court ruled that the Bill of Rights contained an implied right to privacy. The Court ruled that the combination of the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments added up to a guarantee of privacy. The Griswold case concerned a state law banning the use of contraception; the Supreme Court decision overturned that law. Griswold also laid the foundation for the landmark Roe v. Wade case of 1973, which legalized abortion.

Important Casess

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). The Constitution never explicitly grants Americans a right to privacy, but the court discovers one in this landmark and controversial case. Writing for the majority, Justice William O. Douglas noted that amendments like the Third, Fourth, and Ninth all cast “penumbras and emanations” which showed that the Founders really had intended for a right to privacy all along.

Roe v. Wade (1973). Though Roe is one of the most famous court cases in American history, legally it is really a subset of the Griswold decision. The court had already done the heavy lifting of discovering the right to privacy in the Constitution. As a result, in Roe they established national abortion guidelines by extending the inferred right of privacy from Griswold.

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989). This case did not overturn Roe v. Wade, but it did give states more power to regulate abortion.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). A Pennsylvania law that would have required a woman to notify her husband before getting an abortion was thrown out, but laws calling for parental consent and the imposition of a 24-hour waiting period were upheld. All in all, the message was that states can regulate abortion but not with regulations that impose an “undue burden” upon women.

Lawrence v. Texas (2003). With this ruling, the Supreme Court struck down a sodomy law that had criminalized homosexual sex in Texas. The court had previously addressed the same issue in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), where it did not find constitutional protection of sexual privacy. Lawrence explicitly overruled Bowers saying that consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected under the Fourteenth Amendment.

CIVIL RIGHTS

The AP U.S. Government and Politics Exam occasionally tests your knowledge of key civil rights legislation. Below is what you need to know about civil rights for the test.

Civil Rights and African Americans

Prior to the Civil War, most of the African American population in the United States consisted of slaves who were denied virtually any legal rights whatsoever. Free blacks were also denied basic civil rights such as the right to vote and the right to equal protection under the law. Because the Supreme Court had ruled in 1833 that the Bill of Rights applied to the federal government only, states were free to enact discriminatory and segregationist laws. Many did so to ensure the oppression of African Americans.

The Civil War began the long, slow development toward equality of the races before the law. Here is a list of key events in that process.

Important Cases

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). This case famously allowed southern states to twist the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by allowing “separate but equal” facilities based on race.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954). In this landmark case, a unanimous court led by newly appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren ruled the doctrine of “separate but equal” to be unconstitutional.

Brown v. Board II (1955). One year later, the Warren Court saw that segregation was still ubiquitous. So in Brown II, they ordered schools to desegregate “with all due and deliberate speed.”

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964). Did the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 mandate that places of public accommodation are prohibited from discrimination against African Americans? Yes, said the court.

Katzenbach v. McClung (1964). The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited discrimination in public places, but what about in private businesses? The Katzenbach case established that the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce extends to state discrimination statutes. This ruling made the Civil Rights Act of 1964 apply to virtually all businesses.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978). Alan Bakke was a white applicant who was rejected from medical school because of an affirmative action plan to boost the number of black students. The court ruled that Bakke had been unfairly excluded and that quotas requiring a certain percentage of minorities violated the Fourteenth Amendment. But the court also held that race-based affirmative action was permissible so long as it was in the service of creating greater diversity.

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Gratz v. Bollinger (2003). These cases involved the University of Michigan Law School and the University of Michigan undergraduate school. Both used affirmative action, but the undergraduate school did so by giving minority applicants a large boost in the score used by officers deciding on admission. The court threw out the undergraduate system of selection, but generally upheld Bakke.

Although the number of major new civil rights laws has decreased in the past decades, the fight for civil rights for African Americans and other minority groups is far from over. Although legally enforced segregation of public facilities no longer exists, racial segregation remains a national concern. Most public school systems remain essentially segregated because the neighborhoods that feed them are segregated. The impact of this de facto segregation (as opposed to de jure segregation, which is segregation by law) is increased by the disparity in average incomes among whites and blacks: Because many local school systems are supported by property taxes, lower-income neighborhoods end up with poorly funded, overcrowded schools.

Furthermore, discrimination continues in employment, housing, and higher education. Because such discrimination is subtler—few employers tell job applicants, “I won’t hire you because you’re black”—it is more difficult to enforce antidiscrimination laws and punish offenders in these areas. Affirmative action programs, which seek to create special employment opportunities for minorities, women, and other victims of discrimination, address these questions but have become increasingly controversial and politically unpopular in recent years. In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), the Supreme Court ruled that affirmative action programs could not use quotas to meet civil rights goals; however, it did say that gender and race could be considered among other factors by schools and businesses practicing affirmative action. Opponents of affirmative action programs argue that such programs penalize whites and thus constitute reverse discrimination, which is illegal under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Civil Rights and Women

The granting of equal rights for women in the United States is a relatively recent phenomenon. Women were not given the right to vote in all 50 states until 1920. Employment discrimination based on gender was not outlawed until 1964. As recently as the early 1990s, women were not guaranteed 12 weeks of unpaid leave from work after giving birth (this finally changed with the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, which gives this right to both mothers and fathers). Those who fought for the failed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution (1972–1982) continue to argue that women do not yet have a full guarantee of equality under the law from the federal government.

Here is a list of events of the women’s rights movement that the AP U.S. Government and Politics Exam sometimes tests.

As women have entered the workplace in greater numbers, the issue of sexual harassment at work has gained prominence. Sexual harassment is defined as any sexist or sexual behavior—physical or verbal—that creates a hostile work environment. It can range from suggestive remarks to attempts to coerce sex from a subordinate. Like other forms of discrimination, it is difficult to prove legally. Efforts to combat it range from public-awareness programs to sensitivity training to increased legal penalties for harassers.

Abortion has remained a controversial and prominent political issue since the Supreme Court affirmed a woman’s right to an abortion in Roe v. Wade (1973). In that case, the court ruled that a woman’s right to an abortion could not be limited during the first three months of pregnancy (increased limits are allowed as the development of the fetus progresses). Opponents of abortion, who call themselves pro-life, argue that the procedure is murder and should be criminalized. Those who support women’s right to abortions (dubbed the pro-choice movement) argue that women should ultimately decide the ambiguous moral issues for themselves. Because of the very personal, life-and-death issues involved in the abortion debate, advocates on both sides of the issue feel very strongly, and as a result abortion is a major political issue. The decision in Roe v. Wade has influenced every election and Supreme Court nomination since; as a result of this case, candidates’ opinions about the abortion issue are often the first thing the public learns about them. In most European countries, abortion rights were established legislatively (by laws). Many legal scholars believe that the judicial solution (left up to the courts) applied by the United States has opened the door to ideologues.

Other Major Civil Rights Advances

Other Important Cases

Federalism

Marbury v. Madison (1803). This most important of all decisions established judicial review—the Supreme Court’s power to strike down acts of United States Congress which conflict with the Constitution.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). This case is important because it established a precedent of federal courts using judicial review to strike down congressional legislation.

Gitlow v. New York (1925). Gitlow began the process of selective incorporation—the practice of transferring protections that Americans had from the federal government and applying them to state governments.

South Dakota v. Dole (1987). The federal government mandated the 21-year-old drinking age by threatening to withhold federal highway funds from all states that did not comply. In this case, such withholding was held to be constitutional.

United States v. Lopez (1995). Congress had used the commerce clause to aggressively create legislation governing what seemed to be purely local matters. Here, the court blocks them a bit by holding that the commerce clause of the Constitution does not give Congress the power to regulate guns near state-operated schools.

Executive Power

Korematsu v. United States (1944). This case was not the Supreme Court’s finest hour, as it ruled that American citizens of Japanese descent could be interned and deprived of basic constitutional rights due to executive order.

United States v. Nixon (1974). In this case, Congress claimed that there was no such thing as executive privilege as it went after tapes that President Nixon had made of all his conversations in the Oval Office. The court disagreed and allowed for executive privilege. But they forbid its usage in criminal cases, which meant that Nixon ultimately did have to turn over the tapes.

Clinton v. New York (1998). This case banned the presidential use of a line-item veto as a violation of legislative powers.

KEY TERMS

Summary

Chapter 10 Drill

See Chapter 11 for answers and explanations.

REFLECT

Respond to the following questions:

Chapter 11

Chapter Drills: Answers and Explanations

CHAPTER 4 DRILL

CHAPTER 5 DRILL

CHAPTER 6 DRILL

CHAPTER 7 DRILL

CHAPTER 8 DRILL

CHAPTER 9 DRILL

CHAPTER 10 DRILL

Glossary

adversarial systemA system of law in which the court is seen as a neutral area where disputants can argue the merits of their cases.

affirmative actionGovernment-mandated programs that seek to create special employment opportunities for African Americans, women, and other victims of past discrimination.

amendmentAddition to the Constitution. Amendments require approval by two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-quarters of the states. The first ten amendments make up the Bill of Rights.

amicus curiae briefs“Friend of the court” briefs that qualified individuals or organizations file in lawsuits to which they are not a party, so the judge may consider their advice in respect to matters of law that directly affect the cases in question.

appellate jurisdictionTerm used to describe courts whose role is to hear appeals from lower courts.

Articles of ConfederationThe United States’ first constitution. The government formed by the Articles of Confederation lasted from 1781 (the year before the end of the Revolutionary War) to 1789. The government under the Articles proved inadequate because it did not have the power to collect taxes from the states, nor could it regulate foreign trade to generate revenue from import and export tariffs.

bicameral legislatureConsisting of two legislative houses. The United States has a bicameral legislature; its two houses are the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Bill of RightsFirst ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The Bill of Rights guarantees personal liberties and limits the powers of the government.

blanket primaryPrimary election in which voters may select a candidate from any party for each office. Blanket primaries use the same procedure as general elections.

block grantsFederal money given to states with only general guidelines for its use. The states have the authority to decide how the money will be spent.

bread-and-butter issuesThose political issues that are specifically directed at the daily concerns of most working-class Americans, such as job security, tax rates, wages, and employee benefits.

broad constructionismBelief that the Constitution should be interpreted loosely when concerning the restrictions it places on federal power. Broad constructionists emphasize the importance of the elastic clause, which allows Congress to pass laws “necessary and proper” to the performance of its duties.

Brown v. Board of EducationThe 1954 case in which the Supreme Court overturned the “separate but equal” standard as it applied to education. In a 9-to-0 decision, the court ruled that “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” “Separate but equal” had been the law of the land since the court had approved it in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896).

budget deficitCondition that arises when federal expenditures exceed revenues; in other words, when the government spends more money than it takes in.

budget resolutionSet of budget guidelines that must pass both houses of Congress in identical form by April 15. The budget resolution guides government spending for the following fiscal year.

categorical grantsFederal aid given to states with strings attached. To receive the money, the states must agree to adhere to federally mandated guidelines for spending it.

caucusMeeting of local party members for the purpose of choosing delegates to a national party convention. The term also refers to a meeting of the Democratic members of the House of Representatives.

censusThe process, mandated by the Constitution, by which the population of the United States is officially counted every ten years. Census data is then used to help distribute federal money and to reapportion congressional districts.

checks and balancesThe system that prevents any branch of government from becoming too powerful by requiring the approval of more than one branch for all important acts.

civil courtCourt in which lawsuits are heard. In contrast, criminal cases are heard in criminal court.

civil disobedienceNonviolent civil disobedience requires activists to protest peacefully against laws they believe unjust and to be willing to accept arrest as a means of demonstrating the justice of their cause. The notion was popularized by nineteenth-century American writer Henry David Thoreau and was practiced by Martin Luther King, Jr.

civil libertiesThose protections against government power embodied in the Bill of Rights and similar legislation. Civil liberties include the right to free speech, free exercise of religion, and right to a fair trial.

civil rightsThose protections against discrimination by the government and individuals. Civil rights are intended to prevent discrimination based on race, religion, gender, ethnicity, physical handicap, or sexual orientation.

Civil Rights Act of 1964Federal law that made segregation illegal in most public places, increased penalties and sentences for those convicted of discrimination in employment, and withheld federal aid from schools that discriminated on the basis of race or gender.

civil service systemMethod of hiring federal employees based on merit rather than on political beliefs or allegiances. This system replaced the spoils system in the United States.

class action suitA lawsuit filed on behalf of a group of people, and whose result affects that group of people as a whole. Interest groups such as the NAACP often use these as a means of asserting their influence over policy decisions.

clear and present danger testInterpretation by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes regarding limits on free speech if it presents clear and present danger to the public or leads to illegal actions; for example, one cannot shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater.

closed primaryPrimary election in which voting is restricted to registered members of a political party.

clotureA motion in the Senate to end debate, often used in the event of a filibuster. A cloture vote requires a three-fifths majority of the Senate.

coalitionA combination of groups of people who work together to achieve a political goal. The coalition on which the Democratic Party rests, for example, is made up of Northern urban dwellers, Jews, African Americans, and labor unions. Coalitions also form among legislators who work together to advance or defeat a particular bill.

commander in chiefThe president’s role as leader of all United States military forces. This is one of the executive powers authorized in the Constitution.

concurrent powersConstitutional powers shared by the federal and state governments.

conference committeeCongressional committee that includes representatives of both houses of Congress. Their purpose is to settle differences between the House and Senate versions of bills that have been passed by their respective legislatures.

Congressional Budget OfficeCongressional agency of budget experts who assess the feasibility of the president’s plan and who help create Congress’s version of the federal budget.

congressional districtThe geographically defined group of people on whose behalf a representative acts in the House of Representatives. Each state is divided into congressional districts of equal population, with larger states having more districts and representatives than small states. Congressional districts are reapportioned every ten years according to new census data.

conservativeA political ideology that tends to favor defense spending and school prayer and to disapprove of social programs, abortion, affirmative action, and a large, active government. Conservatives are generally affiliated with the Republican party.

constitutional conventionAn as-of-yet untried method by which the Constitution may be amended. To call a constitutional convention, two-thirds of all state legislatures must petition the federal government; not to be confused with the Constitutional Convention when the Constitution was written.

cooperative federalismPreeminent form of U.S. federalism since the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment initiated the long demise of dual federalism by providing the national government the means to enforce the rights of citizens against state infringement. The Progressive Era, the New Deal, and the Great Society all increased federal involvement in state government. The result is a system called cooperative federalism in which the national and state governments share many powers.

criminal courtCourt in which criminal trials are heard. In contrast, lawsuits are heard in civil court.

dealignmentA recent trend in which voters act increasingly independent of a party affiliation. This is partially the result of television because candidates can appeal directly to the electorate without relying on their party. One consequence is split-ticket voting, which leads to a divided government in which neither party controls both the executive and the legislative branch.

delegated powersConstitutional powers granted solely to the federal government.

direct democracyForm of government in which all enfranchised citizens vote on all matters of government. In contrast, in a representative democracy, voters choose representatives to vote for them on most government issues.

divided governmentA government in which the presidency is controlled by one party and Congress is controlled by the other. This has become a common occurrence in recent decades as voters have begun to act more independent of parties and increasingly vote split tickets.

double jeopardyThe act of trying an individual a second time after he has been acquitted on the same charges. Double jeopardy is prohibited by the Constitution.

dual federalismForm of U.S. federalism during the nation’s early history. During this period, the federal and state governments remained separate and independent. What little contact most Americans had with government occurred on the state level, as the national government concerned itself primarily with international trade, construction of roads, harbors, and railways, and the distribution of public land in the West.

due processEstablished legal procedures for the arrest and trial of an accused criminal.

earmarkA provision within legislation that appropriates money to a specific project, usually to benefit a small number of individuals or a region.

elastic clauseThe section of the Constitution that allows Congress to pass laws “necessary and proper” to the performance of its duties. It is called the elastic clause because it allows Congress to stretch its powers beyond those that are specifically granted to it (enumerated) by the Constitution.

electoral collegeConstitutionally established body created for the sole purpose of choosing the president and vice president. During general elections, voters choose a presidential ticket. The winner in each state usually receives all of that state’s electoral votes in the electoral college. A majority of electoral votes is required for victory in the electoral college; if such a majority cannot be reached, the election result is determined by the House of Representatives.

eminent domainThe power of the government to take away property for public use as long as there is just compensation for property taken.

entitlement programsSocial insurance programs that allocate federal funds to all people who meet the conditions of the program. Social Security is the largest and most expensive entitlement program. Because they are a form of mandatory spending, it is incredibly difficult to cut funds to entitlement programs during the budgetary process.

Equal Rights AmendmentFailed constitutional amendment that would have guaranteed equal protection under the law for women (1970s).