Student Answers from Exam #1

30:001, Fall 2005

 

Short Essays:

 

Single Member Districts:

 

Example One:

 

Single member districts play an imperative role in our electoral process.  In single member districts, a winner take all result is yielded from elections.  This electoral approach is also known as first-past-the-post elections.  The United States is unique compared to the rest of the world in this aspect.  The majority of other advanced democracies maintain a proportional system.  In these elections, the populace votes for parties instead of individual candidates.  As a result, coalitions are easily formed within government, and positions in governmental offices are determined in accordance to proportional popular vote.  Specifically, if 100 seats were up for election, and the vote tally resulted in 70 percent for party A, 25 percent for Party B, and 5 percent for Party C, seats would be distributed based upon the percentage received from the popular vote.  Party A would be awarded 70 seats, Party B, 25 seats and Party C, 5 seats.  Proportional systems encourage multiple parties within the political realm.  In contrast, single member districts, such as those in the U.S., virtually result in a strong two party system- this is known as Duverger’s Law.  Further, single member districts are synonymous with plurality and relative majority, since an entire district is awarded to a candidate if he/she only secures a single vote more than his/her opponent.  These electoral systems create divisiveness in the political arena, whereas proportional plans encourage views of not the majority, but also the minority.

 

Example Two:

Single member districts are districts in which only one seat is available for political election. This is the system used in the U.S. and is one way in which we can see that institutions matter in a government. Single member districts are one of the causes for our two-party system as it provides for a winner take all type of election, leaving no "prize" to any loser. This creates little/no incentive to parties who are smaller/less popular and gives them a very small chance of surviving. Many feel this system is unfair and doesn’t represent the views of the people well. An alternative that is used in much of Western Europe is the proportional representation method in which a party who receives a certain percentage of votes receives that proportion of the seats being voted on. This system is said to provide more incentives to 3rd parties, usually creating a multi-party system and more competition.

Separate, but Equal:

 

Example One:

 

The term “separate but equal” comes from the Supreme Court care Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. In this ruling, the court stated that separating blacks from whites did not necessarily mean one was inferior to the other. Although the “separate” part of the ruling was certainly abided by, “equal” was not enforced. Blacks were subject to lesser facilities than whites for decades after this ruling. It wasn’t until the mid-1950s that this case was overturned in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. The court then decided that separate was inherently unequal, and schools, restaurants, and other public facilities slowly became integrated (at the discretion of the states). This ruling marked the beginning of the Civil Rights Era and was followed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited discrimination of blacks in theatres, hotels, and other public places and was a landmark decision in the struggle for equal rights in America. Shortly thereafter, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 mandated that voter discrimination was prohibited, and if a district was found doing this the federal government would take over the operation.

 

Supremacy Clause:

 

Example One:

 

Article 6 of the Constitution states that if the national government and state government were to disagree, the national government wins.  This is the supremacy clause.  It was first used in McCulloch v Maryland and again in the Gibbons case.  In McCulloch, the national government set up a US Bank using the elastic clause and the implied powers.  In part, this is what McCulloch also dealt with, the right of the government to create such an establishment.  However, the supremacy clause comes in when debating the issue if Maryland had the right to tax the bank.  The courts decided no based on the supremacy clause.  In Gibbon’s the courts declared it unconstitutional for the state of New York to offer a monopoly to a company for trade between New York and New Jersey.  With the supremacy clause the courts said that the power belonged to the national government because of their power to regulate interstate trade.  The supremacy clause was also very controversial when establishing the constitution.  Anti-federalists believed that with the supremacy clause and the implied powers the federal government would be too powerful.  Federalists believed that we needed a stronger government because of what happened under the Articles of Confederation.

 

Example Two:

 

The Supremacy Clause in Article VI states that the "law of the United States....shall be the supreme law of the land." It greatly favored the national government over the states. It determined that when federal and state laws conflict, federal law overrides that of the states. One court case that used the supremacy clause in a ruling was McCulloch v. Maryland. One of the questions posed in this case was whether the state of Maryland had the power to tax the Baltimore branch of the U.S. bank because it was a national agency. Chief Justice John Marshall used the supremacy clause to state that the national government has the ultimate say. This clause also relates to pre-emption in that state law could be invalidated by national law. This clause preserved a strong national government with the ultimate say on laws.

 

Barron v. Baltimore:

 

Example One:

 

The Supreme Court case that raised the question if the Bill of Rights was included in State Constitutions. Barron claimed that the city of Baltimore ruined his property, thus depriving him of his V Amendment rights. Marshall ruled that because each State had adopted their own Constitution, the Bill of Rights did not apply, establishing the concept of dual citizenship. With the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Bill of Rights and the freedoms guaranteed within it were granted to all citizens. The court did not have a landmark case until 1897, when they ruled that no citizen could be denied their right to property. This case overturned Barron. The nationalization of the Bill of Rights was a slow process involving many court cases. Mapp v Ohio, Gideon v Wainwright, Benton v Maryland, and Griswold v Connecticut. All of these cases expanded the citizens IV and V Amendment rights, then established the right to privacy.

 

Example Two:

 

Barron v. Baltimore was an 1833 Supreme Court case involving the issue of whether or not the Bill of Rights applied to both the state and the national government or just the national government. The case was brought by Barron, who contended that his right to not have private property taken for public use without just compensation--guaranteed by the 5th Amendment--had been violated. The commercial value of his warf diminished, he argued, because sand had accumulated in the water near the warf from the city of Baltimore paving the streets.

 

Chief Justice Marshall disagreed with this argument. The 5th Amendment applies only to the national government, not the states. If the national government had violated his 5th Amendment rights, he would've won, according to Marshall's argument. Thus, Barron v. Baltimore established the concept of "dual citizenship"--that is, people are separately citizens of the national government and of the state government.

 

The impact of this was apparent by the fact that if the Bill of Rights only applied to the states, states could still practice slavery. What's more, as is apparent from the Palko case of 1937, individuals didn't have fundamental rights, such as double jeopardy, in all states.

 

Eventually, after the civil war, the 14th Amendment would be adopted. This Amendment, it seems obvious, nationalized the Bill of Rights. This interpretation, however, would not be the Supreme Court’s for another 100 years. In fact, just shortly after the enactment of the 14th Amendment, the Court considered the Slaughter House Cases. These were very similar to Barron, because people claimed their 5th Amendment rights had been violated. But there was an important difference: They claimed the 14th Amendment incorporated the 5th Amendment. The Court, however, rejected their arguments, thus limiting civil liberties.

 

Long Essays:

 

Topic #1

 

Example One:

 

Today, the people of Iraq are faced with the challenges of creating a Constitution.  With this task comes a big decision.  How democratic should the government be?  Upon what principles should the government be based?  These were the very questions the Framers of the American Constitution had to ask over 200 years ago.  They wanted a democracy, but they feared too much of it.  The result was a Constitution employing some democratic features like separation of powers and checks and balances and some more undemocratic features like a Senate not based on population and a single-member-district with plurality elections system.

            One of the first things the Framers agreed on was a federal system.  This is democratic, because it prevents one very strong governing body (the federal government) from taking too much control.  This is what happened in Iraq under the leadership of Saddam Hussein.  For the sake of democracy, the Framers were bound not to let this happen.  Under the federal system, the Framers created a system incorporating a separation of powers between three branches of government to prevent one from gaining too much control.  This also prevented the almost guarantee of majority domination (now party domination) of the entire government.  It, in other words, is more conducive to divided government, which represents a wider variety of people.  To further promote democracy within the federal structure, the Framers employed a system of checks and balances that would, so to speak, keep the three branches in line.  Now, for example, the legislative branch is checking the executive branch by having to confirm the President’s nomination of John Roberts to replace William Rehnquist as Supreme Court Chief Justice.  This promotes democracy, because it doesn’t let the President choose someone Congress doesn’t deem favorable to the American people.

            One of the undemocratic features of the Constitution, on the other hand, is a Senate not based on population.  This leads to over-representation of the smaller, less-populated states.  In How Democratic Is the American Constitution?, Robert Dahl points out that the ratio for over-representation of the smallest state to the largest state in Congress is 70:1, whereas it’s only 1.5:1 in Austria and 40:1 in Switzerland (the countries in his list of 22 with the least and greatest disproportion other than the U.S.).  Also, the system of single-member-districts with plurality elections may be considered another undemocratic feature.  In these systems, only the candidate who is first-past-the-post receives a seat.  There is no proportional representation, so if a candidate comes in a close second, there is no run-off, and neither he nor his party receives seats in the legislature.  This, also, is different from most of the countries Dahl discusses.  Only four of the 22 countries don’t use some form of proportional representation, and two of them (France and Germany) either employ run-offs or are leaning towards proportional representation.

            It would be very difficult for politicians to change any of these undemocratic features because of how the U.S. government is set up and the requirements the Constitution lays out for making changes.  Amendments, for example, are extremely difficult to pass.  There are four possible ways for them to be made, but only 27 have been made total (10 being the Bill of Rights, and prohibition and its repeal canceling each other out).  Also, enough support of such changes would be very difficult to render.  This can be traced all the way back to the need for the Great Compromise at the Constitutional Convention.  The small states didn’t want proportional representation, for example.  The same would be true today.  Also, many Americans value the traditions of the past and would have a hard time accepting radical changes.

            As Iraq continues to establish a government, it will probably look at American history, and perhaps it, too, will want to incorporate the democratic principles the American Framers set forth.  They also, though, will see some of the undemocratic features and might try to stay away from them.  Perhaps Iraq will become a confederacy more like the U.S. under the Articles of Confederation.  Then, even new challenges about democracy would have to be considered.

 

 

 

 

Example Two:

 

The constitution of the United States has democratic and undemocratic features.  It began have 7 specific undemocratic features including slavery, suffrage, the election of the president, the election of the senate, unequal representation, congressional power, and judicial review.  However, in the past 200 and some years four of these have been changed, leaving us with three undemocratic elements- Election of the president, unequal representation of the senate, and judicial review.

        Beginning with the election of the president- it is undemocratic in a couple of ways.  The people do not have all power (which is the definition of a democracy).  The president is elected indirectly from the Electoral College.  Therefore, this causes problems.  A candidate can win even though a majority of the US people voted against them.  A candidate can loose the election though elected by a majority- for example Al Gore in the 2000 election.  And the electorates in the Electoral College are undemocratic themselves because they do not represent each person equally.  They are determined by adding House + Senate seats and since each state has two senate seats, this makes it unequal (you will see why as I discuss this later).

Therefore, the election of the president is undemocratic because it is not done directly by the people.

        Unequal representation in the Senate is not democratic because each person has an unequal vote.  Since each state gets two seats regardless of population, each citizen is not treated the same- which is undemocratic.

            Judicial review is undemocratic because judges are not elected by the people and they serve life terms.  This would be okay if they were not using so much power.  Because of the Marbury vs. Madison case where judicial review was set up, the Supreme Court can say a law passed by Congress is unconstitutional.  Therefore, they are almost making laws themselves which is not their position.  They were not chosen by the people therefore this is undemocratic. 

            Some democratic features, however, are that everyone now has the right to vote due to suffrage.  In a democracy the power is invested in the people, therefore, a citizen’s voice lies in their vote.  In a democracy it is essential that everyone can vote so everyone is equal and can use their power.

            Another democratic feature is the House of Representatives in principle.  The House is set up by population.  Therefore, each citizen is represented equally in the government.  The power is really in the people.

            Lastly, our system of a representative democracy is democratic (excluding the Senate).  We are so big we elect representatives to represent us.  This is a system of democracy.  As with the House of Representatives this is fair and democratic to the people.

            In order to change the undemocratic features of the constitution politicians would have a couple of problems- they have no clear alternative, small states would not allow an amendment, and people have a bond with our symbolic structure.

            They do not have any clear alternative to propose for the three undemocratic elements.  For example, no one is in complete agreement on another better system than the Electoral College.  They would need a lot of support on a single issue in order to amend the constitution and they don’t have that.  We don’t know for sure if anything will be better or work better.

            Also, because of the Senate a small number of votes can clock an amendment.  Since you need a vote of 2/3, small states can easily block a proposal they don’t like (for example- getting rid of the Senate).

            Lastly,  the American people have a connection of pride to the constitution and its elements.  It is hard for them to admit its faults and to change them would be even harder.  Politicians would need a lot of support to change the undemocratic elements and it would be very hard for them to gather this!

 

Topic #2:

 

Example One:

 

A country that is considering Federalism needs to consider a lot of things.  First, they have to figure out, generally, where they want the most power to be.  Federalism is a division of power between the national and regional governments (acknowledging two sovereigns) and they have to figure out who would have the most power.  When the national govt. has all the power, it is called a Unitary govt. and when the regional govts. do, it is called a Confederacy.  As colonies, we lived under the Unitary govt. of England and our first constitution created a confederacy.  The Framers decided that a Unitary govt. gave too much power to one body and realized they didn't want that.  After trying the confederacy for a while they realized that the harsh rules restricting the national governments power made it very difficult to run the country.  After Shays's rebellion (National Govt finally saw the limits of its power & the necessity to have them), they decided to rewrite the constitution to make federalism.  We have gone through several stages in Federalism since then: States versus National rights, Dual Federalism, and Cooperative Federalism.  In States v. National Rights, the States & Nat. Govt were still trying to see which powers would go to each sovereign.  After the civil war, it was generally acknowledged that the national govt would need more power than the states initially gave (McCulloch v Maryland & Gibbons v. Ogden were very important cases during this time- they gave the national govt a lot of power).  During dual federalism, the difference in powers was very strict.  Some people describe it by talking about a layer cake.  There are two layers (The Nat. Govt & the state govts.) the layer of powers for the Nat. Govt was very distinct from the layer of powers for the state govt.  Dual Federalism ran fairly smoothly until the Great Depression. The states couldn't pull themselves out of it so both the National Govt & the state govts worked together to make it happen. This led to a period of Federalism called Cooperative Federalism.  People compare this more to a Marble Cake where the powers of the Nat Govt and State Govts aren't in layers but blend together.  This system works with Grants-in-Aid, Categorical Grants-in-Aid, and Unfunded Mandates.  Grants-in-Aid are when the National Govt gives money to the states to use basically any way they want.  The govt uses Categorical grants-in-aid to make decisions they don't have the power to make in the constitution.  When they wanted the speed limit to be 55 MPH across the nation, they said that the states had to change their laws or they would take away money for roads.  The states complied and the two sovereigns cooperated to make it happen.  There are also unfunded mandates which are when the Nat. Govt says the states have to do something but don't get money to do it.  This puts an increasing amount of economic burden on the states (many can't run in a budget-deficit).  In response to this, the Nat. Govt passed the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act (UMRA) which allows congressmen to make a formal motion to consider whether or not they want to continue with the unfunded mandate.  A government looking into using Federalism would have to look at all of this and decide what would work for their country.  It is a give and take system that never stops changing.  One con to Federalism is that, sometimes, it is unclear whether or not the Nat. or State govt. has the power (an example is Hurricane Katrina).  A country considering Federalism has to look at the cons and the pros to decide whether or not Federalism will work for them and, if it does, which method of Federalism they would prefer.  If they decide on Federalism, they need to make for ways to amend their constitution and to build checks & balances & separation of powers into the constitution.  With all of this, their new constitution will be solid enough to rely on and flexible enough to change with the times.

 

Example Two:

 

The issue of whether a federation should be passed relies on many things.  It relies on the history, culture and individual factors of a country.  As Dahl explained: there is no single best system and the U.S. is no better than other democracies.

 

In regards to U.S. experience with federalism, Dahl explains that the Founders were limited to only considering a federal system.  This was because a confederacy (loose association of the states) hadn't worked under the Articles and a unitary wouldn't have worked due to the fact that history matters and the states had already been established.  This left the idea of federalism and combining the ideas of unitary and confederacy.

 

In the U.S. we had to have the idea of federalism (separation of state and national powers) so the federal government wouldn't become too powerful, and so the states wouldn't be too independent.  This was the reason for the expressed and implied powers (toward federal side in Article I) and the reserved powers (towards states in 10th Amendment).

 

It started out in the U.S. where there was a lot of uncertainty between state and federal rights due to the Elastic Clause (implied powers) of Congress but there was a shift toward federal dominance during this time due to issues over the commerce clause in McCulloch v. Maryland and Gibbons v. Ogden which asserted federal dominance over the economy.  This lasted until about 1865 when dual federalism emerged.

 

Dual federalism is the idea that a distinct line can be drawn between state and federal rights (layer cake analogy) and this type of federalism lasted until about 1937.

 

Then there was cooperative federalism with the idea that responsibility is shared between national and state governments.  An example would be Medicaid. 

There is also an issue here with grant-in-aids which are funds given by Congress to state and local governments to be used for a specific purpose.

 

Since this time there has been a shift in the 1960s to regulated federalism where the government threatens to withhold grants if states don't conform to national standards.

 

The country debating should decide how things have gone in the past and go from there.  In the U.S., we have experienced an evolution of federalism due to states and national government competing for power.  However, this is a positive effect of federalism.  It pits the states and national government against each other so that one doesn't become too powerful.  Another positive effect of federalism is that it allows for diversity among the states and a unity on the national level.  This was the main problem with the Articles (no

unity) and federalism combats this.

 

The cons of federalism are as numerous as the pros.  One of the problems is who is to be held accountable, the states or the national government?  An example of this would be Hurricane Katrina and people not knowing who to blame.  Dahl also believes that a con could be that some states have more "power" than other states (big vs. small) due to equal representation in the Senate.  This means that although our federal system has these states, the power of people in states is not always equal.

 

All in all, this nation considering the system of federalism shouldn't just look at the U.S.  The U.S. doesn't have the "single best system" as Dahl explains and success can be achieved under a variety of systems.