The Constitution
Evaluate the view that the constitutional system of checks and balances is an
obstacle to effective government
• Checks and balances are an obstacle to effective government because it is too easy
for Congress to block or reject the President’s mandated agenda.
o Eg. Clinton’s main policy that he aimed to pass during his Presidency was
health care reforms. He states ‘if I do not pass healthcare reforms, I will regret
ever running for President’. His legislation was not even voted on by
Congress, as they blocked it (a check on the President’s power).
o This shows that checks can lead to ineffective government as Congress can
block legislation that has a strong mandate.
• Counter: Congressional check of blocking legislation is crucial for preventing poorly
thought out laws. Therefore it does not prevent effective government, it prevents
ineffective government instead.
o Eg. Trumpcare 2017 was blocked as Trump couldn’t gain support from 3
Republican Senators, including Susan Collins of Maine. This is because they
were concerned about Trump’s replacement of Obamacare.
o This prevented legislation being passed that may have been detrimental for
American citizens, meaning the check prevented ineffective government.
• Conclusion: Checks and balances are not an obstacle to effective government
because they allow Congress to block legislation which would be negative for US
citizens.
• Checks and balances are an obstacle to effective government because the
President’s check on Congress (veto) means that legislation with broad support is not
passed.
o Eg. In 2020, Trump vetoed the Iran War Powers Regulation, which would
have limited the power of the President to wage war against Iran.
o This legislation, which in itself was a check on Presidential power, had broad
support as it was passed by Congress. The check means that one individual
can override this, leading to an ineffective government which has
concentrated power.
• Counter: The President is the head of state and has a mandate so their vetoes are
justified. They do not prevent effective government as Congress can override the
veto.
o Eg. 2016 Obama Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act.
o Shows the check actually leads to effective government as it ensures there is
even broader support for legislation (⅔ supermajority required to override
veto).
• Conclusion: Checks and balances are not an obstacle to effective government
because they ensure that legislation passed has support from both the executive and
legislative, meaning that laws passed will not be ineffective.
• Check of judicial review by the SC on the legislative leads to ineffective government
because it concentrates too much power in the hands of an unelected branch.
o Eg. SC declared the Defence of Marriage Act 1996 unconstitutional. Allowed
states to refuse to recognise same-sex marriage.
o Leads to ineffective government as it prevents the legislative branch
performing its main function: legislating. Especially controversial as they are
unelected and unaccountable, compared to Congress members, who have
mandate from people.
, • Counter: SC checks do not lead to ineffective government, rather they force
Congress to legislate within the rules of the Constitution. This arguably enhances the
effectiveness of government.
o Eg. The Defence of Marriage Act was an example of Congress breaching
human rights (the 14th amendment, equal protection clause).
o The check of judicial review forced Congress to be more effective as it
prevented them from harming the rights of US citizens.
• Conclusion: Checks and balances do not prevent effective government because they
stop Congress from breaching human rights, which would lead to an ineffective
government.
Evaluate the view that the amendment process is fit for purpose
• The amendment process is fit for purpose because the Founding Fathers created a
deliberately hard process.
o Eg. The original 13 US states were dominated by colonial rule of Britain.
Upon gaining independence, the FF drafted a constitution to protect the US
from this tyranny occurring again.
o The amendment process is therefore fit for purpose as it prevents the
President from vastly changing the Constitution, which would possibly create
a tyrannical rule.
• Counter: It is hard to amend outdated provisions and incorporate new ideas.
o Eg. Changing the electoral college would likely be beneficial as 5 Presidents
have won their elections whilst losing the popular vote, such as Trump and
Bush. This has not been changed as the constitution is too hard to amend.
o Shows the amendment process is not fit for purpose as it prevents the
constitution from evolving for the better.
• Conclusion: The amendment process is not fit for purpose as it prevents progression,
as society progresses. It is outdated to continue to abide by a Constitution which was
drafted in 1787, therefore it should be more easily changeable, which the
amendment process prevents.
• The amendment process is fit for purpose as it requires broad support, meaning only
well thought out amendments are enacted.
o Eg. ⅔ states must propose the amendment, ¾ of states must ratify.
o Shows that the amendment process prevents amendments which lack
widespread support. Fit for purpose as this prevents unpopular changes to
the constitution.
• Counter: Goes against majoritarian democracy. Small states have too much power.
o Eg. Flag protection got over 50% of the vote in Congress but fell short of ⅔.
o Modern democracy is majoritarian meaning the threshold for amendment is
too high, making the process not fit for purpose. Furthermore, 13 states can
block amendments. Eg. 13 states voted against Equal Rights Am, only 24%
population. Goes against democracy.
• Conclusion: The amendment process is not fit for purpose because the threshold for
change is too high, which contradicts modern majoritarian democracy.
• The amendment process is fit for purpose because it prevents mistakes occurring.
o Eg. Amendments must be well thought out to gain the support needed.
Repealing 2nd amendment is popular amongst liberals however only ⅕
Americans agree.
o Shows process is fit for purpose as it prevents amendments occurring which
would be a mistake or counter the views of US citizens.
, • Counter: Mistakes still happen.
o Eg. Prohibition of alcohol, 18th amendment. Failed as it was repealed by the
21st amendment.
o Shows the process is not fit for purpose as it fails to prevent bad
amendments, which is one of its main aims.
• Conclusion: The amendment process is not fit for purpose as it has previously failed
to achieve its main goal of preventing poorly thought out amendments.
Congress
Evaluate the view that the main factors affecting voting behaviour in Congress are the
divisions between the political parties
• Party unity votes are increasing in frequency.
o Eg. The Federal Information Systems Safeguard Act 2016. Established govt
operations concerning security of federal information systems. All except 2
Republicans voted yes, all except 4 Democrats voted no.
o Shows that voting behaviour is affected by the party one belongs to.
• Counter: Factions within the parties more accurately represent how representatives
will vote.
o Eg. The Freedom to Vote Bill 2022 was defeated. Majority leader Chuck
Schumer (Democrat) put forward legislation to alter the rules of a filibuster but
this was blocked by Blue-Dog Democrat Joe Manchin.
o Shows that party unity is not always relevant, the factions within parties often
disagree, meaning that voting behaviour is determined by divisions within the
parties rather than between them.
• Conclusion: Divisions between the parties is the main factor affecting voting
behaviour. Whilst the factions within parties are also divided, they often still vote in
the same way during Congressional votes.
Evaluate the view that the constitutional system of checks and balances is an
obstacle to effective government
• Checks and balances are an obstacle to effective government because it is too easy
for Congress to block or reject the President’s mandated agenda.
o Eg. Clinton’s main policy that he aimed to pass during his Presidency was
health care reforms. He states ‘if I do not pass healthcare reforms, I will regret
ever running for President’. His legislation was not even voted on by
Congress, as they blocked it (a check on the President’s power).
o This shows that checks can lead to ineffective government as Congress can
block legislation that has a strong mandate.
• Counter: Congressional check of blocking legislation is crucial for preventing poorly
thought out laws. Therefore it does not prevent effective government, it prevents
ineffective government instead.
o Eg. Trumpcare 2017 was blocked as Trump couldn’t gain support from 3
Republican Senators, including Susan Collins of Maine. This is because they
were concerned about Trump’s replacement of Obamacare.
o This prevented legislation being passed that may have been detrimental for
American citizens, meaning the check prevented ineffective government.
• Conclusion: Checks and balances are not an obstacle to effective government
because they allow Congress to block legislation which would be negative for US
citizens.
• Checks and balances are an obstacle to effective government because the
President’s check on Congress (veto) means that legislation with broad support is not
passed.
o Eg. In 2020, Trump vetoed the Iran War Powers Regulation, which would
have limited the power of the President to wage war against Iran.
o This legislation, which in itself was a check on Presidential power, had broad
support as it was passed by Congress. The check means that one individual
can override this, leading to an ineffective government which has
concentrated power.
• Counter: The President is the head of state and has a mandate so their vetoes are
justified. They do not prevent effective government as Congress can override the
veto.
o Eg. 2016 Obama Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act.
o Shows the check actually leads to effective government as it ensures there is
even broader support for legislation (⅔ supermajority required to override
veto).
• Conclusion: Checks and balances are not an obstacle to effective government
because they ensure that legislation passed has support from both the executive and
legislative, meaning that laws passed will not be ineffective.
• Check of judicial review by the SC on the legislative leads to ineffective government
because it concentrates too much power in the hands of an unelected branch.
o Eg. SC declared the Defence of Marriage Act 1996 unconstitutional. Allowed
states to refuse to recognise same-sex marriage.
o Leads to ineffective government as it prevents the legislative branch
performing its main function: legislating. Especially controversial as they are
unelected and unaccountable, compared to Congress members, who have
mandate from people.
, • Counter: SC checks do not lead to ineffective government, rather they force
Congress to legislate within the rules of the Constitution. This arguably enhances the
effectiveness of government.
o Eg. The Defence of Marriage Act was an example of Congress breaching
human rights (the 14th amendment, equal protection clause).
o The check of judicial review forced Congress to be more effective as it
prevented them from harming the rights of US citizens.
• Conclusion: Checks and balances do not prevent effective government because they
stop Congress from breaching human rights, which would lead to an ineffective
government.
Evaluate the view that the amendment process is fit for purpose
• The amendment process is fit for purpose because the Founding Fathers created a
deliberately hard process.
o Eg. The original 13 US states were dominated by colonial rule of Britain.
Upon gaining independence, the FF drafted a constitution to protect the US
from this tyranny occurring again.
o The amendment process is therefore fit for purpose as it prevents the
President from vastly changing the Constitution, which would possibly create
a tyrannical rule.
• Counter: It is hard to amend outdated provisions and incorporate new ideas.
o Eg. Changing the electoral college would likely be beneficial as 5 Presidents
have won their elections whilst losing the popular vote, such as Trump and
Bush. This has not been changed as the constitution is too hard to amend.
o Shows the amendment process is not fit for purpose as it prevents the
constitution from evolving for the better.
• Conclusion: The amendment process is not fit for purpose as it prevents progression,
as society progresses. It is outdated to continue to abide by a Constitution which was
drafted in 1787, therefore it should be more easily changeable, which the
amendment process prevents.
• The amendment process is fit for purpose as it requires broad support, meaning only
well thought out amendments are enacted.
o Eg. ⅔ states must propose the amendment, ¾ of states must ratify.
o Shows that the amendment process prevents amendments which lack
widespread support. Fit for purpose as this prevents unpopular changes to
the constitution.
• Counter: Goes against majoritarian democracy. Small states have too much power.
o Eg. Flag protection got over 50% of the vote in Congress but fell short of ⅔.
o Modern democracy is majoritarian meaning the threshold for amendment is
too high, making the process not fit for purpose. Furthermore, 13 states can
block amendments. Eg. 13 states voted against Equal Rights Am, only 24%
population. Goes against democracy.
• Conclusion: The amendment process is not fit for purpose because the threshold for
change is too high, which contradicts modern majoritarian democracy.
• The amendment process is fit for purpose because it prevents mistakes occurring.
o Eg. Amendments must be well thought out to gain the support needed.
Repealing 2nd amendment is popular amongst liberals however only ⅕
Americans agree.
o Shows process is fit for purpose as it prevents amendments occurring which
would be a mistake or counter the views of US citizens.
, • Counter: Mistakes still happen.
o Eg. Prohibition of alcohol, 18th amendment. Failed as it was repealed by the
21st amendment.
o Shows the process is not fit for purpose as it fails to prevent bad
amendments, which is one of its main aims.
• Conclusion: The amendment process is not fit for purpose as it has previously failed
to achieve its main goal of preventing poorly thought out amendments.
Congress
Evaluate the view that the main factors affecting voting behaviour in Congress are the
divisions between the political parties
• Party unity votes are increasing in frequency.
o Eg. The Federal Information Systems Safeguard Act 2016. Established govt
operations concerning security of federal information systems. All except 2
Republicans voted yes, all except 4 Democrats voted no.
o Shows that voting behaviour is affected by the party one belongs to.
• Counter: Factions within the parties more accurately represent how representatives
will vote.
o Eg. The Freedom to Vote Bill 2022 was defeated. Majority leader Chuck
Schumer (Democrat) put forward legislation to alter the rules of a filibuster but
this was blocked by Blue-Dog Democrat Joe Manchin.
o Shows that party unity is not always relevant, the factions within parties often
disagree, meaning that voting behaviour is determined by divisions within the
parties rather than between them.
• Conclusion: Divisions between the parties is the main factor affecting voting
behaviour. Whilst the factions within parties are also divided, they often still vote in
the same way during Congressional votes.
