Politics Essay Plans (US Politics)
(1) US Constitution (4 plans)
ETE to which the US Constitution is now outdated and ineffective
Criterion: outdated and effective = cannot protect rights and follow
democratic will of the people
Conclusion: the US constitution is outdated in its inability to adapt to social
changes and provision of excessive power to judges, but it at least strongly
preserves states’ rights in a liberal democracy
P1- federalism
OUTDATED AND INEFFECTIVE ADAPTABLE AND EFFECTIVE
-> Outdated provisions allow -> Protects key principles, like
undemocratic practices from 1787 (eg separation of powers, upholds
EC allowed Bush 2000 and Trump federalism and states’ rights,
2016 to win without popular vote) -> Proposals that undermine small
-> Over-represents small states in states (eg no EC) have failed since
Congress so they have more voting both federal and state government
power, only 13/50 small states have to must favour constitutional
oppose amendments to win amendments and Congress cannot
DOES NOT DEVOLVE POWERS use veto
EQUALLY PROTECTS THE RIGHTS OF SMALL
STATES
P2- adaptability
OUTDATED AND INEFFECTIVE ADAPTABLE AND EFFECTIVE
-> Deeply entrenched with social -> Does allow for change: can be
values of 1787 altered with broad support via formal
-> Modern consensus over gender amendment process (Slavery) or
equality but Equal Rights Amendment supreme court precedents (Roe)
failed as recently as 1982, and recent -> Process involves cross-party
attempts made little progress agreements to stop knee-jerks,
-> ERA would allow respect of federal marriage amendment in the
fundamental rights and more modern early 2000s would be outdated today
liberal democracy CHANGES BUT NOT TOO EASILY
CANNOT CHANGE WITH MODERN
TIMES
P3- powers and rights
OUTDATED AND INEFFECTIVE ADAPTABLE AND EFFECTIVE
-> Gives supreme court excessive -> Judges can only operate within the
power, allows nine unelected judges strict language of the constitution, so
to have final, irrevocable say on carefully consider cases like Roe 1973
human rights issues (eg Roe v Wade) and Dobbs 2022
affected by bias, almost imperial -> There has been a return to judicial
judiciary restraint and strict constructivism on
-> Can allow a small and the current bench
unrepresentative minority to thwart -> Only Congress can amend with
majority through ‘activism’ supermajority
GIVES EXCESSIVE POWER TO JUDICIARY IS EFFECTIVE IN
JUDICIARY INTERPRETATION
, ETE to which the process for amending the US is too difficult in
the modern day
Criterion: too difficult to change = if it cannot follow the democratic will of the
people
Conclusion: inflexibility is a critical flaw in that it allows continued inequalities
between states’ voting powers and gives the SC too much power, but at least it
preserves liberal democracy
P1- democratic principles
TOO HARD TO CHANGE FLEXIBLE ENOUGH
-> Outdated provisions allow -> Protects key principles, like
undemocratic practices from 1787 (eg separation of powers, upholds
EC allowed Bush 2000 and Trump federalism and states’ rights,
2016 to win without popular vote) -> Proposals that undermine small
-> Over-represents small states so states (eg no EC) have failed since
they have more voting power, only both federal and state government
13/50 states have to oppose must favour a proposal and Congress
amendments to win, even if smallest cannot operate veto against states
INFLEXIBILITY ALLOWS INEQUAL ENSHRINES KEY DEMOCRATIC
DEMOCRACY PRINCIPLES
P2- changing times
TOO HARD TO CHANGE FLEXIBLE ENOUGH
-> Deeply entrenched with social -> Does allow for change: can be
values of 1787 altered with broad support via formal
-> Modern consensus over gender amendment process (Slavery) or
equality but Equal Rights Amendment supreme court precedents (Roe)
failed as recently as 1982, and recent -> Process involves cross-party
attempts made little progress agreements to stop knee-jerks,
-> ERA would allow respect of federal marriage amendment in the
fundamental rights and more modern early 2000s would be outdated today
liberal democracy MODERN CHANGES MAY BE TOO
INFLEXIBILITY NEGLECTS MODERN HASTY
CHANGES
P3- abuses of power
TOO HARD TO CHANGE FLEXIBLE ENOUGH
-> Gives supreme court excessive -> Prevents an individual from one
power, allows nine unelected judges party changing rules for own benefit,
to have final, irrevocable say on requires bipartisan support, single
human rights issues (eg Roe v Wade) party never gets 2/3
affected by bias, almost imperial -> Bush requested line-item veto
judiciary power in 2006 but enhanced power
-> Can allow a small and not approved by Congress
unrepresentative minority to thwart -> Super-majority prevents tyranny of
majority (eg Prohibition) majority
EXCESSIVE POWER TO COURT, NOT PREVENTS CONGRESS EXPLOITATION
PEOPLE OF PEOPLE
ETE to which the checks and balances of the US constitution are
still effective
Criterion: effective = prevent tyranny of a single branch through moderation
, by other branches
Conclusion: whilst all branches of government find ways to evade
constitutional checks on their powers in certain situations, they are generally
an effective deterrent against democratic overreach
P1- checks on Congress
STILL EFFECTIVE NOT EFFECTIVE
-> Veto is a presidential check on -> Veto can be overruled by 2/3
Congress that is explicitly set out in majority in both houses, a
the constitution constitutional provision that balances
-> Forces Congress to follow veto power by ensuring not wielded
ideological agenda and prevents with immunity: GW Bush had 11
representatives from going rogue in vetoes overruled
accordance with democratic mandate -> BUT only 7% vetoes are overruled,
-> Obama used veto 12 times, Trump one each for Obama and Trump,
10 times cementing usefulness
VETO IS AN EFFECTIVE CHECK ON VETO IS NOT ALWAYS AN EFFECTIVE
CONGRESS CHECK
P2- checks on president
STILL EFFECTIVE NOT EFFECTIVE
-> Judicial review is a check on -> Judicial review is an implied power
executive actions implied from so is relatively weak and can be
constitutional provisions that allow circumvented
judicial oversight over president (FFs -> Trump later passed Muslim ban
intentions) without objection from the Court
-> In State of Washington v Donald (passed 5-4) by altering language to
Trump (2017), federal judiciary ruled remove religious opposition in favour
Trump’s Muslim ban unconstitutional of national security concerns
under the 1st amendment JUDICIAL REVIEW NOT ALWAYS
JUDICIAL REVIEW IS AN EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE
CHECK
P3- checks on judiciary
STILL EFFECTIVE NOT EFFECTIVE
-> Senate can impeach federal judges -> Impeachment is strong but rarely
following trials with a 2/3 majority: has ever used for federal judges and
happened 8 times, most recently to never on SC judges: in 1968, Abe
Thomas Porteous in 2010 Fortas resigned before impeachment
-> Senate also has the constitutional -> Congress’ refusal to approve
right to refuse to appointments like appointments only effective in divided
Merrick Garland in 2016, checking government: recent partisan
judicial and presidential powers appointments have all been approved
JUDICIAL CHECKS ARE VERY LIMITING JUDICIAL CHECKS NOT ALWAYS
EFFECTIVE
ETE to which the states are dominated by the federal government
Criterion: dominated = if the branches of federal government control the
capabilities of states
Conclusion: states are dominated by federal government in maintaining basic
democratic standards, but are otherwise free from federal involvement in
(1) US Constitution (4 plans)
ETE to which the US Constitution is now outdated and ineffective
Criterion: outdated and effective = cannot protect rights and follow
democratic will of the people
Conclusion: the US constitution is outdated in its inability to adapt to social
changes and provision of excessive power to judges, but it at least strongly
preserves states’ rights in a liberal democracy
P1- federalism
OUTDATED AND INEFFECTIVE ADAPTABLE AND EFFECTIVE
-> Outdated provisions allow -> Protects key principles, like
undemocratic practices from 1787 (eg separation of powers, upholds
EC allowed Bush 2000 and Trump federalism and states’ rights,
2016 to win without popular vote) -> Proposals that undermine small
-> Over-represents small states in states (eg no EC) have failed since
Congress so they have more voting both federal and state government
power, only 13/50 small states have to must favour constitutional
oppose amendments to win amendments and Congress cannot
DOES NOT DEVOLVE POWERS use veto
EQUALLY PROTECTS THE RIGHTS OF SMALL
STATES
P2- adaptability
OUTDATED AND INEFFECTIVE ADAPTABLE AND EFFECTIVE
-> Deeply entrenched with social -> Does allow for change: can be
values of 1787 altered with broad support via formal
-> Modern consensus over gender amendment process (Slavery) or
equality but Equal Rights Amendment supreme court precedents (Roe)
failed as recently as 1982, and recent -> Process involves cross-party
attempts made little progress agreements to stop knee-jerks,
-> ERA would allow respect of federal marriage amendment in the
fundamental rights and more modern early 2000s would be outdated today
liberal democracy CHANGES BUT NOT TOO EASILY
CANNOT CHANGE WITH MODERN
TIMES
P3- powers and rights
OUTDATED AND INEFFECTIVE ADAPTABLE AND EFFECTIVE
-> Gives supreme court excessive -> Judges can only operate within the
power, allows nine unelected judges strict language of the constitution, so
to have final, irrevocable say on carefully consider cases like Roe 1973
human rights issues (eg Roe v Wade) and Dobbs 2022
affected by bias, almost imperial -> There has been a return to judicial
judiciary restraint and strict constructivism on
-> Can allow a small and the current bench
unrepresentative minority to thwart -> Only Congress can amend with
majority through ‘activism’ supermajority
GIVES EXCESSIVE POWER TO JUDICIARY IS EFFECTIVE IN
JUDICIARY INTERPRETATION
, ETE to which the process for amending the US is too difficult in
the modern day
Criterion: too difficult to change = if it cannot follow the democratic will of the
people
Conclusion: inflexibility is a critical flaw in that it allows continued inequalities
between states’ voting powers and gives the SC too much power, but at least it
preserves liberal democracy
P1- democratic principles
TOO HARD TO CHANGE FLEXIBLE ENOUGH
-> Outdated provisions allow -> Protects key principles, like
undemocratic practices from 1787 (eg separation of powers, upholds
EC allowed Bush 2000 and Trump federalism and states’ rights,
2016 to win without popular vote) -> Proposals that undermine small
-> Over-represents small states so states (eg no EC) have failed since
they have more voting power, only both federal and state government
13/50 states have to oppose must favour a proposal and Congress
amendments to win, even if smallest cannot operate veto against states
INFLEXIBILITY ALLOWS INEQUAL ENSHRINES KEY DEMOCRATIC
DEMOCRACY PRINCIPLES
P2- changing times
TOO HARD TO CHANGE FLEXIBLE ENOUGH
-> Deeply entrenched with social -> Does allow for change: can be
values of 1787 altered with broad support via formal
-> Modern consensus over gender amendment process (Slavery) or
equality but Equal Rights Amendment supreme court precedents (Roe)
failed as recently as 1982, and recent -> Process involves cross-party
attempts made little progress agreements to stop knee-jerks,
-> ERA would allow respect of federal marriage amendment in the
fundamental rights and more modern early 2000s would be outdated today
liberal democracy MODERN CHANGES MAY BE TOO
INFLEXIBILITY NEGLECTS MODERN HASTY
CHANGES
P3- abuses of power
TOO HARD TO CHANGE FLEXIBLE ENOUGH
-> Gives supreme court excessive -> Prevents an individual from one
power, allows nine unelected judges party changing rules for own benefit,
to have final, irrevocable say on requires bipartisan support, single
human rights issues (eg Roe v Wade) party never gets 2/3
affected by bias, almost imperial -> Bush requested line-item veto
judiciary power in 2006 but enhanced power
-> Can allow a small and not approved by Congress
unrepresentative minority to thwart -> Super-majority prevents tyranny of
majority (eg Prohibition) majority
EXCESSIVE POWER TO COURT, NOT PREVENTS CONGRESS EXPLOITATION
PEOPLE OF PEOPLE
ETE to which the checks and balances of the US constitution are
still effective
Criterion: effective = prevent tyranny of a single branch through moderation
, by other branches
Conclusion: whilst all branches of government find ways to evade
constitutional checks on their powers in certain situations, they are generally
an effective deterrent against democratic overreach
P1- checks on Congress
STILL EFFECTIVE NOT EFFECTIVE
-> Veto is a presidential check on -> Veto can be overruled by 2/3
Congress that is explicitly set out in majority in both houses, a
the constitution constitutional provision that balances
-> Forces Congress to follow veto power by ensuring not wielded
ideological agenda and prevents with immunity: GW Bush had 11
representatives from going rogue in vetoes overruled
accordance with democratic mandate -> BUT only 7% vetoes are overruled,
-> Obama used veto 12 times, Trump one each for Obama and Trump,
10 times cementing usefulness
VETO IS AN EFFECTIVE CHECK ON VETO IS NOT ALWAYS AN EFFECTIVE
CONGRESS CHECK
P2- checks on president
STILL EFFECTIVE NOT EFFECTIVE
-> Judicial review is a check on -> Judicial review is an implied power
executive actions implied from so is relatively weak and can be
constitutional provisions that allow circumvented
judicial oversight over president (FFs -> Trump later passed Muslim ban
intentions) without objection from the Court
-> In State of Washington v Donald (passed 5-4) by altering language to
Trump (2017), federal judiciary ruled remove religious opposition in favour
Trump’s Muslim ban unconstitutional of national security concerns
under the 1st amendment JUDICIAL REVIEW NOT ALWAYS
JUDICIAL REVIEW IS AN EFFECTIVE EFFECTIVE
CHECK
P3- checks on judiciary
STILL EFFECTIVE NOT EFFECTIVE
-> Senate can impeach federal judges -> Impeachment is strong but rarely
following trials with a 2/3 majority: has ever used for federal judges and
happened 8 times, most recently to never on SC judges: in 1968, Abe
Thomas Porteous in 2010 Fortas resigned before impeachment
-> Senate also has the constitutional -> Congress’ refusal to approve
right to refuse to appointments like appointments only effective in divided
Merrick Garland in 2016, checking government: recent partisan
judicial and presidential powers appointments have all been approved
JUDICIAL CHECKS ARE VERY LIMITING JUDICIAL CHECKS NOT ALWAYS
EFFECTIVE
ETE to which the states are dominated by the federal government
Criterion: dominated = if the branches of federal government control the
capabilities of states
Conclusion: states are dominated by federal government in maintaining basic
democratic standards, but are otherwise free from federal involvement in
