THE 2023 AP US GOVERNMENT REVIEW QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ALREADY GRADED A

Declaration of Independence Letter written to formally declare the 13 colonies independent from Britain Provides justification for the break from Great Britain Is a declaration of natural rights - Rights inherent in human beings, not dependent on governments, which include life, liberty, and property (John Locke) Establishes a foundation for popular sovereignty - "consent of the governed" government's source of authority is the people List of grievances against King George III and Parliament o king is a tyrant o king imposed taxes on colonists o king kept standing armies in the colonies in times of peace Articles of Confederation Established a government (confederation) for the new, independent states - America's 1st Constitution States maintained their sovereignty - state legislatures had most of the power (no unity) Created a unicameral Congress made up of delegates from the states Made the federal government weak and ineffective Could not regulate commerce and led to economic turmoil Had no Executive to enforce acts of Congress or Federal Courts to settle disputes Weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation Congress unable to levy or collect taxes No centralized military power to address Shays' Rebellion Congress unable to regulate foreign and interstate commerce No national court system Government dominated by the states Shay's Rebellion exposed the severe weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation leading to the Constitution U.S. Constitution Formal governing document that replaced the Articles of Confederation and addressed its many weaknesses Lays out the structure and powers of the federal government - which was to be a constitutional federal republic. Gave the federal government significantly more power, including the creation of a federal executive (POTUS) and judiciary (SCOTUS) Created a bicameral legislature (due to the Great Compromise) Also established limits to the abuse of power through the principles of popular sovereignty, limited government, separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism Breakdown of the US Constitution Article I: Legislative Branch Article II: Executive Branch Article III: Judicial Branch Article IV: Relations Among States Article V: Amendment Process Article VI: Supremacy Clause Article VII: Ratification Article I, Section 8 (expressed powers) Coin Money Declare War Make Post Offices Regulate Commerce (Commerce Clause) Borrow Money Punish counterfeiters Establish a uniform rule of naturalization Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 To make all necessary laws. (sometimes called the "elastic clause"). National Powers (exclusive) and or enumerated Those powers found in Article I given only to the federal government Federalism A system in which power is divided between the national and state governments Federalists Favored a strong central government and weak state governments Argued that the Bill of Rights was not necessary (Congress did not have the constitutional power to deny natural rights) Favored a separation of powers among three branches of government with checks and balances Believed that a large republic would ensure individual freedoms Anti-Federalists Favored a weak central government and strong state governments Believed the Bill of Rights was necessary to fulfill the promise of the Declaration of Independence (natural rights should be protected by government authorities) Favored the states checking the power of the central government Believed an American republic would grow so large it would transform into an authoritarian system Brutus #1 Citizens must be cautious about empowering a strong central government because they are unlikely to ever get control back. The new constitution gives so much power to a central government that the state governments may no longer be able to function. The "necessary and proper" clause and the supremacy clause make the central government an uncontrollable power. There is no limit to Congress' power to tax because it decides what is meant by "common defense" and "general welfare." Taxation allows the central government to extend control over every facet of the nation. The federal courts, will destroy the state courts. In such a large republic, it will be too hard for the representatives to understand the will of the people. A large republic will create a class of elected officials who will abuse their power and enrich themselves and their friends. Federalist #10 A strong faction cannot tyrannize the public through superior force. The cause of factions is unequal distribution of wealth and the main task of government is to balance their interests. To control factions, Madison proposed a republic, which can govern a greater expanse of territory than a pure democracy. Lays out the argument (countering the claims of Brutus No. 1) that a large republic would work better that a small one - there would be more worthy candidates to choose from and less likelihood of any one faction dominating Federalist #51 Explains how separation of powers and checks and balances will keep the federal government under control and prevent the abuse of power Argues that each branch will have an incentive to make sure the others do not become tyrannical ("ambition must be made to counteract ambition," i.e. checks and balances) Admits that the legislative branch in the new federal government is the most powerful, but explains how bicameralism is a further protection against abuse of power Also discusses how the veto will keep the legislative branch under control Based on the Madisonian Model Federalist #70 Argues for a single, energetic executive who can act swiftly to defend the nation, respond to crisis, and administer the law Points out that having multiple executives might protect against the abuse of power by an individual, but would lead to inaction, conflict, and division - energy, or the ability to act decisively/quickly, was vital for the executive Federalist #78 Argued for the importance of federal judges & justices to have lifetime terms so that they could be insulated from politics and the pressures of public opinion (no need to be reappointed or reelected) Pointed out that the judiciary was the least threatening of the branches as it could not control the army ("sword) or budget ("purse") and relied on the executive to enforce its decisions The independence of the courts would allow them to put the Constitution first, as the law of the land, and check the constitutionality of the actions of the legislative and executive branches - first argument for judicial review "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," 1963 Eloquent letter explaining his, and his colleagues,' actions (that had landed him in jail) and laying out their philosophical justification Argued for nonviolent direct action to bring attention to injustice and demand change in society Exposed the great injustices in Birmingham and other parts of the Deep South suffered by African-Americans Argued that it was impossible to wait any longer and that those not suffering did not feel the same urgency Discussed America's failure to live up to its ideals Calls for civil disobedience of immoral and unjust laws Countered the claim that civil rights protesters were agitating, they were merely pointing out tensions that already existed (uncomfortable truths) Owns extremism in support of a noble cause, such as fulfilling the promise of America (so long as it fits the tenets of nonviolence) McCulloch v. Maryland 1. Did Congress have the authority under the constitution to commission a national bank? The Elastic Clause gives Congress the authority "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper" and the national bank was deemed "necessary and proper". 2. Did the state of Maryland have the power to tax the national bank operating within its borders? The state of Maryland could not tax the Bank of the U.S. because "the constitution and the laws made in are supreme". Constitutional Issues: The Necessary & Proper Clause aka the Elastic Clause (Congress can make any law that is necessary and proper; gives flexibility in lawmaking) Supremacy Clause (The Constitution and federal laws are superior to state constitutions and laws) Legacy: This case established the power between the states and federal government in favor of the national government. Further, the case opened the door to the expansion of federal power through the implied powers of the Elastic Clause. US v. Lopez Does the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act, forbidding individuals from knowingly carrying a gun in a school zone, exceed the power of Congress to legislate under the Commerce Clause? The United States lost. This established limits on the Commerce Clause and set a precedent that Congressional regulation through the Commerce Clause can only occur when an economic activity has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Constitutional Issue: the Commerce Clause Legacy: This case dramatically decreased the power of Congress to regulate state behaviors through the Commerce Clause. This case was a win for states rights' advocates. Baker v. Carr Did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment? Yes Constitutional Issue: 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause—refers to the idea that a governmental body may not deny people equal protection of its governing laws. Legacy: Opened the door to equal protection challenges to redistricting and the development of the "one person, one vote" doctrine by ruling that challenges to redistricting did not raise "political questions" that would keep federal courts from reviewing such challenges. Shaw v. Reno Did the North Carolina residents' claim, that the State created a racially gerrymandered district, raise a valid constitutional issue under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause? Although it was a legitimate goal for state legislatures to take race into account when they draw electoral districts in order to increase the voting strength of minorities, they may not make race the sole reason for drawing district lines. Constitutional Issue: 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause Marbury v. Madison Do the plaintiffs have a right to receive their commissions? Can they sue for their commissions in court? Does the Supreme Court have the authority to order the delivery of their commissions? The Court found that Madison's refusal to deliver the commission was illegal, but did not order Madison to hand over Marbury's commission via writ of mandamus. Instead, the Court held that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 enabling Marbury to bring his claim to the Supreme Court was itself unconstitutional. Constitutional Issue: Judicial Review Legacy: In so holding, the Supreme Court established the principle of judicial review, i.e., the power to declare a law unconstitutional. Engel v. Vitale Does the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? Yes, this was a violation of the Establishment Clause found in the 1st Amendment. The state cannot hold prayers in public schools, even if participation is not required and the prayer is not tied to a particular religion. Constitutional Issue: Establishment Clause found in the 1st Amendment Wisconsin v. Yoder Did Wisconsin's requirement that all parents send their children to school at least until age 16 violate the First Amendment by criminalizing the conduct of parents who refused to send their children to school for religious reasons? The Supreme Court held that the Free Exercise Clause found in the 1st Amendment, prevented the state of Wisconsin from compelling the respondents to send their children to formal secondary school beyond the age of 14. Constitutional Issue: 1st Amendment's Free Exercise Clause Tinker v. Des Moines ISD Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the students' freedom of speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment? The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Tinkers. The Court held that the students did not lose their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech when they stepped onto school property. Constitutional Issue: 1st Amendment's Freedom of Speech NY Times v. US Did the Nixon administration's efforts to prevent the publication of what it termed "classified information" violate the First Amendment's right to a free press? NY Times wins/Boosted the freedom of the press, establishing a "heavy presumption against prior restraint" even in cases involving national security Constitutional Issue: 1st Amendment's Freedom of the Press & Prior Restraint (government action that prohibits speech or other expression before the speech happens) Schenck v. United States Did Schenck's conviction under the Espionage Act for criticizing the draft violate his 1st Amendment Free Speech rights? The Court ruled unanimously for U.S. that, no, Schenck's free speech rights were not violated. In the context of World War I, the Espionage Act's criminalization of speech dangerous to the operation of the military was not a violation of the 1st Amendment. Constitutional Issue: 1st Amendment's Freedom of Speech Legacy: This case established the "clear and present danger" test, which states that the Constitution does not protect speech that incites violence or chaos (ex: yelling fire in a crowded movie theater). Gideon v. Wainwright Does the right to an attorney in the 6th Amendment extend to defendants in state courts through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment? In a unanimous decision for Gideon, the Court determined that the 6th Amendment's right to counsel in felony criminal cases is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Constitutional Issue: 6th Amendment's right to counsel (attorney) & 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause Legacy: The court also agreed that the protection was so important that it would apply to state courts as well as federal courts. (Incorporation case)