POLS 101 Midterm Questions and Answers 100% Pass

POLS 101 Midterm Questions and Answers 100% Pass In a democracy, do institutions matter? When a majority agrees on a course of action, do the political institutions really affect the majority's ability to achieve its goals? Institutions are important because of their durability and "stickiness." Institutions slow the progress of change and prevent tyrannical majorities. In the example of marijuana legalization, many people may want it, but the supremacy clause (the institution) prevents it from being federally legal. "The quality of democracy in modern America reflects the quality of its governing institutions." Are politicians the servants of the public, as they say in their campaign ads, or are they just self- serving? Why do we need them? The US political system allows for politicians to be motivated by self-interest (privileged group), the interests of a faction (lobby group), the interests of the public, or a combination of the above. We need politicians to solve the collective action problems associated with government. The constitution has not changed much over the past 200 years. Were the framers really geniuses, or are Americans simply lucky? Thomas Jefferson wanted the Constitution to be rewritten every 19 years. While Americans are certainly lucky, the framers of the Constitution never intended for it to last this long. They were genius in that they wrote a document that could be interpreted through the passing of time, however, this was probably not intentional. Why is the U.S. Constitution so complicated, where even the word majority has several different meanings? The Constitution was written to be vague intentionally, and therefore with the passing of time and the changing of social climate in the U.S. people have chosen to interpret the wording (down to specific words) in the Constitution to mean very different things. Its like the bible -- you can read anything you want into it. How can the United States call itself a democracy when so many features of its national political system are designed to frustrate majority rule? The U.S. is not a democracy but it is a creature of democracy; a democratic republic. Fear of factions drove the hyper complex institution that is the U.S. government. James Madison and his fellow Constitutional authors believed that only a separation of power (horizontal division) and federalism (vertical division) could prevent citizens from tyranny of the numerical (not structural) majority. The idea of "spreading the power around." When have states/federal gov hindered/helped civil rights? States helped: WA, MN legalized gay marriage before gay marriage before federal recognition States hindered: Jim Crow laws that applied only in a certain state, voter ID laws Federal gov helped: Voting Rights Act, legalizing gay marriage Federal gov hindered: DOMA, revoked affirmative action on the basis of colorblindness Is there a rationale for having some government services supplied locally, others by states, and still others by the national government? Yes, but this rationale has changed over time. The U.S. has shifted from a dual federalism (layered cake) mentality which has distinct forms of power between the federal and state governments to a shared federalism (marbled cake) which has shared policy power between the federal government and the states. Despite the Framers' efforts to keep the national government out of the state's business, was it inevitable that so many policies once left to the states are now handled by the federal government? The framers were mostly concerned with their property and basic physical safety. As states began to tackle more modern and complex collective action problems they turned to the federal government. With modernity came an inevitable shift to shared federalism from dual federalism and reliance on the federal government to solve problems beyond the framer's initial concerns (property). When elected officials from the states challenge national authority, what determines who will have the final say over policy? A system of checks and balances ensures no one form of government has total control. Therefore in this situation the deciding factor would come from either the President or the Supreme Court. How could a nation that embraced the Declaration of Independence 's creed that "all men are created equal" condone slavery? Slaves were not considered people biologically, socially, or philosophically. Why would a majority in society ever seek to extend and protect the rights of its minorities in the face of huge costs--even those imposed by a tragic civil war? One never knows when they will shift from the majority to the minority. Moral reasons: it's the right thing to do. "We're in this together" mentality (when everyone is better off, individuals win). Does America's constitutional system impede or promote the cause of civil rights? This depends on the interpretation one chooses to use. It could be argued that it impedes civil rights by deferring to the States which are more easily controlled by factions. But on the other hand, it has been amended to protect certain civil rights that the framers did not anticipate or prioritize while writing the Constitution. Bill of Rights helps promote them. Are "civil rights" generic, or do we define them differently across groups according to issues for which they seek protection? What is considered a civil right is very dependent on the group