AP Gov short answers

U.S. vs. Lopez

A student in Texas brought an unloaded gun to school and was charged with violating the federal gun-free school zone act of 1990, which banned intentional carry of a gun in a school zone. The commerce clause says that congress can regulate anything affecting interstate commerce. Did the gun-free school zones act of 1990 unconstitutionally exceed congress’s authority to legislate under the commerce clause? The gun free school zones act of 1990 is unconstitutional. Possession of a gun in a school zone does not substantially affect interstate commerce. The commerce clause does not grant congress endless power. Some powers are reserved to the states via the tenth amendment.  This is a win for states’ rights and a win for conservatives. This does not change the broad interpretation of the commerce clause. Not everything affects interstate commerce and congress passed a new version of the Gun Free School Zones act. This is an example of how congress can limit the impact of court rulings. 

McCullouch Vs. Maryland

Several states, including Maryland, passed a law to tax the bank of the United States. Did congress have the power to establish a national bank? Can a state tax the federal government? Congress may establish a national bank. States may not tax the federal government. As a result of the necessary and proper clause congress has implied powers and is not limited to its expressed powers. Necessary and proper clause says that congress can make laws “necessary and proper” for carrying out their enumerated powers. The supremacy clause asserts that the federal government is superior to the state government when the two conflict. This is a federalism case and an expansion of the federal court.

Baker vs. Carr

Tennessee residents alleged that state congressional restriction didn’t take into account population shifts, therefore one person’s vote wasn’t necessarily equal to another person’s vote. Reapportionment is the changing the distribution of seats in legislation based on population. Redistricting is the redrawing of congressional districts. Does the federal judiciary have jurisdiction over questions of redistricting? Jurisdiction is the legal authority to hear a case. Redistricting claims raise non-political questions and therefore are justiciable in federal court. Justiciable is the ability to decide by a court. Judicial restraint is the belief that courts should differ to democratically elected branches and states. The dissenting opinion was arguing for that. People have a right to challenge unequal apportionment and redistricting plans that may violate the equal protection clause. This is an example of judicial activism because it overturns a precedent. This case led to the “one person, one vote"principle of voting equality in house election and the ban on malapportionment. Malapportionment is the congressional districts of very unequal populations. 

Shaw vs. Reno

North Carolina created a bizarrely shaped majority-minority district for the purpose of increasing black representation in congress to comply with the voting rights act of 1969. The voting rights act of 1965 required many states to obtain federal approval of changes to any electoral procedures, including reapportionment and redistricting. North Carolina submitted its redistricting plan to the justice department for approval and the attorney general rejected the map because black voters were underrepresented. Can residents challenge congressional districts in court that are racially gerrymandered? Residents may challenge majority-minority districts if race was the only factor used in creating the district. Drawing a congressional district based only on race violated the equal protection clause and opposes the “colorblind” ideal of U.S. law. Race can be a factor, not the factor. Districts can’t be drawn only on race.

Marbury vs. Madison

Wiliiam Marbury was appointed as justice of the peace in D.C. by Adams but didn’t receive his commission, so he petitioned the supreme court to compel the secretary of state, James Madison, to deliver his commission. Does Marbury have a right to his commission? Does the supreme court have the authority to order the delivery of the commission? Marbury was entitled to his commission, however, the court was unable to grant it because the relevant portion of the judiciary act of 1789, allowing Marbury to sue, conflicted with the constitution and was therefore null and void. Congress couldn’t pass legislation that supersedes the constitution because the supremacy clause places the constitution above laws. This established judicial review empowering the supreme court to declare legislative and executive actions unconstitutional.

Declaration of Independence

The main writer of the declaration of independence was Thomas Jefferson. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Natural rights are fundamental liberties that belong to all people that can’t be taken away. The social contract states that people in a society give  up some freedom to maintain social order and protect natural rights. “To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, serving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Popular sovereignty is governmental power derived from the consent of the government. Limited government says that disposition is absolute government with limited power. Thomas Jefferson did not want this. There are 27 grievances. In summary it established the ideals of democracy and the U.S. government. Today’s implication can be interpreted as inspiration for modern social movements.

Federalist 10

Federalist 10 is written by James Madison in support of the constitution and it is all about factions. He says that a large republic is the best way to control the negative effects of factions. A faction is a group of citizens with a common interest adverse to the rights of other citizens. James Madison is concerned about the groups who are going to harm other groups. He says that majority factions must be prevented from oppressing minorities. Madison claims there are two solutions: democracy and republic. He also states that democracies can’t control factions so majorities will oppress minorities and democracy is mob rule. Madison argues that in smaller republics and democracies it is easier for majority factions to dominate minorities and that the larger the republic becomes, the more factions there will be, which makes it more difficult for a majority to oppress a minority. He says to control the problems of factions add more factions and that the representative in the government will be more educated. One of the main points from Fed. 10 is that a large republic is the best way to control factions and prevent majorities from oppressing minorities.

Brutus 1

Brutus 1 is the preeminent anti-federalist paper written to oppose the ratification of the constitution that argues for states rights and against a stronger central government. This paper talks about the choice between 13 sovereign states or one centralized federal government. Some main points from Brutus 1 are once people empower a government they can’t get that power back, the elastic and supremacy clause will give the federal government unlimited power, and the necessary and proper clause will greatly expand congresses lawmaking powers. The few powers reserved to the states will soon be taken by the federal government and the power to tax will lead to a tyrannical central government. The establishment of standing armies will lead to the destruction of liberty and the federal courts will strike down state laws. Brutus argued that the only successful republics in history have been small and so having 13 small republics is better than a single large republic. Brutus argues in a large republic you either have so many representatives that congress can’t function or representatives have so many constituents that people aren’t really represented. Brutus says a republic should be made up of similar people with similar interests. Use Brutus 1 to argue in favor of participatory democracy, states rights, and to support individual rights.

The Constitution

In the constitution a representative form of government was established. In article I the legislative branch was formed. It has a bicameral legislature (2 houses) and formed the powers of Congress. The 2 parts of the bicameral legislature are the House of Representatives and the Senate. In Article II the executive branch was established. This includes provision for the executive branch, electoral college, relating to the president, vice president, and the enforcement of laws.Article III established the Judicial Branch. This established the supreme court as well as original and appellate jurisdiction. Article IV has to do with state relations and the federal government’s relationship to the states and the relationship to the states themselves. Article V set up the process for amending the constitution and the proposal and ratification. Article VI established national supremacy and the supremacy clause. Finally Article VII set up the ratification process.

Federalist 51

The main topic of Federalist 51 is separation of powers and checks and balances. One of the main ideas Madison stresses in Fed 51 is that we need a government because people aren’t perfect and that it is difficult because the government must be strong enough to protect people’s rights but not strong enough to take away their rights. Since Congress is the strongest branch its power is divided between two houses. Federalism is dividing power between federal, state, and local government and Madison is in favor of this. He also argues that separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism help maintain a limited government. Multiple access points of political power will protect minority rights. 

Federalist 70

Federalist 70 is in favor of a unitary executive. Hamilton argues a single president is better and more effective and the people will be more free and that a good government needs an active and decisive executive. If the president is too weak, the government will be ineffective and that is why a single president with sufficient powers and term length would be better. He argues that giving the executive powers to a single person leads to better outcomes rather than a plural executive.  Hamilton argues advantages of a unitary executive would be that it is more effective than dividing power among a group, it's good for legislators to move slowly when making legislation, and the executive needs to be able to act quickly, especially in times of war or crisis. He claims that when there is a single president it is easier to assign blame and hold them accountable. A unitary executive is more restrained by public opinion and more accountable to the people.

Federalist 78

Federalist 78 argues that life tenure for judges is needed to maintain an independent judiciary that has the power of judicial review. Federal judges would serve for life, subject to good behavior. This would work since the judiciary is the least dangerous branch and can’t threaten liberty. The judiciary lacks budget on war powers and it merely makes judgements, and has to rely on others to enforce their decisions. Life tenure provides the independence the judiciary needs from the other branches. The judiciary must strike down laws that conflict with the constitution, have the power of judicial review, and must guard the constitution against congressional overreach. Life tenure for judges is needed to maintain an independent judiciary that has the power of judicial review.

Articles of Confederation

The Articles of Confederation were a response to the claims made in the Declaration of Independence. The purpose and goal was to build a government that protects freedom and would not allow a new tyranny to arise. The major issues of the articles of confederation is that a weak government cannot protect the states, cannot pay the debts, cannot raise revenues, and cannot resolve disputes between states. In the articles each state had 1 vote in the confederation Congress, states retained all judicial authority over their own state, states ran all military activities through state militia, the national government did not have a separate executive leader, and states held authority to negotiate problems with other states.