POLSC232 Study Guide

Unit 1: American Political Foundations

1a. Distinguish the distribution and use of power within different forms of government

What are power and political legitimacy?
What are Weber's three types of legitimate authority?
Why is rational-legal authority often more stable than charismatic authority?

To understand politics and the American government, we need to define power, which is the ability of an individual to influence the behavior of others despite resistance or disagreement. Max Weber (1864–1920), the German sociologist, distinguished three types of political legitimacy (where citizens or other types of followers deem the authority, and their use of power, just and appropriate).

Leaders derive rational-legal authority from the acceptance of citizens for the authority and rules of certain organizations or institutions and the organizational structures that define them. Citizens typically limit the authority of these organizational structures, institutions, and the leaders who represent them.
Leaders derive traditional authority from their society's long-standing beliefs and practices. Citizens assign authority to these individuals in accordance with their community's customs and traditions.
Leaders derive charismatic authority from their charismatic personal qualities. These individuals typically exhibit a hold over followers because they revere or respect their charismatic personality.

Rational-legal authority is fairly stable because it remains even after government leaders and bureaucratic officials change. Charismatic authority, on the other hand, is unstable because the authority the charismatic leader has may not extend to their successors after the leader dies.

To review, see What is Government and Majority Rule vs. Minority Rights.

1b. Explain the fundamental principles in the Declaration of Independence

What were the Second Continental Congress and the Declaration of Independence?
Why did the American colonies declare independence from British rule?
What theoretical and historical factors influenced the writers of the Constitution?
What principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence would Americans later have difficulty adhering to?

On July 4, 1776, the Second Continental Congress approved the Declaration of Independence. Perhaps the most revolutionary aspects of the Declaration were its assumptions that people have natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that governments derive their power from the consent of the governed; and that when a government "becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government".

The Declaration was the culmination of a series of conflicts between the American colonies and the government of Great Britain. In May of the previous year, the First Continental Congress had sent King George III (1738–1820) a petition for a redress of grievances – essentially, a list of complaints about the British rule of the colonies that the colonists wanted to be resolved. When the King failed to respond, the Continental Congress began to take on the role of a federal government, forming an army and issuing a currency.

The first section of the Declaration lists the "abuses and usurpations" that made independence from Britain expedient for its writers. Many of the complaints registered in the Declaration of Independence would inform the writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which we discuss in greater detail later.

The colonists listed several complaints in the Declaration of Independence:

the dissolution of legislative bodies in the colonies;
refusing to allow the creation of new judiciary bodies;
quartering troops in colonists' homes;
keeping standing armies in the colonies in times of peace;
refusing to allow colonists the right to a jury trial;
cutting off colonists' trade with other countries; and
taxing the colonists without their consent.

To review, see Pre-Revolutionary Period and the Roots of the American Political Tradition and A Declaration of Independence.

1c. Analyze the flaws in the Articles of Confederation

What was the political system under the Articles of Confederation?
What were some inherent problems with the Articles?
What factors generated the need to replace this system of government?
How did the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation affect the United States?

The Articles of Confederation were the new nation's first attempt to create a federal government to avoid British rule's pitfalls and abuses. Americans considered this document the law of the land from the end of the Revolutionary War in 1783 until 1786. However, the Articles had several shortcomings that prevented them from being adopted as an effective, lasting way to govern the country.

Under the Articles, the United States was a loose assembly of 13 independent countries. There was no executive branch of government at the federal level, nor was there a federal system of courts. Trade between states was unregulated, and the government had no way to tax them, such as to pay for the debts of the war. States used different currencies, which made interstate and international commerce complicated and difficult.

Things came to a head in Massachusetts when Daniel Shays (1747–1825), a former captain in the army during the Revolutionary War, led a rebellion against the state government. Shortly after state troops defeated Shays' Rebellion in 1787, leaders decided it was time to establish a new form of government.

The Articles of Confederation created several negative impacts on the security and prosperity of the United States. For example, since the federal government could not tax its citizens, it could not raise money to defend the country. This made it vulnerable to Britain and Spain, which still held neighboring territories, and to internal insurrections, such as Shays' Rebellion.

Since each state used a different currency and imposed alternative methods for taxing imports and handling debts, trade between states and foreign countries was hampered. These complications disrupted the economic exchange, commerce, and growth that the country needed.

To review, see Introducing the Articles of Confederation and Articles of Confederation.

1d. Identify the plans the Constitutional Convention delegates promoted regarding representation and slavery

Why was compromise necessary at the Constitutional Convention?
What major areas of disagreement led to compromise?
What was the three-fifths compromise, and how did it conflict with other values exposed by the Founders?

Every state except Rhode Island sent delegates to the Constitutional Convention to replace the Articles of Confederation with a new, more stable, and effective government. The delegates came from various backgrounds and brought divergent ideas about governance to the meeting.

Several key points of contention emerged, such as how congressional representation should be allocated. States with more citizens favored basing the number of representatives on population, while less populated states argued each state should have an equal number of representatives. The delegates debated whether all citizens of each state or a certain select group should elect their federal representatives.

When drafting the new Constitution, they compromised by creating a bicameral legislature: citizens in each state would elect a designated number of representatives to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives based on their population, while each state legislature would select one senator to serve in the U.S. Senate. Note the 17th amendment to the Constitution changed the Senate selection process in 1913, so constituents in each state would elect two senators to serve in the U.S. Senate.

The issue of slavery was a major point of contention among the Founders. In the Southern states, slavery was integral to the plantation economy, but many White citizens in the North began to view the practice as immoral and untenable. Representatives from the southern states argued they should be allowed to include their slave population when calculating their state's number of congressional representatives. Northern states disagreed because the number of Southern representatives in Congress would have significantly increased. The delegates agreed to only count three out of every five slaves when calculating each state's population for congressional representation: the so-called three-fifths compromise.

The delegates also tabled an initiative to abolish slavery. They voted to allow each state to decide whether to legalize slavery within its borders but agreed the federal government could not address the issue of the need to abolish slavery on a federal basis for 20 years.

To review, see Developing the U.S. Constitution, Amendments to the Constitution, and Constitutional Change.

1e. Compare the Federalists and Anti-Federalists during the Constitution's ratification process

What were the Federalist Papers?
What were the key arguments put forth in the Federalist Papers?
What were the key concerns the Anti-Federalists had about the Constitution?
How did the Federalists compromise to win support from some Anti-Federalists?
How did the Federalists and Anti-federalists interpret the necessary and proper clause differently?

The Federalist Papers were a series of essays Alexander Hamilton (1757–1804), James Madison (1751–1836), and John Jay (1745–1829) wrote and published in New York newspapers from October 1787 to April 1788. As Federalists, the three authors presented arguments for supporting the Constitution and described how ratification would benefit the states and the citizens of America.

The papers are divided into several sections that address different issues, such as the importance of the union, the defects of the Articles of Confederation, support for a republican form of government, and the descriptions of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches as presented in the Constitution.

Anti-Federalists were concerned about the consequences of centralizing too much power in the federal government. They had just fought a bitter war against tyranny and government overreach and worried that a strong central government would become tyrannical in its rule over the states.

After much debate, the Federalists agreed to add a Bill of Rights to the Constitution, a series of amendments that would guarantee certain rights for individual citizens and state governments to limit the reach of the federal government.

While adding the Bill of Rights convinced several delegates to ratify the Constitution, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists interpreted several parts of the Constitution differently. They often disagreed about the scope of powers and authority of the federal government.

For example, they differed on the "necessary and proper clause", which established that Congress could pass any laws necessary to exercise the powers granted in the Constitution. Federalists felt the government needed this clause to allow it to adapt to new circumstances, while Anti-Federalists felt it gave the federal government too much flexibility to expand its power.

To review, see Federalist No. 10 and Federalist No. 51, which are considered some of the best examples of political writing in U.S. history. Numbers 16, 17, and 39 argued for the need to establish a strong central government. Also, review Ratification of the Constitution.

1f. Explain the importance of minority rights in a democracy

What are minority rights and tyranny of the majority in the context of American democracy?
Why are protections for minority rights important?
How does the Constitution protect minority rights?
How have minority rights been abused in American history?
What is the impact of the government's failure to protect minority rights?

Democracy is a form of government that vests its power in the will of the people. But who are the people?

In most democracies, the majority rules: the candidate, bill, or policy proposal with the most votes wins. But what about minority rights? When the majority decides, many people are left unsatisfied by the outcome. A tyranny of the majority can occur when the majority disregards and tramples over the rights of individuals and minority groups. Majority rule threatens the notion of democracy when the government lacks guarantees that allow minority groups and individuals to engage in the system in a meaningful way.

The Constitution argues that support for regular and fair elections, and a system of checks and balances, can protect minority rights in the American government.

Despite these protections, American history is full of examples where the government failed to protect and actively violated the rights of the minority. Examples include legal and legislative support for slavery, Jim Crow laws, and discrimination against Native Americans and immigrant groups throughout history.

To review, see Majority Rule vs. Minority Rights, Developing the U.S. Constitution, Amendments to the Constitution, and Constitutional Change.

1g. Describe the principles of the Constitution, including separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism

What are the three branches of government?
What are separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism?
What was the rationale for the separation of powers and checks and balances in the Constitution?
Name some examples of checks and balances. Describe how each branch of government checks the powers of the other two branches.
What are the costs and benefits of a style of federalism that favors the national government?
What are the costs and benefits of a style of federalism that favors state governments?

The separation of powers refers to the division of power and authority that the Constitution grants to each of the three branches of government: the legislative branch, executive branch, and judicial branch.

The founders created this system of checks and balances to prevent any branch from becoming all-powerful or tyrannical. Each of these institutions enjoys separate and independent powers and areas of responsibility. For example, in the United States, the legislative branch (Congress) is responsible for creating laws, the executive branch (the office of the president) executes or administers these laws, and the judicial branch (the court system and the U.S. Supreme Court) interprets and applies the law. The Founders divided these governmental powers to prevent any one person or branch of government from becoming too powerful.

However, each branch lacks complete control over the powers the Constitution grants them: each branch has the power to limit or influence the authority of the other two branches. For example, a president does not have to sign every law Congress puts forward and can veto a law they dislike to prevent it from going into effect. If Congress feels the president uses their veto power unjustly, a two-thirds majority may overrule the veto. Similarly, the U.S. Supreme Court can declare a law unconstitutional and overturn it.

Federalism describes the division of powers between federal and state governments. For example, the Constitution designates that certain powers belong exclusively to the federal or state governments, while some are concurrent or shared.

Note that, as with disputes among the federal branches of government, state legislatures frequently disagree and debate whether an issue or concern falls under the jurisdiction of the local, state, or federal government since the Constitution could not have predicted every situation where government power would be necessary. In these cases, the judiciary may be called in to resolve these types of disputes.

To review, see U.S. Constitution, Annotated, Developing the U.S. Constitution, and Federalist No. 51.

1h. Differentiate various types of federalism that define power-sharing between national and state governments

What are the strengths and weaknesses of a federal system?
How is power shared between the federal and state governments in a federal system?
How do dual federalism, nation-centered federalism, and cooperative federalism differ?
What is fiscal federalism?
How do block grants, categorical grants, and general revenue sharing differ?

A more recent version of federalism, often described as a period of devolution, makes room for states to become "laboratories of democracy" by reducing limits and regulations on money granted to states from the national government. This independence and the ability to experiment with different ways of involving citizens in the decision-making process has led to several policy innovations since the 1990s. Because state governments are more accessible to citizens (due to their relative size and geographic proximity to their constituents), they typically promote increased political participation and efficacy.

In a federal system, state and local governments also can block some important federal policies their legislators oppose. For example, differences of opinion were especially apparent and violent in many areas when the federal government tried to implement civil rights legislation.

Federalism can also lead to major discrepancies in how people are treated at the individual state and local level by governments responsible for administering a program. For example, state and local governments that lack the political will, expertise, or funding mechanisms to support certain proposals may prevent major federal policy goals from being implemented or distributed fairly and uniformly.

For example, while the U.S. Congress passed the Affordable Care Act in 2010, its implementation has varied widely due to the level of support it received from state legislators who were responsible for putting its promises and guidelines into practice. Several states declined to receive funding from the federal government, which limited the number of patients who could benefit from the legislation.

Dual federalism (layer-cake federalism) refers to a system in which federal, state, and local governments have distinct spheres of authority and power which do not overlap. In contrast, cooperative federalism (marble-cake federalism) describes a system where federal, state, and local governmental authority overlap and are shared. Nation-centered federalism refers to a system where the federal government has more authority and power than the state or local governments, such as in many authoritarian governments.

Fiscal federalism refers to the funding of government programs. For example, many say Democrats support increasing federal government control over the funding and administration of federal programs and initiatives, while Republicans tend to demand greater state and local authority for these programs. In reality, political parties frequently change their stance depending on the issue and whether they support the person in charge of implementing the policy.

Congressional funding can take several forms.

Block grants are grants which the federal government issues to state and local governments to support broadly-defined programs, such as law enforcement or social services.
Categorical grants provide grant funding for more specific or narrowly-defined purposes or programs. These programs typically see greater federal government oversight as supporters try to ensure they are administered and implemented as planned.
General revenue sharing refers to a situation in which some of the revenue raised by the federal government is shared with state and local governments for them to use. It was introduced as part of a larger process of devolving more authority to the states.

To review, see:

1i. Describe how amendment and interpretation have changed the Constitution since its ratification

What do we mean when we describe the Constitution as a living document?
How has the Constitution been interpreted over time, such as when the public changes its view about a certain issue?
Why did the Founders believe citizens and their representatives should have a process to amend the Constitution?
What are some key amendments to the Constitution?

Since the framers of the Constitution knew they could not anticipate every challenge or situation that would arise in their new country, they agreed future generations should be able to adapt the Constitution to keep it vibrant and relevant. Necessary modifications, or amendments, would help the Constitution maintain its status as the "Supreme Law of the Land" in line with future circumstances. Americans consider the Constitution a living document because the framers intended it to be interpreted and modified as necessary, according to the needs of the people.

The U.S. Supreme Court has the final say in interpreting the Constitution. Since it outlined the power of judicial review in the case Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the Supreme Court has deemed more than 125 federal laws and hundreds of state laws unconstitutional, preventing their implementation.

Presidents have enhanced their executive authority through their interpretation of the Second Article of the Constitution. For example, President George Washington (1732–1799) used his interpretation of executive power to establish that the president is the key figure in deciding foreign policy. Abraham Lincoln expanded executive power to issue the Emancipation Proclamation and free enslaved people in the South in 1863.

The Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution ratified in 1791, guarantee certain rights for Americans and was an important addition to the Constitution. The 13th Amendment abolished slavery in 1865. The 14th Amendment guaranteed certain civil rights in 1868, and the 15th Amendment recognized the voting rights of African-Americans in 1870. These are just a few examples of how the Constitution has been shaped over time.

To review, see:

Unit 1 Vocabulary

13th amendment
14th amendment
15th amendment
Anti-Federalists
Articles of Confederation
block grants
categorical grants
charismatic authority
Constitution
Constitutional Convention
cooperative federalism
Declaration of Independence
dual federalism
executive branch
federalism
Federalist Papers
Federalists
fiscal federalism
general revenue sharing
judicial branch
legislative branch
living document
minority rights
nation-centered federalism
political legitimacy
power
rational-legal authority
separation of powers
three-fifths compromise
traditional authority
tyranny of the majority