How effective is direct democracy in the USA?

How effective is direct democracy in the USA?

Intro:  To measure the effectiveness of a thing, we need to first of all identify its objective. What is the objective of direct democracy in the USA? Briefly explain your understanding of direct democracy and it's effectiveness. Give a couple of recent examples too.

Body: In each paragraph, make a point, explain the point, give a recent example and then give some analysis. Here's an example

-Direct democracy helps overcome legislative gridlock. (point made).  Legislative gridlock happens when laws are not passed due to strong disagreement within Congress or between Congress and the President. Congress is becoming increasingly partisan i.e Republicans are generally becoming more conservative, while Democrats more liberal. (you could give an example here - e.g point out the vote in Congress on Obamacare where no Republican was in support)

This has made it very difficult to reach compromise and pass bills. (point explained) For example, most Americans agree with Democrats in that mandatory background checks should be carried out before a gun is sold. However most Republicans are in total disagreement - they believe that any kind of gun control is a violation of the right to 'bear arms' in the 2nd Amendment. As a result, there is legislative gridlock on issues such as gun control...but this is where direct democracy comes in. The public can effectively bypass Congress through initiatives and propositions. In 2014, Washington passed a gun control law through an initiative (read here) and now in 2015, Californians are looking to propose a similar measure.

However, let's think about the effect of letting the people decide. We have representatives in government to take fair decisions for the greater good. Giving the power of legislation to the people can lead to impulsive decisions flowing with the tide of public opinion, without considering long term effects or the impact on different people. For example, in the 1970s California held a referendum to limit its taxes...and this may have contributed to the high levels of debt the state sees today.... (perhaps give a more recent example here)

Have a look at this explainer by the Economist 

-Direct democracy helps establish accountability. Citizens can remove an elected official through a process known as the 'political recall'. Arguably, this tool will encourage politicians to become more representative of the electorate.  Accountability is especially important in a country as polarised as the US - voters often choose candidates solely based on their party (check out straight-ticket voting) which can make candidates in safe seats feel invincible. However,  to analyse this point think about how effective recalls are as a tool of accountability? The process is long, costly and difficult, and sometimes, the official who was recalled can win the election again! 

-Direct democracy helps resolve controversial issues. Many politicians are career-minded and are thus unwilling to take decisions on contentious issues which could isolate a large part of the electorate. So they leave it to the majority to decide. However,  allowing the majority to decide means that the voice of the minority is ignored. This is especially undemocratic when the majority wins because they had more funds to sponsor their campaign. Give a recent example here of when more money = more votes in direct democracy, which I'm sure you'll have no problem finding in American politics. You could also analyse the fairness of when the margin between the majority and minority vote is so tiny (eg a 51% majority and 49% minority). If only just a handful more people agree with a campaign, is it democratic to ignore the significant number of people who don't?

Conclusion: Do you think direct democracy is effective? Why and what evidence do you have to support your standpoint?  

TOP TIP: A-level politics examiners appreciate it when you do not deviate from the question being asked. A good way to ensure you stay on track is to link each paragraph back to the question. eg  '...Therefore, this demonstrates that direct democracy is/ is not effective in the USA' or '...As such, the effectiveness of direct democracy in the US is questionable.'

SUPREME COURT: To what extent is there minority representation in the judiciary?

We can look at this from a couple of angles;

1) Ethnic minorities

Are there enough ethnic minorities such as African Americans, Hispanics and Asians?

2) Social minorities eg disabled people

Are there enough social minorities?

3) Minority opinion

How often are rulings against public opinion and in favour of a minority opinion?

The question is asking about minority representation in the judiciary. The judiciary includes judges on a regional, state and federal level (not only the Supreme Court!!). So when you mention Hispanic Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, remember to talk about lower court judges as well

Discuss whether minorities are represented physically i.e what percentage of judges are ethnic/social minorities? Is this proportionate to the percentage of minorities in the population?

Discuss whether the rulings are favourable to minorities e.g. affirmative action, gay rights cases

Intro

Include all the key terms; 

-minority representation

-judiciary

Briefly talk about the importance of minority representation e.g. to increase public confidence in the judiciary. 

Discuss the different angles of minority representation and state whether you think there is minority representation

Main body

1) Ethnic/social minority representation

YES: There are ethnic minorities in the Supreme Court including Clarence Thomas, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor

Racially diverse states such as Hawaii or Texas have very high minority representation in state courts

Consider 

NO: Although there are some ethnic minorities in the judiciary, the percentage is still unrepresentative of the population. For example, the Hispanic population grew by 43% between 2001 and 2010, but this growth is not reflected in the judiciary  

2) Court rulings

YES: There have been a number of cases in favour of ethnic and social minorities such as Brown v Board of Education 1954 (desegregation), Grutter v Bollinger 2003 (affirmative action), and the recent same sex marriage ruling (2015)

NO: There have also been some cases in expense of ethnic and social minorities such as Gratz v Bollinger (2003) and Schuette v Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (2014), both of which ruled against affirmative action. The Court even refused to hear the Adar v Smith case in 2013, which was related to gay rights. This could be because the Supreme Court has become more conservative in recent years 

Conclusion

Say whether you think there is minority representation and why. You could say no because ethnic minorities tend to have lower educational attainment and therefore have a lower chance of becoming a judge. Or you could yes; explaining that minority representation varies from state to state, but the highest Court in the land is very ethnically diverse

SUPREME COURT: Is originalism the most appropriate judicial interpretation?

Originalism is a type of interpretation of the Constitution.

Originalists interpret the Constitution based on what they thought the Founding Fathers intended at that time.

In this question, compare originalism to the two other types of interpretation i.e loose constructionism and strict constructionism. Make sure you look at both (or more) sides throughout in order to keep your answer balanced

The paragraphs in red are the strongest points

Introduction; Include all the key terms in your intro. Then briefly talk about the purpose of interpreting the Constitution (judicial review), the meaning of originalism and why it is a good/bad way to interpret the Constitution. Then end by stating whether you think originalism is an appropriate way to read the Constitution

YES- Protection of civil liberties Originalists understand and advocate the desire of the Founding Fathers to prevent tyranny and the oppression of individual rights. Although they have a narrow interpretation of ‘Securing the blessings of liberty’, originalists tend to support more conservative rights such as Second Amendment rights District of Columbia v Heller case 2008 and freedom of corporate speech through campaign donations eg Citizens United v FEC 2010 AND McCutcheon v FEC 2014	NO - Protection of civil liberties The nature of civil liberties is dynamic. It has evolved over the years; the right to privacy was only introduced in 1973 as a result of the Roe v. Wade ruling. The application of equal protection and liberty is now extended to women and descendants of slaves, which is in conflict with the original meaning of the Constitution.
Bork believed that interpreting the Constitution in accordance with its original meaning was the way to prevent an elite group of judges from diverting democracy away from elected representatives. Non-originalism encourages the Supreme Court to be ‘politicians in robes’. eg some argue that judges have become too sensitive to public opinion eg the role of amicus curiae briefings in Grutter v Bollinger 2003 over 350 amicus curiaes (record number) were submitted which affected the decision	For the Court to be a legitimate institution, it needs to have some degree of public support. In fact, if there is strong public aversion to a Court decision, the elected executive or legislature may decide to effectively overturn the ruling through an amendment or law. Originalism is clearly not popular, demonstrated by Bork’s unanimous rejection. Many constitutional precedents that dont have originalist support are backed by public opinion eg Brown v Board, Roe v Wade, Hollingsworth v Perry 2013. Trade off between independence and public support. Should a Court not have the respect of its people?
Elected officials are unlikely to uphold the Constitution at the expense of their popularity or seats in power. As such, representatives would be unwilling to oppose public opinion.	NO- Assumes there is a single unified meaning. There were over 50 contributors to the formation of the Constitution and they could not all have had the same views. In addition, from the preamble, it is clear that the Founding Fathers understood that the Constitution was not only for themselves but also for the Posterity. (got this point from Wikipedia) It is inevitable that future generations will have alternative social perspectives from their predecessors.
As Scalia often says in support of originalism, if the public wants a change, a law or constitutional amendment should be passed. The Constitution is meant to impede change, not adapt to sporadic popular opinion.	The amendment process is too difficult in practice. Firstly, two thirds of Congress or state constitutional conventions must propose an amendment, followed by a ratification of two-thirds of Congress or state conventions. It is not easy to obtain a supermajority twice in such a polarised Congress; in addition, the Founding Fathers did not foresee the difficulties in mobilising public opinion of over 330 million+ people. Court interpretations are de facto revisions to the Constitution. This is why it was so difficult to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment AND the Washington DC voting rights amendment
https://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/why-originalism-does-not-strictly-govern-same-sex-marriage Originalism does not have jurisdiction over the whole Constitution; there are some cases where the Constitution must be interpreted in accordance with its original meaning such as 7th Amendment cases. But there are also cases where originalism cannot govern the interpretation. For example, the original meaning of the Equal Protection Clause pertained to African Americans.
Firstly, originalism is the most apolitical method of interpretation, as verdicts become less susceptible to individual judicial philosophies. With a 'living Constitution', judges will find it difficult to separate their personal views from rulings. eg Obama mentioned the role of a judge’s heart in a difficult case	However, it is difficult to ascertain the original meaning of the Constitution. The Supreme Court justices were not present in the Philadelphia Convention; they are limited to analysing documents and works of authority of over two hundred years ago to attempt to understand the Founding Fathers’ intentions. Naturally, this results in inconsistency of interpretation; the same problem originalists base their refutation of loose constructionism on. This is demonstrated by the fact that no originalist judge is critical of the Brown v Topeka Board of Education decision despite the clear original intention. Thus, the Supreme Court should not interpret the Constitution in accordance with its original meaning.
It is inevitable that different Supreme Courts will have different Justices with different views, which fosters instability in rulings. This weakens the judiciary as a governmental institution by diminishing the legal and practical authority of precedent and the use of stare decisis. It can even lead to public disillusionment with the judicial process, as demonstrated by the March 2015 protests against the 2010 Citizens United v. FEC ruling. This case and the 2014 McCutcheon v FEC case overturned the precedent set in 2003 in McConnel v FEC. Arguably, if the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution in accordance with its original meaning, the campaign finance reform verdicts would be predictable, which strengthens the rule of law and the authority of the Court.	It is inevitable that future generations will have alternative social perspectives from their predecessors. Thus, loose constructionists tend to be judicially active, as they believe that society is always changing. According to them, precedent is important, but not more important than overturning a decision they believe is wrong. The longer the time period between a precedent and a case, the more likely the principle of stare decisis is likely to be ignored eg Lawrence v Texas 2003
Yes because judges are experts in law, not economic or welfare policy. Thus, loose constructionists are unlikely to understand the social impact of their rulings, especially judges who exhibit judicial activism who tend to strike down laws as unconstitutional. eg Justice Holmes in 1923 dissented from the decision to strike down the minimum wage due to its potential impact. Perhaps this is why the Court upheld the Affordable Healthcare Act in National Federation of Business v Sebelius in 2012

Conclusion; Your final paragraph. Here, say which side you support and why (it protects civil liberties, it prevents politicisation etc). You could also mention important factors to consider when interpreting the Constitution e.g. periods of hyperpartisanship is likely to decrease the number of bills Congress passes, which might make the Court more assertive 

SUPREME COURT: Outline the disadvantages and disadvantages of strict constructionism.

Strict constructionism is interpreting the Constitution in a very literal way- word for word.

Advantages:

1) Interpreting the Constitution in this way leaves revolutionary change to Congress. This is an advantage because Congress was elected by the people. Therefore, it has the electoral mandate to implement such change; the Supreme Court does not.

2) Scalia (a Supreme Court judge) often says if a change is wanted, Congress should pass a bill. This prevents judges from 'legislating from the bench'. Strict constructionism prevents the personal opinions of judges from interfering with rulings. This upholds judicial neutrality and may help reduce the politicisation of the Court

Disadvantages:

1) Strict constructionism is unlikely to protect civil liberties such as 14th amendment rights e.g. abortion, same sex marriage, ethnic rights. However, you could argue it protects more conservative liberties such as gun rights

2) Strict constructionism is insensitive to how society has evolved over the years. Less receptive to public opinion

SUPREME COURT: Outline the advantages and disadvantages of loose constructionism

This is likely to be a short 15 mark question

Ok let's consider the question.

What is loose constructionism?

Loose constructionism; interpreting the Constitution in a broad way. 

This is in direct contrast to strict constructionism, which tends to interpret the Constitution in a very literal way. Loose constructionists tend to be liberal judges who consider how society's values have changed over the years, taking this into account when making decisions.

For example, the Constitution says citizens have the bear arms (own guns)

The strict constructionist would read this and say that every adult citizen therefore should be free to have a gun.

Whereas, the loose constructionist would say that this is not practical in 21st century America where gun violence is a major issue. Rather, they would interpret this as a collective right instead of an individual right i.e army and police officers can own guns on behalf of the citizens

There are some situations where loose constructionism will increase the general welfare of citizens e.g. gun rights. But this type of interpretation also has it's problems

So let's answer the question

Main body

1) Advantage; Loose constructionists tend to uphold civil rights and liberties. Judicially active, loose constructionist judges such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg tend to dissent in cases which infringe civil liberties such as Salinas v Texas (2013) and agree with rulings that don't e.g. 2015 Same sex ruling

2) Advantage; Loose constructionists often protect minorities, especially those incompatible with Congress or the executive. This is because loose constructionists are not scared to overturn laws or actions made by Congress or the executive e.g. Brown v Board of Education

3) Disadvantage; Loose constructionists tend to be judicially active, which has fuelled arguments on the politicisation of the Court. They 'legislate from the bench' by striking down laws as unconstitutional. This is undemocratic and elitist, as they have mandate from the electorate

4) Disadvantage; Loose constructionists tend to be too sensitive to public opinion, which could hamper the neutrality and independence of the Court. However, some public support is necessary to maintain the authority of the Court

Conclusion

To determine whether loose constructionism is good or bad, think about the purpose of the judiciary. Does this type of interpretation hinder or help the judiciary to achieve its aims? 

SUPREME COURT: Outline the checks the Court possesses over the other branches.

This is likely to be a 15 mark question

Of course, the other branches are the executive (the president, the Executive Office of the Presidency and the Federal Bureaucracy) and the legislature (Congress).

The Court had few checks over the other branches, as it is the only unelected body

Over the legislature

1) Judicial review of laws passed by Congress e.g. the Court reviewed whether Obamacare was constitutional in National Federation of Business v Sebelius (2012)


Over the executive 

1) Judicial review of actions e.g. USA V Nixon, during the Watergate scandal.
More recently, Republicans are desperate to take Obama's immigration amnesty to the Supreme Court. They believe his amnesty which would protect over 4 million immigrants from deportation is an overstep of his authority


It is also arguable that the Court has checked the executive by determining campaign finance laws in cases such as Citizens United v FEC (2010) and McCutcheon v FEC (2014). Campaign finance is essential for the election or defeat of a potential president, congressman or Senator. Thus, these rulings have had and will have a notable impact in the other branches

SUPREME COURT: Outline the constitutional checks on the Supreme Court.

The Founding Fathers of America were very intelligent men including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. They formed the Constitution to create a system where no branch of government was too powerful, in order to prevent tyranny.

They did this through 'checks and balances', where each branch of government exercises control over the actions of other branches. As a result, the Supreme Court is checked by Congress and the Executive

Notice the question asks for the constitutional checks on the Supreme Court. So focus on the formal checks seen in the Constitution but you may very briefly introduce informal checks such as pressure group or the 'bully pulpit' in your analysis

Introduction

This is likely to be a short 15 mark question, so you're unlikely to need an introduction. A short introductory sentence should do.

Main body

Just pick three or four of these points, develop them with recent examples and then link the paragraph back to the question

Congress

1) Power of confirmation  e.g. Robert Bork was rejected. Under Bush, Harriet Miers was withdrawn from the confirmation process (not rejected).

Consider the role of pressure groups such as the American Bar Association as well. The ABA gives ratings to judicial nominees e.g. Clarence Thomas received a relatively low rating 

2) Power of impeachment e.g. Thomas Porteous was impeached in 2010 for corruption

3) Can initiate constitutional amendments. This can overturn a Court ruling but very rare as the amendment process is so difficult 

President

1) Power of nomination.  

The President is likely to nominate someone of a similar ideology e.g. liberal presidents such as Obama are likely to nominate liberal judges such as Elena Kagan.

However, Justices are free to employ any ideology once nominated e.g. Kennedy often swings between liberalism and conservatism

2) 'Bully pulpit.

The role of the president comes with power, and what he says carries political weight, especially when his approval ratings are high. If the president condemns a ruling, this can erode the public image of the Court. If he supports it, this can have the opposite effect e.g. Obama lauded the 2015 same sex marriage ruling

3) Power of pardon. 

The president can exempt people from the wrath of the Court except in cases of impeachment 

Conclusion

You could say why the constitutional checks are important and which has been the most effective in recent years