Knowt
Unit 1: democracy
1.1 - ideals of democracy
Main ideal of democracy: limited government
Limited government: people admit the need for a government but want to keep it as limited as possible (prevent tyranny)
Enlightenment ideas: natural rights, popular sovereignty/social contract, republicanism
Founders were greatly influenced by Enlightenment in Europe and adopted many Enlightenment ideals into Declaration and Constitution
Natural rights: rights that people are born with and given by Creator, means they can’t be taken away by a government/ruler
John Locke: people are born with rights to life, liberty, and property; wrote Two Treatises of Government, thought of state of nature as something good
Thomas Hobbes: thought state of nature was a mess because there was no government and there would be chaos over rights
State of nature: before government, where humans are free
Argued for by Locke and Hobbes both (differing views though)
Popular sovereignty and social contract: state is the servant of the people
Popular sovereignty: the people have the power to govern themselves
Social contract: people willingly give up some power/natural rights to a government that will protect their rights
Jean-Jacques Rousseau: the people have a right/duty to overthrow the government and replace it if it is not protecting the individual rights of the people and being tyrannical
Republicanism: elect leaders to represent the people
Baron de Montesquieu: people elect leaders to represent them/create laws in public interest, separation of power between 3 branches to avoid tyrannical government, wrote The Spirit of the Laws
Foundational document intros, Enlightenment influences only
Declaration of Independence: natural rights, social contract/popular sovereignty
Locke’s ideas and natural rights: people are born with unalienable rights (life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness - changed from property) given by Creator
Social contract and popular sovereignty: governments derive their power from consent of the governed to maintain unalienable rights
Constitution: Separation of powers, republicanism
Separation of powers/Montesquieu’s ideas: separated government into three branches (executive, legislative, judicial) which have authority to check power of other branches
Republicanism: creation of representative republic
Representative republic: people vote representatives into office who then vote for laws on their behalf
Founders didn’t actually try to create a democratic government because they feared what pure democracy could cause humans to do because they’re mostly uneducated so they made a republicanism government
1.2 - types of democracy
Participatory democracy: broad participation in politics and civil society
Citizens vote on laws directly
Founders did NOT want this because they thought people were uneducated and would make bad decisions if they were directly voting on laws and would also be impossible in a large nation
Ex: town hall meetings for everyone to voice their opinions
Ex: initiative and referendum, most prevalent
Initiative: put measure on ballot that they want to be passed as law, basically propose laws themselves if the lawmakers aren’t doing it for them
Referendum: when people oppose laws that are passed, call for vote (if enough support against it) to defeat and “recall” the law
Elite democracy: opposite of participatory, few voters
Only very small numbers of people (educated and qualified people) can participate in politics and they make laws on behalf of the people
Need specialists for large, complex government because they’re devoting their lives to politics so they can navigate the complex legal system and make the best decisions
Ex: POTUS appoints SCOTUS judges (not chosen by voters, make best judicial decisions for entire country)
Ex: electoral college for electing president (electors vote president, not the people directly)
Pluralist democracy: mix of participatory and elite, group based
Group based (non-governmental interests) activism that influence decision making
Citizens pool resources and can impact legislation through interest groups, amplify voice
Ex: states represent interests of their citizens in the House and the Senate to pass favorable legislation
Interest + competition = no single interest dominating the rest and becoming tyrannical
Foundational documents intro, types of democracy only
Constitution: elite, pluralist, participatory
Elite: elected representatives in House and Senate
Pluralist: various interests compromise to get legislation passed
Participatory: separation of powers between levels (federalism)
Federalist 10 and Brutus 1 debate
Brutus wanted participatory: feared tyranny of powerful central government and wanted to give power to the people and the states
Federalist 10 said that fear was unnecessary: all factions would compete and prevent one from being tyrannical because US is large republic
1.3 - government power and individual rights
Main idea of debate between Federalist 10 and Brutus 1: majority rule vs minority rights
How can Constitution make sure that small minorities won’t have to have a heavy tax burden to powerful majorities? (especially with farmers)
Federalists: supported ratifying new Constitution, argued for more centralized power in the federal government
Federalist Papers: federalists essays published in newspapers that tried to get the public to support ratifying the Constitution
Federalist 10: “mischief of factions”
If majority always won, then the minority issues would never get addressed
If there were too many minority protections, then there would never be anything done for the common good
Solution to this problem is republican style government with representatives
There would be so many factions in a large republic so they would compete and compromise to get favorable laws passed, diluting their effects and upholding majority rule and minority rights
Anti-federalists: against ratifying new Constitution, argued for less centralized power in the federal government and to keep the current system of having lots of state power
Anti-federalist Papers: anti-federalists essays published in newspapers that tried to get the public to not support ratifying the Constitution, a lot less organized
Brutus 1: arguing against Fed 10
There have never been large republics in history
Necessary and proper clause along with supremacy clause would give national government too much power and the states too little power and abolish the need for lower levels of government (no state voice or interests)
Letters from a federal farmer: another one of the anti-federalist papers, most logical
1.4 - challenges of Articles
Articles of Confederation: original constitution of US, very decentralized with lots of power to the states
All 13 states made own constitutions so it was like 13 separate governments but they realized they needed some sort of national government to unite and do trade and foreign relations
Established very decentralized system for national because of monarchy hangover (avoid tyranny of powerful central government)
Weaknesses of Articles
Only one branch: only Congress, no executive or judicial
Needs all 13 states to agree in order to amend: makes change too hard
No congressional power to collect taxes for revenue: they could only ask states for money if they needed it, couldn’t impose taxes so couldn’t get money to pay bills and debts (to soldiers during war)
No national currency: made trade really hard
No congressional power to assemble national army: led to Shays’ rebellion
Shays’ rebellion: showed the weaknesses of the articles
Farmers who went to fight in the war for money didn’t get repaid because the national government was broke because they couldn’t tax and so the farmers couldn’t pay their taxes and debts
Farmers petitioned and demanded relief but the government denied it and demanded they pay all taxes but the farmers got angry about that (reasonably so)
Daniel Shays made a militia with other angry farmers and raided town arsenal and armed themselves but the Massachusetts militia crushed it
Still a problem because they couldn’t get help from a nonexistent national army so the states started realizing the problems with the Articles because what if another angry farmer took inspiration from Shays and started a rebellion but the state army isn’t able to put it down that time
1.5 - ratification of the Constitution
Constitutional convention (aka Philadelphia convention): held in Philadelphia in 1787 to revise Articles but ended up drafting a whole new constitution with a stronger federal government
Great compromise: how would representation work in the new Congress?
Result: bicameral legislature with Senate based on equal representation (each state gets 2) and House apportioned by population (bigger get more than smaller)
Virginia plan: representatives should be by state population (bigger state=more representatives and smaller state=less representatives)
Beneficial for larger states (like Virginia) because they had a larger voice than smaller ones in governing affairs and matters
Problem with this was that if large states had more representatives, then the interests of smaller states would never be heard
New Jersey plan: representation should be equal with each state getting the same number of representatives (1 per state no matter its size)
Beneficial for smaller states (like NJ) because larger states wouldn’t be able to overpower their voices and interests
Problem with this was that the larger populations wouldn’t get their problems heard as much even though they affect more people
Election of president: how should president be elected?
Result: electoral college system
Some said president should be chosen by the people (directly)
Some said president should be chosen by state legislatures
Some said president should be chosen by Congress
3/5 compromise: how would slaves be counted for representation in the House (by census)
Result: each slave counts for 3/5 of a person (or count 3/5 of enslaved population) when determining House representation and taxation (more representatives=more taxes with it)
Northern states: slaves shouldn’t count and representation should only be based on free population
Southern states said slaves were property not people so why should they count for representation at all?
Helps northern states because southern ones have slaves while northern ones don’t so the southern ones don’t get more representation in the House
Southern states: slaves should be counted as people when determining House representation because they are still people living within the state
Helps southern states because they have slaves and get more representation in the House
Importation of enslaved people: is the slave trade allowed?
Result: slave trade would stay as it is for next 20 years and then it would be abolished
Some (northern) wanted to abolish slave trade completely but south didn’t like that at all
During all these debates, framers realized that there needed to be a way to amend the Constitution so they laid out an easier process (compared to Articles) in article V
Proposal: Congress or state conventions can propose, 2/3 vote needed to propose
Ratification: must be accepted by 3/4 of the states (state legislatures or state ratifying convention)
Debate of issues from convention still goes on today
Government surveillance: central power vs individual rights
9/11 attacks were by people who were living in US and planning for 1.5 years and people were surprised how that could happen
Patriot act was passed as a result: more monitoring of Americans’ lives by the government but people eventually thought it violated fourth amendment
Education: too much federal overreach in power?
Education is historically part of state authority
No child left behind act: schools would need to meet criteria to get federal funding but the criteria were really hard to reach so if they failed there would be sanctions
1.6 - principles of government
Separation of powers: separates power between 3 branches
Legislative branch (Congress): power to propose and make laws
Executive branch (president and bureaucracy): power to enforce laws
Judicial branch (court system): power to interpret constitutionality of the laws
Checks and balances: no branch has supreme power and the power of one branch is limited by that of the other two
Each branch has power to check other two branches to make sure they’re not becoming too powerful or tyrannical
Senate power of advice and consent: Senate approval for treaties, cabinet appointments, SCOTUS nominees, etc:
Congressional power of impeaching president
Presidential veto power and Congressional power to override veto with 2/3 supermajority
Court power of judicial review: can say laws are unconstitutional and null/void
Federalist 51: supports these principles, separation of powers and checks and balances makes sure that no one branch can abuse its power
Each branch works independently of others while also keeping others in check
Access points for stakeholders
Stakeholder: someone with interest in outcome of policies and laws, we are all stakeholders because we are all affected by the outcome
Legislative: interest groups and lobbyists persuade lawmakers to pass favorable laws, write letters/emails to representatives
Executive: access to bureaucratic agencies, file complaint with agencies if broken law or crime
Judicial: take a case to the courts, challenge unjust laws, appeal wrongful convictions
1.7 - federalism
Federalism: sharing of power between state and national governments
Exclusive powers: powers delegated by Constitution to federal government only, exclusively for national government
Ex: declaring war
Reserved powers: powers kept by (reserved for) the states
From tenth amendment
Ex: policing, hospitals, education
Concurrent powers: powers that national and state governments share
Ex: taxation
Fiscal federalism (aka federalism via dollars): Congress gives money (through grants) to states
Categorical grants: money to states as long as they comply to set federal standards, have to be used for only one purpose
If states accept, then they have to do certain things with the money and can only use it for the set purposes
Civil rights act: schools could only get money if they were non-segregated
Elementary and secondary education act: more requirements if the school was to get funding
Block grant: fewer strings/requirements, states get to choose exactly how money will be spent
Broader category than categorical grants so states have more freedom, which is why they like block grants better
Ex: community development block grant
Mandate: require (mandate) states to do something and give money to the states to help them do it
Clean air act: hard to comply with standards so the national government gave money to the states to help them meet the standards
Unfunded mandate: states have to do something but don’t get money for it
States like it the least out of all of them
No child left behind act: states had to give standardized tests if they got federal funding and if they weren’t getting better the school had to fund its own improvement programs with no help from national government
Devolution revolution: by Reagan, power returned to the states, decreased use of unfunded mandates
Unfunded mandates reform act: severely limited national government’s ability to issue unfunded mandates
Power has shifted back and forth over time between states and national government
1.8 - constitutional interpretations of federalism
Tenth amendment: reserves all powers not explicitly given to national government by Constitution to the states
Called reserved powers
Ex: regulating trade within a state
Fourteenth amendment: incorporation
Incorporation: applies bill of rights to the states via due process clause. protected rights against state violation as well as federal violation
Commerce clause: gives Congress power to regulate interstate commerce, article I section 8
US v. Lopez
Necessary and proper (elastic) clause: gives Congress power to make any law needed to carry out enumerated powers, article I section 8
McCulloch v. Maryland
Full faith and credit clause: states must respect the laws of other states, article IV
Ex: drivers licenses and marriages are valid in every state
DOMA (defense of marriage act): gave states right to not recognize marital laws (same sex marriage) of another state
Obergefell v. Hodges: reversed a part of DOMA, marriage is fundamental right that can’t be infringed upon by states
1.9 - federalism in action
Federalism creates more access points for stakeholders to influence policymaking because there’s more levels of government
Environmental regulations: Paris agreement
Obama went to Paris agreement to work on limiting climate change but Senate was Republican (need Senate approval to sign treaties) so Obama entered by executive order so the states had to comply with all these new regulations
Trump became president and withdrew the US from the agreement but some states (CA) kept the regulations in their state laws
Factories in CA have to abide by strict state laws instead of loose federal laws
Legalization of marijuana: differences between national and state laws
States are laboratories for democracy: states pass laws and other (national or other states but mostly talking about national) representatives see how it goes and then maybe pass same/similar laws
Controlled substances act: under Nixon: severe punishments for possessing and using marijuana (marijuana nationally illegal)
More research about potential benefits of using marijuana as medical therapeutic so CA (and other states) legalized medical marijuana (still illegal under federal law though)
CO legalized recreational marijuana but Obama (president at the time) said that it’s illegal but wasn’t going to enforce the law