Outline how and why federalism has changed since the 1960s.

Page 1 of 2 Outline how and why federalism has changed since the 1960s. In the 1960s, the government had a creative federalist approach. The aim of Lynden Johnson's Great society programmes was to try to eliminate poverty within the US. This in turn meant large government grants were given to states, which was seen to increase the level of interference from the federal government. Johnson also provided categorical grants instead of block grants, which meant the states had much less control over their spending. He also supplied a lot of federal aid, increasing the dependence of states on the federal government. It wasn't just the executive increasing the role; the judiciary were also pushing the government this way, with cases such as Gideon vs. Wainwright and Miranda vs. Arizona. Since the 1960's the some have stated that New Federalism has been the main objective of the executive and judiciary due to the previous creative federalism. From the 1970s there was an ideological shift, with the rejection of liberal values from the 1960s. President Nixon started the development of the idea that the federal government was too powerful, and that the states needed to have more power of their local rights. He felt that the federal government should be small to promote self reliance and the American idea of 'rugged individualism'. As a reaction to creative federalism and the great

  • Ranking:
  • Word count: 1289
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: Politics
Access this essay

Are supreme court justices politicians in disguise?

Are Supreme Court justices politicians in disguise? (60) The United States Supreme Court is argued to make both political and judicial decisions even though it is a judicial body. A Judicial Decision is a decision based on the law. Whether that law is right or wrong is of no concern to the judiciary because that is a political decision. A political decision is such that should the death penalty should be given for murder, whereas the judicial decision would have been whether the person was guilty of that crime. To some extent the inevitable answer is yes, the main reason being is judicial review. In the United Kingdom the powers of judicial review only extend to ultra vires, the power to say that the government has exceeded its powers given to it by law; what it cannot do is say the law is invalid. In the United States the Supreme Court can declare laws to be unconstitutional. This is because of the power as introduced by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury Vs Madison. Therefore it can strike down laws made by congress and also executive actions if it so chooses. The Supreme Court is the guardian of the constitution and, as such if it decides which laws are constitutional or not. This means it must have some political element since it is so to speak making law rather than just ruling on it (such as in Roe Vs Wade 1973). This however is not necessarily a negative thing.

  • Ranking:
  • Word count: 1536
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: Politics
Access this essay

Consider the view that the arguments for having an electoral college to elect the President are no longer valid

Consider the view that the arguments for having an electoral college to elect the President are no longer valid The United States' constitution was created in 1787 and, whilst creating the document, the Founding Fathers' opted on a method to indirectly elect the President. The "electoral college" system was born. The Founding Fathers believed that the electorate may, in the future, be easily taken in by the showmanship of extremists and so determined that the popular votes cast would only "influence" electors and not directly elect the President. Each state would have as many electors as they have congressmen (so 2 for each Senator and then so many for however many Representatives) who would cast their ballots in early January (after the national election in November) for a candidate, having been "influenced" by the results of the election day polls. In effect, this system both undermines the integrity of the voters and is undemocratic, effectively allowing the power to fall to a small number of people. Unsurprisingly, especially in the wake of the 2000 election, there have been calls for reform with many citing the Electoral College as a "no longer valid" method of electing the leader of the country. As I have already mentioned, the original reason for introducing the Electoral College system was to prevent against dictatorship and extremism. In theory, this sounds great

  • Ranking:
  • Word count: 1797
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: Politics
Access this essay

Why are US presidential elections so long ?

Why is the US Presidential election such a long process (15m) The process of electing a president of the United States is certainly a long one. The formal process takes nearly a year but in reality starts before it's even begun. The first point to make is that of the importance of the campaign trail. Presidential elections take place in November but before this a significant countrywide election campaign is launched. The Presidential election specifically is as much about character and personality as it is politics, and so it is seen as vital that the chosen candidate of each party effectively "tours" the country fist hand to deliver their message in person. Naturally, The US having 50 states can make this process a long one, but not only does it add a personal aspect to each of the states votes, but also can act as a good test of stamina. The job of president can be long, gruelling and both physically and mentally demanding and the campaign trail can act as a final test before people cast their votes. For example in 2008 Barack Obama showed himself to not only be more in touch with the modern electorate but also to have more of a physical resilience for such as job, especially compared to 74 year old John McCain, who many commented looked especially tired and stressed throughout the final weeks of the campaign, not a good sign for a potential president. Before the final

  • Ranking:
  • Word count: 833
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: Politics
Access this essay

"The Main Difference Between the UK And US Constitution Is That One Is Flexible And The Other Is Not" Discuss.

"The Main Difference Between the UK And US Constitution Is That One Is Flexible And The Other Is Not" Discuss A Constitution is a set of rules and principles by which a state is governed and how power is distributed. It defines the power between government and the governed, between different section of government and between central and local government. The constitution is the centre and foundation of any democratic society. Hence, it is vitally important. The US has a written codified constitution that means, is all contained in one document, to which, amendments have been and can be made. The US constitution was written to last and thus, it is very difficult to alter. It requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate and House of Representatives, Presidential approval and three quarters approval of the state legislatures. When the constitution was set up it had the idea of Federalism at its heart. This was to determine the power of the state with power of the national government. The idea was to leave the states with as much power as possible but remove enough to create a national government. This is why three quarters of the state legislatures must agree with any amendments. There have been only 27 amendments, 10 of which were the Bill of Rights, which, guarantee an individuals political and civil liberties. The US constitution is very concerned with the separation of

  • Ranking:
  • Word count: 1828
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: Politics
Access this essay

The ideology of the Democrats is liberal whilst that of the Republicans is Conservative. Discuss

The ideology of the Democrats is liberal whilst that of the Republicans is Conservative. Discuss 'Two glass jars with different labels, both empty'. This has been the traditional opinion of the differences between the parties ever since the federalist/anti-federalist issue was settled. However, in recent decades, we have seen the emergence of distinct ideological identities. That of liberalism - a belief that the federal government should have an active role in protecting the vulnerable & guaranteeing rights, and Conservatism - a belief that government should be restricted in order for the individual to achieve their potential. I will analyse to what extent the Democrats and Republicans adhere to these philosophies. Primarily, the Democrats have been associated with liberalism ever since FDR's New Deal of the 1930s. In this era, the government utilised Keynesian economics and expanded its reach nationally, helping the unemployed by providing jobs. Though these 'tax and spend' have become unfashionable in recent years, most Democrats would identify themselves as liberals. Recent policies would support this argument. In January 2009, a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress passed a 700 billion dollar economic stimulus package. This is clearly a liberal policy, affirming the state's role in the economy. Moreover, it was the same congress who passed the Patient

  • Ranking:
  • Word count: 829
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: Politics
Access this essay

The US system of checks and balances is ineffective, discuss.

The US system of checks and balances is ineffective, discuss. In the system set up by the U.S. Constitution, the national government is divided into three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial. These three branches are not independent of one another because the Constitution set up a system of checks and balances to help ensure that no one branch became too powerful. Each branch has powers that it can use to check and balance the operations and powers of the other two branches. The Legislative Branch is given the powers to make law however the legislature may also override presidential vetoes if they manage to gain a two thirds majority in both the Senate and House of Representatives. Although the Legislature can do this, it is realistically extremely unlikely that they will gain a 2/3rds majority as even if a single party does have a majority in one house, they may not in the other such as is the case currently where the Democrats have a majority in the Senate but not in the House of Representatives. They also have the power over the purse strings to actually fund any executive actions and so if they disagree with a government budget, they can interfere with this and stop it from going through. This was done to the Clinton government when he had lost both of his majorities and so had to ask the American people to support his budget. The removal of the president

  • Ranking:
  • Word count: 903
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: Politics
Access this essay

Money and Media dominate modern day politics " how far do you agree?

"Money and Media dominate modern day politics" - how far do you agree? It is widely claimed that the media, and the money available to dominate it, has a much wider grasp over the voting public than manifesto or policy. The majority of the worlds media sources hold some sort of partisan alignment, and its hold on the public means this bias is passed on to the electorate. How much it influences the electorate however, is different amongst many theories. The manipulative theory suggests that the media submerges real news in meaningless trivia in order to benefit itself. An example of this is Rupert Murdoch's support of Labour only once they'd dropped clause 4 of the constitution. The Hegemonic theory agrees with the accusation of the biased nature of the media but argues that it is less calculating. Any political stance it holds is the genuine opinion of the papers or broadcasters, and its publicising of these views is not in an attempt to manipulate the electorate. The pluralist theory argues that the customers choose the media, not the other way around, and their political views are reflected by their choice of newspaper or broadcaster, not changed by it. Though these theories have different ideas on the motives of the media, they all essentially say the same thing, the hard truth that the media is biased, and that its opinions are carried by its consumers. Another undeniable

  • Ranking:
  • Word count: 1157
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: Politics
Access this essay

Evaluate the claim that the Senate is far more powerful than the House of Representatives within congress

Evaluate the claim that the senate is far for powerful than the House of Representatives within congress (30 marks) When the founding fathers set out the powers and limits of the House of Representatives and the Senate, they created a bicameral system with power shared between the two houses. Whilst it would be ideal for the 2 houses to have equal power and status, it is often argued that The Senate is more powerful than the House of Representatives. Is the Senate more prestigious and important in status and are Senators more powerful than Representatives? Some would argue not, The House of Representatives and Senate whilst each having exclusive powers, also have equal and concurrent powers in the passing of legislature, this makes the two houses equal unlike the bicameral legislative system in the UK. This equal sharing of power as set out by the Framers shows that Senate isn't more important than the House of Representatives in the passing of legislature. Another argument for the equality of the House of Representatives and The Senate is the parallelism of the powers each house has in the initiation of constitutional amendments. The process and weighting of the decision of each house is the same, meaning that the two Houses are equal with neither the Senate nor House of Representatives being more powerful. The House of Representatives and Senate are also equal in the

  • Ranking:
  • Word count: 816
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: Politics
Access this essay