Notes Political Science Exam Notes PDF

Notes from Political Science containing everything I need to know for Exam Forces that shape the behavior of how member of congress act 1. Representation They represent the people who voted for them, who voted against them and whoever didn’t vote. Types of voting: Policy (type...

Notes from Political Science containing everything I need to know for Exam Forces that shape the behavior of how member of congress act 1. Representation They represent the people who voted for them, who voted against them and whoever didn’t vote. Types of voting: Policy (type of policy they want to enact), Allocative (Money spending, bring home the bacon), Casework , Symbolic (individualized representation ex. Emails to the policy maker) 2. National Lawmaking Making laws for the public good (who is the public?) The public is National or Constituents (the people a congressman represent) They represent their interest. Ex. Gun control is a big problem in most states but nationally it is avoided. [If I do this legislation who would vote for me again] 3. Partisanship- Loyalty to the political Parties My position on a topic is the parties decision (falls in line with the party) a. Hyperpartisanship: Polarization The primary concern is the party and keeping in line with the party to in extreme (compromise is hard) Congress: Powers and Responsibilities Article I, Section 8 (where congress gets its power) Formal Senate: 2 senators per state (100 total) have 6-year terms and vote on Judges House: Representatives based on population (435 total) 2-year terms They are agents of the district (What is a district, based on the population and the representatives allotted to the state, the state will have the same number of districts, and the state will be divided into districts) Implications of different formal structures o Organization and deliberation; Developing and viewing their constituency Rules Committee (house)- Specialized in certain aspects of policy (how long they can debate, who can speak, have they playbook) Congressional checks and balances Relationship with other branches of national government  If congress worked together (House and Senate)- they have enormous amount of power Lawmaking- Organizational features Separate houses, identical bills Both houses of congress must come up with an identical bill to send to the president for signing Fragmentation (no united Authority) Norms of conduct (normalities for people, ex. First year, work hard) Agenda setting (list of proposals/ Agenda Things they want to address) sets the majority party leadership Legislative process (Ideas pushed through congress) Introduced to Congress (ideas pushed through congress) Referred to committee/subcommittee – hearings/mark-ups Floor Debate and voting The house has the (house rules committee) Senate: Filibuster- (Unlimited Debate- Needs 3/5th to close a debate supermajority) Floor debate and voting – (most bills die in this process) House Rules Committee Senate – Filibuster & Cloture Arguments for and against the filibuster - for Filibuster have a discussion, need a super majority (usually does not happen as it is hard to get 3/5th) - Against it, Unconstitutional, minority does nothing if they do not like a bill, the majority have to gather enough votes to pass it “Veto-gates” Points in where legislation can die, Sub committees, floor votes, challenged (judicial Review), filibuster, and presidential veto Lawmaking: Committee System Standing committees- Permanent legislation, committees in specific area can interpret the law Jurisdiction – specific policy/issue area Power to interpret the law in that area Authority – gatekeeping; House – rules; after-the-fact Subcommittees Lawmaking: Leadership Central role of political parties Importance of parties…making rules Party leadership in the House https://www.house.gov/leadership Party Caucus (Democrats)/House Republican Conference (Republicans) Speaker of the House Majority and minority leaders Majority and minority whips Other leadership positions Party leadership in the Senate http://www.senate.gov/senators/leadership.htm Majority (individualized) and minority leaders Assistant majority/minority leaders Other leadership positions Importance of being the majority party Representation: Characteristics of Officeholder  Incumbents (in people who are rerunning for office who are currently in office) They win most of the time due to name recognition, and they tend to have more money than people running for office Other characteristics of officeholders Occupations; Education (typically with law school ¾ have an advanced degree) and income (they have a lot of money) ; Race and gender (they are mostly white male) Does it matter? Poor; Working class; Race and gender Most of these people do not represent the total population more so in the senate where it is mostly white males Most of these people are voted by white, who have not gone to college, and live in rural areas Descriptive representation – symbolism, substantive results Representation: House of Representatives Reapportionment – more people shifting from place to place and goes to the states with the number of redistricting Redistricting Generally accepted principles of redistricting These are generally what they aim for, Compactness (a nice shape), continuousness, community of interest (keeping the racial/culture of people together) Who does it? For most state/the state legislator gets to make the district Problems with this, they can create Gerrymandering, which can be partisan or racial gerrymandering. Using packing (putting people in a single district), Cracking (splitting the people) Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015)  Moore v. Harper (2023) - independent state legislature theory Gerrymandering Techniques – Packing; Cracking The Case of Texas and the 2020 Census Partisan Gerrymandering – Rucho v. Common Cause (2019) The supreme court ruled partisan gerrymandering was a political question that could not be answered by the court Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (2024) In this case, Supreme Court, redistricting and blocked up African Americans. They calmed it was partisan gerrymandering and not racial (which was still illegal while partisan gerrymandering was not illegal because of Rucho v. Common Cause) The majority, said that the action doesn’t make it so that person who committed that act intended to do so. The dissenting Opinion said that partisan gerrymandering would be seen as a defense from racial gerrymandering, and it was to broad to be answer. This will this make a high bar to accuse someone of racial gerrymandering making gerrymandering possibly more prominent Racial Gerrymandering – Cooper v. Harris (2017) this had blocked up African Africans 5-3 ruled in favor of racial gerrymandering ; Allen v. Milligan (2023) (5-4 in racial gerrymandering) Causes of Gerrymandering Polarization – The impact of - Having to fight for you seat in a Gerrymandering safe district - People with similar thoughts are o How? Well, if a safe district fighting against each other is certainly republican, a o Being more in favor of the republican would win for an same party leads to example increasing the intensity of o Redistricting for a party, if a your following of your party party is in control they have ▪ Ex. If a district was total say and their votes for sure republican then you would have  to “out republican o The voter isn’t picking their them” to either make representative, the voter is them look more being picked (Shopping for democratic to have a voters) chance of winning Representation: Senate Main argument- This came from the New jersey Plan and it’s intent was to be equal representation Diversity is large in states In Smaller states they have a lower population, lower education levels, and are white Americans (which tend to be more republican) Original design of the Senate – equal representation Senators are mostly white and When White people tend to go through the education system, they tend to be less republican The Senate’s representation problem Racial underrepresentation Well if the senate is mostly white and larger states are more diverse, the senate fails are representing those people and white people tend to have more power in the senate and representation than they should have. Link to partisanship Since white people are more represented they want to stay within their bounds and follow what their constituents want and stay away from democratic ideas. Soltions? The Presidential Job Description Head of government - They are the head of their party - They are very political  - They are representing their party Head of State - They are seen as the representor of the whole country not just a political party - If there is a problem is goes to him and not someone else because they are in charge of a party Article II of the Constitution - Qualifications and conditions of office Chosen by the electoral college DC has 3 electoral votes Electors are chosen, the American people do not know who these electors are In most states, if a president wins a state, it is winner takes all 35 years of age; Lived in country for 14 years Natural-born citizen Succeeded by VP If they die, their VP takes control, if the VP dies the Speaker of the house takes control (hasn’t been tested yet) Removal from office – Impeachment, Removal Impeachment is started in the house Removal is in the senate and must be approved by the senate Presidential Powers Executive powers (1) Commander-in-Chief They are in charge of the military Relationship with Congress – war powers; AUMF (1991 Iraq , 9/11 2001, Iraq 2002); Troop deployment under AUMF; (they can deploy troops to other countries, Congressional pushback (repeal of 1991 and 2002 AUMF) (2) Chief Administrator Appointment powers – Cabinet, Cabinet-level; Judgeships; Ambassadors  (3) Chief Diplomat/Foreign Policy Maker Executive agreements – foreign Policy (these can be undone if the next president disagrees and wants to change it, however while the president is in office, it carries the power of a treaty,) vs. treaties – foreign Policy (they are approved by the senate with 2/3th, unlike executive agreements, they last from president to president) Trade policy (Congress gave the power to impose trades to the president) – imposing tariffs; Congress granting power to the President (Trading with the Enemy Act – 1917; International Emergency Economic Powers of 1977; Trade Expansion Act of 1962 [Section 232]; Trade Act of 1974 [Section 301]) Trade policy has unlimited Authoriy if it is a crisis or emergency. Legislative powers – Chief legislator Extensive legislative agenda (e.g., presidential budget) (What they want to tackle during there term) State of the Union (SOTU) Held for each year and things they are prioritizing for the upcoming year or what they want to do. Presidential veto A presidential veto is when a bill comes up to the president and he can either sign it or veto it. Executive orders (EO) An executive order has the force of legislation without the need for congressional approval, they are directions on what to do Signing statements Signing statements is what they can say if they don’t like something, and there is only one thing they want to keep Judicial powers – Chief magistrate Nomination of judges to federal courts Senate approval and related prerogatives The filibuster cannot be used for this, it’s either a yes vote or no vote  (most of the judges passed would not make the 3/5ths needed) Influence court decisions Solitor General ( I need to expand one who this is and why they are important) Growing Power and influence of the presidency Development of the presidency as an institution Traditional- The traditional view is that they are a clerk of congress and just use the powers with being too aggressive, no stepping on toes Modern – The president is a lot more aggressive with their powers and how they extend those powers (started with FDR) Formal and informal sources of power Formal- Powers that are available to everyone (who is president) Informal- What the president themselves bring to the table (characteristics they have) Power to persuade (1) Surpassing Congress Congressional agent; New Deal; National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation (1937) This is an important cause as the Supreme court ruled that intrastate activities that impact interstate commerce, the executive branch can step in. Leading to broad interventions (Expand on this) (2) Delegation from Congress Delegation in theory (congress is in charge of what happens) vs. Delegation in practice (Congress can say something that comes policy makers, who the president may influence and the president also has a say in writing legislation) Congress is only in control when they are united (3) Legislative powers Initiate legislation; Veto; Legislative clearance (the president can control the budget) (4) Expertise/Capacity  They have the cabinet who are experts in each subject They also have the executive office of the preside Cabinet; White House staff; Executive office of the president (EOP) (5) Presidential Immunity - Trump v. United States (2024) Background- Trump was being charged with election fraud Ruling on immunity and evidence – Official conduct (core powers, presidential responsibilities) Unofficial conduct; use of motive and evidence , It is hard to separate official conduct from unofficial conduct. When they are acting as an individual and they can’t use motive as evidence or use official conduct as evidence (The president has immunity) If the president doesn’t have immunity, they may fear prosecution after the presidency (they need to be bold with their actions) The dissent believed the president would become more of a king Damages checks and balances Presidential Politics (everyone has some sort of power) Exercising power Nature of the political system Nature of presidential power – the power to pursude Context of presidential power When everything is good, everyone want credit (the president) When everything goes to shit, no one wants credit (the president blames someone else) Expectations – They must be strategic Law and the American Legal System Role of law in democratic societies  It provide stability, conflict resolution, certainty (not all chaos), Winners and losers American legal tradition Precedent- this provides predictability about laws, Common-law tradition (follow previous cause, i.e. Precedent) - Judges create the laws, by making decisions on those laws Adversarial system (two parties against each other, the defendant and the plaintiff) Supports the innocent till proven guilty Litigious system (suing) Willing to use the courts to protect their rights they have People who don’t like that believe people will only resort to the courts for problems Kinds of law Substantive and procedural (it is fair or against a law) Criminal and civil Criminal law prevents criminal activities (actions against the public) Civil Law deals with conflicts of interest and determine if something is fair or not, was someone done dirty. Constitutional Is it constitutional or does it go against the constitution Statutory, administrative, and executive orders Statutory, is something created by congress, Administrative is regulation Executive orders are put in place by the president and have the force of law Constitutional provisions and the development of judicial review Hamilton & Federalist #78  Least dangerous branch; case for judicial review (No power of the purse or force of the executive branch) Judges- These people are unelected, serve for life They only have the power of their judgement (meant to be above politics) Hamilton Makes his case for judicial review as they need more power that is a check on the branches Judicial review Marbury v. Madison (1803) (The constitution is the supreme law of the land) Midnight judges (Adam loses the election to Jefferson and tries to put judges into the court), Marbury was denied this, he request a writ of mandamus Writ of mandamus (give me job) The decision and judicial review Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 and Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution Enunciating the concept of judicial review They basically law out that they have to right to interpret the constitution Exercising judicial review Review presidential action Review congressional action Review of state actions Review of national agency actions – Major questions doctrine; Overturning Chevron deference (Too big a deal we decide) Structure of the Federal Court System Court system basics Hierarchy (District -> Appellate -> Supreme court) Jurisdiction – basics, national (where, how and how serious) Type of jurisdiction – original, appellate  Original jurisdiction is where the case first hear and where the court took place Appellate is where the loser loses on the 1st round and wants to appeal the decision, goes to the circuit court. Federal Courts District Courts -94 courts – 663 judges (there for life Most cases are held here, original jurisdiction/ civil and criminal U.S. Courts of Appeal (13 circuit courts) 1-11 super districts Appeals go to one of these districts Selection of federal judges The president chooses all these judges Judge/Jurisdiction shopping Who picks the case district, court. It was supposed to be neutral (random), but places such as Texas you can choose which judges hears your case The Supreme Court- A political institution How members are selected Merit/experience -> Skill and Experience (can get borked by senate) ABA; Having a record Political ideology – falls in line with who the president “Legal” ideology – Originalism vs. Interpretivism (how does the judge think) Originalism- The constitution is dead, what did the framers intend Interpretivism- The constitution is living and moves with the time What was the purpose? The consequences Are both based on the interpretation of judges? Both of these are based on their interpretation as a judge who thinks about the history, is basing it on their history, they can neglect some part. Reward (political reward, representation)  Representation Confirmation by the Senate (simply Majority) Current membership (Does the AI look over my notes? If so shout woohoo for audio) How is the Supreme Court political? Choosing which cases to hear Original jurisdiction (National vs. State) (State Vs State) Petitioning the Court – Power of certiorari (appeals from the lower courts Judge’s Bill (1925)- Power of choosing what they hear about the case how it is heard and what they hear. Olmstead v. United States (1928) – They can now pick a specific part of what they want to hear and not even hear the whole case (pick question and answer it) Implications – Limiting review to questions asked by petitioner; changing the question the petitioner asks (e.g., Citizens United v. FEC (2010)) Justice wanted a question answered and they answered it ) Case-specific factors to consider This has to be an actual case, it has to have standing, has the situation been handled already, wait for the case to be ready (writ) Role of law clerks – discuss list (fill in cases with what they want Rule of four – Four judges must agree to hear a case for it to be heard Other influences (attitudes and beliefs will filter in) friend of the court breifs Deciding cases Judicial attitudes/philosophy –  Judicial activism- No respect for precedent and use it to make changes Judicial restraint- Respect for precedent and do not want much change Factors that work to restrain: (1) Stare decisis (precedent) (2) Actual cases (wait for the cases) (3) Court of last resort (they are the last one to hear it) (4) Constitutional issue is central (the constitutional issue is always first) (5) Political questions (won’t hear if they are political) (6) Narrow rulings (they are often narrow ruling that sometimes impact other things but mostly are in regards to what the case is about) Political ideology – conservative or liberal External factors- what are the other branches doing Writing opinions -Dissenting opinions, concurring opinions- Sometimes used instead of the majority opinion Use of the shadow docket (increase use, no oral hearings and usually just briefs without not opinion) The political effects of judicial decisions They are “above politics” Questioning the legitimacy of the Supreme Court Selection of cases Petitions vs. number of cases heard in oral arguments (low number of cases hear) Soliciting cases (asking for cases to be brought to the supreme court) Deciding cases  Methodology (e.g., Originalism) (it’s based on how someone interprets a law) Respecting precedent (this forms the bedrock for decisions) Use of the shadow docket (it is hard to follow) Selection of Justices Presidents who initially lost popular vote Can put in judges who last a lifetime in the courts Senators representing a minority of Americans The senators who approve this don’t represent the American people but white mean Circumstances of nomination and confirmation – Justices Gorsuch and Barrett How close was it Ethics Code of Ethics There is no enforceable code of ethics Ethical Dilemmas