100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Previously searched by you
Previously searched by you
logo
Edexcel A level Politics paper 3 (US politics) A* essay plans £25.46
Add to cart
Quickly navigate to
Preview
  2.  
  3. PEARSON (PEARSON)
  4.  
  5. Government And Politics
  6.  
  7. US politics

Essay

Edexcel A level Politics paper 3 (US politics) A* essay plans

 0 purchase

Edexcel A Government and Politics essay plans for all topics in paper 3 that got me an A* in my a levels 100 page document covering everything you need to know for your a levels, all essay plans, covers how to structure A* style essays paper 3 - all essay plans on US politics - US constitut...

[Show more]

Preview 4 out of 100  pages

Document information

  • April 1, 2024
  • 100
  • 2022/2023
  • Essay
  • Unknown
  • A+

Subjects

Written for

All documents for this subject (53)

Seller

avatar-seller
lpirnia

Content preview

US POLITICS


1 US CONSTITUTION

Evaluate the view that the US constitution no longer upholds
democracy


LOA: does not uphold democracy - in principle it should but it doesn’t in reality

1 Checks and balances

NO: the less convince argument is that the US constitution upholds upholds democracy
because the checks and balances system still works - this is because the checks and balances
system ensures that each branch of government is limited in its powers whilst remaining
separate
EVIDENCE: trump is 2017 told the press that the system was ‘rough and archaic’ because he
could not achieve what he wanted to do in his first 100 days
RELEVANCE: this is relevant since this shows that the checks and balances system still
constrains branches of government to their roles and therefore successfully preventing tyranny
of the majority. It upholds democracy because it is still working and thus there is no overmighty
branch of government to hinder democracy

YES: however, it is more convincing to argue that checks and balances are not being consistent
and are instead dependent on the makeup of the government - falling victim to partisanship and
therefore favor ‘gotcha politics’ over democracy. Checks and balances are weaker when
government is united so representatives will and through decisions, whilst divided government
checks and balances are stronger.
EXAMPLE: Obama made 11 successful vetoes and only his 12th one was overturned when he
was facing a republican controlled senate and house. Couldnt generally pass anything
substantial that he intended to after losing both houses. However, in times of united government
legislation can be nodded through without checks such as CARES because in times of crisis.
Trump's cabinet was easily approved by the senate including climate change denier Scott,
confirmed as head of the environmental protection agency
RELEVANCE: this shows that when facing a divided government checks are more severe likely
due to party affiliation and higher attention to scrutiny. This means that the checks and balances
system is not abided by consistently but the branches that are meant to enforce checks. No
longer upholds democracy because the system favors partisanship than effective gov. The

,checks and balances system is not being upheld and therefore tyranny of the minority is more
and more likely

Although the checks and balances system remains intact and upheld, the level to which it is
upheld by the branches has become increasingly unreliable with the changing nature of
government and divisiveness of the two main parties. This necessarily was not a problem when
the constitution was written because the senate was unelected and therefore not politically
affiliated, making their checks genuinely and away from party affiliation. However, nowadays the
political affiliations and disparities within both houses makes these checks ingenuine and
unreliable. With this unreliable system, a tyranny of one branch becomes a threat and therefore
democracy is not protected.

PARA 2 RIghts protection

POINT: if it can be shown that rights are being effectively protected by the constitution and the
public;s elected representatives than the US constitution continues to uphold democracy. The
less convincing argument is that the US constitution upholds democracy because rights are
entrenched. The codified nature makes the amendment process extremely complex and
therefore rights are hard to compromise. Since the process requires mass popular support and
representative’s approval, the rights of citizens are therefore guaranteed. This is important so
that rights cannot change with whim of fashion or in the hands of too little people
EVIDENCE: federal marriage amendment - proposed a number of times and failed to pass
each time. This would prohibit the legal marriage of LGBTQ couples
RELEVANT: this shows that amendments that are unpopular or discriminatory cannot pass
because the amendment process is difficult to progress. Therefore protecting the rights of
citizens because they cannot be changed in the hands of too few people. Rights are therefore
protected and cannot be abused,


POINT: however, it is more convincing to argue that the US constitution no longer upholds
democracy because the constitution puts the rights of citizens in the hands of 9 elected,
unaccountable judges with the job on constitutional interpretation - this is not democratic as the
representative elected candidates have little hand in this process
EVIDENCE: judges can interpret both positively and negatively in terms of rights with their
power of interpreting the constitution. These rights are in the hands of very few people and
people with political affiliation and agenda that will interpret the constitution differently. This
unreliability of rights based on who is in the court and their political belief means the condition
does not protect rights but instead threatens them. In 2022 Dobbs Vs Jackon the court
overturned 1972 Roe v Wade that granted women's national access to abortion and
reproductive healthcare. The constitution obviously had not changed, but the political makeup of
the court has changed from liberal to a conservative Robert's court.
RELEVANCE: this shows how the ideological leaning of the court defines the protection of
rights and also how quickly tights can change. Therefore rights are not protected and can be
changed easily in the hands of a body that is not elected by the public. This gives weight to the

,argument that the US constitution no longer upholds democracy because rights are threatened
by unelected judges that are interpreting the constitution variably based on their political beliefs
or appointment affiliation


Although the constitution amendment system is so strict that rights cannot be changed on a
whim of fashion, it is so strict rights cannot be adapted at all which gives power to the supreme
court and in turn threatens rights, more than it protects. Due to the increasing politicisation and
judicial activism of the court they are becoming more willing to drastically alter rights, and this
instability of rights in the US threatens the democratic principle of having strong, protected and
clear rights. Therefore, the US constitution no longer upholds democracy.

PARA 3 Federalism

NO: if it can be shown that states rights are continually protected by the 10th amendment than
federalism ad thus democracy remains upheld by the US constitution. The less convincing
argument is that federalism remains upheld and protected. States right are guaranteed in the
10th amendment which reserves all non enumerated powers to the states. This gives the states
substantial autonomy and freedom away from the federal government. This is important
because the population and size of the US makes it harder to govern federally, but also respects
the individual cultures and necessities of the states.
EVIDENCE: 21 states have legalised cannabis and 27 states and use the death penalty
RELEVANCE: this shows that states are free to decide their own policies and laws away from
the federal government - therefore upholds federalism and therefore democracy as states have
individual rights and are treated like individual entities. Democracy because federalism remains
respected within the political system

YES: however, the more convincing argument is that the US consumption is not upholding
democracy because states rights are becoming increasingly threatened. Culturally federalism
has become more ignored in the need for mass reforms or national crisis, that allows for states
rights to be infringed - and even in the court. This is a problem because it centralises power into
the federal government's hands and allows them to disregard the individual needs and cultural
of the states that is guaranteed protection in the constitution
EVIDENCE: NFIV v sebelius in 2012 upheld the affordable care act despite its obvious
infringements on individual states rights.
RELEVANCE: this shows that states rights in the political field are being considered less
important, and declares so by a democratic dominated supreme court. Therefore the US
constitution is not upholding democracy because states rights do not remain consistently
protected despite the tenth amendment. The US constitution no longer upholds democracy
because federalism is not consistently protected.

Although states basic right are being protected, not all of their rights are being protected and it is
a growing common theme that they are more threatened with the rise of need for

, Evaluate the extent to which the amendment process in the US is
still effective today


Overall, effective in terms of what the founding fathers intended? But definitely not in terms of
what the US public need

1 Rights

FOR: if it can be shown that the amendment process prevents brash amendment from being
passed then it is still effective today. The less convincing argument is that the process is still
effective in terms of what the founding fathers wanted by ensuring no brash amendments pass.
This is important because they wanted the constitution to remain the highest law of the land and
create political stability. This would be disrupted if it changes so much. They believe their
intention of protecting rights and creating stable government would be most secure if the
constitution did not change with every presidential term
EXAMPLE: only one brash amendment has passed since 1789- the 18th of prohibition
RELEVANCE: this shows that the amendment process prevents amendment being passed on a
whim of fashion or ever changing political context - gives weight to the argument that the
amendment process in the US is still effective because it does not allow temporary attitudes to
become concrete law, which would threaten the nations future

AGAINST: however it is not effective in terms of tailoring to a modern day society that has its
own demands and needs. The amendment process is so complex that it practically prevents
any relevant legislation from passing. When the constitution was written the population was
smaller and the culture was different, meaning some aspects are unsuitable to society but
cannot be amended easily. This is problematic because it undermines democracy if the
constitution that defines law is not representative of their beliefs
EXAMPLE: the second amendment that gives citizens the right to bear arms, was reasonable in
the 1800s when disagreements were settled with armed battle. In the 21st century, many feel
unsafe. The complex process, specifically the super-majorities, hinder this from coming into
effect despite 70% of the population supporting stricter gun regulation
RELEVANCE: this shows that the amendment process is ineffective because it fails to
accommodate modern public opinion and therefore a representative democracy. The point of
the constitution is to belong to the living not the dead by definition of the founding fathers and
this was defeated. This gives weight to the argument that the amendment process is no longer
effective because it is so complex it fails to pass necessary and relevant legislation that the
public need, and therefore their rights are not reflective of their own belief. This undermines the
continuity of a representative democracy that the founding fathers wished for.

PARA 2 Popular support

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller lpirnia. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for £25.46. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

68175 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 15 years now

Start selling
£25.46
  • (0)
Add to cart
Added