Court Case Quiz

These are the twelve cases that we have studied that you are responsible to know.

First Amendment:

Texas v. Johnson

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier

Abington v. Schempp

Liberty vs. Security:

New Jersey v. TLO

Korematsu v. United States

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

Due Process:

Miranda v. Arizona

Gideon v. Wainright

Sheppard v. Maxwell

Civil Rights:

Scott v. Sanford

Plessy v. Ferguson

Brown v Board

Supreme Court Cases Block 5

You will prepare a 5 minute presentation on a Supreme Court Case that explains:

1. The issue before the court
2. The parties involved
3. The historical frame the case was heard within
4. The arguments from both side
5. The court decision
6. A brief summary of the majority opinion
7. A brief summary of the dissenting opinion (if any)
8. The impact of the case on American society
9. Any special features unique to the case

Your choices are below, one per student, first come, first serve.  Place your choice in the comments section below.

Mapp v. Ohio
Roe v. Wade
Gitlow v. New York
DC v. Heller
Schenck v. US
Marbury v. Madison
Tinker v. Des Moines

Regents of the U. of California v. Bakke

New York Times v. United States

Bush v. Gore

Gibons v. Ogden

You may use a poster, powerpoint, prezzi, or video to present your case.

Due Friday, March 16th

Supreme Court Cases Block 6

You will prepare a 5 minute presentation on a Supreme Court Case that explains:

1. The issue before the court
2. The parties involved
3. The historical frame the case was heard within
4. The arguments from both side
5. The court decision
6. A brief summary of the majority opinion
7. A brief summary of the dissenting opinion (if any)
8. The impact of the case on American society
9. Any special features unique to the case

Your choices are below, one per student, first come, first serve.  Place your choice in the comments section below.

Mapp v. Ohio
Roe v. Wade
Gitlow v. New York
DC v. Heller
Schenck v. US
Marbury v. Madison
Tinker v. Des Moines

Regents of the U. of California v. Bakke

New York Times v. United States

Bush v. Gore

Gibons v. Ogden

Patterson v. Alabama

You may use a poster, powerpoint, prezzi, or video to present your case.

Due Friday, March 16th

http://www.supremecourt.gov/

http://www.streetlaw.org/en/landmark/home

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2011

Nature of Supreme Court

Judicial Activism and Restraint

The Supreme Court has the power to make and change policies that affect the lives of all Americans. However, many judges and scholars support the idea of judicial restraint, a philosophy that judges should play a minimal role in policymaking. They believe that judges should simply decide cases and leave the duty of policymaking to the legislature. Others, who feel the Court should make bold policy decisions and possibly even break new constitutional ground, support judicial activism. These people believe the Supreme Court should correct policy errors that contribute or lead to social and political injustice.
Those who believe that judicial activism is necessary often point to the landmark civil rights case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954). They claim that state legislatures and Congress have been too slow to create policies that prohibit discrimination and segregation. They argue that without the activism of the Court, it would have taken the nation much longer to emerge from segregation. Proponents of activism also point to the protection of other civil rights. They argue that without the Court advocating for the accused, that the poor, the illiterate, and the minorities would be falsely imprisoned.
Opponents of activism argue that the Supreme Court has no constitutional basis for legislating. They argue that judges possess no special background or qualities that make them experts in the areas of social, political, or economic reform. Moreover, they stress that because judges are appointed, not elected by the people, they are not directly accountable to the people.
Historically, Supreme Courts that lean toward the exercise of judicial restraint tend to avoid becoming involved with controversies. To avoid deciding overly political cases, the Court has developed the doctrine of political question. The doctrine is cited when the Court feels that an issue should be left entirely to another branch of government. A restrained court uses the doctrine of political question frequently.

Modern Supreme Court

The Selection Process

The United States' president and Congress each hold a great deal of political power, but their authority is checked by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is responsible for interpreting the Constitution and ensuring that subsequent acts and laws conform to the founders' original intent when they created the Constitution. Serving on the Supreme Court is one of the highest honors a person can attain in this country and an achievement that does not come easily.
The modern Supreme Court consists of eight associate justices and one chief justice. Each of these nine members is nominated by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate. Although judicial experience is not required to serve as a Supreme Court justice, all of the current justices had extensive experience as attorneys and judges before being nominated to the Supreme Court. In fact, the Constitution makes no reference to qualifications for justices, nor does it impose limits on a justice's tenure, except to state in Article III, Section I that a justice has life tenure to serve the Court "during good behavior."
When a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court, the president considers his options carefully when nominating a replacement. The process of selecting members of the Court is highly political and controversial and requires compromise between the president, who makes the appointment, and the Senate, who confirms the appointment. If the chief justice's position is vacant, the president can consider the associate justices as suitable replacement candidates or may look outside the Court for a replacement.
For example, the current Chief Justice, William Rehnquist, was an associate justice when President Ronald Reagan nominated him to fill the chief justice spot vacated by Warren Burger. Earl Warren, placed on the Court by Dwight Eisenhower, had been governor of California and a prosecuting attorney but had never served on the court. Several justices in the twentieth century entered the Court after highly successful careers as lawyers who argued before the Court. Louis Brandeis was famous for the "Brandeis Brief," Thurgood Marshall was noted for his successful civil rights litigation concluding in the Brown v. BOE of Topeka case, and Abe Fortas had a distinguished career successfully arguing the Gideon v. Wainwright case.
After the president nominates an associate justice or a chief justice, the individual must go through a senatorial confirmation process before being seated in their new position—even if a chief justice nominee is serving on the Supreme Court. This ensures that the "checks and balances" concept of government applies to the judiciary system and that neither the president nor Congress has too much power in the appointment and confirmation process.
A president will typically look to his own political party to find a suitable nominee, since members of the same party usually share similar ideologies when interpreting the Constitution and taking positions on political issues. Presidents and their advisors may apply the "litmus test" to a potential nominee. Applied to politics, a litmus test is used to choose a candidate based on whether his or her views are liberal or conservative on a single, divisive issue such as women's reproductive rights or gay marriage. Senators, who must vote to approve a nomination, may apply their own litmus tests by reviewing a nominee's previous statements and writings to make an educated guess on how the nominee would perform if the appointment is confirmed.
Although the president, his staff, and the Senate will analyze a candidate's background, a sitting Supreme Court justice is under no obligation to concur with anyone's viewpoints—even those of the individuals who played major roles in getting him seated on the Supreme Court. Any number of factors can affect a justice's ruling, including major world events that change the mindsets of the justices and influence public opinion.
Moreover, justices occasionally have to make rulings that disagree with their personal beliefs but that uphold the Constitution. For example, in Texas v. Johnson from 1989, the Supreme Court upheld the First Amendment right of Gregory Johnson to burn the American flag. Their decision did not reflect their personal beliefs on flag-burning, but they were obligated to rule in Johnson's favor based on the First Amendment. Still, a president holds some expectation that the candidate he nominates will reflect his party's beliefs in his or her rulings. Because of this, several justices have disappointed the presidents who appointed them.
Political ideology is not the only reason presidents typically look to their own party first for potential candidates. A president can use federal judgeship appointments to reward partisan backers for their support during the president's campaign. One example of this occurred in 1952, when Earl Warren helped get Dwight Eisenhower elected, so Eisenhower promised Warren that he would receive the first Supreme Court nomination that came available. Warren was named chief justice of the Supreme Court in 1953, although President Eisenhower came to regret the nomination because Warren's liberal actions were not in line with the moderate conservative ideals Eisenhower expected from him.
The president also considers a number of other factors when selecting a justice candidate. Although there is no quota for the demographic makeup of the Supreme Court, there have been many references to the "black seat," "Jewish seat," and "female seat" over the years. These classifications refer to the tendency of presidents to represent certain powerful minority groups on the Supreme Court. Thurgood Marshall was the first African American to take a seat on the Court in 1967. When he left the bench in 1991, he was replaced by another African American, Clarence Thomas, which further reinforced the perception of a "black seat." The concept of a Jewish seat has been less definite. The first Jewish appointee was Louis Brandeis in 1916, but there were gaps of time without a Jewish justice on the Supreme Court in subsequent years.
The first female justice was Sandra Day O'Connor. Ronald Reagan had committed to appointing a woman to the Supreme Court if he was elected to the presidency, and O'Connor reaped the benefit of that promise in 1981. The current Court has three female justices— Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Sonia Sotomayer, and Elana Kagan. Promises to nominate justices from these minority groups may help a presidential candidate or a president running for re-election gain favor with his supporters and therefore may play a role in determining who is nominated to the Court. 

Historic Supreme Court

John Marshall and Roger Taney

During the first several years of the Supreme Court's existence, it languished under the guidance of chief justices such as John Jay. Jay was the primary author of the New York state constitution, one of the writers of the Federalist Papers, and a fervent patriot. In 1789, Washington appointed Jay the first chief justice. However, few cases were brought before the Court, the political leaders of the time considered it insignificant, and the Court had very little power in comparison to the legislative and executive branches. Jay resigned as chief justice to become governor of New York in 1795, a position for which he actively campaigned while serving as chief justice.
The Court took a step forward in 1801, when John Marshall became chief justice. Marshall recognized that the Court needed to take its proper place as one of the three equal branches of government and that the Court could act as a major policy shaper for the nation.
Marshall's agenda for the Court included expanding the power of the Court, helping the nation expand its fledgling capitalism, and imposing the doctrine of national supremacy over the states. He served as chief justice for 34 years, from 1801 to 1835. Although he had six colleagues on the Supreme Court, Marshall's position as chief justice—along with his personality, legal prowess, and will—resulted in many rulings that reflected his personal interpretation of the Constitution and his belief in a powerful central government. Some of his most famous cases include Marbury v. Madison, Fletcher v. Peck, McCulloch v. Maryland, and Gibbons v. Ogden.
In the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803), Marshall ruled on the legality of the appointment of a set of "midnight judges" by outgoing President John Adams in an attempt to place Federalist judges on the bench before leaving the presidency. Marshall used this case to establish the doctrine of judicial review, which gave the courts power to determine whether acts of the government are constitutional. The doctrine of judicial review was extended in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816), a case that concerned the confiscation of Loyalists' property by the state of Virginia during the American Revolution. Denny Martin, one of the Loyalists whose property was confiscated, sued on the grounds that treaties with the British guaranteed the protection of this property. The Virginia court upheld the confiscation, but the case went to Marshall and the Supreme Court on appeal. Marshall reversed this decision, and by doing so enforced the right of the Supreme Court to reverse decisions of state courts. Marshall's ruling upheld the supremacy clause of the Constitution.
The case of Fletcher v. Peck (1810) concerned a dispute between John Peck and Robert Fletcher over the validity of a contract regarding the sale of a plot of land in Georgia. The

Marshall Court

declared the sanctity of contracts and secured the basis of capitalism in private enterprise. This ruling clearly asserted the Supreme Court's right to invalidate state laws that conflict with the Constitution. Fletcher v. Peck was affirmed in the case of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819). In this case, the New Hampshire legislature attempted to change Dartmouth College from a private institution into a state university. After being stripped of their ability to control resources, old trustees of the college filed suit. They claimed that it was unconstitutional for the New Hampshire legislature to interfere with the college's corporate charter, because it was a form of a contract. The

Marshall Court

confirmed the Court's power of judicial review and ruled that the Constitution protects contracts against state encroachments. Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution provides that "no State shall...pass any...Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts." As Georgia and New Hampshire attempted to control the property within their borders, Marshall's Court reversed the state decisions, upheld the rights of private corporations and contracts, reaffirmed the power of judicial review, and established the supremacy of the Constitution over the states.
The "bank case" of McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) is often considered John Marshall's single most important interpretation of the Constitution because it dealt with the division of power between the federal government and the states. This landmark case addressed whether or not Congress has the power to create a national bank. The state of Maryland charged the Baltimore branch of the Bank of the United States, a bank created by Congress, a hefty tax. The Baltimore branch refused to pay, and Maryland brought suit against the chief bank employee, called the "head cashier," John W. McCulloch. Marshall used the implied powers of Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, the necessary and proper clause, to enable Congress to enact legislation within the spirit of the Constitution. This case gave the federal government supremacy over the states regarding intrastate business. According to Marshall, "the power to tax is the power to destroy." By upholding the constitutionality of the Bank of the U.S. and the constitutional right of Congress to use the implied powers of the elastic clause, Marshall set the standard for federal supremacy.
A related case, Cohens v. Virginia (1821), concerned an act of Congress that authorized the operation of a lottery in the District of Columbia. The Cohen brothers violated state law by purchasing D.C. lottery tickets and selling them in the state of Virginia. Virginia authorities tried and convicted the Cohens, and then declared themselves the final authority in the dispute between the states and the national government. In this case, Marshall held that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to review state criminal proceedings and declared that by ratifying the Constitution, the states gave up some sovereignty and must accept the jurisdiction of the federal government. Cohens v. Virginia reaffirmed the Supreme Court's right to review all state court judgments in cases involving the Constitution or powers of the federal government.
In Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), also called the "Steamboat Case," Aaron Ogden purchased exclusive rights to operate a ferry between New York and New Jersey. When Thomas Gibbons, who held a federal trade license, set up a competing line, Ogden sued him. In this case, Marshall invalidated state monopolies and declared that only Congress can control interstate commerce. This ruling ended the battle between the states over commerce and allowed the uniform growth of business regulated by the national government.
Marshall's decisions acknowledged the idea of judicial limitation on legislative powers and made the Supreme Court a vital part of America's system of government. Marshall served as chief justice until his death in 1835, at which time Andrew Jackson appointed Roger Taney. Although he maintained most of Marshall's positions, he was a "states' rights" judge who was less in favor of the doctrine of national supremacy than was Marshall. Taney served as chief justice from 1836 to 1864.
Taney is most well known for his controversial decision in the case of Scott v. Sandford (1857). Taney found that Dred Scott, a slave who claimed to be free, was legally still a slave. This decision repealed the Kansas-Nebraska Act as well as the Missouri Compromise. The Dred Scott case threw the nation into a tailspin that resulted in the Civil War. Following the war, the Scott v. Sandford decision led to the Thirteenth Amendment, which gave freedom to former slaves, and to the Fourteenth Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship with equal protection and due process for all citizens.

Executive Privilege

The principle that members of the executive branch of government cannot legally be forced to disclose their confidential communications when such disclosure would adversely affect the operations or procedures of the executive branch.

Executive privilege is the exemption of the executive branch of government, or its officers, from having to give evidence, specifically, in U.S. law, the exemption of the president from disclosing information to congressional inquiries or the judiciary. Claims of executive privilege are usually invoked to protect confidential military or diplomatic operations or to protect the private discussions and debates of the president with close aides. Efforts by various presidents since Eisenhower to gain absolute and unqualified privilege have been rejected by the courts, though they remain inclined to support most claims of executive privilege. Where criminal charges are being brought against a president, as in the case of Richard Nixon, the claims of executive privilege are weakest; during the process leading to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, numerous claims made by the White House were dropped when it was clear courts would not uphold them.

Executive privilege is a claim asserted by the President of the United States and other members of the executive branch to justify withholding of documents and information from other branches of government. As Presidents since George Washington and Thomas Jefferson have argued, the separation of powers embodied in the United States Constitution implies that each branch will be permitted to operate within limits free to some degree from the control or supervision of the other.
The concept of executive privilege is a legally murky one, since the Constitution does not mention it anywhere. The history of the doctrine underscores that point, since Presidents have generally sidestepped open confrontations with Congress and the courts over this issue by first asserting the privilege, then producing some of the documents requested on an assertedly voluntary basis.
Jefferson set the precedent for this in the trial of Aaron Burr for treason in 1807. Burr asked the court to issue a subpoena to compel Jefferson to provide his private letters concerning Burr. Chief Justice John Marshall, a strong proponent of the powers of the federal government but also a political opponent of Jefferson, ruled that the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, which allows for these sorts of court orders for criminal defendants, did not provide any exception for the President. As for Jefferson's claim that disclosure of the document would imperil public safety, Marshall held that the court, not the President, would be the judge of that. Jefferson complied with Marshall's order, but claimed he was doing so voluntarily. President William Clinton did the same when agreeing to testify before the grand jury called by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr only after negotiating the terms under which he would appear.
The Supreme Court addressed the executive privilege in United States v. Nixon, the 1974 case involving the demand by Watergate special prosecutor Leon Jaworski that Richard Nixon produce the audiotapes of conversations in the Oval Office of the White House in connection with criminal charges being brought against members of the Nixon Administration. Nixon invoked the privilege and refused to produce any records.
The Supreme Court did not reject that claim out of hand; it noted, in fact, "the valid need for protection of communications between high Government officials and those who advise and assist them in the performance of their manifold duties." As the Court stated, "[h]uman experience teaches that those who expect public dissemination of their remarks may well temper candor with a concern for appearances and for their own interests to the detriment of the decision making process." This is very similar to the logic that the Court had used in establishing an "executive immunity" defense for high office-holders charged with violating citizens' constitutional rights in the course of performing their duties.
The Court did not, on the other hand, accept Nixon's privilege argument on the facts of that case. Because Nixon had asserted only a generalized need for confidentiality, the Court held that the larger public interest in obtaining the truth in the context of a criminal prosecution took precedence.

The Nature of Bureaucracy

Perceptions of the Bureaucracy

Many Americans today have a negative perception of the federal bureaucracy. They consider it a huge, immovable object that hinders progress and intrudes on their lives. Most Americans believe the federal bureaucracy has grown in the last few decades to an enormous size. This is a misperception. Since the 1960s, the size of the federal bureaucracy has been very stable. By contrast, however, state and local bureaucracies have grown steadily since World War II, reflecting the increasing extent to which federal programs are administered by the states.
Most Americans also feel that the federal bureaucracy is very wasteful. Whistle-blowers and reports of abuses fuel this perception of waste, which does sometimes occur. The late Senator William Proxmire of Wisconsin was famous for his "Golden Fleece" awards given to departments and individuals for wasteful spending he found in the bureaucracy. Senator Proxmire's focus on spending abuses helped end many wasteful and unwise practices.
Writing in the first decades of the twentieth century, the German sociologist Max Weber theorized on governments, institutions, and bureaucracies. Weber believed that bureaucracies function to implement the policies of elected government in a rational, efficient, non-partisan manner. He felt that workers in bureaucracies develop specific expertise and technical knowledge that could not be acquired in the relatively short tenure of elected or appointed policy makers. He also felt that they possess critical knowledge about the history and practice of their agency within the larger framework of government and society and that they provide continuity from one administration to the next, which is essential for an orderly transfer of power under rule of law. Leadership may change, but the engine of government does not falter on account of having a new driver in a government that possesses a strong bureaucracy.
Weber identified the structure of a bureaucracy as a hierarchical pyramid with levels of rank and power and a single director at the top. He said bureaucratic jobs tend to require specialized knowledge, such as accounting, statistics, economics, or health care. Obtaining a position within a bureaucracy is ideally based on merit for performing the job rather than on other factors, such as being a friend or relative of someone with "pull" or being owed a political or financial favor.
Modern theorists feel that while Weber made some good observations about bureaucracies, he did not sufficiently address the manner in which bureaucracies function in government. Bureaucracies tend to resist change because change uses resources and introduces unknown elements into the system. For this reason, a bureaucracy is often at odds with elected officials and their appointees, who by contrast often get elected or appointed on a promise to implement change. To minimize the effects of leaders who come and go, a bureaucracy will tend to seek power of its own and uses its power, for the most part, to maintain the status quo. When asked to change, bureaucracies often respond with a request for more people and resources rather than with a plan to restructure or become more efficient. In this way, bureaucracies can become large, cumbersome, and complex if they are not required to account for their own practices.
Bureaucracies tend to be monopolistic because it makes little sense to have more than one government agency performing the same function. Complaints about bureaucratic monopolies are generally the same as for corporate monopolies—without competition or some strict means of regulation, a monopoly becomes inefficient at best and tyrannical at worst.
Government bureaucratic monopolies can have competition from private sources. The U.S. Post Office, Amtrak, and NASA are all government monopolies. Until recent decades, the U.S. Post Office was by law the only carrier of mail and parcels. Private companies that felt they could deliver packages at a profit lobbied for a change in the law to allow private carriers. Now there are several parcel delivery companies that are very successful and profitable.

Bureaucracy

Regulatory Agencies

Nearly all of the federal government's work was accomplished through Cabinet departments until the 1880s when Congress began establishing agencies that were positioned outside the Cabinet departments. Among these agencies are the independent regulatory commissions that were created to protect public interest by developing and enforcing rules. These agencies, which have powers similar to legislative and judicial bodies, regulate certain sectors of the nation's economy. While they operate outside the executive branch, regulatory agencies are headed by a board or commission whose members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) was one of the first regulatory agencies designed to help protect the public interest. Established in 1887 by the Interstate Commerce Act, the agency became the regulatory body for railways, buses, trucks, pipelines and inland waterway traffic. At its inception, the ICC issued licenses and regulated transportation routes and rates. The agency's role was diminished during the deregulation movement of the 1980s and it was eliminated in 1996 by the ICC Termination Act. It was not the only agency to fall victim to deregulation—The Civil Aeronautics Board, created in 1938 to regulate commercial air traffic, was abolished by Congress in 1985.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) was established in 1934. When it was established, the FCC oversaw the telegraph, telephone, and radio industries. Today, the commission regulates telephone, radio, and television, as well as microwave and satellite transmission. The five-member board licenses the public airwaves, sets broadcast standards, and hears cases on telephone rates.
Established in 1914, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulates business activity by enforcing anti-trust laws and protecting consumers from unfair trade practices. The FTC monitors companies for price fixing and dishonest labeling of products. It also monitors financial agencies for compliance with truth-in-lending laws. The five commissioners divide their time between competitive practices, consumer protection, and economic issues. The FTC provides Congress and the executive branch with detailed reports on the nation's economic growth and business activity.
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was established in 1934 as part of President Roosevelt's New Deal policy initiatives. Its five-member board oversees the stock and commodities markets by establishing and enforcing strict trading rules. The SEC monitors the activities of holding companies, represents investors at bankruptcy hearings, monitors mutual funds, and regulates the sale of stock on margin.
The Wagner Act established the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in 1935, with the goal of resolving labor disputes. The five-member NLRB has the power to issue complaints, petition the courts for injunctions, obtain settlements, and ensure worker compliance with court orders. The board also conducts secret ballot elections when workers vote for or against unionizing a company, and it helps settle issues when more than one union tries to represent the same group of workers. Once despised by company leaders, the NLRB has become an important part of the American labor system.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), which was created in 1972, sets and enforces safety standards for consumer products. In performing its role, the commission issues recalls of unsafe products and conducts consumer research and education programs. The five-member board has jurisdiction over consumer products used in and around the home, in sports, recreation, and schools. However, it does not control products such as automobiles, tires, boats, alcohol, tobacco, firearms, cosmetics, and medical devices.
In addition to these regulatory bodies, there are other public agencies and commissions that serve the public, consumers, or the government. These agencies may also have regulatory and rule-making functions and may help resolve disputes over rules.
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is an example of one public agency that serves the government. Its principle function is to gather information and intelligence about foreign powers to be used by the executive branch. The CIA Director is also a member of the National Security Council (NSC), an executive advisory group that has become increasingly important with respect to foreign affairs. Chaired by the president, the NSC includes the vice president, secretary of state, treasury secretary, defense secretary, and the president's national security advisor. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff serves as military advisor to the NSC.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the government's largest independent regulatory agency. By monitoring the administration of all environmental legislation, the EPA helps to protect public health by ensuring a clean environment. The EPA was established in 1970 in response to interest group concerns about water, soil, and air pollution.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was created as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The law prohibited discrimination on the basis of race or gender in hiring, promoting, and firing employees. Title VII of the act established the EEOC to implement the new law. The role of the commission has expanded since its inception to include discrimination based on color, religion, national origin, age, and disability. Its jurisdiction today goes beyond hiring, promoting, and firing to include testing, training, wage-setting, apprenticeship, and other conditions of employment.
The Federal Reserve System (FED), which was established in 1913, regulates the nation's interest rates and money supply. The agency also supervises the U.S. Federal Reserve banks. Alan Greenspan became Chairman of the seven-member board in 1987 and is credited with helping the nation avoid excessive inflation and deep recession.

Thursday, March 1st

Using the internet, you will research how the bureaucracy of the US Government works (or doesn't work!),  Then you will create a board game that forces the players to work their way through the federal bureaucracy to achieve a certain goal.  It could be something as simple as getting a stop sign put in or something as comlex as building a nuclear power plant. Think about issues such as the iron triangle, layers of red tape, and overlapping jurisdiction. Here are some sites to help get the process started:

 http://edweb.sdsu.edu/courses/edtec670/boardgame/BoardGameDesign1.html

http://danielsolisblog.blogspot.com/2011/01/5-tips-for-elegant-efficient-board-game.html

 We will be playing these games on Wednesday.  Rubric is below:

http://edweb.sdsu.edu/courses/edtec670/boardgame/boardgamerubric.html

The Roles of the President

You are to create a glog that displays what you perceive as the most important action President Obama has done in each of the seven roles of president during the last year. You can link websites, video, or any other medium that help explain, but please use proper citing.  Rubric will be provided.  Glogs are due on Thursday, Feb. 16.

Glog examples:

http://www.glogster.com/nakiadouglas75/barack-obama-male-leadership-academy-at-bf-darrell/g-6m3vlacs8kho6vl8mcmb7a0

http://www.glogster.com/lilmissunshine/message-for-obama/g-6o3nc4jtepv9rl9avob86se

The Cabinet

The Origin of the Cabinet

The Cabinet is a team that was developed to counsel the president on various issues and to operate the various executive departments within the national government. The Cabinet consists of the heads of the executive departments who serve as Cabinet members according to tradition. There is no Constitutional or congressional mandate that requires Cabinet members to serve. However, Article Two, Section Two of the U.S. Constitution does give the president the power to seek the opinion of executive department officers.
The first executive departments established by Congress in 1789 were the Department of State, Department of Treasury, and Department of War. The attorney general handled the functions of what was later to become the Justice Department. The State Department deals with matters of international concern, and the Treasury Department is concerned with the nation's financial resources. The War Department was established to coordinate national defense, and the attorney general focuses on domestic legal issues.
The first Cabinet members serving under George Washington were Henry Knox, who headed the War Department, Attorney General William Randolph (Justice Department), Alexander Hamilton, who served as chief of the Treasury Department, and Thomas Jefferson, who led the State Department.
As the nation and its needs grew, Congress, often at the request of the president, established new departments to handle these needs. The first new department that did not replace or incorporate some function of the four original departments was the Department of Interior, which was established in 1849.
While the Cabinet's importance has varied depending on the administration, every U.S. president has had a Cabinet. Cabinets were very important in the administrations of Presidents George Bush (1989-1993) and Bill Clinton (1993-2001) but had less of a role in John F. Kennedy's administration. In fact, Kennedy was quoted as describing Cabinet meetings as a "waste of time."

The Budget

The Office of Management and Budget

The federal budget is a financial plan for the coming fiscal year. The budget describes the revenues the United States government expects to receive from various sources and also what it expects to spend on entitlements, interest on the debt, defense, and other programs. The budget functions as a blueprint for operating the government and for implementing federal policy. It expresses the intent of the federal government in financial terms.
The budget originates in the White House and is the responsibility of the president. The actual planning and writing of the budget, however, is the job of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which is part of the executive branch. The OMB is the second largest and most influential office of the executive branch after the White House itself. The director of the OMB is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The OMB also monitors federal spending once the budget is in place.
During the summer months of each year, all government departments and agencies submit their budget proposals to the OMB. These departments depend on presidential support for their funding. The president has certain objectives for the overall budget as well as programs he would like funded. Sometime these objectives are driven by campaign promises to save the taxpayers money or create programs the public supported during the election.
Under the president's direction, the OMB draws up a presidential budget that includes cuts to some departments and increases to others. The OMB possesses the economic, financial, and accounting expertise to advise the president on technical aspects of the budget-making process. When the president is satisfied with the budget, he sends it to Congress for review and action.
Lobbyists can also have an impact on the disposition of money in the budget. Lobbyists represent many diverse groups who have a vested interest in the activities of the government and how it allocates resources. Lobbyists may represent industries, companies, unions, groups of voters who feel strongly on certain issues, or even foreign countries.
State and local governments can also have an interest in how federal money is dispersed. For example, departments of agriculture at the state level may want legislators in Washington to know how crucial federal funding is for food production in their state. Intergovernmental lobbies may include mayors, governors, superintendents of schools, state directors of public health, county highway commissioners, and other groups that have become dependent on federal dollars. Lobbyists can be valuable sources of information about the concerns of their interest group.

Presidential Roles

Express Roles

The United States Constitution outlines several of the president's roles and powers, while other roles have developed over time. The presidential roles expressly defined, or enumerated, in the Constitution include those of Commander-in-Chief, Chief Executive, Head of State, Chief Diplomat, and Legislator.
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution defines the president's role and powers as Commander-in-Chief. In this role, the president controls the United States military by working through the Department of Defense. Originally called the Department of War, this department was established by the first Congress to advise the president on military matters.
Members of the Department of Defense include the secretary of defense, who is also a Cabinet member, as well as the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who are the leaders of each branch of the military. These people and their respective staffs are responsible for giving the president advice in his role as Commander-in-Chief.
In addition to working with the Department of Defense, the president also works closely with the House and Senate committees on armed services and the appropriation committees that designate funding for the military. These groups help determine military expenditures and defense policy for the United States.
Although the Constitution gives military control to the president, this power is shared with Congress. Congress has the power of appropriations and to declare war. Congress last used its power to declare war in 1941, when it approved the United States' involvement in World War II.
In 1973, after many years of escalating American involvement in the Vietnam War, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution. The war, which did not enjoy broad popular support, had grown when successive administrations committed more and more troops and equipment to it. The War Powers Resolution stipulates that a president must get Congressional approval if he wants to commit troops on an emergency basis, even for a limited time.
Whether or not the president abides by the War Powers Resolution is a political decision. While every president has claimed that the resolution is unconstitutional, it has proven to be politically more efficient to go along with it than to challenge it.

Occasionally, the president appeals to the public to prompt Congress to give him powers to conduct war when he sees fit. Public fear of the spread of Communism helped President Truman garner congressional support for the United States' involvement in the Korean War, which lasted from 1950 to 1953.
Fear of Communism also played a role in the passage of the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which authorized United States military involvement in the Vietnam War. President Lyndon Johnson urged passage of this resolution in August 1964 after a supposed North Vietnamese attack on U.S. destroyers located in the Gulf of Tonkin. Similarly, in 2002, Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed the Iraq Resolution, authorizing use of military force in Iraq.
As Commander-in-Chief, the president also exercises power over military leaders to ensure that national security goals are met. For example, President Truman removed General MacArthur as the Supreme Commander of Allied Powers during the Korean War when MacArthur overstepped his powers and threatened China with nuclear weapons.
Another presidential role, that of Chief Executive, is principally defined in Article II, Sections 1 and 3 of the Constitution. As Chief Executive, the president is the champion of the United States Constitution. He is sworn to uphold and defend its laws, as well as to make sure those laws are executed.
Two roles—Administrator and Crisis Manager—can be seen as extensions of the Chief Executive role. As an Administrator, the president is the head of an immense Bureaucracy, which includes the Cabinet, government agencies, commissions, and other entities. In fulfilling his role as Administrator, President Clinton tasked Vice President Al Gore with making the government more efficient by figuring out how and where to apply quality-improvement measures similar to those used in large corporations.
In addition to appointing people to positions within the Bureaucracy, the president proposes budgets for the agencies. As modern presidents have taken a greater role in budget development, the role of Chief Financial Officer has also been added to their agendas.
As a Crisis Manager, the president handles national crises, such as the Oklahoma City bombing during Bill Clinton's presidency and the September 11, 2001, attacks during George W. Bush's presidency. People in the United States and throughout the world judge the president on how well he functions during times of crises. John Kennedy was not viewed as a strong president until his forceful handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
While Kennedy, Clinton, and Bush received high approval ratings for their role as Crisis Manager, not all presidents have handled crises decisively and quickly. Two presidents who lost public approval following crises were Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter. President Hoover's response—or lack of response—to the Stock Market plunge and Depression in 1929 eroded people's confidence in him and marred his presidency. President Carter's handling of the Iran Hostage Crisis was perceived as weak and ineffective.
Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution names the president the Head of State and Chief Diplomat. As Head of State, the president attends state dinners, acts as the ceremonial leader of the nation, and meets with foreign leaders in Washington, D.C. Additionally, the president represents the people of the United States at official functions, such as funerals or weddings of important foreign officials, treaty signings, and goodwill trips abroad.
Closely related to the Head of State role, being Chief Diplomat involves meeting with foreign diplomats, appointing ambassadors, and fulfilling obligations to negotiate treaties, agreements, and understandings with foreign powers. These responsibilities are typically executed with help from the Department of State.
Several U.S. presidents, including Ronald Reagan, were highly regarded for their skillful diplomacy. President Reagan's relationship with British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev were some of the strongest ties among world leaders in modern times. It was President Reagan's rapport with Gorbachev that helped them establish an arms-reduction agreement, called the INF Treaty, in 1987.
As Chief Diplomat, the president can enter into executive agreements, which do not require the Senate's approval. These agreements typically expand on existing legislation or treaties. One noteworthy executive agreement, referred to as the Lend-Lease Policy, was reached in 1940 between the United States and Great Britain. At the time, Britain was already at war with Germany and needed more ships to combat the German submarines. President Franklin Roosevelt agreed to give Great Britain 50 destroyers in exchange for 99 years of access to military bases from the North to South Atlantic.
The president's role as Legislator is partially enumerated and partially traditional. According to Article II, Section 3, the president must present to Congress a State of the Union message each year. This message in modern times has indicated the legislative package the president intends to send to Congress, including the budget he is preparing. In most years, a president will give this address to a joint session of Congress. However, presidents can opt simply to send the message to Congress to be read. President George W. Bush followed this procedure in 2001.
Beginning with the first 100 days of Franklin Roosevelt's administration, Congress has looked to the White House for the legislative agenda. White House personnel send bills to Congress, actively lobby individuals and groups to support the president's agenda, and use the Bureaucracy to encourage the passage of favored programs and bills.
President Lyndon Johnson, one of the nations most prolific legislators while serving as a Texas Senator, was able to translate his Senate skills to the role of chief legislator. In the 1960s, he and his administration created the Great Society programs to expand federal funding for social services. With support from the Bureaucracy and political allies, they successfully lobbied Congress to pass many of the programs.
Commander-in-Chief, Chief Executive, Head of State, Chief Diplomat, and Legislator—having so many roles severely limits the president's time. Presidents are often so busy that they become reactive, responding to crisis situations as they occur. The demands on the president's time regularly require him to set aside his Agenda, limiting the time he has to spend promoting his policies.
The president's time is often not his own and is dictated by the roles and duties he must Constitutionally or traditionally fulfill. It has been suggested that the job of the president has become too large with too many roles. One solution that has been suggested is to use vice presidents more effectively. The Constitution defines only two roles for the vice president. One is to be President of the Senate, where the principal duty is to cast the tie-breaking vote, when necessary. The other role is the help determine whether a president is disabled.
Historically, vice presidents have remained in the background, playing only minor public and policy-making roles. In the last several administrations, however, the vice presidents have played a more vital role. For example, Al Gore and Dick Cheney have both had high-profile responsibilities under their respective presidents, including making appearances and speaking on the president's behalf.

Presidential Politics, Polls, and the Press

Approval Ratings and Public Perception

A new president generally enjoys very high public approval for the first 100 days of his administration. In part, this is because the electorate expects that the new president will address the problems of the nation with vigor and carry out the promises made during his campaign. During this "honeymoon" phase, a president can honestly claim he has the mandate of the people since they have just elected him to office. This claim is often employed to prod a reluctant Congress to pass the new president's favored legislation. The 100 days after Franklin Roosevelt's inauguration in 1933, when Congress passed a substantial portion of his New Deal legislation, stands as the best example of this phenomenon.
Exceptions to the honeymoon period can occur when the Electoral College has elected a president—such as George W. Bush in 2000—even though he did not receive a majority of the popular vote. The mandate theory argument does not work in this case, and the new president must rely on other means to persuade Congress to act on his legislative agenda. Even so, the glow of the first 100 days provides the president with an opportunity to establish his leadership, outline his policies, propose new laws, and generally set the tone of his next four years in office.
To maintain support for his programs, the president tries to gauge the public's response to his policies and proposals. He and his staff will turn to approval polls, which private polling organizations regularly conduct, for this information. The press and news media also watch the presidential approval ratings and report the results back to the people. Polls help the president to shape policy, the media to spot problems in the new administration, and the people to make judgments about the new president.
In the nineteenth century and early in the twentieth century, presidents could also count on a honeymoon period with Congress because legislators wanted to share in the glory of the newly elected president and perhaps "ride his coattails" back into office in the next election. Later in the term, as differences of opinion between the president and Congress often became more serious, the president was likely to find his proposals languishing in committee or stalled by debate.
Modern presidents are no longer automatically granted concessions from Congress during their first 100 days in office. Newly elected presidents now expect to have to negotiate to get their legislative agenda positively considered by Congress. Success in this area carries a high premium, since being able to pass legislation, especially popular programs or those that benefit large numbers of people, can boost a president's approval rating.
In addition to getting legislation passed, a strong economy nearly always translates into high presidential approval ratings. Low taxes and inflation, high employment rates, steady cost of living, absence of recession, and a strong stock market are all elements that encourage a positive view of the president even though he may have little or no influence over these circumstances. On the strength of a booming economy, President Bill Clinton enjoyed positive approval ratings by the public throughout most of his presidency in spite of disapproval of his personal conduct that nearly led to his removal from office.
A national crisis can raise a president's approval rating if he handles it well. Americans traditionally "rally around the flag" and support the president in an emergency. Clinton's approval was given a boost following the Oklahoma City bombing, as was George W. Bush's in the wake of the September 11 tragedy. A president who effectively manages the nation's response to aggression or disaster will score high ratings. Other examples of presidents solidly supported by the people in their handling of a crisis include Roosevelt following Pearl Harbor, Truman after the North Korean attack, and Kennedy in the wake of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Foreign travel can boost a president's popularity because a trip abroad can also trigger a "rally around the flag" effect. Americans feel a sense of pride when they see foreign crowds cheering a U.S. president, and they are angry when foreign nationals demonstrate against their Commander-in-Chief. Nixon's China trip where he scored diplomatic victories in the midst of the Vietnam War, as well as his trip to Russia where he negotiated arms reductions agreements and established détente during the Cold War, boosted his popularity to unexpected heights. Likewise, when George W. Bush traveled to Iraq in support of the troops, his approval rating rose.
War can also boost presidential approval. When the United States engages in conflict, Americans support their Commander-in-Chief, at least initially. For war to have this positive effect, it must be short, successful, and have few American casualties. When Reagan ordered troops to Grenada and George Bush Sr. sent armed forces into Iraq in Desert Storm, their approval ratings increased. With Operation Iraqi Freedom, George W. Bush preserved a positive approval rating in spite of an economic recession.
Presidential approval often falls over time, as new programs begin to lose their luster. This approval decline frequently extends to the president's political party, which often loses seats in Congress at the midterm election. Weakness in the economy can produce a further decline in presidential approval. High inflation, a recession, rising unemployment, an increase in deficit spending, rising interest rates, and a drop in the stock market are all circumstances that can hurt an administration's ratings. In spite of the fact that the president often has very little control over these events, people see him as responsible for the economic well-being of the nation. George Bush Sr. suffered a severe decline in public approval and lost his bid for re-election due to a long recession in the late 1980s. This happened even after his successful and popular military victory over Iraq.
Foreign difficulties can depress a president's public approval as well. Public opinion turned against President Clinton when a humanitarian mission in Somalia went disastrously wrong and many U.S. soldiers were wounded and some lost their lives. Likewise, the Iran Hostage Crisis so damaged President Carter in the polls that it contributed to his losing his bid for re-election. A failure in foreign policy can cause the public to extend disapproval to a president's policies in general, thus increasing resistance to his legislative program in Congress.
Scandal can seriously dampen public enthusiasm for a president as well. Clinton's troubles with Whitewater, Monica Lewinski, and Jennifer Flowers are examples of such scandal. In the 1970s, the Watergate debacle forced Nixon to resign the presidency. Though the facts of his involvement with covering up for the perpetrators of the Whitewater break-in were against him, his case was further damaged when tapes of private conversations he had with White House staffers were made public with numerous "expletives deleted." Nixon's use of profanity made him seem inarticulate and desperate.
At one time, the press generally refrained from publishing personal information that would be damaging to a president. Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, and John F. Kennedy all benefited from reluctance of the press to engage in scandal mongering. The American public's appetite for sensational stories along with more intense competition among the many media sources has lead to less restraint in reporting on the personal life of presidents. President Carter's beer-loving brother, Billy, provided ample fuel to the media and weighed on President Carter's approval ratings. Political parties are now more careful to consider the character and complete history of a candidate because of the intense scrutiny that candidates receive.
Perception that a president is unable to fulfill campaign promises can gravely damage his approval rating. During the heat of campaign, politicians often make lofty pledges that are difficult to keep even in ideal conditions. When Herbert Hoover was elected president in 1928, the American economy was approaching a decade of phenomenal boom. No one had any idea that within a year, America—and indeed the world—would be in the grip of a terrible depression. In his campaign, Hoover had promised an end to hunger, poverty, and want for every American. His campaign slogan, "A chicken in every pot and a car in every garage," was turned into a mockery that was used against him before his term in office was over. Though the causes of the Great Depression were beyond Hoover's power to correct, the people remembered the promise and in bitterness blamed Hoover for the Depression.
Prolonged war or overseas conflict that has no foreseeable end can damage a president's approval rating. Though the public will usually give a president high ratings at the beginning of conflict, as war wears on, approval will drop. Especially harmful to ratings are casualties that are out of proportion to the objective. Johnson's thrashing in the polls over Vietnam is a classic example. By 1968, the U.S. had half a million troops in Southeast Asia and had suffered casualties of over 30,000 Americans with Vietnamese losses being many times that number. The political objective of the war remained unclear to most Americans, however, and no end to the conflict was in sight. Public reaction against the war was so severe that Johnson felt his chances of re-election were hopeless, and he consequently withdrew from the race in favor of his vice president, Hubert Humphrey. In contrast to this extreme response to Vietnam, America's intervention in Bosnia did little to harm Clinton because there were few American casualties.
In spite of making every effort to retain public approval, most presidents leave office with lower approval than when they began. Americans maintain extraordinarily high expectations of their presidents—expectations that often exceed a president's ability to fulfill. Americans may feel sorry for a beleaguered president, but they never cease to expect him to achieve the best possible outcome in every situation, and they become angry if he fails to do so. This anger finds its expression in approval ratings that are ever harder to maintain as a presidency wears on. As President Lincoln observed, "You can't please all of the people all of the time."

Nature of the Presidency

To become president of the United States, a person does not need to meet a long list of qualifications. In fact, the Constitution outlines only three requirements; a president must be 35 years old, a natural-born citizen of the United States, and must live in the United States for 14 years prior to taking office. The Constitution does not require that the 14 years be consecutive. For example, Dwight Eisenhower had spent many years living outside of the United States during the 1940s, but was elected in 1952.
The term "natural-born citizen" raises the issue of whether a person born outside the United States to an American mother or father qualifies as natural born. To date, this scenario has not been tested, but the first nine presidents were born in the colonies before the United States was formed. Since then, all of the presidents have been born in the United States.
A sitting president must satisfy three audiences: politicians, party activists, and the public. Gaining the approval, cooperation, and support of all these groups takes highly developed leadership and management skills. Several political scientists and historians have studied and developed theories about the characteristics of a good president and what skills are required to fulfill the duties of office.
Political scientist and historian Richard Neustadt asserted that the president's real, most vital power is the power to persuade. Although the president is one of the most powerful people in the world, he cannot simply issue a series of orders to carry out his agenda. Harry Truman once said that he spent all of his time trying to get people to do what they were supposed to do in the first place. Truman's experience supports Neustadt's theory.
Another political scientist, Clinton Rossiter, notes that the president must be able to fill many different roles as well as excel at multi-tasking. The president has at least five roles—head of state, chief executive, commander-in-chief, diplomat, and legislator—each of which carries significant responsibility and demands on time. Even if a president is good at all but one role and accomplishes several objectives while in office, people and history might judge him harshly for failure in one role.
Presidential biographer James MacGregor Burns suggests that a great president has a clear, focused agenda that can be achieved during his term. Of course, fulfilling objectives requires cooperation from Congress and other parties. The more objectives achieved during his tenure, the greater the president's success.
Another political scientist, James David Barber, studied the personalities of the presidents. In doing so, he analyzed whether each president had a clear agenda and purpose and whether he was active or passive. Additionally, he looked at whether each president had a positive or negative perception of the job. Presidents who have a clear agenda and purpose, are active, and have a positive perception of the position are more likely to be seen as strong leaders.

Congress Review Questions 1

Congressional Main Ideas #1

A.P. U.S. Government – 2012

Directions: Use your text to help you answer the following questions. Use pages 234-249.

1. Where in the Constitution will you find information about the Legislative Branch?

2. What section lays out the majority of Congress’ powers? Name two powers not listed in that section.

3. Why did the Framers feel that “House members would be more responsible to the people”…?

4. Even though things like a national bank are not mentioned in the Constitution, what part of the Constitution has given Congress the ability to create and run a national bank? Why do you think some people fear this aspect of the Constitution?

5. What is impeachment and how does the process work? (in terms of the involvement of the two houses)

6. Political parties are not part of the Constitutional make up of Congress, but they obviously play a major role. How have parties affected the committee system?

7. What are the basic responsibilities of the Speaker of the House and how has that position’s power changed over the years? (specifically since the start of the 20^th Century)

8. What is the president pro tempore and how does that position differ from the Speaker of the House?

9. What is the committee system in Congress and what is its main function?

10. Briefly describe the four main types of committees:

   1. Standing:

  2. Joint:

 3. Conference:

 4. Select:

11.  Predict how being the party in power will play a role in committee make up and how that, in turn, plays a role in the legislative process.

Tuesday, 1/31

Read the following article and answer the questions below:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/72132.html

1. What causes congressional gridlock?

2. How could we restructure congress so that legislation is easier to pass?

We will discuss this and restructuring qualifications on Wednesday.

READ THIS!

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57366219-503544/rick-santorum-left-uses-college-for-indoctrination/?tag=re1.channel

Reworking Congress

On Monday, 1/30  be prepared to give a reworking of the structure of Congress.  You should address:

Term limits

Qualifications

Length of term

The path a bill takes to become a law

The influence of lobbyists

You will present your new plan in class so have it written down

Thursday, 1/5/12

1st half of block:  finish mapping out pathway of bill.

2nd half of block:  Read up on the notes posted on the blogsite pertaining to Congress.