Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

2005 AP US Government and Politics Free Response Questions

No description
by

Brenda Shein

on 10 May 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of 2005 AP US Government and Politics Free Response Questions

2005 AP US Government and Politics Free Response Questions by: Arian Cano, Abegail Caparas, and Brenda Shein -6th Period Johnson Question #2:
The power of the federal government relative to the power of the states has increased since the ratification of the Constitution. 1A) Describe two ways in which the United States Supreme Court is insulated from public opinion. 1. One way in which the United States Supreme Court is insulated from public opinion is because justices are appointed by the President rather than elected by the people, so they do not have to worry about the opinions of voters.

2. Another way they are insulated from public opinion is because they serve life terms, so they are free to give their own opinion on a matter because they do not have to worry about pleasing the public for reelection. Question #3:
Initially, the United States Constitution did little to protect citizens from actions of the states. In the twentieth century, the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution to protect the rights of the citizens from state governments in a process referred to as incorporation. 1B) Explain how two factors work to keep the United States Supreme Court from deviating too far from public opinion. 1. Congress can pass new constitutional amendments that can reflect the change that is happening in society. The justices would have to apply the new amendments into their judicial review in court.

2. Justices are still susceptible in being impeached although they are seated for life. Justices must act on “good behavior” so it is interpreted that if they commit a felony of some kind, then the House of Representatives can accuse and the Senate can conduct the trial. Question #1:
The judicial branch is designed to be more independent of the public opinion than are the legislature of the executive. Yet, the United States Supreme Court rarely deviates far for too long from prevalent public opinion. 2A) Describe two of the following provisions of the Constitution and explain how each has been used over time to expand federal power. The “necessary and proper” or “elastic” clause: basically states that Congress has the power to make all necessary and proper laws to carry out all the powers granted to the government
has expanded federal power over time because it provides potential for the expansion of other federal powers through the passage of laws as they become appropriate or needed.
Congress has used this clause to organize the federal judiciary, create and define laws for the punishment of crimes, and allowed the government to take property under eminent domain, among other things
basically states that Congress has the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, Indian tribes, and among the states
has expanded federal power over time because it has allowed the government to regulate economic activity and impose laws on states and individuals for the welfare of the nation
example: case of Gibbons v. Ogden (the power to regulate is specifically reserved to Congress). 2A (continued): The commerce clause: 2B) Explain how one of the following has increased the power of the federal government relative to the power of state governments. prohibits the discrimination of the disabled based on race, religion, and national origin, among others
has increased the power of the federal government by giving them the power to regulate and mandate how state governments treat people that are disabled
the federal government prohibits discrimination in public facilities and in employment as well. Americans with Disabilities Act: The process by which certain of the guarantees expressed in the Bill of Rights became applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Under the selective incorporation approach, select guarantees in the Bill of Rights and their related case laws are applied to the states. 3A) Define selective incorporation: 3B) For two of the following, explain how each has been incorporated. Each of your explanations must be based on a specific and relevant Supreme Court decision. The case of McGowan v. Maryland (1961), was a case regarding the first amendment’s right of freedom of religion
The Supreme Court held that laws with religious origins are not unconstitutional if they have secular prose.
the Constitution does not ban federal or state regulation of conduct whose reason or effect merely happens to coincide with the tenets of some or all religions.
It concluded that, as presently written and administered, most Sunday closing laws are of a secular rather than religious character. To say the State can not prescribe Sunday as a day of rest for these purposes solely because centuries ago such laws had their genesis in religion would give a constitutional interpretation of hostility to the public welfare rather than one of mere separation of church and state. First Amendment: The case of Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution protected the right to privacy.

involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives

By a vote of 7-2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the “right to marital privacy.” Privacy rights: 3B (continued):
Eliminating soft money
Limiting independent expenditures
Raising limits on individual contributions The United States Congress has debated a variety of campaign finance reforms over the last decade. The proposals debated have include the following Question #4: 4A) Select one of the listed proposals and do all of the following:
1. Define the proposal
2. Describe an argument that proponents make in favor of the proposal
3. Describe an argument that opponents make against the proposal 3. Eliminating soft money is a bad idea because it violates the First Amendment. Citizens are granted the right to form assemblies and have freedom in their speech. It is also violating the ruling that was stated in Buckley v. Valeo, which was ruled that candidates are able to contribute unlimited funds to their campaign. 1. Eliminating soft money moderates the amount of campaign money that is contributed to political parties. 2. Eliminating soft money is a good thing because it is mainly used as a loophole to gain more money for the campaign rather than obtaining the majority of the campaign money through hard money, which has limits on how much an individual can contribute. Also, eliminating soft money will allow the candidates to have an equal chance in providing money for their campaign. 4B) Select a different listed proposal and do all of the following:
1. Define the proposal
2. Describe an argument that proponents make in favor of the proposal
3. Describe an argument that opponents make against the proposal 1. Raising limits on individual contributions increases the amount of money a person can contribute to a particular political candidate’s campaign, party, or PAC.

2. In favor of this proposal, raising limits on individual contributions allows a person to contribute more money to a campaign which in turn decreases the amount of time a candidate will spend on fundraising for more money. Additionally, the raised limit decreases a candidate’s reliability on other ways to fundraise money that are more restrictive, such as soft money and independent expenditures.

3. In opposition of this proposal, raising limits on individual contributions will increase the cost of campaigns because more money will be involved. There is already enough money for the candidates to spend with their campaign and this will only allow the rich to be able to donate more and obtain more influence because of their contribution.
Full transcript