Learning Objectives and Answers
LO 1.A.1: Compare how various models of representative democracy are reflected through major institutions, policies, events, or debates in the U.S.
The initial ideals from which a representative democracy originates come from the mixture of ideas fabricated from the pluralist ideals, the participatory, and the elite. Originally, these found themselves with the idea of natural rights as well as liberties, freedoms, and order. Betwixt the few arose the indirect democracy the U.S, follows to suit today, where every citizens hold some accord of accountability within the government, as well as those few "elites" being granted more strong-suit as they ultimately are the influence, finally where pluralist ideals reign in which decisions can be argued and ultimately compromises are made. These ideals give the representative democracy its initial curation as they are mixed together in a means to where there is an ample amount of freedom, order, and equality throughout the government. Thus bringing everything to the main focus of a representative democracy, where representatives are elected by the people in order to decide on what laws and policies would be most beneficial to the people without sacrificing their individual liberties. As stated in the latter, freedom, equality, and order must gather in a balance, and to the predeceased is what is now chosen to be instilled to this day. Now the pluralist ideal is given way as there are republicans and democrats--originally deemed factions now more modernized--the two parties drawn between the sides of conservatives and liberals. Though the opinions of each may differ, they are both operating towards the same goal, (each of course having their own views on how much freedom to be given or sacrificed to maintain order, and how much equality to be given or taken to achieve the necessary functionality within the government--compromise is the rooted word for a representative democracy as everything within this system revolves around the word). his simply scratching the surface as to the entire philosophy behind it all can simply be stated as people electing representatives of their local to state governments, off to the federalist powers which are separated into the judicial, executive, and legislative (separation of powers)--the legislative being where the citizens initial influence takes course.
LO 1.B.1: Analyze and compare democratic ideals reflected in U.S. foundational documents.
Democratic ideals stem from the original idea of the people when seizing America, that is freedom. But of course, it all comes at a price as freedom in itself only breeds an anarchism, and to majority rule, order has also always been desired to maintain the freedoms the founders sought after. The foundational documents are usually said to be the Articles of Confederation, later replaced by the U.S. Constitution in 1789, all of which emphasize freedom, liberty, equality, order, balance, life, liberty, property, and much else. Now these ideals greatly emphasized the system of a representative democracy as these ideals formulated a more-or-less stable form of government in which the government only holds the necessary grip on its people and the people become willing to forfeit certain freedoms to maintain order throughout. All of which requires universal participation (an ideal which cannot be accounted for perfectly--this being a main reason behind the use of representatives who will be solely focused on government rolls), majority rule of the people and government officials alike, and government responsiveness. Not every freedom is to be attained, however those necessary and most desired will be fought for if approved to be constitutional. These ideals simply influence the words of the Constitution as well as the libido of the federalist and anti-federalist papers, though in the long run what the people desire most, and what is seen to be most beneficial to the country while maintaining freedom and equality are reflected in the constitutional composition.
LO 1.B.2: Compare and interpret Federalist and Anti-Federalist views on central government and democracy.
Federalist and Anti-Federalists have always butted heads as they, of course, hold opposing ideals. Where Anti-Federalists lean more towards a weaker government allowing more power to the people and to the states, Federalists desire a stronger, more fortified government, one that won't be swayed with ease and will be there when needed. Anti-Federalists hold opinions closer to Libertarians and Liberals, while Federalists prefer a more conservative way of government. Now in turn, these ideals remain in the form of Democrats and Republicans today, however not one is stronger than the other as the U.S. Constitution made the government to become a bit more lenient that initially would have been accepted.
LO 1.C.1: Explain the relationship between key provisions of the Articles of Confederation and the debate over granting greater power to the federal government formerly reserved to the states.
The Articles of Confederation were initially constituted under the idea of freedom and order, not so much equality, and so the system was unbalanced which in tum led to Anti-Federalists wanting a rewrite, one where equality was also considered even if it meant losing certain freedoms deemed necessary. The A.o.C. eventually gave way when disputed between states led to complications between themselves as well as the federal powers. This failure led to the Great Compromise which swayed public opinion as well as representative opinion to rethink the balance of power between the country and the state. "Equal vote" was eventually rewritten from singular per-state to dependence on population so the people still had a hold on the representative side, while the government was strengthened so as to allow inter-state commerce to be regulated by a single branch of government--of course leading to more placed in the Constitution so as to allow not just a balance between states and the federal government but within the federal government itself as well.
LO 1.C.2: Analyze causes and effects of constitutional compromises in addressing political, economic, and regional divisions.
As stated before, there was a compromise made politically between the states and the federal government ultimately allowing the Supreme Court to regulate inter-state commerce known as The Great Compromise. This led to a regulated representation per-state instead of the so believed equal singular vote ideal.
Economically speaking states had too much say, as any state could tax as they pleased and taxes between countries could fluctuate to their respective extremes which caused its own pathogen within the A.o.C. system. The Constitution granted the power to tax to the government in order to maintain a stable tax throughout the country for specified items specifically to those being imported/exported, allowing equal taxation for foreign countries so as to not lose trust within trade due to any bias of the state.
Of course there was also the 3/5th's compromise which was debated for slaves. At the time there was much dispute and dissaray within the subject of equality for a person of color and this compromise allowed for those to be counted for at least an amount of a person. This being unethical and unconstitutional was eventually overwritten with the freedom of slaves leading to simple and hostile segregation to today where it is seen as completely inhumane. Of course, bias still treads America in racism, however the problem is always being dealt with and debated as the first amendment grants the power for anyone to voice there opinion as is why it becomes such a controversial matter. Though socially, these racist ideals are becoming more and more unacceptable, which is always good to see.
LO 1.C.3: Explain how the issues raised in the ratification debate are reflected in ongoing philosophical disagreements about democracy and governmental power.
Initially not many people where in accordance with the idea of allowing the government more power, which was the main problem in the early stages of the ratification of the constitution. Public opinion needed to be changed, so as they would come to understand that their rights would be protected under it, and in order to provide that guarantee to the people the Bill of Rights was created. This bill allowed for more protection to the people against the government, providing individual and private freedoms their own leisure to remain so. This limited the overall power of the government but was deemed necessary in order to maintain the original balance of freedom, equality and order that has always been argued over.
LO 1.D.1: Evaluate the relationship between separation of powers and checks and balances.
Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances are indeed two different things, however not so much so that they are different ideas altogether, rather they are each a single side of the same coin. Or better yet two parts in a single masterpiece. Where Separation of Powers separated the federal government into the executive, judicial and legislative branches in order to separate the powers of war, constitutionality, and public opinion, Checks and Balances allowed for each branch of said government to keep watch on each other. So the neither branch could pass a law on its own, it needed approval of the other two. Executive with the power to veto, Judicial with the power to determine the constitutionality of a law, and the Legislative to decide on whether that said law is desired within the opinion of the people. This all maintains BALANCE. Balance forever maintaining its status as "key-word".
LO 1.E.1: Assess how the distribution of powers among three federal branches affects policy making
This was more or less explained in the latter response. Though assessing the three:
Legislative: this being congress, those representatives chosen by the people, where laws are made.
Judicial: The judges, appointed by the president and so on, here laws are debated upon to whether or not they are constitutional.
Executive: The president and vice president etc. chosen by the people (the states) and is also the enforcement unit of any laws made.
LO 1.F.1: Explain how and why the appropriate balance of power between national and state governments has been interpreted differently over time.
An appropriate balance has always been necessary. The main balance is between the federal government and itself, then leading off to the federal government, and states, the states, and local government and so on.
Over time, this was realized and certain powers needed to be revised in order to maintain a balance between the powers of the generalized states and federal. The federal government holding the power to declare war as well as foreign relations in order to remain as unbiased as possible, and the state governments to hold the power over educational policies as well as local government policies overseeing the general tax and welfare of the state.
LO 1.F.2: Analyze questions over the allocation and scope of central power within a federal structure.
This question can simply be summed up as a combination of the two questions answered before the current. To not seem redundant generalizing the idea into a few words is simple, in that the separation of powers goes far beyond just the federal government but to the states as well. Though not so much so within itself, rather together, as concurrent powers they must share and bask in the powers that they are allowed, and in order to maintain a balance between the two, the laws governing all must always be ruled constitutional at a federal level (Supremacy Clause) and all constitutionality must be deemed necessary and proper. When taking it all in everything stated above is necessary for the government to run smoothly even though opinions differ so greatly. Balance and compromise are the ultimate tools within the system, and ideals keep base, moving forward the government to an ever evolving being of curated philosophy from beginning to end. Repetition aside, that assumes the structure and purpose, and a central power is run by the morale of the constitution in order to keep everything in order. Order always negatively connotative, is what keeps a balance between freedom and equality, and the system blends them together allocating opinions and desires, if ever so great, to come to pass if it is in the best interest of the government and its people.
LO 1.A.1: Compare how various models of representative democracy are reflected through major institutions, policies, events, or debates in the U.S.
The initial ideals from which a representative democracy originates come from the mixture of ideas fabricated from the pluralist ideals, the participatory, and the elite. Originally, these found themselves with the idea of natural rights as well as liberties, freedoms, and order. Betwixt the few arose the indirect democracy the U.S, follows to suit today, where every citizens hold some accord of accountability within the government, as well as those few "elites" being granted more strong-suit as they ultimately are the influence, finally where pluralist ideals reign in which decisions can be argued and ultimately compromises are made. These ideals give the representative democracy its initial curation as they are mixed together in a means to where there is an ample amount of freedom, order, and equality throughout the government. Thus bringing everything to the main focus of a representative democracy, where representatives are elected by the people in order to decide on what laws and policies would be most beneficial to the people without sacrificing their individual liberties. As stated in the latter, freedom, equality, and order must gather in a balance, and to the predeceased is what is now chosen to be instilled to this day. Now the pluralist ideal is given way as there are republicans and democrats--originally deemed factions now more modernized--the two parties drawn between the sides of conservatives and liberals. Though the opinions of each may differ, they are both operating towards the same goal, (each of course having their own views on how much freedom to be given or sacrificed to maintain order, and how much equality to be given or taken to achieve the necessary functionality within the government--compromise is the rooted word for a representative democracy as everything within this system revolves around the word). his simply scratching the surface as to the entire philosophy behind it all can simply be stated as people electing representatives of their local to state governments, off to the federalist powers which are separated into the judicial, executive, and legislative (separation of powers)--the legislative being where the citizens initial influence takes course.
LO 1.B.1: Analyze and compare democratic ideals reflected in U.S. foundational documents.
Democratic ideals stem from the original idea of the people when seizing America, that is freedom. But of course, it all comes at a price as freedom in itself only breeds an anarchism, and to majority rule, order has also always been desired to maintain the freedoms the founders sought after. The foundational documents are usually said to be the Articles of Confederation, later replaced by the U.S. Constitution in 1789, all of which emphasize freedom, liberty, equality, order, balance, life, liberty, property, and much else. Now these ideals greatly emphasized the system of a representative democracy as these ideals formulated a more-or-less stable form of government in which the government only holds the necessary grip on its people and the people become willing to forfeit certain freedoms to maintain order throughout. All of which requires universal participation (an ideal which cannot be accounted for perfectly--this being a main reason behind the use of representatives who will be solely focused on government rolls), majority rule of the people and government officials alike, and government responsiveness. Not every freedom is to be attained, however those necessary and most desired will be fought for if approved to be constitutional. These ideals simply influence the words of the Constitution as well as the libido of the federalist and anti-federalist papers, though in the long run what the people desire most, and what is seen to be most beneficial to the country while maintaining freedom and equality are reflected in the constitutional composition.
LO 1.B.2: Compare and interpret Federalist and Anti-Federalist views on central government and democracy.
Federalist and Anti-Federalists have always butted heads as they, of course, hold opposing ideals. Where Anti-Federalists lean more towards a weaker government allowing more power to the people and to the states, Federalists desire a stronger, more fortified government, one that won't be swayed with ease and will be there when needed. Anti-Federalists hold opinions closer to Libertarians and Liberals, while Federalists prefer a more conservative way of government. Now in turn, these ideals remain in the form of Democrats and Republicans today, however not one is stronger than the other as the U.S. Constitution made the government to become a bit more lenient that initially would have been accepted.
LO 1.C.1: Explain the relationship between key provisions of the Articles of Confederation and the debate over granting greater power to the federal government formerly reserved to the states.
The Articles of Confederation were initially constituted under the idea of freedom and order, not so much equality, and so the system was unbalanced which in tum led to Anti-Federalists wanting a rewrite, one where equality was also considered even if it meant losing certain freedoms deemed necessary. The A.o.C. eventually gave way when disputed between states led to complications between themselves as well as the federal powers. This failure led to the Great Compromise which swayed public opinion as well as representative opinion to rethink the balance of power between the country and the state. "Equal vote" was eventually rewritten from singular per-state to dependence on population so the people still had a hold on the representative side, while the government was strengthened so as to allow inter-state commerce to be regulated by a single branch of government--of course leading to more placed in the Constitution so as to allow not just a balance between states and the federal government but within the federal government itself as well.
LO 1.C.2: Analyze causes and effects of constitutional compromises in addressing political, economic, and regional divisions.
As stated before, there was a compromise made politically between the states and the federal government ultimately allowing the Supreme Court to regulate inter-state commerce known as The Great Compromise. This led to a regulated representation per-state instead of the so believed equal singular vote ideal.
Economically speaking states had too much say, as any state could tax as they pleased and taxes between countries could fluctuate to their respective extremes which caused its own pathogen within the A.o.C. system. The Constitution granted the power to tax to the government in order to maintain a stable tax throughout the country for specified items specifically to those being imported/exported, allowing equal taxation for foreign countries so as to not lose trust within trade due to any bias of the state.
Of course there was also the 3/5th's compromise which was debated for slaves. At the time there was much dispute and dissaray within the subject of equality for a person of color and this compromise allowed for those to be counted for at least an amount of a person. This being unethical and unconstitutional was eventually overwritten with the freedom of slaves leading to simple and hostile segregation to today where it is seen as completely inhumane. Of course, bias still treads America in racism, however the problem is always being dealt with and debated as the first amendment grants the power for anyone to voice there opinion as is why it becomes such a controversial matter. Though socially, these racist ideals are becoming more and more unacceptable, which is always good to see.
LO 1.C.3: Explain how the issues raised in the ratification debate are reflected in ongoing philosophical disagreements about democracy and governmental power.
Initially not many people where in accordance with the idea of allowing the government more power, which was the main problem in the early stages of the ratification of the constitution. Public opinion needed to be changed, so as they would come to understand that their rights would be protected under it, and in order to provide that guarantee to the people the Bill of Rights was created. This bill allowed for more protection to the people against the government, providing individual and private freedoms their own leisure to remain so. This limited the overall power of the government but was deemed necessary in order to maintain the original balance of freedom, equality and order that has always been argued over.
LO 1.D.1: Evaluate the relationship between separation of powers and checks and balances.
Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances are indeed two different things, however not so much so that they are different ideas altogether, rather they are each a single side of the same coin. Or better yet two parts in a single masterpiece. Where Separation of Powers separated the federal government into the executive, judicial and legislative branches in order to separate the powers of war, constitutionality, and public opinion, Checks and Balances allowed for each branch of said government to keep watch on each other. So the neither branch could pass a law on its own, it needed approval of the other two. Executive with the power to veto, Judicial with the power to determine the constitutionality of a law, and the Legislative to decide on whether that said law is desired within the opinion of the people. This all maintains BALANCE. Balance forever maintaining its status as "key-word".
LO 1.E.1: Assess how the distribution of powers among three federal branches affects policy making
This was more or less explained in the latter response. Though assessing the three:
Legislative: this being congress, those representatives chosen by the people, where laws are made.
Judicial: The judges, appointed by the president and so on, here laws are debated upon to whether or not they are constitutional.
Executive: The president and vice president etc. chosen by the people (the states) and is also the enforcement unit of any laws made.
LO 1.F.1: Explain how and why the appropriate balance of power between national and state governments has been interpreted differently over time.
An appropriate balance has always been necessary. The main balance is between the federal government and itself, then leading off to the federal government, and states, the states, and local government and so on.
Over time, this was realized and certain powers needed to be revised in order to maintain a balance between the powers of the generalized states and federal. The federal government holding the power to declare war as well as foreign relations in order to remain as unbiased as possible, and the state governments to hold the power over educational policies as well as local government policies overseeing the general tax and welfare of the state.
LO 1.F.2: Analyze questions over the allocation and scope of central power within a federal structure.
This question can simply be summed up as a combination of the two questions answered before the current. To not seem redundant generalizing the idea into a few words is simple, in that the separation of powers goes far beyond just the federal government but to the states as well. Though not so much so within itself, rather together, as concurrent powers they must share and bask in the powers that they are allowed, and in order to maintain a balance between the two, the laws governing all must always be ruled constitutional at a federal level (Supremacy Clause) and all constitutionality must be deemed necessary and proper. When taking it all in everything stated above is necessary for the government to run smoothly even though opinions differ so greatly. Balance and compromise are the ultimate tools within the system, and ideals keep base, moving forward the government to an ever evolving being of curated philosophy from beginning to end. Repetition aside, that assumes the structure and purpose, and a central power is run by the morale of the constitution in order to keep everything in order. Order always negatively connotative, is what keeps a balance between freedom and equality, and the system blends them together allocating opinions and desires, if ever so great, to come to pass if it is in the best interest of the government and its people.