POLS 2311 Joseph Ignagni Notes Pt. 3
POLS 2311 Joseph Ignagni Notes Pt. 3 POLS 2311
Popular in American Government and Politics
Popular in Political Science
This 13 page Study Guide was uploaded by Brianna Fragoso on Saturday January 2, 2016. The Study Guide belongs to POLS 2311 at a university taught by Dr. Ignagni in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 13 views.
Reviews for POLS 2311 Joseph Ignagni Notes Pt. 3
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 01/02/16
FINAL : Good luck everybody. Hope you all do well on the ﬁnal and I hope this helps. Most Americans don’t know how the Supreme Court works. Majority of teachers don’t talk about this branch of government. Nickname for the traditional way of looking at the court The Declaratory Theory, Mechanical Jurisprudence, The Cult of the Robe, Slot machine theory. What this means? - According to this theory, judges simply declare what the law is. (Declaratory theory) - Judges do not make law, rather the ﬁnd or discover it. - Judges have no real discretion or power. They simply follow the law. - They have a passive job. - They are to be neutral umpires - Their own goals and values do not matter. - Rather than be political, Their jobs more closely border on being religio s. This is what most people think a judges job should be or is. If you ask American’s how the supreme court does or how they should behave. This is what the will tell you. All it’s basically saying is, Judges follow the law. Their jobs are not supposed to very important or powerful. All they’re supposed to do is what they’re told o do. Ex. If I’m a judge in a case, here come the 2 parties, Smith v Jones, They make their arguments, witnesses, etc. Time to make a decision. What this theory says is the Judge doesn’t think about who they like, they say this is similar to a case I learned in law school, in the case I learned in law school SMITH wins. So SMITH wins. Based on law not on the judge making the decision himself. What does the law say? What do the statutes say? It’s supposed to be MECHANICAL (Mechanical Jurisprudence) SLOT Machine, the law just spits out the answer. Judges are like an oracle. They announce the law, the law speaks through them. There is no interpretation it just comes through unchanged. Judge doesn’t have to be a genius or creative, he just has to be smart enough to memorize or look up the law. This is basically untrue. Balone . IF this theory is not true of the Supreme Court, why have people thought this is true for 30 years? 3 reasons why declaratory theory lives on (1) The visual presentation and public behavior of courts and judges. They try to create an image that matches this theory. What do court houses look like? Greek + Roman temples. You’re walking into these very impressive buildings. You walk into the court room and the judge comes out in a black robe. Traditionally clergy, ministers, church people wear robes. Medieval garb. And he sits high above you looking down at you. And you must stand as judge enters and leaves. You can be held in contempt of court if you don’t. If I were in the White House and I didn’t rise he couldn’t throw you into jail, but if the lowest judge can throw you in jail if he feels you disrespected him in your court. How often do you see judges on TV giving interviews? No, probably never. Judges are supposed to be seen as NEUTRAL. (A) Loosen up Sandy Baby. Football player talks back to Judge, she’s in a spot where she can’t say anything. (B) Al Gore projected President. She says “Oh No, now I can’t retire” next day front page, She isn’t neutral, she’s biased, she’s republica . (2) Almost all judges say that declaratory theory is true. They defend it and say they are not political, they do not make policy. We don’t make law, we follow the l w. Marshall - “Courts are the mere instruments of the law Taft - Why do you wear robes? “I am a high priest of the temple” (Cult of the Ro e) (3) The general public does not want to believe or recognize just how much power judges have. It makes them feel better about America, it makes them feel better about the law. Everyday in America judges decide, who gets the business, who goes bankrupt, who gets the child in divorce, who goes to jail. And the idea that judges just do it because they feel like it. Is scary. It’s an awful thought. Americans want to believe in this theory because it makes them feel they’ll get a fair shake. When people were asked if certain decisions were political or not, they say yes that was. When you ask if the Supreme Court is always political they say n . Political Jurisprudence Aka Judicial Behavior, Judicial Politics - The assumption in this theory is that judges are political decision makers. - Judges aﬀect public policy. - Judges have a great deal of power and discretion. - The scholars who study the courts this way often study the beliefs, attitudes, and values of judges. - These scholars have tried to prove their claims scientiﬁcally, with stats and mathematical evidence. Basically the opposite of Declaratory theory. Judges don’t follow the law, they do what they want to do. In Declaratory theory the most important part to study is the law. In Political Jurisprudence the most important part to study is the Judge. 4/15 Marbury v Madison Federalists - Adams and Marshall Dem-Rep - Jeﬀerson and Madison John Marshall argues: We start over here with point A and then he tells you why he goes to point B, and then he explains why we move on through to each point. And end up on the other side at Z. We’ve been here for 200 years now because of this writing. (1) In the opening part of the opinion he says Marbury deserves the job. Marbury deserves his commission. He deserves it because all the legalities have been completed. All the processes have been completed. He says the man was appointed by the president, conﬁrmed by the Congress. All the papers were signed and sealed. The only thing missing was it wasn’t delivered. No one gave him the piece of paper. Who cares whether or not he got the piece of paper. It’s irrelevant. It’s oﬃcial. He became the Justice of the Peace for DC. You should give him his job, if you don’t you’re breaking the law. (2) No one expected this. John Marshall says “Oops we have a problem here” there’s a problem with this case. There’s a conﬂict between the federal law and the US constitution. The law the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Supreme Court can issue writs of mandamus. US constitution: Article 3 talks about the Supreme Court. It’s only a couple paragraphs. They talk about Jurisdiction. Meaning the power of a court to hear a case. 2 kinds of jurisdiction. Orginial and Appellate. Original: means a court has the power to be the ﬁrst court to hear a case. Appellate: means power to hear a case on appeal. Original - The Supreme Court can only hears cases that originally involve states or involve an ambassador. Original was started with this case. So Supreme Court has no jurisdiction. (3) When there’s a conﬂict. The Constitution is the greater law. So the Constitution wins. They cannot ask for Writ of Mandamus since the Constitution says Supreme Court has no jurisdiction. I swore that I would uphold the US constitution. So Marshall says I have no choice because this is the greater law and we at the Supreme Court swore to upkeep the law. I have no choice but to say the Jud Act of 1689 the park about the Supreme Court can give writ mandamus is void because it’s inconsistent with the US Constitution. Therefore Mr. Marbury I can’t give you the job because you’re not supposed to be here. I sure hope they give you the job. You’re in the wrong court we don’t have original jurisdiction. We shouldn’t have ever heard this case. Bye. Marbury never got the job. Political Genius? Yes. Because John Marshall sacriﬁced a couple things to win the war. He sacriﬁces Marbury and some SC power. It’s really unimportant. He gains is the power of judicial review. This case is where the Supreme Court starts using JR. The power of the court to review of there o=branches of the government’’ He reviewed the law, that was passed by congress, signed by the President. He said you messed up. And because you did I’m making it null and void. They can throw out any law by anyone in the US. That’s a huge power. This is not in the Constitution. The framers gave them no power. This is brilliant politically. When Congress stands up and says we’re in charge of the President. President says I hate Congress I’m in charge of the government. Either branch can claim all his power. But there are ways each branch can block them. He picks a case to strike down that involves HIS institution. If it was another one, they’d say you don’t have the power we will do what we want. Jeﬀerson and congress scream and yell about it. The newspaper quotes it, and they’re forgotten. But John Marshalls opinion was oﬃcially in the US Supreme Court documents. He knows he’s pulled a fast one. In the next 35 years he doesn’t strike down another FEDERAL law. He starts striking down STATE laws. The Congress doesn’t care. You can tell they think they’re superior to the state law. It should have never turned out his way. Judicial Review was not the way the US was supposed to go. Other people have talked about the idea. Hamilton argues they should have to poet. He said they should have it because they’re the least dangerous branch. It was brought up at the convention in PA and no one even voted on i . US v Nixon 1974 Nixon runs for relection. He’s Republican. Someone breaks in to sabotage the oﬃce. They get caught them in the building. (Watergate) Is this a low level Republican or does it go up to the President. SC investigates. There are witnesses and Congress questions the witnesses. One witness says he doesn’t remember what he says, " President Nixon has a tape recorder, he records everything in his oﬃces. Just listen to his tapes. “ Congress supena the President saying let us listen to the tapes. Congress appeals to the Supreme Court. All 3 parts of the triangle are there in the sa e place. they going to make me turn over the tapes? I don’t care what they say. Supreme Court knows Nixon is going to try to resist. On the Supreme Court 4 of the 9 people were his appointees. It’s stacked in his favor. Supreme Court makes the decision we order you to turn over the tapes. Give us your tapes. Nixon knows it’s not just good times in the white house. It shows and proves he knew about Watergate. He admits to over 100 other federal crimes. Nixon says here you go. 12 days later Nixon is getting on a helicopter with a peace sign he’s resigned. Everyone told him the Supreme Court is in charge of the constitution. Congress will impeach you for not listening to the Suprem Court. 4/17 How the Supreme Court makes policy: With Judicial Review the Supreme Court looks at the law and says good law or bad law. That's a great law. Now the Supreme Court often looks at a law and strikes it down and says this is what the new law should be, they make public policy. That's another level of power. The create new ideas and concepts. Ex. Roe v Wade 1973 This is a Dallas case. Roe is a woman who sues Wade the prosecutor of Dallas. Jane Roe it's not her real name. It's a pseudonym. She wanted an abortion. This case allows for women to get abortion, but she doesn't get an abortion, by the time she wins the child is 3 years old. Child was given up for adoption, nobody knows who she is or who the child is. 15 years later it looked like it was going to be turned over, Jane Roe went public and gave speeches around the country to try to not get it turned over. 10 years ago, she shows up in the pages again. There's a picture of her getting baptized. And she says I'm against Roe v Wade. Tx law banned abortions. So it was unconstitutional so they struck it down, they had to strike it down in 49/50 states. Only NYs laws survived Roe v Wade. Supreme Court told them the new law: Trimester system. 1st trimester the decision to have an abortion rests with the woman and her doctor. 2nd trimester: the state may intrude but only in ways related to the health of the woman, 3rd trimester: A state may prohibit abortions, except where a woman's health or life is in danger. TX said we banned abortjins because they're dangerous for women, Blackman did the research and he found out the for a womsn abortjins is safer for her heslth in the ﬁrst 3 months. During the 2nd trimester it's more dangerous than carrying a fetus, now the state can say we.re trying to protect the women, Justice Blackman found out when you go into the third the baby becomes viable which means the baby can live outside of the mom independently. Now the state can stop abortions. Tx makes the argument life begins at conception. Supreme Court says people have debated for centuries when life begins. We are not going to decide when life begins. But they decided life begins at viability since the fetus has rights. Counter arguments: (1) Judges aren't doctors why Kristen to them about the history of pregnancies. Counter: judges make judgments on topics they're not experts on. (2) Ok say we grant you the decision to make on medicine, what happens when technology changes? Now the line has moved inwards. Now the fetus is viable earlier. And abortions have become safer. 1989 Webster v Reproductive Health Services. Supreme Court was asked by the President GWBush to strike down Roe v Wade. There was a showdown, the Supreme Court Rehnquist, Scalia, Kennedy, and White voted to strike it down, Blackman, Stevens, zbrennan, Marshall, say uphold it. 4/4 vote. 1 justice refused to vote. O'Connor doesn't vote. Therefore it's a tie. She says oﬃcially in the opinion. We can make a decision without looking at Roe v Wade I'm only going to vote on Webster. Most predicted O'Connor would vote conservative. She was the only woman on the Supreme Court, she was a hero to women everywhere. Most scholars believe she was so torn she just didn't want to vote. Because it was a tie it was confusing to America. Chief Justice Rehnquist in his opinion says Roe v Wade survived but it's going to die. Clearly implied O'Connor, he said soon she's going to have to vote, he says today we didn't vote on it, but if states will pass laws that will make her laws it will make her vote. He was telling them to pass laws that conﬂict Roe v Wade. A bunch of states pass laws. 1992 Planned Parenthood v Casey. Is Roe v Wade still good law? Now everyone is going to vote. People predicted Roe v Wade was going to die. GW bush picks 2 people who are anti abortion to be new Supreme Court people. So the ﬁgured Roe v Wade will lose 7/2. Rehnquist Scalia White Thomas Vote No. Blackman Stevens O'Connor Souter Kennedy TX and other states keeps passing laws that says Viability is earlier. Supreme Court makes public policy. It controls the right to make an abortion or not to. Why do they make a public policy? (1) Becsuse they have public oikicy goals. They want to. (2) (A) the rules of the game allow them to make policy. It's easier for the Supreme Court to make policy than any of the other branches. They have more liberty. The Justiced are not electorally accountable. Not elected. The Supreme Court never has to worry about it accountability. They can stay on the Supreme Court forever. No justice has ever been impeached. (B) they lack ambition for other oﬃces or higher oﬃces. If you knew you were going to run for the presidency and you voted for ﬂag burning it might aﬀect your votes, but they don't want the other job. They have the best job in the world. (C) The Supreme Court is the court of last resort. Meaning it's the highest court in America. They can do whatever they want. 4/22 How the other branches can check the Supreme Court. President’s Checks: (1) President nominates or appoints justices to the US Supreme Court (a) Problem - Openings (b) Pick well - They can leave and do what they want (2) President enforces or executes Supreme Court decisions. (a) Supreme court doesn’t have army or anyone to enforce their decisions. President controls military, FBI, marshals, etc. (b) President ALWAYS enforces their decisions. IT makes the court powerful. There’s political pressure to do what the court has said. Congress Checks: (1) President picks Justice, Justice must go before Senate, Senate must conﬁrm Presidents choice. “Advice and Consent” If the President picks someone they didn’t like, they can reject their choice. Reality: The almost never reject the President’s check. They roll over. When they are seen by the Senate they claim neutrality. (2) Congress could propose constitutional amendments. (3) Congress can eliminate or reduce the Supreme Courts appellate jurisdiction. (4) Congress can change the size of the US Supr me Court (5) Congress can impeach Supreme Court Ju tices. 4/2 Introduction • John Robers has been the chief justice of the supreme court for ﬁve years and will probably continue for 20 years. Public Opinion, Public Knowledge, and Public Participation • Public Opinion Polls are constantly being taken. • Public Opinion polls are relatively recent. • Scientiﬁc Public Opinion Polls didn't exist before the 1950's. • Social Scientists learned how to do polls scientiﬁcally. • Political Scientists began to ask the public about their opinions on politics. • They found that americans did not know basic information about government, but they knew a lot about actors and famous people. • They were shocked that this was the outcome in the 1950's. • Most people thought that americans knew a lot about their government. • Trust and believe in scientiﬁc polls because they are very accurate and mean a lot. • The reason people to survey's is to learn what people think. • • REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE: goal is to have a pool or sample that represents everyone in the america (310,000,000). • • FDR was running for re-elecion in 1936 and a magazine tried to ﬁgure out whether or not he was going to get reelected and the survey said that Roosevelt was going to lose. The election happens and Roosevelt wins BIG. The poll was wrong because they went to auto dealerships and asked people who were buying cars and they went randomly to photo booths and picked out people. This is not a representative example because rich people owned cars. What they really did was talk to a bunch of republicans. Political Socialization • process by which people acquire their political opinions beliefs and values. • Politically, how have you been socialized? How did you learn about politics? • How did you become liberal or conservative? • You either read a lot of books on philosophy, or you became conservative or liberal based on what you are surrounded by. Parents, school, church, and neighborhood. Happens through coincidence. • • PARTY IDENTIFICATION: Which party to you feel more attached or loyal to. Or you like better. This tends to form very early in life. You become a democrat or republican as elementary school students. Your party identiﬁcation general matches your parent's viewpoints. It usually never changes. • • As a political scientist this concept is a big deal. • Party identiﬁcation is decreasing now. • Most people say, "I'm independent" (younger people 18) • Most independents are not very knowledgeable. • 30% are republican, 30% are democrats, 40% are independent. • 100 years ago. 90% straight ticket (voting all for one party). Political Efﬁcacy • This term comes from the term efﬁcacious (to be trusted). • Politically, do you trust the government? • people trust the government if they a.) believe that they can inﬂuence the government. or b.) if they believe that the government could solve your problems. • Political Efﬁcacy is going down. People trust the government less. • In 1964 76% people believed that you could trust the government most of the time. Now this is 15%. • older, educated, and rich people pay attention to politics. Political Participation • Americans are not greatly involved in politics. • The most famous way to participate is by voting. • 60% of eligible americans vote for the president. • 40% votes for congress • 10%-20% votes for in local elections. Participation Paradox • Paradox: surprising and unexpected. • People participate when people value participation in and of itself and feel a duty to participate. • People enjoy to participate. They love doing it. • Citizen Duty: You have been trained to be a good american and you feel like you need to do it. • People participate when there are low costs. • The weather affects voting! If it looks like a hassle people won't go out and vote. • You are given a month to vote now instead of just the ﬁrst two days on November which is why more people are voting. • People vote when they believe that they will make a difference. • Close election causes voting to go up. • Some people participate the the value is so great that even the slightest chance of it occurring is worth trying for. 05/01 Ways you can participate politically, going from easiest to most extreme. • Talking about politic • Writing email, letter, bl g • Voting • Contributing money • Working in a campaign • Running for oﬃce • Civil disobedience • Terrorism If Americans pay attention to politics they have great power. Ex. Sterling - Clippers owner - America paid attention to the story, they put pressure on their leaders, in 3 days he’s thrown out. - Elitism v. Pluralism In the 1950s political scientist realized that American’s don’t know much about their government and they don’t vote very much. Is America a democracy? So if America isn’t running the show, who is? Elitism - C. Wright Mills He wrote, The Power Elite: Average Americans aren’t running the US government. They don’t care and they’re not in charge because they don’t pay attention. We’re really not a democracy. Congress, Interest groups, President, the parties, are only the middle level of power in the US. There’s a level ABOVE them. A triangle of power. This triangle is called the Power Elite; who is in this triangle? 1. Corporate Leaders 2. Top military oﬃcials 3. A handful of key political leaders We’re maybe talking about 20 people in this group. Not hundreds of people, just a few. It could be the President but doesn’t have to be. Maybe the HEAD of the Republican Party, or the HEAD of the Democratic party. Mills claims that this group of people are calling the shots making the biggest decisions in this country. They don’t care about little things, They care about war and peace. They are sorta in charge of our economy. How did this happen? 3 Reasons Why These Men Came Together 1. Historical events brought these political actors together; He doesn’t think that this always existed. He thinks over the course of history these people fell together. Maybe 100 years ago this triangle formed most likely because of World War I. So the military wants to go to war, but they need weapons, which are built by private corporations. Who do they need to get permission to ﬁght the war? The President, the political leaders. They funnel money back to the political leaders to help their campaigns. 2. Congress and political parties have left a vacuum of power over the years; Who should really be in charge of our wars? Congress. But what does Congress care about? Getting reelected. They are focused on smaller issues. So they left an opening and these people moved into the opening. 3. Socially and Psychologically; the people in this triangle are quite similar; The people in this triangle are highly educated. Went to the same prep schools or know people like each other that are friends. They think the same because they’re all really rich or wel oﬀ. Quick review: Mills is not saying Elitism is great. He’s simply saying this is what I believe to be true. Pluralism - Robert Dahl; “Who governs?” Americans don’t vote, don’t participate, don’t pay attention. He understands all the evidence American’s don’t know much about politics. But, he defends American’s by saying we’re just not political animals by nature. We’d rather watch TV than work for a political campaign. The Triangle of Power is a huge jump. He says I don’t believe that. Power is spread out in our country among many people. Americans are only occasionally political and only about things they really care about. But people are interested in diﬀerent issues. Meaning: Who is running the country? A bunch of little groups. Interest groups. America is democratic it’s just not democratic the way we thought it would be.
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'