war of 1812
Who was the President of the United States during the War of 1812?
James Madison
What are two of the main functions of a political party in the United States political system?
recruiting candidates, educating the public, helping candidates win elections, or monitoring the opposing party once in power.)
Which landmark 1803 Supreme Court case established the principle of judicial review, granting the Court the authority to declare acts of the legislature unconstitutional?
Marbury v. Madison
The president often referred to as the "Father of His Country" and the only president to be unanimously elected by the Electoral College is George Washington
What was the name of the treaty that officially ended the War of 1812?
Treaty of Ghent
In the context of U.S. elections, what is the fundamental difference between a primary election and a caucus, in terms of how voters participate?
A primary election is a direct, state-run vote (similar to a general election) where voters cast secret ballots. A caucus is a local meeting run by the political party itself, where members discuss and openly debate candidates before voting, usually by physically moving to different parts of the room.)
In the 1974 case United States v. Nixon, what specific presidential power did the Supreme Court determine was not absolute, particularly when challenged by the demands of a criminal justice investigation?
In United States v. Nixon (1974), the Supreme Court ruled that the presidential power of executive privilege is not absolute and cannot be used to shield evidence that is relevant to a criminal investigation or judicial process.
What major battle of the War of 1812 occurred after the Treaty of Ghent was signed, and who led the American forces to victory in that battle?
Battle of New Orleans and Andrew Jackson
What specific institutional factors, established within the U.S. electoral system, are primarily responsible for perpetuating a two-party system rather than a multi-party system?
The U.S. uses a system of single-member districts and winner-take-all elections (as opposed to proportional representation). This means that only the single candidate who wins the most votes (a plurality) in a given district or state secures the office, making it very difficult for third parties to gain representation.)
The 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade hinged on an implied "right to privacy" found within the Constitution, primarily linked to the Fourteenth Amendment. Which earlier cases did the Court cite as precedent for this generalized right of privacy, even though it is not explicitly mentioned in the text of the Constitution?
The "right to privacy" that formed the basis of Roe v. Wade (1973) was established as precedent in earlier cases. Specifically, the Court cited cases such as Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), which protected the right of married couples to use contraceptives, and other cases relating to marriage and family life, as evidence of "zones of privacy" inherent in the Constitution.
The United States declared war on Great Britain on June 18, 1812. Just five days later, the British government provisionally repealed the Orders in Council, a major cause of the war. Due to the slow speed of transatlantic communication at the time, the U.S. did not learn of the repeal until mid-August, long after hostilities had begun. What specific provision of the 1807 Orders in Council was the primary source of American grievance regarding trade?
The answer is that the 1807 Orders in Council mandated that any neutral vessel (such as an American ship) trading with France or its allies had to first stop at a British port, pay a duty or get a special license, and be subject to search and seizure if they did not comply. This was considered a severe violation of American sovereignty and neutral rights, essentially forcing the U.S. to trade on British terms.
Describe one major U.S. "critical election" or "realigning election" era, and explain how it fundamentally shifted the long-term base and policy priorities of at least one of the major parties.
A key example is the 1932 election during the Great Depression, which created the New Deal Coalition. This realignment shifted the Democratic Party to become the party of expanded federal government intervention and social welfare, solidifying support among urban voters, immigrants, and the South (at the time), a base which lasted for decades.)
The 2010 case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission overturned parts of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), ruling that corporate independent expenditures were a form of protected speech. What specific legal rationale (known as the "anti-distortion" rationale) from the earlier Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce case did the majority explicitly reject to reach this conclusion
In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), the majority explicitly rejected the "anti-distortion" rationale from Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. The Austin Court had held that limiting corporate independent expenditures was justified to prevent the "corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth" accumulated by corporations.
when is the 6
the 7
(This is an open, unresolved question in political science that is the subject of ongoing academic debate. There is no single "correct" answer, as different experts offer competing theories and evidence regarding the long-term stability and future of the U.S. party system.)
This is an open, unresolved question in political science that is the subject of ongoing academic debate. There is no single "correct" answer, as different experts offer competing theories and evidence regarding the long-term stability and future of the U.S. party system.)
In his dissenting opinion in Citizens United, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the majority placed too little emphasis on preventing the appearance of corruption in elections. How did he distinguish between the types of "corruption" that the Court had previously allowed limits on (in Buckley v. Valeo regarding campaign contributions) and the potential for corruption resulting from unlimited independent corporate expenditures?
In his Citizens United dissent, Justice Stevens distinguished between the types of corruption. In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the Court allowed limits on campaign contributions to prevent quid pro quo corruption (direct exchanges of money for political favors). Justice Stevens argued that unlimited independent corporate expenditures could also lead to a different, more subtle form of corruption by creating undue influence and a sense of obligation among elected officials toward special interests, thereby undermining the integrity and legitimacy of the entire democratic process, even without a explicit, coordinated exchange.