1. ASHFORD POL 201 All Discussion Questions
PLEASE DOWNLOAD HERE
Separation of Powers/Checks and Balances. For much of 2011 and 2012, public dissatisfaction
with Congress rose to all time highs, with 70-80% expressing disapproval with how Congress does
its job. Many commentators note that Americans are fed up with Washington "grid-lock" that makes
government apparently unable to address important problems. Other observers believe that the
national government is acting according to its design, based on separation of powers and checks and
balances.
In your initial post of at least 200-250 words, analyze how the U.S. Constitution implements
separation of powers and checks and balances. Briefly explain why the constitutional framers based
the new government on these ideas. Evaluate how separation of powers and checks and balances are
working out in practice, today, justifying your assessment with persuasive reasoning and examples.
Fully respond to all parts of the question. Write in your own words. Support your position with APA
citations totwo or more different resources required for this discussion.
By Day 7, respond to at least two of your classmates' initial posts. Your peer responses each must be
at least 75 words. They must demonstrate critical thinking (e.g., ask a relevant question about your
peer's post while explaining why your question is significant, or state a perspective that contrasts with
your peer's while explaining or justifying your position).
Amending the U.S. Constitution. The formal process of amending the Constitution is cumbersome
and slow. While this fact explains why relatively few amendments have been adopted, it does not
discourage advocates of constitutional change from proposing them. Four amendment proposals that
have gained considerable attention are the Balanced Budget Amendment, the Birthright Citizenship
Amendment, the Equal Rights Amendment, and the Overturn Citizens United Amendment.
Select one of these proposals as the topic of your initial post and use the assigned resources to inform
yourself about its purpose and the arguments of its supporters and critics.
In your initial post of at least 200-250 words, briefly summarize what the proposed amendment
would do and the problem its proponents say it will solve. Explain the main pros and cons in the
debate about the amendment. Evaluate the proposed amendment from two perspectives:
a. Your own political philosophy, values or ideology. (Justify your assessment by clearly explaining
your political values and why they lead you to support or oppose the amendment.)
b. The likelihood that the proposed amendment will eventually be ratified to become part of the
Constitution. (Justify your assessment by explaining how the proposal will or will not, in your
judgment, survive the ratification process.)
Fully respond to all parts of the question. Write in your own words. Support your position with APA
citations totwo or more different resources required for this discussion.
By Day 7, respond to at least two of your classmates' initial posts. Your peer responses each must be
at least 75 words. They must demonstrate critical thinking (e.g., ask a relevant question about your

2. peer's post while explaining why your question is significant, or state a perspective that contrasts with
your peer's while explaining or justifying your position).
Policy-making in the Federal System. The U.S. government's expansive role in public policy is
caught in a swirl of conflicting cross-currents. On the one hand, popular expectations about
government's
responsibility to solve problems often exceed the capacity of state and local authorities to respond
effectively. On the other hand, policies developed at the national level may not sufficiently reflect the
great diversity of interests across the U.S. to be effective at the local level. Moreover, the search for
effective policy is further complicated by theoretical debates about the constitutional framework of
federalism, e.g., what limits on national power can be derived from the Tenth Amendment?
A policy area in the middle of these cross-currents is elementary and secondary education – a subject
traditionally under local control, with some oversight by the states. However, during the last four
decades – especially since 2001 – the national government's role in education has grown significantly
as a result of initiatives by Republican and Democratic administrations. Use the assigned resources to
inform yourself about this role and the arguments of its supporters and critics.
In your initial post of at least 200-250 words, briefly summarize the national government's education
policies. Explain the main pros and cons in the debate about these policies. Evaluate them from two
perspectives:
a. The policies’ effectiveness in improving the quality of U.S. elementary and secondary education.
(Justify your assessment by clearly explaining your definition of "effectiveness" and how it should be
measured or determined.)
b. Their consistency with the constitutional framework of federalism. (Justify your assessment by
clearly explaining your interpretation of American federalism's constitutional framework and why
federal education policies are or are not consistent with it.)
Fully respond to all parts of the question. Write in your own words. Support your position with APA
citations totwo or more different resources required for this discussion.
By Day 7, respond to at least two of your classmates' initial posts. Your peer responses each must be
at least 75 words. They must demonstrate critical thinking (e.g., ask a relevant question about your
peer's post while explaining why your question is significant, or state a perspective that contrasts with
your peer's while explaining or justifying your position).
Meet Your Rep. The Constitution states, "The House of Representatives shall be composed of
Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States..." (Art. I, Sec. 2). Contrast
this with the original constitutional language for the other house of Congress, "The Senate of the
United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof
for six Years..." (Art. I, Sec. 3).
The phrase "chosen by the Legislature" was changed to "elected by the people" by the 17th
Amendment, but not until 1912. In other words, from the beginning the House of Representatives
was intended to be exactly what its name suggests –representative of the people. (Note that in 2010
the Tea Party, and some Republican politicians, called for repeal of the 17th Amendment, eliminating
the popular vote for Senators. While most Republican politicians have backed away from that view,
many Tea Party chapters continue to demand its repeal.)

3. Textbook models suggest how members of the House of Representatives may fulfill their
constitutional duty to "represent" – the delegate model, the trustee model, the oversight model, and
the service model. A weakness of these models is that they ignore the pervasive influence of interest
groups, partisanship, and political money (campaign contributions) on the behavior of congressional
reps. To what extent do these factors interfere with effective representation? First, get to know your
rep in the U.S. House of Representatives, using the websites listed in the required resources for this
discussion.
Then, in your initial post of at least 200-250 words, identify an important issue related to your
representative's committee or subcommittee work in Congress. Summarize your representative's
position on that issue as described on his or her website or illustrated by legislation sponsored by
your representative. Be concrete and specific, avoiding vague generalities like "my representative is
for jobs" or "my representative is for national security." With respect to this issue, evaluate your
representative's performance as a representative of the people in your legislative district. Justify your
assessment from two perspectives:
a. How well does your representative's position reflect your district's likely preferences or broad
interests on the issue? Support your inferences about the district with facts – not just your opinion
about the district as shaped by your own political opinions and ideology.
b. Is there any evidence that may raise questions about whether interest groups, political party
loyalty, or campaign money may influence your representative in ways that weaken his or her
effectiveness as a true "representative" of the district? (Put on your critical thinking cap to respond to
this aspect of the question.)
Fully respond to all parts of the question. Write in your own words. Support your position with APA
citations totwo or more different resources required for this discussion.
By Day 7, respond to at least two of your classmates' initial posts. Your peer responses each must be
at least 75 words. They must demonstrate critical thinking (e.g., ask a relevant question about your
peer's post while explaining why your question is significant, or state a perspective that contrasts with
your peer's while explaining or justifying your position).
Presidential Leadership and the Electoral College. Americans expect their presidents to get things
done, to solve problems, to govern effectively, and to be strong leaders. The framers of the
Constitution did not envision such presidential leadership. A scholar of the presidency points out that
Article II of the Constitution gives the president scant formal power to influence congressional
policy-making (Simon, n.d.). He also notes that the framers intentionally designed a process for
selecting presidents that would minimize their political power – the Electoral College. They hoped
this institution would insulate the chief executive from the public because they feared the power of
presidents who might be elected by the people. Therefore, the Constitution provides that "Each State
shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to
the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the
Congress..." Having state legislatures "appoint" the Electors who select the chief executive would
minimize the president's capacity to lead on the basis of his popular support. In a very real sense, the
president would not be accountable to the people but rather to the state legislatures who appoint
Electors. This procedure was also seen as a way to encourage the selection of statesmen with
"characters preeminent for ability and virtue” rather than mere politicians with “talents for low
intrigue, and the little arts of popularity” (Hamilton, 1788).
The practice of state legislatures appointing Electors continued for many years. Most American
history texts do not report national presidential vote totals before 1824 because 25% of the states

4. were still not holding presidential elections by that year. Even as late as 1876 the state of Colorado's
legislature appointed Electors. As states moved away from legislative appointment to the current
system of allowing a state's Electors to be chosen by a winner-take-all popular vote, the primary
rationale for the Electoral College was forgotten in history. At the same time, public expectations of
strong presidential leadership were rising.
This creates a problem well illustrated by the disputed election of 2000. George W. Bush was elected
president with 271 electoral votes to Al Gore's 266 electoral votes. However, Gore amassed 543,895
popular votes more than Bush. Also, because some disputed votes in Florida made unclear which
candidate should receive the state's electoral votes, the Florida Supreme Court ordered a full recount
of the Florida vote. But the U.S. Supreme Court intervened and stopped the recount, thereby in effect
awarding Florida's electoral votes to Bush. While arguments continue to this day about the legitimacy
of the U.S. Supreme Court's intervention, the 2000 election illustrates a glaring weakness of the
Electoral College system – selecting a president whose authority may be diminished by the dubious
circumstances of his or her election. The election of 2000 also has fueled a long ongoing debate
about whether the Electoral College should be abandoned in favor of method which insures that the
candidate elected has the most popular votes. Would this outcome be more consistent with
contemporary public expectations about the president's role as a national leader who can get things
done?
In your initial post of at least 200-250 words, briefly summarize how the Electoral College works.
Explain some of the main pros and cons in the debate about whether to keep or abolish the current
Electoral College process. Also explain one proposal to change how the system works without
formally abolishing it. Evaluate the various arguments and the proposal. Include at least two
perspectives in your assessment:
a. Your judgment about the relevance of the Electoral College's underlying rationale to contemporary
America.
b. Your judgment about its impact on presidential leadership capacity.
Fully respond to all parts of the question. Write in your own words. Support your position with APA
citations totwo or more different resources required for this discussion.
By Day 7 respond to at least two of your classmates' initial posts. Your peer responses each must be
at least 75 words. They must demonstrate critical thinking (e.g., ask a relevant question about your
peer's post while explaining why your question is significant, or state a perspective that contrasts with
your peer's while explaining or justifying your position).
References:
Hamilton, A. (1788). The Federalist Papers, Number 68.
Simon, D. (n.d.). Public expectations of the president. Retrieved from
faculty.smu.edu/dsimon/AMPres07Up/SimonExpectations.doc
The Supreme Court and Judicial Review. In a recent lecture at Yale University, Supreme Court
Justice Stephen Breyer cautioned that while most citizens assume that judicial review is an enduring
part of American government, judges should not take it for granted. He advises that if judges wish to
preserve this undemocratic power they should follow a judicial philosophy that will "build
confidence in the courts" (Breyer, 2011). Justice Breyer goes on to describe the kind of judicial

5. philosophy he has in mind. However, some of his colleagues on the Supreme Court would reject his
ideas about what philosophy should guide judges.
The role of judicial philosophy (or ideology) in Supreme Court decision-making, especially in its
exercise of judicial review to invalidate laws enacted by a democratically elected Congress or state
legislature, has become a highly contentious issue both within the Court's deliberations and in the
larger political environment. As the nation becomes more divided over programs and policies that
inevitably seem to come before the Supreme Court, politicians and ordinary citizens are caught up in
rhetoric about judicial activism or judicial restraint, often with little understanding of what these
terms really mean.
Moreover, as public perceptions of the Supreme Court become more politicized, the legitimacy of its
power becomes clouded. If the Court is perceived as just another political institution making political
decisions, but a completely undemocratic institution because its judges are appointed and serve for
life, questions arise about whether the Court's power of judicial review should be strictly limited or
eliminated altogether. Justice Breyer's warning comes to mind as the percent of Americans approving
of how the Supreme Court does its job slid from 61% in 2009 to 46% in 2011 (Gallup, 2012).
In your initial post of at least 200-250 words, respond to one of these questions:
a. What judicial philosophy should guide the Supreme Court's exercise of judicial review?
b. Should the Supreme Court's power of judicial review be strictly limited by a constitutional
amendment?
In answering either question, clearly state your position (thesis) at the beginning of your post. Define
important terms and explain your position fully. Consider pro and con arguments on both sides of
your position and respond to the con arguments. Justify your position with facts and persuasive
reasoning. Fully respond to all parts of the question. Write in your own words. Support your position
with APA citations to two or more differentresources required for this discussion.
By Day 7, respond to at least two of your classmates' initial posts. Your peer responses each must be
at least 75 words. They must demonstrate critical thinking (e.g., ask a relevant question about your
peer's post while explaining why your question is significant, or state a perspective that contrasts with
your peer's while explaining or justifying your position).
References:
Breyer, S. (2011). No small wonder. Wilson Quarterly, 35(3), 60-61.
Gallup Inc. (2012). Supreme Court. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/4732/Supreme-
Court.aspx
Habeas Corpus and the War on Terror. Soon after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the
Bush administration developed a plan for holding and interrogating prisoners captured during the
conflict. They were sent to a prison inside a U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay on land leased from
the government of Cuba. Since 2002, over 700 men have been detained at "GITMO." Most have been
released without charges or turned over to other governments. In 2011, Congress specifically
prohibited the expenditure of funds to transfer GITMO prisoners to detention facilities in the
continental United States, making it virtually impossible to try them in civilian courts. As of April
2012, 169 remained in detention at GITMO (Sutton, 2012).

6. An assumption made by the Bush administration in selecting this location was that it was beyond the
jurisdiction of U.S. courts. The administration wanted to avoid any judicial oversight of how it
handled detainees, characterized as "enemy combatants." A possible legal challenge to indefinite
detention with no formal charges or judicial proceedings might arise from the habeas corpus
provision of the Constitution.
Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not
be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Under
this provision, persons detained by the government are entitled to a judicial hearing to determine if
there is any legal basis for their detention. Some legal commentators refer to the right of habeas
corpus as the "great writ of liberty" because it is a prisoner's ultimate recourse to an impartial judge
to review the possibility that he is being held illegally by the executive (e.g., the police or the
military). In nations that do not honor habeas corpus, people simply disappear into prisons without
ever having their day in court. Several controversial Supreme Court cases have come out of GITMO.
One fundamental question that has been debated, but not clearly resolved, is to what extent the war
on terror justifies the President's indefinite detention of "enemy combatants" without the possibility
of the minimal judicial review protected by habeas corpus? Another issue in the debate is to what
extent Congress must clearly authorize the President to conduct extra-judicial detentions in order for
them to be legal? In 2008, the Supreme Court’s decision in Boumediene v. Bush offered some
answers to these questions. However, the deeply divided 5-4 Court and the likelihood of the
protracted nature of the war on terror suggest that debate around these important questions will
continue.
The purpose of this forum is for you to share and discuss with classmates your understanding of some
of the academic literature about this subject in order to help you write the Final Paper in the course.
Your initial post will have two parts.
a. In 150-200 words, summarize, in your own words, one of the academic articles required for this
discussion (from item 8 in the Required Resources). Select an article from the list that you think may
be a source for your final essay. Read it carefully and try to understand the author's main points that
may be relevant to your final essay. First, give the full APA citation for the article. Then, summarize
the relevant main points and explain the author's reasoning as you understand it. At the end of your
summary, ask one question about a specific point in the article that you do not understand and would
like some help with (refer to a page number).
b. In 50-75 words, state what you believe the thesis of your Final Paper will be. State the thesis as
clearly and fully as you can. Draw upon what you have learned from all the required resources you
reviewed for this discussion. While you can change your mind about your thesis when you actually
write the Final Paper, use this discussion forum as a serious opportunity to try out a thesis and receive
feedback from your peers.
By Day 7, respond to at least two of your classmates' initial posts. Your peer responses each must be
at least 75 words. They must demonstrate critical thinking. Offer ideas about the question your peer
asks in his or her initial post. Give your peers feedback about their proposed thesis.
Reference:
Sutton, J. (2012, April 19). Two Guantanamo Uighur prisoners head to El Salvador. Chicago Tribune
News. Retrieved from http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-guantanamo-
salvadorbre83i1ha-20120419,0,1170410.story

7. Party Platforms and Winning Elections. Political parties mobilize voters to win elections and
implement policy goals. Parties use their stated policy goals (i.e., their platforms) as a way to
mobilize voter support. Generally, in order to be successful in a two-party system, parties must have
policy goals across a broad range of issue areas to appeal to a broad range of voters.
For this discussion, you will identify one issue area that you want investigate. Use the resources
required for this discussion to gather information about the goals and proposals, in that issue area, of
three political parties – the Democratic and Republican parties and a third party.
In your initial post of at least 200-250 words, summarize each of the three parties’ policy goals in
your issue area. Compare and contrast the parties' goals in that area. Evaluate each party's goals from
two perspectives:
a. Your own political philosophy, values or ideology.
b. How effective each party's goals are likely to be in mobilizing voters to support the party's
candidates on the national level. In making your assessment from this perspective, consider what
influence the factors which underlie the two-party system have on each party's ability to use its policy
proposals to generate voter support.
Justify your conclusions with facts and persuasive reasoning.
Fully respond to all parts of the question. Write in your own words. Support your position with APA
citations totwo or more different resources required for this discussion.
By Day 7, respond to at least two of your classmates' initial posts. Your peer responses each must be
at least 75 words. They must demonstrate critical thinking (e.g., ask a relevant question about your
peer's post while explaining why your question is significant, or state a perspective that contrasts with
your peer's while explaining or justifying your position).
Voting and Turnout. The U.S. has one of the lowest voter turnout rates among modern democratic
political systems. One study ranks the U.S. 120th on a list of 169 nations compared on voter turnout
(Pintor, Gratschew, & Sullivan, 2002). While during the last decade many initiatives have been
undertaken to increase voter participation, concerns about the possibility of election fraud have also
increased. Additionally, some political interests feel threatened by the increase in turnout among
some traditionally low-turnout ethnic minorities.
Several states have recently passed legislation imposing new registration and identification
requirements. This has sparked debate about whether these are tactics intended to suppress turnout or
to prevent fraud.
In your initial post of at least 200-250 words, summarize recent developments in several states
enacting voter ID laws. Explain the pros and cons on both sides of the debate about these laws. Share
your own experience with the relative difficulty or ease of voting in your locale. Draw your own
conclusion about the debate over voter ID laws. Finally, share your perspective about whether voting
in the U.S. should be made easier or harder. Justify your conclusions with facts and persuasive
reasoning.
Fully respond to all parts of the question. Write in your own words. Support your position with APA
citations totwo or more different resources required for this discussion. By Day 7, respond to at least
two of your classmates' initial posts. Your peer responses each must be at least 75 words. They must
demonstrate critical thinking (e.g., ask a relevant question about your peer's post while explaining

8. why your question is significant, or state a perspective that contrasts with your peer's while
explaining or justifying your position).
Reference:
Pintor, R., Gratschew, M., & Sullivan, K. (2002). Voter turnout rates from a comparative perspective.
In R. Pintor& M. Gratschew (Eds.), Voter turnout since 1945: A global report. Stockholm, Sweden:
The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. Retrieved from
http://www.idea.int/publications/vt/upload/Voter%20turnout.pdf