Assignment 7
Assignment 7: INSTRUCTIONS: You must read chapter 7 and answer all the Chapter Goals: p., 206, fully answer essay questions. You must also answer the following:
1. Discuss fully the New Deal Party system.
2. Is there a correlation between race and political parties according to the Chapter? Cite examples.
3. Why does this exist, if all? HINT: P.220-223. How many electoral votes does the state of Tennessee have?
4. What are PACs?
An Introduction to American Politics
We the People
121212
edition
E S S E N TI A LS
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 1 11/29/18 11:37 AM
T
h
e
11
6
th
C
on
g
re
ss
, J
an
u
ar
y
3
, 2
0
19
–
Ja
n
u
ar
y
3
, 2
0
2
1
U
n
it
e
d
S
ta
te
s
H
o
u
se
o
f
R
e
p
re
se
n
ta
ti
ve
s
D
e
m
o
cr
a
ts
:
2
3
3
R
e
p
u
b
lic
a
n
s:
1
9
9
U
n
d
e
ci
d
e
d
:
3
2
0
1
8
E
le
ct
io
n
R
e
su
lt
s:
D
e
m
o
cr
a
ts
g
a
in
e
d
c
o
n
tr
o
l o
f
th
e
H
o
u
se
*
D
e
m
o
cr
a
t
R
e
p
u
b
lic
a
n
U
n
d
e
ci
d
e
d
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 2 11/29/18 11:37 AM
N
V
C
A
O
RW
A
M
T
ID
U
T
A
Z
A
K
H
I
N
M
T
X
O
K
K
S
N
E
M
N
IA
M
O A
R
G
A
S
C
N
C
A
L
T
NK
Y
O
H
M
E
M
D
D
EN
J
N
H
M
A R
I
C
T
V
T
P
A
N
Y
V
A
W
V
F
L
M
S
L
A
W
I IL
IN
M
I
S
DN
D
C
O
W
Y
U
n
it
e
d
S
ta
te
s
S
e
n
a
te
D
em
oc
ra
ts
:
4
5
R
ep
ub
lic
an
s:
5
3
In
de
pe
nd
en
ts
:
2
2
0
1
8
E
le
ct
io
n
R
es
u
lt
s:
R
ep
ub
lic
an
s
re
ta
in
ed
c
on
tr
ol
o
f
th
e
S
en
at
e*
*
D
a
ta
a
re
b
a
se
d
o
n
e
le
ct
io
n
r
e
su
lt
s
a
s
o
f
N
ov
e
m
b
e
r
2
8
,
2
0
1
8
.
S
ev
e
ra
l r
a
ce
s
re
m
a
in
e
d
u
n
d
e
ci
d
e
d
p
e
n
d
in
g
re
co
u
n
ts
a
n
d
r
u
n
o
ff
e
le
ct
io
n
s.
2
D
e
m
o
cr
a
ts
2
R
e
p
u
b
lic
a
n
s
1
D
e
m
o
cr
a
t
a
n
d
1
R
e
p
u
b
lic
a
n
1
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
a
n
d
1
D
e
m
o
cr
a
t
1
I
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
a
n
d
1
R
e
p
u
b
lic
a
n
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 3 11/29/18 11:38 AM
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 4 11/29/18 11:38 AM
★ BENJAMIN GINSBERG
THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVE RSIT Y
★ THEODORE J. LOWI
L ATE OF CORNE LL UNIVE RSIT Y
★ MARGARET WEIR
BROWN UNIVE RSIT Y
★ CAROLINE J. TOLBERT
UNIVE RSIT Y OF LOWA
★ ANDREA L. CAMPBELL
MAS SACHUSE T TS INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY
★ ROBERT J. SPITZER
SUNY CORTL AND
An Introduction to American Politics
We the People
n W. W. N O R T O N & C O M PA N Y N E W Y O R K L O N D O N
121212
edition
E S S E N TI A LS
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 5 11/29/18 11:38 AM
W. W. Norton & Company has been independent since its founding in 1923, when
William Warder Norton and Mary D. Herter Norton first published lectures delivered at the
People’s Institute, the adult education division of New York City’s Cooper Union. The firm soon
expanded its program beyond the Institute, publishing books by celebrated academics from
America and abroad. By mid-century, the two major pillars of Norton’s publishing program—trade
books and college texts—were firmly established. In the 1950s, the Norton family transferred
control of the company to its employees, and today—with a staff of four hundred and a com-
parable number of trade, college, and professional titles published each year—W. W. Norton
& Company stands as the largest and oldest publishing house owned wholly by its employees.
Copyright © 2019, 2017, 2015, 2013, 2011, 2009, 2006, 2002
by W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
All rights reserved
Printed in Canada
Marketing Manager, Political Science: Erin Brown
Art Director: Rubina Yeh
Text Design: Jen Montgomery
Photo Editor: Stephanie Romeo
Photo Researcher: Elyse Rieder
Director of College Permissions: Megan Schindel
Permissions Associate: Elizabeth Trammell
Information Graphics: Kiss Me I’m Polish LLC,
New York
Composition: Graphic World, Inc.
Manufacturing: TransContinental
Editor: Peter Lesser
Project Editor: Christine D’Antonio
Assistant Editor: Anna Olcott
Manuscript Editor: Lynne Cannon
Managing Editor, College: Marian Johnson
Managing Editor, College Digital Media: Kim Yi
Production Manager, College: Ashley Horna
Media Editor: Spencer Richardson-Jones
Associate Media Editor: Michael Jaoui
Media Editorial Assistant: Tricia Vuong
Ebook Production Manager: Danielle Lehmann
Permission to use copyrighted material is included in the credits section of this book, which begins on
page A83.
The Library of Congress has cataloged the full edition as follows:
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Ginsberg, Benjamin, author.
Title: We the people : an introduction to American politics / Benjamin
Ginsberg, The Johns Hopkins University, Theodore J. Lowi, Cornell
University, Margaret Weir, Brown University, Caroline J. Tolbert,
University of Iowa, Andrea L. Campbell, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
Description: Twelfth Edition. | New York : W.W. Norton & Company, [2018] |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2018046033 | ISBN 9780393644326 (hardcover)
Subjects: LCSH: United States–Politics and government–Textbooks.
Classification: LCC JK276 .G55 2018 | DDC 320.473–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.
gov/2018046033
ISBN 978-0-393-66464-5
W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 500 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10110
wwnorton.com
W. W. Norton & Company Ltd., 15 Carlisle Street, London W1D 3BS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 6 11/29/18 11:38 AM
To:
Teresa Spitzer
Sandy, Cindy, and Alex Ginsberg
David, Jackie, Eveline, and Ed Dowling
Dave, Marcella, Logan, and Kennah Campbell
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 7 11/29/18 11:38 AM
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 8 11/29/18 11:38 AM
ix
Preface xxi
Acknowledgments xxiii
PART I FOUNDATIONS
1 ★ Introduction: The Citizen
and Government 2
Government 5
Different Forms of Government Are Defined by Power
and Freedom 5
Limits on Governments Encouraged Freedom 6
Expansion of Participation in America Changed the
Political Balance 7
The Goal of Politics Is Having a Say in What Happens 7
Citizenship Is Based on Political Knowledge
and Participation 8
Political Efficacy Means People Can Make
a Difference 9
The Identity of Americans Has Changed over Time 10
Immigration and Increasing Ethnic Diversity Have
Long Caused Intense Debate 10
Who Are Americans Today? 12
America Is Built on the Ideas of Liberty, Equality, and Democracy 16
Liberty Means Freedom 16
AMERICA SIDE BY SIDE Global Diversity 17
Equality Means Treating People Fairly 18
Democracy Means That What the People Want Matters 19
Government Affects Our Lives Every Day 20
Trust in Government Has Declined 21
American Political Culture: What Do We Want? 23
WHO PARTICIPATES? Who Voted in 2016? 25
Key Terms 28
For Further Reading 29
Contents
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 9 11/29/18 11:38 AM
x
2 ★ The Founding and the Constitution 30
The First Founding: Ideals, Interests, and Conflicts 33
Narrow Interests and Political Conflicts Shaped the First
Founding 34
British Taxes Hurt Colonial Economic Interests 34
Political Strife Radicalized the Colonists 35
The Declaration of Independence Explained Why the Colonists
Wanted to Break with Great Britain 36
The Articles of Confederation Created America’s First National
Government 37
The Failure of the Articles of Confederation Made the “Second
Founding” Necessary 38
The Annapolis Convention Was Key to Calling a National
Convention 39
Shays’s Rebellion Showed How Weak the Government Was 39
The Constitutional Convention Didn’t Start Out to Write
a New Constitution 40
The Constitution Created Both Bold Powers and Sharp Limits
on Power 43
The Legislative Branch Was Designed to Be the Most Powerful 44
The Executive Branch Created a Brand New Office 46
The Judicial Branch Was a Check on Too Much Democracy 47
National Unity and Power Set the New Constitution Apart
from the Old Articles 48
The Constitution Establishes the Process for Amendment 48
The Constitution Sets Forth Rules for Its Own Ratification 48
The Constitution Limits the National Government’s Power 48
Ratification of the Constitution Was Difficult 51
Federalists and Antifederalists Fought Bitterly over the Wisdom
of the New Constitution 52
AMERICA SIDE BY SIDE Comparing Systems of Government 55
Both Federalists and Antifederalists Contributed to the Success
of the New System 56
Changing the Constitution 56
Amendments: Many Are Called; Few Are Chosen 56
The Amendment Process Reflects “Higher Law” 57
The Constitution: What Do We Want? 60
WHO PARTICIPATES? Who Gained the Right to Vote through
Amendments? 61
Key Terms 64
For Further Reading 65
C O N T E N T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 10 11/29/18 11:38 AM
xi
3 ★ Federalism 66
Federalism Shapes American Politics 69
Federalism Comes from the Constitution 69
The Definition of Federalism Has Changed Radically
over Time 73
Federalism under the “Traditional System” Gave Most
Powers to the States 73
The Supreme Court Paved the Way for the End of the Early
Federal System 75
FDR’s New Deal Remade the Government 77
Changing Court Interpretations of Federalism Helped the
New Deal While Preserving States’ Rights 78
Cooperative Federalism Pushes States to Achieve
National Goals 80
National Standards Have Been Advanced through
Federal Programs 81
AMERICA SIDE BY SIDE Cooperative Federalism: Competition
or a Check on Power? 83
New Federalism Means More State Control 85
There Is No Simple Answer to Finding the Right National–State Balance 86
Federalism: What Do We Want? 90
WHO PARTICIPATES? Who Participates in State and Local Politics? 91
Key Terms 94
For Further Reading 95
4 ★ Civil Liberties and Civil Rights 96
The Origin of the Bill of Rights Lies in Those Who Opposed
the Constitution 99
The Fourteenth Amendment Nationalized the Bill of
Rights through Incorporation 101
The First Amendment Guarantees Freedom of Religion,
Speech, and the Press 103
Freedom of Religion 103
The First Amendment and Freedom of Speech and of the
Press Ensure the Free Exchange of Ideas 105
Political Speech Is Consistently Protected 106
Symbolic Speech, Speech Plus, Assembly, and Petition Are Highly Protected 106
Freedom of the Press Is Broad 108
Some Speech Has Only Limited Protection 109
The Second Amendment Now Protects an Individual’s Right to Own a Gun 112
Rights of the Criminally Accused Are Based on Due Process of Law 113
The Fourth Amendment Protects against Unlawful Searches and Seizures 114
The Fifth Amendment Covers Court-Related Rights 115
C O N T E N T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 11 11/29/18 11:38 AM
xii
The Sixth Amendment’s Right to Counsel Is Crucial for a
Fair Trial 117
The Eighth Amendment Bars Cruel and Unusual Punishment 118
The Right to Privacy Means the Right to Be Left Alone 119
Civil Rights Are Protections by the Government 120
Plessy v. Ferguson Established “Separate but Equal” 121
Lawsuits to Fight for Equality Came after World War II 122
The Civil Rights Struggle Escalated after Brown v. Board
of Education 123
The Civil Rights Acts Made Equal Protection a Reality 125
Affirmative Action Attempts to Right Past Wrongs 128
The Civil Rights Struggle Was Extended to Other
Disadvantaged Groups 130
Americans Have Fought Gender Discrimination 130
Latinos and Asian Americans Fight for Rights 132
Native Americans Have Sovereignty but Still Lack Rights 134
AMERICA SIDE BY SIDE Civil Liberties around the World 135
Disabled Americans Won a Great Victory in 1990 136
LGBTQ Americans 136
Civil Liberties and Civil Rights: What Do We Want? 137
WHO PARTICIPATES? Religious Affiliation and Freedom of Religion 139
Key Terms 142
For Further Reading 143
PART II P OLITIC S
5 ★ Public Opinion 144
Public Opinion Represents Attitudes about Politics 147
Americans Share Common Political Values 148
America’s Dominant Political Ideologies Are Liberalism
and Conservatism 149
Americans Exhibit Low Trust in Government 152
Political Socialization Shapes Public Opinion 152
Political Knowledge Is Important in Shaping Public Opinion 157
The Media and Government Mold Opinion 160
The Government Leads Public Opinion 160
Private Groups Also Shape Public Opinion 161
The News Media’s Message Affects Public Opinion 161
Government Policies Also Respond to Public Opinion 162
C O N T E N T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 12 11/29/18 11:38 AM
xiii
Measuring Public Opinion Is Crucial to Understanding What It Is 163
Public-Opinion Surveys Are Accurate If Done Properly 163
AMERICA SIDE BY SIDE Confidence in Democratic Institutions 164
Why Are Some Polls Wrong? 166
Public Opinion: What Do We Want? 169
WHO PARTICIPATES? Who Expresses Their Political Opinions? 171
Key Terms 174
For Further Reading 175
6 ★ The Media 176
Media Have Always Mattered in a Democracy 179
Journalists Are News-Gathering Professionals 179
The Profit Motive Drives the News Business 180
More Media Outlets Are Owned by Fewer
Companies 180
The Media Today 182
Newspapers Still Set the Standard for News
Reporting 183
Broadcast Media Are Still Popular 184
Radio Has Adapted to Modern Habits 185
Digital Media Have Transformed Media Habits 186
Citizen Journalism Gives People News Power 189
Concerns about Online News 190
The Media Affect Power Relations in American Politics 191
The Media Influence Public Opinion through Agenda-Setting,
Framing, and Priming 191
Leaked Information Can Come from Government Officials
or Independent Sources 193
Adversarial Journalism Has Risen in Recent Years 194
Broadcast Media Are Regulated but Not Print Media 194
AMERICA SIDE BY SIDE The Internet and Global Democracy 196
The Media: What Do We Want? 197
WHO PARTICIPATES? Civic Engagement in the Digital Age 199
Key Terms 202
For Further Reading 203
C O N T E N T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 13 11/29/18 11:38 AM
xiv
7 ★ Political Parties, Participation,
and Elections 204
Parties and Elections Have Been Vital to American Politics
and Government 207
Political Parties Arose from the Electoral Process 207
Parties Recruit Candidates 208
Parties Organize Nominations 208
Parties Help Get Out the Vote 209
Parties Organize Power in Congress 210
America Is One of the Few Nations with a Two-Party System 210
Parties Have Internal Disagreements 217
Electoral Realignments Define Party Systems in American
History 217
American Third Parties Sometimes Change the Major Parties
and Election Outcomes 218
Group Affiliations Are Based on Voters’ Psychological Ties
to One of the Parties 220
Political Participation Takes Both Traditional and
Digital Forms 220
Voting Is the Most Important Form of Traditional Participation 220
Digital Political Participation Is Surging 221
Voter Turnout in America Is Low 223
Why Do People Vote? 224
AMERICA SIDE BY SIDE Voter Turnout in Comparison 226
Voters Decide Based on Party, Issues, and Candidate 227
Party Loyalty Is Important 227
Issues Can Shape an Election 228
Candidate Characteristics Are More Important in the Media
Age 229
The Electoral Process Has Many Levels and Rules 229
The Electoral College Still Organizes Presidential Elections 231
The 2016 and 2018 Elections 232
The 2016 Elections 232
Understanding the 2016 Results 233
The 2018 Election: A Blue Wave Meets a Red Wall 235
The 2018 Election and America’s Future 236
Money Is Critical to Campaigns 237
Campaign Funds Come from Direct Appeals, the Rich, PACs, and
Parties 237
Political Parties, Elections, and Participation: What Do We
Want? 240
WHO PARTICIPATES? Who Participated in the 2016 Presidential
Election? 241
Key Terms 244
For Further Reading 245
C O N T E N T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 14 11/29/18 11:38 AM
xv
8 ★ Interest Groups 246
Interest Groups Form to Advocate for Different
Interests 249
What Interests Are Represented? 250
AMERICA SIDE BY SIDE Civil Society around the World 252
Some Interests Are Not Represented 253
Group Membership Has an Upper-Class Bias 253
The Organizational Components of Groups Include
Money, Offices, and Members 254
The Internet Has Changed the Way Interest Groups
Foster Participation 257
The Number of Groups Has Increased in Recent Decades 258
The Expansion of Government Has Spurred the Growth of Groups 259
Public Interest Groups Grew in the 1960s and ’70s 259
Interest Groups Use Different Strategies to Gain Influence 259
Direct Lobbying Combines Education, Persuasion, and Pressure 261
Cultivating Access Means Getting the Attention of Decision Makers 262
Using the Courts (Litigation) Can Be Highly Effective 263
Mobilizing Public Opinion Brings Wider Attention to an Issue 264
Groups Often Use Electoral Politics 266
Groups and Interests: What Do We Want? 267
WHO PARTICIPATES? How Much Do Major Groups Spend? 269
Key Terms 272
For Further Reading 273
PART III INS TIT U TIONS
9 ★ Congress 274
Congress Represents the American People 277
The House and Senate Offer Differences
in Representation 277
Representation Can Be Sociological or Agency 278
The Electoral Connection Hinges on Incumbency 281
Direct Patronage Means Bringing Home the Bacon 286
The Organization of Congress Is Shaped by Party 288
Party Leadership in the House and the Senate Organizes Power 289
The Committee System Is the Core of Congress 289
The Staff System Is the Power behind the Power 291
C O N T E N T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 15 11/29/18 11:38 AM
xvi
AMERICA SIDE BY SIDE Women’s Parliamentary Representation
Worldwide 292
Rules of Lawmaking Explain How a Bill Becomes a Law 293
The First Step Is Committee Deliberation 293
Debate Is Less Restricted in the Senate Than in the House 295
Conference Committees Reconcile House and Senate Versions
of Legislation 296
The President’s Veto Controls the Flow of Legislation 297
Several Factors Influence How Congress Decides 297
Constituents Matter 297
Interest Groups Influence Constituents and Congress 298
Party Leaders Rely on Party Discipline 299
Partisanship Has Thwarted the Ability of Congress to Decide 303
Much Congressional Energy Goes to Tasks Other Than
Lawmaking 303
Congress Oversees How Legislation Is Implemented 304
Special Senate Powers Include Advice and Consent 305
Impeachment Is the Power to Remove Top Officials 305
Congress: What Do We Want? 306
WHO PARTICIPATES? Who Elects Congress? 307
Key Terms 310
For Further Reading 313
10 ★ The Presidency 314
Presidential Power Is Rooted in the Constitution 317
Expressed Powers Come Directly from the Words
of the Constitution 318
Implied Powers Derive from Expressed Powers 323
Delegated Powers Come from Congress 324
Modern Presidents Have Claimed Inherent Powers 324
AMERICA SIDE BY SIDE Executive Branches in Comparison 325
Institutional Resources of Presidential Power
Are Numerous 327
The Cabinet Is Often Distant from the President 327
The White House Staff Constitutes the President’s Eyes and
Ears 327
The Executive Office of the President Is a Visible Sign of the
Modern Strong Presidency 328
The Vice Presidency Has Become More Important since the
1970s 329
The First Spouse Has Become Important to Policy 330
C O N T E N T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 16 11/29/18 11:38 AM
xvii
Party, Popular Mobilization, and Administration Make
Presidents Stronger 331
Going Public Means Trying to Whip Up the People 332
The Administrative Strategy Increases Presidential Control 334
Presidential Power Has Limits 339
The Presidency: What Do We Want? 340
WHO PARTICIPATES? Who Voted for Donald Trump in 2016? 341
Key Terms 344
For Further Reading 345
11 ★ Bureaucracy 346
Bureaucracy Exists to Improve Efficiency 349
Bureaucrats Fulfill Important Roles 349
The Size of the Federal Service Has Actually
Declined 352
The Executive Branch Is Organized Hierarchically 352
Federal Bureaucracies Promote Welfare
and Security 355
Federal Bureaucracies Promote Public Well-Being 356
AMERICA SIDE BY SIDE Bureaucracy in Comparison 357
Federal Agencies Provide for National Security 358
Federal Bureaucracies Help to Maintain a Strong National Economy 362
Several Forces Control Bureaucracy 363
The President as Chief Executive Can Direct Agencies 363
Congress Promotes Responsible Bureaucracy 365
Can the Bureaucracy Be Reformed? 366
Bureaucracy and Democracy: What Do We Want? 367
WHO PARTICIPATES? Waiting for a Veterans Affairs Health Care Appointment 369
Key Terms 372
For Further Reading 373
12 ★ The Federal Courts 374
The Legal System Settles Disputes 377
Court Cases Proceed under Criminal and Civil Law 377
Types of Courts Include Trial, Appellate, and Supreme 378
The Federal Courts Hear a Small Percentage of
All Cases 381
The Lower Federal Courts Handle Most Cases 381
The Appellate Courts Hear 20 Percent of Lower-Court Cases 382
The Supreme Court Is the Court of Final Appeal 383
Judges Are Appointed by the President and Approved by the Senate 384
C O N T E N T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 17 11/29/18 11:38 AM
xviii
The Power of the Supreme Court Is Judicial Review 385
Judicial Review Covers Acts of Congress 386
AMERICA SIDE BY SIDE Term Limits for High Court Justices 387
Judicial Review Applies to Presidential Actions 388
Judicial Review Also Applies to State Actions 389
Most Cases Reach the Supreme Court by Appeal 390
The Solicitor General, Law Clerks, and Interest Groups Also
Influence the Flow of Cases 392
The Supreme Court’s Procedures Mean Cases May Take
Months or Years 394
Supreme Court Decisions Are Influenced by Activism
and Ideology 397
The Federal Courts: What Do We Want? 400
WHO PARTICIPATES? Influencing the Supreme Court? 401
Key Terms 404
For Further Reading 405
PART IV P OLICY
13 ★ Domestic Policy 406
The Tools for Making Policy Are Techniques of Control 409
Promotional Policies Get People to Do Things by Giving
Them Rewards 409
Regulatory Policies Are Rules Backed by Penalties 411
Redistributive Policies Affect Broad Classes of People 413
Should the Government Intervene in the Economy? 415
Social Policy and the Welfare System Buttress Equality 416
The History of the Government Welfare System Dates Only
to the 1930s 416
The Modern Welfare System Has Three Parts 417
Welfare Reform Has Dominated the Welfare Agenda in
Recent Years 421
The Cycle of Poverty Can Be Broken by Education, Health, and
Housing Policies 423
Education Policies Provide Life Tools 423
Health Policies Mean Fewer Sick Days 425
AMERICA SIDE BY SIDE U.S. Healthcare: High Cost, Poor Outcomes 427
Housing Policies Provide Residential Stability 431
Social Policy Spending Benefits the Middle Class More Than the
Poor 432
Senior Citizens Receive over a Third of All Federal Dollars 433
The Middle and Upper Classes Benefit from Social Policies 434
C O N T E N T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 18 11/29/18 11:38 AM
xix
The Working Poor Receive Fewer Benefits 434
Spending for the Nonworking Poor Is Declining 435
Minorities, Women, and Children Are Most Likely to Face Poverty 435
Domestic Policy: What Do We Want? 437
WHO PARTICIPATES? Growing Student Debt Burden 439
Key Terms 442
For Further Reading 443
14 ★ Foreign Policy 444
Foreign Policy Goals Are Related 447
Security Is Based on Military Strength 447
Economic Prosperity Helps All Nations 451
America Seeks a More Humane World 451
AMERICA SIDE BY SIDE Building Influence through
International Connections 452
American Foreign Policy Is Shaped by Government
and Nongovernment Actors 453
The President Leads Foreign Policy 454
The Bureaucracy Implements and Informs Policy Decisions 455
Congress’s Legal Authority Can Be Decisive 456
Interest Groups Pressure Foreign Policy Decision Makers 457
Tools of American Foreign Policy Include Diplomacy, Force, and Money 458
Diplomacy 459
The United Nations Is the World’s Congress 459
The International Monetary Structure Helps Provide Economic Stability 460
Economic Aid Has Two Sides 460
Collective Security Is Designed to Deter War 461
Military Force Is “Politics by Other Means” 462
Soft Power Uses Persuasion 463
Arbitration Resolves Disputes 463
Current Foreign Policy Issues Facing the United States 464
A Powerful China and a Resurgent Russia 464
Nuclear Proliferation in Iran and North Korea 466
Trade Policy 467
Global Environmental Policy 467
Foreign Policy and Democracy: What Do We Want? 468
WHO PARTICIPATES? Public Opinion on Security Issues 469
Key Terms 472
For Further Reading 473
C O N T E N T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 19 11/29/18 11:38 AM
xx
Appendix
The Declaration of Independence A1
The Articles of Confederation A5
The Constitution of the United States of America A11
Amendments to the Constitution A21
The Federalist Papers A30
The Anti-Federalist Papers A38
Presidents and Vice Presidents A45
Endnotes A49
Answer Key A81
Credits A83
Glossary/Index A85
C O N T E N T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 20 11/29/18 11:38 AM
xxi
This book has been and continues to be dedicated to developing a satisfactory response to the question more and more Americans are asking: Why should we be engaged with government and politics? Through the first 11 editions,
we sought to answer this question by making the text directly relevant to the lives of
the students who would be reading it. As a result, we tried to make politics interest-
ing by demonstrating that students’ interests are at stake and that they therefore need
to take a personal, even selfish, interest in the outcomes of government. At the same
time, we realized that students needed guidance in how to become politically engaged.
Beyond providing students with a core of political knowledge, we needed to show them
how they could apply that knowledge as participants in the political process. The “Who
Participates?” and “What You Can Do” sections in each chapter help achieve that goal.
As events from the last several years have reminded us, “what government does”
inevitably raises questions about political participation and political equality. The size
and composition of the electorate, for example, affect who is elected to public office
and what policy directions the government will pursue. Hence, the issue of voter ID
laws became important in the 2016 election, with some arguing that these laws re-
duce voter fraud and others contending that they decrease participation by poor and
minority voters. Charges of Russian meddling in the 2016 election have raised questions
about the integrity of the voting process. Fierce debates about the policies of the Trump
administration have heightened students’ interest in politics. Other recent events have
underscored how Americans from different backgrounds experience politics. Arguments
about immigration became contentious during the 2016 election as the nation once again
debated the question of who is entitled to be an American and have a voice in determin-
ing what the government does. And charges that the police often use excessive violence
against members of minority groups have raised questions about whether the govern-
ment treats all Americans equally. Reflecting all of these trends, this new Twelfth Edition
shows more than any other book on the market (1) how students are connected to gov-
ernment, (2) why students should think critically about government and politics, and
(3) how Americans from different backgrounds experience and shape politics. To help
us explore these themes, Professor Andrea Campbell has joined us as the most recent
in a group of distinguished coauthors. Professor Campbell’s scholarly work focuses on
the ways in which government and politics affect the lives of ordinary citizens. Among
her contributions are new chapter introductions that focus on stories of individuals and
how government has affected them. Many Americans, particularly the young, can have
difficulty seeing the role of government in their everyday lives. Indeed, that’s a chief
explanation of low voter participation among younger citizens. The new chapter openers
profile various individuals and illustrate their interactions with government, from a rock
Preface
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 21 11/29/18 11:38 AM
xxii
band that gets its controversial name approved by the Supreme Court (Chapter 4), to a
young mother who realizes the tap water in her Flint, Michigan, home is poisoning her
children after local officials switched the source (Chapter 11), to teenagers protesting
the end of net neutrality and the internet as they have known it (Chapter 6). The goal
of these stories is to show students in a vivid way how government and politics mean
something to their daily lives.
Several other elements of the book also help show students why politics and govern-
ment should matter to them. These include:
• A twenty-first-century perspective on demographic change moves beyond the
book’s strong coverage of traditional civil rights content with expanded coverage
of contemporary group politics.
• “Who Participates?” infographics at the end of every chapter show students
how different groups of Americans participate in key aspects of politics and
government. Each concludes with a “What You Can Do” section that provides
students with specific, realistic steps they can take to act on what they’ve learned
and get involved in politics.
• “America Side by Side” boxes in every chapter use data figures and tables
to provide a comparative perspective. By comparing political institutions and
behavior across countries, students gain a better understanding of how specific
features of the American system shape politics.
• Up-to-date coverage, with more than 10 pages and numerous graphics on the
2016 and 2018 elections, including a five-page section devoted to analysis of
these momentous elections in Chapter 8, as well as updated data, examples, and
other information throughout the book.
• “What Do We Want” chapter conclusions step back and provide perspective on
how the chapter content connects to fundamental questions about the American
political system. The conclusions also reprise the important point made in the
personal profiles that begin each chapter that government matters to the lives
of individuals.
• This Twelfth Edition is accompanied by InQuizitive, Norton’s award-winning
formative, adaptive online quizzing program. The InQuizitive course for
We the People, Essentials Edition, guides students through questions organized
around the text’s chapter learning objectives to ensure mastery of the core
information and to help with assessment. More information and a demonstration
are available at digital.wwnorton.com/wethepeople12ess.
We note with regret the passing of Theodore Lowi as well as Margaret Weir’s decision
to step down from the book. We miss them but continue to hear their voices and to
benefit from their wisdom in the pages of our book. We also continue to hope that our
book will itself be accepted as a form of enlightened political action. This Twelfth Edition
is another chance. It is an advancement toward our goal. We promise to keep trying.
P R E FA C E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 22 11/29/18 11:38 AM
xxiii
We are especially pleased to acknowledge the many colleagues who had a direct and
active role in criticism and preparation of the manuscript. Our thanks go to:
First Edition Reviewers
Sarah Binder, Brookings Institution
Kathleen Gille, Office of Representative David
Bonior
Rodney Hero, University of Colorado
at Boulder
Robert Katzmann, Brookings Institution
Kathleen Knight, University of Houston
Robin Kolodny, Temple University
Nancy Kral, Tomball College
Robert C. Lieberman, Columbia University
David A. Marcum, University of Wyoming
Laura R. Winsky Mattei, State University
of New York at Buffalo
Marilyn S. Mertens, Midwestern State
University
Barbara Suhay, Henry Ford Community
College
Carolyn Wong, Stanford University
Julian Zelizer, State University of New York
at Albany
Second Edition Reviewers
Lydia Andrade, University of North Texas
John Coleman, University of Wisconsin
at Madison
Daphne Eastman, Odessa College
Otto Feinstein, Wayne State University
Elizabeth Flores, Delmar College
James Gimpel, University of Maryland
at College Park
Jill Glaathar, Southwest Missouri State
University
Shaun Herness, University of Florida
William Lyons, University of Tennessee
at Knoxville
Andrew Polsky, Hunter College, City
University of New York
Grant Reeher, Syracuse University
Richard Rich, Virginia Polytechnic
Bartholomew Sparrow, University
of Texas at Austin
Third Edition Reviewers
Bruce R. Drury, Lamar University
Andrew I. E. Ewoh, Prairie View A&M
University
Amy Jasperson, University of Texas
at San Antonio
Loch Johnson, University of Georgia
Mark Kann, University of Southern California
Robert L. Perry, University of Texas
of the Permian Basin
Wayne Pryor, Brazosport College
Elizabeth A. Rexford, Wharton County Junior
College
Andrea Simpson, University of Washington
Brian Smentkowski, Southeast Missouri State
University
Nelson Wikstrom, Virginia Commonwealth
University
Fourth Edition Reviewers
M. E. Banks, Virginia Commonwealth
University
Lynn Brink, North Lake College
Mark Cichock, University of Texas
at Arlington
Acknowledgments
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 23 11/29/18 11:38 AM
xxiv
Del Fields, St. Petersburg College
Nancy Kinney, Washtenaw Community
College
William Klein, St. Petersburg College
Dana Morales, Montgomery College
Christopher Muste, Louisiana State University
Larry Norris, South Plains College
David Rankin, State University of New York
at Fredonia
Paul Roesler, St. Charles Community College
J. Philip Rogers, San Antonio College
Greg Shaw, Illinois Wesleyan University
Tracy Skopek, Stephen F. Austin State
University
Don Smith, University of North Texas
Terri Wright, Cal State, Fullerton
Fifth Edition Reviewers
Annie Benifield, Tomball College
Denise Dutton, Southwest Missouri State
University
Rick Kurtz, Central Michigan University
Kelly McDaniel, Three Rivers Community
College
Eric Plutzer, Pennsylvania State University
Daniel Smith, Northwest Missouri State
University
Dara Strolovitch, University of Minnesota
Dennis Toombs, San Jacinto College–North
Stacy Ulbig, Southwest Missouri State
University
Sixth Edition Reviewers
Janet Adamski, University of Mary
Hardin–Baylor
Greg Andrews, St. Petersburg College
Louis Bolce, Baruch College
Darin Combs, Tulsa Community College
Sean Conroy, University of New Orleans
Paul Cooke, Cy Fair College
Vida Davoudi, Kingwood College
Robert DiClerico, West Virginia University
Corey Ditslear, University of North Texas
Kathy Dolan, University of Wisconsin,
Milwaukee
Randy Glean, Midwestern State University
Nancy Kral, Tomball College
Mark Logas, Valencia Community College
Scott MacDougall, Diablo Valley College
David Mann, College of Charleston
Christopher Muste, University of Montana
Richard Pacelle, Georgia Southern University
Sarah Poggione, Florida International
University
Richard Rich, Virginia Tech
Thomas Schmeling, Rhode Island College
Scott Spitzer, California State
University–Fullerton
Robert Wood, University of North Dakota
Seventh Edition Reviewers
Molly Andolina, DePaul University
Nancy Bednar, Antelope Valley College
Paul Blakelock, Kingwood College
Amy Brandon, San Jacinto College
Jim Cauthen, John Jay College
Kevin Davis, North Central Texas College
Louis DeSipio, University of California–Irvine
Brandon Franke, Blinn College
Steve Garrison, Midwestern State University
Joseph Howard, University of Central Arkansas
Aaron Knight, Houston Community
College
Paul Labedz, Valencia Community College
Elise Langan, John Jay College
Mark Logas, Valencia Community College
Eric Miller, Blinn College
Anthony O’Regan, Los Angeles Valley College
David Putz, Kingwood College
Chis Soper, Pepperdine University
Kevin Wagner, Florida Atlantic University
Laura Wood, Tarrant County College
Eighth Edition Reviewers
Brian Arbour, John Jay College, CUNY
Ellen Baik, University of Texas–Pan
American
David Birch, Lone Star College–Tomball
Bill Carroll, Sam Houston State University
Ed Chervenak, University of New Orleans
Gary Church, Mountain View College
Adrian Stefan Clark, Del Mar College
Annie Cole, Los Angeles City College
Greg Combs, University of Texas at Dallas
Cassandra Cookson, Lee College
Brian Cravens, Blinn College
A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 24 11/29/18 11:38 AM
xxv
John Crosby, California State
University–Chico
Scott Crosby, Valencia Community College
Courtenay Daum, Colorado State
University, Fort Collins
Peter Doas, University of Texas–Pan American
John Domino, Sam Houston State University
Doug Dow, University of Texas–Dallas
Jeremy Duff, Midwestern State University
Heather Evans, Sam Houston State University
Hyacinth Ezeamii, Albany State University
Bob Fitrakis, Columbus State Community
College
Brian Fletcher, Truckee Meadows
Community College
Paul Foote, Eastern Kentucky University
Frank Garrahan, Austin Community College
Jimmy Gleason, Purdue University
Steven Greene, North Carolina State
University
Jeannie Grussendorf, Georgia State University
M. Ahad Hayaud-Din, Brookhaven College
Alexander Hogan, Lone Star College–CyFair
Glen Hunt, Austin Community College
Mark Jendrysik, University of North Dakota
Krista Jenkins, Fairleigh Dickinson
University
Carlos Juárez, Hawaii Pacific University
Melinda Kovács, Sam Houston State
University
Boyd Lanier, Lamar University
Jeff Lazarus, Georgia State University
Jeffrey Lee, Blinn College
Alan Lehmann, Blinn College
Julie Lester, Macon State College
Steven Lichtman, Shippensburg University
Fred Lokken, Truckee Meadows
Community College
Shari MacLachlan, Palm Beach
Community College
Guy Martin, Winston-Salem State University
Fred Monardi, College of Southern Nevada
Vincent Moscardelli, University of
Connecticut
Jason Mycoff, University of Delaware
Sugumaran Narayanan, Midwestern State
University
Anthony Nownes, University of Tennessee,
Knoxville
Elizabeth Oldmixon, University of North Texas
John Osterman, San Jacinto College–Central
Mark Peplowski, College of Southern Nevada
Maria Victoria Perez-Rios, John Jay
College, CUNY
Sara Rinfret, University of Wisconsin, Green
Bay
Andre Robinson, Pulaski Technical College
Susan Roomberg, University of Texas at San
Antonio
Ryan Rynbrandt, Collin County Community
College
Mario Salas, Northwest Vista College
Michael Sanchez, San Antonio College
Mary Schander, Pasadena City College
Laura Schneider, Grand Valley State
University
Subash Shah, Winston-Salem
State University
Mark Shomaker, Blinn College
Roy Slater, St. Petersburg College
Debra St. John, Collin College
Eric Whitaker, Western Washington
University
Clay Wiegand, Cisco College
Walter Wilson, University of Texas at
San Antonio
Kevan Yenerall, Clarion University
Rogerio Zapata, South Texas College
Ninth Edition Reviewers
Amy Acord, Lone Star College–CyFair
Milan Andrejevich, Ivy Tech Community
College
Steve Anthony, Georgia State University
Phillip Ardoin, Appalachian State
University
Gregory Arey, Cape Fear Community College
Joan Babcock, Northwest Vista College
Evelyn Ballard, Houston Community College
Robert Ballinger, South Texas College
Mary Barnes-Tilley, Blinn College
Robert Bartels, Evangel University
Nancy Bednar, Antelope Valley College
Annie Benifield, Lone Star College–Tomball
Donna Bennett, Trinity Valley Community
College
Amy Brandon, El Paso Community College
Mark Brewer, The University of Maine
Gary Brown, Lone Star College–Montgomery
A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 25 11/29/18 11:38 AM
xxvi
Joe Campbell, Johnson County
Community College
Dewey Clayton, University of Louisville
Jeff Colbert, Elon University
Amanda Cook-Fesperman, Illinois Valley
Community College
Kevin Corder, Western Michigan University
Kevin Davis, North Central Texas College
Paul Davis, Truckee Meadows Community
College
Terri Davis, Lamar University
Jennifer De Maio, California State
University, Northridge
Christopher Durso, Valencia College
Ryan Emenaker, College of the Redwoods
Leslie Feldman, Hofstra University
Glen Findley, Odessa College
Michael Gattis, Gulf Coast State College
Donna Godwin, Trinity Valley Community
College
Precious Hall, Truckee Meadows
Community College
Sally Hansen, Daytona State College
Tiffany Harper, Collin College
Todd Hartman, Appalachian State University
Virginia Haysley, Lone Star College–Tomball
David Head, John Tyler Community College
Rick Henderson, Texas State University–San
Marcos
Richard Herrera, Arizona State University
Thaddaus Hill, Blinn College
Steven Holmes, Bakersfield College
Kevin Holton, South Texas College
Robin Jacobson, University of Puget Sound
Joseph Jozwiak, Texas A & M–Corpus Christi
Casey Klofstad, University of Miami
Samuel Lingrosso, Los Angeles Valley College
Mark Logas, Valencia College
Christopher Marshall, South Texas College
Larry McElvain, South Texas College
Elizabeth McLane, Wharton County Junior
College
Eddie Meaders, University of North Texas
Rob Mellen, Mississippi State University
Jalal Nejad, Northwest Vista College
Adam Newmark, Appalachian State University
Stephen Nicholson, University of
California, Merced
Cissie Owen, Lamar University
Suzanne Preston, St. Petersburg College
David Putz, Lone Star College–Kingwood
Auksuole Rubavichute, Mountain View
College
Ronnee Schreiber, San Diego State University
Ronald Schurin, University of Connecticut
Jason Seitz, Georgia Perimeter College
Jennifer Seitz, Georgia Perimeter College
Shannon Sinegal,The University of New
Orleans
John Sides, George Washington University
Thomas Sowers, Lamar University
Jim Startin, University of Texas at San Antonio
Robert Sterken, University of Texas at Tyler
Bobby Summers, Harper College
John Theis, Lone Star College–Kingwood
John Todd, University of North Texas
Delaina Toothman, The University of Maine
David Trussell, Cisco College
Ronald Vardy, University of Houston
Linda Veazey, Midwestern State University
John Vento, Antelope Valley Community
College
Clif Wilkinson, Georgia College
John Wood, Rose State College
Michael Young, Trinity Valley Community
College
Tyler Young, Collin College
Tenth Edition Reviewers
Stephen P. Amberg, University of Texas at San
Antonio
Juan F. Arzola, College of the Sequoias
Thomas J. Baldino, Wilkes University
Christina Bejarano, University of Kansas
Paul T. Bellinger, Jr., University of Missouri
Melanie J. Blumberg, California University of
Pennsylvania
Matthew T. Bradley, Indiana University
Kokomo
Jeffrey W. Christiansen, Seminole State
College
McKinzie Craig, Marietta College
Christopher Cronin, Methodist University
Jenna Duke, Lehigh Carbon Community
College
Francisco Durand, University of Texas at San
Antonio
Carrie Eaves, Elon University
Paul M. Flor, El Camino College Compton
Center
Adam Fuller, Youngstown State University
A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 26 11/29/18 11:38 AM
xxvii
Christi Gramling, Charleston Southern
University
Sally Hansen, Daytona State College
Mary Jane Hatton, Hawai’i Pacific University
David Helpap, University of
Wisconsin–Green Bay
Theresa L. Hutchins, Georgia Highlands College
Cryshanna A. Jackson Leftwich, Youngstown
State University
Ashlyn Kuersten, Western Michigan University
Kara Lindaman, Winona State University
Timothy Lynch, University of
Wisconsin–Milwaukee
Larry McElvain, South Texas College
Corinna R. McKoy, Ventura College
Eddie L. Meaders, University of North Texas
Don D. Mirjanian, College of Southern
Nevada
R. Shea Mize, Georgia Highlands College
Nicholas Morgan, Collin College
Matthew Murray, Dutchess Community
College
Harold “Trey” Orndorff III, Daytona State
College
Randall Parish, University of North Georgia
Michelle Pautz, University of Dayton
Michael Pickering, University of New Orleans
Donald Ranish, Antelope Valley College
Glenn W. Richardson, Jr., Kutztown
University of Pennsylvania
Jason Robles, Colorado State University
Ionas Aurelian Rus, University of Cincinnati–
Blue Ash
Robert Sahr, Oregon State University
Kelly B. Shaw, Iowa State University
Captain Michael Slattery, Campbell University
Michael Smith, Sam Houston State University
Maryam T. Stevenson, University of
Indianapolis
Elizabeth Trentanelli, Gulf Coast State
College
Ronald W. Vardy, University of Houston
Timothy Weaver, University of Louisville
Christina Wolbrecht, University of Notre
Dame
Eleventh Edition Reviewers
Maria J. Albo, University of North Georgia
Andrea Aleman, University of Texas at San
Antonio
Juan Arzola, College of the Sequoias
Ross K. Baker, Rutgers University
Lauren Balasco, Pittsburg State University
Daniel Birdsong, University of Dayton
Phil Branyon, University of North Georgia
Camille D. Burge, Villanova University
Matthew DeSantis, Guilford Technical
Community College
Sheryl Edwards, University of
Michigan–Dearborn
Lauren Elliott-Dorans, University of
Toledo
Heather Evans, Sam Houston State
University
William Feagin, Jr., Wharton County Junior
College
Glen Findley, Odessa College
Heather Frederick, Slipper Rock University
Jason Ghibesi, Ocean County College
Patrick Gilbert, Lone Star–Tomball
Rebecca Herzog, American River College
Steven Horn, Everett Community College
Demetra Kasimis, California State
University, Long Beach
Eric T. Kasper, University of Wisconsin–Eau
Claire
Jill Kirkham, Brigham Young University–
Idaho
Mary Linder, Grayson County College
Johnson Louie, California State University,
Stanislaus
Phil McCall, Portland State University
Patrick Novotny, Georgia Southern
University
Carolyn Myers, Southwestern Illinois
College–Belleville
Gerhard Peters, Citrus College
Michael A. Powell, Frederick Community
College
Robert Proctor, Santa Rosa Junior College
Allen K. Settle, California Polytechnic State
University
Laurie Sprankle, Community College of
Allegheny County
Ryan Lee Teten, University of Louisiana
at Lafayette
Justin Vaughn, Boise State University
John Vento, Antelope Valley College
Aaron Weinschenk, University of
Wisconsin–Green Bay
Tyler Young, Collin College
A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 27 11/29/18 11:38 AM
xxviii
Twelfth Edition Reviewers
Craig Albert, Augusta University
Alexa Bankert, University of Georgia
Nathan Barrick, University of South Florida
Jeff Birdsong, Northeastern Oklahoma A&M
College
Sara Butler, College of the Desert
Cory Colby, Lone Star College
Anthony Daniels, University of Toledo
Dennis Falcon, Cerritos College
Kathleen Ferraiolo, James Madison University
Patrick Gilbert, Lone Star College, Tomball
Matthew Green, Catholic University
of America
Matt Guardino, Providence College
Barbara Headrick, Minnesota State University,
Moorhead
Justin Hoggard, Three Rivers Community
College
John Patrick Ifedi, Howard University
Cryshanna Jackson Leftwich, Youngstown
State University
Douglas Kriner, Boston University
Thom Kuehls, Weber State University
Jennifer Lawless, American University
LaDella Levy, College of Southern Nevada
Timothy Lim, California State University, Los
Angeles
Sam Lingrosso, Los Angeles Valley College
Mandy May, College of Southern Maryland
Suzanne Mettler, Cornell University
Michael Miller, Barnard College
Joseph Njoroge, Abraham Baldwin
Agricultural College
Michael Petri, Santa Ana College
Christopher Poulios, Nassau Community
College
Andrew Rudalevige, Bowdoin College
Amanda Sanford, Louisiana Tech University
Elizabeth Saunders, George Washington
University
Kathleen Searles, Louisiana State University
Matthew Snyder, Delgado Community College
Steven Sylvester, Utah Valley University
Linda Trautman, Ohio University Lancaster
Donald Williams, Western New England
University
Peter Yacobucci, Buffalo State College
We are also grateful to Melissa Michelson, of Menlo College, who contributed to
the “Who Participates?” infographics for this edition; Holley Hansen, of Oklahoma
State University, who contributed to the “America Side by Side” boxes.
Perhaps above all, we thank those at W. W. Norton. For its first five editions,
editor Steve Dunn helped us shape the book in countless ways. Lisa McKay contrib-
uted smart ideas and a keen editorial eye to the Tenth Edition. Ann Shin carried on the
Norton tradition of splendid editorial work on the Sixth through Ninth and Eleventh
Editions. Peter Lesser brought intelligence and dedication to the development of this
Twelfth Edition. For our InQuizitive course and other instructor resources, Spencer
Richardson-Jones has been an energetic and visionary editor. Ashley Horna, Michael
Jaoui, Tricia Vuong, and Anna Olcott also kept the production of the Eleventh Edition
and its accompanying resources coherent and in focus. Lynne Cannon copyedited the
manuscript, and our superb project editor Christine D’Antonio devoted countless hours
to keeping on top of myriad details. We thank Elyse Rieder for finding new photos and
our photo editor Stephanie Romeo for managing the image program. Finally, we thank
Roby Harrington, the head of Norton’s college department.
Benjamin Ginsberg
Caroline J. Tolbert
Andrea L. Campbell
October 2018
A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 28 11/29/18 11:38 AM
An Introduction to American Politics
We the People
121212
edition
E S S E N TI A LS
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch00_fm_i-1.indd 1 11/29/18 11:38 AM
010101
chapter
Introduction:
The Citizen and
Government
WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES AND WHY IT MATTERS Meet
two of the nation’s youngest elected officials. Saira Blair became the young-
est member of West Virginia’s House of Delegates when she won election as
an 18-year-old college freshman. The day after her victory party in November
2014, she was back in class at West Virginia University. In May 2017, Prairie
View A&M senior Kendric D. Jones similarly achieved electoral victory, becom-
ing the youngest city council member in the state of Texas. What got Blair
and Jones involved in politics? Both had sources of political inspiration. Blair
followed in the footsteps of her father, a West Virginia state senator, who she
had accompanied to political events since childhood. Jones was inspired by
the long history of activism at Prairie View, which was founded in 1876 during
Reconstruction by some of the first African American members of the Texas
state legislature. A further spur to action was President Obama’s call in his
2017 farewell address to “grab a clipboard, get some signatures, and run for
office yourself.” Both also had strong commitments to issues. Blair believes
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch01_002-029.indd 2 11/28/18 4:24 PM
3
Introduction:
The Citizen and
Government
While Americans share a belief in the values of liberty,
equality, and democracy, debates rage about how to
live up to those values. To advocate for their beliefs,
Republican Saira Blair (left) and Democrat Kendric Jones
(right)—both college students—ran for office and won.
What is the citizen’s role in America’s democratic system?
in limited government, lower taxes, and Second Amendment gun rights. Jones
has a long history of working in the community, serving in student government,
and founding a mentoring program for middle-school boys.
Both Blair and Jones also believe deeply in political participation, espe-
cially that of young people. As Jones said, “The students of Prairie View A&M
University’s voices have not been heard. Since I have been here, the city has
been stagnant and has not made any progression—outside of the university.
I feel as though a young, innovative mind can push this city forward.” After
participating in a mock government program in high school, Blair saw that
young people were just as capable as lawmakers decades older: “When I saw
how capable the students were of creating . . . legislation and really getting
work done, it really made me realize that we really didn’t need to wait.”1
Blair and Jones’s experiences show that citizens are at the center of
democratic government. They ran for office because they care about public
issues and want to have a hand in shaping policy outcomes. What are you
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch01_002-029.indd 3 11/28/18 4:24 PM
passionate about? How does government affect your everyday life and that
of your family, friends, and community? And how are differences in political
views resolved in politics? Americans hold certain values dear, including lib-
erty, equality, and democracy. In fact, if you asked Blair and Jones, they would
almost certainly agree that these are critical values to uphold. However, Blair
and Jones might emphasize one more than the other. And they might have
major disagreements about what those values mean and what the government
should do to shape and uphold them. What are your values? Do you see them
reflected in government today? What do you want government to do?
★ Define government and forms of government (pp. 5–7)
★ Describe the role of the citizen in politics (pp. 8–9)
★ Show how the social composition of the American population has
changed over time (pp. 10–16)
★ Analyze whether the U.S. system of government upholds American
political values (pp. 16–20)
★ Explore Americans’ attitudes toward government (pp. 20–23)
CHAP TER GOAL S
4 C H A P T E R 1 I N T R O D U c T I O N : T H e c I T I z e N A N D G OV e R N M e N T
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch01_002-029.indd 4 11/28/18 4:24 PM
Government
Government refers to the formal in
stitutions and procedures through
which a territory and its people are
ruled. To govern is to rule. A govern
ment may be as simple as a town meeting in which community members make
policy and determine budgets together or as complex as the vast establishments
found in many large countries today, with their extensive procedures, laws, and
bureaucracies. In the history of civilization, governments have not been difficult to
establish. There have been thousands of them. The hard part is establishing a govern
ment that lasts. Even more difficult is developing a stable government that promotes
liberty, equality, and democracy.
DIFFERENT FORMS OF GOVERNMENT ARE
DEFINED BY POWER AND FREEDOM
Governments vary in their structure, in their size, and in the way they operate. Two
questions are of special importance in determining how governments differ: Who
governs? And how much government control is permitted?
In some nations, government power is held by a single individual, such as a king
or dictator, or by a small group of powerful individuals, such as military leaders or
wealthy landowners. Such a system of government normally pays little attention to
popular preferences; it tends to hold power by violence or the threat of violence and
is referred to as an authoritarian system, meaning that the government recognizes no
formal limit but may nevertheless be restrained by the power of other social insti
tutions. A system of government in which the degree of control is even greater is a
totalitarian system, where the government recognizes no formal limits on its power
and seeks to absorb or eliminate other social institutions that might challenge it.
Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler and the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin are
classic examples of totalitarian rule.
In contrast, a democracy is a political system that permits citizens to play a
significant part in the governmental process, where they are vested with the
power to rule themselves, usually through the election of key public officials.
Under such a system, constitutional government is the norm, in that formal and
effective limits are placed on the powers of the government. At times, an author
itarian government might bend to popular wishes, and democratic governments
do not automatically follow the wishes of the majority. The point, however,
is that these contrasting systems of government are based on very different
assumptions and practices.
Americans have the good fortune to live in a nation in which limits are placed
on what governments can do and how they can do it. By one measure, just 40 per
cent of the global population (those living in 86 countries) enjoy sufficient levels of
political and personal freedom to be classified as living in a constitutional democracy.2
And constitutional democracies were unheard of before the modern era. Prior to
Define government and forms of
government
5G OV e R N M e N T
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch01_002-029.indd 5 11/28/18 4:24 PM
the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, governments seldom sought (and rarely
received) the support of their ordinary subjects.3
Beginning in the seventeenth century, in a handful of Western nations, two
important changes began to take place in the character and conduct of govern
ment. First, governments began to acknowledge formal limits on their power.
Second, a small number of governments began to provide the ordinary citizen with
a formal voice in public affairs—through the vote. Obviously, the desirability of
limits on government and the expansion of popular influence were at the heart
of the Ameri can Revolution in 1776. “No taxation without representation” was
hotly debated from the beginning of the Revolution through the adoption of the
modern Constitution in 1789. But even before the Revolution, a tradition of limi
ting government and expanding citizen participation in the political process had
developed throughout western Europe. Thus, to understand how the relationship
between rulers and the ruled was transformed, we must broaden our focus to take
into account events in Europe as well as in America. We will divide the transforma
tion into its two separate parts. The first is the effort to put limits on government.
The second is the effort to expand the influence of the people through access to
government and politics.
LIMITS ON GOVERNMENTS ENCOURAGED FREEDOM
The key force behind the imposition of limits on government power was a new
social class, the bourgeoisie. Bourgeoisie is a French word for “freeman of the
city,” or bourg. Being part of the bourgeoisie later became associated with being
“middle class” and with involvement in commerce or industry. In order to gain a
share of control of government, joining or even displacing the kings, aristocrats,
and gentry who had dominated government for centuries, the bourgeoisie sought
to change existing institutions—especially parliaments—into instruments of real
political participation. Parliaments had existed for centuries but were generally
controlled by the aristocrats. The bourgeoisie embraced parliaments as means
by which they could exert the weight of their superior numbers and grow
ing economic advantage against their aristocratic rivals. At the same time, the
bourgeoisie sought to restrain the capacity of governments to threaten these
economic and political interests by placing formal or constitutional limits on
governmental power.
Although motivated primarily by the need to protect and defend their own in
terests, the bourgeoisie advanced many of the principles that became the central
underpinnings of individual liberty for all citizens—freedom of speech, freedom
of assembly, freedom of conscience, and freedom from arbitrary search and seizure.
It is important to note here that the bourgeoisie generally did not favor democracy
as we know it. They were advocates of electoral and representative institutions, but
they favored property requirements and other restrictions so as to limit political
participation to the middle and upper classes. Yet once these institutions of politics
and the protection of the right to engage in politics were established, it was difficult
to limit them to the bourgeoisie.
6 C H A P T E R 1 I N T R O D U c T I O N : T H e c I T I z e N A N D G OV e R N M e N T
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch01_002-029.indd 6 11/28/18 4:24 PM
EXPANSION OF PARTICIPATION IN AMERICA
CHANGED THE POLITICAL BAL ANCE
In America, the expansion of participation to everlarger segments of society, seen mostly
in the expansion of voting rights, occurred because competing segments of the bour
geoisie sought to gain political advantage by reaching out and mobilizing the support of
working and lowerclass groups that craved the opportunity to take part in politics. To
be sure, excluded groups often agitated for greater participation. But seldom was such
agitation, by itself, enough to secure the right to participate. Usually, expansion of voting
rights resulted from a combination of pressure from below and help from above.
This pattern of suffrage expansion by groups hoping to derive some political
advantage has been typical in American history. After the Civil War, one of the chief
reasons that the Republican Party moved to enfranchise newly freed slaves was to use
the support of the former slaves to maintain Republican control over the defeated
southern states. Similarly, in the early twentieth century, uppermiddleclass Pro
gressives advocated women’s suffrage because they believed that women were likely
to support the reforms espoused by the Progressive movement.
THE GOAL OF POLITICS IS HAVING
A SAY IN WHAT HAPPENS
Expansion of participation means that more and more people have a legal right to
take part in politics. Politics is an important term. In its broadest sense, it refers to
conflicts over the character, membership, and policies of any organization to which
people belong. As Harold Lasswell, a famous political scientist, once put it, politics
is the struggle over “who gets what, when, how.”4 Although politics is a phenom
enon that can be found in any organization, our concern in this book is narrower.
Here, politics will be used to refer only to conflicts and struggles over the leadership,
structure, and policies of governments. The goal of politics, as we define it, is to have
a share or a say in the composition of the government’s leadership, how the govern
ment is organized, or what its policies are going to be. Having a share is called power
or influence.
Participation in politics can take many forms, including blogging and posting
opinion pieces online, voting, sending emails to government officials, lobbying
legis lators on behalf of particular programs, and participating in protest marches
and even violent demonstrations. A system of government in which the populace
selects representatives, who play a significant role in governmental decision mak
ing, is usually called a representative democracy, or republic. A system that permits
citizens to vote directly on laws and policies is often called a direct democracy. At
the national level, America is a representative democracy in which citizens select
government officials but do not vote on legislation. Some states and cities, how
ever, have provisions for direct legislation through ballot initiative and popular
referendum. In 2017, for example, voters in Maine approved by statewide vote
to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act after the governor had vetoed
expansion multiple times.5
7G OV e R N M e N T
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch01_002-029.indd 7 11/28/18 4:24 PM
Citizenship Is Based on Political
Knowledge and Participation
Citizen participation is the hallmark
of the democratic form of govern
ment. “Government by the people”
depends on lively citizen involve
ment in public discussion, debate, and activity designed to improve the welfare
of one’s community. The very legitimacy of democratic government depends on
political participation, which takes a variety of forms, from the conventional—
voting, contacting elected officials, working on campaigns, making political dona
tions, attending political meetings—to the unconventional—protesting, boycott
ing, and signing petitions.
One key ingredient for political participation is political knowledge and informa
tion. Democracy functions best when citizens are informed and have the knowledge
needed to participate in political debate. Indeed, our definition of citizenship derives
from the ideal put forth by the ancient Greeks: enlightened political engagement.6
Citizens need political knowledge, which includes knowing the rules and strate
gies that govern political institutions and the principles on which they are based, to
figure out how best to act in their own interests. For example, during the debate in
2017 about whether to repeal the Obama health care reform, onethird of Americans
Protests are a form of direct action citizens can take to influence policy outcomes. The Black Lives
Matter movement used peaceful protests and marches to educate fellow citizens and lawmakers on
the impact of police brutality on the African American community.
Describe the role of the citizen
in politics
8 C H A P T E R 1 I N T R O D U c T I O N : T H e c I T I z e N A N D G OV e R N M e N T
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch01_002-029.indd 8 11/28/18 4:24 PM
did not know that “Obamacare” and the “Affordable Care Act” are the same thing.7
That meant that some Americans who had enrolled in “Obamacare” did not realize
their access to health insurance would be affected if the ACA were repealed. Citizens
need knowledge in order to assess their interests and to know when to act on them.
Effective participation requires knowledge. (It should come as no surprise, then,
that people who have less knowledge of politics vote at lower rates than those with
more knowledge.) Knowledge is the first prerequisite for achieving an increased
sense of political efficacy.
As more and more of our social, workplace, and educational activities have
migrated online, so too have opportunities for political knowledge and participa
tion, creating a new concept of “digital citizenship.” Digital citizenship is the abil
ity to participate in society online, and it is increasingly important in politics. A
2015 survey found that over the previous year, 65 percent of Americans had used
the internet—including visiting local, state, or federal government websites—to
find data or information about government.8 Digital citizens are more likely to be
interested in politics and to discuss politics with friends, family, and coworkers than
individuals who do not use online political information. They are also more likely to
vote and participate in other ways in elections. Individuals without internet access
or the skills to participate in politics and the economy online are being left further
behind. Exclusion from participation online is referred to as the “digital divide.”
Lowerincome and less educated Americans, racial and ethnic minorities, those
living in rural areas, and the elderly are all less likely to have internet access.
POLITICAL EFFICACY MEANS PEOPLE
CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE
Another important trend in American views about government has been a declining
sense of political efficacy, the belief that ordinary citizens can affect what government
does. In 2015, 74 percent of Americans said that elected officials do not care what
people like them think; in 1960, only 25 percent felt so shut out of government.9
Accompanying this sense that ordinary people cannot be heard is a growing belief
that government is not run for the benefit of all the people. In 2015, 76 percent of
the public disagreed with the idea that the “government is really run for the benefit
of all the people.”10 These views are widely shared across the age spectrum.
This widely felt loss of political efficacy is bad news for American democracy. Why
bother to participate if you believe it makes no difference? Yet the belief that you can
be effective is the first step needed to influence government. Research shows that the
relationship between efficacy and participation is twoway: a feeling that one can make
a difference leads to participation, but in addition, joining in can increase one’s feeling
of efficacy. Not every effort of ordinary citizens to influence government will succeed,
but without any such efforts, government decisions will be made by a smaller and
smaller circle of powerful people. Such loss of broad popular influence over govern
ment actions undermines the key feature of American democracy: government by the
people. Most people do not want to be politically active every day of their lives, but
it is essential to American political ideals that all citizens be informed and able to act.
9c I T I z e N S H I P I S B A S e D O N P O l I T I c A l K N O W l e D G e A N D P A R T I c I PAT I O N
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch01_002-029.indd 9 11/28/18 4:24 PM
The Identity of Americans
Has Changed over Time
While American democracy aims to
give the people a voice in govern
ment, the meaning of “we the
people” has changed over time. Who
are Americans? Over the course of
Ameri can history, politicians, religious leaders, prominent scholars, and ordinary
Americans have puzzled over and fought about the answer to this fundamental
question. It is not surprising that such a simple question could provoke so much
conflict: the American population has increased over eightyfold, from 3.9 million
in 1790, the year of the first official census, to 327 million in 2018.11 As the
American population has grown, it has become more diverse in nearly every dimen
sion imaginable.12
At the time of the Founding, when the United States consisted of 13 states
arrayed along the Eastern seaboard, 81 percent of Americans counted by the census
traced their roots to Europe, mostly England and northern Europe; nearly one in
five were of African origin, the vast majority of whom were slaves.13 There was also
an unknown number of Native Americans, not counted by the census because the
government did not consider them Americans.14
Fastforward to 1900. The country, now stretched out across the continent, had
a sharply altered racial and ethnic composition. Waves of immigrants, mainly from
Europe, had boosted the population to 76 million. The black population stood at
12 percent. Residents who traced their origins to Latin America or Asia each
accounted for less than 1 percent of the entire population.15 Although principally
of European origin, the American population had become much more ethnically
diverse as immigrants, first from Germany, then from Ireland, and finally from
southern and eastern Europe, made their way to the United States. The foreignborn
population of the United States reached its height at 14.7 percent in 1910.16
IMMIGRATION AND INCREASING ETHNIC DIVERSITY
HAVE LONG CAUSED INTENSE DEBATE
As the population grew more diverse, anxiety about Americans’ ethnic identity
mounted, and much as today, politicians and scholars argued about whether the
country could absorb such large numbers of immigrants. The debate encompassed
such issues as whether immigrants’ political and social values were compatible with
American democracy, whether they would learn English, and what diseases they
might bring into the United States.
Immigrants’ religious affiliations also aroused concern. The first immigrants to
the United States were overwhelmingly Protestant, many of them fleeing religious
persecution. The arrival of Germans and Irish in the mid1800s meant increasing
numbers of Catholics, and the largescale immigration of the early twentieth cen
tury threatened to reduce the percentage of Protestants significantly: many eastern
Show how the social composition
of the American population has
changed over time
10 C H A P T E R 1 I N T R O D U c T I O N : T H e c I T I z e N A N D G OV e R N M e N T
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch01_002-029.indd 10 11/28/18 4:24 PM
European immigrants pouring into the country were Jewish, while the southern
Europeans were mostly Catholic. A more religiously diverse country challenged the
implicit Protestantism embedded in many aspects of American public life.
After World War I, Congress responded to the fears swirling around immigration
with new laws that sharply limited the number of immigrants who could enter the
country each year. Congress also established a new National Origins Quota System
based on the nation’s population in 1890 before the wave of immigrants from eastern
and southern Europe arrived.17 The new system set up a hierarchy of admissions:
northern European countries received generous quotas for new immigrants,
whereas eastern and southern European countries were granted very small quotas.
These restrictions ratcheted down the numbers of immigrants so that by 1970 the
foreignborn population in the United States reached an alltime low of 5 percent.
Official efforts to use racial and ethnic criteria to restrict the American population
were not new. The very first census, as we have seen, did not count Native Ameri
cans; in fact, Native Americans were not granted the right to vote until 1924. Most
people of African descent were not officially citizens until 1868, when the Four
teenth Amendment to the Constitution conferred citizenship on the freed slaves.
In 1790 the federal government had sought to limit the nonwhite population
with a law stipulating that only free whites could become naturalized citizens. Not
until 1870 did Congress lift the ban on the naturalization of nonwhites. Restric
tions applied to Asians as well. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 outlawed the
entry of Chinese laborers to the United States, and additional barriers enacted after
World War I meant that virtually no Asians entered the country as immigrants
until 1943, when China became our ally in World War II and these provisions were
In the 1900s many immigrants entered the United States through New York’s Ellis Island, where they
were checked for disease before being admitted.
11T H e I D e N T I T y O f A M e R I c A N S H A S c H A N G e D OV e R T I M e
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch01_002-029.indd 11 11/28/18 4:24 PM
lifted. People of Hispanic origin do not fit simply into the American system of racial
classification. In 1930, for example, the census counted people of Mexican origin as
nonwhite, but it reversed this decision a decade later. Not until 1970 did the cen
sus officially begin counting persons of Hispanic origin, noting that they could be
any race.18 As this history suggests, American citizenship has always been tied to
“whiteness” even as the meaning of “white” shifted over time.
WHO ARE AMERICANS TODAY?
Race and Ethnicity By 2000 immigration had profoundly transformed the
nation’s racial and ethnic profile once again. The primary cause was Congress’s
decision in 1965 to lift the tight immigration restrictions of the 1920s, a decision
that resulted, among other things, in the growth of the Latino population (see
Figure 1.1). Census figures for 2016 show that the total Hispanic proportion of
the population, who can be of any race, is now 17.8 percent, while the black, or
African American, population is 12.7 percent of the total population. Asians make
up 5.4 percent of the population. NonHispanic white Americans account for
61 percent of the population—their lowest share ever. Moreover, about 3.2 percent
of the population now identifies itself as of “two or more races.”19 Although it is
only a small percentage of the population, the multiracial category points toward
a future in which the lines separating the traditional labels of racial identification
may be blurring.
In 2016, 13.5 percent of the population was born outside the United States,
a figure comparable to the rates of foreignborn at the turn of the previous cen
tury. About half of the foreignborn population came from Latin America and the
Caribbean, with just over onethird from Central America (including Mexico).
Those born in Asia constituted the next largest group, making up 31 percent
of foreignborn residents. By 2016 just 10.9 percent of those born outside the
United States came from Europe.20 These figures represent only legally authorized
immigrants, while estimates put the number of undocumented immigrants at
11.4 million, the majority of whom are from Mexico and Central America.21
Religion The new patterns of immigration combined with a number of other
factors to alter the religious affiliations of Americans. In 1900, 80 percent of
the population was Protestant; by 2016 only 44 percent of Americans identi
fied themselves as Protestants.22 Catholics made up 20 percent of the population,
and Jews accounted for 2 percent. A small Muslim population had also grown, to
nearly 1 percent of the population. One of the most important changes in religious
affiliation during the latter half of the twentieth century was the percentage of
people who professed no organized religion. In 2016, 23 percent of the population
was not affiliated with an organized church. These changes suggest an important
shift in American religious identity: although the United States thinks of itself as
a “JudeoChristian” nation—and indeed was 95 percent Protestant, Catholic, or
Jewish from 1900 to 1968—by 2016 the numbers had fallen to under 70 percent
of the adult population.23
12 C H A P T E R 1 I N T R O D U c T I O N : T H e c I T I z e N A N D G OV e R N M e N T
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch01_002-029.indd 12 11/28/18 4:24 PM
Age As America grew and its population expanded and diversified, the country’s age
profile shifted with it. In 1900 only 4 percent of the population was over 65. As life
expectancy increased, the number of older Americans grew with it: by 2016 nearly
15.2 percent of the population was over 65. The number of children under the age
of 18 also changed; in 1900 this group comprised 40.5 percent of the American
population; by 2016 it had fallen to 22.8 percent of the population.24 An aging
FIGURE 1.1
Immigration by Continent of Origin*
Where did most immigrants come from at the start of the twentieth century? How does
that compare with immigration in the twenty-first century?
*Less than 1 percent not shown.
SOURCE: Department of Homeland Security 2016 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics Table 2, November 2017,
www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2016 (accessed 2/16/18). Figure shows those who have obtained
“lawful permanent resident status” by continent of origin.
10
0
1900s 1910s 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100%
PERCENTAGE OF IMMIGRANTS*
EuropeAsiaAmericas
AfricaOceaniaNot speci�ed
13T H e I D e N T I T y O f A M e R I c A N S H A S c H A N G e D OV e R T I M e
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch01_002-029.indd 13 11/28/18 4:24 PM
population poses challenges to the United
States. As the elderly population grows and
the workingage population shrinks, ques
tions arise about how we will fund programs
for the elderly such as Social Security.
Geography Over the nation’s history,
Americans have changed in other ways as
well, moving from mostly rural settings and
small towns to large urban areas. Before
1920 less than half the population lived in
urban areas; today 82 percent of Ameri
cans do.25 Critics charge that the American
political system, created when America was
a largely rural society, underrepresents urban
areas. The constitutional provision allocat
ing each state two senators, for example,
overrepresents sparsely populated rural states
and underrepresents urban states, where
the population is far more concentrated.
The American population has also shifted
regionally. In the past 50 years, especially,
many Americans have left the Northeast
and Midwest and moved to the South and
Southwest. As congressional seats have been
reapportioned to reflect the population shift,
many problems that particularly plague the
Midwest and Northeast, such as the decline
of manufacturing jobs, receive less attention
in national politics.
Socioeconomic Status Americans have fallen into diverse economic groups
throughout American history. For much of American history most people were
relatively poor working people, many of them farmers. A small wealthy elite, how
ever, grew larger in the 1890s, in a period called “the gilded age.” By 1928 nearly
25 percent of the total annual income went to the top 1 percent of earners; the top
10 percent took home 46 percent of total annual income. After the New Deal in
the 1930s, a large middle class took shape, and the share going to those at the top
dropped sharply. By 1976 the top 1 percent took home only 9 percent of the national
annual income. Since then, however, economic inequality has once again wide
ned as a tiny group of superrich has emerged. By 2015 the top 1 percent earned
20.3 percent of annual income, and the top 10 percent took home almost
50 percent of the total national income.26 At the same time, the incomes of the
broad middle class have largely stagnated (see Figure 1.2).27 And 12.7 percent of
the population remains below the official poverty line. As the middle class has
Immigration remains a controversial issue
in the United States. While many believe we
should do more to protect our borders, others
call for comprehensive immigration reform,
including an easier pathway to citizenship.
14 C H A P T E R 1 I N T R O D U c T I O N : T H e c I T I z e N A N D G OV e R N M e N T
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch01_002-029.indd 14 11/28/18 4:24 PM
frayed around the edges, the numbers of poor and near poor have swelled to nearly
onethird of the population.28
Population and Politics The shifting contours of the American people have regu
larly raised challenging questions about our politics and governing arrangements.
Population growth has spurred politically charged debates about how the popula
tion should be apportioned among congressional districts and how they should be
drawn. These conflicts have major implications for the representation of different
regions of the country—for the balance of representation between urban and rural
areas. The representation of various demographic and political groups may also be
affected, as there is substantial evidence of growing geographic sorting of citizens by
education, income, marriage rates, and party voting.29 In addition, immigration and
the cultural and religious changes it entails provoked heated debates 100 years ago
and still do today. The different languages and customs that immigrants bring to the
FIGURE 1.2
Income in the United States
This figure shows that while the income of most Americans has risen only slightly
since 1975, the income of the richest Americans (the top 5 percent) has increased
dramatically. What are some of the ways that this shift might matter for American
politics? Does the growing economic gap between the richest groups and most other
Americans conflict with the political value of equality?
*Dollar values are given in constant 2016 dollars, which are adjusted for inflation so that we can compare a
person’s income in 1975 with a person’s income today.
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, “Income and Poverty in the United States: 2016,” Table A-2, www.census.gov/
content/dam/Census/library/publications/2017/demo/P60-259 (accessed 4/16/18).
Lowest fifth
Fourth fifth
Second fifth
Highest fifth
Third fifth
Top 5 percent
HOUSEHOLD INCOME (IN DOLLARS)*
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2015201020052000
$400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
15T H e I D e N T I T y O f A M e R I c A N S H A S c H A N G e D OV e R T I M e
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch01_002-029.indd 15 11/28/18 4:24 PM
www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2017/demo/P60-259
United States trigger fears among some that the country is changing in ways that
may undermine American values and alter fundamental identities. Yet a changing
population has been one of the constants of American history.
America Is Built on the Ideas of
Liberty, Equality, and Democracy
A few fundamental values underlie
the American system. These values are
reflected in such Founding docu
ments as the Declaration of Inde
pendence, the Constitution, and
the Bill of Rights. The three values on which the American system of govern
ment is based are liberty, equality, and democracy. Most Americans find it easy to
affirm all three values in principle. In practice, however, matters are not always so
clear. Americans, moreover, are sometimes willing to subordinate liberty to security
and have frequently tolerated significant departures from the principles of equality
and democracy.
LIBERTY MEANS FREEDOM
No idea is more central to American values than liberty. The Declaration of
Independence defined three inalienable rights: “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.” The preamble to the Constitution likewise identified the need to secure
“the Blessings of Liberty” as one of the key reasons for which the Constitution was
drawn up. For Americans, liberty means freedom from government control as well as
economic freedom. Both are closely linked to the idea of limited government, meaning
that powers are defined and limited by a constitution.
The Constitution’s first 10 amendments, known collectively as the Bill of Rights,
above all preserve individual personal liberties and rights. In fact, liberty has come
to mean many of the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill of Rights: freedom of speech
and writing, the right to assemble freely, and the right to practice religious beliefs
without interference from the government. Over the course of American history, the
scope of personal liberties has expanded as laws have become more tolerant and as
individuals have successfully used the courts to challenge restrictions on their indi
vidual freedoms. Far fewer restrictions exist today on the press, political speech, and
individual moral behavior than in the early years of the nation. Even so, conflicts
persist over how personal liberties should be extended and when personal liberties
violate community norms.
In addition to personal freedom, the American concept of liberty means economic
freedom. Since the Founding, economic freedom has been linked to capitalism, free
markets, and the protection of private property. Free competition, the unfettered
movement of goods, and the right to enjoy the fruits of one’s labor are all essential
aspects of economic freedom and American capitalism.30 In the first century of the
Republic, support for capitalism often meant support for the doctrine of laissezfaire
Analyze whether the U.S. system
of government upholds American
political values
16 C H A P T E R 1 I N T R O D U c T I O N : T H e c I T I z e N A N D G OV e R N M e N T
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch01_002-029.indd 16 11/28/18 4:24 PM
Global Diversity
How does the racial and ethnic diversity of
the United States compare to that of other
countries around the world, and why are
some countries more diverse than others?
As a “nation of immigrants,” the United
States is more diverse than many Western
countries, but some former colonies are
even more diverse than the United States.
Many countries in sub-Saharan Africa were
colonized by empires whose governments
often drew borders that encompassed
multiple ethnic groups in the region. State-
building and nationalism are new to these
regions, meaning that local identities often
remain stronger than national ones.
In contrast, many western european and
Asian countries have histories of past conflict
and strong state-building efforts, resulting
in less diversity either by eliminating rival
groups or forcibly assimilating them. Japan’s
geographic isolation has created a racially
homogeneous society, which was reinforced
by the government’s use of isolationism as a
means to consolidate power.a Modern policies
limiting immigration continue these historic
trends. france has historically pursued both
political and cultural assimilation, using its
schools to socialize its citizens into a com-
mon identity. Recent immigration, however,
has highlighted potential problems with this
policy.b
How might the degree of diversity shape
political values in specific countries? What
types of values and policies would we expect
to see in countries with a high degree of
diversity versus those with less diversity?
Most
diverse
No data
available
RACIAL AND ETHNIC DIVERSITY
Most
homogeneous
aBenedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso, 2006), 94–99.
bJohn R. Bowen, Why the French Don’t Like Headscarves: Islam, the State, and Public Space (Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 2007).
SOURCE: Alberto Alesina, Arnaud Devleeschauwer, William Easterly, Sergio Kurlat, and Romain Wacziarg,
“Fractionalization,” Journal of Economic Growth, 8 (2003): 155–94.
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch01_002-029.indd 17 11/28/18 4:24 PM
(literally, “let do” in French), an economic system in which the means of produc
tion and distribution are privately owned and operated for profit with minimal or
no government interference. Laissez-faire capitalism allowed very little room for the
national government to regulate trade or restrict the use of private property, even in
the public interest. Americans still strongly support capitalism and economic liberty,
but they now also endorse some restrictions on economic freedoms to protect the
public. Today, federal and state governments deploy a wide array of regulations in
the name of public protection. These include health and safety laws, environmental
rules, and workplace regulations.
Not surprisingly, fierce disagreements often erupt over what the proper scope of
government regulation should be. What some people regard as protecting the pub
lic, others see as an infringement of their own freedom to run their businesses and
use their property as they see fit.
EQUALITY MEANS TREATING PEOPLE FAIRLY
The Declaration of Independence declares as its first “selfevident” truth that “all
men are created equal.” As central as it is to the American political creed, how
ever, equality has been a less welldefined ideal than liberty because people interpret
“equality” in different ways. Most Americans share the ideal of equality of opportunity
wherein all people should have the freedom to use whatever talents and wealth they
have to reach their fullest potential. Yet it is hard for Americans to reach an agree
ment on what constitutes equality of opportunity. Must a group’s past inequalities
Economic freedom lies at the heart of many conflicts in American life. While supporters of the
Tea Party movement protest against economic regulation and higher taxes and support smaller
government, many Americans feel it is the government’s responsibility to regulate economic activity
to benefit the majority of Americans.
18 C H A P T E R 1 I N T R O D U c T I O N : T H e c I T I z e N A N D G OV e R N M e N T
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch01_002-029.indd 18 11/28/18 4:24 PM
be remedied in order to ensure equal opportunity in the present? Should inequalities
in the legal, political, and economic spheres be given the same weight? In contrast to
liberty, which requires limits on the role of government, equality implies an obliga-
tion of the government to the people.31
Americans do make clear distinctions between political equality and social
or economic equality. Political equality refers to the right to participate in poli
tics equally, based on the principle of “one person, one vote.” Beginning from a
very restricted definition of political community, which originally included only
propertied white men, the United States has moved much closer to an ideal of
political equality. Broad support for this ideal has helped expand the American
political community and extend the right to participate to all. Although consi
derable conflict remains over whether the political system makes it harder for
some people to participate and easier for others, and about whether the role of
money in politics has drowned out the public voice, Americans agree that all
citizens should have an equal opportunity to participate and that government
should enforce that right.
In part because Americans believe that individuals are free to work as hard as they
choose, they have always been less concerned about social or economic inequality.
Many Americans regard economic differences as the consequence of individual
choices, virtues, or failures. Because of this, Americans tend to be less supportive
than most Europeans of government action to ensure economic equality. Since the
recession of 2008, however, income inequality has risen on the political agenda.
In 2015 twothirds of Americans said the distribution of wealth and money is not
fair and should be more evenly distributed; in 2017, 63 percent of Americans said
upperincome people pay too little in taxes, and 67 percent said corporations pay
too little.32
DEMOCRACY MEANS THAT WHAT THE
PEOPLE WANT MATTERS
The essence of democracy is the participation of the people in choosing
their rulers and the people’s ability to influence what those rulers do. In a
democracy, political power ultimately comes from the people. The principle
of democracy in which political authority rests ultimately in the hands of
the people is known as popular sovereignty. In the United States, popular sover
eignty and political equality make politicians accountable to the people. Ideally,
democracy envisions an engaged citizenry prepared to exercise its power over
rulers. As we noted earlier, the United States is a representative democracy,
meaning that the people do not rule directly but instead exercise power through
elected representatives. Forms of participation in a democracy vary greatly,
but voting is a key element of the representative democracy that the American
Founders established.
American democracy rests on the principle of majority rule with minority rights,
the democratic principle that a government follows the preferences of the major
ity of voters but protects the interests of the minority. Majority rule means that
19A M e R I c A I S B U I lT O N T H e I D e A S O f l I B e R T y, e q U A l I T y, A N D D e M O c R A c y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch01_002-029.indd 19 11/28/18 4:24 PM
the wishes of the majority determine what government does. The House of
Representatives—a large body elected directly by the people—was designed in
particular to ensure majority rule. But the Founders feared that popular majori
ties could turn government into a “tyranny of the majority” in which individual
liberties would be violated. Concern for individual rights has thus been a part of
American democracy from the beginning. The rights enumerated in the Bill of
Rights and enforced through the courts provide an important check on the power
of the majority.
Government Affects Our Lives Every Day
Since the United States was estab
lished as a nation, Americans have
been reluctant to grant government
too much power, and they have often
been suspicious of politicians. But over the course of the nation’s history, Americans
have also turned to government for assistance in times of need and have strongly
supported the government in periods of war. In 1933 the power of the govern
ment began to expand to meet the crises created by the stock market crash of
1929, the Great Depression, and the run on banks. Congress passed legislation
that brought the government into the businesses of home mortgages, farm mort
gages, credit, and relief of personal distress. More recently, when the economy fell
The federal government maintains a large number of websites that provide useful information to
citizens on such topics as loans for education, civil service job applications, the inflation rate, and
how the weather will affect farming. These sites are just one way in which the government serves
its citizens.
Explore Americans’ attitudes
toward government
20 C H A P T E R 1 I N T R O D U c T I O N : T H e c I T I z e N A N D G OV e R N M e N T
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch01_002-029.indd 20 11/28/18 4:25 PM
into a recession in 2008 and 2009, the federal government took action to shore
up the financial system, oversee the restructuring of the ailing auto companies,
and inject hundreds of billions of dollars into the faltering economy. Today, the
national government is an enormous institution with programs and policies reach
ing into every corner of American life. It oversees the nation’s economy, it is the
nation’s largest employer, it provides citizens with a host of services, it controls the
world’s most formidable military establishment, and it regulates a wide range of
social and commercial activities.
Much of what citizens have come to depend on and take for granted—as,
somehow, part of the natural environment—is in fact created by government.
Take the example of a typical college student’s day, throughout which that student
relies on a host of services and activities organized by national, state, and local
government agencies. The extent of this dependence on government is illustrated
by Table 1.1.
TRUST IN GOVERNMENT HAS DECLINED
Ironically, even as popular dependence on government has grown, the American
public’s view of government has turned more sour. Public trust in government
has declined, and Americans are now more likely to feel that they can do little to
influence the government’s actions.
Different groups vary somewhat in their
levels of trust: African Americans and
Latinos express more confidence in the
federal government than do whites.
But even among the most supportive
groups, more than half do not trust
the government.33 These developments
are important because politically en
gaged citizens and public confidence
in government are vital for the health
of a democracy. In the early 1960s
threequarters of Americans said they
trusted government most of the time
or always. By 2017 only 18 percent
of Americans expressed such trust in
government.34 Trust hit a high point
after the September 11, 2001, terror
ist attacks, but fell to preattack levels
within three years, and the trend con
tinued its downward path. Distrust
of government greatly influenced
the presidential primary elections in
2015 and 2016, when a number of
“outsider” candidates—most notably
While levels of participation in politics are relatively
low for young Americans, the presidential primary
campaigns of 2008 and 2016 saw the highest levels
of youth turnout—to volunteer and to vote—in
decades. What factors might have energized young
people to become involved in these campaigns?
21G OV e R N M e N T A f f e c T S O U R l I V e S e V e R y D Ay
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch01_002-029.indd 21 11/28/18 4:25 PM
TIME SCHEDULE
7:00 a.m. Wake up. Standard time set by the national government.
7:10 a.m. Shower. Water courtesy of local government, either a public entity or
a regulated private company. Brush your teeth with toothpaste whose
cavity-fighting claims have been verified by a federal agency.
7:30 a.m. Have a bowl of cereal with milk for breakfast. “Nutrition facts” on food
labels are a federal requirement, pasteurization of milk required by
state law, recycling the empty cereal box and milk carton enabled by
state or local laws.
8:30 a.m. Drive or take public transportation to campus. Air bags and seat belts
required by federal and state laws. Roads and bridges paid for by state
and local governments, speed and traffic laws set by state and local
governments, public transportation subsidized by all levels of government.
8:45 a.m. Arrive on campus of large public university. Buildings are 70 percent
financed by state taxpayers.
9:00 a.m. first class: chemistry 101. Tuition partially paid by a federal loan (more than
half the cost of university instruction is paid for by taxpayers), chemistry lab
paid for with grants from the National Science foundation (a federal agency).
Noon eat lunch. college cafeteria financed by state dormitory authority on
land grant from federal Department of Agriculture.
2:00 p.m. Second class: American Government 101 (your favorite class!). you
may be taking this class because it is required by the state legislature
or because it fulfills a university requirement.
4:00 p.m. Third class: computer Science 101. free computers, software, and
internet access courtesy of state subsidies plus grants and discounts
from IBM and Microsoft, the costs of which are deducted from their
corporate income taxes; internet built in part by federal government.
6:00 p.m. eat hamburger for dinner. Meat inspected by federal agencies.
7:00 p.m. Work at part-time job at the campus library. Minimum wage set by
federal, state, or local government; books and journals in library paid
for by state taxpayers.
8:15 p.m. check the status of your application for a federal student loan (fAfSA)
on the Department of education’s website at studentaid.ed.gov.
10:00 p.m. Go home. Street lighting paid for by county and city governments, police
patrols by city government.
10:15 p.m. Watch TV. Networks regulated by federal government, cable public-
access channels required by city law. Weather forecast provided to
broadcasters by a federal agency.
TABLE 1.1
The Presence of Government in the Daily
Life of a Student at “State University”
22 C H A P T E R 1 I N T R O D U c T I O N : T H e c I T I z e N A N D G OV e R N M e N T
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch01_002-029.indd 22 11/28/18 4:25 PM
Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, who were critical of government and eager to
depart from business as usual in Washington—attracted wide support.
Does it matter if Americans trust their government? For the most part, the
answer is yes. Most Americans rely on government for a wide range of services and
laws that they simply take for granted. But longterm distrust in government can
result in public refusal to pay the taxes necessary to support such widely approved
public activities. Low levels of confidence may also make it difficult for govern
ment to attract talented and effective workers to public service.35 The weakening of
government as a result of prolonged levels of distrust may ultimately harm the
capacity of the United States to defend its national interest in the world economy
and may jeopardize its national security. Likewise, a weak government can do
little to assist citizens who need help in weathering periods of sharp economic or
technological change.
American Political Culture
WHAT DO WE WANT?
Americans express mixed views about government. Almost everyone complains about
government, and general trust in government has declined significantly. Despite mount-
ing distrust, when asked about particular government activities or programs, a majority
of Americans generally support the activities that government undertakes. These con-
flicting views reflect the tensions in American political culture: there is no perfect
balance between liberty, equality, and democracy. In recent years, finding the right mix
of government actions to achieve these different goals has become especially trouble-
some. Some charge that government initiatives designed to promote equality infringe
on individual liberty, while others point to the need for government to take action in
the face of growing inequality. Sharp political debate over competing goals alienates
many citizens, who react by withdrawing from politics. yet, in contrast to totalitarian
and authoritarian forms of government, democracy rests on the principle of popular
sovereignty. No true democracy can function properly without knowledgeable and
engaged citizens. The stories of Saira Blair and Kendric Jones at the beginning of this
chapter show that people often turn frustration with government into political action.
But running for office is only one way to participate in politics. The “Who Participates?”
feature on page 25 shows who voted in the 2016 presidential election.
The remarkable diversity of the American people represents a great strength for
American democracy as well as a formidable challenge. The shifting religious, racial,
ethnic, and immigration statuses of Americans throughout history have always pro-
voked fears about whether American values could withstand such dramatic shifts.
The changing face of America also sparks hopes for an America that embodies its
fundamental values more fully.
23A M e R I c A N P O l I T I c A l c U lT U R e : W H AT D O W e W A N T ?
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch01_002-029.indd 23 11/28/18 4:25 PM
Demographic changes will continue to raise tough new questions. for example,
as the American population grows older, programs for the elderly will take up an
increasing share of the federal budget. yet, to be successful, a nation must invest
in its young people. And, as any college student knows, the cost of college has risen
in recent years. Many students drop out as they discover that the cost of college is
too high. Or they graduate and find themselves saddled with loans that will take
decades to pay back. yet, in a world of ever-sharper economic competition, higher
education has become increasingly important for individuals seeking economic secu-
rity. Moreover, an educated population is critical to the future prosperity of the country
as a whole. Are there ways to support the elderly and the young at the same time? Is it
fair to cut back assistance to the elderly, who have worked a lifetime for their benefits?
If we decrease assistance to the elderly, will they stay in the labor market and make
the job hunt for young people even more difficult? As these trade-offs suggest, there
are no easy answers to these demographic changes.
24 C H A P T E R 1 I N T R O D U c T I O N : T H e c I T I z e N A N D G OV e R N M e N T
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch01_002-029.indd 24 11/28/18 4:25 PM
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
Who Voted in 2016?
80%
College graduate Postgraduate
study
Some high school Some collegeHigh school
graduate
Age
Race / Ethnicity
Income Sex
Education*
18−29 30−44 45−64 65+
46%
59% 67%
71%
<$50,000
55%
$50,000−$99,999
69%
$100,000+
78%
White BlackHispanic Asian
Male
59%
Female
63%
65% 59%
48% 49%
35%
63% 74%52%
*Highest level attained
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey
November 2016, census.gov (accessed 11/20/17).
WHO PAR TICIPATES?
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch01_002-029.indd 25 11/28/18 4:25 PM
Practice Quiz
1. What is the difference between a
totalitarian government and an
authoritarian government? (p. 5)
a) Authoritarian governments require
popular participation while totalitar-
ian governments do not.
b) Totalitarian governments are
generally based on religion,
while authoritarian governments
are not.
c) Authoritarian governments are
often restrained by the power
of social institutions, while
totalitarian governments are not.
d) Totalitarian governments
acknowledge strict limits on
their power, while authoritarian
governments do not.
e) There is no difference between
these two kinds of government.
2. In a constitutional government (p. 5)
a) the government recognizes no
formal limits on its power.
b) presidential elections are held
every four years.
c) governmental power is held by a
single individual.
d) formal and effective limits
are placed on the powers of
government.
e) the government follows the wishes
of the majority.
Register to vote. See page 242.
Cast your vote on Election Day. Consider encouraging others to vote too.
Research shows that people are more likely to turn out to vote if a friend
or family member asks them to.
Vote
Find out what’s on the ballot in upcoming elections in your state and district
by entering your address at www.vote411.org (a website from the League of
Women Voters).
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
26 S T U D y G U I D e
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch01_002-029.indd 26 11/28/18 4:25 PM
3. A state that permits its citizens to vote
directly on laws and policies is practicing
a form of (p. 7)
a) representative democracy
b) direct democracy
c) pluralism
d) laissez-faire capitalism
e) republicanism
4. Political efficacy is the belief that (p. 9)
a) government operates efficiently.
b) government has grown too large.
c) government cannot be trusted.
d) ordinary citizens can influence what
government does.
e) government is wasteful and corrupt.
5. What is digital citizenship? (p. 9)
a) a new government initiative to
expand online voter registration
b) the ability to vote online
c) an online certification program
that allows immigrants to become
American citizens
d) the ability to participate in society
online
e) a new government initiative to pro-
vide daily legislative updates online
6. The percentage of foreign-born
individuals living in the United States
(pp. 11–12)
a) has increased significantly since
reaching its low point in 1970.
b) has decreased significantly since
reaching its high point in 1970.
c) has remained the same since 1970.
d) has never been less than the per-
centage of native-born individuals
living in the United States.
e) has not been studied since 1970.
7. In 2016, latinos were approximately
what percent of the American public?
(p. 13)
a) 67 percent
b) 52 percent
c) 31 percent
d) 18 percent
e) 6 percent
8. Which of the following statements best
describes the changes in America’s
age profile since 1900? (p. 13)
a) The percentage of adults over the
age of 65 has declined dramatically.
b) The percentage of adults over
the age of 65 has increased
dramatically.
c) The percentage of adults over the
age of 65 has remained constant.
d) The percentage of children under
the age of 18 has increased
dramatically.
e) The percentage of children
under the age of 18 has remained
constant.
9. What percent of Americans live in
urban areas today? (p. 14)
a) less than 10 percent
b) about 20 percent
c) about 40 percent
d) about 60 percent
e) about 80 percent
10. Which of the following statements
best describes the history of income
inequality in the United States?
(p. 14)
a) The top 1 percent has never
earned more than 10 percent of
the nation’s annual income.
b) The top 1 percent has never earned
less than 10 percent of the nation’s
annual income.
c) Income inequality has remained
fairly constant since the late 1970s.
d) Income inequality has increased
considerably since the late 1970s.
e) Income inequality has decreased
considerably since the late 1970s.
11. The phrase “life, liberty and the pur-
suit of Happiness” appears in (p. 16)
a) the preamble to the constitution.
b) the Bill of Rights.
c) the Declaration of Independence.
d) the Magna carta.
e) the Gettysburg Address.
12. An economic system in which the
means of production and distribution
are privately owned and operated for
profit with minimal or no government
interference is referred to as (p. 18)
a) socialism.
b) communism.
c) laissez-faire capitalism.
d) corporatism.
e) feudalism.
27S T U D y G U I D e
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch01_002-029.indd 27 11/28/18 4:25 PM
13. The principle of political equality can
be best summed up as (p. 19)
a) “equality of results.”
b) “equality of opportunity.”
c) “one person, one vote.”
d) “equality between the sexes.”
e) “leave everyone alone.”
14. Americans’ trust in their government
(p. 21)
a) has risen steadily since the
1960s.
b) has remained relatively constant
since the 1960s.
c) increased between 1960 and
2008 but has declined since.
d) increased after the September 11,
2001, terrorist attacks but has
declined since.
e) declined after the September 11,
2001, terrorist attacks but has
increased since.
Key Terms
authoritarian government (p. 5) a system
of rule in which the government recognizes
no formal limit but may nevertheless be
restrained by the power of other social
institutions
citizenship (p. 8) informed and active
membership in a political community
constitutional government (p. 5) a system of
rule in which formal and effective limits are
placed on the powers of the government
democracy (p. 5) a system of rule that
permits citizens to play a significant part in
the governmental process, usually through
the election of key public officials
direct democracy (p. 7) a system of rule
that permits citizens to vote directly on
laws and policies
equality of opportunity (p. 18) a widely
shared American ideal that all people
should have the freedom to use whatever
talents and wealth they have to reach their
fullest potential
government (p. 5) institutions and proce-
dures through which a territory and its
people are ruled
laissez-faire capitalism (p. 18) an economic
system in which the means of production
and distribution are privately owned and
operated for profit with minimal or no
government interference
liberty (p. 16) freedom from government
control
limited government (p. 16) a principle of
constitutional government; a government
whose powers are defined and limited by
a constitution
majority rule/minority rights (p. 19) the
democratic principle that a government
follows the preferences of the majority
of voters but protects the interests of
the minority
political efficacy (p. 9) the ability to
influence government and politics
political equality (p. 19) the right to
participate in politics equally, based on
the principle of “one person, one vote”
political knowledge (p. 8) possessing
information about the formal institutions
of government, political actors, and
political issues
28 S T U D y G U I D e
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch01_002-029.indd 28 11/28/18 4:25 PM
politics (p. 7) conflict over the
leadership, structure, and policies
of governments
popular sovereignty (p. 19) a principle
of democracy in which political authority
rests ultimately in the hands of the
people
power (p. 7) influence over a government’s
leadership, organization, or policies
Dahl, Robert. How Democratic Is the American Constitution? New Haven, cT: yale
University Press, 2002.
Dalton, Russell. The Good Citizen: How a Younger Generation Is Reshaping American
Politics. 2nd ed. Washington, Dc: cq Press, 2015.
Delli carpini, Michael X., and Scott Keeter. What Americans Know about Politics and Why
It Matters. New Haven, cT: yale University Press, 1996.
Hochschild, Jennifer l. Facing Up to the American Dream: Race, Class, and the Soul of the
Nation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995.
lasswell, Harold. Politics: Who Gets What, When, How. New york: Meridian Books, 1958.
Mccarty, Nolan, Keith T. Poole, and Howard Rosenthal. Polarized America: The Dance of
Ideology and Unequal Riches. cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008.
Mettler, Suzanne. The Submerged State: How Invisible Government Policies Undermine
American Democracy. chicago: University of chicago Press, 2011.
Nye, Joseph S., Jr., Philip D. zelikow, and David c. King, eds. Why People Don’t Trust
Government. cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997.
Page, Benjamin I., and lawrence R. Jacobs. Class War? What Americans Really Think
about Economic Inequality. chicago: University of chicago Press, 2009.
Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America. Translated by Phillips Bradley. New york:
Knopf, Vintage Books, 1945. first published 1835.
representative democracy (republic)
(p. 7) a system of government in which
the populace selects representatives, who
play a significant role in governmental
decision making
totalitarian government (p. 5) a system of
rule in which the government recognizes
no formal limits on its power and seeks to
absorb or eliminate other social institutions
that might challenge it
For Further Reading
29S T U D y G U I D e
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch01_002-029.indd 29 11/28/18 4:25 PM
020202
chapter
The Founding
and the
Constitution
WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES AND WHY IT MATTERS One of
the worries of the framers of the U.S. Constitution was the concentration
of government powers and the possible infringement on individual liberties.
One solution was to divide the executive, legislative, and judicial powers of
government across different institutions with separate powers, each checking
the other. Governmental power was further divided between the national and
state governments. Sometimes this constitutional system and its effect on
average Americans comes vividly to life.
Jim Obergefell was a real estate agent and IT consultant in Cincinnati, Ohio,
in 1992 when he met and fell in love with John Arthur.1 Although their relation-
ship would last for decades, they were unable to marry. In 1996, Congress
passed and President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a
federal law defining marriage as between one man and one woman. States
could still permit same-sex marriage, but the marriages would not be recognized
for fede ral purposes such as filing taxes or earning Social Security survivor bene-
fits. The law also permitted states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch02_030-065.indd 30 11/28/18 5:28 PM
The Founding
and the
Constitution
From America’s founding to today,
debates over the role of the United
States government in citizens’ lives
have persisted. After the historic
decision to rule same-sex marriage a
right guaranteed by the Constitution,
Jim Obergefell holds a photo of his
late husband on the steps of the
Supreme Court to celebrate his
bittersweet victory.
31
performed in other states. Then the state of Ohio enacted its own DOMA in
2004, prohibiting same-sex marriage and refusing to recognize those per-
formed elsewhere.
Thus Obergefell and Arthur were unable to marry due to the actions of two
branches of the federal government—the executive and legislative—and their
state. The issue became more acute when Arthur was diagnosed with ALS, or
Lou Gehrig’s disease—a progressive, debilitating disease. Obergefell served
as Arthur’s primary caregiver, and the couple traveled to Maryland in 2013
and wed on the airport tarmac. Then they filed a lawsuit with the state of Ohio
for Obergefell to be recognized as the surviving spouse on Arthur’s imminent
death certificate. Arthur passed away three months later.
The case made it to the Supreme Court. In 2015 the Court ruled in Obergefell
v. Hodges that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex
couples by the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.2 Thus the Court secured a civil right that
the executive and legislative branches and a number of states had denied.
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch02_030-065.indd 31 11/28/18 5:28 PM
The U.S. Constitution lays out the purpose of government: to promote justice,
to maintain peace at home, to defend the nation from foreign foes, to provide for
the welfare of the citizenry, and, above all, to secure the “blessings of liberty” for
Americans. It also spells out a plan for achieving these objectives, including provi-
sions for the exercise of legislative, executive, and judicial powers and a recipe
for the division of powers among the federal government’s branches and between
the national and state governments. Jim Obergefell’s quest to marry the love of
his life intersected with all three branches and both levels of government.
His story also shows that although many Americans believe strongly in the
long-standing values of liberty, equality, and democracy, how those values are
defined and implemented by the political institutions that the Constitution
created are a source of considerable controversy. The framers believed that a
good constitution created a government with the capacity to act forcefully. But
they also believed that government should be compelled to take a variety of
interests and viewpoints into account when it formulates policies. Sometimes
the deliberation and compromise encouraged by the constitutional arrange-
ments of “separated institutions sharing powers” can result in policymaking
that is slow or even gridlocked.3 Public policy is always a product of political
bargaining. But so was the Constitution itself. As this chapter will show, the
Constitution reflects high principle as well as political self-interest and defines
the relationship between American citizens and their government.
★ Describe the events that led to the Declaration of Independence and
the Articles of Confederation (pp. 33–38)
★ Analyze the reasons many Americans thought a new Constitution was
needed, and assess the obstacles to a new Constitution (pp. 38–43)
★ Explain how the Constitution attempted to improve America’s
governance, and outline the major institutions established by the
Constitution (pp. 43–51)
★ Present the controversies involved in the struggle for ratification
(pp. 51–56)
★ Trace how the Constitution has changed over time through the
amendment process (pp. 56–60)
CHAP TER GOAL S
32 C H A P T E R 2 T H E F O U n D I n G A n D T H E C O n S T I T U T I O n
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch02_030-065.indd 32 11/28/18 5:28 PM
The First Founding: Ideals,
Interests, and Conflicts
The government created by the coun-
try’s Founders was the product of
British legal and political traditions,
colonial experience, and new ideas
about governance that gained currency
in the century before America broke with Britain. While America’s leaders were
first and foremost practical politicians, they also read political philosophy and were
influenced by the important thinkers of their day, including Hobbes, Locke, and
Montesquieu.
The seventeenth-century British philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) was
no advocate of democratic government, but he wrote persuasively in Leviathan
about the necessity of a government authority as an antidote to human existence in
a government-less state of nature, where life was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and
short.” He also believed that governments should have limits on the powers they
exercised and that political systems are based on the idea of “contract theory”—
that the people of a country voluntarily give up some freedom in exchange for an
ordered society. The monarchs who rule that society derive their legitimacy from this
contract, not from a God-given right to rule.
Another British political thinker, John Locke (1632–1704), advanced the prin-
ciples of republican government by arguing not only that monarchical power was
not absolute, but that such power was dangerous and should therefore be limited.
In a break with Hobbes, Locke argued that the people retain rights despite the
social contract they make with the monarch. Preserving safety in society is not
enough; people’s lives, liberty, and property also require protection. Further, Locke
wrote in his Second Treatise of Civil Government that the people of a country have
a right to overthrow a government they believe to be unjust or tyrannical. This key
idea shaped the thinking of the Founders, including Thomas Jefferson, the primary
author of the Declaration of Independence, who said that the document was “pure
Locke.” Locke advanced the important ideas of limited government and consent
of the governed.
Baron de la Brède et de Montesquieu (1689–1755) was a French political thinker
who advocated the idea that power needed to be balanced by power as a bulwark
against tyranny. The way in which this could be achieved was through the separation
of governing powers. This idea was already in practice in Britain, where legislative
and executive powers were divided between Parliament and the monarch. In The
Spirit of the Laws, Montesquieu argued for the separation and elevation of judicial
power, which in Britain was still held by the monarch. Montesquieu did not argue
for a pure separation of powers; rather, basic functions would be separated, but
there would also be some overlap of functions. These ideas were central in shaping
the three-branch system of government that America’s Founders outlined in the
Constitution of 1787.
Describe the events that led to
the Declaration of Independence
and the Articles of Confederation
33T H E F I r S T F O U n D I n G : I D E A L S , I n T E r E S T S , A n D C O n F L I C T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch02_030-065.indd 33 11/28/18 5:28 PM
NARROW INTERESTS AND POLITICAL CONFLICTS
SHAPED THE FIRST FOUNDING
The American Revolution and the U.S. Constitution were outgrowths of a struggle
among competing economic and political forces within the colonies. Five sectors
of society had interests that were important in colonial politics: (1) New England
merchants; (2) southern planters; (3) “royalists”—holders of royal lands, offices, and
patents (licenses to engage in a profession or business activity); (4) shopkeepers,
artisans, and laborers; and (5) small farmers. Throughout the eighteenth century,
these groups were in conflict over issues of taxation, trade, and commerce. For the
most part, however, the southern planters, the New England merchants, and the
royal office and patent holders—groups that together made up the colonial elite—
were able to maintain a political alliance that held in check the more radical forces
representing shopkeepers, laborers, and small farmers. After 1760, however, by
seriously threatening the interests of New England merchants and southern plant-
ers, British tax and trade policies split the colonial elite, permitting radical forces to
expand their political influence, and set in motion a chain of events that culminated
in the American Revolution.4
BRITISH TAXES HURT COLONIAL ECONOMIC INTERESTS
During the first half of the eighteenth century, Britain ruled its American colonies
with a light hand. Evidence of British rule was hardly to be found outside the largest
towns, and the enterprising colonists had found ways of evading most of the taxes
levied by the distant British government. Beginning in the 1760s, however, debts
and other financial problems faced by the British government forced it to search for
new revenue sources. This search rather quickly led to the Crown’s North American
colonies, which, on the whole, paid remarkably little in taxes to their parent
country. Much of Britain’s debt arose from the expenses it had incurred in defense
of the colonies during the recent French and Indian War (1756–63), as well as from
the continuing protection that British forces were giving the colonists from Indian
attacks and that the British navy was providing for colonial shipping. Thus, during
the 1760s, Great Britain sought to impose new, though relatively modest, taxes on
the colonists.
Like most governments of the period, the British regime had limited ways in
which to collect revenues. In the mid-eighteenth century, governments relied mainly
on tariffs, duties, and other taxes on commerce; and it was to such taxes, including
the Stamp Act, that the British turned during the 1760s.
The Stamp Act and other taxes on commerce, such as the Sugar Act of 1764,
which taxed sugar, molasses, and other commodities, most heavily affected the
two groups in colonial society whose commercial interests and activities were most
extensive—the New England merchants and the southern planters. United under
the famous slogan “No taxation without representation,” the merchants and plant-
ers sought to organize opposition to these new taxes. In the course of the struggle
against British tax measures, the planters and merchants broke with their royalist
34 C H A P T E R 2 T H E F O U n D I n G A n D T H E C O n S T I T U T I O n
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch02_030-065.indd 34 11/28/18 5:28 PM
allies and turned to their former adversaries—the shopkeepers, laborers, artisans,
and small farmers—for help. With the assistance of these groups, the merchants and
planters organized demonstrations and a boycott of British goods that ultimately
forced the Crown to rescind most of its hated new taxes.
From the perspective of the merchants and planters, this was a victorious con-
clusion to their struggle with the parent country. They were anxious to end the un-
rest they had helped to arouse, and they supported the British government’s efforts
to restore order. Indeed, most respectable Bostonians supported the actions of the
British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre (1770), when those soldiers killed
five colonists while attempting to repel an angry mob moving against a government
building. In their subsequent trial, the soldiers were defended by John Adams, a
pillar of Boston society and a future president of the United States. Adams asserted
that the soldiers’ actions were entirely justified, provoked as they were by “a motley
rabble of saucy boys, negroes and mulattoes, Irish teagues and outlandish Jack tars.”
All but two of the soldiers were acquitted.5
Yet political strife persisted. The more radical forces representing shopkeepers,
artisans, laborers, and small farmers, who had been mobilized and energized by the
struggle over taxes, continued to agitate for political and social change. These radi-
cals, whose leaders included Samuel Adams, a cousin of John Adams, asserted that
British power supported an unjust political and social structure within the colonies
and began to advocate an end to British rule.6
POLITICAL STRIFE RADICALIZED THE COLONISTS
The political strife within the colonies was the background for the events of
1773–74. In 1773 the British government granted the politically powerful but
ailing East India Company a monopoly on the export of tea from Britain, elimi-
nating a lucrative form of trade for colonial merchants. To add insult to injury, the
East India Company sought to sell the tea directly in the colonies instead of working
through the colonial merchants. Tea was an extremely important commodity in
the 1770s, and these British actions posed a serious threat to the New England
merchants. Together with their southern allies, the merchants once again called
upon the radicals for support. The most dramatic result was the Boston Tea Party of
1773, when anti-British radicals, led by Samuel Adams (some of them “disguised”
as Mohawk Indians), boarded three vessels anchored in Boston Harbor and threw
the entire cargo of 342 chests of tea into the harbor.
This event was of decisive importance in American history. The merchants had
hoped to force the British government to rescind the Tea Act, but they did not
support any demands beyond this one. They certainly did not seek independence
from Britain. Samuel Adams and the other radicals, however, hoped to provoke the
British government to take actions that would alienate its colonial supporters and
pave the way for a rebellion. This was precisely the purpose of the Boston Tea Party,
and it succeeded. By dumping the East India Company’s tea into Boston Harbor,
Adams and his followers goaded the British into enacting a number of harsh
reprisals that closed the port of Boston to commerce, changed the provincial
35T H E F I r S T F O U n D I n G : I D E A L S , I n T E r E S T S , A n D C O n F L I C T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch02_030-065.indd 35 11/28/18 5:28 PM
government of Massachusetts, provided for the removal of accused persons to
Britain for trial, and, most important, restricted movement to the West—further
alienating the southern planters, who depended upon access to new western lands.
These acts of retaliation confirmed the worst criticisms of British rule and helped
radicalize Americans. Radicals such as Samuel Adams had been agitating for more
violent measures against the British. But ultimately it was Britain’s political repres-
sion that fanned support for independence.
Thus, the Boston Tea Party set in motion a cycle of provocation and retaliation
that in 1774 resulted in the convening of the First Continental Congress—an
assembly of delegates from all parts of the colonies that called for a total boycott of
British goods and, under the prodding of the radicals, began to consider the possi-
bility of independence from British rule. The eventual result was the Declaration
of Independence.
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE EXPLAINED WHY
THE COLONISTS WANTED TO BREAK WITH GREAT BRITAIN
In 1776, more than a year after open warfare had commenced in Massachusetts,
the Second Continental Congress appointed a committee consisting of Thomas
Jefferson of Virginia, Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, Roger Sherman of
Connecticut, John Adams of Massachusetts, and Robert Livingston of New York
to draft a statement of American independence from British rule. The Declaration
The British helped radicalize colonists through policy decisions in the years before the Revolution. For
example, Britain gave the East India Company a monopoly on the tea trade in the American colonies,
which colonists feared would hurt colonial merchants’ business.
36 C H A P T E R 2 T H E F O U n D I n G A n D T H E C O n S T I T U T I O n
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch02_030-065.indd 36 11/28/18 5:28 PM
of Independence, written by Jefferson
and adopted by the Second Conti-
nental Congress, was an extraordinary
philosophical and political document.
Philosophically, the Declaration was
remarkable for its assertion that certain
rights, called “unalienable rights”—
including life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness—could not be abridged
by governments. In the world of 1776,
a world in which some kings still
claimed to rule by divine right, this was
a dramatic statement.
Politically, the Declaration was re-
markable because it focused on griev-
ances, aspirations, and principles that
might unify the various colonial groups
that were otherwise divided economi-
cally, philosophically, and by region.
The Declaration was an attempt to
identify and articulate a history and set
of principles that might help to forge
national unity.7 It also explained to the
rest of the world why American colo-
nists were attempting to break away
from Great Britain.
THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION CREATED
AMERICA’S FIRST NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
Having declared their independence, the colonies needed to establish a govern-
mental structure. In November 1777 the Continental Congress adopted the Articles
of Confederation, the United States’ first written constitution. Although it was not
ratified by all the states until 1781, it was the country’s operative constitution until
the final months of 1788.
The Articles of Confederation were concerned primarily with limiting the powers
of the central government. The central government, first of all, was based entirely in
a Congress. Since it was not intended to be a powerful government, it was given no
executive branch. Execution of its laws was to be left to the individual states. Second,
the Congress had little power. Its members were not much more than delegates or
messengers from the state legislatures. They were chosen by the state legislatures, their
salaries were paid out of the state treasuries, and they were subject to immediate recall
by state authorities. In addition, each state, regardless of its size, had only a single vote.
The Congress was given the power to declare war and make peace, to make
treaties and alliances, to coin or borrow money, and to regulate trade with the
The purpose of the Declaration of Independence
was to explain to the world why the colonists
had rebelled against the British and sought
self-government. Every year, Americans celebrate
the signing of the Declaration on the Fourth
of July.
37T H E F I r S T F O U n D I n G : I D E A L S , I n T E r E S T S , A n D C O n F L I C T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch02_030-065.indd 37 11/28/18 5:28 PM
Native Americans. It could also appoint the senior officers of the U.S. Army. But
it could not levy taxes or regulate commerce among the states. Moreover, the
army officers it appointed had no army to serve in because the nation’s armed
forces were composed of the state militias. And in order to amend the Articles,
all 13 states had to agree—a virtual impossibility. Probably the most unfortunate
part of the Articles of Confederation was that the central government could not
prevent one state from discriminating against other states in the quest for foreign
commerce.
The relationship between the Congress and the states under the Articles of Con-
federation was one in which the states retained virtually all governmental powers.
It was properly called a confederation (a system of government in which states retain
sovereign authority except for the powers expressly delegated to the national gov-
ernment) because, as provided under Article II, “each state retains its sovereignty,
freedom and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by
this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”
Not only was there no executive, there also was no judicial authority and no other
means of enforcing the Congress’s will. If there was to be any enforcement at all, the
states would do it for the Congress.8
The Failure of the Articles of Confederation
Made the “Second Founding” Necessary
The Declaration of Independence
and the Articles of Confederation
were not sufficient to hold the new
nation together as an independent
and effective nation-state. From
almost the moment of armistice
with the British in 1783, moves were afoot to reform and strengthen the Articles
of Confederation.
Competition among the states for foreign commerce posed a special prob-
lem to the new country because it allowed the European powers to play the
states against one another, which not only made America seem weak and vul-
nerable abroad but also created confusion on both sides of the Atlantic. At one
point during the winter of 1786–87, John Adams of Massachusetts, a leader in
the independence struggle, was sent to negotiate a new treaty with the British,
one that would cover disputes left over from the war. The British government
responded that, because the United States under the Articles of Confedera-
tion was unable to enforce existing treaties, it would negotiate with each of the
13 states separately.
At the same time, well-to-do Americans—in particular the New England
merchants and southern planters—were troubled by the influence that “radical”
forces exercised in the Continental Congress and in the governments of sever-
al of the states. As a result of the Revolution, one key segment of the colonial
Analyze the reasons many Americans
thought a new Constitution was
needed, and assess the obstacles
to a new Constitution
38 C H A P T E R 2 T H E F O U n D I n G A n D T H E C O n S T I T U T I O n
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch02_030-065.indd 38 11/28/18 5:28 PM
elite—the royal land office, and patent holders—was stripped of its economic and
political privileges. And while the pre-Revolutionary elite were weakened, the pre-
Revolutionary radicals were better organized than ever and now controlled such
states as Pennsylvania and Rhode Island, where they pursued economic and
political policies that struck terror into the hearts of the pre-Revolutionary
political establishment. Of course, the central government under the Articles of
Confederation was powerless to intervene.
THE ANNAPOLIS CONVENTION WAS KEY TO
CALLING A NATIONAL CONVENTION
The continuation of international weakness and domestic economic turmoil
led many Americans to consider whether their newly adopted form of govern-
ment might not already require revision. In the fall of 1786, many state lead-
ers accepted an invitation from the Virginia legislature for a conference of
representatives of all the states, to be held in Annapolis, Maryland. Delegates
from only five states actually attended, so nothing substantive could be accom-
plished. Still, this conference was the first step toward what is now known as the
second founding. The one positive thing that came out of the Annapolis
convention was a carefully worded resolution calling on the Congress to send
commissioners to Philadelphia at a later time “to devise such further provisions
as shall appear to them necessary to render the Constitution of the Federal
Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union.”9 But the resolution did
not necessarily imply any desire to do more than improve and reform the Articles
of Confederation.
The government under the Articles did enact some important measures,
including the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.
The Land Ordinance established the principles of land surveying and landowner-
ship that governed America’s westward expansion, and under the Northwest
Ordinance the states agreed to surrender their western land claims, which opened
the way for the admission of new states to the Union. Still, the young nation’s
political and economic position deteriorated during the 1780s, and something
had to be done.
SHAYS’S REBELLION SHOWED HOW WEAK
THE GOVERNMENT WAS
It is quite possible that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia
would never have taken place at all except for a single event that occurred during the
winter following the Annapolis convention: Shays’s Rebellion.
Daniel Shays, a former army captain, led a mob of farmers in a rebellion against
the government of Massachusetts, which had levied heavy taxes against them. The
purpose of the rebellion was to prevent foreclosures on farmers’ debt-ridden land
by keeping the county courts of western Massachusetts from sitting until after the next
election. A militia force, organized by the Governor of Massachusetts and privately
39FA I L U r E O F T H E A r T I C L E S M A D E T H E “ S E C O n D F O U n D I n G ” n E C E S S A r Y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch02_030-065.indd 39 11/28/18 5:28 PM
funded by a group of prominent merchants, dispersed
the mob, but for several days in February 1787, Shays
and his followers terrified the state government by
attempting to capture the federal arsenal at Spring-
field, provoking an appeal to the Congress to help
restore order. Within a few days, the state government
regained control and captured 14 of the rebels. (All
were eventually pardoned.) Later that year, a newly
elected Massachusetts legislature granted some of the
farmers’ demands.
George Washington summed up the effects of this
incident: “I am mortified beyond expression that in
the moment of our acknowledged independence we
should by our conduct verify the predictions of our
transatlantic foe, and render ourselves ridiculous and
contemptible in the eyes of all Europe.”10
The Congress under the Confederation had
been unable to act decisively in a time of crisis. This
provided critics of the Articles of Confederation
with precisely the evidence they needed to push the
Annapolis resolution through the Congress. Thus,
the states were asked to send representatives to
Philadelphia to discuss constitutional revision.
Delegates were eventually sent by every state except
Rhode Island.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION DIDN’T START
OUT TO WRITE A NEW CONSTITUTION
The delegates who convened in Philadelphia in May 1787 had political strife, inter-
national embarrassment, national weakness, and local rebellion fixed in their minds.
Recognizing that these issues were symptoms of fundamental flaws in the Articles
of Confederation, the delegates soon abandoned the plan to revise the Articles and
committed themselves to a second founding—a second, and ultimately successful,
attempt to create a legitimate and effective national system of government. This
effort would occupy the convention for the next five months.
A Marriage of Interest and Principle For years, scholars have disagreed about
the motives of the Founders in Philadelphia. Among the most controversial views
of the framers’ motives is the “economic interpretation” put forward by historian
Charles Beard and his disciples.11 According to Beard’s account, America’s Founders
were a collection of securities speculators and property owners whose only aim was
personal enrichment. From this perspective, the Constitution’s lofty principles are
little more than sophisticated masks behind which the most venal interests sought
to enrich themselves.
In 1787, Daniel Shays led a
makeshift army against the
federal arsenal at Springfield to
protest heavy taxes levied by the
Massachusetts legislature. The
rebellion proved the Articles of
Confederation were too weak to
protect the fledgling nation.
40 C H A P T E R 2 T H E F O U n D I n G A n D T H E C O n S T I T U T I O n
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch02_030-065.indd 40 11/28/18 5:28 PM
The opposing view is that the framers of the Constitution were concerned with
philosophical and ethical principles. Indeed, the framers did try to devise a system of
government consistent with the dominant philosophical and moral principles of the
day. But, in fact, these two views belong together; the Founders’ interests were rein-
forced by their principles. The convention that drafted the American Constitution was
chiefly organized by the New England merchants and southern planters. Although
the delegates representing these groups did not all hope to profit personally from an
increase in the value of their securities, as Beard would have it, they did hope to benefit
in the broadest political and economic sense by breaking the power of their radical
foes and establishing a system of government more compatible with their long-term
economic and political interests. Thus, the framers sought to create a new government
capable of promoting commerce and protecting property from radical state legislatures
and populist forces hostile to the interests of the commercial and propertied classes.
The Great Compromise The proponents of a new government fired their opening
shot on May 29, 1787, when Edmund Randolph of Virginia offered a resolution
that proposed corrections and enlargements in the Articles of Confederation. The
proposal, reflecting the strong influence of James Madison, was no simple motion;
rather, it provided for an entirely new government.
The portion of Randolph’s motion that became most controversial was called
the Virginia Plan. This plan provided for a system of representation in the national
legislature based upon the population of each state or the proportion of each state’s
revenue contribution to the national government or both. (Randolph also pro-
posed a second chamber of the legislature, to be elected by the members of the first
chamber.) Since the states varied enormously in size and wealth, the Virginia Plan
was heavily biased in favor of the large states.
While the convention was debating the Virginia Plan, opposition to it began to
mount as more delegates arrived in Philadelphia. William Paterson of New Jersey
introduced a new resolution known as the New Jersey Plan, which called for equal
state representation in the national legislature regardless of population. Its main
proponents were delegates from the less populous states, including Delaware, New
Jersey, Connecticut, and New York, who asserted that the more populous states,
such as Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Massachusetts, and Georgia, would
dominate the new government if representation were determined by population.
The smaller states argued that each state should be equally represented in the new
regime regardless of the state’s population.
The issue of representation was one that threatened to wreck the entire consti-
tutional enterprise. Delegates conferred, factions maneuvered, and tempers flared.
James Wilson of Pennsylvania told the small-state delegates that if they wanted
to disrupt the union, they should go ahead. The separation, he said, could “never
happen on better grounds.” Small-state delegates were equally blunt. Gunning
Bedford of Delaware declared that the small states might, if forced, look elsewhere
for friends. “The large states,” he said, “dare not dissolve the confederation. If they
do the small ones will find some foreign ally of more honor and good faith, who will
take them by the hand and do them justice.” These sentiments were widely shared.
41FA I L U r E O F T H E A r T I C L E S M A D E T H E “ S E C O n D F O U n D I n G ” n E C E S S A r Y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch02_030-065.indd 41 11/28/18 5:28 PM
The union, as Luther Martin of Maryland put it, was “on the verge of dissolution,
scarcely held together by the strength of a hair.”12
The outcome of this debate was the Connecticut Compromise, also known as the
Great Compromise. Under the terms of this compromise, in the first chamber of Congress,
the House of Representatives, the representatives would be apportioned according to the
population in each state. This, of course, was what delegates from the large states had
sought. But in the second chamber, the Senate, each state would have equal representa-
tion regardless of its population; this provision addressed the concerns of the small states.
This compromise was not immediately satisfactory to all the delegates. Indeed, two of the
most vocal members of the small-state faction, John Lansing and Robert Yates of New
York, were so incensed by the concession that their colleagues had made to the large-state
forces that they stormed out of the convention. In the end, however, most of the delegates
preferred compromise to the breakup of the Union, and the plan was accepted.
The Question of Slavery: The Three-Fifths Compromise Many of the conflicts
that emerged during the Constitutional Convention were reflections of the funda-
mental differences between the slave and the nonslave states—differences that pitted
the southern planters against New England merchants. This was one example of the
conflict that would later almost destroy the Republic.
More than 90 percent of the country’s slaves resided in five states—Georgia, Maryland,
North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia—where they accounted for 30 percent
of the total population. In some places, slaves outnumbered nonslaves by as many as 10
to 1. For the Constitution to embody any principle of national supremacy, some basic
decisions would have to be made about the place of slavery in the general scheme. James
Madison observed, “It seemed now to be pretty well understood that the real difference
of interests lay, not between the large and small but between the northern and southern
states. The institution of slavery and its consequences formed the line of discrimination.”13
The issue of slavery was the most difficult one faced by the framers, and it nearly
destroyed the Union. Although some delegates believed slavery to be morally wrong,
an evil and oppressive institution that made a mockery of the ideals and values
espoused in the Constitution, morality was not the issue that caused the framers
to support or oppose the Three-Fifths Compromise. Whatever they thought of the
institution of slavery, most delegates from the northern states opposed counting
slaves in the distribution of congressional seats. James Wilson of Pennsylvania, for
example, argued that if slaves were citizens, they should be treated and counted
like other citizens. If, on the other hand, they were property, then why should not
other forms of property be counted toward the apportionment of representatives?
But southern delegates made it clear that if the northerners refused to give in, they
would never agree to the new government. William R. Davie of North Carolina
heatedly asserted that the people of North Carolina would never enter the Union if
slaves were not counted as part of the basis for representation. Without such agree-
ment, he asserted ominously, “the business was at an end.” Even southerners such as
Edmund Randolph of Virginia, who conceded that slavery was immoral, insisted on
including slaves in the allocation of congressional seats. Eventually the North and
South compromised on the issue of slavery and representation. Indeed, northerners
42 C H A P T E R 2 T H E F O U n D I n G A n D T H E C O n S T I T U T I O n
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch02_030-065.indd 42 11/28/18 5:28 PM
even agreed to permit a continuation of the odious slave trade until 1808 in order to
keep the South in the Union. Eventually, the disparate interests of the North and the
South could no longer be reconciled, and a bloody civil war was the result.
Northerners and southerners eventually reached agreement through the Three-
Fifths Compromise. The seats in the House of Representatives would be apportioned
according to a “population” in which only three-fifths of slaves would be counted.
The slaves would not be allowed to vote, of course; but the number of representa-
tives would be apportioned accordingly.
The Constitution Created Both Bold
Powers and Sharp Limits on Power
The political significance of the Great
Compromise and the Three-Fifths
Compromise was to reinforce the
unity of the mercantile and planter
forces that sought to create a new
government. The Great Compromise
reassured those in both groups who
Despite the Founders’ emphasis on liberty, the new Constitution allowed slavery. In this 1792
painting, Liberty Displaying the Arts and Sciences, the books, instruments, and classical columns
at the left contrast with the kneeling slaves at the right—illustrating the divide between America’s
rhetoric of liberty and equality and the realities of slavery.
Explain how the Constitution
attempted to improve America’s
governance, and outline the major
institutions established by the
Constitution
43C O n S T I T U T I O n C r E AT E D B O L D P O W E r S A n D S H A r P L I M I T S O n P O W E r
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch02_030-065.indd 43 11/28/18 5:28 PM
feared that this new governmental framework would reduce the importance of their
own local or regional influence. The Three-Fifths Compromise temporarily defused
the rivalry between the merchants and planters. Their unity secured, members of
the alliance supporting the establishment of a new government moved to fashion
a constitutional framework consistent with their economic and political interests.
In particular, the framers sought a new government that, first, would be strong
enough to promote commerce and protect property from radical state legislatures
such as Rhode Island’s. This became the constitutional basis for national control
over commerce and finance and for the establishment of national judicial supremacy
and the effort to construct a strong presidency. (See Table 2.1 for a comparison of
the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution.) Second, the framers sought to
prevent what they saw as the threat posed by the “excessive democracy” of the state
and national governments under the Articles of Confederation. This led to such
constitutional principles as a bicameral legislature (a legislative assembly composed
of two chambers or houses), checks and balances (mechanisms through which each
branch of government is able to participate in and influence the activities of the
other branches), staggered terms in office with longer terms for senators, and
indirect election (selection of the president not by voters directly but by an
electoral college; senators also were chosen indirectly, by state legislatures). Third,
the framers, lacking the power to force the states or the public at large to accept
the new form of government, sought to identify principles that would help to
secure support. This became the basis of the constitutional provision for direct
popular election of representatives and, subsequently, for the addition of the
Bill of Rights (the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, ratified in 1791; they
ensure certain rights and liberties to the people). Finally, the framers wanted to
be certain that the government they created did not pose an even greater threat
to its citizens’ liberties and property rights than did the radical state legislatures
they feared and despised. To prevent the new government from abusing its power,
the framers incorporated principles such as the separation of powers (the division
of governmental power among several institutions that must cooperate in
de cision-making) and federalism (a system of government in which power is
divided, by a constitution, between a central government and regional govern-
ments) into the Constitution.
THE LEGISL ATIVE BRANCH WAS DESIGNED
TO BE THE MOST POWERFUL
In Article I, Sections 1–7, the Constitution provides for a Congress consisting of
two chambers: a House of Representatives and a Senate. Members of the House of
Representatives were given two-year terms in office and were to be elected directly
by the people. Members of the Senate were to be appointed by the state legisla-
tures (this was changed in 1913 by the Seventeenth Amendment, which instituted
direct election of senators) for six-year terms. These terms were staggered so that
the appointments of one-third of the senators would expire every two years. The
Constitution assigned somewhat different tasks to the House and Senate. Although
the approval of each body was required for the enactment of a law, the Senate alone
44 C H A P T E R 2 T H E F O U n D I n G A n D T H E C O n S T I T U T I O n
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch02_030-065.indd 44 11/28/18 5:28 PM
was given the power to ratify treaties and approve presidential appointments. The
House, on the other hand, was given the sole power to originate revenue bills.
The structure of the legislative branch reflected the framers’ major goals. The
House of Representatives was designed to be directly responsible to the people in
order to encourage popular consent for the new Constitution and to help enhance
the power of the new government. At the same time, to guard against “excessive
democracy,” the Constitution checks the power of the House of Representatives
MAJOR PROVISIONS ARTICLES CONSTITUTION
Executive branch none President of the United States
Judiciary no federal court system.
Judiciary exists only at
state level.
Federal judiciary headed by the
Supreme Court
Legislature Unicameral legislature
with equal representation
for each state. Delegates
to the Congress of the
Confederation were
appointed by the states.
Bicameral legislature consisting
of Senate and House of
representatives. Each state is
represented by two senators,
while apportionment in the House
is based on state population.
Senators are chosen by the state
legislatures (changed to popular
election in 1913) and House
members by popular election.
Fiscal and economic
powers
The national government
is dependent upon the
states to collect taxes.
The states are free to
coin their own money,
print paper money, and
sign commercial treaties
with foreign governments.
Congress given the power to levy
taxes, coin money, and regulate
commerce. States prohibited
from coining money or entering
into treaties with other nations.
Military The national government
is dependent upon state
militias and cannot
form an army during
peacetime.
The national government is
authorized to maintain an army
and navy.
Legal supremacy State constitutions and
state law are supreme.
national Constitution and
national law are supreme.
Constitutional
amendment
Must be agreed upon by
all states.
Must be agreed upon by three-
fourths of the states.
TABLE 2.1
Comparing the Articles of Confederation
and the Constitution
45C O n S T I T U T I O n C r E AT E D B O L D P O W E r S A n D S H A r P L I M I T S O n P O W E r
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch02_030-065.indd 45 11/28/18 5:28 PM
with that of the Senate, whose members were to be appointed by the states for long
terms rather than elected directly by the people. The purpose of this provision, accord-
ing to Alexander Hamilton, was to avoid “an unqualified complaisance to every sud-
den breeze of passion, or to every transient impulse which the people may receive.”14
Staggered terms of service in the Senate, moreover, were intended to make that body
even more resistant to popular pressure. Since only one-third of the senators would
be selected at any given time, the composition of the institution would be protected
from changes in popular preferences transmitted by the state legislatures. This would
prevent what James Madison called “mutability in the public councils arising from a
rapid succession of new members.”15 Thus, the structure of the legislative branch was
designed to contribute to governmental power, to promote popular consent for the
new government, and at the same time to place limits on the popular political currents
that many of the framers saw as a radical threat to the economic and social order.
The issues of power and consent were important throughout the Constitution.
Section 8 of Article I specifically listed the powers of Congress, which include the
authority to collect taxes, borrow money, regulate commerce, declare war, and main-
tain an army and navy. By granting Congress these powers, the framers indicated very
clearly that they intended the new government to be far more powerful than its pre-
decessor. At the same time, by defining the new government’s most important pow-
ers as belonging to Congress, the framers sought to promote popular acceptance of
this critical change by reassuring citizens that their views would be fully represented
whenever the government exercised its new powers.
As a further guarantee to the people that the new government would pose no
threat to them, the Constitution seems to say that any powers not listed are not
granted at all. Specific powers granted to Congress in the Constitution are expressed
powers. But the framers intended to create an active and powerful government, so
they also included the necessary and proper clause, sometimes known as the elastic
clause, which declared that Congress could write laws needed to carry out its
expressed powers. This clause indicated that the expressed powers could be broadly
interpreted as a source of strength for the national government, not a limitation on
it. In response to the charge that they intended to give the national government too
much power, the framers adopted language in the Tenth Amendment stipulating
that powers not specifically granted by the Constitution to the federal government
were reserved to the states or to the people. As we will see in Chapter 3, the resulting
tension between the elastic clause and the Tenth Amendment has been at the heart
of constitutional struggles between federal and state powers.
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH CREATED
A BRAND NEW OFFICE
The Articles of Confederation had not provided for an executive branch, and the
framers viewed this as a source of weakness, so the Constitution provides for the
establishment of the presidency in Article II. As Hamilton commented, the presi-
dential article aimed toward “energy in the Executive.” It did so in an effort to
overcome the natural tendency toward stalemate that was built into the bicameral
46 C H A P T E R 2 T H E F O U n D I n G A n D T H E C O n S T I T U T I O n
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch02_030-065.indd 46 11/28/18 5:28 PM
legislature as well as into the separation of powers among the three branches. The
Constitution affords the president a measure of independence from the people and
from the other branches of government—particularly the Congress.
In line with the framers’ goal of increased power to the national government,
the president is granted the unconditional power to receive ambassadors from other
countries—this amounts to the power to “recognize” other countries—as well as the
power to negotiate treaties, although their acceptance requires the approval of two-thirds
of the Senate. The president is also given the unconditional right to grant reprieves and
pardons, except in cases of impeachment, and the powers to appoint major departmental
personnel, to convene Congress in special session, and to veto congressional enactments.
The veto power is formidable, but it is not absolute, since Congress can override it by a
two-thirds vote, reflecting the framers’ concern with checks and balances.
The framers hoped to create a presidency that would make the federal govern-
ment rather than the states the agency capable of timely and decisive action to deal
with public issues and problems. At the same time, however, the framers sought to
help the presidency withstand excessively democratic pressures by creating a system
of indirect rather than direct election through an electoral college.
THE JUDICIAL BRANCH WAS A CHECK
ON TOO MUCH DEMOCRACY
In establishing the judicial branch in Article III, the Constitution reflects the fram-
ers’ preoccupation with nationalizing governmental power and checking radical
democratic impulses while preventing the new national government from interfer-
ing with liberty and property.
Under the provisions of Article III, the framers created a court that was to be literally
a supreme court of the United States and not merely the highest court of the na-
tional government. The most important expression of this intention was granting the
Supreme Court the power to resolve any conflicts that might emerge between federal
and state laws. In particular, the Supreme Court is given the right to determine whether
a power is exclusive to the national government, concurrent with the states, or exclusive
to the states. In addition, the Supreme Court is assigned jurisdiction over controversies
between citizens of different states. The long-term significance of this provision was that
as the country developed a national economy, it came to rely increasingly on the federal
judiciary, rather than on the state courts, for the resolution of disputes.
Federal judges are given lifetime appointments in order to protect them from
popular politics and from interference by the other branches. This, however, does
not mean that the judiciary remains totally impartial to political considerations or
to the other branches, for the president is to appoint the judges and the Senate to
approve the appointments. Congress also has the power to create inferior (lower)
courts, change the jurisdiction of the federal courts, add or subtract federal judges,
and even change the size of the Supreme Court.
No explicit mention is made in the Constitution of judicial review, the power of
the courts to review and, if necessary, declare actions of the legislative and execu-
tive branches invalid or unconstitutional. The Supreme Court asserted this power
47C O n S T I T U T I O n C r E AT E D B O L D P O W E r S A n D S H A r P L I M I T S O n P O W E r
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch02_030-065.indd 47 11/28/18 5:28 PM
in Marbury v. Madison (1803).16 Its assumption of this power, as we shall see in
Chapter 12, was based not on the Constitution itself but on the politics of later
decades and the membership of the Court.
NATIONAL UNITY AND POWER SET THE NEW CONSTITUTION
APART FROM THE OLD ARTICLES
Various provisions in the Constitution address the framers’ concern with national
unity and power, including Article IV’s provisions for comity (reciprocity) among
states and among citizens of all states. Each state is prohibited from discriminating
against the citizens of other states in favor of its own citizens, and the Supreme Court
is charged with deciding in each case whether a state has discriminated against goods
or people from another state. The Constitution restricts the power of the states in
favor of ensuring enough power to the national government to give the country a
free-flowing national economy.
The framers’ concern with national supremacy was also expressed in Article VI,
in the supremacy clause, which provides that national laws and treaties “shall be the
supreme Law of the Land” and superior to all laws adopted by any state or any subdivi-
sion. This means that states are expected to respect all laws made under the “Authority
of the United States.” The supremacy clause also binds the officials of all state and local
governments as well as the federal government to take an oath of office to support the
national Constitution. This means that every action taken by the U.S. Congress has to
be applied within each state as though the action were in fact state law.
THE CONSTITUTION ESTABLISHES THE
PROCESS FOR AMENDMENT
The Constitution establishes procedures for its own revision in Article V. Its provi-
sions are so difficult that the document has been successfully amended only 17 times
since 1791, when the first 10 amendments were adopted. Thousands of other amend-
ments have been proposed in Congress, but fewer than 40 of them have even come
close to fulfilling the Constitution’s requirement of a two-thirds vote in Congress.
THE CONSTITUTION SETS FORTH RULES
FOR ITS OWN RATIFICATION
The rules for the ratification of the Constitution are set forth in Article VII. Nine
of the 13 states have to ratify, or agree to, the terms in order for the Constitution to
be formally adopted.
THE CONSTITUTION LIMITS THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT’S POWER
As we have indicated, although the framers sought to create a powerful national
government, they also wanted to guard against possible misuse of that power. To
that end, the framers incorporated two key principles into the Constitution: the
48 C H A P T E R 2 T H E F O U n D I n G A n D T H E C O n S T I T U T I O n
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch02_030-065.indd 48 11/28/18 5:28 PM
separation of powers and federalism. A third set of limitations, the Bill of Rights,
was added to the Constitution in the form of 10 amendments proposed by the
first Congress and ratified by the states in 1791. Most of the framers had thought a
Bill of Rights to be unnecessary but accepted the idea during the debates over the
Constitution’s ratification.
The Separation of Powers No principle of politics was more widely shared at the
time of the 1787 Founding than the principle that power must be used to balance
power. As mentioned earlier in the chapter, Montesquieu believed that this
balance was an indispensable defense against tyranny. His writings, especially his
major work, The Spirit of the Laws, “were taken as political gospel” at the Philadel-
phia convention.17 Although the principle of the separation of powers is not expli-
citly stated in the Constitution, the entire structure of the national government is
built precisely on Article I (the legislature), Article II (the executive), and Article III
(the judiciary; see Figure 2.1).
However, separation of powers is nothing but mere words on parchment without a
method to maintain that separation. The method became known by the popular label
FIGURE 2.1
The Separation of Powers
Enforces laws
Commander in chief of
armed forces
Makes foreign treaties
Proposes laws
Appoints Supreme Court
justices and federal
court judges
Pardons those convicted
in federal court
Passes federal laws
Controls federal
appropriations
Approves treaties
and presidential
appointments
Regulates interstate
commerce
Establishes lower court
system
Decides constitutionality
of laws
Reviews lower court
decisions
Decides cases involving
disputes between states
EXECUTIVELEGISLATIVE JUDICIAL
49C O n S T I T U T I O n C r E AT E D B O L D P O W E r S A n D S H A r P L I M I T S O n P O W E r
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch02_030-065.indd 49 11/28/18 5:28 PM
“checks and balances” (see Figure 2.2). Each branch is given not only its own powers
but also some power over the other two branches. Among the most familiar checks
and balances are the president’s veto as a power over Congress and Congress’s power
over the president through its control of appointments to high executive posts and to
the judiciary. Congress also has power over the president with its control of appropri-
ations (the spending of government money) and the right of approval of treaties (by
the Senate). The judiciary has the power of judicial review over the other two branches.
Another important feature of the separation of powers is the principle of
giving each of the branches a distinctly different constituency. Theorists such as
Montesquieu called this a “mixed regime,” with the president chosen indirectly by
electors, the House by popular vote, the Senate (originally) by state legislature, and
the judiciary by presidential appointment. By these means, the occupants of each
branch would tend to develop very different outlooks on how to govern, different
definitions of the public interest, and different alliances with private interests.
Federalism Compared to the confederation principle of the Articles of Confede-
ration, federalism was a step toward greater centralization of power. The delegates
FIGURE 2.2
Checks and Balances
EXECUTIVE
LEGISLATIVE
JUDICIAL
Legislative over Judicial
Can change size of federal court
system and the number of Supreme
Court justices
Can propose constitutional amendments
Can reject Supreme Court nominees
Can impeach and remove federal judges
Legislative over Executive
Can override presidential veto
Can impeach and remove president
Can reject president’s appointments
and refuse to ratify treaties
Can conduct investigations into
president’s actions
Can refuse to pass laws or to
provide funding that president
requests
Judicial over Executive
Can declare executive actions
unconstitutional
Power to issue warrants
Chief justice presides over
impeachment of president
Judicial over
Legislative
Can declare laws
unconstitutional
Chief justice presides
over Senate during
hearing to impeach
the president
Executive over Legislative
Can veto acts of Congress
Can call Congress into a special
session
Carries out, and thereby interprets,
laws passed by Congress
Vice president casts tie-breaking
vote in the Senate
Executive over Judicial
Nominates Supreme Court
justices
Nominates federal judges
Can pardon those convicted in
federal court
Can refuse to enforce
Court decisions
50 C H A P T E R 2 T H E F O U n D I n G A n D T H E C O n S T I T U T I O n
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch02_030-065.indd 50 11/28/18 5:28 PM
agreed that they needed to place more power at the national level, without com-
pletely undermining the power of the state governments. Thus, they devised a sys-
tem of two sovereigns—the states and the nation—with the hope that competition
between the two would be an effective limitation on the power of both.
The Bill of Rights Late in the Philadelphia convention of 1787, a motion was made
to include a list of citizens’ rights in the Constitution. After a brief debate in which
hardly a word was said in its favor and only one speech was made against it, the
motion was almost unanimously defeated. Most delegates sincerely believed that
since the federal government was already limited to its expressed powers, further
protection of citizens was not needed. The delegates argued that the states should
adopt bills of rights because their greater powers needed greater limitations. But
almost immediately after the Constitution was ratified, there was a movement to
adopt a national bill of rights. This is why the Bill of Rights, adopted in 1791,
comprises the first 10 amendments to the Constitution rather than being part of
the body of it. (We will have a good deal more to say about the Bill of Rights in
Chapter 4.)
Ratification of the Constitution
Was Difficult
The first hurdle facing the proposed
Constitution was ratification by state
conventions of delegates elected by
the people of each state. This struggle
for ratification was carried out in 13 separate campaigns. Each involved different
people, moved at a different pace, and was influenced by local and national con-
siderations. Two sides faced off throughout the states, however; the two sides called
themselves Federalists and Antifederalists (see Table 2.2).
The Federalists (who more accurately should have called themselves “National-
ists” but who took their name to appear to follow in the Revolutionary tradition)
supported the constitution proposed at the American Constitutional Convention of
1787 and preferred a strong national government. The Antifederalists favored strong
state governments and a weak national government and opposed the document
produced at the Constitutional Convention. They preferred a federal system of gov-
ernment that was decentralized; they took their name by default, in reaction to
their better-organized opponents. The Federalists were united in their support of
the Constitution, while the Antifederalists were divided over possible alternatives to
the Constitution.
During the struggle over ratification of the Constitution, Americans argued
about great political principles. How much power should the national government
be given? What safeguards would most likely prevent the abuse of power? What
institutional arrangements could best ensure adequate representation for all Ameri-
cans? Was tyranny to be feared more from the many or from the few?
Present the controversies involved
in the struggle for ratification
51r AT I F I C AT I O n O F T H E C O n S T I T U T I O n W A S D I F F I C U LT
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch02_030-065.indd 51 11/28/18 5:28 PM
FEDERALISTS AND ANTIFEDERALISTS FOUGHT BITTERLY
OVER THE WISDOM OF THE NEW CONSTITUTION
During the ratification struggle, thousands of essays, speeches, pamphlets, and let-
ters were written in support of and in opposition to the proposed Constitution. The
best-known pieces supporting ratification of the Constitution were the 85 essays
written, under the name of “Publius,” by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison,
and John Jay between the fall of 1787 and the spring of 1788—known today as the
Federalist Papers. They not only defended the principles of the Constitution but also
sought to dispel fears of a strong national authority. The Antifederalists published
essays of their own, arguing that the new Constitution betrayed the Revolution and
was a step toward monarchy. Among the best of the Antifederalist works were the
essays, usually attributed to New York Supreme Court justice Robert Yates, that
were written under the name of “Brutus” and published in the New York Journal at
the same time the Federalist Papers appeared. The Antifederalist view was also ably
presented in the pamphlets and letters written by a former delegate to the Con-
tinental Congress and future U.S. senator, Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, using
the pen name “The Federal Farmer.” These essays highlight the major differences
of opinion between Federalists and Antifederalists. Federalists appealed to basic
principles of government in support of their nationalist vision. Antifederalists cited
equally fundamental precepts to support their vision of a looser confederacy of
small republics. Three areas of disagreement were representation, majority tyranny,
and governmental power.
FEDERALISTS ANTIFEDERALISTS
Who were they? Property owners, creditors,
merchants
Small farmers, frontiersmen,
debtors, shopkeepers, some
state government officials
What did they
believe?
Believed that elites were
most fit to govern; feared
“excessive democracy”
Believed that government
should be closer to the people;
feared concentration of power in
hands of the elites
What system of
government did
they favor?
Favored strong national
government; believed in
“filtration” so that only elites
would obtain governmental
power
Favored retention of power
by state governments and
protection of individual rights
Who were their
leaders?
Alexander Hamilton, James
Madison, George Washington
Patrick Henry, George Mason,
Elbridge Gerry, George Clinton
TABLE 2.2
Federalists versus Antifederalists
52 C H A P T E R 2 T H E F O U n D I n G A n D T H E C O n S T I T U T I O n
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch02_030-065.indd 52 11/28/18 5:28 PM
Representation The Antifederalists believed that the best and most representative
government was closest to the people, what we would think of as local and state
governments. These smaller, more homogeneous governing units would provide “a
true picture of the people . . . [possessing] the knowledge of their circumstances and
their wants.”18 A strong national government could not represent the interests of the
nation as effectively, the Antifederalists argued, because the nation as a whole was
simply too large and diverse.
The Federalists, on the other hand, thought that some distance between the peo-
ple and their representatives might be a good thing because it would encourage the
selection of a few talented and experienced representatives to serve in a national
legislature who could balance the wishes of the people with their own considered
judgment. In James Madison’s view, representatives would not simply mirror soci-
ety; rather, they must be “[those] who possess [the] most wisdom to discern, and
[the] most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society.”19
Tyranny Both Federalists and Antifederalists feared tyranny, oppressive and unjust
government that employs cruel and arbitrary use of power and authority. But each
painted a different picture of what kind of tyranny to fear.
The Antifederalists feared that tyranny would arise from the tendency of
all governments to become more “aristocratic,” wherein a few individuals in
positions of authority would use their positions to gain more and more power
over the people. For this reason, Antifederalists were sharply critical of those
features of the Constitution that limited direct popular influence over the
government, including the election of senators by state legislatures, election
of the president by the electoral college, and selection of federal judges by the
president and the Senate. Judges, who are appointed for life, were seen as an
especially dire threat: “I wonder if the world ever saw . . . a court of justice invested
with such immense powers, and yet placed in a situation so little responsible,”
protested Brutus.20
For the Federalists, tyranny in a republic was less likely to come from aristocrats
and more likely to come from the majority. They feared that a popular majority,
“united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse
to the rights of other citizens,” would attempt to “trample on the rules of justice.”21
Those features of the Constitution opposed by the Antifederalists were the very ones
that the Federalists defended as the best hope of avoiding tyranny. The sheer size
and diversity of the American nation, as represented in the two houses of Congress,
would provide a built-in set of balances that would force competing interests to
moderate and compromise.
Governmental Power A third difference between Federalists and Antifederalists
was over the matter of governmental power. Both sides agreed on the principle of
limited government, meaning a government whose powers are defined and limited by a
constitution; but they differed on how best to limit the government.
Antifederalists wanted the powers of the national government to be carefully
specified and limited. Otherwise, the federal government would “swallow up all the
53r AT I F I C AT I O n O F T H E C O n S T I T U T I O n W A S D I F F I C U LT
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch02_030-065.indd 53 11/28/18 5:28 PM
power of the state governments.” Antifederalists bitterly attacked the supremacy
clause and the elastic clause of the Constitution, saying that these provisions gave
the national government dangerously unlimited grants of power. They also insisted
that a bill of rights be added to the Constitution to place limits on the government’s
power over citizens.
Federalists favored a national government with broad powers to defend the
nation from foreign threats, guard against domestic strife and insurrection, pro-
mote commerce, and expand the nation’s economy. Federalists agreed that such
power could be abused but believed that the best safeguard against such abuse
was through the Constitution’s internal checks and controls, not by keeping
the national government weak. As Madison put it, “The power surrendered by
the people is first divided between two distinct governments [federal and state],
and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate
departments. Hence, a double security arises to the rights of the people. The
different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be
controlled by itself.”22 The Federalists considered a bill of rights to be unneces-
sary, although this Antifederalist demand was eventually embraced by Federalists,
including Madison.
Debates over how much power the national government should have continue today. After the
San Bernardino shooting in 2015, the FBI demanded Apple unlock the perpetrator’s iPhone for
details into his criminal activity. Here, a group protests the FBI’s infringement on the right
to privacy.
54 C H A P T E R 2 T H E F O U n D I n G A n D T H E C O n S T I T U T I O n
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch02_030-065.indd 54 11/28/18 5:28 PM
There is tremendous variation across the
world’s democracies. All democracies
possess some form of an executive, a
legislature, and a judiciary; but the amount
of power that each branch has varies. note
that in some systems, no one branch has
very much power. In the United States,
that is because of the system of checks
and balances among the branches. Israel
and the United Kingdom, which lack written
constitutions, have branches with even
less power than in the United States.
Comparing Systems
of Government
COUNTRY
WRITTEN
CONSTITUTION?
FEDERAL
OR
UNITARY
SYSTEM
STRENGTH
OF
EXECUTIVE
STRENGTH OF
LEGISLATURE
JUDICIAL
INDEPENDENCE
Brazil Yes Federal High Medium High
France Yes Unitary High Low Low
India Yes Federal Medium Low Medium
Israel no Unitary Low Low Medium
South
Africa
Yes Unitary Medium Low High
Tunisia Yes Unitary High Medium Low
United
States
Yes Federal Low Medium High*
United
Kingdom
no Unitary High* Low Medium
*Although the Comparative Constitutions Project classifies the formal powers of both the American presidency and the judicial
branch, as originally provided for in the Constitution, as relatively weak, we have classified both here as strong, based on the
greater powers that have developed over time.
SOURCE: Comparative Constitutions Project, “CCP Rankings,” http://comparativeconstitutionsproject.org/ccp-rankings/
(accessed 7/16/15).
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch02_030-065.indd 55 11/28/18 5:28 PM
BOTH FEDERALISTS AND ANTIFEDERALISTS CONTRIBUTED
TO THE SUCCESS OF THE NEW SYSTEM
In general, the Federalist vision of America triumphed. The Constitution adopted
in 1789 creates the framework for a powerful national government that for more
than 200 years has defended the nation’s interests, promoted its commerce, and
maintained national unity. In one notable instance, the national government fought
and won a bloody war to prevent the nation from breaking apart. And despite this
powerful government, the system of internal checks and balances has functioned
reasonably well, as the Federalists predicted, to prevent the national government
from tyrannizing its citizens.
Although they were defeated in 1788, the Antifederalists present us with an im-
portant picture of a road not taken and of an America that might have been. Would
Americans in the eighteenth century have been worse off if they had been governed
by a confederacy of small republics linked by a national administration with severely
limited powers? Were the Antifederalists correct in predicting that a government
given great power in the hope that it might do good would, through “insensible
progress,” inevitably turn to evil purposes?
Changing the Constitution
The Constitution has endured for
more than two centuries as the frame-
work of government because it has
changed over time.
AMENDMENTS: MANY ARE CALLED; FEW ARE CHOSEN
The inevitable need for change was recognized by the framers of the Constitution,
and the provisions for amendment (a change added to a bill, law, or constitution) were
incorporated into Article V. The Constitution has proven to be extremely difficult to
amend. Since 1789, more than 11,000 amendments have been formally offered in
Congress. Of these, Congress officially proposed only 29, and 27 of these were even-
tually ratified by the states.
Four methods of amendment are provided for in Article V:
1. Passage in House and Senate by two-thirds vote, then ratification by majority
vote of the legislatures of three-fourths (now 38) of the states.
2. Passage in House and Senate by two-thirds vote, then ratification by conven-
tions called for the purpose in three-fourths of the states.
3. Passage in a national convention called by Congress in response to petitions
by two-thirds of the states, then ratification by majority vote of the legislatures
of three-fourths of the states.
4. Passage in a national convention, as in method 3, then ratification by conven-
tions called for the purpose in three-fourths of the states.
Trace how the Constitution has
changed over time through the
amendment process
56 C H A P T E R 2 T H E F O U n D I n G A n D T H E C O n S T I T U T I O n
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch02_030-065.indd 56 11/28/18 5:28 PM
Figure 2.3 illustrates each of these possible methods. Since no amendment has ever
been proposed by national convention, routes 3 and 4 have never been employed. And
route 2 has only been employed once (the Twenty-First Amendment, which repealed the
Eighteenth Amendment, or Prohibition). Thus, route 1 has been used for all the others.
Now it should be clear why it has been so difficult to amend the Constitution. The
requirement of a two-thirds vote in the House and the Senate means that any propos-
al for an amendment in Congress can be killed by only 34 senators or 136 members
of the House. What is more, if the necessary two-thirds vote is obtained, the amend-
ment can still be killed by the refusal or inability of only 13 out of 50 state legislatures
to ratify it. Since each state has an equal vote regardless of its population, the 13
holdout states may represent a very small fraction of the total American population.
THE AMENDMENT PROCESS REFLECTS “HIGHER L AW”
Most efforts to amend the Constitution have failed because they were simply
attempts to use the Constitution as an alternative to legislation for dealing directly
with a specific public problem. Successful amendments, on the other hand, are
concerned with the structure or composition of government (see Table 2.3; the
FIGURE 2.3
Four Ways the Constitution Can Be Amended
*This method of proposal has never been employed. Thus, amendment routes 3 and 4 have never been attempted.
**For each amendment proposal, Congress has the power to choose the method of ratification, the time limit
for consideration by the states, and other conditions of ratification. The movement to repeal Prohibition in the
Twenty-First Amendment was the only occasion in which route 2 was used successfully.
The National Level:
Proposal of
Amendments
Method 1
Method 2
Method 3
Method 4
The State Level:
Rati�cation of
Amendments
C**
Acceptance by
majority vote in the
legislatures of
three-fourths of the
states (38 states)
D**
Acceptance by
conventions called
for the purpose in
three-fourths of the
states (38 states)
B*
Passage in a national
convention called by
Congress in
response to petitions
by two-thirds of the
states (34 states)
A
Passage in House
and Senate, each by
two-thirds vote
57C H A n G I n G T H E C O n S T I T U T I O n
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch02_030-065.indd 57 11/28/18 5:28 PM
AMENDMENT PURPOSE
I Congress is not to make any law establishing a religion or abridging
free exercise of religion, speech, press, assembly, or petitioning the
government for redress of grievances.
II, III, IV no branch of government may infringe on the right of people
to keep arms (II), is not arbitrarily to occupy homes for a militia (III),
and is not to engage in the search or seizure of evidence without
a court warrant swearing to belief in the probable existence of a
crime (IV).
V, VI, VII, VIII The courts* are not to hold trials for serious offenses without
provision for a grand jury (V), a petit (trial) jury (VII), a speedy trial (VI),
presentation of charges (VI), confrontation of hostile witnesses (VI),
immunity from testimony against oneself (V), and immunity from more
than one trial for the same offense (V). neither bail nor punishment
can be excessive (VIII), and no property can be taken without just
compensation (V).
IX, X Limits on National Government: All rights and powers not enumerated
are reserved to the states or the people.
XI Limited jurisdiction of federal courts over suits involving the states.
XII Provided separate ballot for vice president in the electoral college.
XIII Eliminated slavery and eliminated the right of states to allow property
in persons.**
XIV Asserted the principle of national citizenship and prohibited the states
from infringing upon the rights of citizens of the nation, no matter
that they happened to live in that state. Also prohibited states from
denying voting rights to male citizens over the age of 21.†
XV Extended voting rights to all races.
XVI Established national power to tax incomes.
XVII†† Provided direct election of senators.
XIX Extended voting rights to women.
XX Eliminated “lame-duck” session of Congress.
XXII Limited presidential term.
XXIII Extended voting rights to residents of the District of Columbia.
XXIV Extended voting rights to all classes by abolition of poll taxes.
XXV Provided presidential succession in case of disability.
TABLE 2.3
Amendments to the Constitution
58 C H A P T E R 2 T H E F O U n D I n G A n D T H E C O n S T I T U T I O n
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch02_030-065.indd 58 11/28/18 5:28 PM
AMENDMENT PURPOSE
XXVI Extended voting rights to citizens aged 18 and over.‡
XXVII Limited Congress’s power to raise its own salary.
TABLE 2.3
Amendments to the Constitution—cont’d
first 10 amendments will be discussed in Chapter 4). This is consistent with the
dictionary, which defines constitution as the makeup or composition of something.
And it is consistent with the concept of a constitution as “higher law” because the
whole point and purpose of a higher law is to establish a framework within which
government and the process of making ordinary law can take place. Even those who
would have preferred more changes to the Constitution have to agree that there
is great wisdom in this principle. A constitution ought to enable legislation and
public policies to be enacted, but it should not determine what that legislation or
those public policies ought to be.
For those whose hopes for change center on the Constitution, it must be empha-
sized that the amendment route to social change is, and always will be, extremely
limited. Through a constitution it is possible to establish a working structure
of government and basic rights of citizens by placing limitations on the powers of
that government. Once these goals have been accomplished, the next problem is how
to extend rights to those people who do not already enjoy them. Of course, the Con-
stitution cannot enforce itself. But it can and does have a real influence on everyday
life because a right or an obligation set forth in the Constitution can become a cause
of action in the hands of an otherwise powerless person.
Private property is an excellent example. Property is one of the most fundamental
and well-established rights in the United States, but it is well established not because
it is recognized in so many words in the Constitution but because legislatures and
courts have made it a crime for anyone, including the government, to trespass or to
take away property without compensation.
* These amendments also impose limits on the law-enforcement powers of federal (and especially) state and local
executive branches.
** The Thirteenth Amendment was proposed January 31, 1865, and adopted less than a year later, on December 18,
1865.
† In defining citizenship, the Fourteenth Amendment actually provided the constitutional basis for expanding the
electorate to include all races, women, and residents of the District of Columbia. Only the “18-year-olds’ amendment”
should have been necessary since it changed the definition of citizenship. The fact that additional amendments were
required following the Fourteenth suggests that voting is not considered an inherent right of U.S. citizenship. Instead,
it is viewed as a privilege.
†† The Eighteenth Amendment, ratified in 1919, outlawed the sale and transportation of liquor. It was repealed by the
Twenty-First Amendment, ratified in 1933.
‡ The Twenty-Sixth Amendment holds the record for speed of adoption. It was proposed on March 23, 1971, and
adopted on July 5, 1971.
59C H A n G I n G T H E C O n S T I T U T I O n
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch02_030-065.indd 59 11/28/18 5:28 PM
A constitution is good if it produces the cause of action that leads to good legis-
lation, good court decisions, and appropriate police behavior. A constitution cannot
eliminate power. But its principles can be a citizen’s dependable defense against the
abuse of power.
The Constitution
WHAT DO WE WANT?
The Constitution’s framers placed individual liberty ahead of all other political values,
a concern that led many of the framers to distrust both democracy and equality. They
feared that democracy could degenerate into a majority tyranny in which the popu-
lace, perhaps led by rabble-rousing demagogues, trampled on liberty. As for equality,
the framers were products of their time and place; our contemporary ideas of racial
and gender equality would have been foreign to them. The basic structure of the
Constitution—separated powers, internal checks and balances, and federalism—was
designed to safeguard liberty, and the Bill of rights created further safeguards for
liberty. At the same time, however, many of the Constitution’s other key provisions,
such as indirect election of senators and the president and the appointment of judges
for life, were designed to limit democracy and, hence, the threat of majority tyranny.
By championing liberty, however, the framers virtually guaranteed that democracy
and even a measure of equality would sooner or later evolve in the United States.
The “Who Participates?” feature on the facing page traces the expansion of the
United States from the founding to today. Where they have liberty, more and more
people, groups, and interests will engage in politics and gradually overcome whatever
restrictions might have been placed on participation. They will fight for their rights and
interests, and in doing, may achieve greater equality, as Jim Obergefell did in securing
marriage equality for same-sex couples. By granting citizens the freedom to exercise
voice, liberty is over time conducive to democracy.
60 C H A P T E R 2 T H E F O U n D I n G A n D T H E C O n S T I T U T I O n
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch02_030-065.indd 60 11/28/18 5:28 PM
Who Gained the Right to
Vote through Amendments?
WHO PAR TICIPATES?
*Percentages are of the adult (18+) population. These �gures are approximate
for 1789 and 1869. The votings rights of convicted felons are restricted in
some states and of noncitizens in all states.
SOURCES: U.S. Census of Population and Housing, 1790–2010,
www.census.gov/prod/www/decennial.html (accessed 9/28/15);
United States Elections Project, www.electproject.org/national-1789–present
(accessed 9/27/15).
Adult Citizens Eligible to Vote in National Elections*
27.9%
1789
The Founding:
White men of property,
age 21+
31.7%
1869
15th Amendment:
All men, age 21+
92.6%
1920
19th Amendment:
All men and women,
age 21+
99.9%
1971
26th Amendment:
All men and women,
age 18+
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch02_030-065.indd 61 11/28/18 5:28 PM
Practice Quiz
1. How did the British attempt to raise
revenue in the north American
colonies? (p. 34)
a) income taxes
b) tariffs, duties, and other taxes on
commerce
c) expropriation and sale of native
American lands
d) licensing fees for the mining of
natural resources
e) requests for voluntary donations
2. In their fight against British taxes such
as the Stamp Act and the Sugar Act
of 1764, new England merchants and
southern planters allied with which of
the following groups? (pp. 34–35)
a) shopkeepers, small farmers,
laborers, and artisans
b) shopkeepers only
c) laborers only
d) artisans only
e) shopkeepers and laborers only
Review your rights as outlined in the Constitution, a copy of which is
reproduced in the appendix of this book.
Find out what voting rights are retained by individuals with mental illness.
Go to www.bazelon.org and search “voting” for more information.
Know Your Constitutional Rights
Find out what voting rights are retained by individuals who have been
convicted of a felony. Go to www.ncsl.org and search “felon voting rights”
for more information.
Should noncitizens (such as longtime permanent legal residents) have the
right to vote? Go to www.latimes.com/citizenship to read more and to join
the conversation online.
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
62 S T U D Y G U I D E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch02_030-065.indd 62 11/28/18 5:28 PM
3. The first governing document in the
United States was (p. 37)
a) the Declaration of Independence.
b) the Articles of Confederation.
c) the Constitution.
d) the Bill of rights.
e) the Virginia Plan.
4. Who was responsible for executing laws
passed by the national government under
the Articles of Confederation? (p. 37)
a) the presidency
b) the Congress
c) the states
d) the federal judiciary
e) the federal bureaucracy
5. Which event led directly to the Con-
stitutional Convention by providing
evidence that the government created
under the Articles of Confederation
was unable to act decisively in times
of national crisis? (pp. 39–40)
a) the Boston Massacre
b) the Boston Tea Party
c) Shays’s rebellion
d) the Annapolis Convention
e) the War of 1812
6. Which state’s proposal embodied a
principle of representing states in the
Congress according to their size and
wealth? (p. 41)
a) Connecticut
b) Maryland
c) new Jersey
d) rhode Island
e) Virginia
7. The agreement reached at the
Constitutional Convention that deter-
mined that every five slaves would be
counted as three free persons for the
purposes of taxation and representa-
tion in the House of representatives
was called the (pp. 42–43)
a) Virginia Plan.
b) new Jersey Plan.
c) Connecticut Compromise.
d) Three-Fifths Compromise.
e) Great Compromise.
8. Which of the following mechanisms
were in the Congress to guard against
“excessive democracy”? (p. 44)
a) bicameralism
b) staggered terms in office
c) appointment of senators for long
terms
d) indirect election of the president
e) all of the above
9. Which of the following best describes
the Supreme Court as understood by
the Founders? (p. 47)
a) the body that would choose the
president
b) the principle check on presidential
power
c) arbiter of disputes within the Congress
d) a figurehead commission of elders
e) the highest court of both the
national government and the states
10. Theorists such as Montesquieu
referred to the system of giving each
branch of government a distinctly
different constituency as (p. 50)
a) a mixed regime.
b) a confederation.
c) a bicameral structure.
d) a limited government.
e) a federalist arrangement.
11. Which of the following were the
Antifederalists most concerned with?
(p. 51)
a) interstate commerce
b) the protection of property
c) the distinction between principles
and interests
d) the potential for tyranny in the
central government
e) abolishing slavery
12. Which of the following best describes
the process of amending the
Constitution? (p. 56)
a) It is difficult and has rarely been
used successfully to address
specific public problems.
b) It is difficult and has frequently
been used successfully to address
specific public problems.
c) It is easy and has rarely been used
successfully to address specific
public problems.
d) It is easy and has frequently been
used successfully to address
specific public problems.
e) It is easy, but it has never been
used for any purpose.
63S T U D Y G U I D E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch02_030-065.indd 63 11/28/18 5:28 PM
Key Terms
amendment (p. 56) a change added to a
bill, law, or constitution
Antifederalists (p. 51) those who favored
strong state governments and a weak
national government and were opponents
of the constitution proposed at the Ameri-
can Constitutional Convention of 1787
Articles of Confederation (p. 37) America’s
first written constitution; served as the
basis for America’s national government
until 1789
bicameral (p. 44) having a legislative
assembly composed of two chambers or
houses; distinguished from unicameral
Bill of Rights (p. 44) the first 10 amend-
ments to the Constitution, ratified in 1791;
they ensure certain rights and liberties of
the people
checks and balances (p. 44) mechanisms
through which each branch of government
is able to participate in and influence the
activities of the other branches. Major
examples include the presidential veto
power over congressional legislation, the
power of the Senate to approve presiden-
tial appointments, and judicial review of
congressional enactments
confederation (p. 38) a system of gov-
ernment in which states retain sovereign
authority except for the powers expressly
delegated to the national government
elastic clause (p. 46) Article I, Section 8,
of the Constitution (also known as the nec-
essary and proper clause), which declares
that Congress can write laws needed to
carry out its expressed powers, providing
Congress with the authority to make all
laws “necessary and proper” to do so
electoral college (p. 44) the electors from
each state who meet after the popular
election to cast ballots for president and
vice president
expressed powers (p. 46) specific powers
granted by the Constitution to Congress
(Article I, Section 8) and to the president
(Article II)
federalism (p. 44) a system of government
in which power is divided, by a constitution,
between the central (national) government
and regional (state) governments
Federalist Papers (p. 52) a series of essays
written by James Madison, Alexander
Hamilton, and John Jay supporting the
ratification of the Constitution
Federalists (p. 51) those who favored a
strong national government and supported
the constitution proposed at the American
Constitutional Convention of 1787
Great Compromise (p. 42) the agreement
reached at the Constitutional Convention
of 1787 that gave each state an equal
number of senators regardless of its
population but linked representation
in the House of representatives to
population
judicial review (p. 47) the power of the
courts to review and, if necessary, declare
actions of the legislative and executive
branches invalid or unconstitutional. The
Supreme Court asserted this power in
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
limited government (p. 53) a principle of
constitutional government; a government
whose powers are defined and limited by
a constitution
New Jersey Plan (p. 41) a framework for
the Constitution, introduced by William
Paterson, that called for equal state
representation in the national legislature
regardless of population
separation of powers (p. 44) the division
of governmental power among several
institutions that must cooperate in
decision-making
64 S T U D Y G U I D E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch02_030-065.indd 64 11/28/18 5:28 PM
supremacy clause (p. 48) Article VI of the
Constitution, which states that laws passed
by the national government and all treaties
“shall be the supreme law of the land” and
superior to all laws adopted by any state or
any subdivision
Three-Fifths Compromise (p. 43) the
agreement reached at the Constitutional
Convention of 1787 that stipulated that
for purposes of the apportionment of
congressional seats only three-fifths of
slaves would be counted
Ackerman, Erin, and Benjamin Ginsberg. A Guide to the United States Constitution.
4th ed. new York: W. W. norton, 2019.
Beeman, richard. Plain, Honest Men: The Making of the American Constitution. new York:
random House, 2009.
Chernow, ron. Alexander Hamilton. new York: Penguin Books, 2005.
Ellis, Joseph. The Quartet: Orchestrating the Second American Revolution. new York:
Knopf, 2015.
Gerstle, Gary. Liberty and Coercion: The Paradox of American Government from the Found-
ing to the Present. Princeton, nJ: Princeton University Press, 2015.
Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, and John Jay. The Federalist Papers. Edited by
Isaac Kramnick. new York: Viking, 1987.
Jensen, Merrill. The Articles of Confederation. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1963.
Paulson, Michael S, and Luke Paulson. The Constitution: An Introduction. new York: Basic
Books, 2017.
Storing, Herbert, ed. The Complete Anti-Federalist. 7 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1981.
Wood, Gordon S. Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic. new York: Oxford
University Press, 2011.
tyranny (p. 53) oppressive and unjust
government that employs cruel and unjust
use of power and authority
Virginia Plan (p. 41) a framework for the
Constitution, introduced by Edmund
randolph, that called for representation in
the national legislature based on the popu-
lation of each state
For Further Reading
65S T U D Y G U I D E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch02_030-065.indd 65 11/28/18 5:28 PM
030303
chapter
Federalism
WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES AND WHY IT MATTERS
Decades of work as a commercial fisherman and long-haul truck driver
left Larry Harvey with severe pain. The 70-year-old grandfather found one
thing that helped: medical marijuana, which was legalized in the state of
Washington in 1998. He and his wife included cannabis among the many
herbs they grew on their property outside a little town some 80 miles north
of Spokane.
One hot August day in 2012, armed federal agents stormed the Harveys’
home. Harvey was handcuffed and sent to jail, despite his poor health and
advanced age. Prosecutors said guns had been found along with the
marijuana. A judge released him 17 days later, but the lack of health care in
jail caused his gout to flare up and left him unable to walk more than short
distances.1
Washington State, along with 32 other states and the District of Columbia,
protect qualified medical marijuana patients from arrest and prosecution
(as of 2018, 10 states permit the use of recreational marijuana as well).2
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch03_066-095.indd 66 11/28/18 4:26 PM
67
Federalism
Federalism is at the center of a national debate over
marijuana policy: while marijuana remains illegal under
federal law, some states permit marijuana for medicinal
or recreational use. Larry Harvey, pictured here, was
prosecuted under federal law for growing marijuana
though Washington state allowed the practice.
Yet under federal law marijuana is classified as a Schedule I controlled sub-
stance, in the same category as heroin, LSD, and MDMA (“ecstasy”). Users
are subject to arrest and prosecution by the federal Drug Enforcement Admini-
stration. Thus medical marijuana patients like Harvey are caught in a clash
between state and federal law. States can legalize medical marijuana, and
medical marijuana defenses can be mounted in state courts, but federal law
considers marijuana a dangerous drug with no medical value; evidence about
the medical necessity of marijuana for patient-defendants cannot even be
admitted in federal court.3
The federal response to the states has shifted over time. As state laws
began to loosen restrictions on marijuana starting in the late 1990s, the
federal government at first sought to assert its authority, raiding marijuana
clinics and individual homes like Harvey’s. In 2005 the Supreme Court ruled
that these federal actions were constitutional. By 2013, however, the Justice
Department under President Obama stated that it would not challenge state
laws so long as the states maintained a close watch over their marijuana
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch03_066-095.indd 67 11/28/18 4:26 PM
markets. Instead the federal government would focus its enforcement efforts
on specific issues, including trafficking by gangs, sales to minors, and selling
across state lines. It remains to be seen whether marijuana will be a focus of
a possibly renewed War on Drugs in the Trump administration.4
Larry Harvey’s situation and the debates about marijuana policy engage
some of the oldest questions in American government: What is the responsi-
bility of the federal government, and what is the responsibility of the states?
When should there be uniformity across the states, and when is it better to let
the states adopt their own laws based on the preferences of their population,
which may result in a diverse set of laws across the nation? The United States
is a federal system, in which the national government shares power with lower
levels of government. Throughout American history, lawmakers, politicians,
and citizens have wrestled with questions about how responsibilities should
be allocated across the different levels of government. Some responsibili-
ties, such as foreign policy, clearly lie with the federal government. Others,
such as divorce laws, are controlled by state governments. Many government
responsibilities are shared in American federalism and require cooperation
among local, state, and federal governments. The debate about “who should
do what” remains one of the most important discussions in American politics.
★ Describe what the Constitution says about the powers of the national
government and of the states (pp. 69–72)
★ Trace developments in the federal framework leading to a stronger
national government (pp. 73–84)
★ Analyze the changing role of states in the federal framework (pp. 85–89)
CHAP TER GOAL S
68 C H A P T E R 3 F E D E r A L I S M
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch03_066-095.indd 68 11/28/18 4:26 PM
Federalism Shapes American Politics
The Constitution has had a profound
influence on American life through
federalism, the division of powers and
functions between the national gov-
ernment and the state governments.
Governments can organize power
in a variety of ways. One of the most important distinctions is between unitary
and federal governments. In a unitary system, the central government makes the
important decisions and lower levels of government have little independent power.
In such systems, lower levels of government primarily implement decisions made by
the central government. In France, for example, the central government was once so
involved in the smallest details of local activity that the minister of education boasted
that by looking at his watch he could tell what all French schoolchildren were
learning at that moment because the central government set the school curriculum.
In a federal system, by contrast, the central government shares power or functions
with lower levels of government, such as regions or states. Nations with diverse
ethnic or language groupings, such as Switzerland and Canada, are most likely to
have federal arrangements. In federal systems, lower levels of government often have
significant independent power to set policy in some areas, such as education and
social programs, and to impose taxes. Yet the specific ways in which power is shared
vary greatly: no two federal systems are exactly the same.
FEDERALISM COMES FROM THE CONSTITUTION
The United States was the first nation to adopt federalism as its governing frame-
work. With federalism, the framers sought to limit the national government by
creating a second layer of state governments. American federalism thus recognized
two sovereigns in the original Constitution by granting a few “expressed powers” to
the national government and reserving the rest to the states.
The Powers of the National Government As we saw in Chapter 2, the expressed
powers granted to the national government are found in Article I, Section 8,
of the Constitution. These 17 powers include the powers to collect taxes, coin
money, declare war, and regulate commerce. Article I, Section 8, also contains
another important source of power for the national government: the implied powers
that enable Congress “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper
for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.” Such powers are not specifi-
cally expressed but are implied through the expansive interpretation of delegated
powers. Not until several decades after the Founding did the Supreme Court
allow Congress to exercise the power granted in this necessary and proper clause,
but as we shall see later in this chapter, this doctrine allowed the national govern-
ment to expand considerably the scope of its authority, although the process was
a slow one.
Describe what the Constitution
says about the powers of the
national government and of
the states
69F E D E r A L I S M S H A P E S A M E r I C A n P O L I T I C S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch03_066-095.indd 69 11/28/18 4:26 PM
Aside from these powers, the federal government operates with one other advan-
tage over the states: as mentioned in the last chapter, Article VI of the Constitution
says that whenever there is a conflict between a national law and a state law, the
national law shall prevail. This doctrine of national supremacy says that “[t]his Con-
stitution, and the Laws of the United States . . . and all Treaties made . . . shall be the
supreme Law of the Land,” even extending to state courts and constitutions.
The Powers of State Government One way in which the framers sought to pre-
serve a strong role for the states was through the Tenth Amendment to the Constitu-
tion. The Tenth Amendment states that the powers that the Constitution does not
delegate to the national government or prohibit to the states are “reserved to the
States respectively, or to the people.” The Antifederalists, who feared that a strong
central government would encroach on individual liberty, repeatedly pressed for
such an amendment as a way of limiting national power. The Federalists agreed
to the amendment because they did not think it would do much harm, given the
powers of the Constitution already granted to the national government. The Tenth
Amendment is also called the “reserved powers amendment” because it aims to
reserve powers to the states.
The most fundamental power that the states retain is that of coercion—the power
to develop and enforce criminal codes, to administer health and safety rules, and to
regulate the family via marriage and divorce laws. The states have the power to regulate
individuals’ livelihoods; if you’re a doctor or a lawyer or a plumber or a hairstylist, you
must be licensed by the state. Even more fundamentally, the states have the power
to define private property—private property exists because state laws against trespass
define who is and is not entitled to use a piece of property. If you own a car, your
owner ship isn’t worth much unless the state is willing to enforce your right to posses-
sion by making it a crime for anyone else to drive your car without your permission.
These laws are essential to citizens’ everyday lives, and the powers of the states regard-
ing such domestic issues are much greater than the powers of the national government.
A state’s authority to regulate the health, safety, and morals of its citizens is com-
monly referred to as the police power of the state. Policing is what states do—they
coerce you in the name of the community in order to maintain public order. And
this was exactly the type of power that the Founders intended the states, rather than
the federal government, to exercise.
In some areas, the states share concurrent power (authority possessed by both state
and national governments) with the national government, whereby they retain and
share some power to regulate commerce and to affect the currency—for example, by
being able to charter banks, grant or deny corporate charters, grant or deny licenses
to engage in a business or practice a trade, and regulate the quality of products
or the conditions of labor. Wherever there is a direct conflict of laws between the
federal and the state levels, the issue will most likely be resolved in favor of national
supremacy.
States’ Obligations to One Another The Constitution also creates obligations
among the states. These obligations, spelled out in Article IV, were intended to
70 C H A P T E R 3 F E D E r A L I S M
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch03_066-095.indd 70 11/28/18 4:26 PM
promote national unity. By requiring the
states to recognize actions and decisions
taken in other states as legal and proper, the
framers aimed to make the states less like
independent countries and more like parts
of a single nation.
Article IV, Section 1, establishes the
full faith and credit clause, stipulating that
each state is normally expected to honor
the “public Acts, Records, and judicial
Proceedings” that take place in any other
state. So, for example, if a person has a
restraining order placed on a stalker or
batterer in one state, the other states are
required to enforce that order as if they
had issued it.
Until recently, the full faith and credit
clause was embroiled in the controversy
over same-sex marriage. In 2004, Massa-
chusetts became the first state to legalize gay marriage. By 2015, 37 states plus
the District of Columbia had legalized gay marriage, and 13 states had either
state constitutional amendments or laws that barred same-sex marriage.5 The
principle of full faith and credit would seem to suggest that states without
same-sex marriage would be obliged to recognize such unions in their states, just
as they would recognize heterosexual marriages performed in other states. But
to forestall this possibility, in 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage
Act (DOMA), which declared that states did not have to recognize same-sex
marriage even if it were legal in other states. DOMA also said that the federal
government would not recognize same-sex marriage, even if legal in some
states, and that same-sex partners were not eligible for federal benefits such
as Medicare and Social Security. In 2013, however, the Supreme Court in
United States v. Windsor struck down part of the DOMA, ordering that same-sex
married couples receive equal treatment on issues relating to taxes, inheritance,
and other federal laws.6 It also opened the door for same-sex couples to receive
federal social benefits on the same terms as heterosexual married couples. The
court did not rule on whether states have to recognize same-sex marriages in
other states.
On the second anniversary of the Windsor ruling, the Supreme Court, in a
historic and long-awaited decision, ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment guar-
anteed a fundamental right to same-sex marriage. The case, Obergefell v. Hodges,
combined four lawsuits by same-sex couples challenging their home states’
refusals to grant same-sex marriage licenses or recognize same-sex marriages
performed out of state. While 37 states recognized same-sex marriage on the
eve of the Obergefell announcement, the Court’s 5–4 decision immediately
required that all 50 states must offer marriage licenses to two people of the
Previously a state-level policy, same-sex
marriage was declared a fundamental right
nationwide by the Supreme Court in 2015.
The decision prompted a brief backlash when
clerks in some states, such as Kim Davis
from Kentucky, pictured here, refused to
issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
71F E D E r A L I S M S H A P E S A M E r I C A n P O L I T I C S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch03_066-095.indd 71 11/28/18 4:26 PM
same sex and recognize same-sex marriages licensed out of state. In one stroke,
same-sex marriage turned from a state-level policy choice to a nationally recog-
nized right. In the aftermath of the Obergefell decision, several of the 13 states
that were mandated to lift their bans on same-sex marriage protested the ruling.
However, such resistance ebbed as it became clear that the courts would enforce
the constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
Article IV, Section 2, known as the “comity clause,” also seeks to promote
national unity. This clause provides that citizens enjoying the “privileges and
immunities” of one state should be entitled to similar treatment in other states. What
this has come to mean is that a state cannot discriminate against someone from
another state or give special privileges to its own residents. For example, in the
1970s, when Alaska passed a law that gave residents preference over nonresidents
in obtaining work on the state’s oil and gas pipelines, the Supreme Court ruled
the law illegal because it discriminated against citizens of other states.7 The comity
clause also regulates criminal justice among the states by requiring states to return
fugitives to the states from which they have fled. Thus, in 1952, when an inmate
escaped from an Alabama prison and sought to avoid being returned to Alabama on
the grounds that he was being subjected to “cruel and unusual punishment”
there, the Supreme Court ruled that he must be returned according to Article IV,
Section 2.8
Local Government and the Constitution Local government occupies a peculiar
but very important place in the American system (Table 3.1). In fact, the status
of American local government is probably unique in world experience. First, local
government has no status in the U.S. Constitution and is therefore an authority
or function under the control of the
states. State legislatures created local
governments, and state constitutions
and laws permit local governments
to take on some of the responsibili-
ties of the state governments. Most
states amended their constitutions to
give their larger cities home rule, pow-
ers delegated by the state to a local
unit of government to manage its
own affairs. Local governments have
always been creatures of the states.9
In recent years, some local govern-
ments have passed laws making pol-
icy on matters from minimum wage
to public broadband, only to have
state legislatures preempt, or remove,
that authority, illustrating the degree
to which local governments are cre-
ations of the state.
TABLE 3.1
90,107 Governments
in the United States
TYPE NUMBER
national 1
State 50
County 3,031
Municipal 19,519
Townships 16,360
School districts 12,880
Other special districts 38,266
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, www2.census.gov/govs/
cog/g12_org (accessed 11/02/13).
72 C H A P T E R 3 F E D E r A L I S M
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch03_066-095.indd 72 11/28/18 4:26 PM
The Definition of Federalism Has
Changed Radically over Time
Many of the fiercest political con-
troversies in American history have
revolved around competing views of
federalism. The best way to understand
these disputes, and how federalism has
been redefined throughout American history, is to examine how its conception has
changed over time. From 1789 to 1937, the political scales clearly favored the states
over the federal government. Then, from the New Deal period of the 1930s to the
present, some important limits were placed on state governments and the federal
government exerted far more power than it had under the traditional system. Over
the last 80 years, even as the trend has been toward centralization of government
power, the states have asserted themselves at certain times and in certain policy areas,
sometimes aided by the courts. At other moments a crisis shifts power toward the
national government again, as during the September 11, 2001, terror attacks and the
fiscal crisis that began in 2008.
FEDERALISM UNDER THE “TRADITIONAL SYSTEM”
GAVE MOST POWERS TO THE STATES
The prevailing view of national government–state government relations under the
traditional system was one of dual federalism. During this time, the states possessed
a vast amount of governing power, and virtually all of the important policies affect-
ing the lives of Americans were made by the state governments. For evidence, look
at Table 3.2, which lists the major types of public policies by which Americans
were governed for the first century and a half under the Constitution. Under this
traditional system, the national government was quite small by comparison both
with the state governments and with the governments of other Western nations.
It was also very narrowly specialized in the functions it performed. The national
government built or sponsored the construction of roads, canals, and bridges
(internal improvements). It provided cash subsidies to shippers and shipbuilders
and distributed free or low-priced public land to encourage western settlement
and business ventures. It placed relatively heavy taxes on imported goods (tariffs),
not only to raise revenues but also to protect “infant industries” from competition
from the more advanced European enterprises. It protected patents and provided
for a common currency, which encouraged and facilitated enterprises and helped
to expand markets.
What do these functions of the national government reveal? First, virtually
all the national government’s functions were aimed at assisting commerce.
Second, virtually none of the national government’s policies directly coerced citizens.
The emphasis of governmental programs was on assistance, promotion, and
encouragement—the allocation of land or capital to meet the needs of economic
development.
Trace developments in the federal
framework leading to a stronger
national government
73T H E D E F I n I T I O n O F F E D E r A L I S M H A S C H A n g E D r A D I C A L LY O v E r T I M E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch03_066-095.indd 73 11/28/18 4:26 PM
Meanwhile, state legislatures were also actively involved in economic regulation
during the nineteenth century. In the United States, then and now, private property
exists only in state laws and state court decisions regarding property, trespass, and
real estate. American capitalism took its form from state property and trespass laws
and from state laws and court decisions regarding contracts, markets, credit, bank-
ing, incorporation, and insurance. Laws concerning slavery were a subdivision of
property law in states where slavery existed. The practice of important professions,
such as law and medicine, was (and is) illegal except as provided for by state law.
Most criminal laws, from trespass to murder, have been state laws, as are require-
ments regarding the education of children. Thus, most of the fundamental govern-
ing in the United States was done by the states.
Ultimately, the fundamental impact of federalism on the way the United States
is governed comes not from any particular provision of the Constitution but from
TABLE 3.2
The Federal System: Specialization of
Governmental Functions, 1789–1937
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT
POLICIES (DOMESTIC)
STATE GOVERNMENT
POLICIES
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
POLICIES
Internal improvements
Subsidies
Tariffs
Public land disposal
Patents
Currency
Property laws (including slavery)
Estate and inheritance laws
Commerce laws
Banking and credit laws
Corporate laws
Insurance laws
Family laws
Morality laws
Public health laws
Education laws
general penal laws
Eminent domain laws
Construction codes
Land-use laws
Water and mineral laws
Criminal procedure laws
Electoral and political party laws
Local government laws
Civil service laws
Occupations and professions laws
Adaptation of
state laws to local
conditions
Public works
Contracts for public
works
Licensing of public
accommodation
Zoning and other
land-use regulation
Basic public services
74 C H A P T E R 3 F E D E r A L I S M
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch03_066-095.indd 74 11/28/18 4:26 PM
the framework itself, which has determined the flow of government functions
and, through that, the political development of the country. By allowing state
governments to do most of the fundamental governing, the Constitution saved
the national government from many policy decisions that might have proved too
divisive for a large and very young country. In helping the national government
remain small and apart from the most divisive issues of the day, federalism con-
tributed significantly to the political stability of the young nation, even as the
social, economic, and political systems of many of the states and regions of the
country were undergoing tremendous, profound, and sometimes violent change.10
As we shall see, some important aspects of federalism have changed, but the federal
framework has survived over two centuries and through a devastating civil war.
THE SUPREME COURT PAVED THE WAY FOR
THE END OF THE EARLY FEDERAL SYSTEM
As the nation grew, disputes arose about the powers of the federal government
versus the powers of the states. In the first several decades after the Founding,
the Supreme Court decided several critical cases that expanded federal powers
and facilitated trade across the states. These decisions removed barriers to trade
in the new nation and laid the groundwork for a national economy. However,
by the end of the nineteenth century, as reformers began to enact laws regulating
businesses through such measures as child labor restrictions, the Court took a
much more restrictive view of federal power. Not until well into the New Deal,
in 1937, did the federal government gain the expansive powers it exercises today.
Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution delegates to Congress the power “to regu-
late Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States and with the
Indian Tribes.” For most of the nineteenth century, the Supreme Court consis tently
interpreted this commerce clause in favor of national power over the economy. The first
and most important such case was McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), which involved
the question of whether Congress had the power to charter a national bank as such
an explicit grant of power was nowhere to be found in Article I, Section 8.11 Chief
Justice John Marshall answered that this power could be “implied” from other powers
that were expressly delegated to Congress, such as the “powers to lay and collect taxes;
to borrow money; to regulate commerce; and to declare and conduct a war.”
By allowing Congress to use the necessary and proper clause to interpret its
delegated powers expansively, the Supreme Court created the potential for an un-
precedented increase in national government power. Marshall also concluded that
whenever a state law conflicted with a federal law (as in the case of McCulloch v.
Maryland), the state law would be deemed invalid since the Constitution states
that “the Laws of the United States . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” Both
parts of this great case are pro-national, including the verification of the principle of
“national supremacy,” yet Congress did not immediately seek to expand the policies
of the national government.
Another major case, Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), reinforced this nationalistic
interpretation of the Constitution. The important but relatively narrow issue
75T H E D E F I n I T I O n O F F E D E r A L I S M H A S C H A n g E D r A D I C A L LY O v E r T I M E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch03_066-095.indd 75 11/28/18 4:26 PM
was whether the state of New York could grant a monopoly to Robert Fulton’s
steamboat company to operate an exclusive service between New York and
New Jersey. Chief Justice Marshall argued that New York State did not have
the power to grant this particular monopoly. In reaching this decision, Marshall
had to define what Article I, Section 8, meant by “commerce among the several
states.” He insisted that the definition was “comprehensive,” extending to “every
species of commercial intercourse.” However, this comprehensiveness was limited
“to that commerce which concerns more states than one.” Gibbons is important
because it established the supremacy of the national government in all matters
affecting what later came to be called “interstate commerce.”12 But the precise
meaning of interstate commerce would remain uncertain during several decades
of constitutional discourse. Backed by the implied powers and national supremacy
decision in McCulloch and by the broad definition of “interstate commerce” in
Gibbons, Article I, Section 8, was a source of power for the national government
as long as Congress sought to facilitate commerce through subsidies, services,
and land grants.
Later in the nineteenth century, though, the Supreme Court declared any effort of
the national government to regulate commerce in such areas as fraud, the production
of substandard goods, the use of child labor, or the existence of dangerous work-
ing conditions or long hours to be unconstitutional as a violation of the concept of
interstate commerce. Such legislation meant that the federal government was entering
the factory and the workplace—local areas—and was attempting to regulate goods
that had not yet passed into interstate commerce. To enter these local workplaces
was to exercise police power—a power reserved to the states. No one questioned the
power of the national government to regulate businesses that intrinsically involved
interstate commerce, such as railroads, gas pipelines, and waterway transportation.
But well into the twentieth century, the Supreme Court used the concept of interstate
commerce as a barrier against most efforts by Congress to regulate local conditions.
This interpretation of federalism gave the American economy a freedom from
federal government control that closely approximated the ideal of free enterprise.
The economy was never entirely free, of course; in fact, entrepreneurs themselves
did not want complete freedom from government. Between the Civil War and the
1930s, the federal government aided business by providing law and order; a stable
currency; roads, canals, and railroads; and the courts and police necessary to enforce
contracts and prevent trespass. But federalism, as interpreted by the Supreme Court
for 70 years after the Civil War, made it possible for business to have its cake and eat
it, too. Entrepreneurs enjoyed the benefits of national policies facilitating commerce
but were shielded by the courts from policies that regulate commerce by protecting
the rights of consumers and workers.13 In addition, the Tenth Amendment was used
to bolster arguments about states’ rights, the principle that the states should oppose
the increasing authority of the national government. This principle was most popu-
lar in the period before the Civil War.
In the early twentieth century, however, the Tenth Amendment appeared to lose
its force as reformers began to press for national regulations to limit the power of large
corporations and to protect the health and welfare of citizens, as we shall see next.
76 C H A P T E R 3 F E D E r A L I S M
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch03_066-095.indd 76 11/28/18 4:26 PM
FDR’S NEW DEAL REMADE THE GOVERNMENT
The New Deal of the 1930s marked a major change in how the courts interpreted
national power. The door to increased federal action opened when states proved
unable to cope with the demands brought on by the Great Depression. Before the
depression, states and localities took responsibility for addressing the needs of the
poor, usually through private charity. But the extent of the depression quickly
exhausted local and state capacities. By 1932, 25 percent of the workforce was
unemployed. The jobless lost their homes and settled into camps all over the
country, called “Hoovervilles” after President Herbert Hoover. Elected in 1928, the
year before the depression hit, Hoover steadfastly maintained that there was little
the federal government could do to alleviate these people’s misery caused by the
depression. It was a matter for state and local governments, he said.
Yet demands mounted for the federal government to take action. When Franklin
Delano Roosevelt took office in 1933, he energetically threw the federal government
into the business of fighting the depression through a number of proposals known
collectively as the New Deal. He proposed a variety of temporary measures to pro-
vide federal relief and work programs. Most of the programs he proposed were to be
financed by the federal government but administered by the states. In addition to
these temporary measures, Roosevelt presided over the creation of several important
federal programs designed to provide future economic security for Americans. The
New Deal signaled the rise of a more active national government.
For the most part, the new national programs that the Roosevelt adminis-
tration developed did not directly take power away from the states. Instead,
Washington typically redirected states by offering them
grants-in-aid, programs through which Congress provided
money to state and local governments on the condi-
tion that the funds be employed for purposes defined
by the federal government.
Franklin Roosevelt did not invent the idea of grants-
in-aid, but his New Deal vastly expanded the range
of grants-in-aid to include social programs, pro-
viding grants to the states for financial assistance
to poor children. Congress added more grants
after World War II, creating new programs to
help states fund activities such as providing
school lunches and building highways. Some-
times the national government required state or
local governments to match the national contri-
bution dollar for dollar, but in some programs,
John C. Calhoun, one of the most prominent advocates of
states’ rights, argued that states should have the right to
veto any federal law they found to be unconstitutional.
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch03_066-095.indd 77 11/28/18 4:26 PM
such as the development of the inter-
state highway system, the congres-
sional grants provided 90 percent
of the cost.
These types of federal grants-
in-aid are called categorical grants
because they are given to states
and localities by the national gov-
ernment on the condition that
expenditures be limited to a prob-
lem or group specified by law.
For the most part, the categorical
grants created before the 1960s
simply helped the states perform
their traditional functions.14 In the
1960s, however, the national role
expanded and federal funding in the
form of categorical grants increased
dramatically (see Figure 3.1). The
grants authorized during the 1960s
addressed national purposes much
more strongly than did earlier
grants. One of the most important—
and expensive—was the federal
Medicaid program, which provides
states with grants to pay for medical care for the poor, the disabled, and
many nursing home residents. Over time the value of categorical grants has risen
dramatically, increasing from $2.3 billion in 1950 to an estimated $675 billion
in 2017.
CHANGING COURT INTERPRETATIONS OF FEDERALISM
HELPED THE NEW DEAL WHILE PRESERVING
STATES’ RIGHTS
In a dramatic change beginning in 1937, the Supreme Court threw out the old
distinction between interstate and intrastate commerce on which it had relied in
the late 1800s and early 1900s. It converted the commerce clause from a source
of limitations to a source of power for the national government. The Court began
to refuse to review appeals that challenged acts of Congress protecting the rights of
employees to organize and engage in collective bargaining, regulating the amount of
farmland in cultivation, extending low-interest credit to small businesses and farmers,
and restricting the activities of corporations dealing in the stock market; it upheld
many other laws that contributed to the construction of the modern “welfare state.”15
The Court also reversed its position on the Tenth Amendment, which it had
used to strike down national laws as violations of state power. Instead, the Court
The New Deal expanded the scope of the federal
government. One of the largest and most effective
New Deal programs, the Works Progress Administra-
tion, employed millions of Americans in public-works
projects such as constructing highways, bridges, and
public parks.
78 C H A P T E R 3 F E D E r A L I S M
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch03_066-095.indd 78 11/28/18 4:26 PM
approved numerous expansions of national power, to such an extent that the Tenth
Amendment appeared irrelevant. In fact, in 1941, Justice Harlan Fiske Stone declared
that the Tenth Amendment was simply a “truism” that had no real meaning.16
Yet the idea that some powers should be reserved to the states did not go away.
Indeed, in the 1950s southern opponents of the civil rights movement revived the
idea of states’ rights. In 1956, 96 southern members of Congress issued a “Southern
Manifesto” in which they declared that southern states were not constitutionally
bound by Supreme Court decisions outlawing racial segregation. They believed
FIGURE 3.1
Historical Trend of Federal Grants-in-Aid,*
1960–2019 (in billions of dollars)**
Spending on federal grants-in-aid to the states and local governments has grown dramati-
cally since 1990. These increases reflect the growing public expectations about what
government should do. What has been the most important cause of the steady increase
in these grants?
*Excludes outlays for national defense and international affairs.
**Data in constant (fiscal year 2009) dollars.
†Data for 2018 and 2019 are estimated.
SOURCE: Office of Management and Budget, U.S. Budget for Fiscal Year 2019, Historical Tables: Table 12.1,
Summary Comparison of Total Outlays for Grants to State and Local Governments: 1940-2023, www.whitehouse
.gov/omb/historical-tables/ (accessed 6/8/18).
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
$700
’60 ’65 ’70 ’75 ’80 ’85 ’90 ’95 ’00 ’05 ’06 ’07 ’08 ’09 ’10 ’11 ’12 ’13 ’14 ’15 ’16 ’17 ’18† ’19†
Grants to the states rose sharply in
2009 as a result of federal efforts to
stimulate the economy.
The increasing costs of medical
care pushed up government
spending on health care
in the 2000s.
Federal Medicaid
program �rst enacted.
79T H E D E F I n I T I O n O F F E D E r A L I S M H A S C H A n g E D r A D I C A L LY O v E r T I M E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch03_066-095.indd 79 11/28/18 4:26 PM
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/
that states’ rights should override individual rights to liberty and formal equality.
With the triumph of the civil rights movement, the slogan of “states’ rights” became
tarnished by its association with racial inequality.
The 1990s saw a revival of interest in the Tenth Amendment and important
Supreme Court decisions limiting federal power. Much of the interest in the Tenth
Amendment stemmed from conservatives who believe that a strong federal govern-
ment encroaches on individual liberties. They believed such freedoms were better
protected by returning more power to the states through the process of devolution,
whereby a program is removed from one level of government by delegating it or
passing it down to a lower level of government, such as from the national govern-
ment to the state and local governments. In 1996, Republican presidential candidate
Bob Dole carried a copy of the Tenth Amendment in his pocket as he campaigned,
pulling it out to read at rallies.17
The Supreme Court’s 1995 ruling in United States v. Lopez fueled further
interest in the Tenth Amendment. In that case, the Court, stating that Congress
had exceeded its authority under the commerce clause, struck down a federal
law that barred handguns near schools.18 This was the first time since the New
Deal that the Court had limited congressional powers in this way. In 1997
the Court again relied on the Tenth Amendment to limit federal power in
Printz v. United States.19 The decision declared unconstitutional a provision of
the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act that required state and local law-
enforcement officials to conduct background checks on handgun purchasers. The
Court declared that this provision violated state sovereignty guaranteed in the
Tenth Amendment because it required state and local officials to administer a
federal regulatory program.
COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM PUSHES STATES
TO ACHIEVE NATIONAL GOALS
The growth of categorical grants, along with favorable court rulings, created a new
kind of federalism. If the traditional system of two sovereigns performing highly
different functions could be called dual federalism, historians of federalism suggest
that the system since the New Deal could be called cooperative federalism, in which
grants-in-aid have been used strategically to encourage states and localities to pursue
nationally defined goals, with national and state governments sharing powers and
resources via intergovernmental cooperation. One political scientist characterized
this as a move from “layer cake federalism” to “marble cake federalism,”20 in which
intergovernmental cooperation and sharing have blurred a once-clear distinguishing
line, making it difficult to say where the national government ends and the state and
local governments begin (see Figure 3.2).
For a while in the 1960s, it appeared as if the state governments would become
increasingly irrelevant to American federalism. Many of the new federal grants
bypassed the states and instead sent money directly to local governments and even
to local nonprofit organizations. The theme heard repeatedly in Washington was
that the states simply could not be trusted to carry out national purposes.21
80 C H A P T E R 3 F E D E r A L I S M
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch03_066-095.indd 80 11/28/18 4:26 PM
One of the reasons that Washington distrusted the states was the way African
American citizens were treated in the South. The southern states’ forthright defense
of segregation, justified on the grounds of states’ rights, tarnished the image of the
states as the civil rights movement gained momentum. The national officials who
planned the War on Poverty during the 1960s pointed to the racial exclusion prac-
ticed in the southern states as a reason for bypassing state governments. Political
scientist James Sundquist described their thinking: “In the drafting of the Economic
Opportunity Act, an ‘Alabama syndrome’ developed. Any suggestion within the
poverty task force that the states be given a role in the administration of the act was
met with the question, ‘Do you want to give that kind of power to [then–Alabama
governor] George Wallace?’”22 (Wallace at the time was nationally known for his
virulent opposition to the civil rights movement.)
Yet even though many national policies of the 1960s bypassed the states,
other new programs, such as Medicaid, relied on state governments for their
implementation. In addition, as the national government expanded existing
programs run by the states, states had to take on more responsibilities. These
new responsibilities meant that the states were now playing a critical role in the
federal system.
NATIONAL STANDARDS HAVE BEEN ADVANCED
THROUGH FEDERAL PROGRAMS
Over time, the Supreme Court has pushed for greater uniformity in rules and proce-
dures across the states. In addition to legal decisions, the national government uses
two other tools to create similarities across the states: grants-in-aid and regulations.
FIGURE 3.2
Dual versus Cooperative Federalism
In layer-cake federalism, the responsibilities of the national government and state govern-
ments are clearly separated. In marble-cake federalism, national policies, state policies,
and local policies overlap in many areas.
DUAL FEDERALISM COOPERATIVE FEDERALISM
“Marble Cake”
Cooperate
on some
policies
“Layer Cake”
National Government
State Governments
National Government
State Governments
81T H E D E F I n I T I O n O F F E D E r A L I S M H A S C H A n g E D r A D I C A L LY O v E r T I M E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch03_066-095.indd 81 11/28/18 4:26 PM
Grants-in-aid, as we have seen, are incentives: Congress provides an incentive by
giving money to state and local governments if they agree to spend it for the purposes
Congress specifies. But as Congress in the 1970s began to enact legislation in new
areas, such as environmental policy, it resorted to another tool: regulated federalism.23
The national government began to set standards of conduct or to require the states to
set standards that met national guidelines. The effect of these national standards is that
state and local policies in the areas of environmental protection, social services, and edu-
cation are more uniform from coast to coast than are other nationally funded policies.
Some national standards require the federal government to take over areas of
regulation formerly overseen by state or local governments. Such preemption (the
principle that allows the national government to override state or local actions in
certain policy areas) occurs when state and local actions are found to be inconsist-
ent with federal requirements. If this occurs, all regulations in the preempted area
must henceforth come from the national government. In many cases, the courts
determine the scope of the federal authority to preempt. For example, in 1973 the
Supreme Court struck down a local ordinance prohibiting jets from taking off from
the airport in Burbank, California, between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. It ruled that the fed-
eral Civil Aeronautics Act granted the Federal Aviation Administration all authority
over flight patterns, takeoffs, and landings and that local governments could not
impose regulations in this area.
As federal regulations increased after the 1970s, Washington increasingly preempted
state and local action in many different policy areas. After 1994, when Republicans
retook control of Congress, the federal government used its preemption power in
business’s favor, limiting the ability of states to tax and regulate industry. For exam-
ple, in 1998, Congress passed a law that prohibited states and localities from taxing
internet access services. The 1996 Telecommunications Act reduced local control by
giving broadcasters and digital companies broad discretion over where they could
erect digital television and cellular phone towers even if local citizens objected.24
In 2009, after only a few months in office, President Obama reversed the Bush
administration’s use of federal regulations to limit state laws. Under the new policy,
federal regulations should preempt state laws only in extraordinary cases. The presi-
dent directed agency leaders to review the regulations that had been put in place
over the previous 10 years and consider amending them if they interfered with the
“legitimate prerogatives of the states.”25 But the Obama administration did use its
power of preemption to challenge state immigration laws, charging that states were
making laws in a domain reserved for federal authority.
The growth of national standards has created some new problems and has raised
questions about how far federal standardization should go. One problem that
emerged in the 1980s was the increase in unfunded mandates—regulations or new
conditions for receiving grants that impose costs on state and local governments for
which they are not reimbursed by the national government. The growth of unfunded
mandates was the product of a Democratic Congress, which wanted to achieve liberal
social objectives, and Republican presidents who opposed increased social spending.
Between 1983 and 1991, Congress mandated standards in many policy areas, including
social services and environmental regulations, without providing additional funds to
82 C H A P T E R 3 F E D E r A L I S M
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch03_066-095.indd 82 11/28/18 4:26 PM
While the United States has evolved into
a system of cooperative federalism, some
democracies began that way. germany’s
constitution, adopted in 1949, was designed
to use a cooperative federal system to help
prevent the abuses of central government
power seen in Hitler’s germany. For
example, the upper house of the german
parliament comprises delegates from the
Länder (“states”) governments, giving the
states an official check on all national policy.
The most interesting blending of power,
however, is in taxation and spending. Unlike
U.S. states, german states and local governments
have no taxation powers, making them fully
dependent on federal funding. However, german
states are responsible for implementing most
government policy. As a result, almost two-thirds
of german government spending is carried out
by states and local governments, compared to
less than half of U.S. spending. This emphasis
on local spending includes the running of
germany’s extensive social security program,
a complex system carried out at the national,
state, and local levels. In the United States,
comparable social spending is done by the
national government or is left to Americans to
pay out of pocket.
Cooperative Federalism:
Competition or a Check on Power?
UNITED STATES GERMANY
50 states
National
Pensions, health, defense veterans
bene�ts, transportation, food and
agriculture, foreign policy, etc.
Education, general public
services, law enforcement,
economic affairs, health, etc.
Defense,
digital
infrastructure,
foreign policy
Welfare, general public
services, education,
economic affairs,
transport, etc.
Multilevel Social Security
System: pensions, child support,
unemployment insurance,
health, maternity leave, etc.
16 Länder
Taxation:
Federal only
52% 48 17% 40 43
State and local
Taxation:
Federal, state, and local
SOURCE: OECD, “Figure 2.42. Distribution of general government expenditures across levels of government, 2015 and
2016,” Government at a Glance 2017, www.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/government-at-a-glance-2017_gov_glance
-2017-en; “Regional Policy Profile: United States,” www.oecd.org/regional/regional-policy/profile-United-States
and “Regional Policy Profile: Germany,” www.oecd.org/regional/regional-policy/profile-Germnay (accessed 6/7/18).
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch03_066-095.indd 83 11/28/18 4:26 PM
meet those standards. Altogether, Congress
enacted 26 laws that imposed new regula-
tions or required states to expand existing
programs.26 For example, the 1973 Rehabili-
tation Act prohibited discrimination against
the disabled in programs that were partly
funded by the federal government. The new
law required state and local governments to
make public transit accessible to disabled
people with wheelchair lifts in buses, ele-
vators in train stations, and special trans-
portation systems where needed. These
requirements were estimated to cost state
and local governments $6.8 billion over
30 years.27 But Congress did not supply
additional funding to help states meet these
new requirements; the states had to shoulder
the increased financial burden themselves.
States complained that mandates took up
so much of their budgets that they were not
able to set their own priorities.28
These burdens became part of a rally-
ing cry to reduce the power of the federal
government—a cry that took center stage
when a Republican Congress was elected in
1994. One of the first measures the new
Congress passed was an act to limit the cost of unfunded mandates, the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). Under this law, Congress must estimate the
expense for any proposal it believes would exceed the threshold established in UMRA
($76 million in 2014, adjusted for inflation). Congress must then identify funding
sources for bills that exceed the threshold established in UMRA.
New national problems inevitably raise the question of who pays. Recently, concern
about unfunded mandates arose around health care reform. The major health care reform
enacted under President Obama, the Affordable Care Act of 2010, called for a major
expansion of Medicaid. Because Medicaid is partly funded by the states, any major
increase in the number of Medicaid recipients could impose a significant fiscal burden on
the states. Although the law provided additional federal aid to support the new require-
ments, the Medicaid provisions became a target for state challenges to the health care law.
One of the central claims in the 26 states’ lawsuits charged that the federal government
did not have the power to withhold Medicaid funds from states that did not implement
the new expansions. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that states could decline to
expand Medicaid coverage without losing their existing Medicaid funds. After the Court’s
decision, some Republican governors announced that they would not implement the
expanded coverage. By late 2018, 36 states plus the District of Columbia had decided to
expand Medicaid, and 14 had decided to not expand.
The federal government frequently
passes laws that impose mandates on the
states, such as the 1990 Americans with
Disabilities Act, which protects against
discrimination based on disability. States
were required to pay for changes to meet
federal standards for accessibility in public
transportation and public facilities.
84 C H A P T E R 3 F E D E r A L I S M
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch03_066-095.indd 84 11/28/18 4:26 PM
New Federalism Means
More State Control
Since the 1970s, as states have
become more capable of adminis-
tering large-scale programs, the idea
of devolution—transferring respon-
sibility for policy from the federal government to the states and localities—has
become popular.
Proponents of more state authority have looked to block grants as a way of reduc-
ing federal control. Block grants are federal grants-in-aid that allow states consi-
derable discretion in how the funds are spent. Richard Nixon led the first push for
block grants in the early 1970s. Nixon’s approach consolidated programs in the
areas of job training, community development, and social services into three large
block grants. These grants imposed some conditions on states and localities as to
how the money should be spent but avoided the narrow regulations contained in
the categorical grants discussed earlier. In addition, Congress approved a fourth
block grant called general revenue sharing, whereby the federal government provided
money to local governments and counties with no strings attached; localities could
spend the money as they wished. In enacting revenue sharing, Washington acknowl-
edged both the critical role that state and local governments play in implementing
national priorities and their need for increased funding and enhanced flexibility
in order to carry out that role (see Figure 3.3). Ronald Reagan’s version of New Federalism
The debate over national versus state control of speed limits arose in 1973, when gas prices skyrocketed
and supplies became scarce. Drivers nationwide were forced to wait in long lines at gas stations. The
federal government responded to the gas crisis by instituting a national 55-mile-per-hour speed limit.
Analyze the changing role of the
states in the federal framework
85n E W F E D E r A L I S M M E A n S M O r E S TAT E C O n T r O L
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch03_066-095.indd 85 11/28/18 4:26 PM
(returning power to the states through block grants) similarly aimed to reduce the
national government’s control. In all, Congress created 12 new block grants between
1981 and 1990.29
But this new approach, like those that preceded it, has not provided magic
solutions to the problems of federalism. For one thing, there is always a trade-off
between accountability—that is, whether the states are using funds for the purposes
intended—and flexibility. If the objective is to have accountable and efficient
government, it is not clear that state bureaucracies are any more efficient or more
capable than national agencies. In Mississippi, for example, the state Department
of Human Services spent money from the child care block grant for office furniture
and designer salt and pepper shakers that cost $37.50 a pair. As one Mississippi
state legislator said, “I’ve seen too many years of good ol’ boy politics to know
they shouldn’t [transfer money to the states] without stricter controls and require-
ments.”30 Even after block grants were created, Congress reimposed regulations in
order to increase the states’ accountability.
At times the federal government has also moved to limit state discretion over
spending in cases where it thinks states are too generous. For example, in 2007,
President Bush issued regulations that prevented states from providing benefits
under the State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to children in families
well above the poverty line. The Bush administration also barred states from provid-
ing chemotherapy to undocumented immigrants, who are guaranteed emergency
medi cal treatment under Medicaid.31
THERE IS NO SIMPLE ANSWER TO FINDING
THE RIGHT NATIONAL– STATE BAL ANCE
As Figure 3.4 indicates, federalism has changed dramatically over the course of Ameri-
can history, even over just the past several decades. Finding the right balance among
states and the federal government is a persistent challenge for American democracy.
FIGURE 3.3
Regulated versus New Federalism
Regulated Federalism New Federalism
National government sets policy for the states
State governments help pay for
and administer programs
State governments have �exibility to make policy
and administer programs
National government provides funding
National
standards
Conditional
grants
Unfunded
mandates
Block
grants
Revenue
sharing
Devolution
86 C H A P T E R 3 F E D E r A L I S M
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch03_066-095.indd 86 11/28/18 4:26 PM
In recent years, many of the most controversial issues in American politics—
including the appropriate size of public social spending, the rights and benefits of
immigrants (legal as well as undocumented), what government should do in response
to climate change, and whether and how government should regulate business and
moral behavior—have been fought out through the federal system. Politicians of all
stripes regularly turn to the federal government to override decisions made by states.
Likewise, when the federal government proves unable or unwilling to act, activists
and politicians try to achieve their goals in states and localities. In many cases, it is up
to the courts to decide which level of government should have the final say.
Although conservatives proclaim their preference for a small federal government and
their support for more state autonomy, in fact, they often expand the federal government
and limit state autonomy. President George W. Bush, for example, expanded federal
control and increased spending in various policy areas. The 2001 No Child Left Behind
Act, passed with Democratic support, introduced unprecedented federal intervention
in public education, traditionally a state and local responsibility. New detailed federal
testing requirements stipulating how states should treat failing schools were major
expansions of federal authority in education. When a number of states threatened to
defy some of the new federal requirements, Bush’s Department of Education relaxed its
tough stance and became more flexible in enforcing the act. But the administration did
not back down entirely, leading to several legal challenges to different aspects of the law.
In the Supreme Court, too, many decisions supported a stronger federal role over
the states. Decisions to uphold the federal Family and Medical Leave Act and the Amer-
icans with Disabilities Act asserted federal authority against state claims of immunity
from the acts. In one important 2005 case, the Court upheld the right of Congress to
ban medical marijuana, even though 11 states had legalized its use. Overturning a lower
court ruling that said Congress did not have authority to regulate marijuana when it had
been grown for noncommercial purposes in a single state, the Supreme Court ruled that
the federal government did have the power to regulate use of all marijuana under the
commerce clause. Even so, as we saw in the chapter opener, by 2018, 32 states and the
District of Columbia had legalized medical marijuana, and 10 states have now gone
FIGURE 3.4
The Changing Federal Framework
1789
Dual
Federalism
1789–1937
1937
Cooperative
Federalism
1937–60
1960
Regulated
Federalism
1960s–1970s
1970 2000
New
Federalism
1970s–
87n E W F E D E r A L I S M M E A n S M O r E S TAT E C O n T r O L
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch03_066-095.indd 87 11/28/18 4:26 PM
further to legalize its recreational use. Although the federal government has not endorsed
these laws, it has made prosecution of marijuana in these states a low priority.
The most significant Obama law to affect the states was the 2010 health care
overhaul. One controversial part of that legislation required states to expand their
Medicaid programs to cover more low-income residents and to offer them additional
services. As we saw earlier, the Supreme Court’s 2012 ruling in National Federation
of Independent Business v. Sebelius that the federal government could not impose all-
or-nothing conditions on the states—implement the expansion or lose all Medicaid
funding—represented a new limit on the national government’s power. The ruling
mostly upheld the law but also gave the states more leeway. The other controversial
provision of the Affordable Care Act was the “individual mandate,” the requirement
that individuals without health care insurance be required to purchase such insurance.
The 26 states suing the federal government charged that Congress had no power to
force individuals to purchase a product and that it had exceeded its power under the
commerce clause. In defending the law, the federal government argued the opposite:
that the complex interactions of the health care market made the individual mandate
constitutional under the commerce clause.32 From the moment a person is born,
he or she is part of the health care economy. Even if a person does not have health
insurance, federal law requires that hospitals provide treatment in an emergency.
Those costs are borne by all of the people who do pay for health insurance.
Taking a more narrow view of the health care market, the Court rejected this
argument on the grounds that the federal government cannot regulate economic
inactivity, that is, the failure to purchase health insurance. Instead, it found that
the Affordable Care Act was constitutional based on Congress’s power to tax. The
law requires individuals who do not receive insurance from their employers or their
parents and are not eligible for Medicaid to purchase insurance or pay a penalty. The
Court reasoned that the penalty could be considered a tax and, for that reason, was
constitutional. At the end of 2017, however, Congress passed a sweeping tax bill that
included a provision to eliminate the individual mandate.
The Affordable Care Act survived another challenge in 2015 when the Supreme
Court ruled that federal subsidies to help pay for insurance should be available to
residents in states that offered insurance only through the federal exchange as well
as in states that had formed their own state insurance marketplaces. The outcome of
King v. Burwell ensured that subsidies would be available in all states.33
In other policy areas, states and localities have forged their own policies because the
federal government has not acted. One of the most controversial of these issues is immi-
gration legislation. In the first half of 2013, for example, state legislatures enacted 377
laws and resolutions related to immigration.34 Many state and local laws that govern
immigration are not controversial, but some raise critical questions about the federal
government’s role as opposed to the responsibilities of state and local governments.
In 2010, Arizona enacted an extremely controversial immigration measure requiring
immigrants to carry identity documents and requiring police to ask about immigration
status when they stop drivers they suspect of being undocumented immigrants. The
federal Department of Justice joined several other groups in challenging the law. In the
words of then–attorney general Eric Holder, “It is clearly unconstitutional for a state to
88 C H A P T E R 3 F E D E r A L I S M
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch03_066-095.indd 88 11/28/18 4:26 PM
set its own immigration policy.”35 In 2012
the Supreme Court ruled that Arizona’s law
did not preempt federal authority to make
immigration law.36 The court’s decision in
Arizona v. United States did overturn three
of four provisions in Arizona’s law, but it
ruled in favor of the most controversial
provision, which allows state police to check
the immigration status of anyone stopped
or arrested.
Immigration policy once again be-
came embroiled in federal–state conflict
after 2014. Frustrated by congressional
inaction on immigration, President Obama
issued executive memoranda in 2012 to
provide temporary legal status and work
permits to undocumented children who
had been brought to the United States, termed the “Dreamers.” However, when Oba-
ma moved to expand this Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA)
in 2014 and extend legal status to some parents of U.S. citizens and legal resi-
dents (called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, or DAPA), 26 states,
led by Texas, challenged the executive order in court. They charged that the
expansion exceeded executive authority and would impose unreasonable costs
on states. The expansion was never implemented because the Supreme Court, in
the wake of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, deadlocked in a 4–4 decision,
leaving in place lower-court decisions that sided with the states.37 The Trump
administration began a six-month phaseout of the DACA program in Septem-
ber 2017, giving Congress until March 2018 to devise a legislative solution.38
Congressional action failed, but as of mid-2018, DACA remained in place due to
two federal judges’ rulings.
President Donald Trump campaigned promising more rigorous immigration en-
forcement. In 2017 he signed an executive order increasing the number of immigrants
considered a priority for deportation, from those convicted of serious crimes such as
felonies or multiple misdemeanors as under Obama to those accused or convicted
of minor crimes as well.39 A growing number of cities, counties, and states declared
themselves “sanctuaries,” which limit cooperation with national government enforce-
ment of immigration law. President Trump pledged to cancel funding for sanctuary
cities and states, but in 2017 a federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump adminis-
tration from withholding federal grants from these jurisdictions because of sanctuary
policies.40 The Department of Homeland Security rescinded the DACA expansion in
2017, but the original program remained. Claiming sympathy for the “Dreamers,”
Trump asked Congress to resolve the matter through legislation.41
As the cases of health care and immigration show, federalism operates like ping-pong,
with the federal and state governments reacting to the actions, or inactions, of the other.
It is easy to see how confusing and ever-changing federal–state relations can be.
Since the Trump administration’s announce-
ment of the phaseout of the DACA program
put in place by the Obama administration,
the legislative branch on the federal level has
failed to implement a solution. State-level
challenges to the termination of the policy,
however, have been successful in protecting
those covered by the program.
89n E W F E D E r A L I S M M E A n S M O r E S TAT E C O n T r O L
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch03_066-095.indd 89 11/28/18 4:26 PM
Federalism
WHAT DO WE WANT?
In recent years, sharp differences in Americans’ views on many economic and social
issues have been reflected in the federal system. Until 2015, when the Supreme Court
ruled that state-level bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional, 37 states
allowed same-sex marriage and 13 did not. Today, over half of the 50 states have legali-
zed medical marijuana, while 10 and Washington, D.C., have gone further and legalized
recreational marijuana. More states are likely to change their laws on marijuana, but
differences across the states are likely to persist for many years. Half of the states wel-
comed the expansion of Medicaid, the program that provides medical assistance to the
poor. The other half, concerned about costs and the growing role of government in the
economy, initially declined to implement the expansion. Some states actively welcome
immigrants and seek to opt out of restrictive federal laws; other states go beyond the fed-
eral government in enacting restrictive immigration laws. Yet while states have the authority
to devise their own laws on a variety of important issues, Americans’ participation in state
and local politics remains low (see the “Who Participates?” feature on the facing page).
As described in the opening of this chapter, Larry Harvey’s arrest for using medical
marijuana, legal in his state but illegal under federal law, raises questions about the
promise, conflict, and ambiguity inherent in a federal system of government. Our history
of federalism means that we are comfortable with the idea that states should have
the freedom to enact laws that best serve their residents, within the bounds set by
Congress and the courts. We expect states to act as “laboratories of democracy” that
try out new policies. But the great variation across the states today poses questions
that will have to be answered in the coming decades. Is the federal government endan-
gering people by allowing states to legalize marijuana? Or is the federal government
endangering critically ill people by prosecuting medical marijuana use even in states
with legalization? Is it fair that a transgender person in California can legally change the
sex on her birth certificate, but a transgender person in Tennessee would be denied
the same? Is it reasonable that a gun owner can openly carry a handgun in georgia but
not in Florida? Each generation confronts a different set of questions about how much
variation across the states is appropriate. Are some of the issues on which the states
differ fundamental rights that should be uniform across the country? Is it important to
preserve state choice on most matters? As today’s youth help to answer these ques-
tions in the coming decades, they will be remaking American federalism.
Thus, American federalism remains a work in progress. As public problems shift
and as local, state, and federal governments change, questions about the relationship
between American values and federalism naturally emerge. The different views that
people bring to this discussion suggest that federalism will remain a central issue in
American democracy.
90 C H A P T E R 3 F E D E r A L I S M
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch03_066-095.indd 90 11/28/18 4:26 PM
*The voting-eligible population excludes noncitizens and people who are institutionalized
or not allowed to vote in some states because they are ex-felons. The voting-age population
includes everyone over 18.
NOTE: Oregon had an additional election in 2016 to �ll a vacancy.
SOURCES: Elect Project, electproject.org; Voter Turnout, elect.ky.gov;
Post Election Statistics, electionstatistics.sos.la.gov; 2017 Results,
state.nj.us; 2017 Results Report, elections.virginia.gov (accessed 3/10/18).
Turnout in Recent Gubernatorial Elections
New Jersey
39%
Missouri
62%
California
31%
Texas
28%
Florida
43%
Virginia
43%
Denver
24%
Houston
22%
San Antonio
10%
New York City
7%
Percentage of voting-eligible population*
Turnout in Most Recent Municipal Election
Percentage of voting-age population in selected cities*
Median % of voters to turn out in
the following years:
2015, 2017
Non-presidential, non-congressional
39%
2016
Presidential
65%
2014
Non-presidential, congressional
40%
Seattle
43%
Washington, D.C.
38%
Chicago
33%
Detroit
27%
Who Participates in State
and Local Politics?
WHO PAR TICIPATES?
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch03_066-095.indd 91 11/28/18 4:26 PM
Practice Quiz
1. Which term describes the division of
powers between the national govern-
ment and the state governments? (p. 69)
a) separation of powers
b) federal system
c) checks and balances
d) expressed powers
e) implied powers
2. Which amendment to the Constitution
stated that the powers not delegated
to the national government or prohibit-
ed to the states were “reserved to
the states”? (p. 70)
a) First Amendment
b) Fifth Amendment
c) Tenth Amendment
d) Fourteenth Amendment
e) Twenty-Sixth Amendment
3. A state government’s authority to
regulate the health, safety, and morals
of its citizens is frequently referred to
as (p. 70)
a) the reserved power.
b) the expressed power.
c) the police power.
d) the concurrent power.
e) the implied power.
4. Which constitutional clause requires
that states normally honor the public
acts and judicial decisions of other
states? (p. 71)
a) privileges and immunities clause
b) necessary and proper clause
c) interstate commerce clause
d) preemption clause
e) full faith and credit clause
Attend a board of supervisors, city council, planning commission, or other
local government meeting. Agendas and minutes will usually be available on
county and city websites.
Attend a session of your local or state judiciary. Cases on the docket are
available online, as are rules for attendance and behavior when the court
is in session.
Get Involved in State and Local Politics
Visit the state capitol. If you make an appointment, you might be able to meet
with your local representative. Committee meetings and hearings are
generally open to the public, as are meetings of the legislature.
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
92 S T U D Y g U I D E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch03_066-095.indd 92 11/28/18 4:26 PM
5. Many states have amended their
constitutions to guarantee that large
cities will have the authority to man-
age local affairs without interference
from state government. This power is
called (p. 72)
a) home rule.
b) preemption.
c) devolution.
d) states’ rights.
e) new Federalism.
6. The relationship between the states
and the national government from
1789 to 1937 is known as (p. 73)
a) dual federalism.
b) regulated federalism.
c) states’ rights.
d) cooperative federalism.
e) new Federalism.
7. In which case did the Supreme Court
create the potential for increased
national power by ruling that Congress
could use the necessary and proper
clause to interpret its delegated
powers broadly? (p. 75)
a) United States v. Lopez
b) Printz v. United States
c) Loving v. Virginia
d) McCulloch v. Maryland
e) Gibbons v. Ogden
8. The process of returning more of the
responsibilities of governing from
the national level to the state level is
known as (p. 80)
a) dual federalism.
b) devolution.
c) preemption.
d) home rule.
e) incorporation.
9. The principle that allows the federal
government to take over areas
of regulation formerly overseen
by states or local governments is
called (p. 82)
a) regulated federalism.
b) preemption.
c) devolution.
d) “layer cake” federalism.
e) exemption.
10. When state and local governments
must conform to costly regulations or
conditions in order to receive grants
but do not receive reimbursements
for their expenditures from the federal
government it is called (p. 82)
a) states’ rights.
b) block grants.
c) general revenue sharing.
d) an unfunded mandate.
e) redistributive programs.
11. To what does the term New Federalism
refer? (pp. 85–86)
a) the era of federalism initiated by
President roosevelt during the
late 1930s
b) the national government’s
regulation of state action through
grants-in-aid
c) the type of federalism that uses
categorical grants to influence
state action
d) efforts to return more policy-making
discretion to the states through the
use of block grants
e) the recent emergence of local
governments as important political
actors
12. The Supreme Court’s decision in National
Federation of Independent Business v.
Sebelius was significant because (p. 88)
a) it affirmed the federal government’s
absolute power to impose all-or-
nothing conditions on state govern-
ments attempting to receive federal
funding.
b) it limited the federal government’s
power to impose all-or-nothing
conditions on state governments at-
tempting to receive federal funding.
c) it struck down the individual
mandate of the Affordable Care
Act as a violation of the interstate
commerce clause.
d) it eliminated the federal govern-
ment’s ability to provide subsidies
for health insurance coverage.
e) it invalidated the educational stand-
ards and testing requirements
imposed by the 2001 no Child Left
Behind Act.
93S T U D Y g U I D E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch03_066-095.indd 93 11/28/18 4:26 PM
Key Terms
block grants (p. 85) federal grants-in-aid that
allow states considerable discretion in how
the funds are spent
categorical grants (p. 78) congressional
grants given to states and localities on the
condition that expenditures be limited to a
problem or group specified by law
commerce clause (p. 75) Article I, Section 8,
of the Constitution, which delegates to
Congress the power “to regulate Commerce
with foreign nations, and among the several
States and with the Indian Tribes”; this
clause was interpreted by the Supreme Court
in favor of national power over the economy
concurrent powers (p. 70) authority pos-
sessed by both state and national govern-
ments, such as the power to levy taxes
cooperative federalism (p. 80) a type of
federalism existing since the new Deal
era in which grants-in-aid have been used
strategically to encourage states and local-
ities (without commanding them) to pursue
nationally defined goals; also known as
“intergovernmental cooperation”
devolution (p. 80) a policy to remove a
program from one level of government by
delegating it or passing it down to a lower
level of government, such as from the
national government to the state and
local governments
dual federalism (p. 73) the system of gov-
ernment that prevailed in the United States
from 1789 to 1937 in which most funda-
mental governmental powers were shared
between the federal and state governments
expressed powers (p. 69) specific powers
granted by the Constitution to Congress
(Article I, Section 8) and to the president
(Article II)
federal system (p. 69) a system of govern-
ment in which the national government
shares power with lower levels of govern-
ment such as states
federalism (p. 69) a system of government
in which power is divided, by a constitution,
between the central (national) government
and regional (state) governments
full faith and credit clause (p. 71)
provision from Article Iv, Section 1,
of the Constitution requiring that the
states normally honor the public acts
and judicial decisions that take place in
another state
general revenue sharing (p. 85) the process
by which one unit of government yields a
portion of its tax income to another unit of
government, according to an established
formula; revenue sharing typically involves
the national government providing money to
state governments
grants-in-aid (p. 77) programs through which
Congress provides money to state and local
governments on the condition that the funds
be employed for purposes defined by the
federal government
home rule (p. 72) power delegated by the
state to a local unit of government to
manage its own affairs
implied powers (p. 69) powers derived from
the necessary and proper clause of Article I,
Section 8, of the Constitution; such powers
are not specifically expressed but are
implied through the expansive interpretation
of delegated powers
necessary and proper clause (p. 69)
provision from Article I, Section 8, of
the Constitution providing Congress with
the authority to make all laws necessary
and proper to carry out its expressed
powers
New Federalism (p. 85) attempts by presi-
dents nixon and reagan to return power to
the states through block grants
police power (p. 70) power reserved to the
state government to regulate the health,
safety, and morals of its citizens
94 S T U D Y g U I D E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch03_066-095.indd 94 11/28/18 4:26 PM
preemption (p. 82) the principle that allows
the national government to override state
or local actions in certain policy areas; in
foreign policy, the willingness to strike first
in order to prevent an enemy attack
privileges and immunities clause (p. 72)
provision, from Article Iv, Section 2, of the
Constitution, that a state cannot discrimi-
nate against someone from another state
or give its own residents special privileges
reserved powers (p. 70) powers, derived
from the Tenth Amendment to the Constitu-
tion, that are not specifically delegated to
the national government or denied to the
states
Derthick, Martha. Keeping the Compound Republic: Essays on American Federalism.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2001.
Elazar, Daniel. American Federalism: A View from the States. 3rd ed. new York: Harper &
row, 1984.
gerston, Larry n. American Federalism: A Concise Introduction. Armonk, nY: M. E.
Sharpe, 2007.
Johnson, Kimberly S. Governing the American State: Congress and the New Federalism,
1877–1929. Princeton, nJ: Princeton University Press, 2007.
Kettl, Donald. The Regulation of American Federalism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1987.
Mettler, Suzanne. Dividing Citizens: Gender and Federalism in New Deal Public Policy.
Ithaca, nY: Cornell University Press, 1998.
Michener, Jamila. Fragmented Democracy: Medicaid, Federalism, and Unequal Politics.
new York: Cambridge University Press, 2018.
Peterson, Paul E. The Price of Federalism. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press,
1995.
Pierceson, Jason. Same-Sex Marriage in the United States: The Road to the Supreme
Court. Lanham, MD: rowman and Littlefield, 2014.
robertson, David Brian. Federalism and the Making of America. new York: routledge,
2011.
van Horn, Carl E. The State of the States. 4th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2005.
Zimmerman, Joseph. Contemporary American Federalism. 2nd ed. Albany: SUnY Press,
2009.
states’ rights (p. 76) the principle that
the states should oppose the increasing
authority of the national government; this
principle was most popular in the period
before the Civil War
unfunded mandates (p. 82) regulations or
conditions for receiving grants that impose
costs on state and local governments
for which they are not reimbursed by the
federal government
unitary system (p. 69) a centralized gov-
ernment system in which lower levels of
government have little power independent
of the national government
For Further Reading
95S T U D Y g U I D E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch03_066-095.indd 95 11/28/18 4:26 PM
Civil
Liberties and
Civil Rights
040404
chapter
WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES AND WHY IT MATTERS
In Portland in 2006, Simon Tam founded what Oregon Music News called
the first and only all Asian American dance-rock band, or “Chinatown Dance
Rock,” as the band prefers. The various members of the band are of Chinese,
Taiwanese, Vietnamese, and Filipino descent. In addition to playing at anime
conventions and cultural festivals, they are known for their community involve-
ment battling Asian stereotypes and supporting young Asian people.1
They are also known for a First Amendment case over the band’s name, The
Slants. The name has three sources. The first two reference the members’
“slant” on life and the guitar chords they use: “It actually sounds like a fun,
’80s, New Wave kind of band. And it’s a play on words. We can share our per-
sonal experiences about what it’s like being people of color—our own slant
on life, if you will. It’s also a musical reference. There are slant guitar chords
that we use in our music,” Tam said. The third source was a reclaiming and
repurposing of the old ethnic slur about Asian people. “We grew up and the
notion of having slanted eyes was always considered a negative thing,” Tam
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 96 11/28/18 4:27 PM
Civil
Liberties and
Civil Rights
The First Amendment protects Americans from
government infringement on their right to free speech. In
the case of the Slants, they used the First Amendment as
grounds to re-appropriate a term deemed offensive for
themselves and their cultures.
97
said. “Kids would pull their eyes back in a slant-eyed gesture to make fun of
us . . . I wanted to change it to something that was powerful, something that
was considered beautiful or a point of pride instead.”
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had a different view. Tam’s applica-
tion for a trademark on the band’s name was rejected as a violation of the
Disparagement Clause of the Lanham Act of 1946, which prohibits trade-
marks that disparage a racial or ethnic group. The denial stated that although
the “applicant, or even the entire band, may be willing to take on the disparag-
ing term as a band name, in what may be considered an attempt . . . to wrest
‘ownership’ of the term,” that “does not mean that all [Asian Americans]
share the applicant’s view.” The case ultimately went to the Supreme Court,
which in 2017 ruled unanimously that the disparagement clause violated the
First Amendment’s free speech clause. The band could keep the name.
Free speech, along with the freedoms of assembly, religion, and privacy,
are among the civil liberties contained in the Bill of Rights and elsewhere
in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson said that a bill of rights “is what
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 97 11/28/18 4:27 PM
people are entitled to against every government on earth.” Note the wording:
against government. Civil liberties are protections from improper government
action. Civil rights, on the other hand, are positives—what the government
must do to guarantee equal citizenship and protect citizens from discrimina-
tion. Civil rights regulate who can participate in the political process and civil
society and how they can participate: for example, who can vote, who can
hold office, who can have a trial or serve on juries, and when and how
citizens can petition the government to take action. Civil rights also define
how people are treated in employment, education, and other aspects of
American society.
Liberties are limits on government action, and the courts are the institution
best situated to tell Congress, the president and state governments what they
may not do. Civil rights, though, involve the government’s obligation to act and
the evolution of civil rights required much more action on the part of Congress
and the president.
★ Explain the origins and evolution of the civil liberties in the Bill of Rights
as they apply to the federal government and the states (pp. 99–103)
★ Describe how the First Amendment protects freedom of religion,
speech, and the press (pp. 103–11)
★ Explore whether the Second Amendment means people have a right to
own guns (pp. 112–13)
★ Explain the major rights that people have if they are accused of a
crime (pp. 113–19)
★ Assess whether people have a right to privacy under the Constitution
(pp. 119–20)
★ Trace the legal developments and social movements that expanded
civil rights (pp. 120–30)
★ Describe how different groups have fought for and won protection
of their civil rights (pp. 130–37)
CHAP TER GOAL S
98 C H A P T E R 4 C I V I L L I B e R T I e S A N D C I V I L R I g h T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 98 11/28/18 4:27 PM
The Origin of the Bill of Rights Lies in
Those Who Opposed the Constitution
Since the early 1960s the Supreme
Court has expanded considerably the
scope of civil liberties, defined as indi
vidual rights and personal freedoms
with which governments may not
interfere; that is, they are protections
for Americans from the government. These liberties are constantly subject to judi
cial interpretation, and their provisions need to be safeguarded vigilantly, especially
during times of war or a threat to national security, such as in the aftermath of the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
Civil rights—protections of citizen equality provided by the government—have
also expanded dramatically since the middle of the twentieth century, when the
African American struggle for equal rights took center stage. Many goals of the civil
rights movement that once aroused bitter controversy are now widely accepted as
part of the American commitment to equal rights. But even today the question of
what is meant by “equal rights” is hardly settled. To what extent can states mandate
racial preferences in college admissions? Do transgender individuals have the right
to use a public restroom based on their gender identification rather than their physi
cal characteristics? What rights do undocumented immigrants possess? Although
the United States was founded on the ideals of liberty, equality, and democracy, its
history of civil rights reveals a gap between these principles and actual practice.
When the first Congress under the newly ratified Constitution met in April
1789, the most important item of business was the proposal to add a bill of rights
to the Constitution. Such a proposal had been turned down with little debate
in the waning days of the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention in 1787, not
because the delegates were against rights but because—as the Federalists, led
by Alexander Hamilton, later argued—such a bill was “not only unnecessary in
the proposed Constitution but would even be dangerous.”2 First, according to
Hamilton, a bill of rights would be irrelevant to a national government that was
given only delegated powers in the first place. To put restraints on “powers which
are not granted” could provide a pretext for governments to claim more powers
than were in fact granted: “For why declare that things shall not be done which
there is no power to do?”3 Second, the Constitution was to Hamilton and the
Federalists a bill of rights in itself, containing provisions that amounted to a bill
of rights without requiring additional amendments (see Table 4.1). For example,
Article I, Section 9, included the right of habeas corpus, a court order demanding
that an individual in custody be brought into court and shown the reason for
detention. This prohibits the government from depriving a person of liberty with
out explaining the reason before a judge.
Despite the power of Hamilton’s arguments, when the Constitution was submit
ted to the states for ratification, Antifederalists, most of whom had not been dele
gates in Philadelphia, picked up on the argument of Thomas Jefferson (who also had
Explain the origins and evolution
of the civil liberties in the Bill of
Rights as they apply to the federal
government and the states
99T h e O R I g I N O F B I L L O F R I g h T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 99 11/28/18 4:27 PM
not been a delegate) that the omission of a bill of rights was a major imperfection
of the new Constitution. The Federalists conceded that for the document to gain
ratification they would have to make an “unwritten but unequivocal pledge” to add
a bill of rights.
The Bill of Rights might well have been titled the “Bill of Liberties” because the
provisions that were incorporated in it were seen as defining a private sphere of
personal liberty, free from governmental restrictions.4 As Jefferson put it, a bill of
rights “is what people are entitled to against every government on earth.” Note the
wording: against government. Civil liberties are protections of citizens from improper
government action. Some of these restraints are substantive liberties, which put lim
its on what the government shall and shall not have power to do—such as establish
ing a religion, quartering troops in private homes without consent, or seizing private
property without just compensation. Other restraints are procedural liberties, which
are restraints on how the government is supposed to act. These procedural liberties
are usually grouped under the general category of due process of law, which is the
right of every citizen to be protected against arbitrary action by national or state gov
ernments. It first appears in the Fifth Amendment provision that “no person shall
be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” For example,
even though the government has the substantive power to declare certain acts to be
crimes and to arrest and imprison persons who violate criminal laws, it may not do
so without meticulously observing procedures designed to protect the accused per
son. The bestknown procedural rule is that an accused person is presumed innocent
until proven guilty. This rule does not question the government’s power to punish
someone for committing a crime; it questions only the way the government deter
mines who committed the crime. Substantive and procedural restraints together
identify the realm of civil liberties.
TABLE 4.1
Rights in the Original Constitution
(Not in the Bill of Rights)
CLAUSE RIGHT ESTABLISHED
Article I, Section 9 guarantee of habeas corpus
Article I, Section 9 Prohibition of bills of attainder
Article I, Section 9 Prohibition of ex post facto laws
Article I, Section 9 Prohibition against acceptance of titles of nobility, etc., from
any foreign state
Article III guarantee of trial by jury in state where crime was committed
Article III Treason defined and limited to the life of the person convicted,
not to the person’s heirs
100 C H A P T E R 4 C I V I L L I B e R T I e S A N D C I V I L R I g h T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 100 11/28/18 4:27 PM
In contrast, civil rights are the obligations imposed on government to take
positive action to protect citizens from any illegal actions by government agencies
and by other private citizens. Civil rights did not become part of the Constitution
until 1868, with the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, which sought to
provide for each citizen “the equal protection of the laws.”
THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT NATIONALIZED
THE BILL OF RIGHTS THROUGH INCORPORATION
In the first 70 years of the country’s history, the Bill of Rights was understood to
apply only to the national government and not to the states. This meant that the
actions of state governments were restricted only by their own state constitutions as
interpreted by their own courts. In fact, the Supreme Court said this in a decision
in 1833, Barron v. Baltimore.5 But the Civil War cast new light on the large question
of state versus national governmental power. After the war, the Fourteenth Amend
ment was added to the Constitution. Part of the amendment reads as though it were
meant to tell the states that they must now adhere to the Bill of Rights:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of
citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection
of the laws.
This language sounds like an effort to extend the Bill of Rights to all citizens,
wherever they might reside.6 Yet this was not the Supreme Court’s interpretation
of the amendment for nearly 100 years. Within five years of ratification of the
Fourteenth Amendment, the Court was making decisions as though the amend
ment had never been adopted.7
The first change in civil liberties following the adoption of the Fourteenth Amend
ment came in 1897, when the Supreme Court held that the due process clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment did in fact prohibit states from taking property for a public
use without just compensation (a protection found in the Fifth Amendment), over
ruling the Barron case.8 However, the Supreme Court had selectively “incorporated”
under the Fourteenth Amendment only the property protection provision of the
Fifth Amendment and no other clause of the Fifth or any other amendment of the
Bill of Rights. In other words, although according to the Fifth Amendment “due
process” applied to the taking of life and liberty as well as property, only property
was incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment as a limitation on state power.
No further expansion of civil liberties via the Fourteenth Amendment occurred
until 1925, when the Supreme Court held that freedom of speech is “among the
fundamental personal rights and ‘liberties’ protected by the due process clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the states.”9 In 1931 the Court added
freedom of the press to that short list protected by the Bill of Rights from state
action; by 1939 it had added freedom of assembly and petitioning the government
for redress of grievances.10 But that was as far as the Court was then willing to go.
101T h e O R I g I N O F B I L L O F R I g h T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 101 11/28/18 4:27 PM
TABLE 4.2
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the
Fourteenth Amendment
SELECTED PROVISIONS
AND AMENDMENTS INCORPORATED KEY CASE
eminent domain (V) 1897 Chicago, Burlington, and
Quincy R.R. v. Chicago
Freedom of speech (I) 1925 Gitlow v. New York
Freedom of press (I) 1931 Near v. Minnesota
Free exercise of religion (I) 1934 Hamilton v. Regents of the
University of California
Freedom of assembly (I) and
freedom to petition the government
for redress of grievances (I)
1937 DeJonge v. Oregon
Freedom of assembly (I) 1939 Hague v. CIO
Nonestablishment of state religion (I) 1947 Everson v. Board of
Education
Freedom from unnecessary search
and seizure (IV)
1949 Wolf v. Colorado
Freedom from warrantless search
and seizure (IV; “exclusionary rule”)
1961 Mapp v. Ohio
Freedom from cruel and unusual
punishment (VIII)
1962 Robinson v. California
Right to counsel in any criminal trial (VI) 1963 Gideon v. Wainwright
Right against self-incrimination and
forced confessions (V)
1964 Malloy v. Hogan;
Escobedo v. Illinois
Right to counsel and to remain silent (V) 1966 Miranda v. Arizona
Right against double jeopardy (V) 1969 Benton v. Maryland
Right to bear arms (II) 2010 McDonald v. Chicago
As Table 4.2 shows, selective incorporation—the process by which different protec
tions in the Bill of Rights were incorporated or applied to the states, part by part,
using the Fourteenth Amendment, thus guaranteeing citizens’ protection from state
as well as national government—continued to occur gradually until 2010. The final
provision of the Bill of Rights to be incorporated by the Supreme Court was the
Second Amendment, which protects the right to bear arms.11 (Incorporation is also
sometimes referred to as the “absorption” or the “nationalizing” of the Bill of Rights.)
102 C H A P T E R 4 C I V I L L I B e R T I e S A N D C I V I L R I g h T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 102 11/28/18 4:27 PM
To make clear that “selective incorporation” should be narrowly interpreted,
Justice Benjamin Cardozo, writing for an 8–1 majority in 1937, asserted that
although many rights have value and importance, some rights do not represent a
“principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be
ranked as fundamental.” So, until 1961, only the First Amendment and one clause
of the Fifth Amendment had been clearly incorporated into the Fourteenth Amend
ment as binding on the states as well as on the national government.12
The best way to examine the Bill of Rights today is the simplest way: to take each
of the major provisions one at a time. Some of these provisions are settled areas of
law; others are not.
The First Amendment Guarantees
Freedom of Religion, Speech, and
the Press
Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press;
or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
FREEDOM OF RELIGION
The Bill of Rights begins by guaranteeing freedom of religion, and the First Amend
ment provides for that freedom in two distinct clauses: “Congress shall make no
law (1) respecting an establishment of religion, or (2) prohibiting the free exercise
thereof.” The first clause is called the “establishment clause,” and the second is called
the “free exercise clause.”
Separation between Church and State Comes from the First Amendment
The establishment clause and the idea of “no law” regarding the establishment of
religion can be interpreted in several ways. One interpretation, which probably
reflects the views of many of the First Amendment’s authors, is that the govern
ment is prohibited from establishing an official church. Official state churches,
such as the Church of England, were common in the eighteenth century and
were viewed by many Americans as inconsistent with a republican form of gov
ernment. Indeed, many American colonists had fled Europe to escape persecu
tion for having rejected statesponsored churches. A second interpretation is
the view that the government may not take sides among competing religions
but may provide assistance to religious institutions or ideas as long as it shows
no favoritism. The United States accommodates religious beliefs in a variety of
ways, from the reference to God on U.S. currency to the prayer that begins every
session of Congress. These forms of establishment have never been struck down
by the courts.
Describe how the First Amendment
protects freedom of religion, speech,
and the press
103F R e e D O M O F R e L I g I O N , S P e e C h , A N D T h e P R e S S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 103 11/28/18 4:27 PM
The third view regarding religious establishment, the most commonly held
today, is the idea of a “wall of separation” between church and state—Jefferson’s
formulation—that cannot be breached by the government. For two centuries,
Jefferson’s words have had a powerful impact on our understanding of the proper
relationship between church and state in America.
Despite the seeming absoluteness of the phrase “wall of separation,” there is ample
room to disagree on how high or strong this wall is. For example, the Court has been
consistently strict in the area of public education in cases of school prayer, striking
down such practices as Bible reading,13 nondenominational prayer,14 reading prayers
over a public address system during a football game,15 and even a moment of silence
for meditation.16 In each of these cases, the Court reasoned that schoolsponsored
religious observations, even if nondenominational, are highly suggestive of school
sponsorship and therefore violate the prohibition against establishment of religion.
On the other hand, the Court has been quite permissive (and some would say
inconsistent) about the public display of religious symbols, such as citysponsored
Nativity scenes in commercial or municipal areas.17 And although the Court has
consistently disapproved of government financial support for religious schools, even
when the purpose has been purely educational and secular, it has permitted certain
direct aid to students of such schools in the form of busing, for example.
The difficulty in defining what religious establishment means is evident from two
cases in 2005 involving governmentsponsored displays of religious symbols. In Van
Orden v. Perry, the Court decided by a 5–4 margin that a display of the Ten Com
mandments at the Texas State Capitol did not violate the Constitution.18 However, in
McCreary v. ACLU of Kentucky, decided at the same time and also by a 5–4 margin,
the Court determined that a display of the Ten Commandments inside two Kentucky
courthouses was unconstitutional.19 Justice Stephen Breyer, the swing vote in the two
cases, said that the displays in Van Orden had a secular purpose, whereas the displays
in McCreary had a purely religious purpose. The key difference between the two cases
is that the Texas display had been exhibited in a large park for 40 years with other
monuments related to the development of American law without any objections
raised until this case, whereas the Kentucky display was erected much more recently
and initially by itself, suggesting to some justices that its posting had a religious pur
pose. But most observers saw little difference between the two cases. Clearly, the issue
of governmentsponsored displays of religious symbols has not been settled.
Free Exercise of Religion Means You Have a Right to Your Beliefs The
free exercise clause protects the citizen’s right to believe and to practice any
religion; it also protects the right to choose not to practice a religion. The precedent
setting case involving free exercise is West Virginia State Board of Education v.
Barnette (1943), which involved the children of a family of Jehovah’s Witnesses
who refused to salute and pledge allegiance to the American flag on the grounds
that their religious faith did not permit it. Three years earlier, the Court had upheld
such a requirement and had permitted schools to expel students for refusing to
salute the flag. But the entry of the United States into a war to defend democracy,
coupled with the ugly treatment to which the Jehovah’s Witnesses children had been
104 C H A P T E R 4 C I V I L L I B e R T I e S A N D C I V I L R I g h T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 104 11/28/18 4:27 PM
subjected, induced the Court to reverse itself
and to endorse the free exercise of religion
even when it may be offensive to the beliefs
of the majority.20
In recent years, the principle of free
exercise has been bolstered by statutes pro
hibiting religious discrimination by public
and private entities in a variety of realms
including hiring, land use, and the treatment
of prison inmates. Two recent cases illustrat
ing this point are Holt v. Hobbs and Burwell
v. Hobby Lobby Stores.21 The Holt case involved
a Muslim prisoner in an Arkansas jail. The
prisoner, Gregory Holt, asserted that his reli
gious beliefs required him to grow a beard.
Thus, according to Holt, an Arkansas prison
policy prohibiting beards was a violation of
his ability to exercise his religion. The Court
held that the prison policy was a violation of the free exercise clause and violated a
federal statute designed to protect the ability of prisoners to worship as they pleased.
The Hobby Lobby case involved the owners of a chain of craft stores who claimed
that a section of the Affordable Care Act requiring employers to provide their female
employees with free contraceptive coverage violated their religious beliefs as pro
tected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This law requires the government
to prove a “compelling interest” for requiring individuals to obey a law that violates
their religious beliefs. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby.
THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND
OF THE PRESS ENSURE THE FREE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS
Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.
Freedom of speech and of the press have a special place in American
political thought. To begin with, democracy depends upon the ability of individuals
to talk to one another and to disseminate information. A democratic nation could
not function without free and open debate. Such debate, moreover, is seen as an
essential mechanism for determining the quality or validity of competing ideas.
As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said, “The best test of truth is the power
of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market . . . that
at any rate is the theory of our Constitution.”22 What is sometimes called the
“marketplace of ideas” receives a good deal of protection from the courts. In 1938
the Supreme Court held that any legislation that attempts to restrict these funda
mental freedoms “is to be subjected to a more exacting judicial scrutiny . . . than are
most other types of legislation.”23 This higher standard of judicial review came to
be called strict scrutiny.
Does religious freedom lead to discrimina-
tion on the basis of religion? Here, senior
counsel for Hobby Lobby Stores speaks to
supporters after the Supreme Court ruled
that businesses were not required to pro-
vide free contraceptive coverage if they find
it in violation of their religious beliefs.
105F R e e D O M O F R e L I g I O N , S P e e C h , A N D T h e P R e S S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 105 11/28/18 4:27 PM
The doctrine of strict scrutiny places a heavy burden of proof on the govern
ment if it seeks to regulate or restrict speech. Americans are assumed to have the
right to speak and to broadcast their ideas unless some compelling reason can be
identified to stop them. But strict scrutiny does not mean that speech can never
be regulated. According to the courts, although virtually all speech is protected by
the Constitution, some forms of speech are entitled to a greater degree of protec
tion than others.
POLITICAL SPEECH IS CONSISTENTLY PROTECTED
Over the past 200 years the courts have scrutinized many different forms of speech
and constructed different principles and guidelines for each. And of all forms of
speech, political speech is the most consistently protected.
Political speech was the activity of greatest concern to the framers of the Con
stitution, even though some found it the most difficult provision to tolerate.
Within seven years of the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791, Congress
adopted the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts, which, among other things, made
it a crime to say or publish anything that might tend to defame or bring into
disrepute the government of the United States. Quite clearly, the acts’ intentions
were to criminalize the very thing protected by the First Amendment—political
speech. Fifteen violators, including several newspaper editors, were indicted; and
a few were actually convicted before the relevant portions of the acts were allowed
to expire.
The first modern free speech case arose immediately after World War I. It
involved persons who had been convicted under the federal Espionage Act of
1917 for opposing U.S. involvement in the war. The Supreme Court upheld the
Espionage Act and refused to protect the speech rights of the defendants on the
grounds that their activities—appeals to draftees to resist the draft—constituted
a “clear and present danger” to national security.24 This is the first and most famous,
though since discarded, “test” for when government intervention or censorship
can be permitted.
It was only after the 1920s that real progress toward a genuinely effective First
Amendment was made. Since then, the courts have consistently protected political
speech even when it has been deemed “insulting” or “outrageous.”
SYMBOLIC SPEECH, SPEECH PLUS, ASSEMBLY,
AND PETITION ARE HIGHLY PROTECTED
The First Amendment treats the freedoms of religion and political speech as equal
to the freedoms of assembly and petition—speech associated with action. Free
dom of speech and freedom of assembly are closely related by the “public forum
doctrine.” In the 1939 case of Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization, the
Court declared that the government may not prohibit speechrelated activities
such as demonstrations or leafleting in public areas traditionally used for that
106 C H A P T E R 4 C I V I L L I B e R T I e S A N D C I V I L R I g h T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 106 11/28/18 4:27 PM
purpose, though, of course, the government may impose rules designed to pro
tect the public safety so long as these rules do not discriminate against particular
viewpoints.25
Generally, the Supreme Court has protected actions that are designed to send a
political message. Thus, the Court held unconstitutional a California statute making
it a felony to display a red Communist flag “as a sign, symbol or emblem of opposi
tion to organized government.”26
Another example is the burning of the American flag as a symbol of protest. In
1984, at a political rally held during the Republican National Convention in Dallas,
Texas, a political protester burned an American flag, thereby violating a Texas law
that prohibited desecration of a venerated object. The Supreme Court declared the
Texas law unconstitutional on the grounds that flag burning was expressive conduct
protected by the First Amendment.27
In the 2011 case of Snyder v. Phelps, the Court continued to protect symbolic
speech. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church had frequently demonstrated at
military funerals, claiming that the deaths of soldiers were a sign that God disap
proved of acceptance of homosexuality in the United States. They carried signs that
included slogans like “Thank God for dead soldiers.” The father of a soldier killed in
Iraq brought suit against the church and its pastor, claiming that the demonstrators
had caused him and his family severe emotional distress. The Supreme Court ruled,
however, that the First Amendment protected this form of speech in a public place
against such suits.28
Should the First Amendment’s protection of free speech apply even when that speech is seen as
offensive? The Supreme Court ruled that members of the Westboro Baptist Church had a right to picket
soldiers’ funerals to demonstrate what they take as a sign of God’s disapproval of homosexuality.
107F R e e D O M O F R e L I g I O N , S P e e C h , A N D T h e P R e S S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 107 11/28/18 4:27 PM
Closer to the original intent of the assembly and petition clause is the category
of “speech plus”—speech accompanied by conduct or physical activity such as
sitins, picketing, and demonstrating; protection of this form of speech under the
First Amendment is conditional, and restrictions imposed by state or local author
ities are acceptable if properly balanced by considerations of public order. Courts
consistently protect such assemblies under the First Amendment; state and local
laws regulating such activities are closely scrutinized and frequently overturned.
But the same assembly on private property is quite another matter and can in many
circumstances be regulated. For example, the directors of a shopping center can
lawfully prohibit an assembly protesting a war or supporting a ban on abortion.
Assemblies in public areas can also be restricted in some circumstances, especially
when the assembly or demonstration jeopardizes the health, safety, or rights of
others. This condition was the basis of the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold a
lowercourt order that restricted the access abortion protesters had to the entrances
of abortion clinics.29
Speech by Public School Students One group that seems to enjoy only a limited
right of free speech is public school students. In 1986 the Supreme Court upheld
the punishment of a high school student for making sexually suggestive speech. The
Court opinion held that such speech interfered with the school’s goal of teaching
students the limits of socially acceptable behavior.30 Two years later, the Supreme
Court restricted student speech and press rights even further by defining them as
part of the educational process, not to be treated with the same standard as adult
speech in a regular public forum.31 In the 2007 case of Morse v. Frederick, the Court
held that a principal did not violate a student’s free speech rights by suspending
him for displaying a banner proclaiming “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS.”32 The decision
affirmed that school officials can censor student speech that advocates or celebrates
the use of illegal drugs.
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS IS BROAD
For all practical purposes, freedom of speech implies and includes freedom of
the press. With the exception of the broadcast media, which are subject to
federal regulation, the press is protected under the doctrine against prior restraint
(efforts by a governmental agency to block the publication of material it deems
libelous or harmful in some other way; otherwise known as “censorship”).
Beginning with the landmark 1931 case of Near v. Minnesota, the U.S. Supreme
Court has held that, except under the most extraordinary circumstances, the
First Amendment of the Constitution prohibits government agencies from
seeking to prevent newspapers or magazines from publishing whatever
they wish.33 In the case of New York Times v. United States (1971), the socalled
Pentagon Papers case, the Supreme Court ruled that the government could
not block publication of secret Defense Department documents given to the
New York Times by an opponent of the Vietnam War who had obtained the
documents illegally.34
108 C H A P T E R 4 C I V I L L I B e R T I e S A N D C I V I L R I g h T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 108 11/28/18 4:27 PM
Another press freedom issue is the question of whether journalists can be com
pelled to reveal their sources of information. Journalists assert that if they cannot
promise to keep the confidentiality of their sources, the flow of information will
be reduced and press freedom effectively curtailed. Government agencies, how
ever, assert that the names of news sources may be relevant to criminal or even
national security investigations. Nearly all states have “shield laws” that to
varying degrees protect journalistic sources. There is, however, no federal shield
law, and the Supreme Court has held that the press has no constitutional right to
withhold information in court.35 In 2005, Judith Miller, a New York Times reporter,
was jailed for contempt of court for refusing to tell a federal grand jury the name of
a confidential source in a case involving the leaked identity of the CIA analyst
Valerie Plame. Plame’s husband, Joseph Wilson, had been critical of the Bush
administration’s Iraq policies.
SOME SPEECH HAS ONLY LIMITED PROTECTION
At least four categories of speech fall outside the guarantees of the First Amend
ment and therefore outside the realm of absolute protection: (1) libel and slander,
(2) obscenity and pornography, (3) fighting words, and (4) commercial speech. It
should be emphasized once again that these types of speech still enjoy considerable
protection by the courts.
Libel and Slander If a written statement is made in “reckless disregard of the truth”
and is considered damaging to the victim because it is “malicious, scandalous, and
defamatory,” it can be punished as libel. If an oral statement of such a nature is made,
it can be punished as slander.
Today, most libel suits involve freedom of the press, and the realm of free press is
enormous. Historically, newspapers were subject to the law of libel, which provided
that newspapers that printed false and malicious stories could be compelled to pay
damages to those they defamed. In recent years, however, American courts have
greatly narrowed the meaning of libel and made it extremely difficult, particularly
for politicians or other public figures, to win a libel case against a newspaper. In
the important 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan, the Court held that to be
deemed libelous, a story about a public official not only had to be untrue but also
had to result from “actual malice” or “reckless disregard” for the truth.36 In other
words, the newspaper had to print false and malicious material deliberately. In prac
tice, this is a very difficult legal standard to meet.
With the emergence of the internet as an important communications medium,
the courts have had to decide how traditional libel law applies to internet content.
In 1995 the New York courts held that an online bulletin board could be held
responsible for the libelous content of material posted by a third party. To protect
internet service providers, Congress subsequently enacted legislation absolving them
of responsibility for thirdparty posts. The federal courts have generally upheld this
law and declared that service providers are immune from suits regarding the content
of material posted by others.37
109F R e e D O M O F R e L I g I O N , S P e e C h , A N D T h e P R e S S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 109 11/28/18 4:27 PM
Obscenity and Pornography If libel and slander cases can be difficult because of
the problem of determining the truth of statements and whether those statements
are malicious and damaging, cases involving pornography and obscenity can be even
trickier. Not until 1957 did the Supreme Court confront these issues, and it did so
with a definition of obscenity that may have caused more confusion than it cleared
up. Justice William Brennan, in writing the Court’s opinion, defined obscenity as
speech or writing that appeals to the “prurient interest”—that is, whose purpose is
to excite lust as this appears “to the average person, applying contemporary com
munity standards.” Even so, Brennan added, the work should be judged obscene
only when it is “utterly without redeeming social importance.”38 In 1964, Justice
Potter Stewart confessed that, although he found pornography impossible to define,
“I know it when I see it.”39
An effort was made to strengthen the restrictions in 1973, when the Supreme
Court expressed its willingness to define pornography as a work that (1) as a
whole, is deemed prurient by the “average person” according to “community
standards”; (2) depicts sexual conduct “in a patently offensive way”; and (3) lacks
“serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” This definition meant
that pornography would be determined by local rather than national standards.
Thus, a local bookseller might be prosecuted for selling a volume that was a best
seller nationally but that was deemed pornographic locally.40 This new defini
tion of standards did not help much either, and not long after 1973 the Court
began again to review all such community antipornography laws, reversing most
of them.
In recent years, the battle against obscene speech has targeted “cyberporn,”
pornography on the internet. Opponents of this form of expression argue that it
should be banned because of the easy access children have to the internet. The first
major effort to regulate the content of the internet occurred in 1996, when Congress
passed the Communications Decency Act (CDA), designed to regulate the online
transmission of obscene material. The constitutionality of the CDA was immediately
challenged in court by a coalition of interests led by the American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU). In the 1997 Supreme Court case of Reno v. ACLU, the Court struck
down the CDA, ruling that it suppressed speech that “adults have a constitutional
right to receive,” saying that “the level of discourse reaching the mailbox simply
cannot be limited to that which would be suitable for a sandbox.” Supreme Court
justice John Paul Stevens described the internet as the “town crier” of the modern
age and said that the internet was entitled to the greatest degree of First Amendment
protection possible.41 By contrast, radio and television are subject to more control
than the internet. In 2008 the Supreme Court upheld a law that made it a crime to
sell child pornography on the internet.42
In 2000 the Supreme Court extended the highest degree of First Amendment
protection to cable (not broadcast) television. In United States v. Playboy Entertain-
ment Group, the Court struck down a portion of the 1996 Telecommunications
Act that required cable TV companies to limit the broadcast of sexually explicit
programming to latenight hours. In its decision, the Court noted that the law
already provided parents with the means to restrict access to sexually explicit
110 C H A P T E R 4 C I V I L L I B e R T I e S A N D C I V I L R I g h T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 110 11/28/18 4:27 PM
cable channels through various blocking devices. Moreover, such programming
could come into the home only if parents decided to purchase such channels in
the first place.43
Closely related to the issue of obscenity is the matter of violent broadcast content.
Here, too, the Court has generally upheld freedom of speech. For example, in the
2011 case of Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association the Court struck down
a California law banning the sale of violent video games to children, saying that the
law violated the First Amendment.44
Fighting Words Speech can also lose its protected position when it moves toward
the sphere of action. “Expressive speech,” for example, is protected until it moves
from the symbolic realm to the realm of actual conduct—to direct incitement of
damaging conduct with the use of socalled fighting words. In 1942 a man called
a police officer a “goddamned racketeer” and “a damn Fascist” and was arrested
and convicted of violating a state law forbidding the use of offensive language
in public. When his case reached the Supreme Court, the arrest was upheld on
the grounds that the First Amendment provides no protection for such offensive
language because such words “are no essential part of any exposition of ideas.”45 This
decision was reaffirmed in the important 1951 case of Dennis v. United States, in
which the Supreme Court held that there is no substantial public interest in permit
ting certain kinds of utterances: the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and
the insulting or “fighting” words—those which by their very utterance inflict injury
or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.46 Since that time, however,
the Supreme Court has reversed almost every conviction based on arguments that
the speaker had used “fighting words.”
Commercial Speech Commercial speech, such as newspaper or television adver
tisements, has only partial First Amendment protection because it cannot be con
sidered political speech. Initially considered to be entirely outside the protection
of the First Amendment, commercial speech is subject to regulation, although it is
also recognized and protected for the part it plays in the free flow of information.
For example, prohibition of false and misleading advertising by the Federal Trade
Commission is an old and wellestablished power of the federal government. The
Supreme Court long ago approved the constitutionality of laws prohibiting elec
tronic media from carrying cigarette advertising.47 It has also upheld city ordinances
prohibiting the posting of all signs on public property (as long as the ban is total so
that there is no hint of censorship).48
However, the gains outweigh the losses in the effort to expand the protection
of commercial speech under the First Amendment. For example, in 1996 the
Court struck down Rhode Island laws and regulations banning the advertisement
of liquor prices,49 and in 2001 the Court overturned a Massachusetts ban on all
cigarette advertising as violations of the First Amendment.50 These instances of
commercial speech indicate the breadth and depth of the freedom today to direct
appeals to a large public, to sell goods and services, and to mobilize people for
political purposes.
111F R e e D O M O F R e L I g I O N , S P e e C h , A N D T h e P R e S S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 111 11/28/18 4:27 PM
The Second Amendment Now Protects
an Individual’s Right to Own a Gun
The Second Amendment was
included in the Bill of Rights to pro
vide for “wellregulated” militias to
enforce the “security of a free State,”
which were to be the backing of the
government for the maintenance of local public order and national defense. Militia
was understood to be a military or police resource for state and the national govern
ments; militias were distinguished from professional armies, which came within the
sole constitutional jurisdiction of Congress. While the right of the people “to keep
and bear Arms” was linked to citizen service in militias, many have argued that the
Second Amendment also establishes an individual right to bear arms.
A 1939 Supreme Court case upheld a federal gun law in which the Court con
cluded that the Second Amendment pertained to “the preservation or efficiency
of a well regulated militia,”51 but the Court made no further Second Amendment
decisions for nearly 70 years. Thus, states and localities across the country have very
different gun ownership standards. For instance, in Wyoming there is no ban on
any type of gun and no permit is required for carrying a concealed weapon. In
California, by contrast, the possession of assault weapons is banned and a permit
is required to carry a concealed weapon. Figure 4.1 shows the background check
requirements to purchase a firearm across the country.
The Court’s silence on the application of the Second Amendment ended in 2008,
when it made the first of two rulings in favor of expansive rights of gun ownership
by individuals. The case of District of Columbia v. Heller challenged a Washington,
D.C., law that banned handguns. In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that the Second
Amendment provides a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for
selfdefense. The dissenting opinion asserted that the Second Amendment only pro
tects the rights of individuals to bear arms as part of a militia force, not in an individual
capacity.52 Because the District of Columbia is an entity of the federal government, the
ruling did not apply to state firearm laws. However, in the 2010 case of McDonald v.
Chicago, the Court applied the Second Amendment to the states, making this decision
the first new incorporation decision by the Court in 40 years (see Table 4.2). The case
concerned a Chicago ordinance that made it extremely difficult to own a gun within
city limits, and the Court’s ruling had the effect of overturning the law.53
Despite these rulings, the debate over gun control continues to loom large. A
series of tragic shootings in recent years—including the killing of 20 elementary
school students in Newtown, Connecticut; 50 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando,
Florida; 59 people at a concert in Las Vegas, Nevada; and 17 people at a high school
in Parkland, Florida—has kept the issue of gun laws firmly on the national agenda.
Proponents of gun control point to these shootings as evidence of the need to restrict
the availability of firearms, while opponents of gun control say that shooting inci
dents demonstrate that Americans are not safe and should be free to carry guns for
selfprotection.
Explore whether the Second
Amendment means people have a
right to own guns
112 C H A P T E R 4 C I V I L L I B e R T I e S A N D C I V I L R I g h T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 112 11/28/18 4:27 PM
Rights of the Criminally Accused
Are Based on Due Process of Law
Except for the First Amendment,
most of the battle to apply the Bill of
Rights to the states was fought over
the various protections granted to
individuals who are accused of a crime, who are suspects in the commission of a
crime, or who are brought before the court as a witness to a crime. The Fourth,
Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth amendments, taken together, are the essence of the due
process of law, even though this key phrase does not appear until the very last words
of the Fifth Amendment.
FIGURE 4.1
Background Checks on Firearm Sales
Although state gun laws must conform to the Second Amendment as interpreted by the
U.S. Supreme Court, laws concerning gun sales and ownership vary widely from state to
state. It is much more difficult to buy a gun in, say, New York or California than in Texas or
Kentucky. This map shows states that require criminal background checks for the sale of
all firearms, only handguns, or none when purchasing firearms. While federal law requires
background checks when purchasing a firearm from a licensed seller, only 21 states
require them from unlicensed sellers as well.
*An answer of N/A indicates the state does not require criminal background checks for gun sales by unlicensed
sellers.
SOURCE: Background Checks, Gun Law Navigator, www.everytownresearch.org/ (accessed 6/12/18).
AK
HI
All �rearms Only handguns *N/A
WA
OR
CA
NV
UT
NM
TX
KS
NE
WY
CO
AZ
MS AL
SD
IA
WI
MN
IL
NDMT
ID
KY
IN
MI
TN
VA
FL
ME
NY
WV
LA
AR
MO
SC
GA
NC
PA
OH
OK
DC
MD
DE
NJ
VT
RI
CT
MA
NH
Explain the major rights that people
have if they are accused of a crime
113R I g h T S O F T h e C R I M I N A L LY A C C U S e D
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 113 11/28/18 4:27 PM
THE FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTS AGAINST
UNL AWFUL SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unrea
sonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to guarantee the security of citizens
against unreasonable (that is, improper) searches and seizures. In 1990 the Supreme
Court summarized its understanding of the Fourth Amendment brilliantly and suc
cinctly: “A search compromises the individual interest in privacy; a seizure deprives
the individual of dominion over his or her person or property.”54 But how are we to
define what is reasonable and what is unreasonable?
The 1961 case of Mapp v. Ohio illustrates one of the most important principles
that has grown out of the Fourth Amendment: the exclusionary rule, which is the abil
ity of courts to exclude evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment,
such as barring evidence obtained during an illegal search from being introduced
in a trial. Acting on a tip that Dollree Mapp was harboring a suspect in a bombing
incident, several police officers forcibly entered Mapp’s house claiming they had a
warrant to look for the bombing suspect. The police did not find the bombing sus
pect but did find some materials connected to the local numbers racket (an illegal
gambling operation) and a quantity of “obscene materials,” in violation of an Ohio
law banning possession of such materials. Although no warrant was ever produced,
the evidence that had been seized was admitted by a court and Mapp was convicted
for illegal possession of obscene materials.
By the time Mapp’s appeal reached the Supreme Court, the question was
whether any evidence produced under the circumstances of the search of her
home was admissible. The Court’s opinion affirmed the exclusionary rule: under
the Fourth Amendment (applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amend
ment), “all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Consti
tution . . . is inadmissible.”55 This means that even people who are clearly guilty of
the crime of which they are accused must not be convicted if the only evidence
for their conviction was obtained illegally.
The exclusionary rule is the most dramatic restraint imposed by the courts on
police behavior because it rules out precisely the evidence that produces a convic
tion; it frees those people who are known to have committed the crime of which
they have been accused because the evidence was obtained improperly, though
few convictions are actually lost because of excluded evidence. Because it works
so dramatically in favor of persons known to have committed a crime, the Court
has since softened the application of the rule. In recent years, the federal courts
have relied upon a discretionary use of the exclusionary rule, whereby they make a
judgment as to the “nature and quality of the intrusion.” It is thus difficult to know
ahead of time whether a defendant will or will not be protected from an illegal
search under the Fourth Amendment.56 Several recent cases have imposed strict
114 C H A P T E R 4 C I V I L L I B e R T I e S A N D C I V I L R I g h T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 114 11/28/18 4:27 PM
interpretations of a reasonable search. In 2013
the Court held that the use of a drugsniffing
dog on the front porch of a home constituted
an improper search in the absence of consent
or a warrant.57
Changes in technology have also had an
impact on Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.
In the 2012 case of United States v. Jones, the
Court held that prosecutors violated Jones’s
rights when they attached a Global Position
ing System device to his Jeep and monitored
his movements for 28 days.58 On the other
hand, in Maryland v. King, the Court upheld
DNA testing of arrestees without the need for
individualized suspicion. The Court charac
terized DNA testing as an administrative tool
for identifying the arrestee and thus as legally
indistinguishable from photographing and
fingerprinting.59 In the 2014 case of Riley v.
California, the Court held that the police were constitutionally prohibited from
seizing and searching the digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest.60 As
new technologies develop, the Court will continue to face the question of what
constitutes a reasonable search. In 2016 the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
sought to compel the Apple Corporation to unlock the cell phone used by Syed
Farook, an alleged terrorist who, along with his wife Tashfeen Malik, killed
14 people in San Bernardino, California. Apple asserted that creating new soft
ware to enable the FBI to unlock the phone would allow the agency to invade the
privacy of millions of iPhone users. The case became moot when the FBI was able
to unlock the phone without Apple’s help.
Finally, the Fourth Amendment places limits on government surveillance of
individuals, an ongoing and controversial issue in the United States today. For
example, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., recently ruled that a National Secu
rity Agency (NSA) program that collected millions of records of telephone calls was
impermissible under the Fourth Amendment.61
THE FIF TH AMENDMENT COVERS COURT-RELATED RIGHTS
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a
presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces,
or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any per
son be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty,
or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation.
Under what circumstances can the
police search an individual’s car? The
Fourth Amendment protects against
“unreasonable searches and seizures,”
but the Supreme Court has had to
interpret what is unreasonable.
115R I g h T S O F T h e C R I M I N A L LY A C C U S e D
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 115 11/28/18 4:27 PM
Grand Juries The first clause of the Fifth Amendment sets forth the right to a
grand jury to determine whether a trial is warranted; grand juries do not rule on the
accused’s guilt or innocence. Grand juries play an important role in federal criminal
cases. However, the provision for a grand jury is the one important civil liberties pro
vision of the Bill of Rights that was not incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment
to apply to state criminal prosecutions. Thus, some states operate without grand
juries. In such states, the prosecuting attorney simply files a “bill of information,”
affirming that there is sufficient evidence available to justify a trial. If the accused
person is to be held in custody, the prosecutor must take the available information
before a judge to determine that the evidence shows probable cause.
Double Jeopardy “Nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice
put in jeopardy of life or limb” is the constitutional protection from double jeopardy,
a protection to prevent a person from being tried more than once for the same
crime. The protection from double jeopardy was at the heart of the Palko v. Con-
necticut case in 1937. In that case, a Connecticut court had found Frank Palko guilty
of seconddegree murder and sentenced him to life in prison. Unhappy with the
verdict, the state of Connecticut appealed the conviction to its highest state court,
won the appeal, got a new trial, and then succeeded in getting Palko convicted of
firstdegree murder. Palko appealed to the Supreme Court on what seemed an open
andshut case of double jeopardy. Yet, although the majority of the Court agreed
that this could indeed be considered a case of double jeopardy, they decided that
double jeopardy was not one of the provisions of the Bill of Rights incorporated in
the Fourteenth Amendment as a restriction on the powers of the states.62 Palko was
executed for the crime in 1938, because he lived in Connecticut rather than in a
state whose constitution included a guarantee against double jeopardy. It took more
than 30 years for the Court to nationalize the constitutional protection against dou
ble jeopardy, when the court overruled Palko and declared that double jeopardy now
applied to the states (see Table 4.2).
Self-Incrimination Perhaps the most significant liberty found in the Fifth Amend
ment, and the one most familiar to many Americans who watch television crime
shows, is the guarantee that no citizen “shall be compelled in any criminal case to
be a witness against himself.” The most famous case concerning selfincrimination
involved 23yearold Ernesto Miranda, who was sentenced to between 20 and
30 years in prison for the kidnap and rape of an 18yearold woman. The woman
had identified him in a police lineup, and, after two hours of questioning, Miranda
confessed, subsequently signing a statement that his confession had been made vol
untarily, without threats or promises of immunity. This confession was admitted
into evidence and served as the basis for Miranda’s conviction. After his convic
tion, Miranda argued that his confession had not been truly voluntary and that he
had not been informed of his right to remain silent or his right to consult an attor
ney. The Supreme Court agreed and overturned the conviction.63 Following one
of the most intensely and widely criticized decisions ever handed down by the
Supreme Court, Miranda’s case produced the rules the police must follow before
116 C H A P T E R 4 C I V I L L I B e R T I e S A N D C I V I L R I g h T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 116 11/28/18 4:27 PM
questioning an arrested criminal suspect. The reading of a person’s “Miranda rights”
became a standard scene in every police station and on virtually every dramatization
of police action on television and in the movies. Miranda advanced the civil liberties
of accused persons not only by expanding the scope of the Fifth Amendment clause
covering coerced confessions and selfincrimination but also by confirming the right
to counsel (discussed later). Subsequent Supreme Courts considerably softened the
Miranda restrictions, but the Miranda rule (as set out in Miranda v. Arizona) that
persons under arrest must be informed prior to police interrogation of their rights
to remain silent and to have the benefit of legal counsel, still stands as a protection
against egregious police abuses of arrested persons.
Eminent Domain The other fundamental clause of the Fifth Amendment is the
“takings clause,” which extends to each citizen a protection against the “taking” of
private property by the government “without just compensation.” The power of any
government to take private property for public use is called eminent domain. The Fifth
Amendment puts limits on that inherent power through procedures that require a
showing of a public purpose and the provision of fair payment for the government’s
taking of someone’s property.
THE SIXTH AMENDMENT’S RIGHT TO COUNSEL
IS CRUCIAL FOR A FAIR TRIAL
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by
an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which
district shall have been ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and the cause of
the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process
for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Like the exclusionary rule of the Fourth Amendment and the selfincrimination
clause of the Fifth Amendment, the “right to counsel” provision of the Sixth
Amendment is notable for sometimes freeing defendants who seem to the public to
be guilty as charged. Other provisions of the Sixth Amendment, such as the right
to a speedy trial and the right to confront witnesses before an impartial jury, are not
very controversial.
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) is the perfect case study because it involved a
disreputable person who seemed patently guilty of the crime of which he was
convicted. In and out of jails for most of his 51 years, Clarence Earl Gideon
received a fiveyear sentence for breaking and entering a poolroom in Panama
City, Florida. While serving time in jail, Gideon became a fairly wellqualified
“jailhouse lawyer,” made his own appeal on a handwritten petition, and eventu
ally won the landmark ruling on the right to counsel in all felony cases. After the
Supreme Court’s decision, Gideon was granted a new trial. This time, represented
by an attorney, he was found not guilty.64 The right to counsel was later expanded,
beyond just serious crimes, to any trial, with or without a jury, that holds the
possibility of imprisonment.
117R I g h T S O F T h e C R I M I N A L LY A C C U S e D
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 117 11/28/18 4:27 PM
THE EIGHTH AMENDMENT BARS CRUEL
AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual
punishment inflicted.
Virtually all the debate over Eighth Amendment issues focuses on the last clause
of the amendment: the protection from “cruel and unusual punishment.” One of
the greatest challenges in interpreting this provision consistently arises over the
death penalty. In 1972 the Supreme Court overturned several state death penalty
laws, not because they were cruel and unusual but because they were being applied
unevenly—that is, blacks were much more likely than whites to be sentenced to
death, the poor more likely than the rich, and men more likely than women.65 Very
soon after that decision, a majority of states revised their capital punishment provi
sions to meet the Court’s standards, and the Court reaffirmed that the death penalty
could be used if certain standards were met.66 Since 1976 the Court has consistently
upheld state laws providing for capital punishment, although it also continues to
review death penalty appeals each year.
Between 1976 and April 2017, states executed 1,448 people. Most of those exe
cutions occurred in southern states, with Texas leading the way at 542. As of 2018,
30 states had statutes providing for capital punishment for specified offenses, a pol
icy supported by a majority of Americans, according to polls. On the other hand,
19 states bar the death penalty; and since the end of the 1990s both the number of
death sentences and the number of executions have declined annually.
Many death penalty supporters assert it deters
other wouldbe criminals. Although studies of
capital crimes usually fail to demonstrate any
direct deterrent effect, this failure may be due
to the lengthy delays (typically years and even
decades) between convictions and executions.
A system that eliminates undue delays might
enhance deterrence.
Death penalty opponents are quick to coun
ter that the death penalty has not been proven
to deter crime, either in the United States or
abroad. In fact, America is the only Western
nation that still executes criminals. If the gov
ernment is to serve as an example of proper
behavior, say foes of capital punishment, it has
no business sanctioning killing when incarcer
ation also protects society. Furthermore, execu
tion is timeconsuming and expensive—more
expensive than life imprisonment—precisely
because the government must make every effort
to ensure that it is not executing an innocent
Opponents argue that the death
penalty constitutes cruel and unusual
punishment. In recent years, the use
of lethal injection drugs including
Midazolam has come under scrutiny
after troubling executions where the
process was drawn out and painful. In
2015 the Supreme Court upheld the
use of lethal injection.
118 C H A P T E R 4 C I V I L L I B e R T I e S A N D C I V I L R I g h T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 118 11/28/18 4:27 PM
person. Curtailing legal appeals would increase the possibility of a mistake.
Race also intrudes in death penalty cases: people of color are disproportionately
more likely than whites charged with identical crimes to be given the ultimate
punishment.
In recent years, the Court has issued a number of death penalty opinions,
declaring that death was too harsh a penalty for the crime of raping a child67 and
invalidating a death sentence for a black defendant when the prosecutor had improp
erly excluded African Americans from the jury.68 In 2015 the Court upheld lethal
injection as a mode of execution, despite arguments that this form of execution was
likely to cause considerable pain.69
The Right to Privacy Means
the Right to Be Left Alone
Although the word privacy never
appears in the Bill of Rights, there
is general agreement that a right to
privacy emanates from the first 10
amendments—even though judges
and legal scholars continue to disagree about where the right comes from. The idea
behind the right to privacy is simple: people have a right to be left alone from
government or other persons’ interference in certain personal areas.
The sphere of privacy was drawn by the Supreme Court in 1965, when
it ruled that a Connecticut statute forbidding the use of contraceptives vio
lated the right of marital privacy. Estelle Griswold, the executive director of
the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, was arrested by the state of
Connecticut for providing information, instruction, and medical advice about
contraception to married couples. She and her associates were found guilty
as accessories to the crime and fined $100 each. The Supreme Court reversed
the lowercourt decisions and declared the Connecticut law unconstitutional
because it violated “a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights—older
than our political parties, older than our school system.”70 Justice William O.
Douglas, author of the majority decision in the Griswold v. Connecticut case,
argued that this right of privacy is also grounded in the Constitution because it
fits into a “zone of privacy” created by a combination of the Third, Fourth, and
Fifth amendments. A concurring opinion, written by Justice Arthur Goldberg,
attempted to strengthen Douglas’s argument by adding that “the concept of
liberty . . . embraces the right of marital privacy though that right is not
mentioned explicitly in the Constitution [and] is supported by numerous
decisions of this Court . . . and by the language and history of the Ninth Amendment
[emphasis added].”71
The right to privacy was confirmed and extended in 1973 in an important but
controversial privacy decision: Roe v. Wade. This decision established a woman’s
right to seek an abortion and prohibited states from making abortion a criminal act
Assess whether people have
a right to privacy under the
Constitution
119T h e R I g h T T O P R I VA C Y M e A N S T h e R I g h T T O B e L e F T A L O N e
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 119 11/28/18 4:27 PM
prior to the point at which the fetus becomes
viable, which, in 1973, was the twenty
seventh week.72 It is important to emphasize
that the preference for privacy rights and for
their extension to include the rights of women
to control their own bodies was not something
invented by the Supreme Court in a vacuum.
Most states did not regulate abortions in any
fashion until the 1840s, at which time only 6 of
the 26 existing states had any regulations gov
erning abortion. In addition, many states had
begun to ease their abortion restrictions well
before the 1973 Roe decision. In recent years,
a number of states have reinstated some restric
tions on abortion, including lowering the via
bility standard to 20 weeks (Texas), 12 weeks
(Arkansas), and 6 weeks (North Dakota). While
the Supreme Court has continued to affirm a
woman’s right to seek an abortion, it has limited the right, approving restrictions as
long as they do not pose an “undue burden.”
Like any important principle, once privacy was established as an aspect of civil
liberties protected by the Bill of Rights through the Fourteenth Amendment, it took
on a life of its own. In a number of important decisions, the Supreme Court and the
lower federal courts sought to protect rights that could not be found in the text of the
Constitution but could be discovered through a study of the philosophic sources of
fundamental rights. Righttoprivacy claims have been made by those attempting to
preserve the right to obtain legal abortions, by those seeking to obtain greater rights
for gay people, and by supporters of physicianassisted suicide (also known as the
“righttodie” movement). In the case of gay people, the Supreme Court extended
privacy protections to them in 2003 when it ruled that they are “entitled to respect for
their private lives” in the case of Lawrence v. Texas.73 The case overturned a Texas law
banning certain sexual acts among samesex partners. The Court concluded, “Peti
tioners are entitled to respect for their private lives. The State cannot demean their
existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime.” For
the first time, gay men and lesbians could claim righttoprivacy protection.
Civil Rights Are Protections
by the Government
With the adoption of the Fourteenth
Amendment in 1868, civil rights
became part of the Constitution,
guaranteed to each citizen through
“equal protection of the laws.”
One of the most important cases
related to the right to privacy was
Roe v. Wade, which established a
woman’s right to seek an abortion.
However, the decision has remained
highly controversial, with opponents
arguing that the Constitution does not
guarantee this right.
Trace the legal developments and
social movements that expanded
civil rights
120 C H A P T E R 4 C I V I L L I B e R T I e S A N D C I V I L R I g h T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 120 11/28/18 4:27 PM
Together with the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, and the
Fifteenth Amendment, which guaranteed voting rights for black men, it
seemed to provide a guarantee of civil rights for the newly freed black slaves.
But the general language of the Fourteenth Amendment meant that its
support for civil rights could be even more farreaching. The very simplicity
of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment left it open to
interpretation:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws.
These words launched a century of political movements and legal efforts to press for
racial equality. The African American quest for civil rights in turn inspired many
other groups, including members of other racial and ethnic groups, women, the
disabled, and gay men, lesbians, and transgender individuals, to seek new laws and
constitutional guarantees of their civil rights.
PLESSY V. FERGUSON ESTABLISHED
“SEPARATE BUT EQUAL”
The Supreme Court was initially no more ready to enforce the civil rights aspects
of the Fourteenth Amendment than it was to enforce the civil liberties provisions.
Resistance to equality for African Americans in the South led Congress to adopt the
Civil Rights Act of 1875, which attempted to protect blacks from discrimination
by proprietors of hotels, theaters, and other public accommodations. But the Court
declared the Civil Rights Act of 1875 unconstitutional on the grounds that it sought
to protect blacks against discrimination by private businesses, while the Fourteenth
Amendment, according to the Court’s interpretation, was intended to protect indi
viduals only from discrimination that arose from actions by public officials of state
and local governments.
In the infamous case of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Court went still further
by upholding a Louisiana statute that required segregation of the races on trolleys
and other public carriers (and, by implication, in all public facilities, including
schools). Homer Plessy, a man defined as “oneeighth black,” sat in a trolley car
reserved for whites and was found guilty of violating a Louisiana law that pro
vided for “equal but separate accommodations” on trains and a $25 fine for any
white passenger who sat in a car reserved for blacks or any black passenger who
sat in a car reserved for whites. The Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth
Amendment’s “equal protection of the laws” was not violated by laws requir
ing segregation of the races in public accommodations as long as the facilities
were equal, thus establishing the “separate but equal” rule that prevailed through
the midtwentieth century.74 White people generally pretended that segregated
accommodations were equal as long as some accommodation for blacks existed.
Thus, racial inequality in the guise of the separate but equal doctrine persisted
for decades.
121C I V I L R I g h T S A R e P R O T e C T I O N S B Y T h e g OV e R N M e N T
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 121 11/28/18 4:27 PM
L AWSUITS TO FIGHT FOR EQUALITY CAME
AF TER WORLD WAR II
The Supreme Court had begun to change its position on racial discrimination before
World War II by being stricter about the criterion for equal facilities in the “separate
but equal” rule. In 1938, for example, the Court rejected Missouri’s policy of paying
the tuition of qualified blacks to outofstate law schools rather than admitting them
to the University of Missouri Law School.75 Similar rulings in the 1940s and ’50s
began to chip away at “separate but equal.”
Although none of those pre1954 cases confronted “separate but equal” and the
principle of racial discrimination headon, they gave black leaders encouragement to
believe that recent legal precedent might change the constitutional framework itself.
Much of this legal work was done by the Legal Defense and Educational Fund of the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Formed in
1909 to fight discrimination against African Americans, the NAACP was the most
important civil rights organization during the first half of the twentieth century.
In the fall of 1952 the Court had on its docket cases from Delaware, the District
of Columbia, Kansas, South Carolina, and Virginia challenging the constitutional
ity of school segregation. Of these, the case filed in Kansas became the chosen one
by the NAACP. It seemed to be ahead of the pack in its district court, and it had the
special advantage of being located in a state outside the Deep South, which would
minimize local opposition to a favorable decision.76
Oliver Brown, the father of three girls, lived “across the tracks” in a lowincome,
racially mixed Topeka neighborhood. Every school day morning, Linda Brown took
The 1896 Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson upheld legal segregation and created the
“separate but equal” rule, which fostered national segregation. Overt discrimination in public
accommodations was common.
122 C H A P T E R 4 C I V I L L I B e R T I e S A N D C I V I L R I g h T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 122 11/28/18 4:28 PM
the school bus to the Monroe School for black children about a mile away but had
to walk through a dangerous railroad switchyard to get to the stop—all this, even
though a white school was closer to their home. In September 1950, Oliver Brown
took Linda to the closer allwhite Sumner School to enter her into the third grade
in defiance of state law and local segregation rules. When they were refused, Brown
took his case to the NAACP; and soon thereafter Brown v. Board of Education was born.
In deciding the Brown case, the Court, to the surprise of many, rejected as
inconclusive historical evidence about the intent and the history of the Fourteenth
Amendment and committed itself instead to considering only the consequences
of segregation:
Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the phys
ical facilities and other “tangible” factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority
group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does. . . . We conclude that in the
field of public education the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place. Separate educational
facilities are inherently unequal.77
The Brown decision altered the constitutional framework by concluding that
racial discrimination violated the Constitution.
THE CIVIL RIGHTS STRUGGLE ESCAL ATED AF TER
BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION
Brown v. Board of Education withdrew all constitutional authority to use race as a
criterion for exclusion, and it signaled more clearly the Court’s determination to
use the strict scrutiny test in cases related to racial discrimination. This meant that
the burden of proof would fall on the government to show that the law in question
was constitutional—not on the challengers to show the law’s unconstitutionality.78
But the historic decision in Brown v. Board of Education was merely a small open
ing move. First, most states refused to cooperate until sued, and many ingenious
schemes were employed to delay obedience (such as states paying the tuition for
white students to attend newly created “private” academies). Second, while school
boards began to cooperate by eliminating legally enforced school segregation (what
is referred to as de jure segregation, meaning literally “by law” or legally enforced
practices), extensive actual segregation remained (what is referred to as de facto seg
regation, meaning literally “by fact,” wherein races are still segregated even though
the law does not require it). Thus, school segregation in the North as well as in the
South remained as a consequence of racially segregated housing patterns that were
untouched by the 1954–55 Brown principles. Third, discrimination in employment,
public accommodations, juries, voting, and other areas of social and economic
activity was not directly touched by Brown.
Social Protest and Congressional Action Ten years after Brown, fewer than
1 percent of black schoolage children in the Deep South were attending schools
with whites.79 A decade of frustration made it fairly obvious to all observers that
123C I V I L R I g h T S A R e P R O T e C T I O N S B Y T h e g OV e R N M e N T
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 123 11/28/18 4:28 PM
adjudication alone would not succeed. The
goal of “equal protection” required positive, or
affirmative, action by Congress and by federal
agencies. And given massive southern resistance
and a generally negative national public opinion
toward racial integration, progress would not be
made through courts, Congress, or federal agen
cies without intense, wellorganized support.
Organized civil rights demonstrations began to
mount slowly but surely after Brown v. Board
of Education. Only a year after Brown, black
citizens in Montgomery, Alabama, challenged
the city’s segregated bus system with a yearlong
boycott. The boycott began with the arrest of
Rosa Parks, who refused to give up her bus seat
for a white man. A seamstress who worked with
civil rights groups, Parks eventually became
a civil rights icon, as did one of the ministers
leading the boycott: Martin Luther King, Jr.
After a year of private carpools and walking,
Montgomery’s bus system desegregated but
only after the Supreme Court ruled the system
unconstitutional.
By the 1960s the many organizations that made up the civil rights movement
had accumulated experience and built networks capable of launching massive
directaction campaigns against southern segregationists. The Southern Christian
Leader ship Conference, the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, and
many other organizations had built a movement that stretched across the South,
using the media to attract nationwide attention and support. The image of protesters
being beaten, attacked by police dogs, and set upon with fire hoses did much to
win broad sympathy for the cause of black civil rights and to discredit state and
local governments in the South. In the massive March on Washington in 1963, the
Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., staked out the movement’s moral claims in his
famous “I Have a Dream” speech.
Protests against discriminatory practices toward African Americans did not
end in the 1960s. Beginning in 2012, a variety of protests coalesced under the
banner Black Lives Matter to focus attention on allegations of police miscon
duct directed at African Americans. The movement took off after the shooting
of an unarmed black teenager by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, in
2014 and spread across the nation as the media, including social media, carried
reports, photos, and videos of police violence against blacks around the country.
African Americans have long asserted that they are often victims of racial profil
ing and more likely than whites to be harassed or arrested by the police. Police
departments have replied that blacks are more likely than whites to be engaged
in criminal activity.
“Massive resistance” among white
southerners attempted to block
the desegregation efforts of the
national government. For example, at
Little Rock Central High School in 1957,
an angry mob of white southerners
prevented black students from entering
the school.
124 C H A P T E R 4 C I V I L L I B e R T I e S A N D C I V I L R I g h T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 124 11/28/18 4:28 PM
THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACTS MADE EQUAL
PROTECTION A REALITY
The right to equal protection of the laws could be established and, to a certain
extent, implemented by the courts. But after a decade of very frustrating efforts, the
courts and Congress ultimately came to the conclusion that the federal courts alone
were not adequate to the task of changing the social rules and that legislation and
administrative action would be needed.
Congress used its legislative powers to help make equal protection of the laws a
reality by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibiting major forms of discrimi
nation against racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities, and women in voting
registration, schools, public accommodations, and the workplace. The act seemed
bold at the time, but it was enacted 10 years after the Supreme Court had declared
racial discrimination “inherently unequal” and long after blacks had demonstrated
that discrimination was no longer acceptable.
Public Accommodations After the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, public
accommodations quickly removed some of the most visible forms of racial discrim
ination. Signs defining “colored” and “white” restrooms, water fountains, waiting
rooms, and seating arrangements were removed and a host of other practices that
relegated black people to separate and inferior arrangements were ended. In addition,
the federal government filed more than 400 antidiscrimination suits in federal courts
against hotels, restaurants, taverns, gas stations, and other “public accommodations.”
Many aspects of legalized racial segregation, such as using separate Bibles to swear
in black and white witnesses in the courtroom, seem like ancient history today. But
the issue of racial discrimination in public settings is by no means over. In 1993
six African American Secret Service agents filed suit after a Denny’s restaurant in
Annapolis, Maryland, failed to serve them. Similar charges citing discriminatory
service at Denny’s restaurants surfaced across the country. Faced with evidence of a
pattern of systematic discrimination and numerous lawsuits, Denny’s paid $45 mil
lion in damages to plaintiffs in Maryland and California in what is said to be the
largest settlement ever in a public accommodation case.80 In addition to the settle
ment, the chain vowed to expand employment and management opportunities for
minorities in Denny’s restaurants.
School Desegregation The 1964 Civil Rights Act also declared discrimination
by private employers and state governments (school boards, etc.) illegal, then went
further by providing for administrative agencies to help the courts implement these
laws. The act, for example, authorized the executive branch, through the Justice
Department, to implement federal court orders to desegregate schools and to do
so without having to wait for individual parents to bring complaints. The act also
provided that federal grantsinaid to state and local governments for education be
withheld from any school system practicing racial segregation.
In recent years, a series of court rulings have slowed racebased integration efforts.
In 2007 the Supreme Court’s ruling in Parents Involved in Community Schools v.
125C I V I L R I g h T S A R e P R O T e C T I O N S B Y T h e g OV e R N M e N T
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 125 11/28/18 4:28 PM
Seattle School District No. 1 limited the measures that can be used to promote school
integration.81 The case involved school assignment plans voluntarily initiated by the
cities of Seattle, Washington, and Louisville, Kentucky. By making race one factor in
assigning students to schools, the cities hoped to achieve greater racial balance across
the public schools. The Court ruled that these plans, even though they were volun
tarily adopted by cities, were unconstitutional because it assigned some students to
schools based on race (in violation of Brown). Still, some described the decision as
the end of the Brown era because it eliminated one of the few public strategies left
to promote racial integration.82
Outlawing Discrimination in Employment The federal courts and the Jus
tice Department also fought employment discrimination through the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed job discrimination by all private
and public employers, including governmental agencies (such as fire and police
departments) that employed more than 15 workers.83 The 1964 act makes it unlaw
ful to discriminate in employment on the basis of color, religion, sex, or national
origin, as well as race.
In order to enforce fair employment practices, the national government could
revoke public contracts for goods and services and refuse to engage in contracts with
any private company that could not guarantee that its rules for hiring, promotion,
and firing were nondiscriminatory.
But one problem was that the complaining party had to show that deliber
ate discrimination was the cause of the failure to get a job or a training oppor
tunity. Rarely, of course, does an employer explicitly admit discrimination on
the basis of race, sex, or any other illegal reason. Recognizing this, the courts
have allowed aggrieved parties (the plaintiffs) to make their case if they can
show that an employer’s hiring practices had the effect of exclusion, even if they
cannot show the intention to discriminate.
Voting Rights Although 1964 was the most important year for civil rights leg
islation, it was not the only important year. In 1965, Congress significantly
strengthened legislation protecting voting rights by barring literacy and other tests
as a condition for voting in six southern states,84 by making it a crime to interfere
with voting, and by providing for the replacement of local registrars with federally
appointed registrars in counties designated by the attorney general as significantly
resistant to registering eligible blacks to vote. The right to vote was further strength
ened with ratification in 1964 of the TwentyFourth Amendment, which abolished
the poll tax, and later with legislation permanently outlawing literacy tests and
mandating bilingual ballots or oral assistance for Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, and
Korean speakers, and Native Americans. This 1965 law finally led to a dramatic
increase in voting by African Americans, meaning that it took almost 100 years to
carry out the Fifteenth Amendment.
In the long run, the laws extending and protecting voting rights could
prove to be the most effective of all the great civil rights legislation because the
progress in black political participation produced by these acts has altered the
126 C H A P T E R 4 C I V I L L I B e R T I e S A N D C I V I L R I g h T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 126 11/28/18 4:28 PM
shape of American politics. In 1965, in the seven states of the Old Confederacy
covered by the Voting Rights Act, 29.3 percent of the eligible black residents
were registered to vote, compared with 73.4 percent of the white residents
(see Table 4.3). In 1967, a mere two years after implementation of the voting
rights laws, 52.1 percent of the eligible blacks in the seven states were registered.
By 1972 the gap between black and white registration in the seven states was
only 11.2 points.
A new area of controversy in the realm of voting rights concerns socalled voter
ID laws. Some 34 states have enacted legislation requiring voters to show positive
identification at the polls. As of 2018, seven of these states required photo ID, like
a driver’s license, in order to vote. Republicans generally support such laws, arguing
that they deter voter fraud. Democrats generally oppose such laws, countering that
TABLE 4.3
Registration by Race and State in
Southern States Covered by the Voting
Rights Act (VRA)
The VRA had a direct impact on the rate of black voter registration in the southern states,
as measured by the gap between white and black voters in each state. Further insights
can be gained by examining changes in white registration rates before and after passage
of the VRA and by comparing the gaps between white and black registration. Why do you
think registration rates for whites increased significantly in some states and dropped in
others? What impact could the increase in black registration have had on public policy?
BEFORE THE ACT* AFTER THE ACT* 1971–72
WHITE
(%)
BLACK
(%)
GAP**
(%)
WHITE
(%)
BLACK
(%)
GAP
(%)
Alabama 69.2 19.3 49.9 80.7 57.1 23.6
georgia 62.6 27.4 35.2 70.6 67.8 2.8
Louisiana 80.5 31.6 48.9 80.0 59.1 20.9
Mississippi 69.9 6.7 63.2 71.6 62.2 9.4
North Carolina 96.8 46.8 50.0 62.2 46.3 15.9
South Carolina 75.7 37.3 38.4 51.2 48.0 3.2
Virginia 61.1 38.3 22.8 61.2 54.0 7.2
AVeRAge 73.4 29.3 44.1 67.8 56.6 11.2
*Available registration data as of March 1965 and 1971–72.
**The gap is the percentage-point difference between white and black registration rates.
SOURCE: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Political Participation (1968), Appendix VII: Voter Education Project,
attachment to press release, October 3, 1972.
127C I V I L R I g h T S A R e P R O T e C T I O N S B Y T h e g OV e R N M e N T
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 127 11/28/18 4:28 PM
they are particularly burdensome to poor, young, and minority voters, who they
say are less likely to possess such IDs. Critics also note that virtually no documented
cases of voter ID fraud exist, despite intensive efforts to uncover them. In 2017 the
Trump administration established an election integrity commission to look into
charges of illegal voting in the 2016 elections. The Commission was blasted by
Democrats as another effort to discourage voting.
Housing The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not address housing, but in 1968, Con
gress passed another civil rights act specifically to outlaw housing discrimination.
Called the Fair Housing Act, the law prohibited discrimination in the sale or rental
of most housing, eventually covering nearly all of the nation’s housing. Housing was
among the most controversial of discrimination issues because of deeply entrenched
patterns of residential segregation across the United States.
Although it pronounced sweeping goals, the Fair Housing Act had little
effect on housing segregation because its enforcement mechanisms were so
weak. Individuals believing they had been discriminated against had to file
suit themselves. The burden was on the individual to prove that housing
discrimination had occurred, even though such discrimination is often subtle
and difficult to document. Although local fairhousing groups emerged to assist
individuals in their court claims, the procedures for proving discrimination
created a formidable barrier to effective change. These procedures were not
altered until 1988, when Congress passed the Fair Housing Amendments Act.
This new law put more teeth in the enforcement procedures and allowed the
Department of Housing and Urban Development to initiate legal action in cases
of discrimination.85
Another kind of discrimination, related to discriminatory home mortgage–
lending practices, remained significant. Socalled predatory lending—offering loans
with interest rates that are higher than prevailing market rates, including “subprime
mortgages”—led to charges that such loans were offered to African Americans and
Latinos, while whites with similar incomes were offered loans with lower interest
rates. These charges received extensive national attention when the economic down
turn of 2008–09 led to widespread mortgage defaults, with many people losing
their homes.86 Lawsuits over these practices have resulted in the largest financial
settlements ever issued for lending discrimination.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ATTEMPTS
TO RIGHT PAST WRONGS
Over the past halfcentury, the relatively narrow goal of equalizing opportunity by
eliminating discriminatory barriers developed toward the far broader goal of affirma-
tive action, government policies or programs that seek to redress past injustices against
specified groups by making special efforts to provide members of these groups with
access to educational and employment opportunities. An affirmative action policy
uses two novel approaches: (1) positive or benign discrimination in which race or some
other status is counted as a positive rather than negative factor and (2) compensatory
128 C H A P T E R 4 C I V I L L I B e R T I e S A N D C I V I L R I g h T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 128 11/28/18 4:28 PM
action to favor members of the disadvantaged group who themselves may never have
been the victims of discrimination.
Affirmative action also took the form of efforts by the agencies in the Depart
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare to shift their focus from “desegregation”
to “integration.”87 Federal agencies required school districts to present plans for
busing children across district lines, for closing certain schools, and for redistribut
ing faculties as well as students or face the loss of aid from the federal government.
The guidelines constituted preferential treatment to compensate for past discrimi
nation, leading to a dramatic increase in the numbers of black children attending
integrated classes.
The Supreme Court Shifts the Burden of Proof in Affirmative Action Efforts
by the government to shape the meaning of affirmative action today tend to center
on one key issue: What is the appropriate level of review in affirmative action cases—
that is, on whom should the burden of proof be placed: the plaintiff, to show that
discrimination has not occurred, or the defendant, to show that discrimination has
occurred? The reason this question is difficult is because the cases in which the Court
struck down racially discriminatory laws all involved historically disadvantaged racial
minority groups. The Court struck down those laws partly because it concluded they
were motivated by racial hostility and partly because the Court concluded that dis
advantaged minority groups were effectively unable to use the political process to
challenge laws that harmed them. The new cases, however, rather than being moti
vated by racial hostility, were enacted with the objective of assisting victims of past
injustice. And instead of harming minority groups, they disadvantaged members of
the dominant majority racial group. Yet critics argued that discriminating against any
individual because of their race violated the Equal Protection clause.
This question was addressed by the Supreme Court in the case of Regents of the
University of California v. Bakke. Allan Bakke, a white male, brought suit against
the University of California at Davis Medical School in 1973 on the grounds that it
denied him admission on the basis of his race. (That year the school had reserved 16
of its 100 available slots for minority applicants.) Bakke argued that his grades and
test scores had ranked him well above many students who had been accepted at the
school and that the only possible explanation for his rejection was that he was white,
whereas those others accepted were black or Latino. In 1978, Bakke won his case
before the Supreme Court and was admitted to the medical school, but he did not
succeed in getting affirmative action declared unconstitutional. The Court accepted
the argument that achieving “a diverse student body” was “a compelling public pur
pose,” but it ruled that the method of a rigid quota of student slots assigned on the
basis of race was incompatible with the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection
clause. Thus, the Court permitted universities and other hiring authorities to con
tinue to take minority status into consideration but barred the use of quotas.88
This ambiguous status of affirmative action was how things stood in 2003, when
the Supreme Court took two cases against the University of Michigan. In Grutter v.
Bollinger, the Court upheld the affirmative action program used by Michigan’s law
school, finding it in keeping with the standard set in the Bakke case.89 Michigan’s
129C I V I L R I g h T S A R e P R O T e C T I O N S B Y T h e g OV e R N M e N T
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 129 11/28/18 4:28 PM
undergraduate affirmative action program was declared unconstitutional, however, in
Gratz v. Bollinger because its ranking system for admissions gave specific points to
African American, Latino, and Native American applicants.90 This approach was
barred for resembling too closely the specific numerical quota system struck down by
Bakke. In 2013 the Court indicated in Fisher v. University of Texas that a school’s affirma
tive action program of admissions that seems to discriminate in favor of black students
must be subjected to the same “strict scrutiny” as a program that seems to discriminate
against black students and sent the case back to the lower courts for consideration.91
The Court heard the case again in 2016, and declared that some intrusion on equal
protection was warranted by the importance of creating a diverse student body.92
The Civil Rights Struggle Was Extended
to Other Disadvantaged Groups
Even before equal employment laws
began to have a positive effect on the
economic situation of blacks, some
thing far more dramatic began to
happen: the universalization of civil
rights. The right not to be discriminated against was being successfully claimed by
the other groups listed in the 1964 Civil Rights Act (those defined by sex, religion,
or national origin) and eventually by still other groups (defined by age or sexual
orientation). This extension of civil rights became the new frontier of the civil rights
struggle, and women emerged with the greatest prominence in this new struggle.
AMERICANS HAVE FOUGHT GENDER DISCRIMINATION
In many ways the Civil Rights Act fostered the growth of the women’s movement
(although critics noted that this movement largely benefited white women). The
first major campaign of the National Organization for Women (NOW) involved
picketing the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for its refusal to ban
sexsegregated employment advertisements. NOW also sued the New York Times
for continuing to publish such ads after the passage of the act. Another organiza
tion, the Women’s Equity Action League, pursued legal action on a wide range of
sexdiscrimination issues, filing lawsuits against law schools and medical schools for
discriminatory admission policies, for example.
Building on these victories and the growth of the women’s movement, feminist
activists sought to add an “Equal Rights Amendment” (ERA) to the Constitution.
The proposed amendment was short; it stated that “equality of rights under the law
shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account
of sex.” The amendment’s supporters believed that such a sweeping guarantee of
equal rights was a necessary tool for ending all discrimination against women and
for making gender roles more equal. Opponents charged that it would be socially
disruptive and would introduce changes (such as unisex restrooms) that most
Describe how different groups
have fought for and won protection
of their civil rights
130 C H A P T E R 4 C I V I L L I B e R T I e S A N D C I V I L R I g h T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 130 11/28/18 4:28 PM
Americans did not want. The amendment easily passed Congress in 1972 and won
quick approval in many state legislatures, but it fell 3 states short of the 38 needed
to ratify it by the 1982 deadline.93
Despite the failure of the ERA, efforts to stop gender discrimination expanded
dramatically as an area of civil rights law. In the 1970s the conservative Burger Court
(under Chief Justice Warren Burger) helped establish gender discrimination as a
major and highly visible civil rights issue. Although the Supreme Court refused to
treat gender discrimination as the equivalent of racial discrimination,94 it did make
it easier for plaintiffs to file and win suits on the basis of gender discrimination.
Courts began to find sexual harassment a form of sex discrimination during the
late 1970s. Most of the law on sexual harassment has been developed by courts
through interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In 1986 the
Supreme Court recognized two forms of sexual harassment: the quid pro quo type,
which involves an explicit or strongly implied threat that submission is a condition
of continued employment, and the hostile environment type, which involves offen
sive or intimidating employment conditions amounting to sexual intimidation.95
Another major step was taken in 1992, when the Court decided in Franklin
v. Gwinnett County Public Schools that violations of Title IX of the 1972 Educa
tion Act could be remedied with monetary damages.96 Title IX forbade gender dis
crimination in education, but it initially sparked little litigation because of its weak
enforcement provisions. The Court’s 1992 ruling that monetary damages could be
awarded for gender discrimination opened the door for more legal action in the area
of education. The greatest impact has been in the areas of sexual harassment (the
subject of the Franklin case) and in equal treatment of women’s athletic programs.
The potential for monetary damages has made universities and public schools take
the problem of sexual harassment more seriously.
In 1996 the Supreme Court made another important decision by putting an
end to allmale schools supported by public funds. It ruled that the policy of the
Virginia Military Institute (VMI) not to admit women was unconstitutional.97 Along
with The Citadel, an allmale military college in South Carolina, VMI had never
admitted women in its 157year history. VMI argued that the unique educational
experience it offered—including intense physical training and the harsh treatment of
freshmen—would be destroyed if women were admitted. The Court, however, ruled
that the maleonly policy denied “substantial equality” to women. Two days after the
Court’s ruling, The Citadel announced that it would accept women.
Women have also pressed for civil rights in employment. In particular, women
have fought against pay discrimination, which occurs when a male employee is
paid more than a female employee of equal qualifications in the same job. In the
1960s pay discrimination was common. After the Equal Pay Act of 1963 made such
discrimination illegal, women’s pay slowly moved toward the level of men’s pay. In
2007 this movement received a setback when the Supreme Court ruled against a claim
of pay discrimination. The case, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., involved
a female supervisor named Lily Ledbetter, who learned late in her career that she
was being paid up to 40 percent less than male supervisors, including those with less
seniority. Ledbetter filed a grievance with the EEOC, charging sex discrimination.98
131T h e C I V I L R I g h T S S T R U g g L e
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 131 11/28/18 4:28 PM
The Supreme Court denied her claim, ruling
that, according to the law, workers must file
their grievance 180 days after the discrimina
tion occurs. Many observers found the ruling
unfair because workers often do not know
about pay differentials until well after the ini
tial decision to discriminate has been made. In
2009 the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act became
the first bill that President Obama signed into
law, giving workers expanded rights to sue in
cases such as Ledbetter’s when an employee
learns of discriminatory treatment well after
it has started.
In recent years, laws and court deci
sions designed to deal with discrimination
against women have been used by groups
representing transgender individuals to press
for equal rights, especially in the realm of employment. For example, Title VII
of the 1964 Civil Rights Act makes it unlawful to discriminate in employment on
the basis of color, religion, sex, national origin, or race. Pressed by groups repre
senting transgender workers, in 2015 President Obama issued an executive order
prohibiting federal contractors from discriminating against workers based on
their sexual orientation or gender identity. Two months later the EEOC filed its
firstever lawsuits to protect transgender workers under Title VII. Later that year
Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Justice Department would
consider discrimination against transgender people as covered by the Civil Rights
Act’s prohibition of sex discrimination.99 Nonetheless, attempts have been made
to pass legislation requiring transgender individuals to use public bathrooms that
correspond to the gender designated on their birth certificates. In 2016, North
Carolina enacted such a law. After the federal Department of Justice warned the
state that the law violated the Civil Rights Act, the state and the department filed
opposing lawsuits over the issue. As the legal standoff continued, many companies
pulled conventions and other events out of the state, costing North Carolina’s econ
omy millions of dollars. Bowing to pressure, North Carolina repealed the ordinance
in 2017. Also in 2017, President Trump tweeted that transgender people would be
barred from military service. The president’s tweet caused confusion and consterna
tion with Pentagon officials, saying they had neither been consulted nor received any
formal directive. On the heels of a court decision pausing the enactment of any ban,
the military said that transgender enlistments would be allowed in 2018.100
L ATINOS AND ASIAN AMERICANS FIGHT FOR RIGHTS
Although the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination on the basis of
national origin, persistent discrimination plus limited English proficiency kept
many Asian Americans and Latinos from full participation in American life. Two
Political equality did not end discrimination
against women in the workplace or in society
at large. In 2009, President Obama signed
the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in an effort to
reinstate fair pay protections for women.
C H A P T E R 4 C I V I L L I B e R T I e S A N D C I V I L R I g h T S132
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 132 11/28/18 4:28 PM
developments in the 1970s, however, established rights for language minorities. In
1974 the Supreme Court ruled in Lau v. Nichols that school districts have to provide
education for students whose English is limited.101 It did not mandate bilingual
education, but it established a duty to provide instruction that the students could
understand. And as mentioned earlier the 1970 amendments to the Voting Rights
Act permanently outlawed literacy tests in all 50 states and mandated bilingual
ballots or oral assistance for those who speak Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, or
Native American languages.
Asian Americans and Latinos have also been concerned about the impact of
immigration laws on their civil rights. Many Asian American and Latino organiza
tions opposed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 because it imposed
sanctions on employers who hire undocumented workers. Such sanctions, they
feared, would lead employers to discriminate against Latinos and Asian Americans.
These suspicions were confirmed in a 1990 report by the General Accounting Office
that found employer sanctions had created a “widespread pattern of discrimination”
against Latinos and others who appear foreign.102
As we saw in Chapter 3, a number of states have recently passed very strict immi
gration laws. Arizona’s 2010 law provided the inspiration for these farreaching state
measures. Arizona’s law required immigrants to carry identity documents with them
at all times, made it a crime for an undocumented immigrant to apply for a job, gave
Immigration is one of today’s most controversial issues. President Trump campaigned on a promise
to build a protective wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. Supporters of stricter immigration policies believe
they will help protect jobs for American citizens. Others support the rights of undocumented people—
especially young people brought to the United States by their parents, so-called Dreamers—and
believe that they should have a path to American citizenship.
133T h e C I V I L R I g h T S S T R U g g L e
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 133 11/28/18 4:28 PM
the police greater powers to stop anyone they suspected of being an unauthorized
immigrant, and required the police to check the immigration status of a person
they detain if they suspect that person is an unauthorized immigrant. The Justice
Department challenged the law on the grounds that the federal government was
responsible for making immigration law, not the states. In 2012 the Court struck
down three parts of the Arizona law: the provision that immigrants carry identity
papers, that undocumented immigrants cannot apply for jobs, and that police can
stop persons they suspect of being undocumented immigrants. But the Court let
stand the provision that required local police to check the immigration status of an
individual detained for other reasons, if they had grounds to suspect that the person
was in the country illegally.103
In 2014, President Obama issued executive orders granting quasilegal status
and work permits to millions of individuals who entered the United States illegally
as children or who have children who are American citizens. The Supreme Court
challenged Obama’s authority to issue the executive order, and in 2016, with only
eight members on the Court after the death of Justice Scalia, the Court issued a 4–4
tie.104 The stalemate let stand a lowercourt decision striking down Obama’s order.
The lowercourt decision, however, did not establish a binding national precedent,
and the administration seemed likely to ignore it.
NATIVE AMERICANS HAVE SOVEREIGNTY
BUT STILL L ACK RIGHTS
Native Americans occupy a unique place in the American equality landscape. An
early Supreme Court decision referred to native peoples as “domestic dependent
nations”—they were not considered American citizens, but they were also placed
firmly under the power of the national government. Native peoples were forcibly
removed from lands, attacked in sustained military campaigns, and subject to exten
sive and explicit discrimination across the country.
In 1924 native peoples were collectively naturalized by Congress. In 1975 they
were granted federal votingrights protections in the amendments to the Voting
Rights Act. The Lau decision established the right of Native Americans to be taught
in their own languages. This marked quite a change from the period when Native
American children attended boarding schools run by the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
where they were forbidden from speaking their own languages and otherwise forced
to assimilate to the dominant culture. Native Americans have also sought to expand
their rights on the basis of their sovereign status. Since the 1920s and ’30s, Native
American tribes have sued the federal government for illegally seizing land, seeking
monetary reparations and land. Both types of damages have been awarded in such
suits but only in small amounts. Native American tribes have been more successful
in winning federal recognition of their sovereignty. Most significant economically
was a 1987 Supreme Court decision that freed Native American tribes from most
state regulations prohibiting gambling. The establishment of casino gambling on
Native American lands has brought a substantial flow of new income into some
desperately poor reservations.
134 C H A P T E R 4 C I V I L L I B e R T I e S A N D C I V I L R I g h T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 134 11/28/18 4:28 PM
elections are only a small part of what
makes a democracy a democracy. Liberal
democracies also have extensive civil rights
and civil liberties.
Freedom house, an independent watch-
dog organization focusing on freedom and
democracy around the world, collects data
on political rights and civil liberties from
each country. They measure freedom of
expression and belief, respect for the “rule
of law,”a the right to organize and form
associations, and personal autonomy and
individual rights to rank countries as free,
partly free, and not free (shown below).
All countries vary in how they prioritize
specific liberties. The United States is
generally comparable to other democracies
when it comes to the freedom of expression
and belief and the right to organize and
form associations, but the United States
places exceptionally high emphasis on
personal autonomy and individual rights.
In comparison, Latvia is ranked slightly
higher on the right to organize and form
associations, but concerns regarding the
treatment of women and minorities mean
its individual rights score is lower.
Civil Liberties
around the World
SOURCE: Freedom House, “Freedom in the World 2018 Democracy in Crisis,” https://freedomhouse.org/report/
freedom-world-aggregate-and-subcategory-scores (accessed 4/27/18).
Free
(democracy)
Partly free Not free No data
available
CIVIL LIBERTIES AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, 2018
a A legal principle that laws should govern a country—including its leaders—rather than having decisions made arbitrarily by
individuals in the government.
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 135 11/28/18 4:28 PM
DISABLED AMERICANS WON A GREAT VICTORY IN 1990
The concept of rights for the disabled began to emerge in the 1970s as the civil rights
model spread to other groups. The seed was planted in a littlenoticed provision of
the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, which outlawed discrimination against individuals on
the basis of disabilities. As in many other cases, the law itself helped give rise to the
movement demanding rights for the disabled.105 Modeling it on the NAACP’s Legal
Defense Fund, the disability movement founded the Disability Rights Education
and Defense Fund to press its legal claims. The movement achieved its greatest
success with the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, which
guarantees equal employment rights and access to public businesses for the disabled
and bars discrimination in employment, housing, and health care. The EEOC is a
body that considers claims of discrimination in violation of this act. The impact of
the law has been farreaching as businesses and public facilities have installed ramps,
elevators, and other devices to meet the act’s requirements.106
LGBTQ AMERICANS
In less than 50 years, the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ)
movement has become one of the largest civil rights movements in contemporary
America. For much of the country’s history, any sexual orientation other than hetero
sexuality was considered “deviant,” and many states criminalized sexual acts consid
ered to be “unnatural.” Gay people were often afraid to reveal their sexual orientation
for fear of reprisals, including being fired from their jobs; and the police in many
cities raided bars and other establishments where it was believed that gay people gath
ered. While no formal restrictions existed on their political participation, gay people
faced the possibility of ostracism, discrimination, assault, and even prosecution.107
The contemporary gay rights movement began in earnest in the 1960s, growing
into a wellfinanced and sophisticated lobby, though there was no Supreme Court
ruling or national legislation explicitly protecting gays and lesbians from discrimina
tion until 1996. The first gay rights case that the Court decided, Bowers v. Hardwick
(1986), ruled against a right to privacy that would protect consensual homosexual
activity.108 After the Bowers decision, the gay and lesbian rights movement sought
suitable legal cases to test the constitutionality of discrimination against gay men
and lesbians, much as the black civil rights movement did in the late 1940s and ’50s.
In 1996 the Supreme Court, in Romer v. Evans, explicitly extended fundamental
civil rights protections to gays and lesbians by declaring unconstitutional a 1992
amendment to the Colorado state constitution that prohibited local governments
from passing ordinances to protect gay rights.109
The gay community won another major victory in the 2003 case of Lawrence v.
Texas (mentioned earlier), in which the Supreme Court overturned Bowers and struck
down a Texas law that made certain sexual conduct between consenting partners of the
same sex illegal. While the ruling in Lawrence struck down laws that made homo
sexual acts a crime, it did not change federal and state laws that deprived gay people
of full civil rights, including the right to marry. In 2013 the Supreme Court struck
down a federal law (the Defense of Marriage Act) that barred benefits to married
136 C H A P T E R 4 C I V I L L I B e R T I e S A N D C I V I L R I g h T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 136 11/28/18 4:28 PM
samesex couples and let stand a California
law recognizing samesex marriage. The
federal government subsequently expanded
recognition of samesex marriages for the
purpose of federal benefits and legal pro
ceedings, such as survivor benefits, bank
ruptcies, tax purposes, and immigration.
In 2015 the Supreme Court clarified
the law concerning samesex marriage.
In the landmark case of Obergefell v.
Hodges, the Court ruled that the Constitu
tion’s equal protection clause and the Four
teenth Amendment’s due process clause
guarantee samesex couples the right to
marry in all states and required states to
recognize samesex marriages performed
in other jurisdictions.110 Though the Court
was divided in the case, its decision actually
reflected a dramatic shift in public opinion
in favor of samesex unions and their right to wed.
Another significant victory at the national level occurred in 2009, when new
legislation extended the definition of hate crimes to include crimes against gays
and transgender people. Such legislation had been sought since the 1998 murder
of Matthew Shepard, a Wyoming college student who was brutally slain because
of his sexual orientation. The 2009 law allows for tougher penalties when a crime
is desi gnated a hate crime. In another important victory for the gay rights move
ment, an executive order signed by President Obama in 2011 repealed the U.S.
military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, a 20yearold rule that expelled gays and
lesbians from the military if they made their sexual orientation known. The new
policy allows gays to serve openly in the military.
Civil Liberties and Civil Rights
WHAT DO WE WANT?
The prominent place of civil liberties is one of the hallmarks of American government.
The freedoms enshrined in the Constitution and its amendments help define the
relationship between government and citizens by limiting what government can do to
individuals.
But these freedoms also come with trade-offs. As we saw in the chapter opener,
the freedom to reimagine an ethnic slur as a term of empowerment was afforded to
the Slants rock band. In a further twist, this decision undermined Native Americans’
In 2013 the Supreme Court struck down
the portion of the Defense of Marriage Act
denying federal benefits to married same-
sex couples. This decision paved the way for
the Court decision two years later legalizing
same-sex marriage nationwide. The Obama
administration showed its support by illumi-
nating the White House in rainbow light.
137C I V I L L I B e R T I e S A N D C I V I L R I g h T S : W h AT D O W e W A N T ?
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 137 11/28/18 4:28 PM
efforts to revoke the Washington Redskins’ team name, as they found it to be an
offensive ethnic term, and the groups were unable to establish a legal basis to sue
the team. The Slants’ free speech was protected to their joy, but so was the Redskins’
free speech to the disappointment of Native Americans. Issues related to free speech,
privacy, and religious freedom (see the “Who Participates?” feature on the facing
page) are unlikely to go away anytime soon.
The civil rights revolution, a revolution that began with African Americans, has
broadened to include women and Latinos and to address such matters as sexual
orientation, sexual identification, and immigration status. As our nation becomes more
and more diverse, equal protection of the laws will become more and more important.
If we are to succeed and prosper as a nation, we must be inclusive. The tumultuous
history of civil rights in America demonstrates that exclusion is a recipe for national
calamity, and that struggles for civil rights often take a long time, beginning with polit-
ical action by a small group of committed individuals and often ending with legislation
and legal decisions from the highest court in the country. What civil rights battles now
appear on the country’s horizon? What can and should be done to remedy past wrongs
that have current consequences, such as when past discrimination results in an eco-
nomic underclass for a racial or ethnic minority? And, most fundamentally, how does a
country based on the democratic principle of majority rule ensure that the civil rights
of minorities are protected?
138 C H A P T E R 4 C I V I L L I B e R T I e S A N D C I V I L R I g h T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 138 11/28/18 4:28 PM
WHO PAR TICIPATES?
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO SOURCE: Robert P. Jones and Daniel Cox, America's Changing Religious
Identity, 2016, www.prri.org/ (accessed 11/4/17).
Percentage of American Adults in Each Religious Tradition
Under the First Amendment, Americans enjoy the freedom to practice (or not practice) the religion
of their choice. Most Americans identify with and participate in some form of religion.
Protestant 44%
Other Christian 3%
Catholic 20%
Jewish 2%
Buddhist 1%
Muslim 1%
Hindu 1%
Other faiths 1%
Nothing in particular 17%
Atheist 3%
Agnostic 3%
Don't know 4%
Religious Affiliation and
Freedom of Religion
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 139 11/28/18 4:28 PM
Practice Quiz
1. Which of the following rights was not
included in the original Constitution?
(p. 100)
a) prohibition of bills of attainder
b) prohibition of ex post facto laws
c) guarantee of habeas corpus
d) guarantee of trial by jury in state
where crime was committed
e) prohibition of warrantless search
and seizure
2. When did civil rights first become part
of the Constitution? (p. 101)
a) in 1789 at the Founding
b) with the adoption of the Fourteenth
Amendment in 1868
c) when Barack Obama was elected
president
d) with the adoption of the Nineteenth
Amendment in 1920
e) in the 1954 Brown v. Board of
Education case
3. The process by which some of
the liberties in the Bill of Rights
were applied to the states is known
as (p. 102)
a) selective incorporation.
b) judicial activism.
c) civil liberties.
d) establishment.
e) preemption.
4. The judicial doctrine that places a
heavy burden of proof on the govern-
ment when it seeks to regulate or
restrict speech is called (pp. 105–6)
a) judicial restraint.
b) judicial activism.
c) habeas corpus.
d) prior restraint.
e) strict scrutiny.
Know Your First Amendment Rights
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
Share your opinion about the First Amendment and religion on campus with
your school newspaper. Find information about students’ religious rights at
www.the�re.org.
Learn more about your other First Amendment rights, such as free
speech on the internet, at www.eff.org.
Learn more about freedom of religion from a variety of legal
scholars at www.constitutioncenter.org.
140 S T U D Y g U I D e
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 140 11/28/18 4:28 PM
5. Which of the following describes a
written statement made in “reckless
disregard of the truth” that is consid-
ered damaging to a victim because
it is “malicious, scandalous, and
defamatory”? (p. 109)
a) slander
b) libel
c) speech plus
d) fighting words
e) expressive speech
6. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the
Supreme Court ruled that (p. 112)
a) states can require citizens to own
firearms.
b) federal grants can be used to sup-
port the formation of state militias.
c) felons can be prevented from
purchasing assault rifles.
d) the Second Amendment applies
to states as well as the federal
government.
e) the Second Amendment applies
only to the federal government and
not to states.
7. The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and eighth
amendments, taken together are
the essence of (p. 113)
a) due process of law.
b) free speech.
c) the right to bear arms.
d) civil rights of minorities.
e) freedom of religion.
8. In Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court
ruled that (p. 114)
a) evidence obtained from an illegal
search could not be introduced in
a trial.
b) the government must provide legal
counsel for defendants who are too
poor to provide for themselves.
c) persons under arrest must be
informed prior to police interroga-
tion of their rights to remain
silent and to have the benefits of
legal counsel.
d) the government has the right to
take private property for public use
if just compensation is provided.
e) a person cannot be tried twice for
the same crime.
9. In which case did the Supreme Court
rule that state governments no longer
had the authority to make private
sexual behavior a crime? (p. 120)
a) Webster v. Reproductive Health
Services
b) Gonzales v. Oregon
c) Lawrence v. Texas
d) Bowers v. Hardwick
e) Texas v. Johnson
10. Which of the following declared that
“equality of rights under the law
shall not be denied or abridged by
the United States or by any State on
account of sex”? (p. 129)
a) the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
b) Title IV of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
c) the DReAM Act
d) the equal Rights Amendment
e) Obergefell v. Hodges
11. In Bakke v. Board of Regents, the
Supreme Court ruled (p. 129)
a) race can never be used as a factor
in university admissions.
b) achieving “adiverse student body”
was a “compelling public purpose”
but a rigid quota system based on
race was incompatible with the
Fourteenth Amendment’s equal
protection clause.
c) achieving “a diverse student body”
was a “compelling public purpose,”
but the method of a rigid quota
of student slots assigned on the
basis of race was incompatible with
the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal
protection clause.
d) achieving “a diverse student body”
was a “compelling public purpose,”
but affirmative action policies can
only be used to give preferences to
African Americans.
e) achieving “a diverse student body”
was a “compelling public purpose,”
but affirmative action policies can
only be used to give preferences to
Asian Americans.
141S T U D Y g U I D e
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 141 11/28/18 4:28 PM
Key Terms
affirmative action (p. 128) government
policies or programs that seek to redress
past injustices against specified groups by
making special efforts to provide members
of these groups with access to educational
and employment opportunities
bill of attainder (p. 100) a law that declares
a person guilty of a crime without a trial
Brown v. Board of Education (p. 123) the
1954 Supreme Court decision that struck
down the “separate but equal” doctrine as
fundamentally unequal; this case eliminated
state power to use race as a criterion for
discrimination in law and provided the
national government with the power to
intervene by exercising strict regulatory
policies against discriminatory actions
civil liberties (p. 99) areas of personal
freedom constitutionally protected from
government interference
civil rights (p. 99) obligation imposed on gov-
ernment to take positive action to protect
citizens from any illegal action of govern-
ment agencies and of other private citizens
“clear and present danger” test (p. 106) test
to determine whether speech is protected or
unprotected, based on its capacity to pres-
ent a “clear and present danger” to society
double jeopardy (p. 116) the Fifth Amend-
ment right providing that a person cannot
be tried twice for the same crime
due process of law (p. 100) the right of every
citizen against arbitrary action by national
or state governments
eminent domain (p. 117) the right of govern-
ment to take private property for public use
equal protection clause (p. 121) provision
of the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteeing
citizens “the equal protection of the laws”;
this clause has served as the basis for the
civil rights of African Americans, women,
and other groups
establishment clause (p. 103) the First
Amendment clause that says that “Con-
gress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion”; this law means
that a “wall of separation” exists between
church and state
exclusionary rule (p. 114) the ability of
courts to exclude evidence obtained in
violation of the Fourth Amendment
ex post facto laws (p. 100) laws that declare
an action to be illegal after it has been
committed
fighting words (p. 111) speech that directly
incites damaging conduct
free exercise clause (p. 104) the First
Amendment clause that protects a citizen’s
right to believe and practice whatever reli-
gion he or she chooses
grand jury (p. 116) jury that determines
whether sufficient evidence is available to
justify a trial; grand juries do not rule on the
accused’s guilt or innocence
habeas corpus (p. 99) a court order demand-
ing that an individual in custody be brought
into court and shown the cause for detention
libel (p. 109) a written statement made in
“reckless disregard of the truth” that is
considered damaging to a victim because it
is “malicious, scandalous, and defamatory”
Miranda rule (p. 117) the requirement, artic-
ulated by the Supreme Court in Miranda v.
Arizona (1966), that persons under arrest
must be informed prior to police interroga-
tion of their rights to remain silent and to
have the benefit of legal counsel
prior restraint (p. 108) an effort by a gov-
ernmental agency to block the publication
of material it deems libelous or harmful in
some other way; censorship; in the United
States, the courts forbid prior restraint
except under the most extraordinary
circumstances
142 S T U D Y g U I D e
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 142 11/28/18 4:28 PM
selective incorporation (p. 102) the process
by which different protections in the Bill of
Rights were incorporated into the Four-
teenth Amendment, thus guaranteeing
citizens protection from state as well as
national governments
“separate but equal” rule (p. 121)
doctrine that public accommodations
could be segregated by race but still be
considered equal
slander (p. 109) an oral statement made
in “reckless disregard of the truth” that
Abraham, henry J., and Barbara A. Perry. Freedom and the Court: Civil Rights and
Liberties in the United States. 8th ed. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2004.
Ash, Timothy garton. Free Speech. New haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2017.
Chen, Anthony S. The Fifth Freedom: Jobs, Politics, and Civil Rights in the United States,
1941–1972. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009.
eisgruber, Christopher. Religious Freedom and the Constitution. Cambridge, MA: harvard
University Press, 2010.
King, Desmond, and Rogers M. Smith. Still a House Divided: Race and Politics in Obama’s
America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2011.
Lee, Sonia Song-ha. Building a Latino Civil Rights Movement. Chapel hill: University of
North Carolina Press, 2014.
Lewis, Anthony. Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment.
New York: Basic Books, 2010.
Nichols, Walter. The Dreamers: How the Undocumented Youth Movement Transformed the
Immigrant Rights Debate. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2013.
Orth, John. Due Process of Law: A Brief History. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas,
2003.
Richards, Neil. Intellectual Privacy: Rethinking Civil Liberties in the Digital Age. New York:
Oxford University Press, 2015.
Solove, Daniel. Nothing to Hide: The False Tradeoff between Privacy and Security. New
haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2011.
Spitzer, Robert J. Saving the Constitution from Lawyers: How Legal Training and Law
Reviews Distort Constitutional Meaning. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Spitzer, Robert J. Guns across America: Reconciling Gun Rules and Rights. New York:
Oxford University Press, 2015.
Waldman, Michael. The Fight to Vote. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2016.
is considered damaging to the victim
because it is “malicious, scandalous,
and defamatory”
strict scrutiny (p. 105) a test used by the
Supreme Court in racial discrimination
cases and other cases involving civil
liberties and civil rights that places the
burden of proof on the government rather
than on the challengers to show that the
law in question is constitutional
For Further Reading
143S T U D Y g U I D e
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch04_096-143.indd 143 11/28/18 4:28 PM
Public
Opinion
050505
chapter
WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES AND WHY IT MATTERS
Americans can have quite different opinions on important issues, even citizens
who have had similarly vivid, harrowing experiences. In 1991, Suzanna Hupp
was eating lunch in a Texas restaurant when a man drove his truck through the
window and began shooting people. Hupp had often carried a handgun in her
purse, but had recently taken it out because Texas did not allow concealed carry
at the time, and she was afraid she would lose her license as a chiropractor if
caught. “Could I have hit the guy? He was fifteen feet from me. . . . Could I have
missed? Yeah, it’s possible. But the one thing nobody can argue with is that
it would have changed the odds.” The gunman killed 23 people, including her
parents. She has become a strong proponent of gun rights since then. “One of
my bugaboos is gun laws. Anytime we list a place where you can’t carry guns, to
me, that’s like a shopping list for a madman. . . . If you think about nearly every
one of these mass shootings, they have occurred at places where guns weren’t
allowed. That’s frustrating to me, particularly when you talk about schools.
Where do these madmen go? They go to schools and slaughter people.”1
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch05_144-175.indd 144 11/28/18 4:28 PM
Public
Opinion
Suzanna Hupp (left) and Justin Gruber (right) were both
present during episodes of gun violence. These events
pushed Hupp to advocate for more gun rights, and Gruber
to speak out for more restrictive gun laws. How do political
opinions form? And how do government officials respond
to shifts in public opinion?
145
Fifteen-year-old Justin Gruber also survived a terrible shooting incident,
in a school: the shooting at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in
Parkland, Florida, in February 2018. The incident left seventeen students and
teachers dead. But Gruber and many of his schoolmates reached the oppo-
site view of Suzanna Hupp, arguing for greater gun control, such as assault
weapons bans and increased age limits for purchase. Objecting to one
suggestion raised after the shooting, Gruber said that arming teachers is a
“terrible idea.” “Adding guns to solve a gun problem will increase the possible
negative outcomes,” he said. “Teachers shouldn’t have to be trained to carry
weapons. They are supposed to mold the minds of the next generation.”2
Some students formed a group, Never Again MSD, known by the hashtag
#NeverAgain, to advocate for tighter gun control.
The “consent of the governed”—demanded in the Declaration of
Independence—is critical for the functioning of a democracy. We expect
government to pay attention to the people. But whose opinion gets repre-
sented in public policy, particularly on issues such as gun rights and gun
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch05_144-175.indd 145 11/28/18 4:28 PM
control where there are strong divides among the public? What is the role of
public opinion compared to that of other political actors, such as organized
interests? How well informed are people, and by what channels can individ-
uals have their voices heard? As we will see in this chapter, research shows
that public opinion does indeed have a significant impact on public policy. But
there are debates among scholars about whether the public is sufficiently
informed about politics, as well as whether elected officials represent the
interests of all Americans or only some Americans.
★ Define public opinion, and identify broad types of values and beliefs
Americans have about politics (pp. 147–52)
★ Explain the major factors that shape specific individual opinions
(pp. 152–57)
★ Explore when and why public opinion changes and the role that
political knowledge plays (pp. 157–60)
★ Describe the major forces that shape public opinion (pp. 160–63)
★ Describe basic survey methods and other techniques researchers use
to measure public opinion (pp. 163–69)
CHAP TER GOAL S
146 C H A P T E R 5 P u B l I C O P I N I O N
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch05_144-175.indd 146 11/28/18 4:28 PM
Public Opinion Represents
Attitudes about Politics
The term public opinion refers to the
attitudes citizens have about politi-
cal issues, leaders, institutions, and
events. It is useful to distinguish
between values and beliefs, on the one
hand, and attitudes and opinions, on the other. Values (or beliefs) are the basic principles
that shape a person’s opinions about political issues and events. They constitute
a person’s basic orientation to politics. Values underlie deep-rooted goals, aspira-
tions, and ideals that shape an individual’s perceptions of political issues and events.
Liberty, equality of opportunity, and democracy, for example, are basic political
values held by most Americans.
An attitude (or opinion) is a specific preference on a particular issue. An individual
may have an attitude toward American policy in the Middle East or an opinion
about economic inequality in the United States. The attitude or opinion may have
emerged from a broad belief about the purpose of military intervention or about
the role of government in the economy, but the opinion itself is very specific. Some
attitudes may be short-lived and can change based on changing circumstances or
new information.
Factors such as race, gender, income, age, religion, and region—which not
only affect individuals’ interests but also shape their experiences and upbringing—
influence Americans’ beliefs and opinions. For example, blacks and whites often
have different views on issues that touch upon civil rights and race relations, such as
affirmative action, presumably reflecting differences of interest and historical expe-
rience. Views expressed by men and by women often vary as well, especially on
foreign policy questions, where women appear to be much more concerned with
the dangers of war.
Political attitudes are increasingly influenced by partisanship (Republicans versus
Democrats) and ideology (conservatives versus liberals). For example, shortly after
taking office in January 2017, President Trump signed an executive order imme-
diately halting the U.S. refugee program and banning immigration to the United
States from a half dozen predominantly Muslim countries, including Syria. The
Supreme Court upheld the travel ban as constitutional, despite legal challenges.
Opinion polls show 45 percent of Americans overall believe that refugees from
Syria and Iraq pose a serious threat to the well-being of the United States. But
63 percent of Republicans say refugees from the Middle East are a threat compared
to 30 percent of Democrats.3
Opinions about issues and politics have strong emotional underpinnings as well.4
Emotions are traditionally measured by survey questions asking if a candidate,
politician, event, or issue makes the respondent feel fearful, anxious, angry, or
enthusiastic. Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, for example, benefited
from high enthusiasm from his supporters. Similarly high positive emotions may
have given Barack Obama an advantage as the first African American president in
Define public opinion, and identify
broad types of values and beliefs
Americans have about politics
147P u B l I C O P I N I O N R e P R e S e N T S AT T I T u D e S A B O u T P O l I T I C S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch05_144-175.indd 147 11/28/18 4:28 PM
2008, overcoming racial resentment among some citizens.5 Contrary to the idea that
public opinion is purely rational, feelings are complicated and often irrational; once
individuals become emotionally attached to particular beliefs, they tend to hold on
to those beliefs even in the face of contradictory information. Using emotions as a
guide, individuals form opinions quickly in response to current events.6
AMERICANS SHARE COMMON POLITICAL VALUES
Most Americans share a common set of values, including a belief in the principles,
if not always the actual practice, of liberty, equality, and democracy. The United
States was founded on the principle of individual liberty, or freedom. Since the birth
of our nation, Americans have always voiced strong support for the idea of liberty
and typically support the notion that governmental interference in individuals’ lives
and property should be kept to a minimum.
Similarly, equality of opportunity has always been an important theme in Ameri-
can society. Most Americans believe that all individuals should be allowed to
seek personal and material/economic success. Moreover, Americans generally
believe that such success should be the result of individual effort and ability,
rather than family connections or other forms of special privilege. Quality public
education is one of the most important mechanisms for obtaining equality of
opportunity in that it allows individuals, regardless of personal or family wealth,
a chance to get ahead. Today, the internet is an important example of equality of
Dramatic events, and the emotions they stir, can alter public opinion. In the aftermath of the violence
erupting at a white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017, seemingly everyone had an
opinion of the state of race relations in America.
148 C H A P T E R 5 P u B l I C O P I N I O N
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch05_144-175.indd 148 11/28/18 4:28 PM
opportunity by providing online access to news, politics, jobs, and other benefits
of digital citizenship.7
Most Americans also believe in democracy. They believe that every citizen should
have the opportunity to take part in the nation’s governmental and policy-making
processes and to have some say in determining how he or she is governed, including
the right to vote in elections.8 Figure 5.1 shows there is consensus among Americans
on fundamental values.
Obviously, the principles that Americans espouse have not always been put into
practice. For 200 years, Americans embraced the principles of individual liberty and
equality of opportunity while denying them in practice to generations of African
Americans. Yet the strength of the principles ultimately helped overcome practices
that deviated from those principles.
AMERICA’S DOMINANT POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES
ARE LIBERALISM AND CONSERVATISM
The application of America’s shared values to specific policies varies quite a bit. The
set of underlying orientations, ideas, and beliefs through which we come to under-
stand and interpret politics is called a political ideology. In the United States today,
FIGURE 5.1
Americans Agree on Many Core
Democratic Values
SOURCE: Pew Research Center, “Broad Public Agreement on Importance of Many Aspects of a Strong Democracy,”
March 2, 2017, www.people-press.org/2017/03/02/large-majorities-see-checks-and-balances-right-to-protest-as
-essential-for-democracy/democracy_11/ (accessed 1/23/18).
Not too/Not at allSomewhatVery
89%
83%
79%
74%
64%
6
3
4
7
5
12
12
11
National elections
are open and fair
PERCENTAGE WHO SAY EACH IS VERY, SOMEWHAT, OR NOT TOO/NOT AT ALL
IMPORTANT TO MAINTAINING A STRONG DEMOCRACY IN THE UNITED STATES:
A system of checks and balances
dividing power between the
president, Congress, and the courts
Rights of people with
unpopular views are protected
People have the right
to nonviolent protest
News organizations are
free to criticize political leaders
18
20
149P u B l I C O P I N I O N R e P R e S e N T S AT T I T u D e S A B O u T P O l I T I C S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch05_144-175.indd 149 11/28/18 4:28 PM
a variety of ideologies compete for attention and support, but two are dominant:
liberalism and conservatism.
Liberalism In classical political theory, a liberal was someone who favored individual
initiative and was suspicious of governments and their ability to manage economic
and social affairs—a definition akin to that of today’s libertarian. The proponents
of a larger and more active government called themselves progressives. In the early
twentieth century, many liberals and progressives coalesced around the doctrine of
“social liberalism,” which represented recognition that government action might be
needed to preserve individual liberty. Today’s liberals are social liberals rather than
classical liberals.
In contemporary politics being liberal has come to imply supporting political
and social reform; extensive government intervention in the economy and progres-
sive taxation; workers’ rights; the expansion of federal social services; more vigorous
efforts on behalf of the poor, minorities, and women; and greater concern for con-
sumers and the environment. Liberals generally support reproductive rights and
rights for gays and lesbians and are concerned with protecting the rights of people
accused of crimes, refugees, and immigrants. In international affairs, liberals often
support arms control, aid to poor nations, and international organizations such
as the United Nations; liberals generally oppose the development and testing of
nuclear weapons and are suspicious of the use of American troops to influence the
affairs of developing nations.
Conservatism By contrast, conservatives generally support the social and economic
status quo and are suspicious of efforts to introduce new political formulae and eco-
nomic arrangements. They believe strongly that a large and powerful government
poses a threat to the freedom of individual citizens. Ironically, today’s conservatives
support the views of classical liberalism. Today, in the domestic arena, conserva-
tives generally oppose the expansion of governmental activity and support finding
solutions to social and economic problems in the private sector, local communities,
or by religious organizations. Conservatives particularly oppose efforts to impose
government regulation on business and the environment, maintaining that
regulation frequently leads to economic inefficiency, is costly, and can ultimately
lower the entire nation’s standard of living. In terms of social policy, many
conservatives support school prayer and traditional family arrangements and are
concerned about law and order; conservatives generally oppose abortion, same-sex
marriage, drug legalization, and seek to reduce immigration to the United States. In
international affairs, conservatism has come to mean support for military interven-
tion and the maintenance of American military power as well as a desire to restrict
immigration.
Other political ideologies also influence American politics. Libertarians, for
example, argue that government interferes with freedom of expression, free mar-
kets, and society and thus should be limited to as few spheres of activity as possible
(national defense being a notable exception). Libertarians prefer government to be
even smaller than that favored by conservatives. While libertarians believe in less
150 C H A P T E R 5 P u B l I C O P I N I O N
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch05_144-175.indd 150 11/28/18 4:28 PM
government intervention in economic and social realms, socialists and the Green
Party argue that more government is necessary to promote justice and to reduce
economic inequality. 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders calls
himself a “democratic socialist”; Sanders wants government to ensure more equality
of opportunity for citizens through free public college, single-payer health care, and
increased taxation on the very affluent. He also supports government policies to
protect workers’ rights and unions. Socialists are more to the ideological left than
the mainstream Democratic Party.
Americans’ Ideologies Today Although many Americans subscribe to libertar-
ianism, socialism, or other ideologies in part, most describe themselves as either
liberals, conservatives, or moderates. Figure 5.2 shows that the percentage of Ameri-
cans who consider themselves moderates, liberals, or conservatives has remained
relatively constant since the 1990s. Gallup surveys indicate that as of 2017 35 per-
cent of Americans considered themselves conservatives, 35 percent moderates, and
25 percent liberals. These numbers have remained virtually unchanged since the
1990s. But among young people aged 18–33, trends are different: just 15 percent
identify as conservatives, while 41 percent identify as liberals and 44 percent as
moderates (and independent from the political parties).9
FIGURE 5.2
Americans’ Ideology
More Americans identify themselves as “conservatives” than “liberals.” During the period
shown in this figure, however, Americans have had two Democratic presidents and have
several times elected Democratic majorities to a house of Congress. What might account
for this apparent discrepancy? What role do moderates play in the electorate? How stable
is Americans’ ideology over time?
SOURCE: Lydia Saad, “Conservative Lead in U.S. Ideology Down to Single Digits,” Gallup, January 11, 2018,
https://news.gallup.com/poll/225074/conservative-lead-ideology-down-single-digits.aspx (accessed 10/10/18).
0
10
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
20
30
40
50%
Liberal
Moderate
Conservative
151P u B l I C O P I N I O N R e P R e S e N T S AT T I T u D e S A B O u T P O l I T I C S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch05_144-175.indd 151 11/28/18 4:28 PM
AMERICANS EXHIBIT LOW TRUST IN GOVERNMENT
One of the most important measures of public opinion in a democracy is trust in gov-
ernment. High levels of political trust create legitimacy for democratic government,
whereas very low levels can cause concern. Many scholars and political pundits argue
that Americans are becoming more and more disenchanted with traditional political
institutions; public approval of Congress reached a low of only 10 percent in 2014.10
Why does public opinion in the form of trust matter? Declining trust has been
linked to declines in political participation and voting. Low confidence in govern-
ment and elected officials is related to the perception that the government is unable
to solve problems, spend money in an effective or efficient way, or represent the
interests and policy preferences of average voters.11
The Pew Research Center has tracked trust in the federal government from 1958
to 2017 by asking this question on national surveys: “How much of the time do you
trust the government in Washington?”12 The percentage of Americans who indicate
they trust the government “just about always or most of the time” has fallen from
73 percent in 1960 to just 15 percent in 2017. These trends span party lines.
In 2017, 22 percent of Republicans indicated they trusted government all
or most of the time compared with 12 percent of independents and 15 percent
of Democrats.
Political Socialization
Shapes Public Opinion
People’s attitudes about political
issues and elected officials tend to
be shaped by underlying political
beliefs and values. For example, an
individual who has negative feelings about government intervention in America’s
economy and society would probably oppose the development of new social
and health care programs. Similarly, someone who distrusts the military would
likely be suspicious of any call for the use of U.S. troops. The processes through
which these underlying political beliefs and values are formed are collectively
called political socialization.
Probably no nation, and certainly no democracy, could survive if its citizens
did not share some fundamental beliefs. If Americans had few common values or
perspectives, it would be very difficult for them to reach agreement on particular
issues. In contemporary America, some elements of the socialization process tend
to produce differences in outlook, whereas others promote similarities. The agents
of socialization that shape political beliefs are the family and social networks, social
groups and race, political party affiliation, education, and political environment.
The Family and Social Networks Most people acquire their initial orientation to
politics from their families. As might be expected, differences in family background
tend to produce divergent political perspectives. Although relatively few parents
Explain the major factors that
shape specific individual opinions
152 C H A P T E R 5 P u B l I C O P I N I O N
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch05_144-175.indd 152 11/28/18 4:28 PM
spend much time directly teaching their children about politics, political conversa-
tions occur in many households, and children tend to absorb the political views of
parents and other caregivers, often without realizing it. Studies find, for example,
that political party preferences are initially acquired at home. Children raised in
households in which the primary caregivers are Democrats tend to become Demo-
crats, whereas children raised in homes where their caregivers are Republicans tend
to favor the Republican Party.13 Similarly, children reared in politically liberal house-
holds are more likely than not to develop a liberal outlook, whereas children raised
in politically conservative settings are likely to see the world through conservative
lenses. Family, friends, coworkers, and neighbors are an important source of political
orientation for nearly everyone.
Online social networks such as Facebook and Twitter may increase the role of
peers in shaping public opinion. For example, after the 2015 Supreme Court deci-
sion legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide, Facebook launched a “Celebrate
Pride” tool that enabled users to give their profile pictures a rainbow-tinted back-
ground to show their support for gay rights, signaling to friends and family their
opinion on this issue. In the 72 hours following the Court’s decision, 26 million
individuals added this filter to their profile picture.14 This phenomenon was associ-
ated with upticks in public support for same-sex marriage rights.15
Education Often thought of as a great equalizer, education is also an important
source of differences in political perspectives. Governments use public education to
try to teach all children a common set of civic values; it is mainly in school that Amer-
icans acquire their basic beliefs in liberty, equality, and democracy. In history classes,
students are taught that the Founders fought for the principle of liberty (freedom).
In studying such topics as the Constitution, the Civil
War, and the civil rights movement, students are
taught the importance of equality. Research finds
education to be a strong predictor of tolerance for
racial, ethnic, and religious minorities.16 Through
participation in class elections and student gov-
ernment, students are taught the virtues of
democracy. These lessons are repeated in every
grade and in many contexts.
At the same time, differences in formal
education are strongly associated with differ-
ences in political outlook. In particular, those
who attend college are often exposed to modes
of thought that will distinguish them from their friends
and neighbors who do not pursue college diplomas. One
of the major differences between college graduates
The family is one of the largest influences on a person’s political
views. Children raised in conservative or liberal families, usually,
but not always, hold those same views later in life.
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch05_144-175.indd 153 11/28/18 4:28 PM
and other Americans is that higher levels of education are associated with greater
involvement in politics. College graduates are more likely to vote, join campaigns,
take part in protests, and generally make their voices heard.17
Social Groups and Public Opinion Another important source of political val-
ues is the social groups to which individuals belong. Social groups include those
that individuals haven’t chosen (national, religious, gender, and racial groups, for
example) and those they join willingly (such as political parties, labor unions, the
military, and environmental, educational, and occupational groups). Group mem-
bership gives individuals experiences and perspectives that shape their views of
political and social life.
Race and Ethnicity Among the most important of these is race. Blacks, for
example, are a minority and have been victims of persecution and discrimination
throughout American history. Blacks and whites thus often have different occupa-
tional opportunities, live in separate communities, and may attend separate schools.
Such differences tend to produce distinctive political outlooks. That black and white
Americans have different views is reflected in public perception of fair treatment
across racial groups in the United States (see Figure 5.3).
In 2009, 80 percent of African Americans said blacks and other minorities do
not get equal treatment under the law; the number of whites giving this response
was just 40 percent.18 In the past few years, however, widely publicized incidents of
excessive use of police force against African Americans around the country, often
resulting in their deaths, have begun to cause a shift in public opinion on this issue.
By 2015, 90 percent of African Americans agreed that blacks and whites are not
treated equally by police and 54 percent of whites felt the same way, showing that
while there is still a racial divide on this issue, opinions on it have changed signifi-
cantly over the past few years.19 Strikingly, half of all Americans now agree that
racism is a big problem, compared to only 26 percent in 2009.20
Ethnicity also affects policy attitudes. Latinos are the fastest-growing minority
population in the United States. Latinos’ shared Hispanic ethnicity contributes
to a group consciousness that shapes opinions. Unsurprisingly, immigration is
one of the most important policy issues among Latinos, with significant majori-
ties of Latinos concerned about restrictive immigration politics and the threat of
deportation. With respect to ideology, Latinos typically are supportive of govern-
ment policy to improve the lives of citizens and to reduce prevailing inequality,
which includes favoring public funding for education, health, and welfare. While
Latinos tend to be fairly religious, Latino Decision surveys find they do not allow
their religious beliefs to dictate their political decisions—they are thus less likely
to vote for conservative politicians because of social issues.21 This helps explain
why a majority of Latinos supported Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton for
president in 2016.
Gender Men and women have important differences of opinion as well. Reflecting
differences in social roles and occupational patterns, women tend to oppose military
154 C H A P T E R 5 P u B l I C O P I N I O N
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch05_144-175.indd 154 11/28/18 4:28 PM
FIGURE 5.3
Perception of Fair Treatment
across Racial Groups
In the United States, racial groups may not perceive race relations in precisely the same
way. How, according to the data in this figure, do blacks and whites differ in their views
on race relations? Which group is more likely to think that race relations are good?
What factors help to account for these differences in perception?
SOURCE: Brakkton Booker, “How Equal Is American Opportunity? Survey Shows Attitudes Vary by Race,” National
Public Radio, September 21, 2015, www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/21/442068004/how-equal-is
-american-opportunity-survey-shows-attitudes-vary-by-race (accessed 3/11/16); Samantha Neal, “Views of Racism
as a Major Problem Increase Sharply, Especially among Democrats,” Pew Research Center, August 29, 2017,
www.pewresearch.org (accessed 5/23/18).
In dealing with the police
On the job or at work
In local public schools
When voting in elections
54%
16%
15%
13%
48%
90%
54%
51%
38-point difference
PERCENTAGE SAYING BLACKS IN THEIR COMMUNITY
ARE TREATED LESS FAIRLY THAN WHITES:
PERCENTAGE WHO:
36-point difference
Think “slavery and discrimination
have created conditions that
make it dif�cult for blacks to work
their way out of the lower class”
Support af�rmative action
30%
27%
70%
81%
40-point difference
54-point difference
Think “blacks should get by
without special favors, just like
Irish, Italians, and Jews did”
69%
34%
35-point difference
Support Black Lives
Matter movement
52%
82%
30-point difference
36-point difference
35-point difference
Black respondentsWhite respondents
155P O l I T I C A l S O C I A l I z AT I O N S H A P e S P u B l I C O P I N I O N
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch05_144-175.indd 155 11/28/18 4:28 PM
www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/21/442068004/how-equal-is-american-opportunity-survey-shows-attitudes-vary-by-race
intervention more than men, are more likely than men to favor policies to protect the
environment, and are more likely to support government education and social programs.
Perhaps because of these differences on issues, women are more likely than men to vote
for Democratic candidates. This tendency of men’s and women’s opinions to differ is
known as the gender gap. In 2018, only 30 percent of women approved of the job Donald
Trump was doing as president, compared to 46 percent of men. This 16 percent gender
gap is wider than for any other modern president.22 Table 5.1 shows that across different
policy areas, men’s and women’s opinions vary from a 5- to 20-point difference.
Religion Religion is a more important predictor of opinion than previously recog-
nized. Religious individuals are usually defined in surveys by religious affiliation,
frequency of church attendance, and the belief that religion and prayer are impor-
tant in their lives. One of the fastest-growing groups in America are those without
religious affiliation, rising from 5–6 percent of the population in the 1990s to
almost 25 percent today.23 Among religious groups, white evangelical Protestants
tend to be even more conservative than Catholics. A 2014 study found that only
32 percent of evangelical Protestants believe abortion rights for women should
always be permitted, compared to 75 percent of those without religious affiliation.
Similarly sharp differences in opinion are also found when it comes to other social
issues, such as same-sex marriage.24 White evangelicals and weekly churchgoers are
much more likely to hold conservative views and be Republican, while the religiously
unaffiliated are more likely to hold liberal views and favor the Democratic Party.
Party Affiliation Political party membership or loyalty is one of the most important
factors affecting political orientation.25 We can think of partisanship as red-tinted
TABLE 5.1
Disagreements among Men and
Women on Public Policy Issues
On many policy issues, there is an approximately 5- to 20-point gap between the opinions
of men and women. What might explain this consistent difference?
POLICY MEN WOMEN GENDER GAP
Support cutting defense spending 38 43 5 points
Support cutting domestic spending 43 34 9 points
Favor raising the minimum wage 68 81 13 points
Favor background checks to purchase guns 82 92 10 points
Support banning assault rifles 51 71 20 points
SOURCE: Brian Schaffner and Stephen Ansolabehere, “CCES Common Content, 2014,” Harvard Dataverse, V2,
http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/XFXJVY (accessed 5/4/16).
156 C H A P T E R 5 P u B l I C O P I N I O N
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch05_144-175.indd 156 11/28/18 4:28 PM
(referring to the Republican Party) or blue-tinted (referring to the Democratic Party)
glasses that color opinion on a vast array of issues. Partisans tend to rely on party
leaders and the media for cues on the appropriate positions to take on major political
issues.26
According to recent studies, differences between Democratic and Republican
partisans on a variety of political and policy questions are greater today than during
any other period for which data are available. For example, 72 percent of Republi-
cans oppose granting legal citizenship to immigrants with jobs in the United States,
but only 34 percent of Democrats do. Seventy-six percent of Democrats strongly
favor government policies to protect the environment compared to 30 percent
of Republicans.27 Wide differences in public opinion exist based on partisanship
involving energy, income inequality, infrastructure, job creation, immigration, cli-
mate change, national defense, budget deficit, taxes, terrorism, trade, and much
more. Democrats and Republicans also have different policy priorities.
Political Environment The conditions and events that exist when individuals and
groups enter political life shape their political attitudes and values. Although politi-
cal beliefs are influenced by family background and group membership, the content
and character of these views are, to a large extent, determined by political circum-
stances. For example, the baby-boom generation that came of age in the 1960s was
exposed both to the Vietnam War and to widespread antiwar protests, which has
made that generation suspicious of foreign wars. The September 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks and the war on terrorism contributed to shaping the political lives of those
who came of age during that time, making them more concerned about security and
safety and less opposed to foreign wars.
Political Knowledge Is Important
in Shaping Public Opinion
What best explains whether citizens
are generally consistent in their polit-
ical views or inconsistent and open
to the influence of others? In general,
knowledgeable citizens are better
able to evaluate new information and determine if it is relevant to and consistent
with their beliefs and opinions.28 As a result, better-informed individuals can rec-
ognize their political interests and act consistently to further those interests. But
political knowledge is generally low in America. In one widely reported survey,
71 percent of Americans could not name their own member of Congress.29
This raises the question of how much political knowledge is necessary for one
to act as an effective citizen. In an important study of political knowledge in the
United States, researchers found that the average American exhibits little knowl-
edge of political institutions, processes, leaders, and policy debates.30 They also
found that political knowledge is not evenly distributed throughout the popula-
tion. Those with higher education, income, and occupational status and who are
Explore when and why public
opinion changes and the role that
political knowledge plays
157P O l I T I C A l K N O W l e D G e I S I M P O R TA N T I N S H A P I N G P u B l I C O P I N I O N
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch05_144-175.indd 157 11/28/18 4:28 PM
members of social or political organizations are more likely to know about and
be active in politics. Do these gaps or advantages in political knowledge matter?
An interest in politics reinforces an individual’s sense of political efficacy (the belief
that their actions and opinions matter) and provides an incentive to acquire addi-
tional knowledge and information about politics. As a result, individuals with
higher income and education also have more knowledge and influence and thus are
better able to get what they want from government. For less-informed individuals,
the media and political leaders may play a larger role in influencing public opinion.
Low-informed individuals are more susceptible to fake news, partisan news, and
political propaganda than more informed individuals.
Shortcuts and Cues Because being politically informed requires a substantial
investment of time and energy, most Americans seek to acquire political informa-
tion and to make political decisions “on the cheap,” making use of shortcuts for
political evaluation and decision-making rather than engaging in a lengthy process
of information-gathering. Researchers have found that individuals rely on cues and
information from party elites and the media to aid them in attitude formation.31
Other “inexpensive” ways to become informed include taking cues from trusted
friends, social networks and social media, relatives, colleagues, or religious leaders.32
By means of these informational shortcuts, average citizens can form political
opinions that are, in most instances, consistent with their underlying preferences.
Studies show that even individuals with low levels of political knowledge are able
to make relatively informed political choices by relying on these voter cues.
The public’s reliance on elite cues has taken on new significance in today’s era
of party polarization. As the political parties and elected officials have become
increasingly polarized, has this change affected the way that citizens arrive at their
opinions? Researchers have found stark evidence that polarized political environ-
ments fundamentally change how citizens make decisions and form opinions.
Notably, polarization between the parties means that party endorsements (such as
of an issue or candidate) have a larger impact on public opinion formation than
they used to. At the same time, polarization decreases the impact of other infor-
mation on public opinion—that is, party polarization may actually reduce levels
of political knowledge. Thus, elite polarization may have negative implications for
public-opinion formation.33
Skim and Scan Another factor affecting political knowledge is the form in which
people consume information. The transformation of political information in the
digital era has had a profound effect on the way the news is reported and how
citizens learn about politics, as more Americans get political news and information
online. Recent research also indicates a trend in journalism toward shorter articles
and flashier headlines. Americans today are likely to read the news by scanning and
skimming multiple headlines online, in bits and bytes, rather than by reading long
news articles.34 Today, tweets from elected officials are an increasingly important
source of news; Donald Trump relies on Twitter far more extensively than other
elected officials, typically tweeting multiple times a day.
158 C H A P T E R 5 P u B l I C O P I N I O N
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch05_144-175.indd 158 11/28/18 4:28 PM
Political knowledge matters because it may protect individuals from exposure
to misinformation than can distort public opinion. While social media has cre-
ated new platforms for discussing politics and organizing, it has been associated
with increased misinformation. Fake news on Facebook—with a billion users
globally—was extensive in the 2016 election. A study found that the top 10 fake
news stories circulated on Facebook were shared more widely than the top 10 authen-
tic news stories about the election. Additionally, Russian Twitter “bot” accounts
have been linked to the posting of many of the fake news stories benefiting Trump
and attacking Clinton. Since the election both Google and Facebook have imple-
mented new protocols to block content from deceptive outlets, and Twitter deleted
thousands of fake accounts. Misinformation from elected officials and online
news has encouraged more Americans to seek websites such as PolitiFact.com,
FactCheck.org, and Snopes.com to verify the content of political information. It
has also encouraged more Americans to turn to established media outlets, such as
the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, or the New York Times, for news.
Costs to Democracy? If political scientists are correct in their findings that many
citizens base their opinions (and votes) on inadequate knowledge, fake news sources,
and an overreliance on cues from political elites, this raises a critical question: If
political knowledge is necessary for effective citizenship, how does a general lack of
such knowledge affect the way we govern ourselves?
Although understandable and per-
haps inevitable, low levels of political
knowledge and engagement weaken
American democracy in two ways. First,
those who lack political informa-
tion cannot effectively defend their
own political interests and can easily
become losers in political struggles.
The presence of large numbers of
politically inattentive or ignorant
individuals means that political power
can more easily be manipulated by
political elites, the media, and wealthy
special interests. But other research
has shown that individuals are quite
stable and rational in their policy for-
mation. Notice that even when pub-
lic opinion has shifted, as in the case
of same-sex marriage, the shifts have
been relatively steady; we don’t see
dramatic jumps up and down.
Second, if knowledge is power,
then a lack of knowledge can contrib-
ute to growing political and economic
After political opinions form, they remain relatively
stable. The most knowledgeable people are gener-
ally able to discern whether or not new information
fits or contradicts their previously held beliefs. Do
you think the people in this protest (top) would
change their opinions about tax cuts after seeing
President Trump’s tweet (bottom)?
159P O l I T I C A l K N O W l e D G e I S I M P O R TA N T I N S H A P I N G P u B l I C O P I N I O N
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch05_144-175.indd 159 11/28/18 4:28 PM
inequality. When individuals are unaware of their interests or how to pursue them, it
is virtually certain that political outcomes will not favor them.
The Media and Government Mold Opinion
When individuals attempt to form
opinions about particular political
issues, events, or personalities, they
seldom do so in isolation. Typically,
they are confronted with—sometimes bombarded by—the efforts of a host of indi-
viduals and groups seeking to persuade them to adopt a particular point of view.
During the 2016 presidential election, someone trying to decide what to think
about Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump could hardly avoid an avalanche of opin-
ions expressed through the media, in meetings, or in conversations with friends. The
marketplace of ideas is the interplay of opinions and views that occurs as competing
forces attempt to persuade as many people as possible to accept a particular position
on a particular issue. Given this constant exposure to the ideas of others, it is virtu-
ally impossible for most individuals to resist some modification of their own beliefs.
Three forces that play important roles in shaping opinions in the marketplace are the
government, private groups, and the news media.35
THE GOVERNMENT LEADS PUBLIC OPINION
All governments try to influence, manipulate, or manage their citizens’ beliefs. But
the extent to which public opinion is actually affected by governmental public rela-
tions can be limited. Often, governmental claims are disputed by the media, by
interest groups, and at times even by opposing forces within the government itself.
This hasn’t stopped modern presidents from focusing a great deal of attention on
shaping public opinion to boost support for their policy agendas. Franklin Delano
Roosevelt promoted his policy agenda directly to the American people through his
famous “fireside chat” radio broadcasts. The George W. Bush administration devel-
oped an extensive public-relations program to bolster popular support for its poli-
cies, including its war against terrorism. These efforts included presidential speeches,
media appearances by administration officials, numerous press conferences, and
thousands of press releases presenting the administration’s views.36 Using the runway
of an aircraft carrier as his stage, a confident Commander in Chief Bush, dressed in
a flight suit, proclaimed the end of the Iraq War in 2003. His statement was prema-
ture by eight years but was effective at maintaining public support for the Iraq War.
Like his predecessors, President Obama was effective in shaping public opinion. He
built support for his administration’s initiatives in domestic and foreign policy. But
Obama’s White House was unique in using social media to promote the president’s
policy agenda. Hourly posts on Facebook promoted Obama’s policies and campaign
and served to personalize the president. Obama was the first to make use of Twitter,
with 77 million followers.
Describe the major forces that
shape public opinion
160 C H A P T E R 5 P u B l I C O P I N I O N
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch05_144-175.indd 160 11/28/18 4:28 PM
Though Obama used Twitter, Donald Trump is the nation’s first Twitter presi-
dent; he uses it promote his policy agenda, make government announcements,
attack opponents, defend himself, vent his dismay, and shape public opinion.
Often tweeting in the early morning hours, Trump communicates his sentiments
on politics like no other president in modern history. Laced with emotions
and frequent typos, his tweets are authentic, if not always factually correct.
New scholarship argues political leaders like Trump prefer social media to tra-
ditional media because it allows them to control the content unfiltered by the
mainstream press.37
PRIVATE GROUPS ALSO SHAPE PUBLIC OPINION
Important political ideas in political life are developed and spread not only by gov-
ernment officials but also by important economic and political groups searching for
issues that will advance their causes. One especially notable example is abortion,
which has inflamed American politics over the past 40 years. The notion of a fetal
“right to life,” whose proponents seek to outlaw abortion and overturn the Supreme
Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, was developed by conservative politicians who
saw the issue of abortion as a means of uniting Catholic and Protestant conserva-
tives and linking both groups to the Republican Party, along with various right-
to-life groups.38 Catholic and evangelical Protestant religious leaders organized to
denounce abortion from their church pulpits and, increasingly, from their televi-
sion, radio, and internet pulpits, including the Christian Broadcasting Network.
Religious leaders have also organized demonstrations, pickets, and disruptions at
abortion clinics throughout the nation.39 These efforts have helped win the enact-
ment of stricter abortion laws in many states.
THE NEWS MEDIA’S MESSAGE AFFECTS PUBLIC OPINION
The media are among the most powerful forces operating in the marketplace of
ideas. As we shall see in Chapter 6, the mass media are not simply neutral messen-
gers for ideas developed by others. Instead, they are very much opinion makers and
have an enormous impact on popular attitudes. For example, since the publication
of the Pentagon Papers by the New York Times and the exposure of the Watergate
scandal led by the Washington Post in the early 1970s, the national news media have
relentlessly investigated personal and official wrongdoing on the part of politicians
and public officials. The continual media presentation of corruption in government
has undoubtedly contributed to the general attitude of cynicism and distrust that
prevails in much of the general public.
At the same time, the ways in which media coverage interprets or “frames”
specific events can have a major impact on popular responses and opinions about
these events (see Chapter 6). For example, President George W. Bush went to
great lengths to persuade the media to follow its lead in their coverage of Amer-
ica’s response to terrorism in the months following the September 11, 2001,
attacks. The media mostly went along, presenting the administration’s military
161T H e M e D I A A N D G Ov e R N M e N T M O l D O P I N I O N
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch05_144-175.indd 161 11/28/18 4:28 PM
campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as its domestic antiterrorist efforts, in
a positive light. Even supposedly liberal newspapers such as the New York Times,
which had strongly opposed Bush in the 2000 election, praised his leadership
and published articles supportive of the president’s bellicose rhetoric against the
Iraqi regime prior to March 2003, when President Bush ordered the invasion
of Iraq. From the time Congress authorized military action in late 2002 to the
invasion of Iraq in March 2003, months of presidential messages and media cov-
erage focused on the threat of terrorism boosted public support from 50 percent
to over 70 percent.40
GOVERNMENT POLICIES ALSO RESPOND
TO PUBLIC OPINION
Studies generally suggest that elected officials pay attention to the preferences of
the public.41 For example, one study explored the relationship between changes
in opinion toward various political issues and the policy outcomes that most
closely correspond to the issues.42 The results show that shifts in public opin-
ion on particular issues do in fact tend to lead to changes in public policy.
One such example is in health care. A July 2009 Pew survey found that 65 percent
of Americans favored a law “requiring all Americans to have health insurance, and
government aid for those unable to afford it.”43 The federal government adopted
the Affordable Health Care Act in 2010, which required health insurance for
all citizens.
However, there is reason to question whether prevailing public opinion causes
politicians to make policies that reflect the general will or whether government
policy in fact causes changes in public opinion. The relationship between govern-
ment policy and opinion may be dynamic, wherein policy responds to opinion but
opinion also shifts based on new government policies.44 Studies of whether govern-
ment policy can affect public opinion have found it to have an effect in various
policy areas, such as the environment, health care, welfare reform, the death penalty,
and smoking bans.
To what extent do political leaders listen to the opinions of their constituents? To what extent should
they listen? Is Calvin’s father right that leaders should do what they believe is right, not what the
public wants?
C H A P T E R 5 P u B l I C O P I N I O N162
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch05_144-175.indd 162 11/28/18 4:28 PM
Of course, sometimes public opinion and policy do not align, and officials may
act on their own preferences or judgment if they believe it will benefit government
or society.45 The bailout of the banks in 2008, for example, was carried out despite
polls showing that a majority of Americans opposed this policy. When elected
officials pursue policies not aligned with centrist opinion, it is often because they
view particular groups of the electorate as more important than others. Inevitably,
loyal voting blocs or interest groups that regularly contribute to a candidate may
have their interests more closely represented than those of the general public.46
Measuring Public Opinion Is Crucial
to Understanding What It Is
Today public officials make extensive
use of public-opinion polls to help them
decide whether to run for office, what
policies to support, how to vote on
important legislation, and what types
of appeals to make in their campaigns. All recent presidents and other major polit-
ical figures have worked closely with polls and pollsters, as do major media outlets
and other private organizations.
PUBLIC - OPINION SURVEYS ARE ACCURATE
IF DONE PROPERLY
It is not feasible to interview the more than 300 million Americans residing in
the United States on their opinions of who should be the next president or what
should be done about important policy issues. Instead, pollsters take a sample of
the population and use it to make inferences (e.g., extrapolations and educated
guesses) about the preferences of the population as a whole. For a political survey
to be an accurate representation of the population, it must meet certain require-
ments, including an appropriate sampling method, a sufficient sample size, and the
avoidance of selection bias.47
Representative Samples One way to obtain a representative sample is what stat-
isticians call a simple random sample (or probability sample), in which every individual
in the population has an equal probability of being selected as a respondent.
Since we don’t have a complete list of all Americans, pollsters use census data,
lists of households, and telephone numbers to create lists, drawing samples from
regions and then neighborhoods within regions. Just as in a simple random sam-
ple, everyone has an equal chance of being selected for the survey. Rolls of reg-
istered voters are often used in political surveys designed to predict the outcome
of an election.
Another method for drawing samples of the national population is a technique
called random digit dialing of home landline and cell phone numbers. In this method,
Describe basic survey methods
and other techniques researchers
use to measure public opinion
163M e A S u R I N G P u B l I C O P I N I O N
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch05_144-175.indd 163 11/28/18 4:28 PM
Confidence in
Democratic Institutions
Parliaments, political parties, and the press
are three institutions that play an important
role in making democracy work. Parliament
is the branch of government that most
directly represents the voters; it serves as a
major forum for policy debate and prevents
abuse of executive power. Political parties
offer different ideological goals, thereby
helping to organize government, mobilize
voters, and ensure political competition
and accountability. Finally, the press plays
an important “watchdog” role in politics,
informing voters and helping them hold
their leaders accountable for their actions.
While these institutions are important
to all democracies, we do notice that
Americans tend to be much less confident in
these institutions than are citizens in other
democracies. This raises two important
questions: Why are the u.S. scores so low,
and what does it mean for politics when
a large percentage of a population loses
confidence in the institutions that keep its
democracy functioning?
United
States
Australia Mexico Brazil Japan Germany South
Africa
India
23
13
20
16 13
28 30
22 25
46
16
21 20
44 44
54
36
43
66
34
51
24
15
71
PERCENTAGE OF THE POPULATION WHO HAVE
“A GREAT DEAL” OR “QUITE A LOT” OF CONFIDENCE IN . . .
The Press Political Parties Parliament
SOURCE: R. Inglehart et al. (eds.), “World Values Survey: Round Six—Country-Pooled Datafile Version,” 2014,
www.worldvaluessurvey.org (accessed 6/5/18).
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch05_144-175.indd 164 11/28/18 4:28 PM
respondents are selected at random from a list of 10-digit telephone numbers, with
every effort made to avoid bias in the construction of the sample. A computer
random-number generator is used to produce a list of 10-digit telephone numbers.
Given that 98 percent of Americans have telephones (cell phones or landlines), this
technique usually results in a random national sample. Telephone surveys are fairly
accurate, cost-effective, and flexible in the type of questions that can be asked; but
many people refuse to answer political surveys, and response rates—the percent of
those called who actually answer the survey—have been falling steadily and average
less than 15 percent.48
Sample Size A sample must be large enough to provide an accurate representation
of the population. Surprisingly, though, the size of the population being measured
doesn’t matter, only the size of the sample. A survey of 1,000 people is just as effec-
tive for measuring the opinions of all Texans, a state with 28 million residents, as the
opinions of all Americans, with over 325 million residents.
Flipping a coin shows how this works. After tossing a coin 10 times, the num-
ber of heads and tails may not be close to 5 and 5. After 100 tosses of the coin,
though, the percentage of heads should be close to 50 percent, and after 1,000
tosses, very close to 50 percent. In fact, after 1,000 tosses, there is a 95 percent
chance that the number of heads will be somewhere between 46.9 percent and
53.1 percent. This 3.1 percent variation from 50 percent is called the sampling error
(or margin of error)—a polling error that arises based on the small size of the sam-
ple. That is, it is the amount of error we can expect with a typical 1,000-person
survey. Normally, samples of 1,000 people are considered sufficient for accurately
measuring public opinion through the use of surveys. When the media refer
to a “scientific poll” conducted by a highly respected polling firm, they actually
mean a poll that has followed the steps just outlined: a poll based on a random
(representative) sample of the population that is sufficiently large and avoids
selection bias.
Survey Design and Question Wording Even with a good sample design, surveys
may fail to reflect the true distribution of opinion within a target population. One
frequent source of measurement error is the wording of survey questions. The pre-
cise words used in a question can have an enormous impact on the answers that
question elicits. The reliability of survey results can also be adversely affected by poor
question format, faulty ordering of questions, poor vocabulary, ambiguity of ques-
tions, or questions with built-in biases.
Often, seemingly minor differences in the wording of a question can convey
vastly different meanings to respondents and, thus, produce quite different response
patterns (see Box 5.1). For example, for many years the University of Chicago’s
National Opinion Research Center has asked respondents whether they think the
federal government is spending too much, too little, or about the right amount of
money on “assistance for the poor.” Answering the question posed this way, about
two-thirds of all respondents seem to believe that the government is spending too
little. However, the same survey also asks whether the government spends too much,
165M e A S u R I N G P u B l I C O P I N I O N
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch05_144-175.indd 165 11/28/18 4:28 PM
too little, or about the right amount for “welfare.” When the word welfare is substi-
tuted for assistance for the poor, about half of all respondents indicate that too much
is being spent.49 Today, pollsters are increasingly turning to the use of online surveys,
often using similar techniques to those of telephone surveys. But while internet
surveys can be more efficient, less costly, and can have much larger samples, many
online surveys do not use probability sampling (random sampling) and thus are not
representative of the American population.
WHY ARE SOME POLLS WRONG?
The history of polling over the past century contains many instances of getting
it wrong and learning valuable lessons in the process. As a result, polling tech-
niques have grown more and more sophisticated, and pollsters have a more
and more nuanced understanding of how public opinion is formed and how it
is revealed.
Social Desirability Effects Political scientists have found that survey results can
be inaccurate when the survey includes questions about sensitive issues for which
individuals do not wish to share their true preferences. For example, respon-
dents tend to overreport voting in elections and the frequency of their church
attendance. Why? These activities are deemed socially appropriate, so even if
the respondents do not vote or attend church regularly, they may feel social
pressure to do so and thus may respond inaccurately on a survey. This is called
BOX 5.1
It Depends on How You Ask
THE SITUATION
The public’s desire for tax cuts can be hard to measure. In 2000, pollsters asked what
should be done with the nation’s budget surplus and got different results depending on
the specifics of the question.
THE QUESTION
President Clinton has proposed setting aside approximately two-thirds of an expected
budget surplus to fix the Social Security system. What do you think the leaders in
Washington should do with the remainder of the surplus?
VARIATION 1
Should the money be used for a tax cut, or should it be used to fund new government
programs?
VARIATION 2
Should the money be used for a tax cut, or should it be spent on programs for education,
the environment, health care, crime fighting, and military defense?
SOURCE: Pew Research Center, reported in the New York Times, January 30, 2000, WK 3.
166 C H A P T E R 5 P u B l I C O P I N I O N
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch05_144-175.indd 166 11/28/18 4:28 PM
the social desirability effect, whereby respondents report what they expect the
interviewer wishes to hear or whatever they think is socially acceptable rather
than what they actually believe or know to be true.50 On other topics, such
as questions about income or alcohol and drug use, respondents may feel
self-conscious and so choose not to answer.
Many questioned the accuracy of public opinion polls during the 2016 presi-
dential election, when Donald Trump performed better at the ballot box than in
the polls. Because Trump is a polarizing and controversial figure, some people may
have been reluctant to tell interviewers they supported Trump or his policies. The
fact that Hillary Clinton won nearly 3 million more votes than Trump nationwide
suggests that the 2016 election polls were right after all, but polls did fail to predict
that several key swing states would go to Trump.
Questions that ask directly about race or gender are particularly problematic.
“Social desirability” makes it difficult to learn voters’ true opinions about touchy
subjects such as racial attitudes because respondents hide their preferences from the
interviewer for fear of social retribution. However, surveys can be designed to tap
respondents’ latent or hidden feelings about sensitive issues without directly asking
them to express overt opinions.
Selection Bias The importance of accurate sampling was brought home early
in the history of political polling when a 1936 Literary Digest poll predicted
that the Republican presidential candidate, Alf Landon, would defeat the
Democratic incumbent, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in that year’s presidential
election. The actual election ended in a Roosevelt landslide. The main prob-
lem with the survey was what is called selection bias in drawing the sample. The
pollsters had relied on telephone directories and automobile registration rosters
to produce the survey sample. During the Great Depression, though, only wealth-
ier Americans owned telephones and automobiles. Thus, the millions of working-
class Americans who constituted Roosevelt’s base of support were excluded from
the sample.
Selection bias was also at play in preelection polls in the 2016 presiden-
tial election. As noted above, although most polls predicted the direction
of the popular vote correctly in Hillary Clinton’s favor, they failed to pre-
dict the size of the vote margin. Additional reasons for the polling inaccu-
racies included the use of “likely voter models,” which left out some groups
that ended up voting at higher-than-usual rates, such as rural, non-college-
educated, blue-collar voters who supported Trump in large numbers. Selection bias
may have been at play, as well as nonresponse bias, where Trump supporters were
less likely to respond to surveys.
In recent years, the issue of selection bias has been complicated by the fact that
growing numbers of individuals refuse to answer pollsters’ questions, or they use
such devices as voicemail and caller ID to screen unwanted callers. If pollsters could
be certain that those who responded to their surveys simply reflected the views of
those who refused to respond, there would be no problem. Studies suggest that the
views of respondents and nonrespondents can differ, especially along social class
167M e A S u R I N G P u B l I C O P I N I O N
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch05_144-175.indd 167 11/28/18 4:28 PM
lines. Additionally, women are significantly more likely to answer telephone surveys
than men. This can lead to incorrect inferences of public opinion.
Push Polling Push polls are not scientific polls and are not intended to
yield accurate information about a population. Instead, they involve ask-
ing a respondent a loaded question about a political candidate designed
to elicit the response sought by the pollster and, simultaneously, to shape
the respondent’s perception of the candidate in question. One of the most
notorious uses of push polling occurred in the 2000 South Carolina Republican
presidential primary, in which George W. Bush defeated John McCain and went
on to win the presidency. Callers working for Bush supporters asked conserva-
tive white voters if they would be more or less likely to vote for McCain if they
knew he had fathered an illegitimate black child. Because McCain often cam-
paigned with a daughter whom he and his wife had adopted from Mother Teresa’s
Though public opinion is important, it is not always easy to interpret, and polls often fail to predict how
Americans will vote. In 1948 election-night polls showed Thomas Dewey defeating Harry S. Truman for
the presidency, which caused the Chicago Daily Tribune to incorrectly print a banner announcing
Dewey’s win. In 2016 polls considerably favored Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump, causing many to
doubt the possibility of Trump winning the election.
168 C H A P T E R 5 P u B l I C O P I N I O N
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch05_144-175.indd 168 11/28/18 4:28 PM
orphanage in Bangladesh, many voters accepted the premise of the “poll.” The
purpose of such push polls is not to solicit opinions as much as to plant negative
ideas about the opposing candidate—to, in this case, “push” McCain voters away
from him.
The Bandwagon Effect Sometimes polling can even create its own reality. The
so-called bandwagon effect occurs when polling results convince people to support a
candidate marked as the probable victor. This is especially true in the presidential
nomination process, where there may be multiple candidates within one party vying
to be the party’s nominee. A candidate who has “momentum”—that is, one who
demonstrates a lead in the polls—usually finds it considerably easier to raise cam-
paign funds than a candidate whose poll standing is low. And with these additional
funds, poll leaders can often afford to pay for television time and other campaign
activities that will generate positive media attention and thus cement their advan-
tage. Wanting to highlight the momentum he felt he had in the 2016 election,
Trump frequently cited his lead in the polls to mobilize his base and give them
confidence that he would win.
Public Opinion
WHAT DO WE WANT?
A major purpose of democratic government, with its participatory procedures and rep-
resentative institutions, is to ensure that political leaders will heed the public will.
And, indeed, a good deal of evidence suggests that they do.51 However, it is not always
clear what the public will is. Mass shootings heighten the preferences of supporters
of both gun control and gun rights. Whose preferences prevail when attitudes differ
among groups? Or when they differ between the public and elites? Or between the
affluent and the poor? Some political scientists argue, however, that government pol-
icy is much less responsive to public opinion on the issues that really count and that
when the interests of elites are at stake, government officials are much more likely to
represent the opinions of the affluent than of the poor.52 People in lower-income groups
are less likely to actively seek out ways to express their political opinions than are
wealthier people (see the “Who Participates?” feature on p. 171).
New technology may be able to help. The migration of politics online has greatly
expanded the amount of information available and the ease of becoming informed.
Given this new media environment, we might expect public opinion to be more accu-
rate, even about the nuances of public policy. Digital citizenship offers the promise of a
more informed electorate, with citizens having multiple venues in which to translate their
opinions into political action and demand improved representation from political leaders.
The use of social media by students from the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School to
argue for greater gun regulations shows digital citizenship in action.
169P u B l I C O P I N I O N : W H AT D O W e W A N T ?
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch05_144-175.indd 169 11/28/18 4:28 PM
At the same time, social media raises concerns about the accuracy and consis-
tency of public opinion. Some research finds that the gap between the haves and
the have-nots in terms of political knowledge actually increases with the availability
of more information. The implications are significant, given the explosion of political
coverage online. The research suggests that with more information, public opinion may
actually be less consistent.53
Of course, technological change will continue; the media of 2040 will not be the
same as the media of 2020. Young adults will face a changing media environment,
just as their parents did. Such technological evolution may bring yet further changes
to our understanding of the relationship between public opinion, government, and the
media. New media may make it easier than ever for citizens to stay informed (or easier
to be misled) about the actions of their elected leaders or for leaders to learn about
their constituents’ preferences. What can citizens do to stay informed and make their
views known amid a changing media and political environment?
170 C H A P T E R 5 P u B l I C O P I N I O N
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch05_144-175.indd 170 11/28/18 4:28 PM
WHO PAR TICIPATES?
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
< $20,000 $20,000−$39,999 $40,000−$74,999 $75,000+By income group
Attended a town or city council meeting
26% 25% 28% 35%
Tried to contact a member of Congress
7% 9% 10% 15%
Attended a protest march
4% 4% 4% 3%
Signed a petition
19% 24% 24% 28%
Who Expresses Their
Political Opinions?
SOURCE: American National Election Study 2016 time series,
www.electionstudies.org (accessed 11/4/17).
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch05_144-175.indd 171 11/28/18 4:28 PM
Practice Quiz
1. The term public opinion is used to
describe (p. 147)
a) the collected speeches and
writings made by a president
during his or her term in office.
b) the analysis of events broadcast by
news reporters during the evening
news.
c) the beliefs and attitudes that
people have about issues, events,
elected officials, and policies.
d) decisions of the Supreme Court.
e) any political statement that is
made by a citizen outside of his or
her private residence or place of
employment.
2. Today, the term refers to
someone who generally supports the
social and economic status quo and
is suspicious of efforts to introduce
new political formulas and economic
arrangements. (p. 150)
a) libertarian
b) liberal
c) conservative
d) democrat
e) Whig
3. Socialism refers to (p. 151)
a) a political ideology that empha-
sizes social ownership, strong
government, and reducing eco-
nomic inequality.
Be an Informed Consumer of Opinion Polls
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
When you encounter information from opinion polls, consider the source
of the poll, the question wording, and whether individuals were randomly
selected to participate. Learn more at www.umich.edu/~numbers/polls.
Go to www.realclearpolitics.com to see polls about the same issues from
different sources. Note the margins of error, and notice how aggregating
polls makes a difference.
If asked, consider responding to an opinion poll—or take the initiative
and express your views through one of the actions above.
172 S T u D Y G u I D e
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch05_144-175.indd 172 11/28/18 4:28 PM
b) a political ideology that emphasizes
freedom and voluntary association
with small government.
c) a political ideology that argues for
the need to place strict limitations
on voting rights and civil liberties.
d) a political ideology that argues
a single ruler should have total
control over every aspect of
people’s lives.
e) a political ideology that argues gov-
ernments are inherently repressive
and should be abolished entirely.
4. The process by which Americans learn
political beliefs and values is called
(p. 152)
a) brainwashing.
b) propaganda.
c) indoctrination.
d) political socialization.
e) political development.
5. Which of the following is not an agent
of socialization? (p. 152)
a) the family
b) social groups
c) education
d) the political environment
e) All of the above are agents of
socialization.
6. The fact that women tend to oppose
military intervention more than men
do is an example of (p. 156)
a) the rally around the flag effect.
b) partisan polarization.
c) the peace paradox.
d) the bandwagon effect.
e) the gender gap.
7. Which of the following are the
most important external influences
on how political opinions are
formed in the marketplace of
ideas? (p. 160)
a) the government, private groups,
and the news media
b) the unemployment rate, the Dow
Jones Industrial Average, and the
NASDAQ composite
c) random digit dialing surveys,
push polls, and the bandwagon
effect
d) the Constitution, the Declaration of
Independence, and The Federalist
Papers
e) the legislative branch, the execu-
tive branch, and the judicial branch
8. Which statement best describes the
relationship between public opinion
and government policy? (p. 163)
a) Public opinion almost never
influences government policy.
b) Government policy almost never
influences public opinion.
c) The relationship between govern-
ment policy and public opinion
is dynamic, wherein government
policy responds to public opinion
but public opinion also shifts based
on new government policies.
d) Public opinion always influences
government policy because lawmak-
ers are legally bound to enact the
majority’s preferences.
e) Government policy never influences
public opinion because most
Americans pay very little attention
to politics.
9. Which of the following is the term used
in public-opinion polling to denote the
small group representing the opinions
of the whole population? (p. 163)
a) control group
b) sample
c) micropopulation
d) respondents
e) median voters
10. A push poll is a poll in which (p. 168)
a) the questions are designed to
shape the respondent’s opinion
rather than measure the respond-
ent’s opinion.
b) the questions are designed to
measure the respondent’s opinion
rather than shape the respondent’s
opinion.
c) the questions are designed to
reduce measurement error.
d) the sample is chosen to include
only undecided or independent
voters.
e) the sample is not representative of
the population it is drawn from.
173S T u D Y G u I D e
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch05_144-175.indd 173 11/28/18 4:28 PM
Key Terms
agents of socialization (p. 152) social
institutions, including families and schools,
that help to shape individuals’ basic politi-
cal beliefs and values
attitude (or opinion) (p. 147) a specific
preference on a particular issue
bandwagon effect (p. 169) a shift in electoral
support to the candidate whom public-
opinion polls report as the front-runner
conservative (p. 150) today this term refers
to those who generally support the social
and economic status quo and are suspi-
cious of efforts to introduce new political
formulae and economic arrangements;
conservatives believe that a large and
powerful government poses a threat to
citizens’ freedom
democracy (p. 149) a system of rule that
permits citizens to play a significant part in
the governmental process, usually through
the election of key public officials
equality of opportunity (p. 148) a widely
shared American ideal that all people
should have the freedom to use whatever
talents and wealth they have to reach their
fullest potential
gender gap (p. 156) a distinctive pattern of
voting behavior reflecting the differences in
views between women and men
liberal (p. 150) today this term refers to
those who generally support social and
political reform, governmental intervention
in the economy, more economic equality,
the expansion of federal social services,
and greater concern for consumers and
the environment
libertarian (p. 150) someone who empha-
sizes freedom and believes in voluntary
association with small government
liberty (p. 148) freedom from governmental
control
marketplace of ideas (p. 160) the public
forum in which beliefs and ideas are
exchanged and compete
political ideology (p. 149) a cohesive set
of beliefs that forms a general philosophy
about the role of government
political socialization (p. 152) the induction
of individuals into the political culture;
learning the underlying beliefs and values
on which the political system is based
public opinion (p. 147) citizens’ attitudes
about political issues, leaders, institutions,
and events
public-opinion polls (p. 163) scientific
instruments for measuring public opinion
push polling (p. 168) a polling technique in
which the questions are designed to shape
the respondent’s opinion
random digit dialing (p. 163) a polling
method in which respondents are selected
at random from a list of 10-digit telephone
numbers, with every effort made to avoid
bias in the construction of the sample
11. A familiar polling problem is the
“bandwagon effect,” which occurs
when (p. 169)
a) the same results are used over and
over again.
b) polling results influence people to
support the candidate marked as
the probable victor in a campaign.
c) polling results influence people
to support the candidate who is
trailing in a campaign.
d) background noise makes it difficult
for a pollster and a respondent to
communicate with each other.
e) a large number of people refuse to
answer a pollster’s questions.
174 S T u D Y G u I D e
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch05_144-175.indd 174 11/28/18 4:28 PM
sample (p. 163) a small group selected by
researchers to represent the most impor-
tant characteristics of an entire population
sampling error (or margin of error) (p. 165)
polling error that arises based on the small
size of the sample
selection bias (surveys) (p. 167) polling error
that arises when the sample is not repre-
sentative of the population being studied,
which creates errors in overrepresenting or
underrepresenting some opinions
simple random sample (or probability
sample) (p. 163) a method used by poll-
sters to select a representative sample in
Asher, Herbert. Polling and the Public: What Every Citizen Should Know. 9th ed.
Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2016.
Bartels, larry. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton university Press, 2008.
Berinsky, Adam. Silent Voices: Public Opinion and Political Participation in America.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton university Press, 2005.
Bishop, George. The Illusion of Public Opinion. New York: Rowman and littlefield, 2004.
Clawson, Rosalee, and zoe Oxley. Public Opinion: Democratic Ideals and Democratic
Practice. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2012.
erikson, Robert, and Kent Tedin. American Public Opinion. 9th ed. New York: Routledge,
2014.
Fiorina, Morris. Culture War: The Myth of a Polarized America. New York: longman, 2005.
Gallup, George. The Pulse of Democracy. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1940.
Ginsberg, Benjamin. The American Lie: Government by the People and Other Political
Fables. Boulder, CO: Paradigm, 2007.
Jacobs, lawrence R., Fay lomax Cook, and Michael X. Delli Carpini. Talking Together.
Chicago: university of Chicago Press, 2009.
lee, Taeku. Mobilizing Public Opinion. Chicago: university of Chicago Press, 2002.
lippman, Walter. Public Opinion. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1922.
Norrander, Barbara, and Clyde Wilcox. Understanding Public Opinion. Washington, DC:
CQ Press, 2009.
zaller, John. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge university
Press, 1992.
which every individual in the population has
an equal probability of being selected as a
respondent
social desirability effect (p. 167) the effect
that results when respondents in a survey
report what they expect the interviewer
wishes to hear rather than what they believe
socialist (p. 151) someone who generally
believes in social ownership, strong govern-
ment, free markets, and reducing economic
inequality
values (or beliefs) (p. 147) basic principles
that shape a person’s opinions about politi-
cal issues and events
For Further Reading
175S T u D Y G u I D e
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch05_144-175.indd 175 11/28/18 4:28 PM
The Media
060606
chapter
WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES AND WHY IT MATTERS When
the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Ajit Pai, proposed
to end “net neutrality” in 2017, teenagers across the country leapt into
action. Many had lived their entire lives in an era of neutrality, aspects of
which began in 2006 and were codified by President Barack Obama in 2015.
Under net neutrality, internet service providers were regulated like a utility.
They could not block websites, slow some data transmission while imposing
fees for fast transmission, or charge consumers to connect to certain sites.
Chairman Pai asserted that such rules overregulated the internet. But many
teenagers, who get the majority of their news and information from the inter-
net, disagreed. They used social media to coordinate letter-writing, tweet, and
protest efforts.
Sixteen-year-old student Will Howes led a protest in front of a Verizon store
in Sioux Falls, South Dakota (Pai formerly worked for Verizon), arguing, “They
can throttle your Netflix, they can change your Google results. The right to
access information online is threatened.” His fellow protesters worried that
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch06_176-203.indd 176 11/28/18 4:29 PM
The Media Net neutrality—the principle that all data and content on the web must be treated equally and not blocked or slowed for certain users—has been a hot-button issue. Anooha
Dasari is just one of many young people who have spoken
out and organized in support of net neutrality.
177
rural South Dakotans might get priced out of internet service, which was
already limited there. Teen protesters in front of a Keene, New Hampshire,
Verizon store had similar concerns about the price and availability of high-
speed internet, holding signs asking, “Hey Siri, how much does this sentence
cost?” As high school senior Harrison Hicks said, “The internet is imperative
to my education, and it’s really hard to be a self-starter and to teach yourself
the information you need without the internet especially since we’re the first
generation who’s grown up with the internet having been around our entire
lives.” Anooha Dasari, a high school junior from Mundelein, Illinois, who sent
classmates links for emailing the FCC, said, “For research, for news, to com-
municate with friends, the internet is a big part of my life. It has formulated
my personality, opinions and political ideology. If it is controlled, my generation
of students could be inclined to be just on one part of the spectrum. That’s
dangerous.” In December 2017, Chairman Pai cast the deciding vote to end
the neutrality rules. Dasari vowed to continue to fight: “I will tweet and email
and call and stay in the process.”
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch06_176-203.indd 177 11/28/18 4:29 PM
The sharing of information, whether via traditional or digital media, is an
essential component of American democracy. So central is information to
citizen participation that the Constitution’s First Amendment guarantees free-
dom of the press, and most Americans believe that a free press is an essen-
tial condition for both liberty and democratic politics. Today, as the means
of communication has expanded, the media continue to play a central role
in American politics, not only in setting the agenda of topics that Americans
think about and discuss but also in shaping public opinion on political issues
and politicians. The political implications of this media system are significant.
Politics is increasingly defined by the individuals and groups who are best
able to blend older and newer media—using, for example, both television and
digital media to promote their message.
Discussing the right of press freedom, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The basis
of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should
be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should
have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government,
I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”1 As the nature of media
has evolved, its centrality to government and politics has never waned. In
fact, in an era when politicians accuse each other and media members of
promoting “Fake News,” and people fight for or against control of internet
communications, a full understanding of America’s dynamic media landscape
may be more important than ever.
★ Describe the key roles the media play in American political life
(pp. 179–82)
★ Discuss how digital media have transformed how citizens learn about
politics (pp. 182–90)
★ Analyze the ways the media can influence public opinion and politics
(pp. 191–97)
CHAP TER GOAL S
178 C H A P T E R 6 T H e M e D I A
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch06_176-203.indd 178 11/28/18 4:29 PM
Media Have Always Mattered
in a Democracy
Freedom of the press is protected
under the First Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution, along with the
most cherished individual rights in
American democracy, including freedom of speech and religion. The freedom to
speak one’s mind in public is one of the most cherished of American political values.
Freedom of the press is the right to circulate information and opinions in print
and digital media without censorship by the government. In the United States
citizens and private companies have the right to publish newspapers, magazines,
and other forms of digital media with few government restrictions. In many author-
itarian countries there is no freedom of the press and the government controls the
news and political information through state-sponsored media.
The media serve three important roles in American democracy: to help inform the
public about current political issues and events; to provide a forum through which
candidates, politicians, and the public can debate policies and issues; and to act as a
watchdog on the actions of the government and political actors.
Without the work of journalists and the media, democracy and self-government
would not be possible. Individuals learn about politics, current events, government
policy, and political candidates and parties from the news media. The information
presented by the media allows citizens to cast informed decisions in elections and
to form opinions about policy issues. This communication ensures that elected
officials adopt policies consistent, for the most part, with the preferences of the
citizens and serves as a counterweight to communication among elites, the wealthy,
and corporations.
Perhaps most important, the media serve as a watchdog for the public, scrutiniz-
ing the actions of elected officials on behalf of citizens, most of whom do not have
the opportunity to closely follow the actions of politicians and government. The
media are like an alarm system for a home—notifying the public of actions taken by
government that may harm them. Important political news is reported on page 1 of
print newspapers or in news alerts on your mobile phone. The media prioritize cov-
ering major decisions by the government. They inform the public about important
policy issues and expose those individuals and groups that exert power in politics,
including their tactics and strategies. They reveal scandalous and illegal behavior of
politicians, and therefore serve as a check on political power.
JOURNALISTS ARE NEWS - GATHERING PROFESSIONALS
Most practicing journalists receive training in schools of journalism and mass com-
munication. Journalists are guided by standards in reporting the news in the public
interest, known as the principles of journalism. Above all the news media seek to
report the truth via fact-checking, verification of sources, and investigative jour-
nalism. This includes reporting factual claims by relying on legitimate sources, and
Describe the key roles the media
play in American political life
179M e D I A H AV e A lW Ay S M AT T e r e D I N A D e M O C r A C y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch06_176-203.indd 179 11/28/18 4:29 PM
citing people with credible positions, eyewitnesses and participants in events, and
documents associated with recognizable and credible institutions. The traditional
news media aim to balance coverage of current events by providing objective treat-
ment of opposing sides and avoiding including personal views of reporters or editors.
THE PROFIT MOTIVE DRIVES THE NEWS BUSINESS
The media are sometimes referred to as the fourth branch of government, as they
provide a check on the power of government and political leaders.
Public broadcasting refers to television, radio, and digital media that receive
funding from the public through license fees, subsidies, or tax dollars. In most other
democratic countries public broadcasting plays a major role in informing the public
about politics and current events. In contrast, public broadcasting in the United
States—such as National Public Radio or PBS—plays a very small role in the media
system, at just 2 percent of market share, compared to 35 percent in France,
40 percent in Germany, and 65 percent in Denmark.
For-profit private companies dominate U.S. political media. Media companies
earn most of their revenue from advertising, rather than subscriptions, although
revenue from subscriptions has been increasing. This means media actors—from
journalists to editors to the owners of media companies—are motivated by what
audiences want, because higher ratings generate more advertising revenue. Because
of the need to reach wide audiences to sell advertisements, the U.S. media are
more focused on soft news—such as entertainment, sports, and celebrity news—
than are European media, which provide more hard news coverage of politics and
civic events. And when it comes to political news, American media tend to focus
increasingly on dramatic, highly conflictual events and issues. Sensational stories
of scandals or candidate attacks often generate more interest—and thus revenue—
than the stories of everyday governing and details of public policy. Nonetheless,
objectivity is still the goal, and standard practice is that news, opinion, and ads
should be separate and distinct; that is why the opinions of editors are reserved for
the opinion pages.
The profit motive of the news industry may have contributed to Donald Trump’s
unexpected victory in the 2016 election. Due to the novelty of a television celebrity
running for president, Trump’s campaign was a financial boon for the media indus-
try. His candidacy received double the media coverage of his Democratic opponent
Hillary Clinton and his Republican challengers in the primaries. CBS head Les
Moonves said the Trump phenomenon “may not be good for America, but it’s damn
good for CBS. . . .” The money to the television station was “rolling in.”2
MORE MEDIA OUTLETS ARE OWNED
BY FEWER COMPANIES
A key feature of the traditional media in the United States is the concentration
of its ownership. A small number of giant corporations control a wide swath of
media holdings, including television networks, movie studios, record companies,
cable channels and local cable providers, book publishers, magazines, newspapers,
180 C H A P T E R 6 T H e M e D I A
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch06_176-203.indd 180 11/28/18 4:29 PM
and increasingly online and digital media outlets. Large global corporations own
much of the media offline and online.3 Media monopolies, such as that of The Walt
Disney Company, have prompted questions about whether enough competition
exists among traditional media to produce a truly diverse set of views on political
matters.4 In 2019, for example, Disney purchased 21st Century Fox to become the
third largest media company in the United States. As major newspapers, television
stations, and radio networks fall into fewer hands, the risk increases that politicians
and citizens who express less popular or minority viewpoints will have difficulty
finding a public forum.
The actual number of traditional news-gathering sources operating nationally is
actually quite small—several wire services, four broadcast networks, a few elite print
newspapers, and a smattering of other sources, such as a few large local papers and
several small, independent radio networks. More than three-fourths of the daily
print newspapers in the United States are owned by large media conglomerates such
as the Hearst, McClatchy, and Gannett corporations. Much of the national news
that is published by local newspapers is provided by one wire service, the Associated
Press. More than 500 of the nation’s television stations are affiliated with one of just
four networks and carry that network’s evening news programs.
The trend in concentration of traditional media ownership occurred in large
part due to the relaxation of government regulations in the 1980s and ’90s. The
Though the media generally attempt to remain unbiased, a number of media figures and outlets are
distinctly left- or right-leaning, such as Rachel Maddow of MSNBC and Tucker Carlson of Fox News.
Consumers are increasingly turning to partisan media, reflecting a tendency to self-select information
that already conforms with their beliefs, making it more difficult to objectively evaluate information.
181M e D I A H AV e A lW Ay S M AT T e r e D I N A D e M O C r A C y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch06_176-203.indd 181 11/28/18 4:29 PM
enactment of the 1996 Telecommunications Act opened the way for additional
consolidation in the media industry, and a wave of mergers and consolidations has
further reduced the field of independent media across the country. But as more
digital-only news sources come online, these trends toward concentration in media
ownership may reverse.
The Media Today
The past three decades have resulted
in a massive transformation of the
U.S. news media. New competition
from free digital sources has put pres-
sure on traditional subscription-based
news sources as Americans have migrated to reading the news online. Today
93 percent of adults have read the news online.5 This picture is very different from the
early 2000s, when most Americans said that after television, print newspapers were
their main source for news, and less than 20 percent read the news online.6 Though
not replacing losses in subscription and traditional advertising revenue, digital
advertising revenue continues to grow.7
Despite the digital transformation of the news media, much of what makes the
media important in American politics remains the same. Major newspapers and TV
networks—even if their content is increasingly delivered in digital form—remain pop-
ular and important sources of news. Political leaders are successful in making head-
line news and setting the news agenda. And journalists trained in professional schools
create and develop much of what we consume as news, including original reporting.
But more and more, the media are online companies facing an environment
where anyone with access to an internet connection can publish the news. There are
still only a small number of organizations that have credibility and the largest audi-
ences, however.8 The leading newspapers in the United States, such as the New York
Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post, receive some of the highest
traffic online.
Before the internet, journalism organizations largely controlled the news through
original reporting, writing and production, packaging and delivery, and selecting
editors. Over time, technology companies like Facebook, Apple, Google, and Amazon
have become major players in the content and delivery of the news. These companies
are partners in the business of journalism, from the financial side to how the news is
produced and delivered to consumers. They report the news using advanced technol-
ogy, engineering, and market research to push specific news alerts to specific people,
based on their interests and preferences. And it seems to be working: Facebook and
Google, for example, generate the most digital advertising revenue for newspapers.9
The interdependence between technology and media companies continues to
grow, representing a major change in the industry. In one of the latest trends,
technology companies and their CEOs have been purchasing or developing major
news media companies, such as the creation of the Intercept by Ebay founder Pierre
Discuss how digital media have
transformed how citizens learn
about politics
182 C H A P T E R 6 T H e M e D I A
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch06_176-203.indd 182 11/28/18 4:29 PM
Omidyar, or the purchase of the Washington Post by Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos.
Both the Intercept and the Washington Post have a reputation for forceful investiga-
tive journalism and original reporting. And at Facebook, editors control trending
topics in the news on the global platform, a key editorial role in what makes the
headline news.
Beyond making the news profitable again, these high-tech collaborations are
changing how Americans learn about current events. The tech world has long valued
transparency, networked environments, and participation.10 This is evident in the
growing number of Americans who read news by using social network platforms,
such as Twitter or Facebook. How citizens read the news has changed in the digital
age, but the role of the media in politics remains as important today as during the
founding of our nation.
Americans get their news from (1) newspapers and magazines; (2) broadcast
media (radio and television); and, increasingly, (3) digital media. Each of these three
sources—newspapers, broadcast, and digital—has distinctive characteristics.
NEWSPAPERS STILL SET THE STANDARD
FOR NEWS REPORTING
Newspapers are the oldest medium for the dissemination of the news, though most
Americans read digital versions of print media today. Newspapers have an especially
influential audience because they help set the political agenda for the nation. Their
audience of political elites relies on the detailed coverage provided by professional
journalists to inform their views about public matters.
The emergence of newspapers (and later radio and television networks) as
mass-production businesses driven primarily for profit had major implications for
the role of the media in politics in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
The development of standardized reporting and writing practices emphasizing objec-
tivity in political news coverage was motivated in part as a way to generate revenue
for media organizations. The owners of large newspaper companies determined that
the best way to make a profit was to appeal to as broad an audience as possible,
which meant not alienating potential readers who held liberal or conservative politi -
cal views. This, in turn, required methods to train and “discipline” reporters to pro-
duce a standardized, seemingly neutral news product. In contrast, some native digital
news is much less likely to be value neutral like journalism from legacy media outlets.
These journalistic practices were successful in attracting audiences, and for
a long time, most cities and towns in the country had their own newspaper.
However, for most traditional newspapers, recent decades have been financially
challenging. Competition from broadcast media and free content online, com-
bined with simultaneous declines in advertising revenue and circulation levels,
have undermined the traditional business model of newspapers.11 In 2018
there were roughly 39,210 working journalists, down from a high of 60,000
a decade before.12 Estimates indicate daily newspaper print circulation has
declined by over 30 percent over the past 20 years.13 Lower circulation leads to
lower advertising revenue.
183T H e M e D I A T O D Ay
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch06_176-203.indd 183 11/28/18 4:29 PM
Following the 2016 election, however, some major U.S. newspapers reported
a sharp increase in digital subscriptions.14 The New York Times added more than
500,000 digital subscriptions in 2016—a 47 percent increase from the previous
year—while the Wall Street Journal had a 23 percent increase over the previous year
and the Chicago Tribune a 76 percent increase. The newspaper industry as a whole,
however, continues to face declines in circulation and ad revenue. The New York
Times saw a 9 percent decline in advertising revenue but a 3 percent rise in circula-
tion revenue, for an overall revenue decline of 2 percent in 2016.15
For most newspapers today, non-ad revenue comes mainly from digital subscrip-
tions rather than print circulation. This model allows a certain number of free visits
before requiring users to pay and appears to be a viable business model for the digital
press. Digital subscription models have not been as viable for many smaller or mid-
sized local, regional, and even big-city papers, however. Legacy newspapers face the
greatest competition from digital-only news outlets, such as Bloomberg News, the
Drudge Report, and a host of others. And the pace of technological change in
the news media shows no signs of slowing down.16
BROADCAST MEDIA ARE STILL POPUL AR
Television news reaches more Americans than any other single news source
(Figure 6.1). It is estimated that over 95 percent of Americans have a television,
and tens of millions of people watch national and local news programs every day.
Television news, however, generally covers relatively few topics and provides little
depth of coverage. It serves the important function of alerting viewers to issues and
events—headline news—via brief quotes and short characterizations of the day’s
events. Furthermore, broadcast media do very little of their own reporting, instead
relying on leading newspapers or digital media to set their news agenda. Print and
digital media, as written text, also provide more detailed and complete information
than radio or television media, offering a better context for analysis.
Because they are aware of the character of television news coverage, politicians
and others often seek to manipulate the news by providing the media with sound
bites that will dominate news coverage. Sound bites can work for or against poli-
ticians. During the 2016 presidential election, calls for deporting undocumented
immigrants were a frequent sound bite topic from candidates such as Donald Trump.
Twenty-four-hour cable news stations such as MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News
offer more detail and commentary than the half-hour evening news shows found on
the three broadcast news stations—ABC, NBC, and CBS. Pew reports that com-
bined average viewership for the ABC, CBS, and NBC evening newscasts remained
stable in 2016 at about 24 million.17
Politicians generally consider local broadcast news a friendlier venue than the
national news. National reporters are often inclined to criticize and question,
whereas local and state reporters are more likely to accept the pronouncements of
national leaders at face value. Local TV continues to be a major source of news,
especially for older Americans, though its importance as a news source is decreas-
ing among the younger generation in favor of social media such as Facebook.
184 C H A P T E R 6 T H e M e D I A
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch06_176-203.indd 184 11/28/18 4:29 PM
Generally, however, Americans’ reliance on television does not appear to be
going away.
RADIO HAS ADAPTED TO MODERN HABITS
Radio is another broadcast news source that has evolved with the popularity of
podcasting. In the 1990s talk radio became an important source of commentary as
well as entertainment. Conservative radio hosts, such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean
Hannity, have huge audiences and have helped to mobilize support for conserva-
tive political causes and candidates. In the political center or center left, National
Public Radio (NPR) is a coveted source for in-depth political reporting. In recent
years radio news listening has experienced significant growth; in 1990 there were
400 radio stations, a number that has grown to over 2,000 today.
Broadcast radio includes traditional AM/FM radio and digital formats such as
online radio and podcasting. While AM/FM radio reaches almost all Americans and
FIGURE 6.1
Americans’ Main Sources for News
The media landscape for news has seen remarkable shifts in a short period of time. Twenty
years ago, more than 80 percent of Americans watched news on television and more than
half read news in a newspaper. Today, fewer Americans watch news on TV and just over one-
quarter read the newspaper. What media source has gained rather than lost its audience?
SOURCE: “Americans’ Online News Use Is Closing in on TV News Use,” Pew Research Center, September 5, 2017,
www.pewresearch.org (accessed 5/23/18).
1991 1995 1999 2003 2007 2011 2013 2015 2017
TV
Radio
Newspaper
Internet
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100%
PERCENTAGE OF U.S. ADULTS WHO
OFTEN GET THEIR NEWS ON EACH PLATFORM
185T H e M e D I A T O D Ay
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch06_176-203.indd 185 11/28/18 4:29 PM
remains steady in its revenue, online radio and podcasting have expanded rapidly in
the past decade, steadily growing to 64 percent of Americans who tuned in during
the last month of 2018, up from 12 percent in 2007. While public broadcasting has
a much smaller share of the total media market in the United States than in other
countries, National Public Radio is still popular and an important way for people
to learn about politics. In 2017 there were 5.4 million unique downloads of NPR
podcasts every week, a number that continues to grow.18 Mobile devices, including
satellite radio and cell phones, have triggered a growth in radio use as online radio
listening can occur nearly anywhere. Listening to radio news while commuting is a
primary way many Americans become informed about politics.19
Comedy Comedy talk shows with political content, such as The Daily Show, The
Late Show, and Saturday Night Live, attract millions of television viewers. These
shows use humor, sarcasm, and social criticism to discuss serious topics, gener-
ally covering almost every major political event. Pew surveys have shown that
these talk shows are important sources of political news, especially for young
people and liberals, and that followers of comedic talk shows are well informed
about politics.20
DIGITAL MEDIA HAVE TRANSFORMED MEDIA HABITS
The impact of the internet in mass communication in the twenty-first century
parallels that of the printing press in nineteenth-century America, which saw the
rise of the penny press and widespread literacy.21 Today, even as the print newspaper
business has consolidated, readership of online news has soared. Digital media have
become the media of choice for all age groups below 50. In 2000 just 35 percent
of adult internet users said they looked for news or information about politics
or the upcoming campaigns online.22 As of 2016 that number had risen to 9 in
10 Americans.23
News aggregators, such as Google News, Reddit, and RealClearPolitics, generally
compile and repackage stories that were created by other sources, and then deliver
them online to consumers in convenient formats. They serve as a platform that
allows users to share and comment on the news. Some of this content is produced by
digital-only news organizations, mainstream media, social movement organizations,
ordinary users, and other “amateurs,” as well as powerful political groups, govern-
ments, candidates, nonprofits, corporations, and professional media organizations.
News aggregators cover thousands of news stories each day, as well as the latest
public-opinion polls and their own synthesis of the headline news.
Rather than merely providing a forum to connect with friends and family, social
media are spaces for learning about politics and now a primary source for news—a
dramatic change from just a few years ago. A majority of American adults—
67 percent—gets news on social media (Figure 6.2).24 The trend in using social
media for political information continues to grow at a rapid rate across all demo-
graphic groups.
186 C H A P T E R 6 T H e M e D I A
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch06_176-203.indd 186 11/28/18 4:29 PM
Online media are more diverse and have created a more participatory press, one
in which citizens and nonprofit organizations now play a prominent role, and jour-
nalists regularly interact with readers via social media, especially Twitter. Readers
can now post comments online, upload videos, and participate in a community,
providing feedback on almost all online news articles. Digital media have created
more information and a more vibrant media environment.
The term digital citizenship refers to the ability to participate in culture and poli-
tics online. In much the same way that education and literacy promoted democracy
and economic growth in the nineteenth century, today’s internet has the poten-
tial to benefit society as a whole by facilitating political participation and social
inclusion through greater access to political information and news.25 The internet
FIGURE 6.2
Social Media and the News
Many Americans who use social media use those sites as a way to obtain political news.
This graph shows the percentage of American adults who use each social media site
compared with the percentage who report getting news from that site. What are the
advantages of getting news on social media, and what are some potential drawbacks?
SOURCE: Jeffrey Gottfried and Elisa Shearer, “News Use across Social Media Platforms 2017,” Pew Research
Center, September 7, 2017, www.journalism.org/2016/05/26/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2017/
(accessed 5/15/18).
Facebook YouTube Twitter LinkedIn redditInstagram
58%
18%
15%
11%
26%
7%
21%
5% 6% 4%
66%
45%
PERCENTAGE OF ADULTS WHO . . .
Use the social networking site Get news from the site
187T H e M e D I A T O D Ay
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch06_176-203.indd 187 11/28/18 4:29 PM
helps provide the information and skills needed for democratic engagement and
economic opportunity.26
However, regular and effective use of the internet requires high-speed access and
digital literacy to evaluate and use information online.27 Individuals without access
or the skills to use the internet may be increasingly uninformed and excluded from
the world of politics online. In 2018, 73 percent of Americans were digital citizens,
individuals with home high-speed access and the technology and literacy skills to
use it. Access to the internet is also shaped by income and education. While only
half of the working poor (those earning less than $20,000 a year) had home broad-
band, 85 percent of those earning more than $100,000 a year did. Sixty-three
percent of high school graduates have home broadband compared with almost
90 percent of college graduates.28 These data suggest that there are significant ine-
qualities in access to digital media, what is called the digital divide.29 Because digital
media are essential to participation in society, some argue that government has a
responsibility to provide affordable and universal access, as provided by most other
democratic countries.
Digital-Only News Organizations The last decade has seen the rise of niche journal-
ism and digital-only publications, or “born digital” news outlets. Bloomberg News,
one of the most successful specialty online sources, has hundreds of thousands of
readers paying an annual fee for detailed business-related news. In politics, the Hill,
the Blaze, Vice, Vox, BuzzFeed, and the Drudge Report are the niche leaders, with
detailed political reporting. FiveThirtyEight specializes in data journalism, provid-
ing election forecasts but also broad coverage including sports, science, and lifestyle.
Breitbart News, formerly under the leadership of Steve Bannon (Donald Trump’s
chief strategist for the 2016 campaign) has become a key source of political informa-
tion for far-right populist conservatives.
Social Media and Filtering While television remains the main source of news for
one in two Americans, young people ages 18–33 increasingly learn about politics
and news online and are significantly less likely than older Americans to turn to local
TV. Seventy-eight percent of people under age 50 get their news from social media.
What factors might account for these generational differences?
Social media, such as Twitter and Facebook, tend to be a secondary source for
news after television for many Americans, but are a primary source for the young.
The high rate of exposure to political news via social media is notable since young
Americans overall are less engaged in politics—just 46 percent of people ages 18–29
voted in the 2016 election compared to 59 percent for the 30–44 age group.30 As
the web becomes an increasingly important source for political news, young people
may become more engaged in politics.
Because they are more personalized and interactive than anonymous news
organizations, social media allow Americans to learn about politics and political
news from each other. Growing use of social media for news is evident across
all demographic groups, including older people, women and men, and groups
defined by race, education, and income. Two-thirds of Americans use social
188 C H A P T E R 6 T H e M e D I A
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch06_176-203.indd 188 11/28/18 4:29 PM
media.31 With President Trump tweeting multiple times per day, as well as its use
by congressional leaders and other politicians, social media have become news
sources in their own right, as well as forums to share news published in the main-
stream media.
Facebook provides a more interactive forum for learning about politics than does
Twitter, with users more likely to post and respond to news about government and
politics. Twitter’s strength is in providing news coverage as it happens, focusing on
live events. More than two-thirds of users of both sites say they have posted about
news at least at some point. Compared to passively watching television or reading
the news, this is a high rate of engagement.32
Social media also provide a platform for citizens to be directly engaged with
political candidates and elected officials, who have been quick to adopt Facebook
and Twitter as means of communicating with their supporters and filtering the
daily news for them. In their book Tweeting to Power, Jason Gainous and Kevin
Wagner argue that using social media is how citizens learn about politics: “Social
media alters the political calculus in the United States by filtering who controls
information, who consumes information, and how that information is distributed.”
Because the networks operate outside of traditional media and users can pick their
own friend networks and avoid disagreeable ideas and information, parties, groups,
and political candidates are able to directly dictate the content of these informa-
tion networks. Their study finds individuals who are more active politically online
and read the news using social media hold stronger partisan opinions. This means
using social media for reading the news can exaggerate party polarization among
the mass public.33
CITIZEN JOURNALISM GIVES PEOPLE NEWS POWER
Digital news is creating a new generation of whistle-blowers, enhancing the
media’s traditional role as a watchdog for the people against government cor-
ruption. A distinguishing feature of this phenomenon is the development of
citizen journalism, which is interactive and participatory. Citizen journalism
includes news reporting and political commentary by ordinary citizens and even
crisis coverage from eyewitnesses on the scene, thus involving a wider range of
voices in gathering news and interpreting political events. The near-universal
availability of cameras on cell phones gives millions of Americans the capacity
to photograph or record events, thus providing eyewitness accounts. At the same
time, social media permit users to upload videos that can be viewed by hundreds
of thousands of subscribers or relayed by the mainstream media for even wider
dissemination.
Citizen journalism supplements the work of professional journalists in many
important ways. The diversity of online media has created new opinion leaders
and new voices and has even, at times, improved information. In recent years,
for example, bloggers have uncovered major factual errors in media reports and
forced the networks and newspapers to issue corrections. Furthermore, because
bloggers and social media users do not have editorial boards, they can post a story
189T H e M e D I A T O D Ay
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch06_176-203.indd 189 11/28/18 4:29 PM
within minutes. This ability to scoop the mainstream media means bloggers can
frame stories about political candidates before those stories break in the main-
stream media.34 By sharply lowering the technological and financial barriers that
previously prevented all but a few individuals from reaching mass audiences, blogs
increase the ability of ordinary people to engage in effective political action. On
the other hand, the freewheeling nature of blogging and social media often means
that there is no quality control like that employed by professional journalists and
traditional media.35
CONCERNS ABOUT ONLINE NEWS
While online news holds significant promise for improving access to political infor-
mation, the shift toward online media has also given rise to several major concerns.
These potential disadvantages include a decline in investigative journalism, uneven
quality in news content, and negative effects on knowledge and tolerance. Two pri-
mary concerns dominate the debate about online news: fake news, and the impact
on tolerance.
Fake News Political candidates and political leaders are particularly susceptible to
attack when negative stories go viral and spread quickly without fact-checking and
respect for the privacy of public figures. In contrast to legitimate new stories, fake
news are false stories circulated to generate ad revenue or to benefit one political
candidate or party over another. The most widely publicized fake news story in the
2016 election, the top fake news story circulated on Facebook, was that the Pope
had endorsed Trump for president (he did not). Circulation of the top 10 fake
news stories on Facebook was more widespread than circulation of the top real news
stories about the election. A study published by Stanford University found fake
news stories on social media in the 2016 presidential election disproportion-
ately favored Trump over Hillary Clinton, and there is growing evidence that the
Russian government was involved in generating many of the fake news stories
in order to discredit Clinton and her campaign. Websites such as FactCheck.org,
Snopes.com, and PolitiFact.com are devoted exclusively to checking the veracity of
political claims.
Knowledge Up, Tolerance Down? The variety of online news may actually lower
tolerance for social, religious, and political diversity, leading to more partisan polar-
ization and societal conflict. Digital media often do not abide by traditional media’s
principle of objective journalism. Instead, the specialization of information online
and on cable television means that liberals and conservatives alike can self-select
media that are consistent with their underlying assumptions and avoid exposure
to information that might challenge their preconceived beliefs.36 The natural ten-
dency to select news that conforms with our own beliefs is exacerbated by the
way search engines cater to our individual preferences—called the “filter bubble,”
or “self-selection bias”—which screens out exposure to information that might
challenge or broaden our worldview.37
190 C H A P T E R 6 T H e M e D I A
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch06_176-203.indd 190 11/28/18 4:29 PM
The Media Affect Power Relations
in American Politics
The content and character of news
and public affairs programming—
what the media choose to present
and how they present it—can have
far-reaching political consequences. The media can shape and modify, if not fully
form, the public’s perception of events, issues, and institutions. Media coverage can
rally support for, or intensify opposition to, national policies on important matters
such as health care, the economy, and international wars.
THE MEDIA INFLUENCE PUBLIC OPINION THROUGH
AGENDA- SETTING, FRAMING, AND PRIMING
Traditional and digital media influence American politics in a number of important
ways. The power of the media lies in their ability to shape what issues Americans
think about (setting the agenda) and what opinions Americans hold about those
issues (framing and priming).
Agenda-Setting and Selection Bias The first source of media power is agenda-
setting—that is, the power of the media to bring public attention to particular issues
and problems. Groups and forces that wish to bring their ideas before the public in
order to generate support for policy pro-
posals or political candidacies must secure
media coverage. If the media are persuaded
that an idea is newsworthy, they may declare
it an “issue” that must be confronted or a
“problem” to be solved, thus clearing the
first hurdle in the policy-making process.
If, on the other hand, an idea lacks or loses
media appeal, its chance of resulting in new
programs or policies is diminished.
For example, in the lead-up to the
2016 election, the mainstream media and
Donald Trump focused extensively on
Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email
server during her tenure as Secretary of
State, and its possible risk of jeopardizing
government secrets. Clinton’s email use
dominated the media agenda, especially in
the 10 days before the election when FBI
director James Comey reopened the inves-
tigation into her email server.
Through agenda setting, the media have the
power to influence which issues the public
pays attention to. After FBI director James
Comey released a letter indicating the reopening
of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of
a private email server days before the 2016
election, the media’s intense coverage of the
investigation caused the Clinton campaign to
respond to the letter publicly.
Analyze the ways the media can
influence public opinion and politics
191T H e M e D I A A F F e C T P O W e r r e l AT I O N S I N A M e r I C A N P O l I T I C S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch06_176-203.indd 191 11/28/18 4:29 PM
Because the media are businesses and because the media seek to attract the
largest possible audiences, they naturally tend to cover stories with dramatic or
entertainment value, giving less attention to important stories that are less
compelling. News coverage thus often focuses on crimes and scandals, especially
those involving promi nent individuals. This selection bias—the tendency to focus
news coverage on only one aspect of an event or issue, avoiding coverage of other
aspects—means that the media may provide less information about important
political issues. The age-old journalistic instinct for sensational stories to tell often
trumps the media’s responsibility to inform the public about what really matters—
and the public’s responsibility to demand that from the media.
What the mainstream media decide to report on and what they ignore have
important implications. For example, the mainstream media provided little coverage
of the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 (or their extension under President Obama
in 2009), although they dramatically increased the federal budget deficit and
widened the gap between the super-rich and most other Americans in terms of
wealth.38 It is not surprising that public-opinion polls showed that 40 percent of
Americans had no opinion on whether they favored the massive tax cuts in 2001.
Framing Framing is the media’s ability to influence how the American people
interpret events and policies. Politicians take care to choose language that presents
their ideas in the most favorable light possible. Public opinion on politics naturally
changes with facts, but few citizens read legislation; so when forming opinions about
policy and politics, the public relies on media coverage. This means that arguments
made by elected officials and other political actors, or “frames,” are critical to the
process of forming opinions. For example, during the 2016 presidential campaign,
Donald Trump framed Hillary Clinton as a criminal for her use of a private email
server even though no charges were ever brought.
Priming Another source of media influence on opinion, related to framing,
is priming. Priming involves “calling attention to some matters while ignoring
others.”39 As a result, the public will be primed to use certain criteria when
evaluating a politician or an issue and to ignore other criteria. In the lead-up to
the 2008 presidential election, for example, the serious economic recession took
much of the spotlight. As a result, the economy—far more than other issues—
was a more important lens through which the public evaluated the candidates
rather than national security.
In the case of political candidates, the media have considerable influence
over whether a particular individual will receive public attention and whether a
particular individual will be taken seriously as a viable contender. Thus, if the media
find a candidate interesting, they may treat him or her as a serious contender despite
possible weaknesses and shortcomings. For example, the media were criticized in
the 2016 presidential race for covering Donald Trump—a reality TV star known
for his inflammatory comments and disdain for political correctness—much more
than other candidates. Many people believed that Trump’s unexpected victory in
the Republican primaries was due in part to widespread media coverage.
192 C H A P T E R 6 T H e M e D I A
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch06_176-203.indd 192 11/28/18 4:29 PM
News media are not alone in agenda-setting, framing, and priming; elected
officials, interest groups, and other political players compete over all three in hopes
of influencing public opinion.
LEAKED INFORMATION CAN COME FROM GOVERNMENT
OFFICIALS OR INDEPENDENT SOURCES
The media may report information that is leaked by government officials. A leak
is the disclosure of confidential information to the news media. Leaks may ema-
nate from a variety of sources, including whistle-blowers or lower-level officials
who hope to publicize what they view as their bosses’ improper activities.
In 1971, for example, a minor Defense Department staffer named Daniel
Ellsberg sought to discredit official justifications for U.S. involvement in Vietnam
by leaking top-secret documents to the press. The Pentagon Papers—the Defense
Department’s own secret history of the war, differing widely from the Pentagon’s
public pronouncements—were published by the New York Times and the Washington
Post after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the government could not block their
release.40 Pentagon credibility was severely damaged, hastening the erosion of public
support for the war.
Most leaks, though, originate not with low-level whistle-blowers but rather with
senior government officials, prominent politicians, and political activists. These
individuals cultivate long-term relationships with journalists, to whom they reg-
ularly leak confidential information, knowing that it is likely to be published on a
priority basis in a form acceptable to them. In turn, of course, journalists are likely
to regard high-level sources of confidential information as valuable assets whose
favor must be retained.
Digital media has taken leaks to a new level. WikiLeaks, an independent
nonprofit organization dedicated to publishing classified information, posts
leaked documents to its website and uses an anonymous system so that leak-
ers cannot be identified. In recent years, WikiLeaks has released thousands of
secret government documents involving instances of government corruption,
such as war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. During the 2016 presidential
campaign, WikiLeaks released thousands of stolen emails from Democratic
candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign. WikiLeaks shares its treasure trove of
leaked government documents with major international papers, including the
New York Times.
In 2013, Edward Snowden, a former employee of the Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA) and contractor for the National Security Agency (NSA), dis-
closed thousands of classified digital documents to journalists and international
media. The leaks disclosed widespread global surveillance programs by the
U.S. government working with telecommunication companies. The world
learned the NSA was searching millions of email and instant messaging con-
tact lists and tracking and mapping the locations of cell phones. For revealing
the mass surveillance programs, Snowden has been called a hero, a whistle-blower,
a dissident, and a traitor. The leaks garnered intense media attention and
193T H e M e D I A A F F e C T P O W e r r e l AT I O N S I N A M e r I C A N P O l I T I C S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch06_176-203.indd 193 11/28/18 4:29 PM
sparked heated public debate over government
surveillance and privacy of information for
individuals.
Critics of WikiLeaks and Snowden argue
that posting government documents online is
not journalism, that governments must have
some secrets, and that the release of some gov-
ernment documents may jeopardize national
security as well as American soldiers and their
local allies by revealing their identities.
ADVERSARIAL JOURNALISM
HAS RISEN IN RECENT YEARS
The political power of the news media vis-à-vis
the government has greatly increased in recent
years through the growing prominence of
“adversarial journalism,” an aggressive form of
investigative journalism that attempts to expose
and antagonize the status quo.
The national media’s aggressive use of the
techniques of investigation, publicity, and
exposure allow them to inform the public
about major news stories. Without such aggres-
sive media coverage, we might never have
known of Bill Clinton’s extramarital affair or
of Richard Nixon’s Committee to Re-elect the
President’s illegal break-in to the Democratic
Party headquarters in the Watergate building.
We might never have known that Iraq did
not have weapons of mass destruction, despite claims to the contrary by then-
president George W. Bush. Without aggressive media coverage, would we know
about Russian interference in the 2016 elections? It is easy to criticize the media
for their aggressive tactics, but would our democracy function effectively without
the critical role of the press? Independent media are needed as the watchdogs of
American politics. Digital technology has provided a new means by which the
media can be watchdogs.
BROADCAST MEDIA ARE REGULATED, BUT NOT PRINT MEDIA
In many countries, such as China, the government controls media content. In
other countries, the government owns the broadcast media (for example, the BBC
in Britain) but does not tell the media what to say.
In the United States, the print media are essentially free from government inter-
ference. The broadcast media, on the other hand, are subject to federal regula-
tion. American radio and television are regulated by the Federal Communications
Leaks of classified information have
sparked significant debate over what
the government should classify as
“secret” and what deserves to be public
knowledge. After Edward Snowden
leaked thousands of classified doc-
uments, he fled the United States in
order to escape arrest and prosecution.
His actions have been both defended
and denounced.
194 C H A P T E R 6 T H e M e D I A
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch06_176-203.indd 194 11/28/18 4:29 PM
Commission (FCC), an independent regulatory agency established in 1934. Radio
and TV stations must have FCC licenses, which must be renewed every five years.
Licensing provides a mechanism for allocating radio and TV frequencies to prevent
broadcasts from interfering with and garbling one another.
Through regulations prohibiting obscenity, indecency, and profanity, the FCC
has also sought to prohibit radio and television stations from airing explicit sexual
and excretory references between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., the hours when children are
most likely to be in the audience. Generally speaking, FCC regulation applies only
to the “over-the-air” broadcast media. It does not apply to cable television, the inter-
net, or satellite radio.
In 1996, Congress passed the Telecommunications Act, a broad effort to do away
with most regulations in effect since 1934. The legislation loosened restrictions on
media ownership and allowed telephone companies, cable television providers, and
broadcasters to compete with one another for telecommunication services. Follow-
ing the passage of the act, several mergers between telephone and cable companies
and among different segments of the entertainment media produced an even greater
concentration of media ownership than had been possible since regulation of the
industry began in 1934.
Though the act loosened many regulations, it did include an attempt to regu-
late the content of material transmitted over the internet. This law, known as the
Communications Decency Act, made it illegal to make “indecent” sexual material
on the internet accessible to those under 18 years old. The act was immediately
denounced by civil libertarians and became the subject of lawsuits. The case reached
The debate over net neutrality highlights fundamental questions about democracy. If the media are
intended to be a marketplace of ideas, what should the government do to regulate that marketplace?
Should any single entity be allowed to exert more influence or control, or should everyone be allowed
to participate equally?
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch06_176-203.indd 195 11/28/18 4:29 PM
The Internet and
Global Democracy
The internet and social media play an
increasing role in elections, as demonstrated
in this chapter. Critics of this trend have
raised concerns that a lack of “quality
control” allows the spreading of fake news
by unscrupulous groups.a A number of
foreign and domestic actors have used the
open nature of this media to manipulate
campaign rhetoric for political gain. The
British government opened investigations
into the spread of false news during the
“Brexit” vote on leaving the european
Union,b and russia used internal techniques
to manipulate elections in the United States
and europe.c
Supporters, however, point out that the
internet and social media have allowed
voters to connect better with their political
systems. In Kenya, biometric voter registra-
tion has made it more difficult for people to
cast multiple ballots, and real-time texting
has improved oversight on election counts,
helping to combat voter fraud.d
While internet and social media are
certainly transforming politics, it is
important to remember that not all global
citizens are part of this trend. If the future
of politics is online, then many poor and
older people around the world may be
increasingly left behind.
SOURCE: World Bank, “Individuals Using the Internet (% of Population),” 2016, data.worldbank.org (accessed 5/21/18).
INTERNET USAGE THROUGHOUT THE WORLD
Under 33% 33–66% Over 66%
a Thomas B. Edsall, “Opinion: Democracy, Disrupted,” March 2, 2017, New York Times, www.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/
opinion/how-the-internet-threatens-democracy.html (accessed 5/21/18).
b “What Are the Links between Cambridge Analytica and a Brexit Campaign Group?” Reuters, March 21, 2018, www.reuters
.com/article/us-facebook-cambridge-analytica-leave-eu/what-are-the-links-between-cambridge-analytica-and-a-brexit
-campaign-group-idUSKBN1GX2IO (accessed 5/21/18).
c Constanze Stelzenmüller, “Testimony: The Impact of Russian Interference on Germany’s 2017 Election,” June 28, 2017,
www.brookings.edu/testimonies/the-impact-of-russian-interference-on-germanys-2017-elections/ (accessed 5/21/18).
d Loren Treisman, “How Kenyans Are Using Tech to Stop Election Fraud,” August 3, 2017, CNN, www.cnn.com/2017/07/27/
africa/kenya-elections-technology/index.html (accessed 5/21/18).
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch06_176-203.indd 196 11/28/18 4:29 PM
www.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/opinion/how-the-internet-threatens-democracy.html
www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-cambridge-analytica-leave-eu/what-are-the-links-between-cambridge-analytica-and-a-brexit-campaign-group-idUSKBN1GX2IO
www.cnn.com/2017/07/27/africa/kenya-elections-technology/index.html
the Supreme Court in 1997, and the act was ruled an unconstitutional infringement
of the First Amendment’s right to freedom of speech (see Chapter 4).
Although the government’s ability to regulate the content of electronic media
on the internet has been questioned, the federal government has used its licensing
power to impose several regulations that can affect the political content of radio and
TV broadcasts. The first of these is the equal time rule, under which broadcasters must
provide candidates for the same political office equal opportunities to communicate
their messages to the public. Under the terms of the Telecommunications Act, dur-
ing the 45 days before an election, broadcasters are required to make time available
to candidates at the lowest rate charged for that time slot.
The second regulation affecting the content of broadcasts is the right of rebuttal,
which requires that individuals be given the opportunity to respond to personal
attacks made on a radio or television broadcast. In the 1969 case of Red Lion Broad-
casting Company v. Federal Communications Commission, for example, the U.S.
Supreme Court upheld the FCC’s determination that a radio station was required
to provide a liberal author with an opportunity to respond to a conservative com-
mentator’s attack that the station had aired.41
For many years, a third important federal regulation was the fairness doctrine.
Under this doctrine, broadcasters who aired programs on controversial issues were
required to provide time for opposing views. In 1987, however, the FCC revoked
the fairness doctrine on the grounds that there were so many radio and television
stations—to say nothing of newspapers and newsmagazines—that in all likelihood
many different viewpoints were already being presented without each station’s being
required to try to present all sides of an argument.
The rise of online media challenges our thinking about regulation of the media as it
is more difficult—some say impossible—to regulate political content online. In 2011
the United Nations declared that access to the internet is a human right.42 While this
came in response to threats by authoritarian governments against internet access, the
UN’s position demonstrates the significance of information technology in modern life.
The Media
WHAT DO WE WANT?
The freedom of the press is essential to democratic government. Ordinary citizens
depend on the media to investigate wrongdoing, publicize and explain governmen-
tal policy, evaluate politicians, and bring to light matters that might otherwise be
known to only a handful of governmental insiders. In short, without free and active
media, democratic government would be virtually impossible. Citizens would have few
means through which to know or assess the government’s actions—other than the
claims or pronouncements of the government itself. Moreover, without active (indeed,
aggressive) media, citizens would be hard-pressed to make informed choices among
197T H e M e D I A : W H AT D O W e W A N T ?
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch06_176-203.indd 197 11/28/18 4:29 PM
competing candidates at the polls. That is one reason that the teenaged defenders of
net neutrality we discussed at the beginning of the chapter hoped to keep the internet
open as a source of information on public affairs.
Today’s media are not only adversarial but also increasingly partisan. Blogs, digital-
only news websites, social media, and others can be unabashedly partisan. To some
extent, increasing ideological and partisan stridency is an inevitable result of the
expansion and proliferation of news sources. When the news was dominated by
three networks and a handful of national papers, each sought to appeal to the entire
national audience. This required a moderate and balanced tone so that consumers
would not be offended and transfer their attention to a rival network or newspaper.
Today, there are so many news sources that few can aim for a broad-based national
audience. Instead, many target a partisan or ideological niche and aim to develop
a strong relationship with consumers in that audience segment by catering to their
biases and predispositions.
The rise of digital media has fundamentally changed how political information is
gathered and distributed. News today is participatory and involves citizens as well as
professional journalists. Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia founded by Jimmy
Wales, has millions of pages compiled by legions of volunteers and provides relatively
unbiased content on virtually every political topic imaginable. Social media, Wikipedia,
and all Wiki-type sites involve people working collaboratively to write and create infor-
mation and transmit knowledge. Social media also enable citizens to express their
political opinions. (The “Who Participates?” feature on the facing page shows some
of the ways Americans participate in politics via social media.) Is such a system the
future of the news media?
The media can make or break reputations, help to launch or destroy political
careers, and build support for or rally opposition to programs and institutions.43 Wher-
ever there is so much power, at least the potential exists for its abuse or overly zealous
use. All things considered, free media are so critically important to the maintenance of
a democratic society that Americans must be prepared to take the risk that the media
will occasionally abuse their power. Governmental controls that would prevent the
media from misusing their power would also limit freedom. The ultimate beneficiaries
of free and active media are the American people.
198 C H A P T E R 6 T H e M e D I A
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch06_176-203.indd 198 11/28/18 4:29 PM
WHO PAR TICIPATES?
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
Civic Engagement
in the Digital Age
SOURCE: American National Election Study 2016 time series,
www.electionstudies.org (accessed 11/4/17).
In the last 12 months, did you send a message on Facebook
or Twitter about political issues?
Age
18–29
30–49
50–64
65+
43%
42%
30%
18%
Income group
<$20K
$20K – <$40K
$40K – <$75K
$75K+
34%
32% 35%
34%
Partisanship
Democrats
Republicans
Independents
36%
33%
31%
Sex
Male
Female
30%
36%
Education
< High school
Some college
College graduate
Postgraduate
20%
37%
25%
18%
Race / ethnicity
White
Black
Asian
Hispanic /Latino
34%
28% 25%
32%
Percentage who said “yes” to this question
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch06_176-203.indd 199 11/28/18 4:29 PM
Practice Quiz
1. Public broadcasting outlets that
receive government funding through
license fees, subsidies, or tax dollars
(p. 180)
a) are prohibited by the Constitution
from operating in the United States.
b) account for less than 5 percent of
media market share in the United
States.
c) account for nearly one-third of
media market share in the United
States.
d) account for approximately half of
media market share in the United
States.
e) account for more than two-thirds of
media market share in the United
States.
2. More than three-fourths of daily print
newspapers are owned by (p. 181)
a) large media conglomerates.
b) the national government.
c) small local companies.
d) private individuals.
e) the employees who run them.
3. Digital citizenship requires (p. 188)
a) a subscription to one or more online
newspapers.
b) high-speed internet access and the
technical and literacy skills to eval-
uate and use information online.
c) high-speed internet access only.
d) a social media account, such as
Facebook or Twitter.
e) maintaining a political blog.
Be an Informed Consumer of Media
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
Gather information from a variety of news sources rather than relying on
just one. You can set up a news aggregator with a variety of free
downloadable apps, including Flipboard (www.�ipboard.com) and Feedly
(www.feedly.com).
Check media watchdog organizations such as the Columbia Journalism
Review (www.cjr.org), Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (www.fair.org),
and Accuracy in Media (www.aim.org) for reports of media bias
and censorship.
For information on the factual accuracy of what is said by political
players, go to www.factcheck.org. For investigative journalism in the
public interest, go to www.propublica.org. For reporting on the accuracy
of news rumors, go to www.snopes.com.
200 S T U D y G U I D e
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch06_176-203.indd 200 11/28/18 4:29 PM
4. The fact that almost 90 percent of
college graduates have home broad-
band access but only 63 percent
of high school graduates do is an
example of (p. 188)
a) the “college chasm.”
b) the “online opening.”
c) the “download disparity.”
d) the “digital divide.”
e) the “BA bump.”
5. Which of the following is not a reason
that many Americans appear to prefer
online news? (p. 190)
a) the depth of the information
available online
b) the diversity of online viewpoints
c) the convenience of getting news
online
d) the accuracy and objectivity com-
pared to traditional media outlets
e) the up-to-the-minute currency of
the information available online
6. Media’s powers to bring public attention
to a particular issue or problem is
known as (p. 191)
a) agenda-setting.
b) framing.
c) priming.
d) adversarial journalism.
e) selection bias.
7. Most leaks originate with (p. 191)
a) low-level government whistle-
blowers.
b) senior government officials, promi-
nent politicians, and political activists.
c) members of the public who witness
misbehavior.
d) ambassadors from foreign countries.
e) members of the media.
8. Adversarial journalism refers to
(p. 194)
a) the recent shift in American society
away from general-purpose sources
of information and toward narrowly
focused niche sources.
b) an era in American history when
political parties provided all of the
financing for newspapers.
c) an aggressive form of journalism
that attempts to expose and antag-
onize the status quo.
d) a form of reporting in which the
media adopt an accepting and
friendly posture toward the
government and public officials.
e) the process of preparing the public
to take a particular view of an event
or political actor.
9. In general, FCC regulations apply only
to (p. 195)
a) cable television.
b) internet websites.
c) over-the-air broadcast media.
d) satellite radio.
e) newspapers and magazines.
10. In Red Lion Broadcasting Company v.
Federal Communications Commission,
the Supreme Court ruled that a radio
station (p. 197)
a) could not legally charge Democratic
and republican gubernatorial candi-
dates different prices for commer-
cials aired at the same time of day.
b) could legally charge Democratic
and republican gubernatorial candi-
dates different prices for commer-
cials aired at the same time of day.
c) was required to provide a liberal
author with an opportunity to
respond to a personal attack
broadcast by one of the station’s
conservative commentators.
d) was not required to provide a
liberal author with an opportunity
to respond to a personal attack
broadcast by one of the station’s
conservative commentators.
e) was not required to secure a
license from the FCC if it accepted
no money in grants or tax credits
from the federal government.
11. The now-defunct requirement that
broadcasters provide time for oppos-
ing views when they air programs on
controversial issues was called (p. 197)
a) the equal time rule.
b) the fairness doctrine.
c) the right of rebuttal.
d) the response rule.
e) the free speech doctrine.
201S T U D y G U I D e
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch06_176-203.indd 201 11/28/18 4:29 PM
Key Terms
agenda-setting (p. 191) the power of the
media to bring public attention to particular
issues and problems
broadcast media (p. 183) television, radio,
or other media that transmit audio and/or
video content to the public
citizen journalism (p. 189) news reported
and distributed by citizens, rather than by
professional journalists and for-profit news
organizations
digital citizen (p. 188) a daily internet
user with high-speed home internet
access and the technology and literacy
skills to go online for employment, news,
politics, entertainment, commerce, and
other activities
digital divide (p. 188) the gap in access to
the internet among demographic groups
based on education, income, age, geo-
graphic location, and race/ethnicity
equal time rule (p. 197) the requirement
that broadcasters provide candidates
for the same political office equal opportu-
nities to communicate their messages to
the public
framing (p. 192) the power of the media
to influence how events and issues are
interpreted
media (p. 179) print and digital forms of
communication, including television, news-
papers, radio, and the internet, intended to
convey information to large audiences
news aggregator (p. 186) an application
or feed that collects web content such as
news headlines, blogs, podcasts, online
videos, and more in one location for
easy viewing
niche journalism (p. 188) news reporting
devoted to a targeted portion (subset) of
a journalism market sector or for a portion
of readers or viewers based on content or
ideological presentation
penny press (p. 186) cheap, tabloid-style
newspaper produced in the nineteenth cen-
tury, when mass production of inexpensive
newspapers first became possible due to
the steam-powered printing press; a penny
press newspaper cost one cent compared
with other papers, which cost more than
five cents
priming (p. 192) process of preparing
the public to take a particular view of an
event or political actor
right of rebuttal (p. 197) a Federal Com-
munications Commission regulation giving
individuals the right to have the opportunity
to respond to personal attacks made on a
radio or television broadcast
selection bias (p. 192) the tendency to
focus news coverage on only one aspect
of an event or issue, avoiding coverage of
other aspects
social media (p. 188) web-based and
mobile-based technologies that are used
to turn communication into interactive
dialogue between organizations, communi-
ties, and individuals; social media technolo-
gies take on many different forms including
blogs, Wikis, podcasts, pictures, video,
Facebook, and Twitter
202 S T U D y G U I D e
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch06_176-203.indd 202 11/28/18 4:29 PM
Boydstun, Amber e. Making the News: Politics, the Media, and Agenda Setting. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2013.
Campbell, richard, Christopher Martin, and Bettina Fabos. Media and Culture. New york:
St. Martin’s Press, 2009.
Carr, Nicholas. The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. New york:
W. W. Norton, 2011.
Fenton, Tom. Bad News: The Decline of Reporting, the Business of News, and the Danger
to Us All. New york: HarperCollins, 2005.
Fox, richard, and Jennifer ramos. iPolitics: Citizens, Elections and Governing in the
New Media Era. New york: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
Graber, Doris, and Johanna Dunaway. Mass Media and American Politics, 9th ed.
Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2014.
Iyengar, Shanto. Media Politics: A Citizen’s Guide, 3rd ed. New york: W. W. Norton, 2015.
Iyengar, Shanto, and Donald Kinder. News That Matters: Television and American Public
Opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010.
Jenkins, Henry. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New york:
New york University Press, 2008.
MacArthur, John. Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the 1991 Gulf War.
Berkeley and los Angeles: University of California Press, 2004.
Spitzer, robert J., ed. Media and Public Policy. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1993.
West, Darrell M. Air Wars: Television Advertising and Social Media in Election Campaigns,
1952–2016, 7th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2017.
For Further Reading
203S T U D y G U I D e
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch06_176-203.indd 203 11/28/18 4:29 PM
070707
chapter
Political
Parties,
Participation,
and Elections
WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES AND WHY IT MATTERS
Political parties play a variety of important roles in American democracy. They
mobilize people to participate in the political arena and to vote. They convey
information about what policies candidates support. And they are broader than
interest groups, which generally seek narrow policy objectives. Political parties
are capable of mobilizing many more voters to win control of government.
For all their important mobilizing and information conveying functions,
parties, like other aspects of government and politics, can seem far from
ordinary people. But ordinary people can have a big impact in political parties.
Early in 2009, before the term “Tea Party” was coined, Keli Carender was a
conservative blogger in Seattle. She became concerned that the stimulus
bill that Congress was considering to address the financial crisis and ensu-
ing recession was simply more of “big government” trampling on her “free-
dom and liberty.” After calls and emails to her congressional representative
were ignored, she organized a “Porkulus Protest” in Seattle without support
from any national organization. “I just got fed up and planned it. . . . I had
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch07_204-245.indd 204 11/28/18 5:55 PM
Individuals can have profound effects on political parties.
Keli Carender took her belief in limited government and
her anger over excessive government spending and started
the Tea Party movement, which has strongly influenced the
direction of the Republican Party.
Political
Parties,
Participation,
and Elections
205
120 people show up, which is amazing for the bluest of blue cities I live in,
and on only four days’ notice!! This was due to me spending the entire four
days calling and emailing every person, think tank, policy center, university
professors (that were sympathetic), etc. in town, and not stopping until
the day came.” She also contacted conservative author Michelle Malkin, who
publicized the rally on her blog. At a second rally later that month, twice
as many people showed up, in part because Carender had collected email
addresses at the first rally. Her advice to other would-be organizers: “Num-
ber one: just get it done. Do you need a permit? Find out and then just get
it. Do you want a guest speaker? Get on the phone and call anyone you can
think of and get them there. You will need to alert the media, so just get that
done. . . . Let people help you. Almost immediately I had two women email me
and say, what can I do? And boom, I had two other organizers to start helping
me with the next event.”1
Carender’s protests were among the first events in what became known as
the Tea Party movement, which gained steam when CNBC business analyst
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch07_204-245.indd 205 11/28/18 5:55 PM
★ Explain the roles that parties play in American elections and
government (pp. 207–10)
★ Describe the American party system and how it has changed over
time (pp. 210–20)
★ Describe the major forms of traditional and digital participation in
politics (pp. 220–27)
★ Examine the factors that influence voters’ decisions (pp. 227–29)
★ Explain the major rules, levels, and types of elections in the United
States (pp. 229–32)
★ Analyze the strategies, issues, and outcomes of the 2016 and 2018
elections (pp. 232–36)
★ Describe how candidates raise the money they need to run (pp. 237–39)
CHAP TER GOAL S
Rick Santelli called for a “tea party” protest of the Obama administration’s
plans for addressing the Great Recession. Many political candidates associ-
ated with the Tea Party gained office beginning in the 2010 midterm elections,
and Donald Trump courted Tea Party supporters during his presidential cam-
paign in 2016. As we will see in this chapter, political parties and elections
are all about who controls the government; participation is about who gets
involved and why. Revolts against the political parties by rank-and-file mem-
bers occur very rarely in American history. But sometimes, parties are shaken
up by grassroots activity like Keli Carender’s. Her story, and others like it,
show that individuals can make a difference if they participate. The key is to
“just get it done.”
206 C H A P T E R 7 P O L I T I C A L PA R T I E S , P A R T I C I PAT I O N , A N D E L E C T I O N S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch07_204-245.indd 206 11/28/18 5:55 PM
Parties and Elections Have Been Vital
to American Politics and Government
Political parties, like interest groups
(see Chapter 8), are organized groups
that seek influence over the govern
ment. A party seeks to control the
entire government by electing its members to office. Interest groups, by comparison,
don’t control the operation of government and its personnel but rather try to influ
ence government policies, often through lobbying elected officials and campaign
contributions.
POLITICAL PARTIES AROSE FROM
THE ELECTORAL PROCESS
Although the Founders did not envision the rise of political parties and George
Washington was elected the nation’s first president without association with a
politi cal party, parties quickly became a core feature of the American political sys
tem. Historically, parties form in one of two ways. The first, which could be called
“internal mobilization,” occurs when political conflicts prompt officials and compet
ing factions within government to mobilize popular support. This is precisely what
happened during the early years of the American Republic. Competition in Con
gress between northeastern merchants and southern farmers led first the southerners
and then the northeasterners to attempt to organize their supporters. The result was
the foundation of America’s first national parties: the Jeffersonians, or Antifederal
ists, whose primary base was in the South, and the Federalists, whose strength was
greatest in the New England states.
The second way that parties form is called “external mobilization,” which takes
place when a group of politicians outside government organizes popular support to
win governmental power. For example, during the 1850s, a group of state politi
cians who opposed slavery, especially the expansion of slavery in America’s territorial
possessions, built what became the Republican Party by constructing party organi
zations and mobilizing popular support in the Northeast and West.
America’s two major parties now, of course, are the Democratic Party and
the Republican Party. Both trace their roots back over 150 years, and both have
evolved over time. Since they were formed, the two major parties have undergone
significant shifts in their policy positions and their membership. These changes
have been prompted both by issues and events (economic change, the civil rights
movement, immigration, etc.) and by demographic and social developments in
the United States.
Political parties play an important role in elections. They recruit candidates to
run for office, get their loyal party members out to vote, and work in a variety
of ways to promote the causes and issues of the party. In earlier times the parties
had near total control over the electoral process. In recent decades, however, they
Explain the roles that parties play in
American elections and government
207PA R T I E S A N D E L E C T I O N S H AV E B E E N V I TA L T O A M E R I C A N P O L I T I C S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch07_204-245.indd 207 11/28/18 5:55 PM
have lost their monopoly to candidates who decide not to work within the party, to
political action committees (PACs) that raise and distribute millions of dollars for candi
dates, and to direct appeals through the media.
PARTIES RECRUIT CANDIDATES
One of the most important party activities is the recruitment of candidates to run
for office. Where they do not have an incumbent running for reelection, party
leaders attempt to identify strong candidates and to interest them in entering the
campaign.
An ideal candidate will have a strong leadership record and the capacity to raise
enough money to mount a serious campaign. Party leaders are usually not willing to
provide financial backing to candidates who are unable to raise substantial funds on
their own. For a U.S. House seat, this can mean several hundred thousand dollars;
for a Senate seat, a serious candidate must be able to raise several million dollars.
Presidential candidates raise hundreds of millions of dollars, an amount that conti
nues to rise with every election cycle.
Often, party leaders have difficulty finding attractive candidates and persuad
ing them to run. Candidate recruitment has become particularly difficult in an
era in which incumbents (candidates running for reelection to positions that they
already hold) are hard to beat. Over 20 percent of races for the House of Rep
resentatives, for example, are uncontested (meaning there is only one candidate
from one party on the ballot) because challenging incumbents in the House and
winning is so difficult. On average, incumbents in the House have more than
double the money for their political campaigns than challengers, while Senate
incumbents have on average 50 percent more. Other barriers to recruiting qual
ity candidates include lengthy political campaigns that often involve mudsling
ing, and the fact that candidates must assume that their personal lives will be
intensely scrutinized on social media, in the press, and in negative campaign ads
run by their opponents.2
PARTIES ORGANIZE NOMINATIONS
Nomination is the process by which a party selects a single candidate to run for each
elective office. The party nomination process varies from state to state and office
to office, but it usually involves a primary election among multiple candidates
from the same party. Voters in the primary election select just one candidate to go
on to general election. Scholars have found that although the nomination process
appears democratic in that average citizens have a say, party elites play an outsized
role in selecting the candidates nominated by their party for president of the
United States. In 2016, however, the Republican Party insiders had less control
over the process; outsider businessman and realityTV star Donald Trump secured
the nomination despite the fact that many members of the party emphatically
opposed him.
208 C H A P T E R 7 P O L I T I C A L PA R T I E S , P A R T I C I PAT I O N , A N D E L E C T I O N S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch07_204-245.indd 208 11/28/18 5:55 PM
PARTIES HELP GET OUT THE VOTE
The formal general election begins immediately after the nominations conclude.
Throughout American history, the general election competition is a time of
heightened partisanship, when popular support for the political parties is high. All the
paraphernalia of party committees—from signs, bumper stickers, and buttons
to social media slogans and YouTube ads—are on display, and all the committee
members are activated into local party workforces.
The first step involves voter registration. Party workers collaborate with nonprofit
organizations, local community groups, and other organizations to turn out the
vote. The parties and candidate campaigns still mail notices, call voters, organize
voterregistration drives on college campuses, and knock on doors to ensure citizens
are registered.
The next step is turning out the vote: after all, it doesn’t matter which party
has more support if that party’s voters stay home on Election Day. Convincing
voters to actually show up and vote on Election Day is one of the hardest tasks
that the parties face, as it usually involves getting individuals to go to the polls,
stand in line, and vote for the party’s candidates. If they are voting by mail—one
in three Americans now vote by absentee ballots or mail voting—voters still have
to request the ballot, fill it out, and return it. Voter mobilization, once an art, has
now become a science. Research has shown that facetoface, inperson contacts
are much more effective than mailings, robocalls, or TV advertising in mobilizing
voters. Campaigns now organize largescale votermobilization drives and field
offices with hundreds of thousands of party workers and volunteers contacting
millions of voters. In recent years, parties have developed extensive databases of
People are more likely to turn out to vote if someone asks them face to face. Direct mail and
impersonal phone calls are less likely to have an effect on turnout.
209PA R T I E S A N D E L E C T I O N S H AV E B E E N V I TA L T O A M E R I C A N P O L I T I C S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch07_204-245.indd 209 11/28/18 5:55 PM
over 240 million potential adult voters. Modern political campaigns can predict
who you will vote for and are extremely effective at turning out the voters who are
most likely to vote for their candidates. One way campaigns use this data is through
micro-targeting. Microtargeting involves tailoring campaign messages to individuals
in small, homogenous groups (e.g., suburban stayathome mothers or fans of
NASCAR) and emphasizing specific issues, rather than a onesizefitsall campaign
message. This technique enables political parties to target candidates’ strategies and
messages to these very specific groups.
PARTIES ORGANIZE POWER IN CONGRESS
Congress depends more on the party system than is generally recognized. For one
thing, power in Congress is organized along party lines. The speakership of the
House is essentially a party office because the Speaker is chosen by the majority party—
that is, the party that holds the majority of seats in the House or Senate. (The other
party is known as the minority party.) When the majority party presents a nominee
to the entire House, its choice is usually ratified in a straight vote along party lines.
The committee system of both houses of Congress is also a product of the two
party system; the party with the most seats chairs the congressional committees,
setting the policy agenda. Each party is also assigned a quota of members for each
committee, depending on the percentage of total seats held by the party. As we will
see in Chapter 9, the assignment of individual members to committees is a party
decision. Granting a member of Congress permission to transfer to another com
mittee is also a party decision, as is advancement up the committee ladder toward
serving as committee chair.
America Is One of the Few Nations
with a Two-Party System
In his 1796 Farewell Address, Presi
dent George Washington warned his
countrymen to shun partisan politics.
Nonetheless, a two-party system—a
political system in which only two
parties have a realistic opportunity to compete effectively for control of the
government—emerged early in the history of the new Republic. Beginning with
the Federalists and the Jeffersonian Republicans in the late 1780s, two major parties
have dominated national politics, although which particular two parties they have
been has changed with the times and issues.
However, the term party system refers to more than just the number of parties
competing for power or the set of parties that are important at any given time. It
also includes the organization of the parties, the balance of power between and
within party coalitions, the parties’ social and institutional bases, and the issues
and policies around which party competition is organized. Seen from this broader
Describe the American party
system and how it has changed
over time
210 C H A P T E R 7 P O L I T I C A L PA R T I E S , P A R T I C I PAT I O N , A N D E L E C T I O N S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch07_204-245.indd 210 11/28/18 5:55 PM
perspective, the character of a nation’s party system can change even if the number of
parties remains the same and even when the same two parties seem to be competing
for power. Today’s American party system is very different from the country’s party
system of 100 years ago, but the Democrats and Republicans continue to be the two
major competing forces. Over the course of American history, changes in political
forces and alignments have produced six distinctive party systems (see Figure 7.1).
The First Party System: Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans The first
party system emerged in the 1790s and pitted the Federalists, who favored a strong
national government, against the Jeffersonian Republicans, or Antifederalists, who
favored a weak national government and strong states. The Federalists were the
establishment party at the time, and the Antifederalists were the outsiders. The
Federalists represented New England merchants and supported a program of protec
tive tariffs to encourage manufacturing, forgiving states’ Revolutionary War debts,
the creation of a national bank, and commercial ties with Britain. The Jeffersonians,
led by southern agricultural interests, opposed these policies and instead favored free
trade, the promotion of agricultural over commercial interests, and friendship with
France. Over the years the Federalists gradually weakened and disappeared alto
gether, especially after the proBritish sympathies of some Federalist leaders during
the War of 1812 led to charges of treason against the party.
From the collapse of the Federalists until the 1830s, America had only one politi
cal party, the Jeffersonian Republicans, who gradually came to be known as the
Democrats. This period of oneparty politics had an absence of party competition.
Throughout this period, however, there was intense factional conflict within the
Democratic Party, particularly between the supporters and opponents of General
Andrew Jackson, America’s great military hero of the War of 1812. Jackson was the
first populist president with a wide base of mass support; he sought to give rank
andfile members more say in party politics. Jackson’s opponents denied him the
presidency in 1824, but Jackson won election in 1828 and again in 1832. Jackson’s
base of support was in the South and the West, and he espoused a program of free
trade and other policies that appealed to those regions. During the 1830s groups
opposing Jackson united to form a new political force, the Whig Party, thus giving
rise to the second American party system.
The Second Party System: Democrats and Whigs Both the Democrats and
the Whigs built party organizations throughout the nation, and both sought to
enlarge their bases of support by expanding the right to vote. They increased the
number of eligible voters—though only white males—through the elimination of
property restrictions and other barriers to voting. Support for the new Whig Party
was stronger in the Northeast than in the South and West and among merchants
than among small farmers. Hence, in some measure, the Whigs were the successors
of the Federalists. Yet conflict between the two parties revolved more around per
sonalities than policies. The Whigs were a diverse group, united more by opposition
to the Democrats than by agreement on programs. In 1840 the Whigs won their
first presidential election by nominating a military hero, General William Henry
211A M E R I C A I S O N E O F T H E F E w N AT I O N S w I T H A T w O - PA R T Y S Y S T E M
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch07_204-245.indd 211 11/28/18 5:55 PM
FIGURE 7.1
How the Party System Evolved
During the nineteenth century, the Democrats and the Republicans emerged as the two
dominant parties in American politics. As the American party system evolved, many third
parties emerged, but few of them remained in existence for very long.
*Or in some cases, fourth parties; most of these parties lasted through only one term.
**The Anti-Masonics had the distinction of being not only the first third party but also the first party to hold a national
nominating convention and the first to announce a party platform.
1788
1790
1804
1808
1812
1816
1820
1824
1828
1832
1836
1840
1844
1848
1852
1856
1860
1864
1868
1872
1876
1880
1884
1888
1892
1896
1900
1904
1908
1912
1916
1920
1924
1928
1932
1936
1940
1944
1948
1952
1956
1960
1964
1968
1972
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
2008
2012
2016
2018
Jeffersonian
Republicans
(Democratic-
Republicans)
Republicans
Federalists
Democrats
National
Republicans
Whigs
Prohibition
Populist
Socialist
Wallace’s
American
Independent
Nader’s
National Unity
Anderson’s
States’ Rights
(Dixiecrats)
Anti-Masonic**
Liberty
Free Soil
Greenback
Labor
Union Labor
American
Constitutional
Union
Theodore
Roosevelt’s
Progressive
(Bull Moose)
Progressive
Party
Perot’s
United We Stand
America
Green Party
Reform Party
Independent Party
Third Parties*
and
Independents
212 C H A P T E R 7 P O L I T I C A L PA R T I E S , P A R T I C I PAT I O N , A N D E L E C T I O N S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch07_204-245.indd 212 11/28/18 5:55 PM
Harrison. The Whig campaign carefully avoided issues—since the party could agree
on almost none—and emphasized the personal qualities and heroism of the can
didate. The Whigs also invested heavily in campaign rallies and entertainment to
win over voters. The 1840 campaign came to be called the “hard cider” campaign
because of the practice of using food and especially drink to win votes.
During the late 1840s and early 1850s, conflicts over slavery produced sharp
divisions within both the Whig and the Democratic parties. By 1856 the Whig
Party had all but disintegrated under the strain, and many Whig politicians and
voters, along with antislavery Democrats, joined the new Republican Party, which
pledged to ban slavery from the western territories. In 1860 the Republicans nomi
nated Abraham Lincoln for the presidency. Lincoln’s victory strengthened southern
calls for secession from the Union and, soon thereafter, for allout civil war.
The Civil War and Post–Civil War Party System: Republicans and Democrats
During the course of the war, President Lincoln depended heavily on Republi
can governors and state legislatures to raise troops, provide funding, and maintain
popular support for a long and bloody military conflict. The secession of the South
had stripped the Democratic Party of many of its leaders and supporters, but the
Democrats remained politically competitive throughout the war and nearly won
the 1864 presidential election against Republican Lincoln because of northern war
weariness. With the defeat of the Confederacy in 1865, some Republicans sought
to use Reconstruction to grant the vote to newly freed slaves in order to create
a large proRepublican voting bloc. This Reconstruction program failed in part
because of violent resistance by southern whites. With the end of Reconstruction,
the former Confederate states regained full membership in the Union and full
control of their internal affairs. Throughout the South, African Americans were
deprived of hardwon political rights, including the right to vote, despite post–
Civil War constitutional guarantees to the contrary. The post–Civil War South was
solidly Democratic in its political affiliation because of its resentment of Lincoln’s
Republican Party, and with a firm southern base, the national Democratic Party
was able to confront the Republicans on a more or less equal basis. From the
end of the Civil War to the 1890s, the Republican Party remained the party of
the North, with strong business and middleclass support, while the Democrats
were the party of the South, with support also from northern workingclass and
immigrant groups.
The System of 1896: Republicans and Democrats During the 1890s profound
and rapid social and economic changes led to the emergence of a variety of pro
test parties, including the Populist Party, which appealed mainly to small farmers,
western mining interests, and urban workers. In the 1892 presidential election, the
Populist Party carried four states and elected governors in eight. In 1896 the Popu
list Party effectively merged with the Democrats, who nominated William Jennings
Bryan, a Democratic senator with pronounced Populist sympathies, for the presi
dency. The Republicans nominated the conservative senator William McKinley. In
the ensuing campaign, northern and midwestern businesses made an allout effort
213A M E R I C A I S O N E O F T H E F E w N AT I O N S w I T H A T w O - PA R T Y S Y S T E M
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch07_204-245.indd 213 11/28/18 5:55 PM
to defeat what they saw as a radical threat from the Populist–Democratic alliance.
By the time the dust settled, the Republicans had won a resounding victory and
confined the Democrats to their smaller bases of support in the South and far West.
For the next 36 years, the Republican Party was the nation’s majority party, carrying
seven of nine presidential elections and controlling both houses of Congress in 15
of 18 contests. The Republican Party was pro business, advocating low taxes, high
tariffs on imports, and a minimum of government regulation.
The New Deal Party System: Reversal of Fortune Soon after the Republican
presidential candidate Herbert Hoover won the 1928 presidential election, the
nation’s economy collapsed. The Great Depression, which produced unprecedented
Following the Civil War, the Republican Party remained dominant in the North. This poster supporting
Republican Benjamin Harrison in the 1888 election promises protective tariffs and other policies
that appealed to the industrial states in the North.
214 C H A P T E R 7 P O L I T I C A L PA R T I E S , P A R T I C I PAT I O N , A N D E L E C T I O N S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch07_204-245.indd 214 11/28/18 5:55 PM
economic hardship, stemmed from many causes; but from the perspective of
millions of Americans, the Republican Party did not do enough to promote eco
nomic recovery. In 1932, Americans elected Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) and
a solidly Democratic Congress. FDR developed a program for economic recov
ery that he dubbed the “New Deal,” under which the size and reach of America’s
national government increased substantially. The federal government took respon
sibility for economic management and social welfare to an extent that was unprece
dented in American history. FDR designed many of his programs specifically to
expand the political base of the Democratic Party. He rebuilt and revitalized the
party around a nucleus of unionized workers, uppermiddleclass intellectuals and
professionals, southern farmers, Jews, Catholics, and African Americans—the
socalled New Deal coalition that made the Democrats the nation’s majority party
for the next 36 years. Groping for a response to the New Deal, Republicans often
wound up supporting popular New Deal programs such as Social Security in what
was sometimes derided as “metoo” Republicanism. Even the relatively conserva
tive administration of Dwight D. Eisenhower in the 1950s left the principal New
Deal programs intact.
The New Deal coalition was severely strained during the 1960s by conflicts over
civil rights and the Vietnam War. The struggle over civil rights divided northern
Democrats who supported the civil rights cause from white southern Democrats
who defended the system of racial segregation. The struggle over the Vietnam War
further divided the Democrats, with upperincome liberal Democrats strongly
opposing the Johnson administration’s decision to greatly expand the numbers of
U.S. troops fighting in Southeast Asia. These schisms provided an opportunity for
the Republicans’ “Grand Old Party,” or GOP, which returned to power in 1968
under the leadership of Richard Nixon.
The Contemporary American Party System Although the number of Americans
identifying as Democrats remained higher than those identifying as Republicans
in the 1960s and ’70s, the Republican Party widened its appeal in the second half
of the twentieth century (see Figure 7.2). In 1964, for example, the conservative
Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater argued in favor of substan
tially reduced levels of taxation and spending, less government regulation of the
economy, and the elimination of many federal social programs. Though Goldwater
was defeated by Lyndon Johnson, his ideas continued to be major themes for the
Republican Party. It took Richard Nixon’s “southern strategy” to give the GOP the
votes it needed to end Democratic control of national politics. Nixon appealed to
disaffected white southerners, and with the help of the independent candidate and
former Alabama governor George Wallace, he sparked the shift of voters that gave
the Republican Party a strong position in all the states of the former Confederacy.
During the 1980s, under the leadership of President Ronald Reagan, Republicans
added two important groups to their coalition. The first were religious conser
vatives, who were offended by Democratic support for abortion and gay rights
and who felt the Democrats were not protecting traditional cultural and religious
values. The second were workingclass whites, who were drawn to Reagan’s tough
215A M E R I C A I S O N E O F T H E F E w N AT I O N S w I T H A T w O - PA R T Y S Y S T E M
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch07_204-245.indd 215 11/28/18 5:55 PM
approach to foreign policy and his positions against affirmative action. Many
Republicans consider Reagan’s tenure in office as a “golden era” that saw deregula
tion of many industries, reduced government intervention in the economy, and
strong economic growth.
While Republicans built a political base around economic and social conserva
tives and white southerners, the Democrats appealed strongly to Americans con
cerned with inequality, abortion rights, gay rights, women’s rights, the environment,
and other progressive social causes.
In 2008, Democrats won the presidency and maintained control of Congress
for the first time since 1995. Democrat Barack Obama, the nation’s first African
American president, united racial and ethnic minorities, the youth, and liberals
with older white moderates in a powerful national coalition, winning popular
FIGURE 7.2
Trends in Party Identification, 1970–2017
Over time, the Democrats have lost strength as more Americans identified themselves
as Republicans and independents. Since 2004, however, the number of Democrats has
held steady and the number of Republicans has declined, while the number of Americans
identifying as independent of either party has increased to an all-time high. Why do you
think this is?
SOURCE: Pew Research Center, “Party Identification,” March 20, 2018, www.people-press.org/2018/03/20/party-
identification-trends-1992-2017/ (accessed 5/15/18).
PERCENTAGE IDENTIFYING THEMSELVES AS . . .
0
10
20
30
40
50%
1970 1976 1982 1988 1994 2000 2006 2012 2018
Republican
Democrat
Independent
216 C H A P T E R 7 P O L I T I C A L PA R T I E S , P A R T I C I PAT I O N , A N D E L E C T I O N S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch07_204-245.indd 216 11/28/18 5:55 PM
majorities in the 2008 and 2012 elections. Democrats lost control of the House in
2010, however, and the Senate in 2014. And in 2016 Republicans retained both
chambers and Donald Trump captured the presidency in a tight race, signaling that
sharp partisan differences and intense party conflict would continue to characterize
American politics.
PARTIES HAVE INTERNAL DISAGREEMENTS
While party polarization, or the depth of divisions between Republicans and
Demo crats, is at an alltime high, the divisions within each political party may
be nearly as important. Political parties are diverse and represent many people
with competing interests for power and influence. For leaders in Congress and
state legislatures, keeping these different groups working toward shared goals can
be difficult. And when this effort is not successful, a party’s internal divisions can
weaken it.
The Republican Party today is divided in four ways. Probusiness conservatives
are traditional Republicans, generally a relatively affluent group that supports small
government and lower corporate taxes but also favors global free trade. Farright
conservatives tend to be social conservatives who are opposed to immigration and
U.S. involvement in the global economy and institutions like the United Nations.
Religious conservatives are primarily driven by their socially conservative values,
such as opposition to abortion and gay marriage. Finally, libertarians believe in
small government and reduced government regulations, and emphasize individual
freedom.
The 2016 presidential election also revealed serious divides within the Demo
cratic Party between its liberal wing (whose members supported Bernie Sanders)
and traditional Democrats, who supported Hillary Clinton and who tend to be
older and hold a mix of moderate and liberal values. Such divisions within
the Party may have contributed to the Democrats losing the White House and
Congress in 2016.
ELECTORAL REALIGNMENTS DEFINE PARTY
SYSTEMS IN AMERICAN HISTORY
Transitions between party systems in American history are sometimes called
electoral realignments, the points in history when a new party replaces the ruling party,
becoming in turn the dominant political force. During these periods, the coalitions
that support the parties and the balance of power between the parties are redefined.
In historical terms, realignments occur when new issues, combined with economic
or political crises, mobilize new voters and persuade large numbers of voters to per
manently shift their support from one party to another.
There is general agreement that five realignments have occurred since the Founding.
The first took place around 1790–1800, when the Jeffersonian Republicans defeated
the Federalists and became dominant. The second realignment occurred in about 1828,
when the Jacksonian Democrats took control of the White House and the Congress.
217A M E R I C A I S O N E O F T H E F E w N AT I O N S w I T H A T w O - PA R T Y S Y S T E M
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch07_204-245.indd 217 11/28/18 5:55 PM
In the third period of realignment, centered on the 1860 election, the newly founded
Republican Party, led by Abraham Lincoln, won power and in the process destroyed
the Whig Party. Many northern voters who had supported the Whigs or the Demo
crats on the basis of their economic policies shifted their support to the Republicans as
slavery replaced tariffs and economic concerns as the central issue on the nation’s polit
ical agenda. Many southern Whigs shifted their support to the Democrats.
In the fourth realignment, the Republican candidate, William McKinley, empha
sizing business, industry, and urban interests, defeated the Democrat, William
Jennings Bryan, in 1896, who spoke for sectional interests, farmers, and miners.
Republican dominance lasted until the fifth realignment, during the period 1932–36,
when the Democrats, led by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, took control of the White
House and Congress. Despite sporadic interruptions, the Democrats maintained
control of both through the 1960s. Since that time, American party politics has
been characterized primarily by party polarization and by divided government, wherein
the presidency is controlled by one party while the other party controls one or both
houses of Congress.
Major partisan realignments are rare in the United States, occurring on aver
age about once every 50 years. There are frequent false alarms, when pundits
describe elections as realignments and they turn out not to be. When realign
ments do occur, it is often the result of new issues or societal problems, coupled
with economic or political crises that weaken the established political elite and
allow new groups of politicians to create coalitions capable of capturing the reins
of governmental power. In the 2016 presidential election, significant factions of
the Republican Party were in disagreement over Donald Trump’s candidacy, lead
ing some observers to question whether the election was the beginning of a new
party realignment. Many highprofile Republican politicians refused to support
Trump, but in his first two years congressional Republicans have generally sup
ported Trump’s agenda.
AMERICAN THIRD PARTIES SOMETIMES CHANGE
THE MAJOR PARTIES AND ELECTION OUTCOMES
Although the United States has a two party–dominant system, the country has
always had more than two parties. Typically, third parties in the United States (parties
that organize to compete against the two major American political parties) have
represented social and economic interests that, for one reason or another, were not
given voice by the two major parties.3 Such parties often provide new ideas and even
party realignment. The Populists, a party centered in the rural areas of the West and
Midwest, and the Progressives, spokespeople for the urban middle classes in the
late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, are the most important examples in
the past 100 years. The most successful recent thirdparty candidate was H. Ross
Perot, who ran in 1992 for president as an independent and in 1996 as the Reform
Party’s nominee. Perot won the votes of almost one in five Americans in 1992. In
the extremely close 2000 presidential election, thirdparty candidate Ralph Nader
won just 3 percent of the popular vote; but that was enough to swing the election to
218 C H A P T E R 7 P O L I T I C A L PA R T I E S , P A R T I C I PAT I O N , A N D E L E C T I O N S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch07_204-245.indd 218 11/28/18 5:55 PM
Republican George W. Bush. Table 7.1 lists the top presidential candidates in 2016.
Thirdparty candidates fared better in 2016 than in the last three presidential elec
tions, leading some observers to suggest that third parties were one reason Clinton
lost key battleground states and thus the election.
Although the Republican Party was the only American third party ever to make
itself permanent (by replacing the Whigs), some third parties have enjoyed influence
far beyond their electoral size. This was because large parts of their programs were
adopted by one or both of the major parties, who sought to appeal to the voters
mobilized by the new party to expand their own electoral strength. The Democratic
Party, for example, became a great deal more liberal when it adopted most of the Pro
gressive program early in the twentieth century. Many Socialists felt that FDR’s New
Deal had adopted most of their party’s program, including oldage pensions, unem
ployment compensation, an agricultural marketing program, and laws guaranteeing
workers the right to organize into unions.
Some proponents of election reform argue that two major parties are not suf
ficient to represent the varied interests of America’s 325 million people and that
more political parties would improve representation. Many nations have proportional
representation. Under this kind of system, many competing political parties field
multiple candidates in each district and are awarded legislative seats in rough pro
portion to the percentage of popular votes that each party wins. A party that wins,
say, 20 percent of the popular vote receives roughly 20 percent of the seats in the
parliament or other representative body. Unlike a plurality system, a party’s candi
dates need not come in first to win seats.
In the United States, state ballotaccess laws are often a major impediment
for third parties, imposing barriers such as registration fees or petition require
ments in which a certain number of voters must sign a petition for a thirdparty or
TABLE 7.1
Parties and Candidates in 2016
CANDIDATE PARTY VOTE TOTAL*
PERCENTAGE
OF VOTES
Hillary Clinton Democratic 65,853,652 48%
Donald Trump Republican 62,985,134 46
Gary Johnson Libertarian 4,489,235 3
Jill Stein Green 1,457,226 1
Other candidates 1,186,153 0.9
*Preliminary counts as of December 1, 2016.
SOURCE: U.S. Election Atlas, “2016 Presidential General Election Results,” www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/
national.php?year=2016&minper=0&f=0&off=0&elect=0 (accessed 7/16/18).
219A M E R I C A I S O N E O F T H E F E w N AT I O N S w I T H A T w O - PA R T Y S Y S T E M
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch07_204-245.indd 219 11/28/18 5:55 PM
www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2016&minper=0&f=0&off=0&elect=0
independent candidate to gain ballot access. States with lower access hurdles, such
as Minnesota, have more thirdparty candidates. Supporters of the current two
party system contend that it creates stability in governing and prevents the need
for coalition government, where multiple small parties work together to form a
majority to govern.
GROUP AFFILIATIONS ARE BASED ON VOTERS’
PSYCHOLOGICAL TIES TO ONE OF THE PARTIES
One reason parties are so important is that many voters develop party identification—
an individual voter’s psychological ties to one party or another. Party identifica
tion has been compared to wearing blue or redtinted glasses; it colors voters’
understanding of politics in general and is the most important cue as to how to
vote in elections. That is, most Republicans vote for Republican Party candi
dates, and most Democrats vote for Democratic Party candidates. Although it
is an emotional tie, party identification also has a rational component. Voters
gene rally form attachments to parties that reflect their views and interests. Once
those attachments are formed, however, they are likely to persist and even to be
handed down to children, unless some very strong factors convince individuals
that their party is no longer an appropriate object of their affections. Figure 7.3
indicates the relationship between party identification and a number of social
characteristics.
Political Participation Takes Both
Traditional and Digital Forms
Political participation refers to activ
ities designed to influence govern
ment, politics, and policy. These
activities include traditional forms
of par ticipation, such as voting and
volunteering, as well as newer online forms of participation.
VOTING IS THE MOST IMPORTANT FORM
OF TRADITIONAL PARTICIPATION
Elections are the hallmark of political participation in a democracy. For most citi
zens today, voting is the most common form of participation in politics. In addition
to voting, citizens can give money to politicians or political organizations, volun
teer in campaigns, contact political officials, sign petitions, attend public meetings,
join organizations, display campaign signs and pins, write letters to the editor, pub
lish articles, attend rallies, or lobby their representatives in Congress. They can also
join interest groups (see Chapter 8). These other forms of political action generally
require more time, effort, or money than voting.
Describe the major forms of
traditional and digital participation
in politics
220 C H A P T E R 7 P O L I T I C A L PA R T I E S , P A R T I C I PAT I O N , A N D E L E C T I O N S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch07_204-245.indd 220 11/28/18 5:55 PM
DIGITAL POLITICAL PARTICIPATION IS SURGING
Digital political participation is rapidly changing the way Americans experience
politics. The internet and social media give citizens greater access to political inform
ation about candidates and campaigns, and a greater role in politics, than ever before.
Many forms of online participation build on traditional forms of participation, but
the internet makes many of these activities easier and gives them greater poten
tial as communitybuilding tools. Online participation in elections includes dis
cussing issues or mobilizing supporters through email and social media, posting
FIGURE 7.3
Who Identifies with Which Party?
Party identification varies by income, race, and gender. For example, as these statistics
from 2016 show, Americans with higher incomes are more supportive of the Republican
Party than are Americans with lower incomes. Women are significantly more likely than
men to identify with the Democratic Party, whereas more men identify as independents.
NOTE: Percentages do not add to 100 because the category “Other/Don’t know” is omitted.
SOURCE: American National Election Study 2016 time series, www.electionstudies.org (accessed 11/4/17).
Income $75K+
Income $40–75K
Income $20–40K
Income <$20K
Postgraduate
College graduate
Some college
High school diploma or less
Hispanic
Asian
Black, non-Hispanic
White, non-Hispanic
Age 65+
Age 50–64
Age 30–49
Age 18–29
Women
Men
Democrat Independent Republican
28% 40% 31%
39 34 27
35 41 24
34 41 25
34 34 32
34 37 29
28 37 35
73 23 4
34 39 27
46 39 16
35 39 26
31 39 30
31 34 35
44 33 24
40 40 20
38 39 23
32 37 31
32 35 34
221P O L I T I C A L PA R T I C I PAT I O N TA K E S B O T H T R A D I T I O N A L A N D D I G I TA L F O R M S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch07_204-245.indd 221 11/28/18 5:55 PM
comments on blogs and online news stories, contributing money to candidates, visiting
candidate and political party websites, creating and viewing online campaign ads,
campaigning on social networking sites, and organizing facetoface neighborhood
meetings through social media.
Digital media’s effectiveness works through emotional appeals, immediacy, per
sonal networks, and social pressure. Social connections are much more important
in political participation than was previously understood. Research reveals that indi
vidual factors such as income and education are imperfect predictors of turnout, but
one’s social network is strongly predictive of political participation. When members of
a social network indicate they have voted in an election or contributed to a candidate,
for example, that can motivate others to do the same. Peer social pressure allows mem
bers of a social network to model and mimic actions of other members of their group.4
Social media in particular has become a key networking tool for politics and a pre
ferred platform of candidates and political organizations. Sixtytwo percent of Ameri
cans get news on social media.5 One in three social media users have encouraged
others to vote, and roughly the same percentage have shared their own thoughts or
comments on politics or government using social media.6 Social media is character
ized by tiny acts of political participation—sharing, following a candidate or organi
zation, liking a post, commenting—that can scale up to dramatic changes, leading to
real world political protests, voter mobilization drives, and the election of candidates
and parties to government.7 Small acts of political participation made possible by
social media may give those uninterested in politics or who are rarely engaged a way
of getting involved easily, which can than encourage them to do more.8
Politicians, too, make much use of social media. In 2016 every serious presiden
tial candidate had a Facebook page and Twitter account, with millions of fans who
received frequent updates from the campaigns and candidates. These fans, in turn,
signaled to their “friends” which candidates they supported for elected office, mak
ing politics part of everyday discussion. Donald Trump’s supporters receive emails
from his organization, follow him on Twitter and Facebook, and turn out for rallies
and campaign events. While Twitter is how Trump talks to the people, Facebook was
how his campaign won the election. Based on a survey analysis of 65,000 registered
voters and holding all other demographic factors constant, frequent social media
users were more likely to vote for Trump than any other candidate in 2016.9
Unlike traditional social movements that gain momentum slowly over time, digi
tal politics, and the use of social media especially, can create punctuated explosive
bursts of collective action. For example, Bernie Sanders’s supporters relied heavily on
Reddit to organize rallies and rock concerts during the 2016 presidential primaries
on behalf of the Vermont senator.
An important question is whether online political participation influences offline
participation, especially voting. A growing body of research finds that online activities
such as reading digital news, commenting on blogs, and using email or social media for
politics increases the likelihood of voting. Digital politics is associated with contributing
to political campaigns, volunteering on behalf of candidates, and even contacting elec
ted officials. Online participation is also linked with discussing politics with friends or
family, developing an interest in politics in general, and being politically knowledgeable.
222 C H A P T E R 7 P O L I T I C A L PA R T I E S , P A R T I C I PAT I O N , A N D E L E C T I O N S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch07_204-245.indd 222 11/28/18 5:55 PM
VOTER TURNOUT IN AMERICA IS LOW
Today, voting rights are granted to all American citizens aged 18 and older, although
some states revoke this right from those who have committed a felony or are mentally
impaired. Despite granting the right to vote, or suffrage, to women, racial minorities,
and young adults, however, the percentage of eligible individuals who actually vote
in America, or turnout, is low. Only 6 in 10 eligible Americans vote in presidential
elections, and turnout for midterm elections (elections that fall between presidential
elections) is typically lower, about onethird of eligible voters; for local elections,
turnout is even lower10 (see Figure 7.4). Turnout in state and local races that do not
FIGURE 7.4
Voter Turnout in Presidential and Midterm
Elections, 1892–2018
Since the 1890s, participation in elections has declined substantially. One pattern is
consistent across time: more Americans tend to vote in presidential election years than
in years when only congressional and local elections are held. What are some of the
reasons that participation rose and fell during the last century?
*Percentage of voting-eligible population
SOURCES: Erik Austin and Jerome Clubb, Political Facts of the United States since 1789 (New York: Columbia
University Press, 1986); United States Election Project, www.electproject.org (accessed 11/9/18).
Presidential election
Midterm election
2000 2012 20241904 1916 1928 1940 1952 1964 1976 1988
80%
70
50
40
30
20
10
0
60
1892
After 1960, political parties grew weaker
and less likely to mobilize voters. In the
early 1970s, trust in federal government
declined with the Watergate scandal.
During the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries, reforms such as
requirements for voter registration
discouraged voters from going to the polls.
During the New Deal era,
politicians and unions mobilized
urban immigrants to vote for
the �rst time.
PERCENTAGE WHO VOTED*
223P O L I T I C A L PA R T I C I PAT I O N TA K E S B O T H T R A D I T I O N A L A N D D I G I TA L F O R M S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch07_204-245.indd 223 11/28/18 5:55 PM
coincide with national contests is typically much lower. In most European coun
tries and other Western democracies, by contrast, national voter turnout is usually
between 70 and 90 percent.11
WHY DO PEOPLE VOTE?
Three factors organize our understanding of voting in elections: (1) a person’s social
and demographic background and attitudes about politics, (2) the political environ
ment in which elections take place and whether an election is contested among at
least two political candidates, and (3) the state electoral laws that shape the political
process.
Social Background Americans with higher levels of education, more income, and
higherlevel occupations—collectively, what social scientists call higher socioeco-
nomic status—participate much more in politics than do those with less education
and less income.12 Education level is the single most important factor in predicting
whether an individual will vote or engage in most other kinds of participation.
Unsurprisingly, income is an important factor when it comes to people making cam
paign contributions. Those with money, time, and capacity to participate effectively
in the political system are more likely to do so.13 Other individual characteristics also
affect participation. For example, African Americans, Asian Americans, and Latinos
are less likely to participate than are whites, although when differences in education
and income are taken into account, African Americans participate at similar levels
to whites.14 Finally, young people are far less likely to participate in politics than are
older people. Individuals with strong partisan ties to one of the major political par
ties are more likely to vote than nonpartisans or independents.
The Political Environment, Mobilization, and Competition Political environments—
defined by social networks, communities and neighborhoods, states, and region—
matter a great deal in understanding individual political behavior. Whether or not
people feel engaged or are recruited to participate in politics depends on their social
setting—their friends and family, where they live, what associations they belong to. A
critical aspect of political environments is whether people are mobilized—by parties,
candidates, campaigns, interest groups, and social movements. A recent comprehen
sive study of the decline in political participation in the United States found that half
of the dropoff could be accounted for by reduced mobilization efforts—the process by
which large numbers of people are organized for a political activity.15
An additional factor is whether elections are competitive—that is, whether there
are at least two candidates actively contesting a position in government.16 Competi
tive elections, and the campaign spending and mobilization efforts that go along
with them, directly affect turnout rates.17 To be motivated to vote, individuals must
be interested in the election and knowledgeable about the candidates. In competi
tive elections, when candidates and political parties spend more effort and money to
compete for an elected office, more information becomes available to voters in the
form of media ads, news coverage, doortodoor campaigns, online campaigns, and
224 C H A P T E R 7 P O L I T I C A L PA R T I E S , P A R T I C I PAT I O N , A N D E L E C T I O N S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch07_204-245.indd 224 11/28/18 5:55 PM
more. Electoral competition reduces the
cost to individuals of becoming informed,
leading to higher turnout. Conversely, if
elections are uncompetitive, or uncon
tested, they generate little political infor
mation. Limited exposure to competitive
elections may be one reason for the lower
levels of turnout recorded since the 1960s.
State Electoral Laws State electoral
laws, which vary widely from state to
state, create formal barriers to voting that
can reduce participation. In most other
democratic nations, where voting rates are
higher, citizens are automatically registered
to vote; but the United States generally requires a twostep process: registering to vote
and then voting. (Thirteen states plus Washington, D.C., have adopted automatic
voter registration, whereby eligible residents are automatically registered to vote.)
Eighteen states and D.C. allow voters to register and cast a ballot on the same day,
but most states require registration in advance of Election Day. Registration require
ments particularly reduce voting by the young, those with low education, and
those with low incomes because registration requires higher political involvement,
planning, and effort than does the act of voting itself. Those with relatively little
education may become interested in politics once the issues of a particular campaign
become salient, but by then it may be too late for them to register, especially if they
live in states that require registration up to a month before the election. And because
young people tend to change residences more often than older people, registration
requirements place a greater burden on them. (Information on registering to vote in
your state is provided in the back of the book.)
In addition to registration, other election regulations have an impact on turnout.
For example, in most other nations elections are held on weekends, when most peo
ple are not working, or their election day is treated as a holiday. The United States
holds elections during the work week. Many states maintain residency requirements
that result in citizens’ losing their registration if they move their residences even
short distances. Most states purge their voterregistration rolls of voters who fail
to vote for a given period of time. America holds many different elections, often
at staggered times throughout the year, such as primary elections and elections for
local offices and school budget votes, rather than consolidating elections at a single
time. A relatively recent barrier is a requirement that voters provide proof of iden
tity. As of 2018, 34 states require all voters to show some form of ID before voting.
Seven of these states require a photo ID, while another 10 request photo ID but
may count the vote with nonphoto ID under some circumstances. In the remaining
states, nonphoto forms of ID are acceptable.18 Voter ID laws in the states may dis
proportionately reduce voter turnout of certain groups: racial minorities, the elderly,
and the poor.19
Convenience voting, such as early voting and
voting by mail, removes the need to stand in
a potentially long line to cast a vote and may
result in increased voter turnout.
225P O L I T I C A L PA R T I C I PAT I O N TA K E S B O T H T R A D I T I O N A L A N D D I G I TA L F O R M S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch07_204-245.indd 225 11/28/18 5:55 PM
Voter Turnout in
Comparison
Over the past 20 years, voter turnout in
U.S. national elections has hovered around
45 percent of the voting-age population.
while the number is significantly higher
in presidential elections than in midterm
elections (in the 2018 midterm elections,
turnout was roughly 49 percent),a voting
rates in the United States still lag behind
those in many other democratic countries.
why does voter turnout vary so much
from country to country?
One explanation relates to the rules
governing elections. In many democracies,
citizens are automatically registered to vote
when they reach a certain age; in contrast,
U.S. citizens generally must register
themselves, reregister if they move, and,
in many states, register a certain number
of days before the election. Many countries
hold their elections on a Sunday, send their
ballots through the mail, or declare their
election day a national holiday. Voting is also
compulsory in many countries. Australia, for
instance, charges a $20 fine (about US$16)
unless a citizen can provide a good excuse
for why she did not vote.b
aInternational Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA), Voter Turnout Database, www.idea.int/data-tools/
data/voter-turnout (accessed 4/12/18).
bNicole Hasham, “Election 2016: Voter Turnout Lowest since Compulsory Voting Began in 1925,” The Sydney Morning Herald,
August 8, 2016, www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/election-2016-voter-turnout-lowest-since-compulsory-voting-began-in
-1925-20160808-gqnij2.html (accessed 4/12/18).
Compulsory
voting
Weekend or
holiday voting
Automatic or
compulsory
registration
AVERAGE TURNOUT IN NATIONAL ELECTIONS, 1990–2018
81Australia
India
United Kingdom
Canada
Mexico
United States
Switzerland
65
57
60
55
45
39
SOURCES: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) voter turnout database,
www.idea.int/vt/viewdata.cfm, and the ACE Electoral Knowledge Network, www.aceproject.org/epic-en/
CDMap?question=VR008&f= (accessed 3/27/18).
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch07_204-245.indd 226 11/28/18 5:55 PM
www.aceproject.org/epic-en/CDMap?question=VR008&f=
www.idea.int/data-tools/data/voter-turnout
www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/election-2016-voter-turnout-lowest-since-compulsory-voting-began-in-1925-20160808-gqnij2.html
Some states have taken steps to make voting easier, such as sameday and auto
matic registration discussed above. Additionally, some western states use an allmail
voting system, thus eliminating polling places altogether. Many states now offer
early voting, which allows registered voters to cast a ballot at their regular polling
place up to 40 days before the election.
Voters Decide Based on Party,
Issues, and Candidate
Three key factors influence voters’
decisions at the polls: party loyalty,
issue and policy concerns, and
candidate characteristics. The promi
nence of these three bases for electoral choice varies from contest to contest and
voter to voter.
PARTY LOYALTY IS IMPORTANT
Partisan identification predisposes voters in favor of their party’s candidates and
opposes those of the other party (see Figure 7.5). At the level of the presidential
contest, issues and candidate personalities may become very important, although
even here many Americans support presidential candidates primarily because of
party loyalty. But partisanship is more likely to be a factor in the less visible races,
where issues and the candidates are not as well known. State legislative races, for
example, are often decided by voters’ party ties. Once formed, voters’ partisan
loyalties seldom change. Voters tend to keep their party affiliations unless some
crisis causes them to reexamine the bases for their loyalty and decide to support a
different party, such as happened at the beginning of the New Deal era, between
1932 and 1936, when millions of former Republicans transferred their allegiance
to FDR and the Democrats.
After the 1960s, many analysts expressed concern that American parties had
become too weak to play their role in converting popular political participation
into effective government. These scholars noted such trends as a decline in partisan
attachment within the electorate, a growth in the number of voters identifying as
independents, and a rise in socalled splitticket voting. This overall trend, some
times termed “dealignment,” was seen as a product of growing social diversity and
educational attainment, which made voters less reliant on parties to guide their
political decisionmaking. The growth of the mass media, particularly television,
also seemed to reduce the role of parties in elections as television tends to focus on
the personalities of individual candidates rather than the “institution” of the party.
Today, party loyalties in America continue to be in a state of flux. On the one hand,
the percentage of voters who declare no party loyalty remains at an alltime high.20
On the other hand, party identification among a large number of the most active
voters has grown stronger.21
Examine the factors that influence
voters’ decisions
227V O T E R S D E C I D E B A S E D O N PA R T Y, I S S U E S , A N D C A N D I D AT E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch07_204-245.indd 227 11/28/18 5:55 PM
ISSUES CAN SHAPE AN ELECTION
Issues and policy preferences are a second factor influencing voters’ choices at the
polls. Voters may cast their ballots for the candidate whose position on economic
issues they believe to be closest to their own or the candidate who has what they
believe to be the best record on foreign policy or immigration. Issues are more
important in some races than in others.
In 2016, for example, Donald Trump made curbing immigration and building a
wall along the U.S.Mexico border a key issue of the presidential campaign. Demo
cratic candidate Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, supported comprehensive immi
gration reform, including an easier path to full and equal citizenship and ending family
detention. If candidates actually do “take issue” with one another—that is, articulate
and publicize very different positions on important public questions—voters are more
likely to be able to identify and act on whatever policy preferences they may have.
Voters’ issue choices usually involve a mix of their judgments about the past beha
vior of competing parties and candidates and their hopes and fears about candidates’
future behavior. Political scientists call choices that focus on future behavior prospect-
ive voting, whereas those based on past performance are called retrospective voting.
Retrospective economic voting, in which voters evaluate candidates on the strength
of the economy, has been found to be more important than prospective voting.
FIGURE 7.5
The Effect of Party Identification on
the Vote, 2016
In 2016 about 90 percent of Democrats and Republicans supported their party’s presiden-
tial candidate. Should candidates devote their resources to converting voters who identify
with the opposition or to winning more support among independents? What factors might
make it difficult for candidates to simultaneously pursue both courses of action?
228 C H A P T E R 7 P O L I T I C A L PA R T I E S , P A R T I C I PAT I O N , A N D E L E C T I O N S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch07_204-245.indd 228 11/28/18 5:55 PM
CANDIDATE CHARACTERISTICS ARE MORE
IMPORTANT IN THE MEDIA AGE
Candidates’ personal attributes always influence voters’ decisions. The important
candidate characteristics that affect voters’ choices include race, ethnicity, religion,
gender, geography, and social background. In general, voters may be proud to
see someone of their ethnic, religious, or geographic background in a position of
leadership, and they may presume that such candidates are likely to have views and
perspectives close to their own. This is why, for many years, politicians sought to
“balance the ticket,” making certain that their party’s ticket included members of as
many important groups as possible.
Just as candidates’ personal characteristics may attract some voters, they may
repel others. Many voters are prejudiced against candidates of certain ethnic, racial,
or religious groups. And for many years voters were reluctant to support the candi
dacies of women, although this appears to be slowly changing. Indeed, that the 2008
Democratic candidate was a black man, the 2012 Republican presidential candidate
a Mormon, and the 2016 Democratic candidate a woman indicates the increasing
diversity of candidates for public office.
Voters also pay attention to candidates’ personality characteristics, such as “deci
siveness,” “honesty,” and “vigor.” In recent years integrity has become a key election
issue. In the 2016 presidential election, many Americans questioned the trustwor
thiness of both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Nonetheless, Trump supporters
saw their candidate as unafraid to speak his mind. Clinton supporters, on the other
hand, admired her ambition, toughness, and discipline.
The Electoral Process Has
Many Levels and Rules
Three types of elections are held in
the United States: primary elections,
general elections, and initiative and
referendum elections; the last are
where proposed laws are placed on
the ballot for a popular vote.
Primary elections are elections within a political party to select each party’s candi
dates for the general election. In the case of local and statewide offices, the winners of
primary elections face one another as their parties’ nominees in the general election.
At the presidential level, however, primary elections are indirect because they are
used to select state delegates to the national conventions, at which the major party
presi dential candidates are chosen. The United States is one of the few nations in
the world to use primary elections. In most countries, nominations are controlled
by party officials. The primary system was introduced at the turn of the twentieth
century by Progressive reformers who hoped to weaken the power of party leaders;
the introduction of primary elections for the first time enabled voters, rather than
party elites, to pick the candidates to compete in the general election.
Explain the major rules, levels,
and types of elections in the
United States
229T H E E L E C T O R A L P R O C E S S H A S M A N Y L E V E L S A N D R U L E S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch07_204-245.indd 229 11/28/18 5:55 PM
Under the laws of most states, only registered members of a political party may
vote in a primary election to select that party’s candidates. This is called a closed
primary. Other states allow all registered voters to choose on the day of the primary
in which party’s primary they will participate. This is called an open primary. In
nominating presidential candidates, though most states hold primary elections,
about onethird use caucuses instead, which are essentially party business meetings
held to select candidates.
The primary is followed by the general election, a regularly scheduled election
involving most districts in the nation or state, in which voters decide who wins
office; in the United States, general elections for national office and most state and
local offices are held on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November in
evennumbered years (every four years for presidential elections).
Beyond presidential and congressional elections, 24 states also provide for the
initiative process. Ballot initiatives allow citizens to circulate petitions to place policy
change or proposed laws directly on the ballot for a popular vote. If a ballot measure
receives majority support, it becomes law. In recent years voters in several states
have voted to raise taxes on the wealthy, prohibit social services for undocumented
immigrants, end affirmative action, provide universal health care, create nonpartisan
redistricting, protect open space and the environment, and prevent offshore drilling.
At the turn of the twentieth century, ballot initiatives were used to grant women
suffrage (the right to vote), prevent child labor, limit the workday to eight hours,
adopt progressive taxes, and allow voters to elect U.S. senators directly (rather than
having them chosen by state legislatures).
Voters often turn out in higher numbers when there are controversial initiatives on the ballot. In
2016, Californians voted on a total of 18 ballot measures, including whether to legalize recreational
marijuana, which ultimately passed.
230 C H A P T E R 7 P O L I T I C A L PA R T I E S , P A R T I C I PAT I O N , A N D E L E C T I O N S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch07_204-245.indd 230 11/28/18 5:55 PM
All 50 states have the legislative referendum, in which the state legislature refers
certain laws to the voters for a popular vote. Ballot measure campaigns often involve
high spending by proponents and opponents and mass media campaigns that can
rival those of congressional and presidential candidates within a state.
The general referendum and initiative are called direct democracy because
they allow voters to govern directly without intervention by government officials
or the political parties. The validity of ballot measure results, however, is subject
to judicial action. If a court finds that an initiative violates the state or national
constitution, it can overturn the result. This happened in the case of a 1995
California initiative curtailing social services to undocumented aliens and again
in 2012 when the federal courts overturned California’s Proposition 8 banning
samesex marriage.22 Hundreds of initiatives and referenda appear on state elec
tion ballots every two years.
Eighteen states also have legal provisions for recall elections, which allow voters to
remove governors and other state officials from office prior to the expiration of their
terms. Generally, a recall effort begins with a petition campaign. In California, for
example, if 12 percent of those who voted in the last general election sign petitions
demanding a special recall election, one must be held. In 2003 many California
voters blamed Governor Gray Davis for the state’s $38billion budget deficit, and he
was turned out of office in a recall election. Federal officials, such as the president
and members of Congress, are not subject to recall.
THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE STILL ORGANIZES
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS
In the early history of popular voting, nations often made use of indirect elections.
In these elections, voters would choose the members of an intermediate body. These
members would, in turn, select public officials. The assumption underlying such pro
cesses was that ordinary citizens were not really qualified to choose their leaders and
could not be trusted to do so directly. The last vestige of this procedure in America
is the electoral college, the group of electors who formally select the president and vice
president of the United States.
When Americans go to the polls on Election Day, they are technically not voting
directly for presidential candidates, even though they mark ballots as such; they are
instead choosing among slates of electors selected by each state’s party and pledged,
if elected, to support that party’s presidential candidate. Electors are allocated to each
state based on the size of the state’s congressional delegation (senators and House
members); largerpopulation states thus have more votes in the electoral college.
North Dakota, for example, has 3 votes in the electoral college (based on its 2 senators
plus 1 representative), while California has 55 (2 senators plus 53 representatives).
The presidential candidate who receives a majority of the electoral college’s
538 votes (a majority is 270) becomes president—not necessarily the candidate with
the most votes from the people. This is in part because the electoral college and most
elections in the United States are governed by plurality, or winnertakeall, rules.
With only two exceptions, each state awards all of its electors to the candidate who
231T H E E L E C T O R A L P R O C E S S H A S M A N Y L E V E L S A N D R U L E S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch07_204-245.indd 231 11/28/18 5:55 PM
receives the most votes in the state.23 Thus, Trump received all 29 of Florida’s elec
toral votes, though he won only 49 percent of the votes in the state.
Only four times in the nation’s history has the winner in the electoral college
not won the popular vote. Since electoral votes are won on a statebystate basis,
it is mathematically possible for a candidate who receives a nationwide popular
plurality to fail to carry states whose electoral votes would add up to a majority.
Thus, in 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes was the winner in the electoral college despite
receiving fewer popular votes than his rival, Samuel Tilden. In 1888, Grover
Cleveland received more popular votes than Benjamin Harrison but fewer electoral
votes, so Harrison was elected. In 2000 a lengthy legal battle over recounting votes
in Florida ultimately ended with the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore that
handed George W. Bush the presidency.24 But while Bush had won a majority in the
electoral college, Democratic candidate Al Gore had won more votes nationwide.
In 2016, Hillary Clinton won almost 3 million more votes, but Donald Trump
won in the electoral college. These controversial elections generated new calls for
electoral reform.
The 2016 and 2018 Elections
In 2016, Democrat Hillary Clinton
faced Republican Donald Trump in a
dramatic and bitterly fought presiden
tial race. Despite media predictions of
Democratic success, Trump won a sur
prise victory with a majority of votes in the electoral college, though Clinton won the
popular vote, receiving 2.9 million more votes than Trump. The GOP also retained
control of both houses of Congress. In the 2018 midterm elections, Democrats won
control of the House of Representatives for the first time since 2010. Republicans,
however, were able to expand their majority in the U.S. Senate.
THE 2016 ELECTIONS
After closely contested and often rancorous nomination battles, former first lady,
senator, and secretary of state Hillary Clinton and real estate mogul, reality TV star,
and firsttime candidate Donald Trump faced one another in the general election.
Clinton seemed to possess several advantages, especially her experience in public
office and the Democrats’ seeming advantage in the electoral college. Based on
voting patterns in recent elections, states with a total of roughly 217 electoral votes were
considered “blue states,” either safely Democratic or favorable to the Democrats.
States with another 32 electoral votes leaned toward the Democrats, potentially
putting the Democratic candidate within 21 of the 270 votes needed to win. The
Republicans, by contrast, could generally only count on around 191 electoral votes
from reliably “red” states. Democratic candidates, moreover, usually receive sup
port from the most rapidly growing segments of the electorate—namely, minority
voters—along with women and young people.
Analyze the strategies, issues, and
outcomes of the 2016 and 2018
elections
232 C H A P T E R 7 P O L I T I C A L PA R T I E S , P A R T I C I PAT I O N , A N D E L E C T I O N S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch07_204-245.indd 232 11/28/18 5:55 PM
The Trump campaign was confident it could overcome the Democrats’ advantages.
Trump believed his appeal to bluecollar white voters, especially men, would make
him competitive in Democratic strongholds in Midwestern states. He also calculated
that he would increase Republican support among white voters sufficiently to offset
the Democratic edge among nonwhite voters. Moreover, Trump hoped that his pro
vocative style would continue to encourage extensive free media coverage, offsetting
Clinton’s fundraising advantage and ability to spend freely on paid campaign ads.
Gender played a significant, though ultimately not decisive, role in 2016. Not
only did this election see the first female presidential candidate representing a major
party, but gender issues were also headline news throughout much of the election.
Donald Trump made comments about women that many people deemed offensive
and similar past comments of his were unearthed. The Trump campaign countered
that Clinton’s husband had also treated women inappropriately. Nonetheless, by
November, exit polls showed a gender gap of 13 percentage points, with 54 percent
of women supporting Clinton compared with 41 percent of men.
The media played an outsized role in 2016. In the general election, Trump
received more than double Clinton’s free media attention.25 He excelled on the cam
paign trail, tweeting his daily campaign messages and effectively writing his own
headline news. At the same time, some people, including Trump himself, believed
that the news media’s political bias favored Clinton. Trump began declaring that
the mainstream media published and broadcast “fake news” and should be ignored.
Lastly, money mattered—and it didn’t. Clinton raised and spent twice as much
as the Trump campaign and had superior organization, with more field offices than
Trump in almost every state. However, Trump’s enormous free media coverage
(estimated to be worth as much as $2 billion) more than offset Clinton’s financial
edge. Almost every morning, a new and ever more outrageous Trump tweet or
Facebook post would dominate the news, leaving little space for Clinton to set the
media agenda.
UNDERSTANDING THE 2016 RESULTS
In the end, the 2016 presidential election was a historic upset in which the national
media and the polling forecasts were mistaken. Many Americans who had been
following the opinion polls and media analyses before the election were stunned
by Trump’s surprise win and by the Republicans’ success in retaining control of
both houses of Congress. Trump’s unexpected success in the northern industrial states
of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—all of which had gone to Obama in
2012—ultimately tipped the balance, leading to his victory in the electoral college
(see Figure 7.6). For only the fourth time in U.S. history, the candidate who won a
majority in the electoral college did not win the popular vote. Republicans also retained
control of both houses of Congress as well as a majority of the state legislatures.
Russian Hackers Meddled in the 2016 Elections Soon after the conclusion of
the campaign, Democrats charged that Trump had been helped by Russian hacking
of the Democratic National Committee and Clinton emails and “trolls” mounting
233T H E 2 0 1 6 A N D 2 0 1 8 E L E C T I O N S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch07_204-245.indd 233 11/28/18 5:55 PM
FIGURE 7.6
Distribution of Electoral Votes in the
2016 Election
NOTE: Maine and Nebraska allocate electoral college votes by congressional district. Donald Trump won one of
Maine’s four electoral votes.
SOURCE: “Presidential Election Results: Donald J. Trump Wins,” New York Times, www.nytimes.com/elections/
results/president (accessed 11/18/16).
CA
55
CT
7
NJ
14
RI
4
NY
29
VT
3
NH
4
WA
12
MI
16
OH
18
VA
13
WV
5
MN
10
IA
6
OR
7
MD
10
MA
11
ME
4
HI
4
IL
20
IN
11
WI
10
NM
5
AZ
11
NC
15
AK
3
CO
9
ID
4
UT
6
MT
3
WY
3
ND
3
SD
3
TN 11
NE
5
OK
7
TX
38
SC
9
NV
6
FL
29
AL
9
LA
8
GA
16
AR
6
KY
8
KS
6
MO
10
MS
6
PA
20
DC
3
DE
3
For Trump/Pence (R)For Clinton/Kaine (D)
a social media campaign aimed at defeating Clinton. Multiple reports from the
national intelligence agencies confirmed the Russian government did seek to inter
vene in the 2016 election. For example, in October 2018, Twitter released millions
of tweets from some 3,400 accounts linked to a Russian “troll farm” known as the
Internet Research Agency run by the Kremlin.26 At this agency, approximately 1,000
Russian agents, working 24 hours a day spent more than a million dollars a week
creating thousands of social media accounts impersonating Americans. These agents
also purchased thousands of political ads promoting their posts on Facebook and
other platforms. Russian groups also organized campaign rallies in the United States
on behalf of Donald Trump and sought to discredit Hillary Clinton, portraying her
as a criminal and untrustworthy.
The fact that the Russians meddled in the 2016 election raised questions about
whether the Trump campaign had knowledge of Russian efforts or in any way
worked with the Russians. To answer these questions, a probe led by Special
234 C H A P T E R 7 P O L I T I C A L PA R T I E S , P A R T I C I PAT I O N , A N D E L E C T I O N S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch07_204-245.indd 234 11/28/18 5:55 PM
www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president
Counsel and former FBI director Robert Mueller was launched in May 2017. As
a result of the Mueller probe, a half dozen Trump campaign officials have been
indicted for various federal crimes and violations of campaign laws. President
Trump has vehemently denied allegations of impropriety and denounced the
Mueller probe as a “witch hunt” organized by his political foes. At the time of this
writing the relationship between the Trump campaign and the Russian govern
ment remains unclear.
THE 2018 ELECTION: A BLUE WAVE MEETS A RED WALL
The 2018 election, more than most midterm contests, revolved around the president.
Trump’s outsized personality and frequent inflammatory rhetoric inspired anger
on the part of some voters and fierce loyalty on the part of others. Between 2016
and 2018, across the nation, hundreds of thousands of Democrats who had never
previously been much involved in politics, especially women and young people,
entered the political arena to oppose Donald Trump. These Democrats engaged in
political activity by signing petitions, attending rallies and protests, and contact
ing public officials. In addition, an unusually large number of women launched
campaigns for national and state office. These women saw the GOP, and President
Trump in particular, as insufficiently attentive to issues of sexual harassment. This
view was underscored by Republican support for Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to
the Supreme Court despite allegations of sexual assault made against him.
While Democrats mobilized their blue wave, the Republicans also planned their
campaigns. President Trump made the Kavanaugh fight along with such other
hotbutton issues as Trump’s deter
mination to stop a caravan of Central
American immigrants from crossing
the U.S. border, major themes as he
crisscrossed the country speaking to
large and usually raucous Republican
rallies. In 2016, Trump had promised
to build a wall on America’s south
ern border to hold back immigrants.
That wall was never built, but now
President Trump was attempting to
build a red wall around GOP strong
holds to hold back the Democrats’
blue wave.
The Outcome On November 6, 2018,
the blue wave crashed against Trump’s
red wall with mixed results. Demo
crats won control of the U.S. House
of Representatives for the first time
since 2010, Republicans expanded their
After the 2018 elections there will be a record
number of female members of Congress, most
of them Democrats. Here, Sharice Davids (left)
celebrates after ousting Republican Kevin Yoder.
With this victory, Davids became Kansas’ first
openly gay member of Congress and the first
Native American woman elected to Congress.
(She shares the latter distinction with New Mexico’s
Deb Haaland, another Native American Democrat
elected to Congress in 2018.)
235T H E 2 0 1 6 A N D 2 0 1 8 E L E C T I O N S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch07_204-245.indd 235 11/28/18 5:55 PM
majority in the Senate, and Democrats defeated Republican incumbents in seven
governor’s races.27 The 2018 elections saw 49 percent voter turnout—the highest
level since 1966 and a strong increase over recent midterm elections. Youth voter
turnout, which is historically very hard to increase, soared by 10 percentage points
to 31 percent of voters aged 18–29. Women were critical to Democratic victo
ries. Women made up more than half the 2018 electorate and supported Demo
cratic candidates by margins of as much as 20 percentage points. The new 116th
Congress would include over 100 women in the House and more than 20 in the
Senate, an alltime record. In the Senate, two seats previously held by Republicans
went to the Democrats, but the GOP won other critical races and extended their
control over the chamber.
THE 2018 ELECTION AND AMERICA’S FUTURE
The mixed results of the 2018 election were something of a disappointment to Demo
crats who thought they would hand President Trump a crushing defeat. As Demo
crats had hoped, however, voter turnout increased sharply in 2018. Some 114 million
Americans or 49 percent of the nation’s eligible voters participated. In the last midterm
election in 2014, voter turnout was only 36 percent. A majority of the nation’s voters,
according to exit polls, saw the election as a referendum on President Trump’s perfor
mance in office. Given Trump’s low levels of public approval, this should have helped
the Democrats and, indeed, many more voters said they cast their votes to oppose
Trump than voted to support him. On a national basis, Democrats received a clear
majority of the votes cast in congressional elections, approximately 5 million more
than were cast for Republicans.
Despite losses in the Senate, taking control of the House of Representatives
was an important achievement. With control of the House, Democrats are in a
position to block Trump’s legislative efforts and to conduct investigations into
the president’s conduct as well as the activities of Trump appointees in the execu
tive branch. The president will almost certainly feel compelled to rely ever more
heavily on executive orders and other forms of executive action that bypass the
Congress. With the Senate firmly in Republican hands, Trump will continue to
use his appointment powers to reshape the bureaucracy and the courts. The stage
seems set for two more years of the partisan struggle that characterizes American
democratic politics.
The 2018 elections also made clear that if the Republican Party is to remain
competitive nationally it must develop a message that appeals to voters outside
its current base of older white men in America’s small towns and rural areas. The
Democrats have built a coalition that includes women, minorities, and young
people. It is no accident that the first Muslim and Native American women elected
to Congress along with the first openly gay governor are all Democrats. The Demo
cratic electorate is growing while the GOP’s base represents a shrinking percentage
of the national electorate and even of the electorate in rapidly growing red states
like Texas where as formidable a Republican politician as Senator Ted Cruz had to
scramble to avoid defeat. If the Republican Party cannot find a way to expand its
constituency, 2018 may be the last time the red wall can hold back the blue wave.
236 C H A P T E R 7 P O L I T I C A L PA R T I E S , P A R T I C I PAT I O N , A N D E L E C T I O N S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch07_204-245.indd 236 11/28/18 5:55 PM
Money Is Critical to Campaigns
Modern national political campaigns
are fueled by enormous amounts
of money. The 2016 election shat
tered previous records for campaign
spending. Combined spending by candidates, parties, and interest groups on the
congressional and presidential races was $6.5 billion in 2016 compared with
$6.2 billion in 2012 and $5.3 billion in 2008. Of the $6.5 billion, $4.3 billion was
spent on congressional races and $2.6 billion on the presidential race.
CAMPAIGN FUNDS COME FROM DIRECT
APPEALS, THE RICH, PACS, AND PARTIES
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the $6.5 billion spent in 2016
included money from leadership PACs, Super PACs, and 501(c)(4) “dark money”
groups (who can shield donor identities). The two presidential candidates raised
$1.3 billion combined, including about $500 million by Hillary Clinton’s cam
paign and $190 million from outside groups supporting her. Donald Trump raised
only about $250 million with another $59 million from outside groups.28
Individual Donors Politicians spend a great deal of time asking people for money.
Money is solicited via direct mail, through the internet, over the phone, and in
numerous facetoface meetings. Under federal law, individuals may donate as much
as $2,700 per candidate per election, $5,000 per PAC per calendar year, $33,400
per national party committee per calendar year, and $10,000 to state and local com
mittees per calendar year. There is no limit on the number of candidates that an
individual can give to, however.29
Political Action Committees PACs are organizations established by corporations,
labor unions, or interest groups to channel the contributions of their members and
employees into political campaigns. Under the terms of the 1971 Federal Election
Campaign Act, which governs campaign finance in the United States, PACs are
permitted to make larger contributions to any given candidate than individuals are
allowed to make. Moreover, allied or related PACs often coordinate their campaign
contributions, greatly increasing the amount of money a candidate actually receives
from the same interest group. More than 4,600 PACs are registered with the
Federal Election Commission, which oversees campaign finance practices in the
United States. Nearly twothirds of all PACs represent corporations, trade associations,
and other business and professional groups. Alliances of bankers, lawyers, doctors, and
merchants all sponsor PACs.
Outside Spending—Super PACs and Dark Money 527 committees (Super PACs)
and 501(c)(4)s (dark money) are independent groups that are not covered by the
campaignspending restrictions imposed in 2002 by the Bipartisan Campaign
Describe how candidates raise the
money they need to run
237M O N E Y I S C R I T I C A L T O C A M PA I G N S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch07_204-245.indd 237 11/28/18 5:55 PM
Reform Act, but now raise much of the money used for political campaigns.
These groups, named for the sections of the tax code under which they are
organized, can raise and spend unlimited amounts so long as their efforts are
not coordinated with those of any candidate’s campaign. As a result, each presi
dential campaign raises millions from sympathetic outside groups. A 527 is a
group established specifically for the purpose of political advocacy and is required
to report to the IRS. A 501(c)(4) is a nonprofit group that also engages in
campaign advocacy but may not spend more than half its revenues for political
purposes. Unlike a 527, a 501(c)(4) is not required to disclose where it gets its
funds or exactly what it does with them. As a result, its funding has earned the
name “dark money” and has raised growing concern that the lack of transparency
in campaign funding threatens fair elections. Indeed, it has become a common
practice for wealthy and corporate donors, as well as foreigners, to route cam
paign contributions through 501(c)(4)s to avoid the legal limits on contributions
through other channels.
Super PACs came about after the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens
United v. Federal Election Commission that the government could not restrict inde
pendent expenditures by corporations or unions to political campaigns. Following
that decision, SpeechNow v. FEC permitted individuals and organizations to form
committees that could raise unlimited amounts of money to run advertising for
and against candidates so long as their efforts were not coordinated with those of
the candidates.30
In 2014 the Supreme Court removed additional limits on individuals’ campaign
contributions in its decision in McCutcheon et al. v. Federal Election Commission.31
Outside spending via 527s and 501(c)(4)s played an unprecedented role in the
2012 and 2016 presidential races as groups ran extensive television ads. Super
PACs on both sides relied on very large contributions. In 2016, Super PACs
supporting candidates’ campaigns spent a total of $594 million. A growing concern
is that elections in the United States can be bought with big money from corpo
rations and wealthy donors, who will then hold significant influence when that
candidate is elected.
Public Funding The Federal Election Campaign Act also provides for public
funding of presidential campaigns. As they seek a majorparty presidential nomi
nation, candidates become eligible for public funds by raising at least $5,000 in
individual contributions of $250 or less in each of 20 states. Candidates who reach
this threshold may apply for federal funds to match, on a dollarfordollar basis,
all individual contributions of $250 or less that they receive. In 2016 candidates
who accepted matching funds could spend no more than $48.7 million, includ
ing matching funds, in their presidential primary campaigns. The funds are drawn
from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. Taxpayers can contribute $3 to this
fund, at no additional cost to themselves, by checking a box on the first page of
their federal income tax returns. Majorparty presidential candidates receive a lump
sum (about $96 million in 2016, although neither Clinton nor Trump accepted
this money) during the summer prior to the general election, and they must meet
238 C H A P T E R 7 P O L I T I C A L PA R T I E S , P A R T I C I PAT I O N , A N D E L E C T I O N S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch07_204-245.indd 238 11/28/18 5:55 PM
all their general expenses from this money. Thirdparty candidates are eligible for
public funding only if they received at least 5 percent of the vote in the previous
presidential race.
Under current law, no candidate is required to accept public funding for either
the nominating races or the general presidential election. Candidates who do not
accept public funding are not bound by any expenditure limits. In 2008, John
McCain accepted public funding for the generalelection campaign, receiving $84
million, but Barack Obama declined, choosing to rely on his own fundraising
prowess. Obama ultimately outspent McCain by a wide margin. The 2008 race was
the last time that majorparty presidential candidates limited their own fundraising
in favor of public funding. Neither major party candidate accepted public funding
in 2012 or 2016.
The Candidates Themselves On the basis of the Supreme Court’s 1976 decision
in Buckley v. Valeo, the right of individuals to spend their own money to campaign
for office is a constitutionally protected matter of free speech and is not subject to
limitation.32 Thus, extremely wealthy candidates often contribute millions of dollars
to their own campaigns. The only exception to the Buckley rule concerns presidential
candidates who accept federal funding for their generalelection campaigns. Such
individuals are limited to $50,000 in personal spending.
In 2014, Shaun McCutcheon successfully challenged the federal limit on the amount of money any
one individual can donate to political campaigns and candidates. Many people worry that recent
Supreme Court decisions overturning campaign spending limits reinforce the influence of the very
affluent in American politics at the expense of everyone else.
239M O N E Y I S C R I T I C A L T O C A M PA I G N S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch07_204-245.indd 239 11/28/18 5:55 PM
Political Parties, Elections,
and Participation
WHAT DO WE WANT?
while party leaders exercise great control over party platforms, the party message,
candidate funding, who holds elected office, and who wins the nomination for presi-
dent, many aspects of party politics have been turned upside-down with the digital
revolution in communication and by “outsider” candidates running for president who
have exploited digital platforms to advance their campaigns. Four resources that
political parties use to contest and win elections (time, money, expertise, and
organization) have all been altered by the internet. New media are decentralizing party
power as citizens like Keli Carender (described at the beginning of this chapter) can
volunteer, communicate, and give money to the party of their choice or even start their
own group without ever being contacted by a party official. Online fund-raising allows
millions of donors to give small contributions to parties, and new media allow the party
to spread its message far and wide online. This is beneficial for parties because more
people are involved, but there are more divergent opinions that must be recognized
and appeased. At the same time, huge contributions from a handful of very wealthy
individuals have increased. will the ability of the mass public to make their desires
known to party leaders mean that party leaders pay more attention to these prefer-
ences? Is the two-party system the optimal system for American politics, or should
electoral reforms encourage more parties to form and, hence, provide more choice
for voters?
The important role played by private funds in American elections affects the bal-
ance of power among contending economic groups. Politicians need large amounts of
money to campaign successfully for major offices. This fact inevitably ties their inter-
ests to the interests of the groups and forces that can provide this money: the affluent.
In a nation as large and diverse as the United States, to be sure, campaign contribu-
tors represent many different groups and, often, clashing interests. The fact remains,
however, that those with more money will be able to give more and speak with a louder
voice. Since 2000 a series of highly competitive presidential elections has spurred
political campaigns to pay more attention to drawing greater numbers of voters from
a variety of backgrounds into the political process; even so, many Americans still do
not participate in politics. The “Who Participates?” feature shows who participated in
the 2016 election.
240 C H A P T E R 7 P O L I T I C A L PA R T I E S , P A R T I C I PAT I O N , A N D E L E C T I O N S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch07_204-245.indd 240 11/28/18 5:55 PM
14.3% 11.0% 12.2% 13.3%
Displayed a campaign
button, lawn sign, or
bumper sticker
Gave money to
a candidate, party,
or other group
Talked about voting
for or against a
candidate or party
Went to political
meetings, rallies,
or speeches
Voted
Percentage of each age group who…
SOURCE: American National Election Study, 2016 Time Series,
www.electionstudies.org (accessed 12/20/17).
18–24 45–6425–44 65+Age group
46.2% 45.3% 52.6% 54.4%
10.8% 20.1%7.1%6.7%
70.4%
88.6% 93.9%82.3%
8.0%9.4% 6.3% 6.3%
Who Participated in the
2016 Presidential Election?
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
WHO PAR TICIPATES?
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch07_204-245.indd 241 11/28/18 5:55 PM
Practice Quiz
1. A political party is different from an
interest group in that a political party
(p. 207)
a) seeks to control the government
by nominating candidates and
electing its members to office.
b) is constitutionally exempt from
taxation.
c) is entirely nonprofit.
d) has a much larger membership.
e) has a much smaller membership.
2. which party was formed in the 1830s
in opposition to Andrew Jackson’s
presidency? (p. 211)
a) American Independent
b) Federalist
c) Jacksonian Republican
d) Democratic
e) whig
3. The so-called New Deal coalition was
severely strained (p. 215)
a) during the 1860s by conflicts over
slavery and southern secession.
b) during the 1890s by conflicts over
the gold standard.
c) during the 1930s by conflicts
over the Great Depression and
America’s involvement in world
war II.
d) during the 1960s by conflicts over
civil rights and the Vietnam war.
e) during the 1990s by conflicts over
abortion and affirmative action.
In most states you can register to vote using the National Mail Voter
Registration Form found at www.eac.gov. The Election Assistance
Commission website also includes various tips about registering and voting.
Many states allow online registration. Go to www.ncsl.org and
search "online voter registration" to �nd a list of these states with
links to their websites.
Register to Vote
Find out when you need to register in order to vote in the next election.
Visit www.usa.gov/register-to-vote for a list of registration deadlines.
If you’ve moved to attend college or for another reason, you can register
with your new address.
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
242 S T U D Y G U I D E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch07_204-245.indd 242 11/28/18 5:55 PM
4. The periodic episodes in American
history in which an “old” dominant
political party is replaced by a “new”
dominant political party are called
(p. 217)
a) constitutional revolutions.
b) divided governments.
c) unified governments.
d) dealignments.
e) electoral realignments.
5. In a __________ electoral system,
political parties are awarded legislat-
ive seats in rough approximation to
the percentage of popular votes that
each party wins. (p. 219)
a) plurality
b) proportional representation
c) split-ticket
d) straight-ticket
e) open primary
6. which of the following factors is not
currently an obstacle to voting in the
United States? (p. 225)
a) registration requirements
b) that elections occur on weekdays
c) the restriction of voting rights for
people who have committed a felony
d) literacy tests
e) voter identification laws
7. An open primary is a primary election
in which (p. 230)
a) one’s vote is made public.
b) only registered members of the
party may vote.
c) all registered voters are allowed to
choose on the day of the primary
which party’s primary they will
participate in.
d) there are no limits on campaign
spending.
e) only superdelegates are allowed
to vote.
8. If a state has 10 members in the
U.S. House of Representatives, how
many votes in the electoral college
does that state have? (p. 231)
a) 2
b) 10
c) 12
d) 20
e) The number of votes cannot be
determined from this information.
9. The main difference between a
527 committee and a 501(c)(4)
is that (p. 237)
a) a 527 is not legally required to
disclose where it gets its money,
while a 501(c)(4) is legally required
to do so.
b) a 501(c)(4) is not legally required
to disclose where it gets its money,
while a 527 is legally required to
do so.
c) a 527 can only contribute to one
campaign, while a 501(c)(4) can
contribute to many.
d) a 501(c)(4) can only contribute to
one campaign, while a 527 can
contribute to many.
e) a 527 can legally coordinate
its spending with a candidate’s
campaign, while a 501(c)(4)
cannot.
10. Public funding of presidential
campaigns was (p. 238)
a) outlawed by the Federal Election
Campaign Act.
b) declared unconstitutional by the
Supreme Court in McCutcheon et al.
v. Federal Election Commission.
c) accepted by both major-party
presidential candidates in 2016.
d) rejected by all four major-party
presidential candidates in 2012
and 2016.
e) limited to only $25 million in 2008,
2012 and 2016.
11. In Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court
ruled that (p. 239)
a) PAC donations to campaigns are
constitutionally protected.
b) candidates cannot spend
any of their own money to run
for office.
c) the right of individuals to
spend their own money to
campaign is constitutionally
protected.
d) there is no limit to the number of
candidates that an individual can
contribute money to.
e) the Bipartisan Campaign Reform
Act is unconstitutional.
243S T U D Y G U I D E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch07_204-245.indd 243 11/28/18 5:55 PM
Key Terms
ballot initiative (p. 230) a proposed law or
policy change that is placed on the ballot by
citizens or interest groups for a popular vote
caucus (political) (p. 230) a normally closed
political party business meeting of citizens
to select candidates, elect officers, plan
strategy, or make decisions regarding
legislative matters
closed primary (p. 230) a primary election
in which voters can participate in the
nomination of candidates but only of the
party in which they are enrolled for a period
of time prior to primary day
divided government (p. 218) the condition in
American government wherein the presi dency
is controlled by one party while the opposing
party controls one or both houses of Congress
electoral college (p. 231) the electors from
each state who meet after the popular election
to cast ballots for president and vice president
electoral realignment (p. 217) the point in
history when a new party supplants the
ruling party, becoming in turn the dominant
political force
501(c)(4)s (dark money) (p. 237) politically
active nonprofits; under federal law, these
nonprofits can spend unlimited amounts on
political campaigns and not disclose their
donors as long as their activities are not
coordinated with the candidate campaigns
and political activities are not their primary
purpose
527 committees (Super PACs) (p. 237) non-
profit independent groups that receive and
disburse funds to influence the nomination,
election, or defeat of candidates; named
after Section 527 of the Internal Revenue
Code, which defines and provides tax-exempt
status for nonprofit advocacy groups
general election (p. 230) a regularly sched-
uled election involving most districts in the
nation or state, in which voters decide who
wins office; in the United States, general
elections for national office and most
state and local offices are held on the
first Tuesday following the first Monday in
November in even-numbered years (every
four years for presidential elections)
incumbent (p. 208) a candidate running
for re-election to a position that he or she
already holds
majority party (p. 210) the party that holds
the majority of legislative seats in either
the House or the Senate
micro-targeting (p. 210) when political
campaigns tailor messages to individuals in
small homogenous groups based on their
group interests to support a candidate
or policy issue
minority party (p. 210) the party that holds
the minority of legislative seats in either
the House or the Senate
mobilization (p. 224) the process by which
large numbers of people are organized for a
political activity
nomination (p. 208) the process by which
political parties select their candidates for
election to public office
open primary (p. 230) a primary election in
which the voter can wait until the day of the
primary to choose which party to enroll in to
select candidates for the general election
party identification (p. 220) an individual voter’s
psychological ties to one party or another
political action committee (PAC) (p. 208) a
private group that raises and distributes
funds for use in election campaigns
political parties (p. 207) organized groups
that attempt to influence the government
by electing their members to important
government offices
primary elections (p. 229) elections within
a political party to select the party’s candid-
ate for the general election
244 S T U D Y G U I D E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch07_204-245.indd 244 11/28/18 5:55 PM
Aldrich, John H., et al. Change and Continuity in the 2016 Elections, washington, DC: CQ
Press, 2018.
Brewer, Mark D., and L. Sandy Maisel. Parties and Elections in America. 7th ed. Lanham,
MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.
Cohen, Marty, David Karol, Hans Noel, and John Zaller. The Party Decides: Presidential
Nominations before and after Reform. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008.
Ginsberg, Benjamin, and Martin Shefter. Politics by Other Means: Institutional Conflict and
the Declining Significance of Elections in America. New York: w. w. Norton, 1999.
Maisel, L. Sandy. Political Parties and Elections: A Very Short Introduction. New York:
Oxford University Press, 2007.
McCarty, Nolan, Keith Poole, and Howard Rosenthal. Polarized America: The Dance of
Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006.
Milkis, Sidney. The President and the Parties: The Transformation of the American Party
System since the New Deal. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Patterson, Thomas E. The Vanishing Voter: Public Involvement in an Age of Uncertainty.
New York: Vintage Books, 2003.
wayne, Stephen. Is This Any Way to Run a Democratic Election? 6th ed. New York:
Routledge, 2018.
west, Darrell. The Next Wave. washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2011.
For Further Reading
proportional representation (p. 219) a
multiple-member district system in which
many competing political parties are
awarded legislative seats in rough propor-
tion to the percentage of popular votes that
each party wins.
recall (p. 231) a procedure to allow voters
to remove state officials from office before
their terms expire by circulating petitions to
call a vote
referendum (p. 231) the practice of refer-
ring a measure proposed or passed by a
legislature to the vote of the electorate for
approval or rejection
socioeconomic status (p. 224) status in
society based on level of education,
income, and occupational prestige
suffrage (p. 223) the right to vote; also
called franchise
third parties (p. 218) parties that organize
to compete against the two major American
political parties
turnout (p. 223) the percentage of eligible
individuals who actually vote
two-party system (p. 210) a political
system in which only two parties have a
realistic opportunity to compete effectively
for control of the government
245S T U D Y G U I D E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch07_204-245.indd 245 11/28/18 5:55 PM
Interest Groups
WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES AND WHY IT MATTERS After
graduating from college with a degree in physics, 25-year-old Ben Brown was
working in New York City in the energy business when he read a news-
paper article quoting former senator Alan Simpson, Republican of Wyoming.
Simpson asserted that young people would lack political power until a young
person “could walk into his office and say, ‘I’m from the American Associa-
tion of Young People. We have 30 million members, and we’re watching you,
Simpson.’”1 He was referencing the political clout of AARP, formerly known as
the American Association of Retired Persons, the largest membership orga-
nization in the country. AARP is known for its formidable defense of Social
Security, Medicare, and other issues of interest to older Americans.
In contrast, young Americans have not had a broad-based membership
group representing their interests, and in 2016 Brown decided to found one.
Individuals can join the Association of Young Americans for $20 per year and
enjoy discounts on transportation and movies, much as AARP members have
long enjoyed travel and insurance services. While those benefits are intended
080808
chapter
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch08_246-273.indd 246 11/28/18 4:30 PM
Interest Groups Interest groups have a strong influence in American political life, but whose interests do these groups serve? Young people have struggled to have a strong voice in
politics, but Ben Brown founded the Association for Young
Americans to change that.
to entice members, the real purpose of AYA is to lobby on issues such as
preserving net neutrality, stopping unpaid internships, and protecting student
debt repayment programs. The organization has a weekly newsletter and pro-
vides a “Contact Our Reps” tool to “make it easy for anyone to connect with
their elected officials” and make their preferences known. “We work to insert
the voices of the 80 million Americans ages 18 to 35 into everyday politics,”
the group’s website says.2
Tens of thousands of organized groups have formed in the United States,
ranging from civic associations to huge nationwide organizations such as the
National Rifle Association (NRA), whose chief cause is opposition to restrictions
on gun ownership, and Common Cause, a public interest group that advocates for
such issues as limits on campaign spending. Despite the array of interest groups
in American politics, however, not all interests—like those of young people—
are represented equally, and the results of competition among various interests
are not always consistent with the common good. Indeed, Alexis de Tocqueville,
a famous nineteenth-century French writer, once wrote that America was “a
247
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch08_246-273.indd 247 11/28/18 4:30 PM
★ Describe the major types of interest groups and whom they represent
(pp. 249–54)
★ Describe how groups organize (pp. 254–58)
★ Analyze why the number of interest and advocacy groups has grown in
recent decades (pp. 258–59)
★ Explain how interest groups try to influence government (pp. 259–67)
CHAP TER GOAL S
nation of joiners.”3 This defining characteristic of American political life has not
changed since Tocqueville made his observation. Americans are much more
likely to join political and social organizations than people in other countries, and
America has more organized interest groups than other nations.
Many believe this unique trend has a positive impact on democracy. But
others worry that the power and money wielded by these groups can dominate
Congress, the president, and the political process—such as elections—at the
expense of average citizens and the public welfare. Another concern is that
despite the array of interest groups in American politics, not all interests—like
those of young people—are represented equally, and the results of competition
among various interests are not always consistent with the common good. In
this chapter we will examine the nature and consequences of interest group
politics in the United States.
248 C H A P T E R 8 I N T e R e S T G R O U P S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch08_246-273.indd 248 11/28/18 4:30 PM
Interest Groups Form to Advocate
for Different Interests
The framers of the U.S. Constitu-
tion feared the power that could be
wielded by organized interests. Yet
they believed that interest groups
thrived because of liberty—the freedom that all Americans have to organize and
express their views. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, organized groups
were called “associations.” The Federalists and the Antifederalists themselves were
organized groups of political elites that had different views about how to create
America’s new democracy. Both the Federalists and Antifederalists agreed that if the
government were given the power to regulate, restrict, or forbid efforts by organized
interests to impose themselves in the political process, it would in effect have the
power to suppress individual liberty. The solution to this dilemma was presented by
James Madison in the Federalist Papers, no. 10:
Take in a greater variety of parties and interests [and] you make it less probable that a majority
of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens. . . . [Hence the
advantage] enjoyed by a large over a small republic.4
According to the Madisonian theory, a good government encourages multi-
tudes of interests so that no single interest can ever dominate the others. The basic
assumption is that many competing interests will regulate one another, producing a
kind of balance.5 Today, this Madisonian principle of regulation is called pluralism.
According to pluralist theory, all interests are and should be free to compete for
political influence. While an interest group may lose on one issue, it may win on
the next; and overall the majority of society will be represented in government.
Moreover, according to the theory of pluralism, the outcome of this competition is
compromise and moderation since no group is likely to be able to achieve any of its
goals without accommodating itself to some of the views of its many competitors.6
Another assumption of pluralism is that all groups have equal access to the political
process and that achieving an outcome favorable to a particular group depends only
upon that group’s strength and resources, not upon biases inherent in the political
system. But, as we shall see, group politics has worked and continues to work more
to the advantage of some types of interests than others.
Critics of pluralism point out that not all interests are equally represented in
the competition for political influence. Some interests speak with loud voices (for
example, large corporations), while others can barely make themselves heard (for
example, Midwest farmers). Pluralism does not guarantee political equality. Indeed,
important research indicates that economic elites have considerably more influence
than mass-based forces in the American political process. This version of pluralism
is called elite pluralism and more accurately describes American politics.
An interest group is a group of individuals who organize to influence the govern-
ment’s programs and policies. This definition includes membership organizations
Describe the major types of interest
groups and whom they represent
249I N T e R e S T G R O U P S F O R M T O A D v O C AT e F O R D I F F e R e N T I N T e R e S T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch08_246-273.indd 249 11/28/18 4:30 PM
composed of average citizens but also businesses, corporations, labor unions, uni-
versities, and other institutions that restrict membership to particular occupational
groups or other categories of persons. Individuals form groups in order to increase
the chance that their views will be heard and their interests treated favorably by
the government.
Interest groups are sometimes referred to as “lobbies” or “special interests.” They
are also sometimes confused with political action committees (PACs), which are private
groups that raise and distribute funds for use in election campaigns. Many interest
groups create PACs in their name to be the money-giving arm of the interest group.
The purpose of PACs is to influence elections rather than to influence the elected.
Another distinction is that interest groups are also different from political parties:
interest groups tend to focus on the policies of government; parties tend to con-
cern themselves with the personnel of government. Parties organize to win elected
office and interest groups do not, although interest groups are increasingly engaged
in political campaigns and seek to help candidates supportive of their policy goals
win elections.
WHAT INTERESTS ARE REPRESENTED?
Economic Groups Interest groups come in as many shapes and sizes as the inter-
ests they represent. The most obvious are groups with a direct economic interest in
government policy. Businesses and corporations make up over a third of those with
lobbying offices in Washington; trade associations comprise another 23 percent and
labor unions just 2 percent of groups registered to lobby.7 Trade associations are
generally supported by groups of producers or manufacturers in a particular eco-
nomic sector, such as the National Association of Manufacturers and the American
Farm Bureau Federation. Combined, over 6 in 10 groups lobbying in Washington
represent businesses, corporations, or trade associations. Trade associations spent
more than $716 million to lobby the federal government and Congress in 2017.8
Some of the biggest spenders included the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Blue Cross
Blue Shield, the American Medical Association, Boeing, and AT&T.
Labor Groups Labor organizations are also active in lobbying government. The
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO),
the United Mine Workers, and the Teamsters are all groups that lobby on behalf
of organized labor. Other groups have organized to further the interests of public
employees, such as the American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees, which has 1.4 million members. However, as mentioned above, labor
unions represent just 2 percent of the total number of registered lobby groups in
Washington.9 Despite being out-lobbied, labor unions continue to exercise influence
in Washington. Union members vote, and organized labor can have a significant
impact on elections.
Professional Associations Professional lobbies such as the American Bar Asso-
ciation and the American Medical Association have been particularly successful at
250 C H A P T E R 8 I N T e R e S T G R O U P S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch08_246-273.indd 250 11/28/18 4:30 PM
furthering their members’ interests in Congress and state legislatures. Accountants,
real estate agents, dentists, teachers, and even college faculty have professional asso-
ciations. Financial institutions, represented by organizations such as the American
Bankers Association and the National Savings and Loan League, although often less
visible than other lobbies, also play an important role in shaping legislative policy.
These groups comprise just over 10 percent of all lobby groups in Washington.
Public Interest Groups Recent years have witnessed the growth of a powerful
“public interest” lobby, purporting to represent the general good rather than its
own economic interests. Public interest groups have been most visible in the con-
sumer protection and environmental policy areas, although public interest groups
cover a broad range of issues. The Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra
Club, and Common Cause are all examples of citizen groups. Citizen groups
comprise 20 percent of groups with lobbying offices in Washington. Claims to
represent only the public interest should be viewed with caution, however: it is
not uncommon to find decidedly private interests hiding behind the term public
interest. For example, the benign-sounding Partnership to Protect Consumer
Credit is a coalition of credit card companies fighting for less federal regulation
of credit abuses.10
Ideological Groups Closely related to and overlapping public interest groups are
ideological groups, organized in support of a particular political or philosophical
Although public school teachers are a minority of the total population, they are an influential interest
group in many states because they are highly informed and act as a group in support of issues
related to their profession, including teachers’ salaries.
251I N T e R e S T G R O U P S F O R M T O A D v O C AT e F O R D I F F e R e N T I N T e R e S T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch08_246-273.indd 251 11/28/18 4:30 PM
Civil Society around
the World
Political scientists who study democracy
around the world emphasize the important
role society may play in shaping democracy.
Interest groups are part of what is known
more broadly as civil society: organizations
outside the state that help people define and
promote their interests. These groups play
an important role in maintaining the overall
health of democracy. Countries with an active
civil society may be more likely to transition
to democracy. South Africa’s strong civil
society played a major role in protesting for
democracy against a repressive Apartheid
regime. In contrast, civil society membership
was heavily co-opted by authoritarian
regimes in Germany and Japan; rebuilding
the independence and engagement of these
groups remains a major democratic challenge
to this day. So, while de Tocqueville may have
been writing about the United States as a
“nation of joiners,” many other democracies
have also joined this club.
SOURCE: R. Inglehart et al., eds., “World Values Survey: Round Six—Country-Pooled Datafile Version,” 2014, www
.worldvaluessurvey.org (accessed 5/28/18).
2
1%
1
4
4
4%
7
7
7
7
9
10
12
13
35
56
5%
5
Japan
South Africa
United States
1%
6
2
8
7
50
0%
3
3%
2
4
8
6
5
6
8
14
14
Brazil
Germany
India
PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION THAT REPORTS AS
ACTIVE MEMBERS OF INTEREST GROUPS
Consumer organization Professional association
Labor union
Environmental organization
Art, music, or educational organization
Church or religious organization
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch08_246-273.indd 252 11/28/18 4:30 PM
perspective. The National Right to Life Committee and the Christian Coali-
tion focus on conservative social goals, such as opposing abortion. The National
Taxpayers Union and Americans for Tax Reform campaign to reduce the size of the
federal government. Liberal-leaning groups, including EMILY’s List and MoveOn.
org, support causes such as protecting national parks and public lands, climate
action, free college, and increasing the minimum wage.
Public-Sector Groups The perceived need for representation on Capitol Hill has
generated a public-sector lobby in the past several years, including the National
League of Cities, the National Conference on State Legislatures, and the “research”
lobby. This latter group includes universities and think tanks that have an interest in
obtaining government funds for research and support, such as Harvard University
and the American Enterprise Institute. These groups represent about 10 percent of
Washington lobby groups.
SOME INTERESTS ARE NOT REPRESENTED
It is difficult to categorize unrepresented interests precisely because they are not
organized and are not able to present to governments their identity and their
demands. The political scientist David Truman referred to these interests as “poten-
tial interest groups.”11 He is undoubtedly correct that at any time, as long as there is
freedom, it is possible that any interest shared by a lot of people can develop through
“voluntary association” into a genuine interest group that can demand some rep-
resentation. But the fact remains that many interests—including some very widely
shared interests—do not get organized and recognized. Two such groups are the
homeless and the poor.12 Both groups have shared interests in policy outcomes,
such as job programs and affordable housing, but lack organization through which
to push for government policy to address these concerns.13
GROUP MEMBERSHIP HAS AN UPPER- CL ASS BIAS
Despite the benefits of interest groups in terms of mobilizing and educating the
public and the arguments in favor of pluralism, there are concerns about the influ-
ence of special interests in the United States. One long-standing critic is E. E.
Schattschneider, who argued in a famous quote that “the flaw in the pluralist heaven
is that the heavenly chorus sings with a strong upper-class accent.”14 Critics contend
that interest group politics is heavily skewed in favor of corporate, business, and
upper-class groups, leaving those with lower socioeconomic status less able to
participate in and influence politics.
This is because people with higher incomes, more education, and management
or professional occupations are much more likely to become members of groups
than those who occupy the lower rungs on the socioeconomic ladder.15 Well-
educated, upper-income business- and professional people are more likely to
have the time, money, information, and skills that are needed to play a role in a
group or association. Moreover, for business- and professional people, group
253I N T e R e S T G R O U P S F O R M T O A D v O C AT e F O R D I F F e R e N T I N T e R e S T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch08_246-273.indd 253 11/28/18 4:30 PM
membership may provide personal contacts and access to information that can
help advance their careers. At the same time, of course, corporations and businesses
usually have ample resources to form or participate in groups that seek to advance
their interests.
The result of this elitist tendency is that interest group politics in the United
States has a very pronounced class bias. Certainly, there are many interest groups
and political associations that have a working- or lower-class membership (labor
organizations or welfare rights organizations, for example), but the great majority of
interest group members are drawn from the middle and upper-middle classes. Even
when interest groups take opposing positions on issues and policies, the conflicting
positions they take on policy issues usually reflect divisions among upper-income
strata rather than conflicts between the upper and lower classes. Many policy issues
critical to working and middle-class people—quality public education, efficient
transportation, affordable housing, safe neighborhoods—are often ignored by
government. Thus, when the political system is run by interest groups, democracy
will be unequal and many issues important to average Americans will be ignored.
The Organizational Components
of Groups Include Money, Offices,
and Members
Although interest groups are many
and varied, most share certain key
organizational components. These
include leadership, money, an agency or office, and members.
Leadership and decision-making structure is vital for group organization. For
some groups, this structure is very simple. For others, it can be quite elaborate
and involve hundreds of local chapters that are melded into a national apparatus.
Political entrepreneurs initially organize and lead groups. Later, these leaders are
replaced by a paid professional staff. For example, MoveOn.org initially formed in
1998 as an email group by software entrepreneurs Joan Blades and Wes Boyd to
oppose the impeachment of President Bill Clinton. Beginning as a ragtag band of
liberal activists, MoveOn.org in the past two decades has raised millions of dollars
for candidates and progressive policy issues such as legislation protecting consumers,
the environment, immigrants, and the working class. Today MoveOn.org has
millions of members and 250 local chapters in every state.
Today every group needs a social media strategy. Both progressive and conserv-
ative online advocacy groups often have a streamlined staff structure with little
bureaucracy. As computer scientist Clay Shirky explains in Here Comes Everybody,
the internet has given rise to a proliferation of online organizations without formal
organizing structures.16 Examples include Wikipedia, whose content is provided by
volunteers from around the world. But the real impact of the digital media revolu-
tion is the advent of new forms of organization. Leadership remains a priority for
online organizations. Entrepreneurship and leadership are important for all interest
Describe how groups organize
254 C H A P T E R 8 I N T e R e S T G R O U P S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch08_246-273.indd 254 11/28/18 4:30 PM
groups but especially so for those with little staff and formal organization as the
leader holds the organization together.
A second key organizational component of interest groups is a financial structure
capable of sustaining an organization and funding the group’s activities, although the
costs of maintaining an online organization are lower. Most interest groups rely on mem-
bership dues and voluntary contributions from sympathizers. Many also sell services or
benefits to members, such as insurance and vacation tours. In addition, most groups
establish an agency that carries out the group’s tasks, which may be a research organiza-
tion, a public-relations office, or a lobbying office in Washington or a state capital.
Finally, all interest groups must attract and keep members. Somehow, groups
must persuade individuals to invest the money, time, energy, or effort required to
take part in the group’s activities. Members play a larger role in some groups than in
others. In membership associations, group members play a substantial role, serving on
committees and engaging in group projects. In the case of labor unions, members
pay dues and may march on picket lines; and in the case of political or ideological
groups, members may participate in demonstrations and protests. In another set of
groups, staff organizations, a professional staff conducts most of the group’s activities.
Members are called upon only to pay dues and make other contributions. Among
well-known public interest groups, some, such as the National Organization for
Women (NOW), are membership groups, whereas others, such as Defenders of
Wildlife and the Children’s Defense Fund, are staff organizations.
The “Free-Rider” Problem Whether they need individuals to volunteer or merely
to write checks, interest groups need to recruit and retain members. Yet many
groups find this task difficult, even when it comes to recruiting members who
agree strongly with the group’s goals. Why? As economist Mancur Olson explains,
the benefits of a group’s success are often broadly available and cannot be denied
to nonmembers.17 Such benefits are called collective goods. Following Olson’s own
example, suppose a number of private property owners live near a mosquito-
infested swamp. Each owner wants this swamp cleared. But if only a few of the own-
ers were to clear the swamp, their actions would benefit all the other owners as well,
without any effort on the part of those other owners. Each of the inactive owners
would be a free rider on the efforts of the ones who cleared the swamp; they would
enjoy the benefits of collective goods but without having participated in acquiring
them. Thus, there is a disincentive for any of the owners to undertake the job alone.
Since the number of concerned owners is small in this particular case, they might
eventually be able to organize themselves to share the costs as well as enjoy the
benefits of clearing the swamp. But suppose the number of interested people
increases. Suppose the common concern is not the neighborhood swamp but
polluted air or groundwater involving thousands of residents in a region or millions
of residents in a whole nation. National defense is the most obvious collective good
whose benefits are shared by all residents, regardless of the taxes they pay or the sup-
port they provide. As the size of the group increases, the free-rider problem becomes
greater. Individuals do not have much incentive to become active members and
supporters of a group if they are already benefiting from the group’s activities.
255T H e O R G A N I Z AT I O N A L C O M P O N e N T S O F G R O U P S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch08_246-273.indd 255 11/28/18 4:30 PM
Why Join Groups? To overcome the free-rider problem, interest groups offer
numerous incentives to join. Most important, they make “selective benefits” avail-
able only to group members. These benefits can be information-related, material,
solidary, or purposive—or a combination of benefits. Table 8.1 gives some examples
of the range of benefits in each of these categories.
Informational benefits are the most widespread and important category of selective
benefits offered to group members. Information is provided through conferences,
training programs, online communications, newsletters, and other periodicals sent
automatically to those who have paid membership dues.
Material benefits include anything that can be measured monetarily, such as special
goods, services, and even money, provided to members of groups to entice others
to join. These benefits often include discount purchasing, shared advertising, and,
perhaps most valuable of all, health and retirement insurance.
Another option identified in Table 8.1 is that of solidary benefits. These are
selective benefits of group membership that include friendship, networking, and
consciousness-raising, which provide the satisfaction of working toward a com-
mon goal with like-minded individuals. One example of the latter are the claims
of many women’s organizations that active participation conveys to each female
CATEGORY BENEFITS
Informational benefits Conferences
Professional contacts
Training programs
Publications
Coordination among organizations
Research
Legal help
Professional codes
Collective bargaining
Material benefits Travel packages
Insurance
Discounts on consumer goods
Solidary benefits Friendship
Networking opportunities
Purposive benefits Advocacy
Representation before government
Participation in public affairs
SOURCE: Adapted from Jack Walker, Jr., Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professions, and Social
Movements (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991), 86.
TABLE 8.1
Selective Benefits of Interest
Group Membership
256 C H A P T E R 8 I N T e R e S T G R O U P S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch08_246-273.indd 256 11/28/18 4:30 PM
member of the organization an enhanced sense of her own value and a stronger
ability to advance individual as well as collective rights. Members of associations
based on ethnicity, race, or religion also derive solidary benefits from interact-
ing with individuals they perceive as sharing their own backgrounds, values, and
perspectives.
A fourth type of benefit involves the appeal of the purpose of an interest group.
These purposive benefits emphasize the purpose and accomplishments of the group.
For example, people join religious, consumer, environmental, or other civic groups to
pursue goals important to them.
Many of the most successful interest groups of the past 20 years have been
citizen groups or public interest groups, whose members are brought together largely
around shared ideological goals, including government reform, election and cam-
paign reform, civil rights, economic equality, “family values,” and even opposition
to government itself.
AARP and the Benefits of Membership One group that has been extremely
successful in recruiting members and mobilizing them for political action is AARP
(formerly called the American Association of Retired Persons). AARP was founded
in 1958 as a result of the efforts of a retired California high school principal, Ethel
Percy Andrus, to find affordable health insurance for herself and the thousands of
members of the National Retired Teachers Association.
Today, AARP is a large and powerful organization with 38 million members
and an annual income of $900 million. In addition, the organization receives
$90 million in federal grants. Its national headquarters in Washington, D.C., staffed
by nearly 3,000 full-time employees, is so large that it has its own zip code.
How did this large organization overcome the free-rider problem and recruit
38 million older people as members? First, no other organization has ever pro-
vided more successfully the selective benefits necessary to overcome the free-rider
problem. It helps that AARP began as an organization to provide affordable health
insurance for aging members rather than as an organization to influence public
policy. But that fact only strengthens the argument that members need short-term
individual benefits if they are to invest effort in a longer-term and less concrete set
of benefits. As AARP evolved into a political interest group, its leadership added
more selective benefits for members. They provided guidance against consumer
fraud, offered low-interest credit cards, evaluated and endorsed products that were
deemed of best value to members, and provided auto insurance and a discounted
mail-order pharmacy. The membership fee is only $16 (or less with a multi-year
membership).
THE INTERNET HAS CHANGED THE WAY INTEREST
GROUPS FOSTER PARTICIPATION
Digital communication is changing how interest groups foster participation in
politics and sustained collective action by citizens. For example, liberal-leaning
MoveOn.org and conservative-leaning Americans for Prosperity have arisen over
257T H e O R G A N I Z AT I O N A L C O M P O N e N T S O F G R O U P S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch08_246-273.indd 257 11/28/18 4:30 PM
the past two decades to play an increasingly important role in citizen participation
in politics. These grassroots online activist organizations have redefined membership
and fund-raising practices via innovative methods for communicating with their
members, measuring the opinions of their members, and moving their members
into action—in terms of both influencing public opinion and working on behalf
of the organization.
Traditional interest groups are expensive to organize (which is one reason group
membership has an upper-class bias), and they rely on professional advocates and
direct mail. They are also slow to change. By contrast, today’s advocacy groups are
quick to adapt to an ever-changing world of politics and have lower costs than
traditional interest groups because they have fewer staff, who often work from
virtual offices. This less expensive staff structure engages in different work routines
that prioritize communication with members through email, Twitter, and other
digital platforms.
Today’s advocacy groups employ grassroots strategies to pressure elected offi-
cials, including using social media to organize rallies, and generate news head-
lines, fund-raising events, letter-writing campaigns, boycotts, and protests. In the
aftermath of a mass shooting at a high school in Parkland, Florida, in February
2018, for example, students there used social media, including Twitter, Instagram,
Facebook, and Snapchat, to mobilize Americans across the nation in support of
stronger gun laws. Under the label “March for Our Lives,” these students suc-
cessfully coordinated a mass rally in Washington, D.C., and subsequent rallies
around the country. Largely as a result of their efforts, and those of supporters they
attracted, several states enacted tougher gun laws.18 Online advocacy groups may
improve representation for citizens, counteracting the disproportionate influence
of business and corporate interests in Washington. Both liberal and conservative
groups alike, as well as economic interest groups, have been better able to organize
and affect government policy in the past decade with the help of the internet and
social media.
The Number of Groups Has
Increased in Recent Decades
Over the past several decades, there
has been an enormous increase both
in the number of interest groups
seeking to play a role in the American
political process and in the extent of
their influence over that process. This explosion of interest group activity has two
basic origins: first, the expansion of the role of government during this period
and, second, the coming-of-age of a new dynamic set of political forces in the
United States—forces that have relied heavily on public interest groups to advance
their causes.
Analyze why the number of interest
and advocacy groups has grown in
recent decades
258 C H A P T E R 8 I N T e R e S T G R O U P S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch08_246-273.indd 258 11/28/18 4:30 PM
THE EXPANSION OF GOVERNMENT HAS SPURRED
THE GROWTH OF GROUPS
Modern governments’ extensive economic and social programs have powerful polit-
icizing effects, often sparking the organization of new groups and interests. In other
words, interest groups often form as the result of, or in response to, government
actions, rather than groups pressing the government to take on new responsibilities.
For example, during the 1970s, expanded federal regulation of the automobile, oil,
gas, education, and health care industries impelled each of these interests to increase
substantially its efforts to influence the government’s behavior. These efforts, in turn,
spurred the organization of other groups, either to support or to oppose the activities
of the first.19 Similarly, federal social programs have sparked political organization
and action by affected groups. For example, federal programs and court decisions
in such areas as abortion, school prayer, and same-sex marriage helped spur the rise
of fundamentalist religious groups. Thus, the expansion of government in recent
decades has also stimulated increased group activity and organization.
PUBLIC INTEREST GROUPS GREW IN THE 1960S AND ’70S
The second factor accounting for the explosion of interest group activity was the
emergence of a new set of forces in American politics that can collectively be called
the “New Politics” movement.
The New Politics movement is made up of upper-middle-class professionals and intel-
lectuals for whom the civil rights and anti–Vietnam War movements of the 1960s were
formative experiences. The crusade against racial discrimination and the Vietnam War
led these young men and women to see themselves as a political force, focusing their
attention on such issues as environmental protection, women’s rights, and nuclear dis-
armament. In recent years, these citizens have focused attention on issues such as envi-
ronmental protection, economic inequality, and rights for the LGBTQ community.
Members of the New Politics movement founded or bolstered public interest groups
such as Common Cause, the Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Fund, Physicians
for Social Responsibility, NOW, and the various organizations formed by consumer
activist Ralph Nader. Through these groups, New Politics forces were able to influence
the media, Congress, and the courts, and enjoyed a remarkable degree of success, play-
ing a major role in gaining the passage of environmental, consumer, and occupational
health and safety legislation. Today, the internet and digital platforms, including social
media and blogs, reduce the cost and increase the reach of organizing activities.
Interest Groups Use Different
Strategies to Gain Influence
As we have seen, interest groups
work to improve the likelihood that
their interests will be heard and
treated favorably by the government.
Explain how interest groups try to
influence government
259I N T e R e S T G R O U P S U S e D I F F e R e N T S T R AT e G I e S T O G A I N I N F L U e N C e
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch08_246-273.indd 259 11/28/18 4:30 PM
The quest for political influence or power takes many forms, but among the most
frequently used strategies or “tactics of influence” (see Figure 8.1) are lobby-
ing, gaining access to key decision makers, using the courts, mobilizing public
opinion, and using electoral politics. Many groups employ a mix of insider and
outsider strategies.
FIGURE 8.1
How Interest Groups Influence Congress
Activate constituents
whose jobs or businesses
are affected; provide them
with information and
arguments; help them
organize, write letters,
leaflets, etc.
Alliances
and logrolls
Media
PAC funds, endorsements,
information campaigns,
testimony
Letters, emails,
phone calls,
letters to news
editors, visits to
Washington, work
in elections
Gain access—
information,
develop
personal
contacts and
ties, favors
Advice
Direct
lobbying
Mobilize public opinion—
release favorable research
findings, news releases,
public relations campaigns,
tips to reporters
News stories and
editorials favorable
to interest group
Congressional
staff
Targeted
members of
Congress
Constituents
Interest
group
Other members
of Congress
260 C H A P T E R 8 I N T e R e S T G R O U P S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch08_246-273.indd 260 11/28/18 4:30 PM
DIRECT LOBBYING COMBINES EDUCATION,
PERSUASION, AND PRESSURE
Lobbying is a strategy by which organized interests seek to influence the passage of
legislation or other public policy by exerting direct pressure on members of the
legislature. Lobbying encompasses a wide range of activities that groups engage in
with all sorts of government officials and the public as a whole.
Lobbyists first and foremost provide information to lawmakers about their
interests and the legislation at hand.20 They often testify on behalf of their clients at
congressional committee and agency hearings. Lobbyists talk to reporters, place ads
in newspapers, and organize letter-writing and email campaigns. They also play an
important role in fund-raising, helping to direct clients’ contributions to members
of Congress and presidential candidates.
Traditionally, the term lobbyist referred mainly to individuals who sought
to influence the passage of legislation in the Congress. The First Amendment to
the Constitution provides for the right to “petition the Government for a redress
of grievances.” But as early as the 1870s, lobbying became the common term for
“petitioning.” And since petitioning cannot take place on the floor of the House or
Senate, petitioners must confront members of Congress in the lobbies of the legisla-
tive chamber—hence the term lobbying. Although interest groups do not necessarily
buy votes, they do buy time, expertise, and influence. Studies have found that those
interest groups providing the most money to representatives are more likely to be
consulted by that representative and asked to provide information and expertise in
discussing a bill pertaining to that group’s area of interest. This, in essence, gives
interest groups a voice in shaping how legislation is written, and while it cannot
ensure votes for laws preferred by the group, it is an effective means for organized
interests to influence policy.
The influence of lobbyists, in many instances, is based on personal rela-
tionships and the behind-the-scenes services they are able to perform for
lawmakers. Many of Washington’s top lobbyists have close ties to important
members of Congress or are themselves former members of Congress, thus vir-
tually guaranteeing that their clients will have direct access to congressional
leaders.
What happens to interests that do not engage in extensive lobbying? They often
find themselves “Microsofted”; that is, marginalized in the political process. In
1998 the software giant was facing antitrust action from the Justice Department
and had few friends in Congress. One member of the House, Representative Billy
Tauzin (R-La.), told Microsoft’s chair, Bill Gates, that without an extensive invest-
ment in lobbying, the corporation would continue to be “demonized.” Gates
responded by quadrupling Microsoft’s lobbying expenditures and hiring lobbyists
with strong ties to Congress. The result was congressional pressure on the Justice
Department that led to a settlement of the Microsoft suit on terms favorable to
the company.21
261I N T e R e S T G R O U P S U S e D I F F e R e N T S T R AT e G I e S T O G A I N I N F L U e N C e
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch08_246-273.indd 261 11/28/18 4:30 PM
CULTIVATING ACCESS MEANS GETTING THE
ATTENTION OF DECISION MAKERS
In many areas, interest groups, government agencies, and congressional com-
mittees routinely work together for mutual benefit. The interest group provides
campaign contributions for members of Congress, lobbies for larger budgets for
the agency, and provides policy expertise to lawmakers. The agency, in turn, pro-
vides government contracts for the interest group and constituency services for
friendly members of Congress. The congressional committee or subcommittee,
meanwhile, supports the agency’s budgetary requests and the programs the inter-
est group favors. This so-called iron triangle has one angle in an executive branch
program, another angle in a Senate or House legislative committee or subcom-
mittee, and a third angle in some highly stable and well-organized interest group.
The angles in the triangular relationship are mutually supporting, especially if a
committee member has seniority in Congress. Figure 8.2 illustrates one of the
most important iron triangles in recent American political history: that of the
defense industry. Iron triangles explain how interest groups have influence over
FIGURE 8.2
The Iron Triangle in the Defense Sector
Defense contractors are powerful actors in shaping defense policy; they act in concert
with defense committees and subcommittees in Congress and executive agencies
concerned with defense.
Congress
House National Security
and Senate Armed Services
committees, and Defense
Appropriations subcommittees;
Joint Committee on Defense Production;
Joint Economic Committee; House and
Senate members from districts with
interests in defense industry
Boeing, Lockheed Martin,
Northrop Grumman,
Raytheon, General Dynamics
Executive Agencies
Department of Defense,
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration,
Department of Energy
Defense Contractors
262 C H A P T E R 8 I N T e R e S T G R O U P S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch08_246-273.indd 262 11/28/18 4:30 PM
both Congress and the government agency directly regulating their interests in
many policy areas.
A number of important policy domains, such as environmental and tax
policies, are controlled not by highly structured iron triangles but by a jumble of
issue networks. These networks consist of like-minded politicians, consultants,
public officials, political activists, and interest groups having some concern with
the issue in question. Activists and interest groups recognized as being involved
in the area (the “stakeholders”) are customarily invited to testify before congres-
sional committees or give their views to government agencies considering action
in their domain.
Regulating Lobbying Lobbyists’ extensive access to members of Congress has led to
repeated calls for reform. In 2007 congressional Democrats secured the enactment
of a new package of ethics rules designed to bring an end to lobbying abuses. The
new rules prohibited lobbyists from paying for most meals, trips, parties, and gifts
for members of Congress. Lobbyists were also required to disclose the amounts and
sources of small campaign contributions they collected from clients and “bundled”
into large contributions. And interest groups were required to disclose the funds
they used to rally voters to support or oppose legislative proposals. According to the
Washington Post, however, within a few weeks lobbyists had learned how to circum-
vent many of the new rules, and lobbying firms were as busy as ever.22
USING THE COURTS (LITIGATION) CAN BE
HIGHLY EFFECTIVE
Interest groups sometimes turn to litigation when they lack access or when they feel
they have insufficient influence to change a law or policy. Interest groups can use
the courts to affect public policy in at least three ways: (1) by bringing suit directly
on behalf of the group itself, (2) by financing suits brought by individuals, and
(3) by filing a companion brief as an amicus curiae (literally “friend of the court”) to
an existing court case.
Among the best-known illustrations of using the courts as a strategy for political
influence is found in the history of the National Association for the Advancement
of Colored People (NAACP). The most important of such court cases was Brown
v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (1954), in which the U.S. Supreme Court
held that legal segregation of the schools was unconstitutional.23 Later, extensive
litigation spearheaded the women’s rights movement of the 1960s and the rights of
gays and lesbians since the 1990s.
The 1973 Supreme Court case of Roe v. Wade, which took away a state’s power
to ban abortions, sparked a controversy that brought conservatives to the fore on a
national level.24 Since 1973, conservative groups have made extensive and successful
use of the courts to whittle away at the scope of the privacy doctrine upon which
the ruling in Roe v. Wade was based. They won rulings, for example, that prohibit
the use of federal funds to pay for voluntary abortions. In 1989, right-to-life groups
were able to use the case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services to restore the right
of states to place restrictions on abortion, thus partly undermining the Roe v. Wade
263I N T e R e S T G R O U P S U S e D I F F e R e N T S T R AT e G I e S T O G A I N I N F L U e N C e
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch08_246-273.indd 263 11/28/18 4:30 PM
decision (see Chapter 4).25 The Webster case brought more than 300 interest groups
on both sides of the abortion issue to the Supreme Court’s door. The movement
to extend rights for gays and lesbians also found success in the courts. In 2015, in
the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court declared that the Fourteenth
Amendment prohibited states from refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex
couples.26
Litigation involving large businesses is voluminous in such areas as taxation, anti-
trust, interstate transportation, and product quality and standardization. Often a
business is brought to litigation against its will by virtue of initiatives taken against
it by other businesses or by government agencies. But many individual businesses
bring suit themselves in order to influence government policy.
MOBILIZING PUBLIC OPINION BRINGS
WIDER ATTENTION TO AN ISSUE
Going public is a strategy that attempts to mobilize the widest and most favorable
climate of opinion and is a favored strategy of public interest groups, membership
groups, or online advocacy groups. Many groups consider it imperative to maintain
political pressure at all times. Online advocacy groups rely heavily on mobilizing
their members via social media, Twitter campaigns, and targeted email messages
on short notice. On any given day a new viral media story may become headline
news, and in most cases an interest group is behind the story. Such groups span the
ideological spectrum, from liberal to conservative, and can wield significant pressure
on elected officials to act.
Institutional Advertising One of the best-known ways of going public is the use of
institutional advertising—advertising designed to create a positive image of an organ-
ization. A casual scanning of important mass-circulation magazines, newspapers,
and television provides numerous examples of expensive and well-designed ads by
the major oil and gas companies, automobile and steel companies, other large cor-
porations, and trade associations. The ads attempt to show how much these organi-
zations are doing for the country. Their purpose is to create and maintain a strongly
positive public image in the hope of drawing on these favorable feelings as needed
for specific political campaigns later on.
Protests and Demonstrations Many groups resort to going public because they
lack the resources, the contacts, or the experience to use other political strategies.
The sponsorship of boycotts, sit-ins, mass rallies, and marches by Martin Luther
King, Jr.’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference and related organizations in
the 1950s and ’60s is one of the most significant and successful cases of going public
to create a more favorable climate of opinion by calling attention to abuses. The
success of these events inspired similar efforts by women’s groups.
The 2010 Republican takeover of the House of Representatives began with
the spontaneous self-organization of the Tea Party movement in 2009 as an
angry response to the Obama administration’s health care initiatives. In 2011
264 C H A P T E R 8 I N T e R e S T G R O U P S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch08_246-273.indd 264 11/28/18 4:30 PM
the Occupy Wall Street movement sparked demonstrations across America and
around the world by those who were outraged by economic inequality. In 2014
the Black Lives Matter movement gained momentum after the shooting of a black
teenager by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. Shootings of black people
by police across the country have led to major demonstrations under the banner
of the movement.
Grassroots Mobilization Another form of going public is grassroots mobilization. In
such a campaign, a lobby group mobilizes its members throughout the country to
contact government officials in support of the group’s position.
Among the most effective users of the grassroots lobby effort in contemporary
American politics is the religious right. Networks of evangelical churches have the
capacity to generate hundreds of thousands of letters and phone calls to Congress
and the White House. Similarly, the NRA maintains a powerful grassroots lob-
bying effort, spending more on mobilization of its members than on professional
lobbyists. The NRA’s 3.5 million dues-paying members can be mobilized to flood
congressional offices with letters and phone calls, and few members of Congress are
eager to pick a fight with the group.27 As discussed earlier, the interests of the NRA
were seriously challenged in 2018 when high school students and teachers gained
national attention and garnered massive support by launching the March for Our
Lives movement to demand stricter regulations on gun ownership after a string of
school shootings.
Seeking to reform the criminal justice system and call attention to continued racism in the United
States, the Black Lives Matter movement formed in 2013 and earned national attention following a
series of high-profile shootings of African Americans by white police officers.
265I N T e R e S T G R O U P S U S e D I F F e R e N T S T R AT e G I e S T O G A I N I N F L U e N C e
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch08_246-273.indd 265 11/28/18 4:30 PM
GROUPS OF TEN USE ELECTORAL POLITICS
In addition to the techniques already discussed, interest groups seek to use the elec-
toral process to elect sympathetic legislators in the first place and to ensure that those
who are elected will owe them a debt of gratitude for their support. While groups
invest far more resources in lobbying than in electoral politics, financial support and
campaign activism can be important tools for organized interests.
Political Action Committees and Super PACs By far the most common electoral
strategy employed by interest groups is that of giving financial support to political
parties or to candidates running for office. But such support can easily cross the
threshold into outright bribery. Therefore, Congress has occasionally attempted to
regulate this strategy, but with limited success. The Federal Election Campaign Act
of 1971 (amended in 1974) limits campaign contributions and requires that each
candidate or campaign committee itemize the full name and address, occupation,
and principal business of each person who contributes more than $100. These
provisions create an open record of which organizations and individuals fund the
campaigns of candidates for public office.
Reaction to campaign spending abuses in the 1972 Watergate scandal produced
further legislation on campaign finance in 1974 and 1976, but the effect has been
to restrict individual rather than interest group campaign activity. In the 2017–18
election cycle, individuals could contribute no more than $2,700 to any candidate
for federal office in any primary or general election. A PAC, however, can contribute
$5,000, provided it contributes to at least five different federal candidates each year.
Beyond this, the laws permit corporations, unions, and other interest groups to form
PACs and to pay the costs of soliciting funds from private citizens for the PACs.
The flurry of reform legislation in the 1970s attempted to reduce the influence
that interest groups had over elections, but the effect has been the exact opposite.
Electoral spending by interest groups has been increasing dramatically. The number
of PACs has also increased significantly—from 480 in 1972 to over 7,000 in 2016.
Opportunities for legally influencing campaigns are now widespread.
Given the enormous costs of television commercials, polls, computers, and other
elements of the new political technology, most politicians are eager to receive PAC
contributions and are at least willing to give a friendly hearing to the needs and
interests of contributors. Most politicians do not simply sell their votes to the inter-
ests that fund their campaigns. But there is considerable evidence to support the
contention that interest groups’ campaign contributions do influence the overall
pattern of political behavior in Congress and in the state legislatures.
Concern about PACs grew through the 1980s and ’90s, creating a constant drum-
beat for reform of federal election laws. This resulted in the enactment of the “McCain-
Feingold bill” (the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002). When it was originally
proposed, the bill was aimed at reducing or eliminating PACs. But in a stunning
about-face, when the act was adopted, it did not restrict PACs in any significant way.
In addition, several court rulings, including the Supreme Court’s Citizens United
case in 2010, struck down limits on corporate political spending which gave rise to
so-called Super PACs.28 Super PACs cannot donate to candidates or parties directly,
266 C H A P T E R 8 I N T e R e S T G R O U P S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch08_246-273.indd 266 11/28/18 4:30 PM
but they can spend unlimited sums of money on campaigns to influence an elec-
tion in favor of candidates or parties, as long as their activity (for example, cam-
paign ads or mobilization efforts) is not coordinated with the candidates or parties.
Because there are no limits on the amount of money Super PACs may raise from
corporations, unions, interest groups, and individuals to then spend to influence
elections, they have become more important than PACs and have had the effect
of strengthening interest groups. These organizations’ expenditures are viewed
as “issue advocacy” and are protected by the First Amendment. Citizens United
dramatically increased the flow of money from Super PACs by removing restric-
tions on corporate and union political spending, freeing the Super PAC to back
whatever politicians it chooses.29
In the 2016 presidential election, independent expenditures totaled about
$1.3 billion, of which $594 million came from Super PACs. Candidates Hillary
Clinton and Donald Trump raised $1.5 billion total, and the Super PACs supporting
them raised $618 million, according to the Center for Responsive Government.30 In
2016, Super PACs spent more than $1.1 billion on House and Senate races.31 In the
2018 election there were 2,224 Super PACs, which together spent $815 million.32
Super PACs now account for a major amount of the money spent in elections. The
unlimited money raised and spent by independent political committees makes the
formal regulations on PACs and individual contributions almost irrelevant.
The Initiative Another political tactic sometimes used by interest groups is sponsor-
ship of ballot initiatives at the state level. The initiative, a device adopted by a num-
ber of states around 1900, allows proposed laws to be placed on the general-election
ballot and submitted directly to the state’s voters, bypassing the state legislature
and governor. The initiative was originally promoted by late nineteenth-century
Populists and Progressives as a mechanism that would allow the people to govern
directly—an antidote to interest group influence in the legislative process.
Some studies have suggested that, ironically, many initiative campaigns today are
actually sponsored by interest groups seeking to circumvent legislative opposition
to their goals. In recent years, for example, initiative campaigns have been spon-
sored by the insurance industry, trial lawyer associations, and tobacco companies.33
Liberal activists have developed their own issue campaigns to promote issues such as
increasing the minimum wage, promoting clean energy, strengthening environmen-
tal protection laws, and decriminalizing of marijuana.
Groups and Interests
WHAT DO WE WANT?
We would like to think that government policies are products of legislators represent-
ing the public interest. The truth of the matter is that few programs and policies ever
reach the public agenda without the vigorous efforts of important national interest
267G R O U P S A N D I N T e R e S T S : W H AT D O W e W A N T ?
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch08_246-273.indd 267 11/28/18 4:30 PM
groups. In the realm of economic policy, social policy, and international trade policy,
the activity of interest groups is of critical importance.
James Madison wrote that “liberty is to faction as air is to fire.”34 By this he meant
that the organization and proliferation of interests are inevitable in a free society. As
long as competition among different interests was free, open, and vigorous—that is,
as long as pluralism thrived—there would be some balance of power among them,
and no one interest would be able to dominate the political or governmental process.
Indeed, there is considerable competition among organized groups in the United
States. Prochoice and antiabortion forces, for example, continue to be locked in a
bitter struggle, as are the NRA and gun control groups. Nevertheless, interest group
politics is not as balanced as Madison’s theory and pluralism might suggest. Although
the weak and poor do occasionally become organized to assert their interests, inter-
est group politics is generally a form of political competition best suited to the wealthy
and powerful.
Moreover, although groups sometimes organize to promote broad public concerns,
they more often represent relatively narrow, selfish interests. Small groups seeking
narrow interests can be organized much more easily than large and diffuse collec-
tives. The members of relatively small groups—say, bankers or hunting enthusiasts—
are usually able to recognize their shared interests and the need to pursue them in
the political arena. Members of large and diffuse groups—say, consumers or the
unemployed—often find it difficult to recognize their shared interests or the need to
engage in collective action to achieve them.35 Whether Ben Brown’s new Association
of Young Americans (discussed at the start of the chapter) can grow and achieve leg-
islative success remains to be seen, as younger Americans’ activism may be undercut
by the diverse array of interests they have and by the many immediate concerns that
dominate their time (school, work, and family, among others).
Organized interest groups sometimes seem to have a greater impact than voters
on the government’s policies and programs, especially through lobbying and financial
contributions to political candidates. (The “Who Participates?” feature on the facing
page shows how much major groups spend on lobbying activities.) Yet, before we
decide that we should do away with interest groups, we should think carefully: If there
were no organized interests, would the government pay more attention to ordinary
voters? Would young people be better or worse off if there were no interest groups in
the United States? Or would the government simply pay less attention to everyone?
In his work Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville argued that the proliferation
of groups promoted democracy by encouraging governmental responsiveness. Does
group politics foster democracy or impede democracy? It does both.
268 C H A P T E R 8 I N T e R e S T G R O U P S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch08_246-273.indd 268 11/28/18 4:30 PM
= $1,000,000Lobbying Expenditures, 2016 (top spenders)
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
WHO PAR TICIPATES?
SOURCE: Center for Responsive Politics, www.opensecrets.org/lobby
(accessed 11/21/17).
How Much Do Major
Groups Spend?
U.S. Chamber of Commerce
$103,950,000
National Association of Realtors
$64,821,111
Blue Cross/Blue Shield
$25,006,109
Pharmaceutical Research
& Manufacturers of America
$19,730,000
American Medical
Association
$19,410,000
Boeing Co.
$17,020,000
National Association
of Broadcasters
$16,438,000
American Hospital
Association
$22,006,109
AT&T Inc.
$16,370,000
Comcast Corp.
$14,330,000
Northrop Grumman
$12,050,000
ExxonMobil
$11,840,000
Amazon.com
$11,354,000
FedEx Corp.
$12,541,000
The Internet
& Television
Association (NCTA)
$13,420,000
Alphabet Inc.
$15,430,000
Lockheed Martin
$13,615,811
Dow Chemical
$13,635,982
Business
Roundtable
$15,700,000
Southern Co.
$13,900,000
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch08_246-273.indd 269 11/28/18 4:30 PM
Practice Quiz
1. The theory that competition among
organized interests will produce
balance, with all the interests regulat-
ing one another, is called (p. 249)
a) pluralism.
b) elite power politics.
c) democracy.
d) socialism.
e) libertarianism.
2. The Natural Resources Defense
Council, the Sierra Club, the National
Civic League, and the Common Cause
are all examples of (p. 251)
a) membership associations.
b) citizen groups.
c) professional associations.
d) ideological groups.
e) public-sector groups.
3. Benefits sought by groups that are
broadly available and cannot be denied
to nonmembers are called (p. 255)
a) purposive benefits.
b) informational benefits.
c) solidary benefits.
d) material benefits.
e) collective goods.
4. Discount purchasing and health
insurance are examples of (p. 256)
a) purposive benefits.
b) informational benefits.
c) solidary benefits.
d) material benefits.
e) member dues.
Get Involved with Interest Groups
and Lobbying
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
Find an interest group that appeals to you at votesmart.org/interest-groups,
then follow that group on Facebook or Twitter.
Find out which groups give the most money to your representatives in
Congress by clicking “Congress” at www.opensecrets.org/politicians.
You can look up your representatives by zip code.
Contact your Center for Campus Life to �nd out if groups you’re
interested in have chapters on your campus. Many groups will gladly
help students start campus chapters.
270 S T U D Y G U I D e
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch08_246-273.indd 270 11/28/18 4:30 PM
5. Friendship and networking are
examples of (p. 256)
a) purposive benefits.
b) informational benefits.
c) solidary benefits.
d) material benefits.
e) member dues.
6. Which of the following is an important
reason for the enormous increase
in the number of groups seeking to
influence the American political
system? (p. 258)
a) the decrease in the size and
activity of government during the
last few decades
b) the increase in the size and activity
of government during the last few
decades
c) the increase in the amount of soft
money in election campaigns in
recent decades
d) the increase in legal protection
provided to interest groups as
a result of the Supreme Court’s
evolving interpretation of the First
Amendment
e) the increase in the number of
people identifying themselves as
an independent in recent decades
7. The term “Microsofted” refers to
(p. 261)
a) an individual having their identity
stolen as a result of a data breach
at a major technology company.
b) a company becoming marginalized
in the political process as a result
of insufficient efforts to lobby policy
makers.
c) a member of Congress accepting
monetary bribes in exchange for
protecting a company’s monopoly
status.
d) interest groups filing lawsuits
against privately owned companies
in order to promote social
change.
e) wealthy business people, such
as Bill Gates, using their wealth
to finance the creation and
lobbying efforts of public interest
groups.
8. A stable, cooperative relationship
between a congressional committee,
on administrative agency, and one or
more supportive interest groups is
called (p. 262)
a) an issue network.
b) a public interest group.
c) a political action committee.
d) pluralism.
e) an iron triangle.
9. Which of the following best describes
the federal government’s rules
regarding lobbying? (pp. 261–3)
a) Federal rules allow lobbying but
only on issues related to taxation.
b) Federal rules allow lobbying but
only if the lobbyists receive no
monetary compensation for their
lobbying.
c) Federal rules strictly prohibit any
form of lobbying.
d) Federal rules require all lobbyists to
disclose the amounts and sources
of small campaign contributions
they collect from clients and
“bundle” into large contributions.
e) There are no rules regulating lobby-
ing because the federal government
has never passed any legislation on
the legality of the activity.
10. Which of the following is a way that
interest groups use the courts to
influence public policy? (p. 263)
a) supplying judges with solidary
benefits
b) joining an issue network
c) creating an iron triangle
d) forming a political action committee
e) filing amicus briefs
11. Which of the following are examples
of the “going public” strategy?
(pp. 264–5)
a) free riding, pluralism, and issue
networking
b) donating money to political
parties, endorsing candidates,
and sponsoring ballot initiatives
c) institutional advertising, grassroots
advertising, and protests and
demonstrations
271S T U D Y G U I D e
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch08_246-273.indd 271 11/28/18 4:30 PM
Key Terms
collective goods (p. 255) benefits, sought
by groups, that are broadly available and
cannot be denied to nonmembers
free riders (p. 255) those who enjoy the
benefits of collective goods but did not
participate in acquiring them
grassroots mobilization (p. 265) a lobbying
campaign in which a group mobilizes its
membership to contact government officials
in support of the group’s position
informational benefits (p. 256) special
newsletters, periodicals, training programs,
conferences, and other information provid-
ed to members of groups to entice others
to join
institutional advertising (p. 264) advertising
designed to create a positive image of an
organization
interest group (p. 249) individuals who
organize to influence the government’s
programs and policies
iron triangle (p. 262) the stable, cooperative
relationships that often develop among a
congressional committee, an administrative
agency, and one or more supportive inter-
est groups; not all of these relationships
d) providing informational benefits,
providing solidary benefits, and
providing material benefits
e) filing an amicus brief, bringing a
lawsuit, and financing those who
are filing a lawsuit
12. One of the major differences
between PACs and Super PACs
is that (p. 266)
a) a PAC has a maximum contribu-
tion limit of $500 per candidate in
each election cycle while a Super
PAC has a maximum contribution
limit of $1,000.
b) a PAC has a maximum contribution
limit of $1,000 per candidate in
each election cycle while a Super
PAC has a maximum contribution
limit of $5,000.
c) a PAC has a maximum contribution
limit of $5,000 per candidate in
each election cycle while a Super
PAC has a maximum contribution
limit of $10,000.
d) a PAC has a maximum contribution
limit of $5,000 per candidate in
each election cycle while a Super
PAC cannot donate to candidates
directly.
e) a Super PAC has a maximum
contribution limit of $5,000 per
candidate in each election cycle
while a PAC cannot donate to
candidates directly.
are triangular, but the iron triangle is the
most typical
lobbying (p. 261) a strategy by which
organized interests seek to influence
the passage of legislation or other public
policy by exerting direct pressure on mem-
bers of the legislature
material benefits (p. 256) special goods,
services, or money provided to members of
groups to entice others to join
membership association (p. 255) an
organized group in which members
actually play a substantial role, sitting
on committees and engaging in group
projects
New Politics movement (p. 259) a
political movement that began in the
1960s and ’70s, made up of professionals
and intellectuals for whom the civil rights
and antiwar movements were formative
experiences; the New Politics movement
strengthened public interest groups
pluralism (p. 249) the theory that all inter-
ests are and should be free to compete for
influence in the government; the outcome
of this competition is compromise and
moderation
272 S T U D Y G U I D e
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch08_246-273.indd 272 11/28/18 4:30 PM
Ainsworth, Scott. Analyzing Interest Groups. New York: W. W. Norton, 2002.
Baumgartner, Frank, Jeffrey M. Berry, Beth L. Leech, David C. Kimball, and Marie
Hojnacki. Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 2009.
Berry, Jeffrey M., and Clyde Wilcox. Interest Group Society. 5th ed. New York: Routledge,
2008.
Cigler, Allan J., and Burdett A. Loomis, eds. Interest Group Politics. 9th ed. Washington,
DC: CQ Press, 2015.
Drutman, Lee. The Business of America Is Lobbying: How Corporations Became Politicized
and Politics Became More Corporate. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.
Goldstein, Kenneth. Interest Groups, Lobbying, and Participation in America. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Herrnson, Paul, and Christopher Deering. Interest Groups Unleashed. Washington, DC:
CQ Press, 2012.
Karpf, David. The MoveOn Effect: The Unexpected Transformation of American Political
Advocacy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.
Lowi, Theodore J. The End of Liberalism. New York: W. W. Norton, 1979.
Olson, Mancur, Jr. The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971.
Strolovitch, Dara. Affirmative Advocacy: Race, Class, and Gender in Interest Group Politics.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007.
For Further Reading
political action committee (PAC) (p. 250) a
private group that raises and distributes
funds for use in election campaigns
public interest groups (p. 251) groups that
claim they serve the general good rather
than only their own particular interest
purposive benefits (p. 257) selective benefits
of group membership that emphasize the
purpose and accomplishments of the group
solidary benefits (p. 256) selective
benefits of group membership that
emphasize friendship, networking, and
consciousness-raising
staff organization (p. 255) type of
membership group in which a professional
staff conducts most of the group’s
activities
Super PACs (p. 266) an independent
political action committee that may raise
unlimited sums of money from corpora-
tions, unions, and individuals but is not
permitted to contribute to or coordinate
directly with parties or candidates
273S T U D Y G U I D e
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch08_246-273.indd 273 11/28/18 4:30 PM
Congress
WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES AND WHY IT MATTERS As the
nation’s chief legislative body, Congress affects Americans every day with its
decisions. Guy Berkebile, founder of the Guy Chemical Company of Somerset,
Pennsylvania, was thrilled with the Tax Cut and Jobs Act passed by Congress
in late 2017. The bill lowers taxes for both large corporations and small busi-
nesses like Guy Chemical, which manufactures silicone and epoxy adhesives.
Berkebile noted that high business taxes had presented a challenge for him
as a small business owner. “I did not draw a salary from my company for
five years when I started it because the survival of my business in paying my
employees was always more important than how much I was making at the
time,” noted Berkebile, who mortgaged his house seven times to help finance
the business. He will face a lower tax rate under the new law.1
Congressional inaction affects Americans as well. Hazel Hoffman is a
5-year-old Illinois girl who suffers from a severe form of epilepsy, which
frequently sends her to the hospital with powerful seizures and which requires
expensive medications. Adding Hazel to her mother’s health insurance at work
090909
chapter
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch09_274-313.indd 274 11/28/18 4:35 PM
Congress Congress’s actions—or lack of action—deeply affect the
lives of everyday Americans. Taxes and children’s health
insurance are two issues that Congress has tackled recently.
would cost $6,000 per year and would only cover half her health care costs.
Instead, Hazel is enrolled in the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP),
created in 1997 to cover children in families with incomes too high for Medi-
caid but who can’t afford private coverage. It has widely been viewed as a suc-
cess, insuring nearly 9 million children for $13.6 billion in 20162 (in contrast,
Medicare for older people and the permanently disabled insures 57 million
people for $588 billion—six times the people for 43 times the cost).3 CHIP
was due for renewal in September 2017, but Congress declined to take action
for months, unable to agree on a spending bill and contemplating a federal
government shutdown. With CHIP money running out, officials in a number
of states were forced to draft letters to families terminating their coverage.
Finally, in January 2018, Congress broke its log jam and reauthorized CHIP for
six years, but not before sending families into a panic about what they would
do for health insurance if CHIP collapsed.
Congress has vast authority over many aspects of American life. Laws
related to federal spending, taxing, regulation, and federal judicial appointments
275
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch09_274-313.indd 275 11/28/18 4:35 PM
all pass through Congress. While the debates over these laws may seem hard
to follow because they are often complex and technical or because heated,
partisan struggles distract from the substance of the issue, it is important
for the American people to learn about what Congress is doing. Actions
taken—or not taken—in Congress affect the everyday experiences we take for
granted. With its power to spend and tax, Congress also affects the choices
that people face and the opportunities they can expect in life. Making laws
is a complex and often messy process. Even so, it is vital for citizens to
monitor what Congress does. With so much information about Congress
available on the internet, it is not hard to get beyond the heated rhetoric and
simplistic headlines and ask your own questions about a proposed law. How
will it affect my life and the lives of people I care about? What is the impact
on my country?
★ Describe who serves in Congress and how they represent their
constituents (pp. 277–88)
★ Explain how party leadership, the committee system, and the staff
system help structure congressional business (pp. 288–93)
★ Outline the steps in the process of passing a law (pp. 293–97)
★ Analyze the factors that influence which laws Congress passes
(pp. 297–303)
★ Describe Congress’s influence over other branches of government
(pp. 303–5)
CHAP TER GOAL S
276 C H A P T E R 9 C o n G r E S S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch09_274-313.indd 276 11/28/18 4:35 PM
Congress Represents the
American People
Congress is the most important rep-
resentative institution in American
government. Each member’s primary
responsibility in theory is to the dis-
trict, to the constituency (the residents
in the area from which an official is elected), not to the congressional leadership,
a party, or even Congress itself. Yet the task of representation is not a simple
one. Views about what constitutes fair and effective representation differ, and
constituents can make very different kinds of demands on their representatives.
Members of Congress must consider these diverse views and demands as they
represent their districts.
THE HOUSE AND SENATE OFFER
DIFFERENCES IN REPRESENTATION
The framers of the Constitution provided for a bicameral legislature—that is, a leg-
islative body consisting of two chambers or houses. The 435 members of the House
are elected from districts apportioned according to population; the 100 members
of the Senate are elected in a statewide vote, with two senators from each. Sena-
tors have much longer terms in office and usually represent much larger and more
diverse constituencies than do their counterparts in the House (see Table 9.1).
Both formal and informal factors contribute to differences between the two
chambers of Congress. Differences in the length of terms and requirements for hold-
ing office specified by the Constitution in turn generate differences in how members
of each body develop their constituencies and exercise their powers of office. The
small size and relative homogeneity of their constituencies and the frequency with
Describe who serves in Congress
and how they represent their
constituents
HOUSE SENATE
Minimum age of member 25 years 30 years
U.S. citizenship At least 7 years At least 9 years
Length of term 2 years 6 years
number representing each state 1–53 per state
(depends on population)
2 per state
Constituency Local Local and statewide
TABLE 9.1
Differences between the
House and the Senate
277C o n G r E S S r E P r E S E n T S T H E A M E r I C A n P E o P L E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch09_274-313.indd 277 11/28/18 4:35 PM
which they must seek re-election—every two years—make House members more
attuned to the legislative needs of local interest groups. The result is that members
of the House most effectively and frequently serve as the agents of well-organized
local interests with specific legislative agendas—for instance, used-car dealers seek-
ing relief from regulation or farmers looking for higher subsidies. Because House
members seek re-election every two years, they are interested in doing what their
constituents want right now.
Senators, on the other hand, serve larger and more heterogeneous constituencies.
As a result, they are somewhat better able than members of the House to serve as the
agents for groups and interests organized on a statewide or national basis. Moreover,
with longer terms in office (six years), senators have the luxury of considering “new
ideas” or seeking to bring together new coalitions of interests rather than simply
serving existing ones.
REPRESENTATION CAN BE SOCIOLOGICAL OR AGENCY
We have become so accustomed to the idea of representative government that we tend
to forget what a peculiar concept representation really is. A representative claims to act
or speak for some other person or group. But how can one person be trusted to speak
for another? How do we know that those who call themselves our representatives are
actually speaking on our behalf rather than simply pursuing their own interests?
There are two circumstances under which one person reasonably might be trusted
to speak for another. The first of these occurs if the two individuals are so similar in
background, character, interests, and perspectives that anything said by one would
very likely reflect the views of the other as well. This principle is at the heart of
what is sometimes called sociological representation—a type of representation in which
representatives have the same racial, gender, ethnic, religious, or educational back-
grounds as their constituents. The assumption is that sociological similarity helps
promote good representation; thus, the composition of a properly constituted rep-
resentative assembly should mirror the composition of society.
The second circumstance under which one person might be trusted to speak for
another occurs if the two are formally bound together so that the representative is
in some way accountable to those she purports to represent. If representatives can
somehow be punished or held to account for failing to represent their constituents
properly, then they have an incentive to provide good representation even if their
own personal backgrounds, views, and interests differ from those of the people they
represent. This principle is called agency representation—the sort of representation that
takes place when constituents have the power to hire and fire their representatives.
Both sociological and agency representation play a role in the relationship
between members of Congress and their constituencies.
The Social Composition of the U.S. Congress The extent to which the U.S.
Congress is representative of the American people in a sociological sense can be seen
by examining the distribution of important social characteristics in the House and
Senate today.
278 C H A P T E R 9 C o n G r E S S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch09_274-313.indd 278 11/28/18 4:35 PM
African Americans, women, Latinos, and Asian Americans have increased their
congressional representation in the past two decades (see Figure 9.1); but for most
of American history, these groups had no representatives in Congress. Even now,
their representation in Congress is not comparable to the proportions in the general
population. After the 2018 elections, Congress was 9 percent African American,
8 percent Latino, and 2 percent Asian American. By contrast, the American
population was far more diverse, with 13.3 percent African Americans, 17.6 percent
FIGURE 9.1
Diversity in Congress, 1971–2019
Congress has become much more socially diverse since the 1970s. How closely does the
number of female, African American, and Latino representatives reflect their proportion of
the total U.S. population?
SOURCES: Harold W. Stanley and Richard G. Niemi, eds., Vital Statistics on American Politics 2003–2004
(Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2003), 207, Table 5–2; Jennifer E. Manning, Membership of the 113th Congress:
A Profile, Congressional Research Service 7-5700, January 13, 2014, www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42964
(accessed 2/24/14); Jennifer E. Manning, Membership of the 114th Congress: A Profile, Congressional Research
Service, 7-5700, September 17, 2015, www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43869 ; R. Eric Petersen, Representatives
and Senators: Trends in Member Characteristics since 1945, Congressional Research Service 7-5700, February 17,
2012, www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42365 (accessed 9/28/15), 2019 data were calculated by the authors.
Women
African
Americans
Latinos
70
80
90
100
60
50
40
1971 2003 2007 2011 2015 20191999199519911987198319791975
30
20
10
0
110
120
130
Asian Pacific
Islander
279C o n G r E S S r E P r E S E n T S T H E A M E r I C A n P E o P L E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch09_274-313.indd 279 11/28/18 4:35 PM
Latinos, and 5.6 percent Asian Americans.4 Similarly, the number of women in
Congress continues to trail far behind their proportion of the population. Following
the 2018 elections, the 116th Congress (2019–21) included over 100 women in the
House of Representatives and at least 23 women in the Senate, an all-time high.
Since many important contemporary issues do cut along racial and gender lines,
a considerable clamor for reform in the representative process is likely to continue
until these groups are fully represented.
The occupational backgrounds of members of Congress have always been a
matter of interest because many issues cut along economic lines that are relevant
to occupations and industries. The legal profession is the dominant career of most
members of Congress prior to their election, and public service or politics is also a
significant background. In addition, many members of Congress have important
ties to business and industry.5
Is Congress still able to legislate fairly or take account of a diversity of views and
interests if it is not a sociologically representative assembly?
Representatives as Agents A good deal of evidence indicates that whether or
not members of Congress share their constituents’ sociological characteristics, they
do work very hard to speak for their constituents’ views and serve their constitu-
ents’ interests in the governmental process. The idea of representative as agent is
similar to the relationship of lawyer and client. True, the relationship between the
To more effectively promote a legislative agenda addressing issues that disproportionately affect
racial and ethnic minority groups, members of Congress from those groups have formed caucuses.
Here, Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-N. Mex.), former chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, speaks
out about Donald Trump’s proposed changes to immigration policies.
280 C H A P T E R 9 C o n G r E S S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch09_274-313.indd 280 11/28/18 4:35 PM
House member and an average of 710,767 “clients” in the district, or the senator
and millions of “clients” in the state, is very different from that of the lawyer and
client. But the criteria of performance are comparable. One expects at the very least
that each representative will constantly be seeking to discover the interests of the
constituency and will take those interests into account.6 Whether members of Con-
gress always represent the interests of their constituents is another matter, as we will
see later in this chapter.
There is constant communication between constituents and congressional
offices, and the volume of email from constituents and advocacy groups has grown
so large so quickly that congressional offices have struggled to find effective ways
to respond in a timely manner.7 At the same time, members of Congress have
found new ways to communicate with constituents. They have created websites
describing their achievements, established a presence on social networking sites,
and issued e-newsletters that alert constituents to current issues. Many have also
set up blogs and Twitter accounts to establish a more informal style of communi-
cation with constituents.
The seriousness with which members of the House behave as representatives
can be seen in the amount of time spent on behalf of their constituents. Well over
one-quarter of their time and nearly two-thirds of the time of their staff members
is devoted to constituency service (called “casework”). This service includes talk-
ing to constituents, providing them with minor services, presenting special bills for
them, attempting to influence decisions by regulatory commissions on their behalf,
helping them apply for federal benefits such as Social Security and Small Business
Administration loans, and assisting them with immigration cases.8
In many districts there are two or three issues that are top priorities for constit-
uents and, therefore, for the representatives. For example, representatives from dis-
tricts that grow wheat, cotton, or tobacco will likely give legislation on these subjects
great attention. In oil-rich states such as Oklahoma, Texas, and California, senators
and members of the House are likely to be leading advocates of oil interests. For one
thing, representatives are probably fearful of voting against their district interests;
for another, the districts are unlikely to have elected representatives who would want
to vote against them. On the other hand, on many issues, constituents do not have
very strong views, so representatives are free to act as they think best. Foreign policy
issues often fall into this category.
The influence of constituencies is so pervasive that both parties generally agree
that members should not be pressured to vote against their constituencies if doing so
would endanger the re-election chances of any member. Party leaders obey this rule
fairly consistently by not asking any member to vote in a way that might conflict
with a district interest.
THE ELECTORAL CONNECTION HINGES ON INCUMBENCY
The sociological composition of Congress and the activities of representatives once
they are in office are very much influenced by electoral considerations. Two factors
related to the U.S. electoral system affect who gets elected and what they do once
281C o n G r E S S r E P r E S E n T S T H E A M E r I C A n P E o P L E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch09_274-313.indd 281 11/28/18 4:35 PM
in office. The first factor is that of incumbency advantage. The second is the way
congressional district lines are drawn, which can greatly affect the outcome of an
election. Let us examine more closely the impact that these considerations have on
representation.
Incumbency—holding a political office for which one is running—plays a very
important role in the American electoral system and in the kind of representation
citizens get in Washington. Once in office, members have access to an array of tools
that they can use to aid their re-election. The most important of these is constitu-
ency service—taking care of the problems and requests of individual voters. Con-
gressional offices will intervene on behalf of constituents when they have problems
with federal programs or agencies, in such areas as Social Security benefits, veterans’
benefits, and passports. When congressional offices contact federal agencies dealing
with such matters, the offices usually respond with extra speed, knowing that mem-
bers of Congress can embarrass or penalize an agency that doesn’t do its job prop-
erly. Through such services and through regular e-newsletters, the incumbent seeks
to establish a “personal” relationship with the constituents. The success of this strat-
egy is evident in the high rates of re-election for congressional incumbents, which
are as high as 98 percent for House members and 90 percent for members of the
Senate in recent years (see Figure 9.2). It is also evident in what is called “sophomore
surge”—the tendency for incumbent candidates to win a higher percentage of the
vote when seeking future terms in office.
The precarious economy and the backlash against the party in power made 2008
and 2010 difficult election years for some incumbents, particularly Democrats,
given that their party controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress in
a year when economic woes contributed to strong anti-incumbent sentiment.9 In
2016, Trump’s surprise victory in the presidential race benefited Republican incum-
bents, who had appeared to be in danger of losing their seats.
Incumbency can also help a candidate by scaring off potential challengers.
In many races, potential candidates may decide not to run because they fear
that the incumbent simply has too much money or is too well liked or too well
known. Potentially strong challengers may also decide that a district’s partisan
leanings are too unfavorable. The efforts of incumbents to raise funds to ward
off potential challengers start early. In addition to incumbents’ own efforts, each
political party makes a special effort to reelect incumbents viewed as especially
vulnerable. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC)
places vulnerable incumbents in its “Frontline” program to receive extra
funding, choice committee assignments, and high-profile speaking engage-
ments. For the 2018 midterm elections, the DCCC placed 19 incumbents on its
Frontline list, many of whom had won in 2016 in districts carried by Trump. For
its part, the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee (RCCC) named
ten members to its own incumbent protection program.10 In 2018, approxi-
mately 93 percent of incumbents in the House and 86 percent in the Senate were
re-elected. Seventy-six of the 435 House races were decided by a margin of less
than 10 percent. Five incumbents in the Senate, and 20 in the House lost their
seats in 2018.
282 C H A P T E R 9 C o n G r E S S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch09_274-313.indd 282 11/28/18 4:35 PM
The advantage of incumbency thus tends to preserve the status quo in Congress.
This fact has implications for the social composition of Congress. Women who run
for open seats (that is, seats for which there are no incumbents) are just as likely
to win as male candidates.11 However, the incumbency advantage makes it harder
for women to increase their numbers in Congress because most incumbents are
men. Supporters of term limits (legally prescribed limits on the number of terms an
elected official can serve) argue that such limits are the only way to get new faces
into Congress.
Apportionment and Redistricting Another major factor that affects who wins
a seat in the House of Representatives is the way congressional districts are drawn
(senators, on the other hand, represent entire states). Every 10 years, state legisla-
tures must redraw election districts and redistribute legislative representatives to
reflect population changes or in response to legal challenges to existing districts.
Because the number of congressional seats has been fixed at 435 since 1929, redis-
tricting is a zero-sum process; for one state to gain a seat, another must lose one. The
process of allocating congressional seats among the 50 states is called apportionment.
Over the past several decades, the shift of the American population to the South
FIGURE 9.2
The Power of Incumbency
Members of Congress who run for re-election have a very good chance of winning. Has
the incumbency advantage generally been greater in the House or in the Senate? What
are the consequences of the incumbency advantage for who serves in Congress?
SOURCE: Norman J. Ornstein et al., eds., Vital Statistics on Congress, 1999–2000 (Washington, DC: AEI Press,
2000), 57–58; “Reelection Rates over the Years,” opensecrets.org.
House
Senate
PERCENTAGE RE-ELECTED
100%
90
80
70
60
50
40
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Increased political competition
in the post-Watergate era
created a large turnover in the
Senate between 1974 and 1980.
Voter dissatisfaction with the
Iraq War caused incumbents
to lose ground in 2006,
although the overwhelming
majority were re-elected.
283C o n G r E S S r E P r E S E n T S T H E A M E r I C A n P E o P L E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch09_274-313.indd 283 11/28/18 4:35 PM
and the West has greatly increased the size of the congressional delegations from
those regions. This trend continued after the 2010 census and will likely continue
after 2020 (see Figure 9.3). Texas is likely to gain three seats (after gaining four after
2010), and Florida will likely gain two. States in the Northeast and “rust belt” are
likely to lose seats. Latino voters are nearly three times as prevalent in states that
gained seats than in states that lost seats, suggesting that the growth of the Latino
population is a major factor in the American political landscape.12
States that gain or lose seats must then redraw their congressional district bor-
ders. This is a highly political process: districts are shaped to create an advantage for
the party with a majority in the state legislature, which controls the redistricting pro-
cess. In this complex process, those charged with drawing districts use sophisticated
computer technologies to come up with the most favorable district boundaries.
Redistricting can create open seats and pit incumbents of the same party against one
FIGURE 9.3
Projected Congressional
Reapportionment, 2020
States in the West and parts of the South will likely be the big winners in the reappor-
tionment of House seats following the 2020 census. The old manufacturing states in the
Midwest and Mid-Atlantic regions will be the biggest losers. Is this shift likely to favor
Democrats or Republicans?
SOURCE: Rebecca Tippett, “2020 Congressional Reapportionment: An Update,” December 21, 2017, Carolina
Population Center, University of North Carolina, demography.cpc.unc.edu (accessed 6/8/18).
MT
1
ID
2
UT
4
CO
8
NM
3
AZ
10
NV
4
WY
1
WA
10
OR
6
CA
53
ND
1
KS
4
OK
5
TX
39
MN
7
IA
4
WI
8
IL
17
AR
4
AL
6MS
4LA
6
MI
13
IN
9
MO
8
NE
3
SD
1
VT
1
NH
2
MA
9
RI 1
CT 5
NJ 12
MD 8
DE 1
GA
14
FL
29
SC
7
NC 14
OH
15
KY 6
TN 9
VA
11
PA 17
NY
26
2
WV
ME
2
Gain 2 seats
Gain 1 seat
No change
Lose 1 seat
Lose 2 seats
Gain 3 seatsAK
1 HI
2
284 C H A P T E R 9 C o n G r E S S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch09_274-313.indd 284 11/28/18 4:35 PM
another, ensuring that one of them will lose. Redistricting can also give an advantage
to one party by clustering voters with certain ideological or sociological characteris-
tics in a single district or by diluting the influence of voter blocs by separating those
voters into two or more districts. The manipulation of electoral districts to serve the
interests of a particular group is known as gerrymandering.
Since the passage of the 1982 amendments to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, race
has become a major (and controversial) consideration in drawing voting districts.
These amendments, which encouraged the creation of districts in which members
of racial minorities have decisive majorities, have greatly increased the number of
minority representatives in Congress. After the 1990 redistricting cycle, the num-
ber of predominantly minority districts doubled, rising from 26 to 52. Among the
most fervent supporters of the new minority districts were white Republicans, who
used the opportunity to create more districts dominated by white Republican vot-
ers. These developments raise thorny questions about representation. Some analysts
argue that the system may grant minorities greater sociological representation, but
it has made it more difficult for them to win substantive policy goals, while others
dispute this argument.13
In the case of Miller v. Johnson (1995), the Supreme Court limited racial redis-
tricting by ruling that race could not be the predominant factor in creating elec-
toral districts.14 The distinction between race being a “predominant” factor and its
being one factor among many is hazy. As a result, concerns about redistricting and
Redrawing legislative districts is a difficult task because it has implications for who will be elected.
Here, the attorney for Arizona’s Independent Redistricting Commission discusses a possible layout
with a city council member from Casa Grande. Arizona gained one congressional seat following the
2010 census.
285C o n G r E S S r E P r E S E n T S T H E A M E r I C A n P E o P L E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch09_274-313.indd 285 11/28/18 4:35 PM
representation persist.15 Questions about minority representation emerged in 2011
in Texas, which gained four seats as a result of reapportionment. The Republican
legislature drew a map that advantaged Republicans in three of those districts. But
the plan drew a legal challenge on the grounds that it underrepresented Hispanic
voters, who accounted for most of the state’s population growth. Although federal
judges drew a map more favorable to minorities (and Democrats), the Supreme
Court ruled that the state did not have to use the map drawn by judges. The state
ultimately agreed to a map that added two Latino-dominated districts. However,
federal courts ruled that this map also weakened Latino and African American polit-
ical power by creating too few minority districts.
The future of race in redistricting became more uncertain after the 2013 Supreme
Court decision in Shelby County v. Holder. That decision invalidated a section of the
Voting Rights Act requiring that the Justice Department approve the redistricting
plans of jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination.16 Many Democrats
expressed disappointment with the decision, fearing that the previously covered
states, several of which are controlled by Republican majorities, might try to redraw
district lines to partisan ends and further bias districts toward Republicans.17 In
2015, Alabama’s black legislators challenged that state’s redistricting under the Vot-
ing Rights Act. They charged that the Republican legislature had diluted the vote
of African Americans by packing black voters into districts that already had strong
minority representation, thus enhancing the chances of white Republican candi-
dates in the remaining districts. The legislature claimed, on the contrary, that it
was acting in accordance with the Voting Rights Act by concentrating black voters.
Although the Supreme Court did not declare the districting unconstitutional, it
ruled that the lower court had erred in approving the districts.18 The ruling signaled
that state legislatures would not be able to use the Voting Rights Act to justify pack-
ing minority voters into districts.
DIRECT PATRONAGE MEANS BRINGING
HOME THE BACON
Members of Congress have numerous opportunities to provide direct benefits, or
patronage, for their constituents. The most important such opportunity for direct
patronage is in so-called pork-barrel legislation (or pork)—appropriations made by
legislative bodies for local projects that may not be needed but that are created to
help local representatives win re-election in their home districts. This type of legis-
lation specifies a project to be funded within a particular district. Many observers
of Congress argue that pork-barrel bills are the only ones that some members are
serious about moving toward actual passage because they are seen as so important to
members’ re-election bids.
A common form of pork-barreling is the “earmark,” the practice through which
members of Congress insert into bills language that provides special benefits for their
own constituents. When Democrats took over Congress in 2007, they vowed to
limit the use of earmarks, which had grown from 1,439 per year in 1995 to 15,268
in 2006. More troubling, earmarks were connected to congressional scandals. For
286 C H A P T E R 9 C o n G r E S S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch09_274-313.indd 286 11/28/18 4:35 PM
example, Republican House member Randy “Duke” Cunningham (R-Calif.) was
sent to jail in 2005 for accepting bribes by companies hoping to receive earmarks in
return.19 The House passed a new rule requiring that those representatives support-
ing each earmark identify themselves and guarantee that they have no personal finan-
cial stake in the requested project. An ethics law applied similar provisions to the
Senate. Though the new requirements appeared to have had some impact, in the
midst of the sharp economic downturn in 2009, Congress passed a bill designed
to stimulate the economy that contained more than 8,000 earmarks. In his 2010
State of the Union address, President Obama called for Congress to publish a
list of all earmark requests on a single website. Congress not only failed to enact
such legislation, in 2010 it set a new record by passing 11,320 earmarks, worth
$32 billion. But in 2011 the House and the Senate agreed to a two-year morato-
rium on earmarks in spending bills and renewed the ban for the 113th and 114th
Congresses.20 In 2018, President Trump suggested to Congress that it should con-
sider restoring earmarks as a way of enhancing congressional power vis à vis the
bureaucracy and to help “grease” the legislative wheels by giving members an incen-
tive to support legislative programs. Trump’s comments were greeted favorably by
many congressional leaders.21
Some analysts claim that the lack of earmarks contributes to congressional grid-
lock. They argue that earmarks provide congressional leaders with incentives to
promote compromise among members. Supporters of this position contend that
earmarks are not inherently an abuse of power and note that they often support
legitimate district projects, such as transportation and parks.22
There are a few other types of direct patronage (see Figure 9.4). One important
form of constituency service is intervention with federal administrative agencies on
behalf of constituents. Members of the House and Senate and their staffs spend a
great deal of time seeking to secure favorable treatment for constituents and sup-
porters. For example, members of Congress can assist senior citizens who are having
Social Security or Medicare benefit eligibility problems. A small but related form of
patronage is securing an appointment to one of the military academies for the child
of a constituent. Traditionally, these appointments are allocated one to a district.
A different form of patronage is the private bill—a bill in Congress to provide a
specific person with some kind of relief, such as a special exemption from immi-
gration quotas. It is distinguished from a public bill, which is supposed to deal
with general rules and categories of behavior, people, and institutions. As many as
75 percent of all private bills introduced (and one-third of those that pass) are con-
cerned with obtaining citizenship for foreign nationals who cannot get permanent
visas to the United States because the immigration quota for their country is filled
or because of something unusual about their particular situation.23 Other private
bills address a diverse set of issues involving a claim against the federal government,
such as problems with veterans’ benefits or taxation. Private legislation is a con-
gressional privilege that can be abused, but it is impossible to imagine members of
Congress completely giving up one of the easiest, cheapest, and most effective forms
of patronage available to them. It can be defended as an indispensable part of the
process by which members of Congress seek to fulfill their role as representatives.
287C o n G r E S S r E P r E S E n T S T H E A M E r I C A n P E o P L E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch09_274-313.indd 287 11/28/18 4:35 PM
The Organization of Congress
Is Shaped by Party
The U.S. Congress is not only a rep-
resentative assembly but also a legis-
lative body. To exercise its power to
make laws, Congress must first bring
about something close to an organi-
zational miracle. The building blocks
of congressional organization include the political parties, the committee system,
congressional staff, the caucuses, and the parliamentary rules of the House and
Senate. Each of these factors plays a key role in the organization of Congress and
in the process through which Congress formulates and enacts laws.
Explain how party leadership,
the committee system, and
the staff system help structure
congressional business
FIGURE 9.4
How Members of Congress
Represent Their Districts
Solving problems with
government agencies
Providing jobs
Sponsoring private bills
Sponsoring appointments
to service academies
Answering complaints
Providing information
Introducing legislation
Intervening with
regulatory agencies
Obtaining federal grants
and contracts
Helping importing or
exporting
Helping secure
favorable tax status
Making promotional speeches
Making symbolic gestures
Obtaining federal projects
for district
Obtaining grants and
contracts that promote
employment in district
Supporting policies that
enhance district’s
economic prosperity,
safety, cultural
resources, etc.
Participating in state
and regional caucuses
Individual
constituents
Organized
interests
District
as a whole
Members of Congress
REPRESENT
BY
REPRESENT
BY
REPRESENT
BY
288 C H A P T E R 9 C o n G r E S S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch09_274-313.indd 288 11/28/18 4:35 PM
PARTY LEADERSHIP IN THE HOUSE AND
THE SENATE ORGANIZES POWER
Every two years, at the beginning of a new Congress, the members of each party in
the House of Representatives gather to elect their leaders. House Republicans call
their gathering the conference. House Democrats call theirs the caucus. The elected
leader of the majority party is later proposed to the whole House and is elected to
the position of Speaker of the House, with voting along straight party lines, although
in recent speaker elections some members of the speaker’s party have voted against
their own candidate for the job to indicate their dissatisfaction with party leader-
ship. The Speaker is the most important party and House leader and can influ-
ence the legislative agenda, the fate of individual pieces of legislation, and members’
positions within the House. The House majority conference or caucus then also
elects a majority leader. (In the House, the majority leader is subordinate in the party
hierarchy to the Speaker of the House.) The minority party goes through the same
process and selects the minority leader. Both parties also elect assistants to their party
leaders, called whips, who are responsible for coordinating the party’s legislative strat-
egy, building support for key issues, and counting votes.
Next in line of importance for each party after the Speaker and majority or minor-
ity leader is what Democrats call the Steering and Policy Committee—Republicans
have a separate Steering Committee and a separate Policy Committee—whose tasks
are to assign new legislators to committees and to deal with the requests of incum-
bent members for transfers from one committee to another.
Generally, members of Congress seek assignments that will allow them to influ-
ence decisions of special importance to their districts. Representatives from farm
districts, for example, may request seats on the Agriculture Committee.24 Seats on
powerful committees such as Ways and Means, which is responsible for tax legisla-
tion, and Appropriations are especially popular.
Within the Senate, the majority party usually designates a member of the major-
ity party with the greatest seniority to serve as president pro tempore, a position of
primarily ceremonial leadership. Real power is in the hands of the majority leader
and minority leader, each elected by party conference. Together they control the
Senate’s calendar, or agenda, for legislation. Each party also elects a Policy Com-
mittee, which advises the leadership on legislative priorities. In recent years, party
leaders in both chambers have gone around the committees to directly control the
content and direction of important legislation.
THE COMMITTEE SYSTEM IS THE CORE OF CONGRESS
The committee system is central to the operation of Congress. At each stage of the
legislative process, Congress relies on committees and subcommittees to do the hard
work of sorting through alternatives and writing legislation. There are several dif-
ferent kinds of congressional committees; these include standing committees, select
committees, joint committees, and conference committees.
Standing committees are very important arenas of congressional policy making.
These permanent committees remain in existence from one session of Congress to
289T H E o r G A n I z AT I o n o F C o n G r E S S I S S H A P E d B y P A r T y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch09_274-313.indd 289 11/28/18 4:35 PM
the next; they have the power to pro-
pose and write legislation. The jurisdic-
tion of each standing committee covers
a particular subject matter, such as
finance or agriculture, which in most
cases parallels the major departments
or agencies in the executive branch.
Among the most important stand-
ing committees are those in charge of
finances. The House Ways and Means
Committee and the Senate Finance
Committee are powerful because of
their jurisdiction over taxes, trade, and
expensive entitlement programs such as
Social Security and Medicare. The
Senate and House Appropriations com-
mittees also play important ongoing
roles because they decide how much
funding various programs will actually receive; they also determine exactly how the
money will be spent. A seat on the Appropriations Committee allows a member the
opportunity to direct funds to a favored program—perhaps one in his home district.
Except for the House Rules Committee, all standing committees receive pro-
posals for legislation and process them into official bills. The House Rules Com-
mittee decides the order in which bills come up for a vote on the House floor and
determines the specific rules that govern the length of debate and opportunity for
amendments. The Senate, which has less formal organization and fewer rules, does
not have a similarly powerful rules committee.
Select committees are usually temporary and normally do not have the power to
present legislation to the full Congress but rather are set up to highlight or inves-
tigate a particular issue or address an issue not within the jurisdiction of existing
committees. (The House and Senate Select Intelligence committees are permanent,
however, and do have the power to report legislation, which means they can send
legislation to the full House or Senate for consideration.) These committees may
hold hearings and serve as focal points for the issues they are charged with consider-
ing. Congressional leaders form select committees when they want to take up issues
that fall between the jurisdictions of existing committees, to highlight an issue, or to
investigate a particular problem. For example, the Senate set up the Senate Water-
gate Committee in 1973 to investigate the Watergate break-in and cover-up. More
recently, the House Select Committee on Benghazi was established to investigate
the 2012 attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya. In 2015 the committee
held hearings to investigate Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server during her
tenure as secretary of state. Select committees set up to highlight ongoing issues
have included the House Select Committee on Hunger, established in 1984, and the
House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, created
in 2007 but abolished in 2011, when Republicans assumed control of the House.
After Democrats took control of the House of
Representatives in November 2018, former House
minority leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was poised
to take over the role of Speaker of the House from
retiring Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.). She had previ-
ously served in the same position from 2007–11.
290 C H A P T E R 9 C o n G r E S S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch09_274-313.indd 290 11/28/18 4:35 PM
Joint committees are formed of members of both the Senate and the House. There are
four such committees: economic, taxation, library, and printing. These joint committees
are permanent, but they do not have the power to report legislation. The Joint Economic
Committee and the Joint Taxation Committee have often played important roles in
collecting information and holding hearings on economic and financial issues. Finally,
conference committees are temporary joint committees whose members are appointed
by the Speaker of the House and the presiding officer of the Senate. These commit-
tees are charged with working out a compromise on legislation that has been passed by
the House and the Senate but in different versions. Conference committees can play
an extremely important role in determining what laws are actually passed because they
must reconcile any differences in the legislation passed by the House and Senate.
When control of Congress is divided between two parties, each is guaranteed
significant representation in conference committees. When a single party controls
both houses, the majority party is not obligated to offer such representation to the
minority party. In 2003, Democrats complained that Republicans took this power to
the extreme by excluding them and adding new provisions to legislation at the con-
ference committee stage. Democrats even prevented several conference committees
from convening to protest their near exclusion from conference committees on major
energy, health care, and transportation laws. After the Democrats returned to power
in 2007, they largely bypassed the conference committees; when their early efforts
to reach compromises in the conference were derailed by partisan differences, the
Demo crats began making closed-door agreements between top leaders in the House
and the Senate. Although the process facilitated compromises across the two cham-
bers, it meant that important changes to bills were made in private, without the trans-
parency that would have been part of the conference committee process. After 2010,
Congress continued to avoid conference committees. Instead, the Republican House
and Democratic Senate leaders exchanged amendments as they sought to reach agree-
ment on the final version of a bill, a practice known informally as “ping-ponging.”25
Within each committee, hierarchy is based on seniority. Seniority is the ranking
given to an individual on the basis of length of continuous service on a commit-
tee in Congress. In general, each committee is chaired by the most senior member
of the majority party. But the principle of seniority is not absolute. Both Demo-
crats and Republicans have violated it on occasion. In 1995, when the Republicans
won control of the House, then-Speaker Newt Gingrich instituted a new practice
of frequent seniority violations, often selecting committee chairs based on loyalty
or fund-raising abilities, a practice that subsequent Republican leaders have main-
tained. In 2007 the Democrats returned to the seniority principle to select com-
mittee chairs but altered traditional practices in other ways by offering freshman
Democrats choice committee assignments to increase their chances of re-election.26
THE STAFF SYSTEM IS THE POWER BEHIND THE POWER
The congressional institution second in importance only to the committee sys-
tem is the staff system. Every member of Congress employs a large number of
staff members, whose tasks include handling constituent requests and, to a large
291T H E o r G A n I z AT I o n o F C o n G r E S S I S S H A P E d B y P A r T y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch09_274-313.indd 291 11/28/18 4:35 PM
Women’s
Parliamentary
Representation Worldwide
April 2018 marked the first time in U.S.
history that women comprised 20 percent
of Congress, with 19.3 percent of the
House and 23 percent of the Senate being
women.a When we look around the world
however, we find that the United States
ranks 102 out of 188 countries in women’s
parliamentary representation.
Why? research suggests women candidates
benefit from gender quotas instituted (in
several countries) and may be at a dis-
advantage in “winner-take-all” elections like
those in the United States.b In rwanda, women
comprise 61 percent of parliament, and
there is both a gender quota (30 percent of
the legislature is required to be women) and
proportional representation (election rules
where parties receive seats based on the
percentage of the vote they received).
a The Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP), “With Election of Debbie Lesko (AZ-08), Record Number of Women in
Congress,” April 24, 2018, cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/resources/18.4.24_pr_lesko_az08 (accessed 5/18/18).
b Lena Wängnerud, “Women in Parliaments: Descriptive and Substantive Representation,” Annual Review of Political Science
12 (2009): 51–69.
Very low (0–15%) Low (15.1–30%) Medium (30.1–45%)
High (45.1%+) No data available
PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN
SOURCE: The Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), “Women in National Parliaments,” April 1, 2018, archive.ipu.org
(accessed 5/18/18).
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch09_274-313.indd 292 11/28/18 4:36 PM
and growing extent, dealing with legislative details and the activities of adminis-
trative agencies. Increasingly, staffers bear the primary responsibility for formu-
lating and drafting proposals, organizing hearings, dealing with administrative
agencies, and negotiating with lobbyists. Indeed, legislators typically deal with
one another through staff rather than through direct, personal contact. Today,
staffers develop policy ideas, draft legislation, and have a good deal of influence
over the legislative process.
Representatives and senators together employ over 12,000 staffers in their
Washington and home offices. In addition, Congress employs more than 2,000 com-
mittee staffers. These individuals make up the permanent staff, who stay attached
to every House and Senate committee regardless of turnover in Congress and who
are responsible for organizing and administering the committee’s work, including
researching, scheduling, organizing hearings, and drafting legislation. Committee
staffers also play key roles in the legislative process.
Rules of Lawmaking Explain How a
Bill Becomes a Law
The institutional structure of Con-
gress is one key factor that helps shape
the legislative process. A second and
equally important set of factors is the
rules of congressional procedure. These rules govern everything from the introduc-
tion of a bill (a proposed law that has been sponsored by a member of Congress
and submitted to the clerk of the House or Senate) through its submission to the
president for signing (see Figure 9.5). Not only do these regulations influence the
fate of each and every bill but they also help determine the distribution of power in
the Congress.
THE FIRST STEP IS COMMITTEE DELIBERATION
Even if a member of Congress, the White House, or a federal agency has spent
months developing and drafting a piece of legislation, it does not become a bill
until it is submitted officially by a senator or representative to the clerk of the House
or Senate and referred to the appropriate committee for deliberation. Bills can
originate in the House or the Senate, but only the House can introduce “money
bills”: those that spend or raise revenues. The framers inserted this provision in the
Constitution because they believed that the chamber closest to the people should
exercise greater authority over taxing and spending. No floor action on any bill can
take place until the committee with jurisdiction over it has taken all the time it
needs to deliberate. During the course of its deliberations, the committee typically
refers the bill to one of its subcommittees, which may hold hearings, listen to expert
testimony, and amend the proposed legislation before referring the bill to the full
committee for consideration. The full committee may accept the recommendation
of the subcommittee or hold its own hearings and prepare its own amendments. Or,
Outline the steps in the process of
passing a law
293r U L E S o F L A W M A k I n G E x P L A I n H o W A B I L L B E C o M E S A L A W
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch09_274-313.indd 293 11/28/18 4:36 PM
FIGURE 9.5
How a Bill Becomes a Law
*Points at which a bill can be amended.
**If the president neither signs nor vetoes a bill within 10 days, it automatically becomes law.
†Points at which a bill can die.
Speaker of House
receives bill
Committee*
Subcommittee*
Hearings Committee
markup*†
Committee*
Subcommittee*
Hearings Committee
markup*†
President of Senate
receives bill
Rules Committee*Speaker*
House floor*† House
Bill
House amends Senate bill
House floor Senate floor
Senate amends House bill
Senate
Bill
Senate floor*†
Majority leader*
Conference committee*
Conference report*†
Adoption by
both houses
House approves
Senate amendment
Senate approves
House amendment
White House**
Approve
House and
Senate floor*
Veto override
Law
Veto
294 C H A P T E R 9 C o n G r E S S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch09_274-313.indd 294 11/28/18 4:36 PM
even more frequently, the committee and subcommittee may do little or nothing
with a bill that has been submitted to them. Many bills are simply allowed to “die in
committee” without serious consideration given to them. In a typical congressional
session, 80–90 percent of the roughly 10,000 bills introduced die in committee—an
indication of the power of the congressional committee system.
In the House, the relative handful of bills that are reported out of committee
must, in the House, pass one additional hurdle within the committee system: the
Rules Committee, which determines the rules that will govern action on the bill
on the House floor. In particular, the Rules Committee allots the time for debate
and decides to what extent amendments to the bill can be proposed from the floor.
In recent years, the Rules Committee has become less powerful because the House
leadership exercises so much influence over its decisions.
DEBATE IS LESS RESTRICTED IN THE
SENATE THAN IN THE HOUSE
In the House, virtually all the time allotted for debate on a given bill is controlled by
the bill’s sponsor and by its leading opponent. In almost every case, these two people
are the committee chair and the ranking minority member of the committee that
processed the bill—or those they designate. These two participants are, by rule and
tradition, granted the power to allocate most of the debate time in small amounts to
members who are seeking to speak for or against the measure. Preference in the alloca-
tion of time goes to the members of the committee whose jurisdiction covers the bill.
The Filibuster In the Senate, the leadership has much less control over floor
debate. Indeed, the Senate is unique among the world’s legislative bodies for its
commitment to unlimited debate. Once given the floor, a senator may speak as long
as she wishes. On a number of memorable occasions, senators have used the right
to talk without interruption for as long as they want to prevent action on legislation
they opposed. Through this tactic, called the filibuster, members of the Senate can
prevent action on legislation they oppose by continuously holding the floor and
speaking until the majority backs down (or the filibustering senator gives up). A
vote of three-fifths of the Senate, or 60 votes, is required to end a filibuster. This
procedure to end a filibuster is called cloture. For much of American history, senators
only rarely used the filibuster, though during the 1950s and ’60s, opponents of civil
rights legislation often used filibusters to block its passage. In the last 20 years, the
filibuster (or the mere threat of a filibuster) has become so common that observers
routinely note that it takes 60 votes to get anything passed in the Senate. The 113th
Congress (2013–15) set a new record, with 218 cloture votes (the vote to end a
filibuster). The number fell to 192 in the 115th Congress (2017–19).27
In 2013 the Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid (Nev.) mobilized his party to
alter the filibuster rules for the first time in many decades. Frustrated by the repeated
failure of the Senate to vote on many of President Obama’s nominees to fill posi-
tions in the executive branch, as well as judgeships to important federal courts, Reid
invoked what senators had come to call “the nuclear option,” a change to the filibus-
ter rules in the middle of the session by simple majority vote. Under the new rules,
295r U L E S o F L A W M A k I n G E x P L A I n H o W A B I L L B E C o M E S A L A W
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch09_274-313.indd 295 11/28/18 4:36 PM
nominees for executive branch appointments and federal court nominees—except
the Supreme Court—cannot be filibustered, meaning that they can be approved
by a simple majority vote. (Filibusters of legislation were still allowed.) Not
surprisingly, the two parties had different views on the decision. Reid defended it as
necessary, due to what he called “unbelievable, unprecedented obstruction.” Repub-
licans denounced the new rule, stating, in the words of Pat Roberts (R-Kans.), “We
have weakened this body permanently.”28 After winning control of both houses of
Congress and the White House in 2016, however, Republicans expanded Reid’s rule
to include Supreme Court justices and so were able to secure the appointment of
Justice Neil Gorsuch, who would undoubtedly have been blocked by Senate
Democrats under the old rules. Legislation is still subject to filibuster, though some
Republicans, along with President Trump, have declared that it is time to bring an
end to the filibuster altogether.
Voting Once debate is concluded on the floor of the House and the Senate, the
leaders schedule it for a vote on the floor of each chamber. By this time, congres-
sional leaders know what the vote will be; leaders do not bring legislation to the floor
unless they are fairly certain it is going to pass. As a consequence, it is unusual for
the leadership to lose a bill on the floor. On rare occasions, the last moments of the
floor vote can be very dramatic as each party’s leadership puts its whip organization
into action to make sure that wavering members vote with the party.
In 2015 the House of Representatives failed to pass a spending bill to fund the
Department of Homeland Security, hours before the agency was to run out of money
and begin to shut down. Despite having a majority in the chamber and an early vote
that suggested that the bill would pass easily, House GOP leaders failed to prevent
the most conservative members of the party from suddenly abandoning the bill over
objections that it left out provisions to block President Obama’s executive actions
on immigration. As midnight approached, the House agreed on a one-week exten-
sion to keep the department open.29 Leaders later secured sufficient support to enact
longer-term funding for Homeland Security. The importance of being able to attract
wavering members with “pork” for their districts is one reason President Trump urged
Congress in 2018 to restore earmarks, which have been banned since 2011.
CONFERENCE COMMITTEES RECONCILE HOUSE
AND SENATE VERSIONS OF LEGISL ATION
Getting a bill out of committee and through both houses of Congress is no guarantee
that it will be enacted into law. Before a bill can be sent to the president, both houses
must pass it in the identical form. Frequently, bills that began with similar provi-
sions in both chambers emerge with little resemblance to each other. Alternatively,
a bill may be passed by one chamber but undergo substantial revision in the other
chamber. In such a case, a conference committee composed of the senior members
of the committees or subcommittees that initiated the bill from both houses may be
convened to iron out differences between the two pieces of legislation.
When a bill comes out of conference, it faces one more hurdle. Before it can be
sent to the president for signing, the House–Senate conference committee’s version
296 C H A P T E R 9 C o n G r E S S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch09_274-313.indd 296 11/28/18 4:36 PM
of the bill must be approved on the floor of each chamber. Usually such approval is
given quickly. Occasionally, however, a bill’s opponents use this round of approval
as one last opportunity to defeat a piece of legislation. In recent years, polarization
in Congress has led to much less reliance on conference committees. Instead, leaders
exchange amendments in hopes of reaching agreement.
THE PRESIDENT’S VETO CONTROLS
THE FLOW OF LEGISL ATION
Once adopted by the House and Senate, a bill goes to the president, who may choose
to sign it into law or veto it. If the president neither signs nor vetoes it within 10 days
and Congress is in session, the bill automatically becomes law. The veto is the presi-
dent’s constitutional power to reject a piece of legislation. To veto a bill, the president
returns it unsigned within 10 days to the house of Congress in which it originated.
If Congress adjourns during the 10-day period, such that congressional adjournment
prevents the president from returning the bill to Congress, the bill is also considered
to be vetoed. This latter method is known as the pocket veto. Unlike a regular or return
veto, a pocket-vetoed bill cannot be overridden; the bill simply dies. The possibility of
a presidential veto affects how willing members of Congress are to push for different
pieces of legislation at different times. If they think a proposal is likely to be vetoed,
they might shelve it for a later time or alter it to suit the president’s preferences.
A presidential veto may be overridden by a two-thirds vote in both the House
and the Senate. Successful overrides are rare but are a blow to the president.
Several Factors Influence
How Congress Decides
What determines the kinds of leg-
islation that Congress ultimately
produces? According to the simplest
theories of representation, members
of Congress respond to the views of their constituents. In fact, creating a legisla-
tive agenda, drawing up a list of possible measures, and deciding among them is a
complex process in which a variety of influences from inside and outside govern-
ment play important roles. External influences include a legislator’s constituency
and various interest groups. Influences from inside government include party lead-
ership, congressional colleagues, and the president. Let us examine each of these
influences individually and then consider how they interact to produce congres-
sional policy decisions.
CONSTITUENTS MATTER
Because members of Congress, for the most part, want to be re-elected, we would
expect the views of their constituents to be a primary influence on the decisions
those legislators make. Yet most constituents pay little attention to politics and often
Analyze the factors that influence
which laws Congress passes
297S E v E r A L FA C T o r S I n F L U E n C E H o W C o n G r E S S d E C I d E S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch09_274-313.indd 297 11/28/18 4:36 PM
do not even know what policies their representatives support. Nonetheless, mem-
bers of Congress spend a lot of time worrying about what their constituents think
because these representatives realize that the choices they make may be scrutinized
in a future election and used as ammunition by an opposing candidate. Because of
this possibility, members of Congress do try to anticipate their constituents’ policy
views.30 In 2017, despite a personal effort by President Trump to persuade dissident
Republicans, the House GOP leadership could not muster enough Republican votes
to pass a measure that would have repealed Obamacare. Some Republicans from
swing districts feared upsetting constituents who favored Obamacare, while more
conservative Republicans thought the bill did not go far enough in dismantling
government-sponsored health insurance.
INTEREST GROUPS INFLUENCE
CONSTITUENTS AND CONGRESS
Interest groups are another important external influence on congressional poli-
cies. Members of Congress pay close attention to interest groups for a number
of reasons: interest groups can mobilize constituents, serve as watchdogs on con-
gressional action, and supply candidates with money. When members of Congress
are making voting decisions, those interest groups that have some connection to
constituents or that can mobilize followers in particular members’ districts are most
likely to be influential.
Interest groups also have substantial influence in setting the legislative agenda
and helping craft specific language in legislation. Today, sophisticated lobbyists
win influence by providing information about policies, as well as campaign contri-
butions, to busy members of Congress.
The $1.1 trillion end-of-year spending
bill passed at the end of 2014 included
an amendment exempting many finan-
cial transactions from federal regula-
tion under the Dodd-Frank Act. The
amendment language was taken from
a bill originally written by Citigroup
lobbyists, with 70 of 85 lines of the bill
directly copying Citigroup’s language.31
After further lobbying by the banking
industry, legislation enacted in 2018
loosened a number of Dodd-Frank
rules and exempted regional banks
from a number of remaining rules. In
recent years, interest groups have also
begun to build broader coalitions and
comprehensive campaigns around par-
ticular policy issues. These coalitions do
not rise from the grass roots but instead
Representatives spend a lot of time meeting with
constituents in their districts to explain how they
have helped their district and learn what issues
their constituents care about. Such meetings
are often informal events at local restaurants
or fairs, or town halls where constituents can
ask questions. Here, Senator Chuck Grassley
(R-Iowa) meets with constituents.
298 C H A P T E R 9 C o n G r E S S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch09_274-313.indd 298 11/28/18 4:36 PM
are put together by Washington lobbyists who launch comprehensive lobbying
campaigns that combine simulated grassroots activity with information and cam-
paign funding for members of Congress.
Concerns that special interests exert too much influence led Congress to enact
new ethics legislation in 2007. Now lobbyists are required to disclose the names of
the individual contributors to these political donations. Although the new law pro-
vides additional transparency, it does not fundamentally alter the fact that wealthy
interest groups continue to exercise tremendous influence in Congress.
Moreover, the large sums of cash raised by Super PACs (political action
committees)—discussed in Chapter 7—have introduced a whole new set of ques-
tions about the role of special interests in politics, especially because donors to
Super PACs can remain anonymous. Although they cannot openly coordinate with
candidates, Super PACs can endorse candidates by name and are often run by
people close to the candidates they support. In 2016, Super PACs poured unprec-
edented sums of money into the race for president, but they also targeted key con-
gressional contests in an effort to affect the balance of power between the parties
in Congress.
PARTY LEADERS RELY ON PARTY DISCIPLINE
In both the House and the Senate, party leaders have a good deal of influence over
the behavior of their party members. This influence, sometimes called “party disci-
pline,” was once so powerful that it dominated the lawmaking process. In the 1800s
party leaders could often command the allegiance of more than 90 percent of their
members. A vote in which half or more of the members of one party take one posi-
tion while at least half of the members of the other party take the opposing position
is called a party unity vote. At the beginning of the twentieth century, nearly half of all
roll-call votes (votes in which each legislator’s yes-or-no vote is recorded as the clerk
calls the names of the members alphabetically) in the House of Representatives were
party votes. While party voting is rarer today than a century ago, in the last decade
it has been fairly common to find at least a majority of the Democrats opposing a
majority of the Republicans on any given issue.
Typically, party unity is greater in the House than in the Senate. House rules
give more power to the majority party leaders, which gives them more influence
over House members. In the Senate, however, the leadership has few controls over
its members. Party unity has been on the rise in recent years because the divisions
between the parties have deepened on many high-profile issues such as abortion,
affirmative action, the minimum wage, and school vouchers (see Figure 9.6) and
because the majority–minority party difference has been small. In 2016, House
Democrats voted with the majority 96 percent of the time, marking an all-time
high, at least in modern times. Senate Democrats voted with their caucus 92 per-
cent of the time. Republicans were also very united. In 2016, House Republicans
voted with their party 96 percent of the time, a record high; Senate Republicans
voted with their party 86 percent of the time, only five points below the record set
in 2015.32
299S E v E r A L FA C T o r S I n F L U E n C E H o W C o n G r E S S d E C I d E S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch09_274-313.indd 299 11/28/18 4:36 PM
Although party organization has weakened since the turn of the twentieth cen-
tury, today’s party leaders still have resources to reward loyal members who vote with
the party: (1) leadership PACs, (2) committee assignments, (3) access to the floor,
(4) the whip system, (5) logrolling, and (6) the presidency.
Leadership PACs Leaders have increased their influence over members in recent
years with aggressive use of leadership PACs. Leadership PACs are organizations
that members of Congress use to raise funds that they then distribute to other
members of their party running for election. Republican congressional leaders
pioneered the aggressive use of leadership PACs to win their congressional major-
ity in 1995, and the practice has spread widely since that time. Money from lead-
ership PACs can be directed to the most vulnerable candidates or to candidates
who are having trouble raising money. They can also be used to influence primary
FIGURE 9.6
Party Unity Votes by Chamber
Party unity votes are roll-call votes in which a majority of one party lines up against a
majority of the other party. Party unity votes increase when the parties are polarized and
when the party leadership can enforce discipline. Why did the percentage of party unity
votes decline in the 1970s? Why has it risen in recent years?
SOURCES: “CQ Roll Call’s Vote Studies—2013 in Review,” http://media.cq.com/votestudies (accessed 6/9/14); Eliza
Newlin Carney, “Standing Together against Any Action,” CQ Weekly (March 16, 2015); and “2015 Vote Studies: Party
Unity Remained Strong,” CQ Weekly (February 8, 2016); Vital Statistics, “Table 8-3 Party Unity Votes in Congress,
1953-2016,” Brookings, May 21, 2018, www.brookings.edu/multi-chapter-report/vital-statistics-on-congress/
(accessed 11/9/18).
1955
House
Senate
PERCENTAGE OF ALL VOTES
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
50
80%
70
60
40
30
20
During the 1970s, weaker party leadership
was one reason that relatively few votes
pitted the parties against one another.
Party unity votes have increased as partisan
polarization in Congress has increased.
300 C H A P T E R 9 C o n G r E S S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch09_274-313.indd 300 11/28/18 4:36 PM
elections. For example, New York Democratic senator Kirsten Gillibrand has
used her leadership PAC to promote Democratic women candidates running
for Congress. In 2016 the PAC, which she named Off the Sidelines, supplied
funds to 61 candidates running for seats in the House and 10 for the Senate, all
of them women.33
Committee Assignments Party leaders can create debts among members by help-
ing them get favorable committee assignments. These assignments are made early in
the congressional careers of most members and normally are not taken from them
if they later go against party discipline (although this does happen occasionally to
punish disloyalty). Nevertheless, if the leadership goes out of its way to get the right
assignment for a member, this effort is likely to create a bond of obligation that can
be called upon without any other payments or favors. This is one reason the Repub-
lican leadership gave freshmen favorable assignments when the Republicans took
over Congress in 1995. When the Democrats won control of Congress in 2007,
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave desirable and prestigious committee assignments
to Democratic House members who faced competitive re-election races, to assist
them in their home districts and increase their loyalty.
Access to the Floor The most important everyday resource available to the parties
is control over access to the floor. With thousands of bills awaiting passage and most
members clamoring for access in order to influence a bill or to publicize themselves,
floor time is precious. Floor time is allocated in both houses of Congress by the
majority and minority leaders. More important, the Speaker of the House and the
majority leader in the Senate possess the power of recognition—that is, they decide
who may and may not speak on the floor. This authority is quite formidable and can
be used to stymie a piece of legislation completely or to frustrate a member’s attempts
to speak on a particular issue. Because the power is significant, members of Congress
usually attempt to stay on good terms with the Speaker and the majority leader in
order to ensure that they will continue to be recognized.
The Whip System Some influence accrues to party leaders through the whip
system, which is primarily a communications network in each house of Congress
for conveying the leaders’ wishes and plans to the members. Between 12 and
20 assistant and regional whips are selected to operate at the direction of the
majority or minority leader and the whip. They take polls of all the members to
learn their intentions on specific bills, enabling the leaders to know whether they
have enough support to allow a vote as well as whether the vote is so close that
they need to put pressure on undecided members. In those instances, the Speaker
or a lieutenant will go to a few party members who have indicated they will switch
if their vote is essential—an expedient that the leaders try to limit to a few times
per session.
The whip system helps maintain party unity in both houses of Congress, but it
is particularly critical in the House of Representatives because of the large number
of legislators whose positions and votes must be accounted for. The majority and
301S E v E r A L FA C T o r S I n F L U E n C E H o W C o n G r E S S d E C I d E S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch09_274-313.indd 301 11/28/18 4:36 PM
minority whips and their assistants must be adept at inducing compromise among
legislators who hold widely differing viewpoints.
Since 2010, when Republicans retook control of the House, the whip opera-
tion has been faced with significant challenges from conservative members. In 2015
a small group of conservative Republicans, organized into the House Freedom
Caucus, regularly disputed the positions of the party leadership. Frustrated with
the lack of discipline, House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) expelled several
members from his whip team for failing to support party positions.34 Indeed, con-
flict with these rebellious Republicans prompted Speaker John Boehner to make the
stunning announcement in September 2015 of his retirement from the speakership
and from the House. In 2017, Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan (Wisc.) found
that he sometimes needed Democratic votes to pass measures because Freedom
Caucus members would not vote with the rest of the Republicans.
Logrolling A legislative practice wherein agreements are made between legislators in
voting for or against a bill is called logrolling. Unlike with bargaining, legislators who
are logrolling have nothing in common but their desire to exchange support. The
agreement states, in effect, “You support me on bill X, and I’ll support you on bill
Y.” Since party leaders are the center of the communications networks in the two
chambers, they can help members create large logrolling coalitions. Hundreds of
logrolling deals are made each year, and it is the job of the leader and whips to keep
track of who owes what to whom.
The Presidency Of all the influences that maintain the clarity of party lines in
Congress, the influence of the presidency is probably the most important. Indeed,
the office is a touchstone of party discipline in Congress. Since the late 1940s, under
President Harry Truman, presidents each year have identified a number of bills to
be considered part of their administration’s program. By the mid-
1950s, both parties in Congress began to look to the president
for these proposals, which became the most significant part
of Congress’s agenda. The president’s support is an impor-
tant criterion for party loyalty, and party leaders are able to
use it to rally some members. Though President Trump
was personally unpopular with many members of
Congress, legislators still looked to him to set the
agenda and most of the major legislative initia-
tives of 2017 and 2018, including border secu-
rity, immigration, the repeal of Obamacare, and
tax cuts originated in the White House.
In 2015 the most conservative factions of the
Republican Party in Congress, frustrated that
Speaker of the House John Boehner hadn’t been
more effective against the Obama administration,
pressured him to resign.
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch09_274-313.indd 302 11/28/18 4:36 PM
PARTISANSHIP HAS THWARTED THE
ABILITY OF CONGRESS TO DECIDE
Recent congresses have been notable for their inability to pass laws. The 114th Con-
gress (2015–17), 113th Congress (2013–15), and the 112th Congress (2011–13)
were the three least productive Congresses in modern history.35 In November 2013,
Congress received the lowest levels of approval ever recorded in public opinion polls:
9 percent approval, when many high-profile bills failed to pass.36
In 2018, President Trump and congressional leaders agreed on a spending
bill that provided for increased defense and domestic social spending. Though
the bill was opposed by Republican “deficit hawks” and by some Democrats
who demanded legislation to protect undocumented immigrants, a majority of
Republicans and more than 73 House Democrats supported the legislation. In
the Senate, Rand Paul (R-Ky.) briefly filibustered the bill, but it was ultimately
passed by a large majority and signed into law. By increasing overall spending
levels, Trump and congressional leaders provided funding for programs that each
party supported. The GOP got more money for the military and the Democrats
won more money for domestic programs. It was the sort of classic logroll hated
by ideological purists but necessary in a democratic legislature.
Congressional Polarization Congress’s frequent inability to decide reflects the
deep ideological differences that separate the two parties. Efforts to measure
the ideological distance between the two parties show that since the mid-1970s
Republicans and Democrats have been diverging sharply and are now more polar-
ized than at any time in the last century. Democrats have become more liberal
and Republicans have become more conservative on issues related to the economy
and the role of government.37 The Republican Party has experienced the greatest
ideological shift, becoming sharply more conservative. Moreover, because con-
gressional districts are increasingly homogeneous in their ideology—in part due to
gerrymandering but mainly because of natural clustering of the population—most
members of Congress are in safe seats. Their constituents will not punish them for
failing to compromise. Additionally, active mobilization by organizations on the
right, such as the Club for Growth, means that Republican members of Congress
who support compromises might be punished. These outside organizations have
financed alternative candidates to challenge members who vote against the organ-
izations’ positions.
Much Congressional Energy Goes to
Tasks Other Than Lawmaking
In addition to the power to make the
law, Congress has at its disposal an
array of other instruments through
which to influence the process of
Describe Congress’s influence
over other branches of government
303C o n G r E S S I o n A L E n E r G y G o E S T o TA S k S o T H E r T H A n L A W M A k I n G
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch09_274-313.indd 303 11/28/18 4:36 PM
government. The Constitution gives the Senate the power to approve treaties and
appointments. And Congress has a number of other powers through which it can
share with the other branches the capacity to administer the laws.
CONGRESS OVERSEES HOW LEGISLATION
IS IMPLEMENTED
Oversight refers to the effort by Congress, through hearings, investigations, and other
techniques, to exercise control over the activities of executive agencies. Oversight
is carried out by committees or subcommittees of the Senate or the House, which
conduct hearings and investigations to analyze and evaluate bureaucratic agencies
and the effectiveness of their programs. Their purpose may be to locate inefficien-
cies or abuses of power, to explore the relationship between what an agency does
and what a law intends, or to change or abolish a program. Most programs and
agencies are subject to some oversight every year during the course of hearings on
appropriations—that is, the amounts of money approved by Congress in statutes
(bills) that each unit or agency of government can spend.
Committees or subcommittees have the power to subpoena witnesses, administer
oaths, cross-examine, compel testimony, and bring criminal charges for contempt
(refusing to cooperate) and perjury (lying). Hearings and investigations resemble
each other in many ways, but they differ on one fundamental point. A hearing is
usually held on a specific bill, and the questions asked there are usually intended
to build a record with regard to that bill. In an investigation, the committee or
subcommittee does not begin with a particular bill but examines a broad area or
problem and then concludes its investigation with one or more proposed bills.
Oversight hearings can serve as political tools. When party control between
Congress and the president is divided, Congress is more likely to investigate the
executive branch than when party control is unified. The Select Committee on
Benghazi, for example, formed in 2014 to investigate the deaths of four Ameri-
can diplomats in Libya, became enmeshed in partisan contention after Hillary
Clinton—secretary of state during the attacks—announced that she would run for
president. In 2015, as revelations emerged that Clinton had used a private email
server during her tenure as secretary of state, the committee began to investigate
whether appropriate procedures had been followed and whether national security
was compromised.38 When the FBI undertook an investigation into the matter
in 2016, FBI director James Comey recommended no criminal charges against
Clinton but also questioned her judgment and called her actions “extremely care-
less.”39 Almost as soon as Donald Trump took office in 2017, Democrats called
for investigations into allegations that the Trump administration had colluded
with Russian operatives to help Trump win the 2016 election. Democrats demanded
the appointment of a special counsel. Over the course of the investigation, the
special counsel indicted several close Trump aides for improper contacts with
Russian officials. Four of Trump’s former aides pleaded guilty to crimes related to
the investigation.
304 C H A P T E R 9 C o n G r E S S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch09_274-313.indd 304 11/28/18 4:36 PM
SPECIAL SENATE POWERS INCLUDE ADVICE AND CONSENT
The Constitution has given the Senate a special power, one that is not based on law-
making. The president has the power to make treaties and to appoint top executive
officers, ambassadors, and federal judges—but only “with the Advice and Consent
of the Senate” (Article II, Section 2). For treaties, two-thirds of senators present
must concur; for appointments, a simple majority is required.
The power to approve or reject presidential requests includes the power to set
conditions. The Senate only occasionally exercises its power to reject treaties and
appointments, and usually that is when opposite parties control the Senate and the
White House.
IMPEACHMENT IS THE POWER TO REMOVE TOP OFFICIALS
The Constitution also grants Congress the power of impeachment over the presi-
dent, vice president, top executive branch officials, and judicial officials. To impeach
means the House of Representatives charges a government official (president or
otherwise) with “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” and
brings that person before Congress to determine guilt. Impeachment is thus like a
criminal indictment in which the House of Representatives acts like a grand jury,
voting (by simple majority) on whether the accused ought to be impeached. If a
majority of the House votes to impeach, an impeachment trial is conducted in and
by the Senate, which acts like a trial jury by voting whether to convict and remove
the person from office (this vote requires a two-thirds majority of the Senate).
Controversy over Congress’s impeachment power has arisen over the grounds
for impeachment, especially the meaning of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” It
is generally understood that an impeachable offense could include commission of
a crime, but also a non-criminal offense that constitutes an abuse of the powers of
office. Some also note that “an impeachable offense is whatever the majority of the
House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”40 In other
words, impeachment, especially impeachment of a president, is a political decision.
The political nature of impeachment was very clear in the two instances of
presi dential impeachment that have occurred in American history. In 1867, Presi-
dent Andrew Johnson, a southern Democrat who had battled a congressional
Republican majority over Reconstruction, was impeached by the House but saved
from conviction by one vote in the Senate. In 1998 the House of Representatives
approved two articles of impeachment against President Bill Clinton, accusing
him of lying under oath and obstructing justice during the investigation of his
affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. The vote was highly partisan,
with only five Democrats voting for impeachment on each charge. In the Senate,
where a two-thirds majority was needed to convict the president, only 45 sena-
tors voted to convict on the first count of lying and 50 voted to convict on the
second charge of obstructing justice. As in the House, the vote for impeachment
was highly partisan, with all Democrats and only five Republicans supporting the
president’s ultimate acquittal.
305C o n G r E S S I o n A L E n E r G y G o E S T o TA S k S o T H E r T H A n L A W M A k I n G
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch09_274-313.indd 305 11/28/18 4:36 PM
Congress
WHAT DO WE WANT?
Much of this chapter has described the major institutional components of Congress and
has shown how they work as Congress makes policy. But what do these institutional
features mean for how Congress represents the American public? As we saw with Guy
Berkebile and Hazel Hoffman at the beginning of the chapter, congressional actions—and
inaction—have profound effects on Americans’ lives. does the organization of Congress
promote the equal representation of all Americans? or are there institutional features of
Congress that allow some interests more access and influence than others? What can we
learn from a tax cut that passes Congress and a CHIP reauthorization that almost fails?
When Congress is ineffective, American democracy suffers. As we have seen in this
chapter, prolonged stalemates in Congress have led to a reduction in America’s credit
rating and a costly government shutdown. Moreover, Americans have lost confidence
in Congress as it has lurched from crisis to crisis. Is it time for some major changes
to make Congress work better? disillusionment with congressional gridlock has led
some to say that the United States should become a parliamentary system, where the
winning party can enact the legislation it promised in its party platform. Such a system
is more accountable to voters and less prone to stalemate. But Americans would have
to jettison the presidency and become a unicameral body to operate as a true parlia-
mentary system, like that of Britain.
Changes in the way Congress conducts its business could also promote more
bipartisan decision-making. For example, former House Speaker John Boehner de-
cided that he would only bring legislation to the floor if a majority of republicans sup-
ported it. Speaker Paul ryan also followed the same practice. The “Hastert rule,” as
this practice is called could easily be abandoned, allowing bipartisan majorities to enact
legislation. Another significant change—eliminating the filibuster in the Senate—
would heighten partisan differences but ease gridlock. As we have seen, the Senate
voted to eliminate the filibuster for executive branch appointments and judicial candi-
dates (except for the Supreme Court) in 2013. Abandoning the filibuster altogether would
allow legislation to move more smoothly through the Senate. Will any of these changes—
or other measures—be adopted? Each carries risks to political parties and to politicians.
yet, gridlock also carries political risks, as the public grows frustrated with congressional
inaction on important policy areas. What areas of public policy might suffer if Congress
continues its inability to decide? How politicians weigh these different choices will shape
how—and whether—Congress fills its central position in American democracy.
Gridlock and bitter disagreements in Congress turn some Americans off to politics.
However, as the core representative institution of government, Congress is supposed
to represent all Americans. As the “Who Participates?” feature on the facing page
shows, the electorate that turns out to vote for Congress is on average older, whiter,
and more affluent than the average American.
306 C H A P T E R 9 C o n G r E S S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch09_274-313.indd 306 11/28/18 4:36 PM
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
SOURCES: CNN House Exit Polls, www.cnn.com/election/2018/
exit-polls (accessed 11/12/18); U.S. Census Bureau, 2014 American
Community Survey, www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/data.html
(accessed 10/22/15).
WHO PAR TICIPATES?
Women
Men
51%
49%
52%
48%
Gender U.S. pop. Electorate
18−29
30−44
22%
25%
13%
22%
45−64 34% 39%
65+ 19% 26%
Age U.S. pop. Electorate
White
Black
62%
13%
72%
11%
Latino 17% 11%
Asian 5% 3% $100−$200k 6% 25%
Other 3% 3%
Race U.S. pop. Electorate
Under $30k
$30−$50k
52%
20%
17%
21%
$50−$100k 20% 29%
Over $200k 2% 9%
Income U.S. pop. Electorate*
U.S. population
Electorate
2018 Voters as Compared
with U.S. Population
*Numbers may not add up to 100 percent due to rounding.
Who Elects Congress?
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch09_274-313.indd 307 11/28/18 4:36 PM
www.cnn.com/election/2018/exit-polls
Practice Quiz
1. Which of the following is a way in
which the House and the Senate
are different? (p. 278)
a) Senators are more interested in
doing what their constituents want
right now, while members of the
House have more time to consider
“new ideas” and bring together
new coalitions of interests.
b) Members of the House are more
interested in doing what their con-
stituents want right now, while sen-
ators have more time to consider
“new ideas” and to bring together
new coalitions of interests.
c) Senators serve smaller and more
homogeneous constituencies than
members of the House.
d) Senators are often more attuned
to the legislative needs of local
interest groups than members
of the House.
e) There are no important differences
between the House and the
Senate.
2. Which type of representation is
described when constituents have
the power to hire and fire their
representative? (p. 278)
a) agency representation
b) sociological representation
c) philosophical representation
d) ideological representation
e) economic representation
Know Your Members of Congress
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
Vote in the next congressional election. If you haven’t registered,
see page 242 for instructions on how to do so.
Discover what bills are currently under consideration in Congress
by visiting www.congress.gov.
Contact your member of Congress to state your opinion. Go to
www.house.gov and enter your ZIP code to �nd your representative.
Go to www.senate.gov and �nd your state in the drop-down menu to
�nd your two U.S. senators.
308 S T U d y G U I d E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch09_274-313.indd 308 11/28/18 4:36 PM
3. Which of the following statements best
describes the social composition of
the U.S. Congress? (pp. 279–80)
a) The majority of representatives
do not have university degrees.
b) Men and women are equally
represented in Congress.
c) Most members of Congress
do not affiliate with any specific
religion.
d) The legal profession is the domi-
nant career of most members of
Congress prior to their election.
e) The number of African American,
Latino, and Asian American repre-
sentatives has decreased over the
last 20 years.
4. Which of the following is an
advantage that incumbents have in
winning re-election? (p. 282)
a) Challengers are not legally allowed
to spend more money campaigning
than incumbents.
b) Incumbents can provide constitu-
ency services during their tenure
in office.
c) Term limits for incumbents mean
they always know when an election
will be their last.
d) The Supreme Court has ruled that
a district cannot be redrawn while
an incumbent remains in office.
e) Incumbents have no advantage
over challengers in winning office.
5. The Supreme Court has ruled that
(p. 285)
a) only the House of representatives
has the constitutional authority to
redraw congressional district lines
b) race can be the predominant
factor in drawing congressional
districts.
c) race cannot be the predominant
factor in drawing congressional
districts.
d) states can forgo the redistricting
process if they lose more than
10 percent of their population
between censuses.
e) only the Senate has the constitu-
tional authority to redraw congres-
sional district lines
6. An “earmark” is (p. 286)
a) a rule in the House of representa-
tives that limits who can be heard
during legislative debates.
b) a congressional district drawn to
advantage candidates from a
certain racial or ethnic group.
c) a law that grants some special privilege
or exemption to a single individual.
d) language inserted into a bill by a
member of Congress that provides
special benefits for the member of
Congress’s constituents.
e) a weekly, informal meeting between
members of Congress and their
constituents.
7. Which of the following types of
committees includes members of
both the House and the Senate on
the same committee? (p. 291)
a) standing committee
b) conference committee
c) select committee
d) All committees include both House
members and senators.
e) no committees include both House
members and senators.
8. Which of the following statements
about the filibuster is most accurate?
(p. 295)
a) The filibuster was first used in 1975.
b) The votes of 67 senators are cur-
rently required to end a filibuster.
c) The filibuster was used far more
frequently in the 1930s and 1940s
than it has been in the last two
decades.
d) nominees for positions in the exec-
utive branch and the federal courts
cannot currently be filibustered.
e) Filibusters were declared unconsti-
tutional by the Supreme Court
in 2013.
9. Members of Congress take their
constituents’ views into account
because (p. 298)
a) the Supreme Court can invalidate
laws passed without majority
support in the public.
b) interest groups are forbidden from
lobbying during legislative votes.
309S T U d y G U I d E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch09_274-313.indd 309 11/28/18 4:36 PM
Key Terms
agency representation (p. 278) a type of
representation in which a representative
is held accountable to a constituency if he
or she fails to represent that constituency
properly; this is incentive for the represent-
ative to provide good representation when
his or her personal backgrounds, views,
and interests differ from those of his or
her constituency
apportionment (p. 283) the process, occurring
after every decennial census, that allocates
congressional seats among the 50 states
appropriations (p. 304) the amounts of
money approved by Congress in statutes
(bills) that each unit or agency of government
can spend
bicameral (p. 277) having a legislative
assembly composed of two chambers or
houses; distinguished from unicameral
bill (p. 293) a proposed law that has
been sponsored by a member of Congress
and submitted to the clerk of the House
or Senate
c) most constituents pay close
attention to what’s going on in
Congress at all times.
d) they worry that their voting record
will be scrutinized at election time.
e) they can be impeached if they go
against their constituents’ policy
preferences.
10. Which of the following is not a resource
that party leaders in Congress use to
create party discipline? (p. 299)
a) leadership PACs
b) committee assignments
c) access to the floor
d) the whip system
e) party unity votes
11. An agreement between members of
Congress to trade support for each
other’s bills is known as (p. 302)
a) oversight.
b) filibuster.
c) logrolling.
d) patronage.
e) cloture.
12. Congressional polarization (p. 303)
a) has decreased since the mid-1970s.
b) has increased since the mid-1970s.
c) has remained the same since the
mid-1970s.
d) has been driven entirely by
democrats becoming more liberal
since the mid-1970s.
e) has not been measured since the
mid-1970s.
13. When Congress conducts an inves-
tigation to explore the relationship
between what a law intended and
what an executive agency has done,
it is engaged in (p. 304)
a) oversight.
b) advice and consent.
c) appropriations.
d) executive agreement.
e) direct patronage.
14. Which of the following statements about
impeachment is not true? (p. 305)
a) The president is the only official
who can be impeached by
Congress.
b) Impeachment means to charge a
government official with “Treason,
Bribery, or other high Crimes and
Misdemeanors.”
c) The House of representatives
decides by simple majority vote
whether the accused ought to be
impeached.
d) The Senate decides whether to
convict and remove the person
from office.
e) There have only been two instances
of presidential impeachment in
American history.
310 S T U d y G U I d E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch09_274-313.indd 310 11/28/18 4:36 PM
caucus (political) (p. 289) a normally closed
political party business meeting of citizens
or lawmakers to select candidates, elect
officers, plan strategy, or make decisions
regarding legislative matters
cloture (p. 295) a rule or process in a leg-
islative body aimed at ending debate on a
given bill; in the U.S. Senate, 60 senators
(three-fifths) must agree in order to impose
a time limit and end debate
conference (p. 289) a gathering of House
republicans every two years to elect
their House leaders; democrats call their
gathering the caucus
conference committees (p. 291) joint com-
mittees created to work out a compromise
on House and Senate versions of a piece
of legislation
constituency (p. 277) the residents in the
area from which an official is elected
filibuster (p. 295) a tactic used by members
of the Senate to prevent action on legisla-
tion they oppose by continuously holding
the floor and speaking until the majority
backs down; once given the floor, sena-
tors have unlimited time to speak, and it
requires a vote of three-fifths of the Senate
to end a filibuster
gerrymandering (p. 285) the apportionment
of voters in districts in such a way as
to give unfair advantage to one racial or
ethnic group or political party
impeachment (p. 305) the formal charge
by the House of representatives that a
government official has committed
“Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes
and Misdemeanors”
incumbency (p. 282) holding the political
office for which one is running
joint committees (p. 291) legislative com-
mittees formed of members of both the
House and Senate
logrolling (p. 302) a legislative practice
whereby agreements are made between
legislators in voting for or against a bill;
vote trading
majority leader (p. 289) the elected
leader of the majority party in the House of
representatives or in the Senate; in the
House, the majority leader is subordinate in
the party hierarchy to the Speaker of
the House
minority leader (p. 289) the elected leader
of the minority party in the House or Senate
oversight (p. 304) the effort by Congress,
through hearings, investigations, and other
techniques, to exercise control over the
activities of executive agencies
party unity vote (p. 299) a roll-call vote in
the House or Senate in which at least
50 percent of the members of one party
take a particular position and are opposed
by at least 50 percent of the members of
the other party
patronage (p. 286) the resources available
to higher officials, usually opportunities to
make partisan appointments to offices and
to confer grants, licenses, or special favors
to supporters
pocket veto (p. 297) a presidential veto that
is automatically triggered if the president
does not act on a given piece of legislation
passed during the final 10 days of a legisla-
tive session
pork-barrel legislation (or pork) (p. 286)
appropriations made by legislative bodies for
local projects that are often not needed but
that are created so that local representatives
can win re-election in their home districts
private bill (p. 287) a proposal in Congress
to provide a specific person with some kind
of relief, such as a special exemption from
immigration quotas
redistricting (p. 284) the process of redraw-
ing election districts and redistributing
legislative representatives; this happens
every 10 years to reflect shifts in popula-
tion or in response to legal challenges to
existing districts
311S T U d y G U I d E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch09_274-313.indd 311 11/28/18 4:36 PM
roll-call vote (p. 299) a vote in which each
legislator’s yes-or-no vote is recorded as
the clerk calls the names of the members
alphabetically
select committees (p. 290) (usually) tem-
porary legislative committees set up to
highlight or investigate a particular issue or
address an issue not within the jurisdiction
of existing committees
seniority (p. 291) the ranking given to an
individual on the basis of length of continu-
ous service on a committee in Congress
sociological representation (p. 278) a type of
representation in which representatives have
the same racial, gender, ethnic, religious, or
educational backgrounds as their constitu-
ents. It is based on the principle that if two
individuals are similar in background, char-
acter, interests, and perspectives, then one
can correctly represent the other’s views
Speaker of the House (p. 289) the
chief presiding officer of the House of
representatives; the Speaker is the most
important party and House leader and can
influence the legislative agenda, the fate
of individual pieces of legislation, and
members’ positions within the House
standing committee (p. 289) a permanent
committee with the power to propose and
write legislation that covers a particular
subject, such as finance or agriculture
term limits (p. 283) legally prescribed limits
on the number of terms an elected official
can serve
veto (p. 297) the president’s constitutional
power to prevent a bill from becoming a
law; a presidential veto may be overrid-
den by a two-thirds vote of each house
of Congress
whip (p. 289) a party member in the
House or Senate responsible for
coordinating the party’s legislative
strategy, building support for key issues,
and counting votes
312 S T U d y G U I d E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch09_274-313.indd 312 11/28/18 4:36 PM
deering, Christopher, and Steven S. Smith. Committees in Congress. 3rd ed.
Washington, dC: CQ Press, 1997.
dodd, Lawrence, and Bruce I. oppenheimer, eds. Congress Reconsidered. 11th ed.
Washington, dC: CQ Press, 2016.
dodson, debra L. The Impact of Women in Congress. new york: oxford University
Press, 2006.
Fenno, richard F. Homestyle: House Members in Their Districts. Boston: Little, Brown,
1978.
Fiorina, Morris. Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment. 2nd ed.
new Haven, CT: yale University Press, 1989.
Fisher, Louis. On Appreciating Congress. Boulder, Co: Paradigm Publishers, 2010.
koger, Gregory. Filibustering: A Political History of Obstruction in the House and Senate.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010.
Mann, Thomas E., and norman J. ornstein. It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the
American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism. new york:
Basic Books, 2012.
Mayhew, david r. Congress: The Electoral Connection. new Haven, CT: yale University
Press, 1974.
Palmer, Barbara, and denise Simon. Breaking the Political Glass Ceiling: Women and
Congressional Elections. 2nd ed. new york: routledge, 2008.
Sinclair, Barbara. Unorthodox Lawmaking. 5th ed. Washington, dC: CQ Press, 2016.
Spitzer, robert J. President and Congress. new york: McGraw-Hill, 1993.
Tate, katherine. Concordance: Black Lawmaking in the U.S. Congress from Carter to
Obama. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2014.
For Further Reading
313S T U d y G U I d E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch09_274-313.indd 313 11/28/18 4:36 PM
The
Presidency
WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES AND WHY IT MATTERS Kevin
Hartley of Tennessee was 21 years old in April 2017 when he collapsed and
died from cardiac arrest after using methylene chloride to strip paint from
a bathtub during a renovation job. Although the chemical was associated
with dozens of deaths dating back to the 1940s, the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, established in 1970, had lacked the regulatory teeth to remove
such widely available products from the market. Wendy Cleland-Hamnett,
the EPA’s top official overseeing pesticides and toxic chemicals, lamented,
“How is it possible that you can go to a home improvement store and buy a
paint remover that can kill you?”1
In summer 2016, Congress passed and President Obama signed a
reform of the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, giving the EPA more
power to regulate toxic chemicals. Passed with bipartisan support, the
new law required the EPA to evaluate both new and existing chemicals,
including the ten most toxic chemicals in wide use. In the last days of the
Obama administration in January 2017, after ten years of research, the
101010
chapter
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch10_314-345.indd 314 11/28/18 4:36 PM
The
Presidency
While presidents inherit policies and regulations
implemented during previous administrations, they are
empowered to reverse or alter them according to their
beliefs. As a former businessman, President Trump rejected
the regulations put in place by the Obama administration
that could put restraints on some businesses.
EPA proposed banning certain uses of methylene chloride, especially by
ordinary consumers and non-industrial businesses.
But as presidential administrations switched from Obama to Trump, these
new rules remained mere proposals. As a candidate Donald Trump said
that he wanted to eliminate two regulations for every one that his agencies
enacted. And when the Trump administration took office in January 2017, it
froze rules and proposed regulations across government, including those at
the EPA. Kevin Hartley died three months later.
The Trump EPA did release new rules about toxic chemicals in the summer
of 2017. They were written by Nancy Beck, a toxicologist who, between stints
at the EPA under Presidents George W. Bush and Trump, had worked for the
American Chemistry Council, contesting EPA regulations over what she called
“phantom risks.” The new rules reflected changes that had been requested
by the chemical industry and did not include a ban on methylene chloride. The
new leadership at the EPA also overturned Ms. Hamnett’s recommendation
to ban the use of the pesticide chlorpyrifos, associated with developmental
315
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch10_314-345.indd 315 11/28/18 4:36 PM
disabilities in children, and undermined tracking of the health effects of a chemical
once used in nonstick pans associated with birth defects and kidney cancer.
Recognizing that the agency’s leadership was going in a different direction,
Hamnett, who had worked for the EPA since 1979, under presidents of both
parties, announced her retirement. “It’s time for me to go.” In the face of
continued public concern over toxic paint strippers, then-EPA head Scott Pruitt
indicated in May 2018 that the agency would implement the methylene chlo-
ride ban. But months of inaction passed, and in October 2018 a coalition of
consumer groups threatened to sue the EPA for delaying the ban after four
more people died.
In this chapter, we examine the foundations of the American presidency
and assess the origins and character of presidential power. Presidents are
empowered by democratic political processes and, increasingly, by their ability
to control and expand the institutional resources of the office. They sit atop
the executive branch, a large bureaucracy of departments and agencies such
as the EPA. They influence policy with their appointments to the Cabinet, the
White House staff, and to the Executive Office of the President, choosing
officials who are sympathetic to their policy goals and using regulatory re-
view as with the EPA and executive orders to make policy. They set the tone
for government as well, as the sole elected official representing the entire
country. But, as we will see, presidential power is not without limit, nor should
it be. The U.S. Constitution emphasizes checks and balances among the
branches of government, not unlimited power. The framers thought a powerful
and energetic president would make the U.S. government more effective but
knew that presidential power needed to be subject to constraints to prevent
it from becoming a threat to citizens’ liberties.
★ Outline the powers the Constitution gives the president (pp. 317–27)
★ Identify the institutional resources presidents have to help them
exercise their powers (pp. 327–31)
★ Explain how modern presidents have become even more powerful
(pp. 331–40)
CHAP TER GOAL S
316 C H A P T E R 1 0 T H E P R E S I D E N C y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch10_314-345.indd 316 11/28/18 4:36 PM
Presidential Power Is Rooted
in the Constitution
The presidency was established by
Article II of the Constitution, which
begins by asserting “The executive
power shall be vested in a President
of the United States of America.” The president’s executive power is underscored
in Section 3 of Article II, which confers upon the president the duty to “take care
that the laws be faithfully executed.” The president’s oath of office at the end of
Section 1, moreover, obligates—and thus empowers—the chief executive to “preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” This language seems
to require the president to take action if constitutional government is threatened.
President Abraham Lincoln cited his oath of office as justification for suspending
the writ of habeas corpus at the start of the Civil War. He declared that his oath
would be broken if the government was overthrown. Suspension of the writ, he said,
was necessary to prevent that calamity from taking place. By vesting the executive
power in the president, Article II also implies that the president serves as America’s
head of state and is, therefore, entitled to special deference and respect. On the
basis of Article II, presidents have three types of powers. These are called the
Outline the powers the Constitution
gives the president
Abraham Lincoln, like many other presidents, cited the presidential oath of office as providing the
president with the authority to take all the necessary actions to protect the nation.
317P R E S I D E N T I A l P O W E R I S R O O T E D I N T H E C O N S T I T U T I O N
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch10_314-345.indd 317 11/28/18 4:36 PM
expressed powers of the office, implied powers, and delegated powers. A fourth
type of power claimed by presidents does not appear in Article II. This is called the
inherent power of the office.
EXPRESSED POWERS COME DIRECTLY FROM
THE WORDS OF THE CONSTITUTION
The expressed powers of the presidency are those specifically established by the lan-
guage of the Constitution. These fall into several categories:
1. Military. Article II, Section 2, provides for the power as “Commander in
Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the
several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.”
2. Judicial. Article II, Section 2, also provides the power to “grant Reprieves
and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of
Impeachment.”
3. Diplomatic. Article II, Section 2, also provides the power “by and with the
Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties.” Article II, Section 3,
provides the power to “receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers.”
4. Executive. Article II, Section 3, authorizes the president to see to it that all
the laws are faithfully executed; Section 2 gives the chief executive the power
to appoint, remove, and supervise all executive officers and to appoint all
federal judges.
5. Legislative. Article I, Section 7, and Article II, Section 3, give the president the
power to participate authoritatively in the legislative process.
Military The president’s military powers are among the most important exercised
by the chief executive. The position of commander in chief makes the president the
highest military authority in the United States, with control of the entire defense
establishment. The president also directs the nation’s intelligence network, which
includes not only the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) but also the National
Security Council (NSC), the National Security Agency (NSA), the Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI), and a host of less well-known but very powerful international
and domestic security agencies.
Military Sources of Domestic Power The president’s military powers extend
into the domestic sphere. Article IV, Section 4, provides that the “United States shall
[protect] every State . . . against Invasion . . . and . . . domestic Violence,” and Congress
has made this an explicit presidential power through statutes directing the president
as commander in chief to discharge these obligations.2 The Constitution restrains
the president’s use of domestic force by providing that a state legislature (or gover-
nor, when the legislature is not in session) must request federal troops before the
president can send them into the state to provide public order. Yet this proviso is
not absolute. First, presidents are not obligated to deploy national troops merely
because the state legislature or governor makes such a request. More important, the
318 C H A P T E R 1 0 T H E P R E S I D E N C y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch10_314-345.indd 318 11/28/18 4:36 PM
president may deploy troops in a state or city without a specific request from the
state legislature or governor if the president considers it necessary to maintain an
essential national service during an emergency, enforce a federal judicial order, or
protect federally guaranteed civil rights.
One example of the unilateral use of presidential emergency power, even when
the state didn’t request it, was the decision by President Dwight Eisenhower in
1957 to send troops into Little Rock, Arkansas, to enforce court orders to integrate
Little Rock’s Central High School. The governor of Arkansas, Orval Faubus, had
actually posted the Arkansas National Guard at the entrance of Central High School
to prevent the court-ordered admission of nine black students. After an effort
to negotiate with Governor Faubus failed, President Eisenhower reluctantly sent
1,000 paratroopers to Little Rock, who stood watch while the black students took
their places in the all-white classrooms.
In most instances of domestic disorder, whether from human or from natu-
ral causes, presidents sometimes exercise unilateral power by declaring a “state of
emergency,” as President Trump did in response to the three hurricanes striking
the United States in 2017, thereby making available federal grants, insurance, and
direct aid.
Judicial The presidential power to grant reprieves, pardons, and amnesty involves
the power of life and death over all individuals who may be a threat to the security of
the United States. Presidents may use this power on behalf of a particular individual,
One of the president’s responsibilities is the maintenance of public order. President Eisenhower used
this to justify sending troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, to enforce racial integration of public schools.
319P R E S I D E N T I A l P O W E R I S R O O T E D I N T H E C O N S T I T U T I O N
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch10_314-345.indd 319 11/28/18 4:36 PM
as did Gerald Ford when he pardoned Richard Nixon in 1974 “for all offenses
against the United States which he . . . has committed or may have committed.”
Or they may use it on a large scale, as did President Andrew Johnson in 1868,
when he gave full amnesty to all southerners who had participated in the “Late
Rebellion.” Presidents’ use of the pardon power can be very controversial. Presi-
dent Trump was criticized for pardoning former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio in
2017 after Arpaio was found guilty in federal court of criminal contempt for
ignoring a court order that directed his office to halt illegal racial profiling prac-
tices. The pardon was criticized because Trump did not first consult with the
Justice Department’s office of pardons, as is customary, and because it was issued
before Arpaio had been sentenced.3
Diplomatic The president is America’s “head of state,” its chief representative in
dealings with other nations, having the power to make treaties for the United States
(with the advice and consent of the Senate) as well as the power to “recognize”
other countries. Diplomatic recognition means that the United States acknowl-
edges a government’s legitimacy and territorial claims. In 2015, President Obama
restored American diplomatic ties with Cuba, which had been severed by President
Eisenhower in 1961 after the United States’ relations with the Castro regime
deteriorated. In 2017, after several staffers at the U.S. embassy in Cuba demon-
strated neurological symptoms after being exposed to strange sounds, some blamed
these “sonic attacks” on the Cuban government, which prompted President Trump
to revisit newly restored American ties with Cuba. In 2018, President Trump met
with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in an effort to defuse tensions on the
Korean Peninsula. Earlier in the year North Korea and America had exchanged
threats in the wake of North Korean nuclear missile tests.
In recent years, presidents have expanded the practice of using execu-
tive agreements instead of treaties to establish relations with other countries.4
An executive agreement is exactly like a
treaty because it is a contract between
two countries that has the force of a
treaty, but it does not require Senate
approval. Ordinarily, executive agree-
ments are used to carry out commitments
already made in treaties or laws or to
arrange for matters well below the level
of policy. But when presidents have
found it expedient to use an executive
agreement in place of a treaty, Congress
has typically acquiesced.
Executive Power The most important
basis of the president’s power as chief exec-
utive is to be found in Article II, Section 3,
which stipulates that the president must see
that all the laws are faithfully executed, and
As the head of state, the president is
America’s chief representative in dealings
with other countries. Here, President Trump
meets with North Korea’s Supreme Leader
Kim Jong-un in 2018 to discuss nuclear
disarmament on the Korean Peninsula.
320 C H A P T E R 1 0 T H E P R E S I D E N C y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch10_314-345.indd 320 11/28/18 4:36 PM
Section 2, which provides that the president will appoint and supervise all
executive officers and appoint all federal judges (with Senate approval; after some
early controversy, presidents’ sole power to remove executive branch officials was
accepted). The power to appoint the principal executive officers and to require
each of them to report to the president on subjects relating to the duties of
their departments makes the president the true chief executive officer (CEO)
of the nation. In this manner, the Constitution focuses executive power and
legal responsibility on the president. The president is subject to some limita-
tions because the appointment of all such officers, including ambassadors,
ministers, and federal judges, is subject to majority approval by the Senate. But
these appointments are at the discretion of the president, and these appointees
are generally loyal to the president.
Legislative Power Two constitutional provisions are the primary sources of the
president’s power in the legislative arena. The first of these is the provision in
Article II, Section 3, that the president “shall from time to time give to the Congress
Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration
such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.”
Delivering a State of the Union address may at first appear to be little more than
the president’s obligation to make recommendations for Congress’s consideration.
But as political and social conditions began to favor an increasingly prominent
presidential role, each president began to rely on this provision in order to become
the primary initiator of proposals for congressional action and the principal source
for public awareness of national issues.5
The second of the president’s legislative powers is the veto power assigned by Arti-
cle I, Section 7.6 The veto power is the president’s constitutional power to prevent a
bill from becoming a law (see Figure 10.1). It makes the president the single most
important legislative leader.7 No bill vetoed by the president can become law
unless both the House and the Senate override the veto by a two-thirds vote. In
the case of a pocket veto, Congress does not have the option of overriding the veto
but must reintroduce the bill in the new Congress. A pocket veto is a presidential
veto that is automatically triggered if the president does not act on a given piece
of legislation passed during the final 10 days of a legislative session. Usually, if a
president does not sign a bill within 10 days, it automatically becomes law. But this
is true only while Congress is in session. If a president chooses not to sign a bill
presented within the last 10 days of a legislative session and Congress is out of session
when the 10-day limit expires such that returning the bill to Congress is not possible,
the bill is vetoed and dies.
Use of the veto varies according to the political situation each president confronts.
Ten of President Obama’s 12 vetoes occurred during his last two years in office,
when Republicans held the majority in both Houses. The veto power is effective:
more than 90 percent of all vetoes in history have been upheld.
Although not explicitly stated, the Constitution implies that the president has
the power of legislative initiative—the president’s implied power to bring a legisla-
tive agenda before Congress. Initiative implies the ability to formulate proposals
321P R E S I D E N T I A l P O W E R I S R O O T E D I N T H E C O N S T I T U T I O N
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch10_314-345.indd 321 11/28/18 4:36 PM
for important policies, and the president, as an individual with a great deal of staff
assistance, is able to initiate decisive action more frequently than Congress, with
its large assemblies that have to deliberate and debate before taking action. With
some important exceptions, Congress depends on the president to set the agenda
of public policy. For example, during the weeks following September 11, 2001,
George W. Bush took many presidential initiatives to Congress, and each was given
nearly unanimous support.
FIGURE 10.1
The Veto Process
*PL = public law; 107 = number of Congress (107th was 2000–01); 999 = number of the law.
Bill passes
Congress
Presented
to the
president
Bill dies
(pocket veto)
No action after
10 working days
while Congress is
adjourned
• Of�ce of Management and Budget
party
Bill reviewed by
• Special assistants
• Relevant department head
• Key legislative leaders in president’s
• Key lobbyists close to president
• Justice Department
Bill acceptable
to the president
Veto
recommended,
goes to
• Staff assistants
• Relevant department
• Speechwriters
Veto
Returned to Congress.
Override requires two-thirds
vote of both houses
Bill becomes law
and is given legal
designation
(e.g., PL-107-999*)
President signs, usually
in a public ceremony in
presence of key sponsors
and supporters. Several
pens are used as souvenirs
Bill lives
Bill dies
Override
Failure to
override
No action after
10 working days
while Congress is
in session
322 C H A P T E R 1 0 T H E P R E S I D E N C y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch10_314-345.indd 322 11/28/18 4:36 PM
IMPLIED POWERS DERIVE FROM EXPRESSED POWERS
The list of expressed presidential powers is brief, but each expressed power has
become the foundation of a second set of presidential powers, the so-called implied
powers of the office. An implied power is one that can be said to be necessary to
allow presidents to exercise their expressed power. For example, the Constitu-
tion expressly gives the president the power to appoint “all other officers of the
United States . . . which shall be established by law.” Article II does not, however,
expressly grant the president the power to remove such officials from office.
There is no reason to assume that the power to appoint necessarily indicates
the power to remove an official. From the earliest years of the Republic, though,
presidents claimed that the removal power was implied by the appointment
power. The Supreme Court eventually agreed that presidents did have sole
removal power.
Presidents have also made much of the very first sentence of Article II, which
declares, “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of
America.” This grant of power along with the subsequent admonition to presidents
to see to it that the laws are faithfully executed, as well as the president’s oath of
office, have been cited by successive White Houses as justifications for actions not
expressly sanctioned by the Constitution.
In recent years, the vesting clause has been said by some to support what has
come to be known as the “theory of the unitary executive.”8 Unitary executive
theory holds that all executive power inheres in the president except as explicitly
limited by the Constitution.9 Thus, according to this view, the president is
subject only to expressly stated restraints, such as Congress’s control of reve-
nues, its impeachment power, and its power to override presidential vetoes.
Proponents of unitary executive theory also maintain that presidents have their
own power to interpret the Constitution as it applies to the executive branch
and need not necessarily defer to the judiciary. This claim was advanced by
President George W. Bush when he signed a Defense Appropriation Bill that
included language introduced by Senator John McCain barring the use of
torture on terrorist suspects. In his signing statement, Bush declared that he
would construe the portion of the Act relating to the treatment of detainees
“in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President
to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and
consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power.”10 The
president was claiming, in other words, that particularly in the military realm,
he possessed sole authority to execute acts of Congress according to his own
understanding of the law.
Unitary executive theory particularly holds that the president controls all policy
making by the executive branch, and that neither Congress nor the courts may
intervene. But the principle of constitutional checks and balances would appear to
provide Congress with powers over the many important agencies of the executive
branch through “congressional oversight” of the executive arising from Congress’s
Article I powers. Thus, the stage is set for conflict between the implied powers of
Congress and those of the president.
323P R E S I D E N T I A l P O W E R I S R O O T E D I N T H E C O N S T I T U T I O N
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch10_314-345.indd 323 11/28/18 4:36 PM
DELEGATED POWERS COME FROM CONGRESS
Many of the powers exercised by the president and the executive branch are not
found in the Constitution but are delegated powers, the products of congressional
statutes (laws) and resolutions. Over the past century, Congress has voluntarily
delegated a great deal of its own legislative authority to the executive branch. This
delegation of power has been an almost inescapable consequence of the expansion of
government activity in the United States since the New Deal. Given the vast range
of the federal government’s responsibilities, Congress cannot execute and administer
all the programs it creates and the laws it enacts. Inevitably, Congress must turn
to the hundreds of departments and agencies in the executive branch or, when
necessary, create new agencies to implement its goals. Thus, for example, in 2002,
when Congress sought to protect America from terrorist attacks, it established
the Department of Homeland Security with broad powers in the realms of law
enforcement, public health, and immigration.
MODERN PRESIDENTS HAVE CL AIMED
INHERENT POWERS
Presidents have claimed a fourth source of power beyond expressed, implied, and
delegated powers. These are powers not specified in the Constitution but said to
stem from the “rights, duties and obligations of the presidency.” They are referred
to as the inherent powers and are most often asserted by presidents in times of war or
national emergency.
President Lincoln relied upon a claim of inherent power to raise an army after the
fall of Fort Sumter. Similarly, Presidents Roosevelt (World War II), Truman (Korean
War), and both Presidents Bush (Persian Gulf and Middle East Wars) claimed
inherent powers to defend the nation. Since the Korean War, presidents have used
their claim of inherent powers along with their constitutional power as Commander
in Chief to bypass the constitutional provision giving Congress the power to declare
war. Congress declared war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December
7, 1941. Since that time, American forces have been sent to fight foreign wars on
more than one hundred occasions but not once was Congress asked for a Declara-
tion of War. In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution designed to restore
its role in military policy. Presidents, however, have regarded the resolution as an
improper limitation on the inherent powers of the presidency and have studiously
ignored the provisions of the War Powers Resolution.
No president has acted so frequently on the basis of inherent powers as President
George W. Bush. He claimed that the inherent powers of the presidency gave him
the authority to create military commissions, designate U.S. citizens as enemy com-
batants, engage in “extraordinary renditions” of captured suspects who would be
moved to unknown facilities in unnamed countries for interrogation, and autho-
rize the National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor phone conversations between
the United States and other nations.11 When challenged, some but not all of these
actions were overturned by the courts. These decisions hardly put to rest the idea
of inherent power. Indeed, President Obama continued to rely on the concept of
C H A P T E R 1 0 T H E P R E S I D E N C y324
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch10_314-345.indd 324 11/28/18 4:36 PM
All democracies have an executive branch,
but the specific form it takes varies. In
presidential systems such as the United
States’, the position of the head of state
(the symbolic leader of a country) and the
head of government (the leader in charge of
the day-to-day running of the government)
is combined into one position—the
president. In parliamentary systems, these
roles are often held by different people,
with the head of government being the
more powerful position. For example, in
Germany, the head of government is the
prime minister (called the chancellor), while
the head of state is the president, who
plays a largely ceremonial role similar to the
United Kingdom’s queen.
Most democracies use parliamentary
executive systems, though presidential
systems are common in the Americas, in
part due to the historical influence of the
United States. A small but growing group
of countries use a hybrid “semi-presidential”
system. France, for instance, divides the
executive between a powerful head of state
(the president) and the head of government
(the prime minister), who have different but
(theoretically) equal powers.
Executive Branches
in Comparison
PRESIDENTIAL PARLIAMENTARY
Examples United States, Mexico,
Brazil
United Kingdom, India,
Germany, Japan
Executive title President Prime Minister, Chancellor, etc.
Is the executive the . . .
Head of state? yes No
Head of government? yes yes
Executive elected by . . . voters* parliament
Term in office Fixed by law Subject to support of the
parliament
Separation of powers yes No; the PM is a member of
the parliament
Executive role in legislating Veto power Initiates most bills
*In the United States, the president is elected by the Electoral College, not by the voters directly. Other presidential
systems have the voters directly elect the president.
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch10_314-345.indd 325 11/28/18 4:36 PM
inherent power in ordering drone strikes against suspected terrorists and ordering
American air strikes in Libya. In 2017, President Trump’s order banning travelers
from several Muslim countries was based mainly on a claim that the president had
the inherent power to bar any class of immigrants whom he thought to be a threat
to the United States.
Congress has endeavored to place some limits on powers that presidents claim
to be inherent. One example is the case of emergency powers. Though presidents
believe they have the inherent power to deal with emergencies, Congress has,
by statute, sought to circumscribe and guide the use of these powers. Under the
1976 National Emergencies Act, the president is authorized to declare a national
emergency in the event of major threats to the United States’ national security or
economy.12 An emergency declaration relating to foreign threats allows the presi-
dent to embargo trade, seize foreign assets, and prohibit transactions with what-
ever foreign nations are involved. During a state of emergency, constitutional
rights, including the right of habeas corpus, may be suspended. An emergency
declaration, however, remains in force for only one year unless it is renewed by the
president. Congress may, by a joint resolution of the two houses, terminate a state
of emergency.
A closely related area in which Congress has sought to regulate matters that
presidents tend to view as involving their own inherent power is the nation’s response
to natural disasters. Under the 1988 Stafford Act, the governor of a state affected
by a disastrous flood, hurricane, earthquake, or other calamitous event must ask the
Federal Emergency Management Agency for a determination that the scope of the
Congress has tried to limit presidential power in the area of disaster relief, however presidents view
disaster response as an inherent executive power. President Trump sent troops to Puerto Rico in
2017 in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria.
326 C H A P T E R 1 0 T H E P R E S I D E N C y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch10_314-345.indd 326 11/28/18 4:36 PM
disaster is beyond the abilities of state and local authorities to handle. The president
may then declare a disaster and make the state eligible for federal funds and relief.
The purpose of the Stafford Act was to ensure that presidential disaster declarations
were governed by statutory criteria. In recent years, however, critics have charged
that presidential determinations and funding authorizations seemed, nevertheless,
to be driven by political motivations.13
Institutional Resources of
Presidential Power Are Numerous
Constitutional sources of power are
not the only resources available to
the president. Presidents have at their
disposal a variety of other formal and
informal resources that have impor-
tant implications for their ability to govern (see Figure 10.2). Collectively, these
individuals could be said to make up the institutional presidency and to give the presi-
dent a capacity for action that no single individual, however energetic, could duplicate.
The first component of the institutional presidency is the president’s Cabinet.
THE CABINET IS OF TEN DISTANT FROM THE PRESIDENT
In the American system of government, the Cabinet is the traditional but infor-
mal designation for the heads of all the major federal government departments.
Cabinet secretaries are appointed by the president with the consent of the Senate.
The Cabinet has no constitutional status. Unlike in Great Britain and many other
parliamentary countries, where the cabinet is the government, the American
Cabinet meets but makes no decisions as a group. The Senate must approve each
appointment, but Cabinet members are responsible to the president, not to the
Senate or to Congress at large, although Congress may require cabinet secretar-
ies and their deputies to testify before congressional committees. Since Cabinet
appointees generally have not shared political careers with the president or one
another and since they may meet literally for the first time only after their selec-
tion, the formation of an effective governing group out of this diverse collection of
appointments is highly unlikely.
THE WHITE HOUSE STAFF CONSTITUTES
THE PRESIDENT’S EYES AND EARS
The White House staff is composed mainly of analysts and advisers who are
closest to, and most responsive to, the president’s needs and preferences.14 Although
many of the top White House staff members hold such titles as “adviser to the
president,” “assistant to the president,” “deputy assistant,” and “special assistant” for
a particular task or sector, the judgment and advice they are supposed to provide
are a good deal broader and more generally political than those coming from the
Identify the institutional resources
presidents have to help them
exercise their powers
327I N S T I T U T I O N A l R E S O U R C E S O F P R E S I D E N T I A l P O W E R A R E N U M E R O U S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch10_314-345.indd 327 11/28/18 4:36 PM
Executive Office of the President or from the cabinet departments. The members
of the White House staff also tend to be more closely associated with the president
than are other presidentially appointed officials. They are appointed directly by the
president and do not need to win Senate approval.
THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT IS A
VISIBLE SIGN OF THE MODERN STRONG PRESIDENCY
The Executive Office of the President (EOP) is a major part of what is often called the
“institutional presidency”—the permanent agencies that perform defined manage-
ment tasks for the president. Created in 1939, the EOP is composed of between
FIGURE 10.2
The Institutional Presidency
T H E P R E S I D E N T
T H E C A B I N E T
Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Education
Department of Energy
Department of Health and
Human Services
Department of Homeland Security
Department of Housing and
Urban Development
Department of the Interior
Department of Justice
Department of Labor
Department of State
Department of Transportation
Department of the Treasury
Department of Veterans Affairs
E X E C U T I V E O F F I C E
O F T H E P R E S I D E N T
Council of Economic Advisers
Council on Environmental Quality
National Security Council
Of�ce of Administration
Of�ce of Management and
Budget
Of�ce of National Drug
Control Policy
Of�ce of Science and Technology Policy
Of�ce of the United States Trade
Representative
President’s Intelligence Advisory Board
and Intelligence Oversight Board
White House Military Of�ce
White House Of�ce
Includes:
Chief of Staff
Press Secretary
Senior Advisers
Special Assistants
T H E W H I T E H O U S E S T A F F
Includes:
Central Intelligence Agency
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Labor Relations Authority
General Services Administration
I N D E P E N D E N T A G E N C I E S A N D
G O V E R N M E N T C O R P O R A T I O N S
328 C H A P T E R 1 0 T H E P R E S I D E N C y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch10_314-345.indd 328 11/28/18 4:36 PM
1,500 and 2,000 highly specialized people who work for EOP agencies. The most
important and largest EOP agency is the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Its roles in preparing the national budget, designing the president’s program, report-
ing on agency activities, and overseeing regulatory proposals make OMB personnel
part of virtually every conceivable presidential responsibility. The status and power
of the OMB have grown in importance with each successive president. The pro-
cess of budgeting at one time was a “bottom-up” procedure, with expenditure and
program requests passing from the lowest bureaus through the departments to
“clearance” in the OMB and hence to Congress, where each agency could be called
in to reveal what its “original request” was before the OMB revised it. Now the
budgeting process is “top-down”: the OMB sets priorities for agencies as well as
for Congress.
The staff of the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) constantly analyzes the
economy and economic trends and attempts to give the president the ability to
anticipate events rather than waiting for and reacting to them. The Council on
Environmental Quality was designed to do for environmental issues what the CEA
does for economic issues. The National Security Council (NSC) is composed of
designated cabinet officials and others spanning military, diplomatic, and intelli-
gence areas who meet regularly with the president to give advice on national security
matters. Other EOP agencies perform more specialized tasks.
THE VICE PRESIDENCY HAS BECOME
MORE IMPORTANT SINCE THE 1970S
The vice presidency is a constitutional anomaly even though the Constitution
created the office along with the presidency. The vice president exists for two
purposes only: to succeed the president in case of death, resignation, or incapacity
and to preside over the Senate, casting a tie-breaking vote when necessary.15
The main value of the vice president as a political resource for the president
is electoral. Traditionally, presidential candidates choose running mates who can
win the support of at least one state (preferably a large one) not otherwise likely to
support the ticket. It is very doubtful that John Kennedy would have won in 1960
without his vice-presidential candidate, Texan Lyndon Johnson, and the contribu-
tion Johnson made to winning his home state. Another rule holds that the vice-
presidential nominee should provide some regional balance and, wherever possible,
some balance among various ideological or ethnic subsections of the party. In 2016,
Donald Trump chose Governor Mike Pence of Indiana as his running mate for a
number of reasons. First, Pence, a former host of conservative radio and television
talk shows, was well known among conservatives. His radio and television back-
ground also meant that Pence was an experienced public speaker. Second, Pence
served in Congress for 12 years. He worked to reassure skeptical party leaders that
Trump was a qualified candidate. Third and most important, Pence is a devout
Christian who is very well regarded by social conservatives. As vice president, Pence
is often the person Trump relies on to smooth relations with Republican members
of Congress.
329I N S T I T U T I O N A l R E S O U R C E S O F P R E S I D E N T I A l P O W E R A R E N U M E R O U S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch10_314-345.indd 329 11/28/18 4:36 PM
The vice president is also important because, in the event of the death or inca-
pacity of the president, he or she will succeed to the nation’s highest office. During
the course of American history, eight vice presidents have had to replace presidents
who died in office. One vice president, Gerald Ford, found himself at the head of
the nation when President Richard Nixon was forced to resign as a result of the
Watergate scandal.
THE FIRST SPOUSE HAS BECOME IMPORTANT TO POLICY
The president serves as both chief executive and chief of state—the equivalent
of Great Britain’s prime minister and monarch rolled into one, simultaneously
leading the government and representing the nation at official ceremonies and
functions.
Because they are generally associated with the head-of-state aspect of America’s
presidency, presidential spouses are usually not subject to the same degree of media
scrutiny or partisan attack as the president. Traditionally, most first ladies have lim-
ited their activities to the ceremonial portion of the presidency. First ladies greet
foreign dignitaries, visit other countries, and attend important national ceremonies.
Some first spouses, however, have had considerable influence over policy. Franklin
Roosevelt’s wife, Eleanor, was widely popular but also widely criticized for her active
role in many elements of her husband’s presidency. During the 1992 campaign, Bill
Clinton often implied that his wife would be active in the administration; he joked
that voters would get “two for the price of one.” After the election, Hillary Clinton
Mike Pence, who served as a member of Congress and then governor of Indiana, is devoutly
Christian and socially conservative. He helped improve Donald Trump’s electoral appeal among
social conservatives and establishment Republicans.
330 C H A P T E R 1 0 T H E P R E S I D E N C y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch10_314-345.indd 330 11/28/18 4:36 PM
took a leading role in many policy areas, most notably heading the administration’s
health care reform effort. She also became the first first lady to win public office on
her own, winning a seat in the U.S. Senate from New York in 2000. She also ran
for the presidency in 2008 and 2016, having served in between as Barack Obama’s
secretary of state. Melania Trump is the first foreign-born first lady in almost
200 years. With no political or public affairs experience, Mrs. Trump said that she
would be a traditional first lady. Given the current expectation that the first spouse
should assume some public responsibility, however, Mrs. Trump has taken on a
limited public role in the Trump administration.
Party, Popular Mobilization,
and Administration Make
Presidents Stronger
During the nineteenth century, Con-
gress was America’s dominant insti-
tution of government, and members
of Congress sometimes treated the
president with disdain. Today, however, no one would assert that the presidency
is unimportant. Presidents seek to dominate the policy-making process and claim
the inherent power to lead the nation in time of war. The expansion of presiden-
tial power over the course of the past century has come about not by accident but
as the result of an ongoing effort by successive presidents to enlarge the powers of
the office.
Generally, presidents can expand their power in two ways: through popular mobi-
lization and through the administration. First, presidents may use popular appeals
to create a mass base of support that will allow them to dominate their political
foes, a tactic called “going public.”16 Second, presidents may seek to bolster their
control of established executive agencies or to create new administrative institu-
tions and procedures that will reduce their dependence on Congress and give them
a more independent governing and policy-making capability. Perhaps the most
obvious example of this is the use of executive orders to achieve policy goals in lieu
of seeking to persuade Congress to enact legislation.
Presidents do have a third possible tool: their political party. Each president
has relied on his own party to implement his legislative agenda. In 2009–10, for
example, President Obama relied on congressional Democrats to prevent rejection
of his agreement with Iran to pass the Affordable Care Act in the face of virtually
unanimous Republican opposition. However, the president does not control his
party; party members have considerable autonomy. President Trump has often been
unable to rally Republican legislators to his cause, and the Republican congressional
delegations were so divided that it was unclear whether GOP leaders could mobilize
a majority for any set of programs. Moreover, in America’s system of separated pow-
ers, the president’s party may be in the minority in Congress and unable to do much
for the chief executive’s programs. Consequently, although their party is valuable
Explain how modern presidents
have become even more powerful
331PA R T y, P O P U l A R M O B I l I Z AT I O N , A N D A D M I N I S T R AT I O N
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch10_314-345.indd 331 11/28/18 4:36 PM
to chief executives, it has not been a fully reliable presidential tool. As a result,
contemporary presidents are more likely to use the two other methods, popular
mobilization and executive administration, to achieve their political goals.
GOING PUBLIC MEANS TRYING TO WHIP UP THE PEOPLE
During the nineteenth century, it was considered inappropriate for presidents to
engage in personal campaigning on their own behalf or in support of programs
and policies. When Andrew Johnson broke this unwritten rule and made a series of
speeches vehemently seeking public support for his Reconstruction program, even
some of Johnson’s most ardent supporters were shocked at what they saw as his
lack of decorum and dignity. The president’s opponents cited his “inflammatory”
speeches in one of the articles of impeachment drafted by the Congress pursuant to
the first impeachment trial of a president in history.17
In the twentieth century, though, popular mobilization became a favored weapon
in the political arsenals of most presidents. Among modern presidents, the one who
used public appeals most effectively was Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR). FDR
was “firmly persuaded of the need to form a direct link between the executive office
and the public.”18 He developed a number of tactics aimed at forging such a link.
He made important use of the new electronic medium, the radio, to reach millions
of Americans. In his famous “fireside chats,” the president, or at least his voice, came
into every living room in the country to discuss programs and policies and generally
to assure Americans that he was aware of their difficulties and working diligently
toward solutions.
FDR was also an innovator in the realm of what is now called press relations.
When he entered the White House, FDR faced a mainly hostile press typically
controlled by conservative members of the business establishment. As the presi-
dent wrote, “All the fat-cat newspapers—85 percent of the whole—have been
utterly opposed to everything the Administration is seeking.”19 FDR hoped to
use the press to mold public opinion, but to do so he needed to circumvent
the editors and publishers who were generally unsympathetic to his goals. To
this end, he worked to cultivate the reporters who covered the White House.
FDR made himself available for biweekly press conferences, where he offered
candid answers to reporters’ questions and made certain to make important
policy announcements that would provide the reporters with significant stories
for their papers.20
Every president since FDR has sought to craft a public-relations strategy that
would emphasize the incumbent’s strengths and maximize his popular appeal. For
John F. Kennedy, handsome and quick-witted, the televised press conference was
an excellent public-relations vehicle. Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama made
extensive use of televised town meetings—carefully staged events that gave the
presidents an opportunity to appear to consult with rank-and-file citizens about
goals and policies without having to face pointed questions preferred by reporters.
President Obama was a talented and effective speaker who often relied on his own
speaking abilities rather than material crafted by the Communications Office.
332 C H A P T E R 1 0 T H E P R E S I D E N C y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch10_314-345.indd 332 11/28/18 4:36 PM
Going Public Online President Obama was also the first to make full use of the
internet as a communication medium. Drawing on the interactive tools of the
web, Obama’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns changed the way politicians organize
supporters, advertise to voters, defend against attacks, and communicate with
their constituents.21 In the 2016 presidential campaign, candidates Hillary Clinton
and especially Donald Trump made particular use of Twitter to communicate with
millions of voters, bypassing traditional media.
The internet has changed not only the way modern presidents campaign but
also how they govern. The WhiteHouse.gov website keeps the president’s constitu-
ents abreast of his policy agenda with a weekly streaming video address by the
president, press briefings, speeches and remarks, a daily blog, photos of the presi-
dent, the White House schedule, and other information. Virtually everything the
president does is recorded online. YouTube aired Obama’s press conferences and
public appearances on a daily basis. Every presidential address is now streamed
live online.
Over the last century, presidents and candidates have made more and more use of direct appeals
to the American people. President Franklin Roosevelt made effective use of radio to build public
support for his programs. Donald Trump has likewise used Twitter to promote his message, both
as a candidate and as president.
333PA R T y, P O P U l A R M O B I l I Z AT I O N , A N D A D M I N I S T R AT I O N
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch10_314-345.indd 333 11/28/18 4:36 PM
Circumventing television and other traditional media, the internet allows
the president to reach citizens directly. First as a candidate and then as president,
Donald Trump has transformed the use of Twitter. Every Trump legislative initiative
and policy direction, as well as political controversy, includes a flurry of tweets end-
lessly repeated by the broadcast and print media. Trump’s language seems tailored
to the Twitter age. Calling North Korean leader Kim Jong-un “Little Rocket Man”
in his tweets allowed Trump to boil down his sense of contempt and harsh posture
toward North Korea into a tweet-sized threat to use force.
The Limits of Going Public Some presidents have been able to make effective
use of popular appeals to overcome congressional opposition. Popular support,
though, has not been a firm foundation for presidential power. The public is noto-
riously fickle. President George W. Bush maintained an approval rating of over
70 percent for more than a year following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
By the end of 2005, however, Bush’s approval rating had dropped to 39 per-
cent as a result of the growing unpopularity of the Iraq War, the administration’s
inept handling of hurricane relief, and several White House scandals, including
the conviction of Vice President Cheney’s chief of staff on charges of lying to a
federal grand jury. Between the time President Obama took office in 2009 and
May 2016, his public approval ranged from a high of 76 percent in January 2009
to a low of 36 percent in the fall of 2014.22 Such declines in popular approval
during a president’s term in office are nearly inevitable and follow a predictable
pattern.23 Presidents generate popular support by promising to undertake impor-
tant programs that will contribute directly to the well-being of large numbers
of Americans. Almost without exception, presidential performance falls short of
promises and popular expectations, leading to a decline in public support and the
ensuing weakening of presidential influence.24 It is a rare American president, such
as Bill Clinton, who exits the White House more popular than when he went in.
President Trump was saddled with unprecedentedly low public approval from the
start of his presidency.
THE ADMINISTRATIVE STRATEGY
INCREASES PRESIDENTIAL CONTROL
Contemporary presidents have increased the administrative capabilities of their
office in four ways. First, they have enhanced the reach and power of the EOP.
Second, they have sought to increase White House control over the federal
bureaucracy. Third, they have expanded the role of executive orders. Fourth,
they have made frequent use of signing statements and other instruments of
direct presidential governance. Taken together, these four components of what
might be called the White House “administrative strategy” have given presidents
a capacity to achieve their programmatic and policy goals even when they are
unable to secure congressional approval. Indeed, some recent presidents have
been able to accomplish a great deal with remarkably little congressional, parti-
san, or even public support.
334 C H A P T E R 1 0 T H E P R E S I D E N C y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch10_314-345.indd 334 11/28/18 4:36 PM
The Executive Office of the President The EOP has grown from six administra-
tive assistants in 1939 to today’s several hundred employees working directly for
the president in the White House office, along with some 2,500 individuals staffing
the divisions of the Executive Office.25 The creation and growth of the White House
staff give the president an enormously enhanced capacity to gather information,
plan programs and strategies, communicate with constituencies, and exercise super-
vision over the executive branch. The staff multiplies the president’s eyes, ears, and
arms, becoming a critical instrument of presidential power.26
In particular, the OMB serves as a potential instrument of presidential control
over federal spending and hence a mechanism through which the White House has
greatly expanded its power. In addition to its power over the federal budget process
(discussed earlier), the OMB has the capacity to analyze and approve all legislative
proposals, not only budgetary requests, emanating from all federal agencies before
they are submitted to Congress. This procedure, now a matter of routine, greatly
enhances the president’s control over the entire executive branch. All legislation
originating in the White House and all executive orders also go through the OMB.27
Thus, through one White House agency, the president has the means to exert major
influence over the flow of money and the shape and content of national legislation.
Regulatory Review A second tactic that presidents have used to increase their
power and reach is the process of regulatory review, through which they have
sought to seize control of rule making by the agencies of the executive branch
(see also Chapter 11). Whenever Congress enacts a statute, the statute’s actual
implementation requires the promulgation of hundreds of rules by the agency
charged with administering the law and giving effect to the will of Congress.
For example, if Congress wishes to improve air quality, it must delegate to an
agency—say the Environmental Protection Agency—the power to establish
numerous rules and regulations that will govern the actions of the government
agencies, firms, and individuals whose conduct may have an impact upon the
atmosphere. The agency rule-making process is, itself, governed by a number
of statutory requirements concerning public notice, hearings, and appeals, but
once completed, administrative rules have the effect of law and will be enforced
by the federal courts.
The discretion Congress delegates to administrative agencies has provided recent
presidents with an important avenue for expanding their own power. During his
administration, President Clinton issued 107 directives to administrators, ordering
them to propose specific rules and regulations. In some instances, the language of
the rule to be proposed was drafted by the White House staff; in other cases, the
president asserted a priority but left it to the agency to draft the precise language
of the proposal. President George W. Bush continued the Clinton-era practice of
issuing presidential directives to agencies to spur them to issue new rules and regu-
lations. The Obama administration not only issued a number of major regulatory
directives to federal agencies but also launched a “look back” program. Under this
program, the administration sought to eliminate several hundred existing rules it
deemed obsolete.28 In 2015, Obama sought new regulations governing power plant
335PA R T y, P O P U l A R M O B I l I Z AT I O N , A N D A D M I N I S T R AT I O N
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch10_314-345.indd 335 11/28/18 4:36 PM
emissions, overtime pay for workers, the educational practices of career (for-profit)
colleges, and a host of other matters. President Trump moved aggressively to reverse
these and other directives by issuing new rules or repealing existing ones to roll back
environmental regulations, reduce banking regulations, eliminate workplace safety
regulations, and remove protections for transgender workers, among others. Most
notably, in the first year of his presidency, Trump eliminated nearly 70 environmen-
tal regulations.29
Governing by Decree: Executive Orders and Memoranda Another mechanism
through which contemporary presidents have sought to enhance their power to
govern unilaterally is the use of executive orders and other forms of presidential
decrees, including executive agreements, memoranda, national security findings
and directives, proclamations, reorganization plans, signing statements, and a host
of other tools.30
An executive order is a direct presidential directive to the bureaucracy to undertake
some action, bypassing Congress and the legislative process. Executive orders have
a long history in the United States and have been the instruments for a number of
important policies including the purchase of Louisiana, the annexation of Texas,
the emancipation of the slaves, the wartime internment of Japanese Americans, the
desegregation of the military, the initiation of affirmative action, and the creation of
a number of federal agencies including the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Food and Drug Administration, and the Peace Corps.31
Presidential use of executive orders is constrained by law. When presidents issue
executive orders, in principle they do so pursuant to the powers granted to them by
the Constitution or delegated to them by Congress. When presidents issue orders
they generally must state the constitutional or statutory basis for their actions.
Historically, executive orders were most often used during times of war or
national emergency. In recent years, though, executive orders have become routine
instruments of presidential governance rather than emergency wartime measures
(Figure 10.3). In the first seven years of his presidency, Barack Obama issued 242
executive orders and 219 presidential memoranda, using some of them to reverse
executive orders of his predecessor (just as Bush reversed some of those of the
Clinton years). Obama’s executive orders authorized stem cell research, restored
funding for international family planning organizations, opened access to presiden-
tial papers, enhanced federal gun regulations, and barred improper interrogation
methods of detainees captured by the United States.32 In 2014, Obama issued exec-
utive orders that would protect some 4 million undocumented immigrants from the
threat of deportation. President Trump rescinded most of Obama’s orders on immi-
gration and opened the way for the deportation of those who had been protected
by Obama’s orders. Trump also issued a number of orders, including a controversial
“travel ban” decree seeking to prevent travelers from several majority-Muslim coun-
tries from entering the United States. Trump’s orders led to a number of lawsuits,
but the Supreme Court ultimately upheld the ban.
Executive orders are one form of presidential decree. Others include adminis-
trative orders, national security directives, presidential memoranda, presidential
336 C H A P T E R 1 0 T H E P R E S I D E N C y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch10_314-345.indd 336 11/28/18 4:36 PM
FIGURE 10.3
Presidential Executive Orders*
Executive orders are a tool presidents have for influencing policy. Their use has varied
considerably over time. Each bar in the graph shows the average number of executive
orders each president issued per year in office. Which presidents issued the most executive
orders? What events in U.S. history were occurring when those presidents were in office?
*Does not include memoranda or other forms of executive action
**As of October 2018.
SOURCE: Gerhard Peters, www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php (accessed 10/15/18).
Washington (1)
J. Adams (0.25)
J. Q. Adams (0.75)
Jefferson (0.5)
Madison (0.125)
Monroe (0.125)
Jackson (2)
van Buren (3)
Harrison (0)
Tyler (4)
Polk (5)
Taylor (3)
Fillmore (6)
Pierce (9)
Buchanan (4)
Lincoln (12)
Johnson (20)
Grant (27)
Hayes (23)
Garfield (12)
Arthur (27)
Cleveland (28)
Harrison (36)
Cleveland (35)
McKinley (46)
T. Roosevelt (135)
F. D. Roosevelt (282)
Taft (181)
Wilson (225)
Harding (209)
Coolidge (219)
Hoover (242)
Truman (60)
Eisenhower (61)
Kennedy (71)
Johnson (46)
Nixon (31)
Ford (48)
Carter (80)
Reagan (48)
G. H. W. Bush (42)
G. W. Bush (36)
Obama (33)
Trump (77)**
Clinton (46)
337PA R T y, P O P U l A R M O B I l I Z AT I O N , A N D A D M I N I S T R AT I O N
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch10_314-345.indd 337 11/28/18 4:36 PM
proclamations, and presidential findings.33 Like executive orders, the other instru-
ments establish policy and have the force of law, and presidents often use them
interchangeably. Generally speaking, though, administrative orders apply to matters
of administrative procedure and organization; directives seem most often associated
with national or homeland security; memoranda are used to clarify or modify presi-
dential positions and orders; and proclamations are usually used to give emphasis to
an especially important presidential decree.
Congress is not entirely without power vis à vis executive decrees. Legislators can
overturn presidential orders that were based on the president’s legislative authority
(as opposed to constitutional authority) through legislation declaring that the order
“shall not have legal effect,” or through actually repealing the statute on which the
order was based. Efforts to overturn the orders of sitting presidents are, however,
hindered by the fact that any such legislation can be vetoed by the president. Thus,
two-thirds of the members of both houses of Congress would have to agree to the
move. One study indicates that only about 4 percent of all presidential orders have
ever been rescinded by legislation.34 Usually, the best Congress can do is inhibit
the implementation of an executive order by preventing funds from being spent
to implement the order, though this, too, is relatively unusual.35 Failure by Con-
gress to act, moreover, strengthens the legal validity of a presidential order. The
Supreme Court has held that congressional inaction tends to validate an order by
indicating congressional “acquiescence” in the president’s decision.36 This idea raises
an important question. Many presidential orders take the form of secret national
In 2017, President Trump signed an Executive Order on health care. The administration claimed
this would provide patients expanded options for health insurance, though many felt this order would
undermine the stability of Obamacare.
338 C H A P T E R 1 0 T H E P R E S I D E N C y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch10_314-345.indd 338 11/28/18 4:36 PM
security directives and findings of which Congress is unaware. Can Congress be said
to acquiesce in presidential decisions made without its knowledge?
Signing Statements To negate congressional actions to which they object, recent
presidents have made frequent and calculated use of presidential signing statements.37
The signing statement is an announcement made by the president at the time of
signing a congressional enactment into law, often presenting the president’s inter-
pretation of the law in addition to the usually innocuous remarks about the many
benefits the law will bring the nation. Occasionally presidents have used signing
statements to point to sections of the law they deem improper or even unconstitu-
tional and to instruct executive branch agencies how to execute the law.38 In 2013,
for example, President Obama signed a bill containing a provision requiring the
president to notify Congress before transferring any prisoner from Guantánamo
Bay. In his signing statement, Obama declared that the provision was unconstitu-
tional and ignored the legislation.
PRESIDENTIAL POWER HAS LIMITS
From the Constitution, presidents derive expressed, implied, and delegated powers.
Claims of inherent powers are derived from the basic principles of national sover-
eignty. But, while the framers sought an energetic executive, they were also con-
cerned that executive power could be abused and might stifle citizens’ liberties. To
guard against this possibility, the framers contrived a number of checks on executive
power. The president’s term is limited to four years, though with the possibility
of reelection (since 1951, presidents may only be elected twice). The Congress is
empowered to impeach and remove the president, to reject presidential appoint-
ments and refuse to ratify treaties, to refuse to enact laws requested by the president,
to deny funding for the president’s programs, and to override presidential vetoes of
congressional enactments.
The framers viewed the threat of impeachment as an important check upon
executive power. The Constitution provides that a president may be impeached for
“high crimes and misdemeanors.” Such offenses are to be charged by the House and
tried in the Senate, with the Chief Justice presiding and a two-thirds vote needed
for conviction. Only two presidents, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, have been
impeached, though neither was convicted. A third president, Richard Nixon, would
almost certainly have been impeached for his misdeeds in the Watergate affair, but
Nixon chose to resign to avoid the impeachment process.
The requirement that the Senate concur in treaties and presidential appoint-
ments was seen by the framers as another important check on executive power.
However, in recent years severe partisan disagreements have led presidents to resort
to “recess appointments.” These are authorized by Article II, Section 2, which states,
“The President shall have power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the
Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their
next Session.” Until recent years, recess appointments were made only between
Senate sessions or when the Senate was adjourned for lengthy periods. In recent
339PA R T y, P O P U l A R M O B I l I Z AT I O N , A N D A D M I N I S T R AT I O N
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch10_314-345.indd 339 11/28/18 4:36 PM
years, however, recess appointments have become more frequent and the Senate has
resorted to a strategy similar to the one employed to prevent pocket vetoes. One
senator is assigned the task of calling the chamber to order for a few moments every
day for a pro forma session during periods of recess so that the president cannot
claim the Senate was closed for business. This procedure was found constitutional
by the Supreme Court.
And, of course, under the Constitution, only the Congress has the power to
enact legislation or to levy taxes or to appropriate funds. Indeed, so many were the
constitutional checks on executive power that some delegates to the Constitutional
Convention feared that the executive would be too weak and the potential energy of
executive power lost. As we can see, however, from the many actions of presidents in
recent years, presidential power has grown significantly beyond the framers’ vision.
The Presidency
WHAT DO WE WANT?
The framers of the Constitution created a system of government in which the Congress
and the executive branch were to share power. At least since the New Deal of the
1930s, however, the powers of Congress have waned, whereas those of the presidency
have expanded. There is no doubt that Congress continues to be able to confront
presidents and even, on occasion, hand the White House a sharp rebuff.
In the larger view, however, presidents’ occasional defeats, however dramatic, have
to be seen as temporary setbacks in a gradual but decisive shift toward increased
presidential power. louis Fisher, a leading authority on the separation of powers,
recently observed that in what are arguably the two most important policy arenas,
national defense and the federal budget, the powers of Congress have been in decline
for at least the past 50 years.39
What might the growth of presidential power mean for students reading this book
today? It might mean that policies they favor can more easily become the law of the
land. Congress works slowly, while the president can work quickly—making law by the
stroke of a pen. Presidential strength works both ways, however: for those who oppose
a particular policy or have qualms about some aspect of it, the stroke of the presiden-
tial pen might seem hasty and autocratic. The consequences can even be deadly, as
we saw in the chapter opener when a ban on a toxic chemical is at stake.
A powerful presidency, a weak Congress, and a partially apathetic electorate
make for a dangerous mix. Who we vote into the office of the president matters.
The “Who Participates?” feature on the facing page shows who voted for Donald
Trump in 2016.
340 C H A P T E R 1 0 T H E P R E S I D E N C y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch10_314-345.indd 340 11/28/18 4:36 PM
SOURCE: "2016 Election Exit Polls,” Washington Post, November 10, 2016,
www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/exit-polls/
(accessed 11/10/16).
Age
18−29
37% 55%
65+
53% 45%
45−64
53% 44%
30−44
42% 50%
Income
$100,000+
48% 47%
<$50,000
41% 52%
$50,000−$99,999
50% 46%
Sex
Men
53% 41%
Women
42% 54%
Other candidates
Clinton
Trump
Race
Asian AmericanHispanic
29% 65% 29% 65%
Other
37% 56%
White
58% 37%
African American
88%8%
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
WHO PAR TICIPATES?
Who Voted for
Donald Trump in 2016?
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch10_314-345.indd 341 11/28/18 4:36 PM
Practice Quiz
1. Which article of the Constitution
describes the basic powers of the
presidency and the means of selecting
presidents? (p. 317)
a) Article I
b) Article II
c) Article III
d) Article IV
e) Article V
2. Executive agreements are exactly like
treaties except that (p. 320)
a) executive agreements involve only
domestic, not international, affairs.
b) the Constitution explicitly mentions
the president’s ability to make
executive agreements.
c) executive agreements do not
require the Senate’s approval.
d) executive agreements are ordinarily
used to carry out commitments not
already made in treaties or laws.
e) executive agreements require a
two-thirds approval vote in the
Senate.
3. What are the requirements for
overriding a presidential veto?
(p. 321)
a) 50 percent plus one vote in both
houses of Congress
b) two-thirds vote in both houses of
Congress
c) two-thirds vote in the Senate only
d) three-fourths vote in both houses
of Congress
e) A presidential veto cannot be
overridden by Congress.
342 S T U D y G U I D E
Contact the White House
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
After he or she is elected, the president is expected to represent all
Americans. Ask a question or share your view on a policy with the
president and White House staff via www.whitehouse.gov/contact.
Create a petition at http://petitions.whitehouse.gov regarding an issue
you care about, and try to get as many signatures as possible.
Watch a few recent presidential speeches, including this year’s State of
the Union address, on YouTube. Share your views with your fellow
students, friends, and family.
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch10_314-345.indd 342 11/28/18 4:36 PM
4. The Supreme Court has ruled that
(p. 323)
a) the power to remove executive
appointees belongs exclusively
to the Senate.
b) the power to remove executive
appointees belongs exclusively
to the House of Representatives.
c) the power to remove executive
appointees belongs exclusively
to the president.
d) the power to remove executive
appointees belongs exclusively
to the federal judiciary.
e) executive appointees cannot be
removed from office under any
circumstance.
5. The War Powers Resolution of 1973
was an act passed by Congress
that (p. 324)
a) required the CIA to collect intel-
ligence on all Americans born in
a foreign country.
b) outlawed presidential use of
executive agreements.
c) created the National Security Council.
d) granted the president the authority
to declare war.
e) allowed the president to send
American troops into action abroad
only if Congress had granted an
authorization to use force or if
military personnel were already
under attack.
6. Which of the following statements about
presidential declarations of national
emergency is not accurate? (p. 326)
a) Presidents can only declare a state
of national emergency in response
to foreign threats after receiving
the approval of Congress.
b) Once the president has declared
a state of national emergency,
constitutional rights, including the
right of habeas corpus, may be
temporarily suspended.
c) A declaration of national emer-
gency in response to foreign threats
allows the president to embargo
trade, seize foreign assets, and
prohibit transactions with whatever
foreign nations are involved.
d) Declarations of national emergency
remain in force for only one year
unless they are renewed by the
president.
e) Congress may, by a joint resolution
of the two houses, terminate a
declaration of national emergency.
7. Approximately how many people work
for agencies within the Executive
Office of the President? (p. 329)
a) 25 to 50
b) 500 to 750
c) 1,500 to 2,000
d) 4,500 to 5,000
e) over 10,000
8. The EOP agency responsible for
preparing the national budget, design-
ing the president’s program, and
overseeing regulatory proposals is
called (p. 329)
a) the Office of Management and
Budget.
b) the National Security Council.
c) the Council of Economic Advisers.
d) the Congressional Budget Office.
e) the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
9. Which of the following statements about
vice presidents is not true? (pp. 329–30)
a) The vice president succeeds the
president in case of death,
resignation, or incapacitation.
b) The vice president casts the
tie-breaking vote in the Senate
when necessary.
c) The vice president also serves
as an honorary member of the
Supreme Court.
d) Eight vice presidents have had
to replace American presidents
who died in office.
e) Presidential candidates typically
select a vice-presidential can-
didate who is likely to bring the
support of a state that would not
otherwise support the ticket.
10. What are two primary ways that
presidents can expand their power?
(p. 331)
a) avoiding popular appeals and
loosening their control of executive
agencies
343S T U D y G U I D E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch10_314-345.indd 343 11/28/18 4:36 PM
b) using popular appeals and bolster-
ing their control of executive
agencies
c) using popular appeals and loosening
their control of executive agencies
d) avoiding popular appeals and
bolstering their control of executive
agencies
e) weakening national partisan
institutions and bolstering their
control of executive agencies
11. The Environmental Protection Agency
and the Food and Drug Administration
were created through the use of
(p. 336)
a) a pocket veto.
b) a signing statement.
c) an executive agreement.
d) an executive order.
e) executive privilege.
12. When the president makes an
announcement about his interpreta-
tion of a congressional enactment
that he is signing into law, it is
called (p. 339)
a) a signing statement.
b) a line-item veto.
c) an executive order.
d) legislative initiative.
e) executive privilege.
Key Terms
Cabinet (p. 327) the secretaries, or chief
administrators, of the major departments
of the federal government; Cabinet secre-
taries are appointed by the president with
the consent of the Senate
commander in chief (p. 318) the role of the
president as commander of the national
military and the state National Guard units
(when called into service)
delegated powers (p. 324) In the Tenth
Amendment to the Constitution, delegated
powers are described as those granted by
the Constitution to the federal government;
however, the term has commonly come to
be used more broadly to refer to constitu-
tional powers that are assigned to one gov-
ernment agency but exercised by another
with the express permission of the first
executive agreement (p. 320) an agreement,
made between the president and another
country, that has the force of a treaty but does
not require the Senate’s “advice and consent”
Executive Office of the President (EOP)
(p. 328) the permanent agencies that
perform defined management tasks for
the president; created in 1939, the EOP
includes the OMB, the CEA, the NSC, and
other agencies
executive order (p. 336) a rule or regulation
issued by the president that has the effect
and formal status of legislation
expressed powers (p. 318) specific
powers granted by the Constitution to
Congress (Article I, Section 8) and to the
president (Article II); the term expressed
powers was coined by Chief Justice
John Marshall
inherent powers (p. 324) powers
claimed by a president that are not
expressed in the Constitution but are
inferred from it
implied powers (p. 323) powers derived
from the necessary and proper clause of
Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution;
such powers are not specifically expressed
but are implied through the expansive inter-
pretation of delegated powers
legislative initiative (p. 321) the president’s
implied power to bring a legislative agenda
before Congress
pocket veto (p. 321) a presidential veto that
is automatically triggered if the president
does not act on a given piece of legislation
passed during the final 10 days of a
legislative session
344 S T U D y G U I D E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch10_314-345.indd 344 11/28/18 4:36 PM
signing statements (p. 339) announcements
made by the president when signing bills
into law, often presenting the president’s
interpretation of the law
veto (p. 321) the president’s constitutional
power to prevent a bill from becoming a
law; a presidential veto may be overrid-
den by a two-thirds vote of each house of
Congress
Crouch, Jeffrey P. The Presidential Pardon Power. lawrence: University Press of Kansas,
2009.
Dodds, Graham. Take Up Your Pen: Unilateral Presidential Directives in American Politics.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2013.
Fisher, louis. Constitutional Conflicts between President and Congress. 6th ed. lawrence:
University Press of Kansas, 2014.
Fisher, louis. The Law of the Executive Branch. New york: Oxford University Press, 2014.
Genovese, Michael, and Robert J. Spitzer. The Presidency and the Constitution. New york:
Palgrave/Macmillan, 2005.
Ginsberg, Benjamin. Presidential Government. New Haven, CT: yale University Press, 2016.
Han, lori Cox, and Diane Heith. Presidents and the American Presidency, 2nd ed.
New york: Oxford University Press, 2017.
Kernell, Samuel. Going Public: New Strategies of Presidential Leadership. 4th ed.
Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2006.
Neustadt, Richard E. Presidential Power: The Politics of Leadership from Roosevelt to
Reagan. Rev. ed. New york: Free Press, 1990.
Spitzer, Robert J. The Presidential Veto: Touchstone of the American Presidency. Albany:
State University of New york Press, 1988.
Tulis, Jeffrey K. The Rhetorical Presidency. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2017.
War Powers Resolution (p. 324) a resolution
of Congress that the president can send
troops into action abroad only by authoriza-
tion of Congress or if American troops are
already under attack or serious threat
White House staff (p. 327) analysts and
advisers to the president, each of whom is
often given the title “special assistant”
For Further Reading
345S T U D y G U I D E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch10_314-345.indd 345 11/28/18 4:36 PM
Bureaucracy
WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES AND WHY IT MATTERS Lee
Ann Walters couldn’t figure out what was wrong with her 4-year-old twins. They
had just moved to a new house in Flint, Michigan, and had rashes all over their
bodies. One doctor thought it was contact dermatitis, another eczema. Yet
another doctor suspected scabies, but tests were negative. Then Walters had
an epiphany: every time her sons swam in the kiddie pool in the yard, or took
a bath, the rash flared up. She told her family to stop drinking the tap water,
which was orange-brown even after running through a filter she had installed.
That was December 2014. Eight months earlier, the cash-strapped city
of Flint, under a state-appointed emergency manager, had switched its
water supply to save money. Rather than draw water from the Detroit system,
the city switched to the Flint River, which had been an industrial dumping
ground for years. Walters had the city test her tap water: the lead count was
104 parts per billion; the legal limit is 15. A follow-up test a week later
revealed a lead count of 397 parts per billion. Flint’s utility administrator told
her not to use the water. Lead exposure can cause developmental delays and
disability in children. The damage is permanent.
111111
chapter
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch11_346-373.indd 346 11/28/18 4:37 PM
Bureaucracy Government bureaucracies affect ordinary Americans in countless ways. The Flint water crisis, exposed by Lee Ann
Walters, demonstrates how the failures of bureaucracy on
every level of government can affect citizens’ lives directly.
Walters discovered from an EPA official that in switching to the Flint River,
city officials had failed to add anti-corrosive chemicals to the water despite a
federal regulation requiring corrosion control. Running through old pipes, the
untreated river water was leaching lead into the drinking supply. An official from
Michigan’s Department of Environmental Quality assured the EPA official that
there was corrosion control in place. Meanwhile, the city had been testing for
lead, but telling residents to flush their water before collecting their samples
and retesting in houses where the initial lead levels were low, not high.1
Finally, in January 2016, in the face of growing outcry from city residents,
researchers, and advocates such as the ACLU, the EPA declared a state
of emergency in Flint and took over lead testing in the city. In March 2016
the Flint Water Advisory Task Force issued its final report. The report cited
a “series of government failures” at all levels: the local water department
rushed to switch the water supply without corrosion control; the state
departments of environmental quality and health and human services ignored
mounting evidence of unsafe water; the federal EPA delayed enforcement
of the Safe Water Drinking Act and Lead and Copper Rule; and the governor’s
347
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch11_346-373.indd 347 11/28/18 4:37 PM
office failed to reverse the poor decisions of the emergency manager and
state agencies despite the urgings of senior staff members.2
When bureaucracies work well, we barely notice. But when they fail, the
results can be truly alarming, like the Flint crisis, or the September 11, 2001,
terror attacks, widely viewed as a failure of the national security bureaucracy.3
Such failures play into Americans’ ambivalence about the role of govern-
ment. Some disasters prompt politicians to promise that they will slash the
bureaucracy, while others result in an increase in the bureaucracy, like the
creation of the federal Department of Homeland Security after September 11,
2001. Each instance raises a number of questions: Should the bureaucracy
be smaller or larger? How can it become more efficient and effective?
How can the bureaucracy be made more responsive to the needs of the
American people?
★ Define bureaucracy, and describe the basic features of the executive
branch (pp. 349–55)
★ Describe the major goals we expect federal agencies to promote
(pp. 355–63)
★ Explain why it is often difficult to control the bureaucracy (pp. 363–67)
CHAP TER GOAL S
348 C H A P T E R 1 1 B U R E A U C R A C Y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch11_346-373.indd 348 11/28/18 4:37 PM
Bureaucracy Exists to
Improve Efficiency
Although Congress, the president,
and the courts may garner more
attention in the American system
as they make policy, the bureaucracy
plays a crucial role in administering
public policy on the ground. Bureaucrats carry out the normal work of govern-
ment, implementing the policies that Congress and the President have passed
and that the court system may have adjudicated. The teachers you had in
elementary school, the Social Security officer who approved your grandmother’s
retirement pension, the air traffic controller who guided the plane on your
last vacation, the engineers who designed the roads that carried you to class,
and the inspector who approved the meat in this morning’s breakfast sausage are
all bureaucrats.
Both routine and exceptional tasks require the organization, specialization, and
expertise found in bureaucracies. To provide these services, government bureaucracies
employ specialists such as meteorologists, doctors, and scientists. To do their job
effectively, these specialists require resources and tools (ranging from paper to
complex computer software); they have to coordinate their work with others (e.g.,
traffic engineers must communicate with construction engineers); and there must
be effective outreach to the public (e.g., doctors must be made aware of health
warnings). Bureaucracy is a means of coordinating the many different parts that
must work together to provide useful services.
BUREAUCRATS FULFILL IMPORTANT ROLES
Congress is responsible for making the laws, but in most cases legislation only
sets the broad parameters for government action. Bureaucracies are responsible
for filling in the blanks by determining how the laws should be implemented.
This requires bureaucracies to draw up much more detailed rules that guide the
process of implementation (the efforts of departments and agencies to translate
laws into specific bureaucratic rules and actions) and to play a key role in
enforcing the laws. Congress needs the bureaucracy to engage in rule making and
implementation for several reasons. One is that bureaucracies employ people who
have much more specialized expertise in specific policy areas than do members of
Congress. Decisions about how to achieve many policy goals—from managing the
national parks to regulating air quality to ensuring a sound economy—rest on the
judgment of specialized experts. A second reason that Congress needs bureaucracy
is that because updating legislation can take many years, bureaucratic flexibil-
ity can ensure that laws are administered in ways that take new conditions into
account. Finally, members of Congress often prefer to delegate politically difficult
decisions to bureaucrats.
Define bureaucracy, and describe
the basic features of the executive
branch
349B U R E A U C R A C Y E x I S T S T O I M P R Ov E E F F I C I E n C Y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch11_346-373.indd 349 11/28/18 4:37 PM
Bureaucrats Make Rules One of the most important things that government
agencies do is issue rules that provide more detailed and specific indications of what
a given congressional policy will actually mean. For example, the Clean Air Act
empowers the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to assess whether current or
projected levels of air pollutants pose a threat to public health, to identify whether
motor vehicle emissions are contributing to such pollution, and to create rules
designed to regulate these emissions. After the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that
the EPA had the authority to regulate auto emissions, including “greenhouse gases”
like carbon dioxide that contribute to climate change, the agency in the Obama
administration imposed new emission standards for automobiles, which would
raise the average per-vehicle fuel economy for new vehicles to 35.5 miles per gallon
starting in 2016, a standard later boosted to 54.4 miles per gallon by 2025.4 In
2014 the EPA extended its reach to regulate factories and power plants that emit
greenhouse gases. Especially controversial was the Clean Power Plan, which required
power plants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 32 percent by 2030. The plan
never went into effect due to lawsuits filed by a number of states, and in 2017 the
head of the EPA in the Trump administration repealed the plan. 5
Once a new law is passed, the agency studies the legislation and proposes a set
of rules to guide implementation. These proposed rules are then open to comment
by anyone who wishes to weigh in. Representatives for the regulated industries and
advocates of all sorts commonly submit comments. But anyone who wants to can
An example of bureaucratic rules that affect Americans both positively and negatively are the
regulations set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). When President Obama
extended the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions in 2014, many people applauded
the benefits to the environment, but at the same time, thousands lost jobs because of the new rules.
350 C H A P T E R 1 1 B U R E A U C R A C Y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch11_346-373.indd 350 11/28/18 4:37 PM
go to www.regulations.gov to read proposed rules, enter comments, and view the
comments of others. Once rules are approved, they are published in the Federal
Register and have the force of law.
Bureaucrats Enforce Laws In addition to rule making, bureaucracies play an
essential role in enforcing the laws. In doing so, bureaucracies exercise considerable
power over private actors. In 2015 the EPA charged Volkswagen with cheating on
emissions tests of its diesel vehicles. For over seven years, the company had installed
software that showed emissions at legal levels during testing conditions but, once
the cars were on the road, showed that emissions were actually 10 to 40 percent
higher. After the EPA threatened to bar the company from selling some of its 2016
cars in the United States, Volkswagen admitted that it had cheated. The financial
repercussions for the company will be long-lasting. In 2016 the company agreed
to a $15.8 billion settlement that required it to buy back the faulty vehicles
and compensate owners. As part of the settlement, Volkswagen also agreed to fund
several clean air programs. Even with these payments, Volkswagen faced additional
lawsuits from states and investors.6
Who Are Bureaucrats? Bureaucrats are considered members of the “civil service”
and work under the merit system created by the Civil Service Act of 1883. With
this act, the federal government attempted to imitate business by requiring appointees
to public office be qualified for the job to which they were appointed. The goal
was to end political appointments under the “spoils system,” which awarded jobs
based on political connections, and to create a system of competitive examinations
through which the very best candidates were to be hired for every job. As a further
safeguard against political interference, merit-system employees were given legal
protection against being fired without a show of cause. Reasonable people may dis-
agree about the value of such job security and how far it should extend in the civil
service, but the justifiable objective of this job protection, cleansing bureaucracy
of political interference while upgrading performance, cannot be disputed. At the
higher levels of government agencies, including such posts as cabinet secretaries and
assistant secretaries, many jobs are filled with political appointees and are not part
of the merit system.
Today’s federal bureaucrats are distributed around the country—nearly 4 out
of 5 federal employees work outside of Washington, D.C. Compared to private
sector workers, members of the full-time civilian federal workforce are more
educated—more hold college and advanced degrees—and are more likely to hold
professional occupations in science, engineering, diplomacy, and other advanced
fields.7 Federal workers are more diverse than the private workforce: as of 2017,
36.7 percent were minority group members: 18.2 percent black, 8.8 percent
Hispanic, 5.6 percent Asian, 2.2 percent Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander/
American Indian/Alaska Native, and 1.5 percent non-Hispanic multiracial.
Federal workers are more likely to be male than private sector workers (57 percent
compared to 54 percent in the private sector),8 and nearly one-third of federal
workers are veterans.9
351B U R E A U C R A C Y E x I S T S T O I M P R Ov E E F F I C I E n C Y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch11_346-373.indd 351 11/28/18 4:37 PM
THE SIZE OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE
HAS ACTUALLY DECLINED
For decades, politicians from both parties including Presidents Reagan, Clinton,
and Bush have asserted that the federal government is too big. President Obama
struck a different note in his first inaugural address, saying, “The question we
ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether
it works.”10 President Trump’s first budget proposed major decreases in federal
departments outside of Defense and Homeland Security. Despite fears of bureau-
cratic growth getting out of hand, however, the federal service has hardly grown
at all since 1980; it reached its peak postwar level in 1968 with 3.0 million civil-
ian employees plus 3.6 million military personnel (a figure swollen by the war in
Vietnam). The number of civilian federal employees has since fallen to fewer than
2.7 million in 2017, and 1.3 million military personnel as of 2017.11
The growth of the federal service in the second half of the twentieth century and
the beginning of the twenty-first is even less imposing when placed in the context
of the total workforce and when compared with the size of state and local public
employment. Figure 11.1 indicates that since 1950 the ratio of federal employ-
ment to the total workforce has in fact declined slightly. Meanwhile, state and local
employment has grown: in 1950, there were 4.3 million state and local civil ser-
vice employees (about 6.5 percent of the country’s workforce). In 2015 there were
roughly 19.3 million state and local employees (nearly 15 percent of the nation’s
employed workforce).12 Federal employment, in contrast, exceeded 6 percent of
the workforce only during World War II, and almost all of that temporary growth
was military.
Another useful comparison is illustrated in Figure 11.2. Although the dollar
increase in federal spending shown by the bars looks impressive, the trend line indicat-
ing the relation of federal spending to the gross domestic product (GDP) remained
close to what it had been in 1960. This changed in 2009, when the recession pushed
spending up dramatically as the federal government sought to stimulate the eco-
nomy and spending rose on other recession-related programs, such as unemployment
insurance. After 2009 the budget also reflected the costs of the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, which had not been included in the Bush administration’s budgets.
In sum, the national government is indeed “very large,” but it has not been
growing any faster than the economy or society. The same is roughly true of the
growth pattern of state and local public personnel. Bureaucracy keeps pace with
society, despite people’s seeming dislike of it, because the air traffic control towers,
the prisons, the Social Security system, and other essential elements of modern-day
society cannot operate without bureaucracy.
THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH IS
ORGANIZED HIERARCHICALLY
Cabinet departments, agencies, and bureaus are the operating parts of the bureau-
cratic whole. A department is the largest subunit of the executive branch. At the top
is the head of the department, who in the United States is called the “secretary”
352 C H A P T E R 1 1 B U R E A U C R A C Y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch11_346-373.indd 352 11/28/18 4:37 PM
of the department.13 Below the secretary and the deputy secretary are the
“under secretaries,” who have management responsibilities for one or more operat-
ing agencies. Those operating agencies are the most directly responsible for shaping
the department’s actual programs and are called the “bureau level.” Each bureau-
level agency usually operates under the statute adopted by Congress that set up
the agency and gave it its authority and jurisdiction. The names of these bureau-
level agencies are often quite well known to the public—the Forest Service and the
Agricultural Research Service, for example. These are the so-called line agencies,
or agencies that deal directly with the public. Each bureau or agency is subdivided
into still other units, known as “divisions,” “offices,” or “units.” All are parts of the
bureaucratic hierarchy.
Not all government agencies are part of cabinet departments. Some independent
agencies are set up by Congress outside the departmental structure altogether, even
though the president appoints and directs the heads of these agencies. Independent
agencies usually have broad powers to provide public services that are either too
FIGURE 11.1
Employees in the Federal Service as a
Percentage of the National Workforce,
1950–2018
Since 1950, the ratio of federal employment to the total workforce has gradually
declined. Today, federal employees make up less than 2 percent of the total workforce
in the United States. Even at its height, federal employees made up less than 6 percent.
What do these numbers suggest about the size of the federal government today?
NOTE: Employment numbers are for December of each year; 2018 numbers are from September.
SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics, “Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the
Current Employment Statistics survey (National)” for Federal Government and Total Nonfarm (seasonally adjusted),”
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES9091000001 (accssed 10/13/18).
1950
6%
5
4
3
2
1
0
1970 1990 2018
353B U R E A U C R A C Y E x I S T S T O I M P R Ov E E F F I C I E n C Y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch11_346-373.indd 353 11/28/18 4:37 PM
expensive or too important to be left to private initiatives. Some examples of
independent agencies are the National Aeronautics and Space Administra-
tion (NASA), the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the EPA. Government
corporations are a third type of government agency but are more like private
businesses in performing and charging for a market service, such as transporting
railroad passengers (Amtrak).
Yet a fourth type of agency is the independent regulatory commission, given
broad discretion to make rules. The first regulatory agencies established by Con-
gress, beginning with the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887, were set up as
independent regulatory commissions because Congress recognized that regulatory
FIGURE 11.2
Annual Federal Outlays, 1960–2018*
As the bars in the figure indicate, when measured in dollars, federal government spending
has gone up over time, from $423 billion in 1960 to over $3 trillion in 2015. (The amounts
here are measured in constant 2009 dollars, which means the numbers have been adjusted
for inflation.) But as the red line shows, federal spending as a percent of gross domestic
product (GDP) has moved up and down just slightly over time. Thus, while government
spending has grown, it has basically kept pace with the growing size of the U.S. economy.
*Data for 2017–18 are estimated.
SOURCE: Office of Management and Budget, “Table 1.3—Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits
in Current Dollars, Constant (FY 2009) Dollars, and as Percentages of GDP: 1940–2023,” www.whitehouse.gov/
omb/budget/historicals (accessed 10/13/18).
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50%
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
$4,000
$ billions
(right scale)
% of GDP
(left scale)
354 C H A P T E R 1 1 B U R E A U C R A C Y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch11_346-373.indd 354 11/28/18 4:37 PM
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals
agencies are “mini-legislatures,” whose rules are exactly the same as legislation but
require the kind of expertise and full-time attention that is beyond the capacity
of Congress. Until the 1960s most of the regulatory agencies that were set up by
Congress, such as the Federal Trade Commission (1914) and the Federal Com-
munications Commission (FCC; 1934), were independent regulatory commissions.
But beginning in the late 1960s and the early 1970s, all new regulatory programs,
with two or three exceptions (such as the Federal Election Commission), were
placed within existing departments and made directly responsible to the president.
The first new major regulatory agency established in decades was approved by
Congress in 2010, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It was created to
protect consumers by carrying out federal consumer financial protection laws. It
functions as an independent unit within the U.S. Federal Reserve.
Federal Bureaucracies Promote
Welfare and Security
The different agencies of the execu-
tive branch can be classified into three
main groups based on the services
they provide to the American public.
The first category of agencies provides services and products that seek to promote
the public welfare. The second group provides services that help maintain a strong
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), an independent agency of the federal
government, was established by President Eisenhower in 1958. Here, NASA public affairs officer
Dwayne Brown announces the presence of water on Mars.
Describe the major goals we expect
federal agencies to promote
355F E D E R A L B U R E A U C R A C I E S P R O M O T E W E L FA R E A n D S E C U R I T Y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch11_346-373.indd 355 11/28/18 4:37 PM
economy. The third group works to promote national security. Let us look more
closely at what each set of agencies offers to the public.
FEDERAL BUREAUCRACIES PROMOTE
PUBLIC WELL- BEING
One of the most important activities of the federal bureaucracy is to promote the
public good by providing services, building infrastructure, and enacting regulations
designed to enhance the well-being of the vast majority of citizens. Departments
that have important responsibilities for promoting public well-being include the
Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services,
Veterans’ Affairs, Interior, Education, and Labor. Ensuring the public welfare is
also the main activity of agencies in other departments, such as the Department of
Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service, which administers the federal school
lunch program and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP,
formerly known as food stamps). In addition, a variety of independent regulatory
agencies enforce regulations to safeguard the public health and welfare.
Federal bureaucracies promote public well-being with a diverse set of services,
products, and regulations. The Department of Health and Human Services, for
example, oversees the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which is responsible
for cutting-edge biomedical research and two major health programs provided by
the federal government: Medicaid, which provides health care for low-income fami-
lies and for many elderly and disabled people, and Medicare, which is the health
insurance available to most elderly people in the United States.
A different kind of public well-being, but one highly valued by most Americans,
is provided by the National Park Service, under the Department of the Interior.
Created in 1916, the National Park Service is responsible for the care and upkeep of
national parks. Since the nineteenth century, Americans have seen protection of the
natural environment as an important public goal and have looked to federal agencies
to implement laws and administer programs that preserve natural areas and keep
them open to the public.
The federal bureaucracy also promotes the public good through the watchdog
activities of many regulatory agencies—departments, bureaus, or independent agencies
whose primary mission is to impose limits, restrictions, or other obligations on the
conduct of individuals or companies in the private sector. These include the FDA
within the Department of Health and Human Services, the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA) in the Department of Labor, and independent
regulatory commissions, such as the FCC and the EPA. An agency or commission
is regulatory if Congress delegates to it relatively broad powers over a sector of the
economy or a type of commercial activity and authorizes it to make rules within that
jurisdiction. Rules made by regulatory agencies have the force of law.
As we saw in Chapters 8 and 9, government agencies often develop close ties to
the groups in society that they are supposed to regulate. This close political con-
nection is known as an iron triangle: the stable, cooperative relationships that often
develop among a congressional committee, an administrative agency, and one or
356 C H A P T E R 1 1 B U R E A U C R A C Y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch11_346-373.indd 356 11/28/18 4:37 PM
As one of the world’s largest and most
populous countries, the United States
has a vast bureaucracy to run government
programs and services. However, as a
percentage of the labor force, the number of
government employees in the United States
is not especially high. As the first graph below
shows, the size of government bureaucracies,
relative to each country’s work force,
varies widely. For example, the norwegian
government employs nearly 30 percent of the
labor force, whereas only around 8 percent of
Japanese workers work for the government.
We can also see differences in whether
most government employees work at the
national level or the subnational level in
each country. In the United States, most
government employees work at the state or
local level, rather than the national level. In
other countries like Turkey, most bureaucrats
work for the national government. What do
you think accounts for these differences?
How does federalism influence American
bureaucracy, and what differences do we
see in countries like Turkey or Ireland that
do not have federalism?
Bureaucracy
in Comparison
TOTAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT AS A PERCENTAGE
OF THE LABOR FORCE MARKET
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT BY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT
Japan
Mexico*
Brazil*
Turkey*
Ireland
United States
Spain
Czech Republic
South Africa*
Greece
Canada
Norway 30%
18
18
17
16
16
16
15
12
12
12
8
National
Note: Includes national and subnational government employees.
*Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, and Turkey data are from 2014.
*Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa data are from 2013.
Subnational
Canada
Brazil*
Japan
United States
Spain
Mexico*
South Africa*
Norway
Czech Republic
Greece
Ireland
Turkey 91% 8%
10
20
54
63
70
70
80
81
86
88
88
90
77
45
37
30
30
20
19
14
12
12
SOURCES: OECD, “Public Employment and Pay,” Government at a Glance, 2017, www.stats.oecd.org (accessed 4/16/18).
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch11_346-373.indd 357 11/28/18 4:37 PM
more interest groups (see Figure 11.3). These relationships may push policies in a
direction favorable to particular interests but inimical to the public interest.
FEDERAL AGENCIES PROVIDE FOR NATIONAL SECURITY
One of the remarkable features of American federalism is that the most vital agen-
cies for providing security for the American people (namely, the police) are located
in state and local governments. But some agencies vital to maintaining national
security are located in the national government, and they can be grouped into two
FIGURE 11.3
Iron Triangles
SOURCE: Reprinted from Theodore J. Lowi, Incomplete Conquest: Governing America, 2nd ed. (New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1981), 139.
American Legion;
Veterans of Foreign Wars
National Rivers & Harbors Congress;
Mississippi Valley Association
National Cotton Council;
National Association of Wheat Growers
Department
of Veterans
Affairs
House
Veterans’
Affairs
Committee
Senate Environment
and Public Works
Committee
Army Corps
of Engineers
Farm
Service
Agency
House
Agriculture
Committee
Program or
Agency
Special
Congressional
Access Point
Group
Support
358 C H A P T E R 1 1 B U R E A U C R A C Y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch11_346-373.indd 358 11/28/18 4:37 PM
categories: agencies to confront threats to internal national security and agencies
to defend American security from external threats. The departments of greatest
influence in these two areas are Homeland Security, Justice, Defense, and State.
Agencies for Internal Security The task of maintaining domestic security changed
dramatically after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The creation of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2002 signaled the high priority that
domestic security would now have. The orientation of domestic agencies also shifted
as agencies geared up to prevent terrorism, a task that differed greatly from their
former charge of investigating crime. With this shift in responsibility came broad
new powers, many of them controversial—including the power to detain terrorist
suspects and to engage in extensive domestic intelligence-gathering about possible
terrorists. The DHS has also assumed a large role in domestic security, bringing
under its umbrella such responsibilities as border safety and security (including
immigration and customs); emergency preparedness; science-related concerns
pertaining in particular to chemical, biological, and nuclear threats; and informa-
tion and intelligence analysis and assessment.
Growing pains were evident in the DHS’s first years. Different bureaucratic
cultures, now part of a single operation, quickly became embroiled in turf battles with
one another and with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI, which remained in
the Justice Department) as the two departments attempted to sort out their respective
responsibilities. These early problems signaled deeper challenges that the DHS has
continued to face. Under President Trump DHS has new visibility in implementing
the president’s travel bans on certain visitors and arresting undocumented immigrants,
and his first two budget proposals called for increased funding for the department.14
Agencies for External National Security Two departments occupy center stage
in maintaining national security: the Departments of State and Defense.
The State Department’s primary mission is diplomacy. As the most visible
public representative of American diplomacy, the secretary of state works to
promote American perspectives and interests in the world. For example, then–
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson traveled to Moscow in 2017 in a bid to weaken
Russia’s support for Syrian president Bashar al-Assad amid concerns about his
use of chemical weapons.15 Although diplomacy is the primary task of the State
Department, diplomatic missions are only one of its organizational dimensions.
As of 2016 the State Department also included several dozen bureau-level units,
each under the direction of an undersecretary, although Tillerson proposed a depart-
mental reorganization. Considering the department too bloated, Tillerson froze
hiring, pushed out top career officials, and limited promotions, steps that earned
criticism from some in Congress.16 Secretary of State Mike Pompeo lifted Tillerson’s
hiring freeze, although many positions remain unfilled.
These bureaus support the responsibilities of the elite foreign service officers, who
staff U.S. embassies around the world and who hold almost all of the most power-
ful positions in the department below the rank of ambassador.17 The ambassado-
rial positions, especially the plum positions in the major capitals of the world, are
359F E D E R A L B U R E A U C R A C I E S P R O M O T E W E L FA R E A n D S E C U R I T Y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch11_346-373.indd 359 11/28/18 4:37 PM
filled by presidential appointees, many
of whom get their positions by having
been important donors to victorious
political campaigns.
Despite the importance of the State
Department in foreign affairs, fewer
than 20 percent of all U.S. government
employees working abroad are directly
under its authority. By far the largest
number of career government profes-
sionals working abroad are under the
authority of the Defense Department.
The Defense Department provides the
military forces needed to deter war and
protect the nation. Headquartered in
the Pentagon, across the Potomac River
from Washington, D.C., the DOD is
one of the largest bureaucracies in the
world, composed of 2 million people
across five sets of institutions.18 The
president appoints the Secretary of
Defense, whose Office of the Secretary
of Defense (OSD) plans and carries
out the nation’s security policies as
directed by the Secretary and president.
The OSD provides civilian oversight
of the military. The second institution is the Joint Chiefs of Staff, consisting of
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who is the president’s principal mili-
tary adviser, and the five military service chiefs (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine
Corps, and National Guard; the Coast Guard is in the Department of Homeland
Security except in wartime). Third, there are three military departments, each
with its own civilian secretary and military secretary (Army, Navy, Air Force; the
Marine Corps is part of the Department of the Navy). The military departments
train and equip military forces. Fourth, the Unified Combatant Commands
(COCOMs) execute military operations. There are six regional COCOMs (Africa
Command; European Command; Central Command; Northern Command;
Southern Command; and Pacific Command) and three functional COCOMS
(Strategic Command; Special Operations Command; and Transportation Com-
mand). Finally there are the defense agencies that perform supply or service activi-
ties that are common to more than one military department. There are currently
20 such defense agencies.19
National Security and Democracy Of all the agencies in the federal bureau-
cracy, those charged with providing national security most often come into conflict
with the norms and expectations of American democracy. Two issues in particular
The Departments of Defense and State are the
most important parts of the federal bureaucracy
focused on national security. Secretary James
Mattis (top) is the civilian head of the military
(reporting to the president in his role as commander
in chief). Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (bottom
right) is the United States’ chief diplomat.
360 C H A P T E R 1 1 B U R E A U C R A C Y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch11_346-373.indd 360 11/28/18 4:37 PM
arise as these agencies work to ensure national security: (1) the trade-offs between
respecting the personal rights of individuals and protecting the general public and
(2) the need for secrecy in matters of national security versus the public’s right to
know what the government is doing.
Protecting national security often requires the government to conduct its
activities in secret. Yet, as Americans have come to expect a more open govern-
ment, many believe that federal agencies charged with national security keep too
many secrets from the American public. The effort to make information related to
national security more available began in 1966 with the passage of the Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA). The information obtained often reveals unflattering
or unsuccessful aspects of national security activities. One private organization,
the National Security Archive, makes extensive use of FOIA to obtain informa-
tion about the activities of national security agencies. The website’s “The Torture
Archive,” for example, is a searchable database of documents related to the deten-
tion of individuals in the war on terrorism and the authorized use of torture by the
American government.
The tension between secrecy and democracy has sharpened dramatically
with the threat of terrorism. Since September 11, 2001, the FOIA has been
curtailed, and the range of information deemed sensitive has greatly expanded.
Although most Americans agreed that enhanced secrecy was needed to ensure
domestic security, concerns about excessive secrecy mounted. Some analysts
worried that secrecy would prevent Congress from carrying out its basic oversight
responsibilities and that much of the secrecy had nothing to do with national
security. President Obama ordered federal agencies to administer the FOIA
law more liberally and signed an executive order to speed declassification of
secret documents.
However, Obama’s campaign to make government more transparent was
challenged by national security contract worker Edward Snowden’s leak of sen-
sitive national security documents in 2013. The Snowden documents exposed
the extent, and potential illegality, of the National Security Agency’s (NSA’s)
global surveillance operations. They showed that the NSA was collecting pri-
vate data on millions of Americans and foreign nationals, including the track-
ing of phone calls, email messages, web browser histories, and personal con-
tacts. The revelations prompted outrage at home and abroad.20 President Obama
responded by appointing an independent panel of intelligence experts to assess
the NSA’s activities, which determined that its massive data collection “made
only a modest contribution to the nation’s security.” Among many changes
they recommended was that the government stop the collection program and
relinquish the files to a third party. Even after these reforms more Americans
disapproved than approved of the government’s role in collecting internet
and telephone data.21 Congress barred bulk collection of telephone data and
instituted other limits on government surveillance in the 2015 USA Freedom
Act. The restrictions in the new legislation sought to ensure security without
jeopardizing privacy, although critics remain concerned about the scope of
government surveillance.22
361F E D E R A L B U R E A U C R A C I E S P R O M O T E W E L FA R E A n D S E C U R I T Y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch11_346-373.indd 361 11/28/18 4:37 PM
FEDERAL BUREAUCRACIES HELP TO MAINTAIN
A STRONG NATIONAL ECONOMY
In our capitalist economic system, the government does not directly run the eco-
nomy. Yet many federal government activities are critical to maintaining a strong
economy. Foremost among these are the agencies that are responsible for fiscal
and monetary policy. Other agencies, such as the Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
collect private resources into federal funds for public purposes. Tax policy may also
strengthen the economy through decisions about whom to tax, how much, and
when. Finally, the federal government, through such agencies as the Department
of Transportation, the Commerce Department, and the Energy Department, may
directly provide services or goods that bolster the economy.
Fiscal and Monetary Agencies Fiscal policy—the government’s use of taxing,
monetary, and spending powers to manipulate the economy—can refer to any
government policy having to do with public finance. However, Americans often
reserve the word fiscal for taxing and spending policies and use the term monetary for
policies having to do with banks, credit, and currency.
While the responsibility for making fiscal policy lies with Congress, the admin-
istration of fiscal policy occurs primarily in the Treasury Department. In addition
to collecting income, corporate, and other taxes, and performing tax and economic
policy analysis, the Treasury manages the national debt—over $21 trillion in 2018.23
The Treasury Department is also responsible for printing the U.S. currency, but cur-
rency represents only a tiny proportion of the entire money economy. Most of the
trillions of dollars used in the transactions of the private and public sectors of the
U.S. economy exist in computerized accounts rather than as actual currency.
A key monetary agency is the Federal Reserve System, a system of 12 Federal
Reserve banks, headed by the Federal Reserve Board, that facilitates exchanges of
cash, checks, and credit; regulates member banks; and uses monetary policies to
fight inflation and deflation. The Federal Reserve System (called the Fed) has authority
over the interest rates and lending activities of the nation’s most important banks.
Congress established the Fed in 1913 as a clearinghouse responsible for adjusting
the supply of money and credit to the needs of commerce and industry in different
regions of the country. The Fed is also responsible for ensuring that banks do not
overextend themselves, a policy that guards against bank failures during a sudden
economic scare, such as occurred in 1929 and again in 2008. The Treasury and the
Federal Reserve took center stage in 2008 when a string of bank failures threat-
ened economic catastrophe. These agencies designed a $700-billion bailout package
and persuaded Congress that a rapid response was needed to avert a worldwide
depression. Although the Treasury and the Federal Reserve sprang into action when
economic calamity loomed, critics charged that the crisis could have been prevented
if these agencies had exercised more regulatory oversight over the financial sector
during the previous decade. In 2010, Congress and President Obama created the
Financial Stability Oversight Council to identify system-wide risks to the financial
sector. The financial industry has kept a close eye on these developments, aiming to
limit the regulatory reach of the new council.24
362 C H A P T E R 1 1 B U R E A U C R A C Y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch11_346-373.indd 362 11/28/18 4:37 PM
Revenue Agencies Revenue agencies are responsible for collecting taxes. Examples
include the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for collection of
taxes on the sales of those particular products, and federal customs agents (part of
the DHS) who oversee the collection of taxes on imports at every U.S. seaport and
international airport. But far and away the most important of the revenue agencies
is the Internal Revenue Service, which collects income taxes.
The IRS is the government agency that Americans love to hate. Taxpayers com-
plain about the IRS’s needless complexity, its lack of sensitivity and responsive-
ness to individual taxpayers, and its overall lack of efficiency. Such complaints led
Congress to pass the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, which instituted
a number of new protections for taxpayers. Yet Congress continued to cut the IRS
budget: $900 million over eight years through 2018 and nearly a quarter of its work
force. With the enactment of a major tax overhaul at the end of 2017, worries grew
that the IRS would be unable to effectively do its job.25
Several Forces Control Bureaucracy
By their very nature, bureaucracies
pose challenges to democratic gov-
ernance. Although they provide the
expertise needed to implement the
public will, they can also become entrenched organizations that serve their own
interests. The task is neither to retreat from bureaucracy nor to attack it but to take
advantage of its strengths while making it more accountable to the demands of
democratic politics and representative government.
THE PRESIDENT AS CHIEF EXECUTIVE
CAN DIRECT AGENCIES
In 1937, President Franklin Roosevelt’s Committee on Administrative Management
officially addressed a plea that had been growing increasingly urgent: “The president
needs help.” The national government had grown rapidly during the preceding
25 years, but the structures and procedures necessary to manage the burgeoning
executive branch had not yet been established. The response to the call for “help” for
the president initially took the form of three management policies: (1) all commu-
nications and decisions that related to executive policy decisions must pass through
the White House; (2) in order to cope with such a flow, the White House must have
adequate staffs of specialists in research, analysis, legislative and legal writing, and
public affairs; and (3) the White House must have additional staff to ensure that
presidential decisions are made, communicated to Congress, and carried out by the
appropriate agency.
Making the Managerial Presidency The story of the modern presidency can be
told largely as a series of responses to the plea for managerial help as the scope of the
federal government—and presidential power—has grown.26
Explain why it is often difficult to
control the bureaucracy
363S E v E R A L F O R C E S C O n T R O L B U R E A U C R A C Y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch11_346-373.indd 363 11/28/18 4:37 PM
The president heads the federal government, which is the largest employer in
the country and the largest purchaser of goods and services in the world.27 As the
CEO of this enormous organization, the president may have goals associated
with management (striving for efficiency) and control (shaping policy outcomes).
Presidents have several tools at their disposal. They have appointment power over
the top layer of the executive branch, the political appointees who sit on top of the
career civil service. They can issue executive orders, making policy and shaping the
executive branch unilaterally. They can also alter an agency’s budget or organiza-
tional scheme. Indeed, the presidency has been marked by waves of executive branch
reorganization by presidents seeking to exert administrative and political control.28
President Jimmy Carter’s interest in administrative reform and reorganization
resulted in his reorganization of the civil service and will long be recognized as one
of the most significant contributions of his presidency. The Civil Service Reform
Act of 1978 was the first major revamping of the federal civil service since its
creation in 1883. The 1978 act created the Merit Systems Protection Board to
defend competitive merit recruitment and promotion from political encroachment.
The separate Federal Labor Relations Authority was set up to administer collective
bargaining and individual personnel grievances. The third new agency, the Office of
Personnel Management, was created to manage recruiting, testing, training, and the
retirement system. The Senior Executive Service—a top management rank for civil
servants—was also created at this time to recognize and foster “public management”
as a profession and to facilitate the movement of top, “supergrade” career officials
across agencies and departments.29
President Bill Clinton was often criticized for the way he managed his
admi nistration—his loose approach to administration included all-night “bull
sessions” complete with pizza, yet, he inaugurated one of the most systematic
efforts “to change the way government does business” in his National Performance
Review. Heavily influenced by the theories of management consultants who prized
decentralization, customer responsiveness, and employee initiative, Clinton sought
to infuse these new practices into government.30
Like his predecessors, George W. Bush pursued a strategy different from those
of previous presidents, dismantling Clinton’s National Performance Review and
favoring privatization—the transfer of all or part of a program from the public
sector to the private sector. Bush was the first president with a degree in business,
and his management strategy followed a standard business school dictum: select
skilled subordinates and delegate responsibility to them. Bush followed this model
closely in his appointment of highly experienced officials to cabinet positions. But
critics contended that the Bush administration’s distrust of the bureaucracy led it to
exercise inappropriate political control.
After Obama took office, his administration sought to reinvigorate federal
agencies, which reflected the Democrats’ greater support for strong government
institutions. Obama’s approach to the managerial presidency featured a deep belief
in the importance of scientific expertise, which was reflected in his appointments
to key regulatory agencies such as the FDA, OSHA, and the EPA. But he had his
own critics, who complained about micromanagement and centralization.31
364 C H A P T E R 1 1 B U R E A U C R A C Y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch11_346-373.indd 364 11/28/18 4:37 PM
President Trump called for deep budget cuts and reorganization in a number
of executive branch departments and agencies. His presidency has also raised the
specter of a “deep state” of bureaucrats who exert power independent of political
control. Political scientist Michael Glennon has used the term “the double state”
to describe a phenomenon in which, for example, Bush-era national security poli-
cies such as covert drone strikes and use of the Guantánamo Bay prison continued
under President Obama, even though Obama as a candidate had criticized them.
Glennon raises the possibility of a “double government” of bureaucrats that con-
tinues to pursue policies of its preference outside of political or democratic
control.32 Episodes such as EPA employees informing the media about a report on
climate change they feared would be suppressed seemed to confirm Trump support-
ers’ fears of the limits of presidential control over the bureaucracy.33 There is little
evidence of the truly rogue bureaucracy that figures in the most extreme versions
of conspiracy theories, but questions of who controls the bureaucracy and how
much autonomy bureaucrats should have have occupied political scientists and
government leaders for decades.
CONGRESS PROMOTES RESPONSIBLE BUREAUCRACY
Another lever of control over the bureaucracy is Congress. Congress passes legisla-
tion, which the bureaucracy must then implement. Such delegation derives from the
constitutionally mandated roles for each branch of government; the president must
“faithfully execute” the laws Congress passes. But because Congress cannot possibly
stipulate every detail of every law, the bureaucracy must interpret legislative intent.34
The delegation of implementation introduces the principal-agent problem: does the
bureaucracy (the agent) implement laws in the manner Congress (the principal)
intended?
One way Congress can hold the bureaucracy accountable is oversight. Congres-
sional committees and subcommittees have jurisdictions roughly parallel to one or
more departments and agencies in the executive branch, and members of Congress
who sit on these committees can develop expertise equal to that of the bureaucrats.
The most visible indication of Congress’s oversight efforts is the use of public
hearings, before which bureaucrats and other witnesses are summoned to scru-
tinize agency budgets and decisions. Concern has grown in recent years about
failures of oversight.35 There appears to be less “police patrol” oversight—regular
or even preemptive hearings on agency operations—and more “fire alarm” over-
sight prompted by media attention or advocacy group complaints. For example,
consumer outrage prompted the House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee’s 2016 inquiry into a 500-percent price hike on EpiPens used to
treat severe allergic reactions.36 Oversight hearings can also become highly
politicized. In 2015 the House Select Committee on Benghazi (a Libyan city
where four U.S. diplomats were killed by extremists in 2012), which was the
eighth committee to investigate the matter, called former secretary of state Hillary
Clinton to appear for a second time. During the televised hearings Republican
members of the committee aggressively questioned the former secretary for more
365S E v E R A L F O R C E S C O n T R O L B U R E A U C R A C Y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch11_346-373.indd 365 11/28/18 4:37 PM
than eight hours. Democrats charged that the hearing was designed to harm
Clinton’s presidential campaign.37
In addition, Congress created three agencies whose obligations are to engage in
constant research for Congress on problems taking place in or confronted by the
executive branch. These are the Government Accountability Office, the Congressio-
nal Research Service, and the Congressional Budget Office. Each of these agencies
is designed to give Congress information independent of the information it can get
directly from the executive branch through hearings and other communications.38
Another source of information for oversight comes directly from citizens through
the FOIA, which, as we have seen, gives ordinary citizens the right of access to
agency files and agency data.
CAN THE BUREAUCRACY BE REFORMED?
When citizens complain that government is too bureaucratic, what they often
mean is that government bureaucracies seem inefficient, waste money, and per-
form poorly. Do these frustrations mean that bureaucracy needs to be reformed?
In a sense, bureaucracy is always in need of reform. Yet, reforms may be more
difficult to implement in the public sector because the government is held to much
higher standards of accountability than are private companies. The government has
sought various ways to make the federal bureaucracy more efficient. The key strate-
gies used to promote reform include termination, devolution, and privatization. In
The most visible aspect of congressional oversight is the use of public hearings. Following the
2012 attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya, Congress held multiple highly publicized—and
highly politicized—hearings to investigate the matter, focusing on the activities of former secretary
of state Hillary Clinton.
366 C H A P T E R 1 1 B U R E A U C R A C Y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch11_346-373.indd 366 11/28/18 4:37 PM
general, Democratic administrations have aimed to make the existing bureaucracy
work more effectively, whereas Republican administrations have sought to sideline
or reduce the bureaucracy, especially by contracting out government work to private
companies.
The only certain way to reduce the size of the bureaucracy is to eliminate
programs. But termination is extraordinarily difficult. Even in the 12 years of the
Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations, both of which proclaimed a strong
commitment to the reduction of the national government, not a single national
government agency or program was terminated. In the 1990s, Republicans did
succeed in eliminating two small agencies.
The next most effective approach to genuinely reducing the size of the federal
bureaucracy is devolution, downsizing the federal bureaucracy by delegating the
implementation of programs to state and local governments. Often the central aim
of devolution is to provide more efficient and flexible government services. Yet by
its very nature, devolution entails variation across the states. Up to a point, variation
can be considered one of the virtues of federalism. But in a democracy, it is inher-
ently dangerous to have large variations in the provision of services and benefits.
Privatization simply means that a formerly public activity is picked up under
contract by a private company or companies. But such programs are still government
programs—paid for by government and supervised by government. Privatization
downsizes the government only in that the workers providing the service are no
longer counted as part of the government bureaucracy. When private contractors can
perform a task as well as government can but for less money, taxpayers win. But if
private firms are less efficient or more costly than government, then taxpayers may
lose. In addition, concerns about adequate government oversight and accountability
of private contractors have escalated as the scale of contracting has dramatically
increased. Congress and presidents have reacted to these concerns in several ways,
but conducting adequate oversight of contractors remains a challenge.
Bureaucracy
WHAT DO WE WANT?
Americans’ views about the federal government bureaucracy present something of a
paradox. On the one hand, the public expresses dislike for “big government,” exempli-
fied by bureaucracy. From this perspective, the federal government is too large, inher-
ently wasteful, and at odds with individual freedom. On the other hand, Americans
support many government programs and have high expectations for government.
Indeed, high expectations lead many Americans to blame bureaucrats when the
country faces problems, such as the prolonged economic downturn of recent years.
One consequence of these divergent views can be that bureaucracies try to maxi-
mize one value but undermine others. As we saw in the chapter opener, the decision
367B U R E A U C R A C Y : W H AT D O W E W A n T ?
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch11_346-373.indd 367 11/28/18 4:37 PM
to switch the Flint water supply was to save money, but it endangered the health of
Flint residents.
Reconciling bureaucracy and democracy requires clear rules and laws, maximum
openness in agency decisions, clear rationales for those decisions, and accessible
means for questioning and appealing those decisions. One important way for Con-
gress to ensure accountability of the bureaucracy is for it to spend more time clarifying
its legislative intent. Bureaucrats are more responsive to clear legislative guidance
than to anything else, and when Congress and the president are at odds about the
interpretation of laws, bureaucrats can evade responsibility by playing off one branch
against another. Moreover, clearer laws from Congress and clearer rules and decisions
made by administrative agencies would reduce the need for courts to review those
laws and decisions, which is expensive and time-consuming. Adequate congressional
oversight is also important because a bureaucracy that is out of the public eye may
wind up pursuing its own interests or narrowly focused private interests rather than
those of the public. (The “Who Participates?” feature on the facing page shows the
bureaucracy’s response to public concerns about health care accessibility for veterans.)
Finding the right balance between bureaucratic autonomy and public scrutiny is a
central task of creating an effective government; it requires both presidential and con-
gressional vigilance to build an effective and responsive bureaucracy.
The emergence of “big data” is likely to change the way bureaucracies operate in
the future. Big data refers to huge data sets that involve information on a wide range
of topics including climate, traffic, health, and the nSA’s massive database of phone
calls and use of social media. Big data has the potential to improve government
performance by linking sources of information that were previously unconnected. It
also allows the government to analyze information that was stored as text or went
uncollected. Advances in government’s ability to implement programs in public health,
food safety, and transportation are only the beginning of what big data promises.
At the same time, however, big data poses a threat to individual privacy, as the
revelations about the nSA’s data suggest. As bureaucracies tap into the promise of
big data to create more effective programs, a close public eye on the implications for
the right to privacy will be needed. How might big data improve the government’s deliv-
ery of services in the future? What additional safeguards might be needed to protect
individuals’ privacy?
368 C H A P T E R 1 1 B U R E A U C R A C Y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch11_346-373.indd 368 11/28/18 4:37 PM
Waiting for
a Veterans Affairs
Health Care Appointment
After media reports about excessive waits endured by veterans seeking health care
appointments, and widespread fraud in reporting those wait times, Congress passed the
2014 Veterans Choice Act, which allows veterans to go to private doctors if they would
otherwise have to wait more than 30 days to see a Veterans Affairs provider. This act was
supplemented in 2017 by the website, Access to Care (accesstocare.va.gov), which reports
wait times at its veterans clinics around the country. The vast majority of veterans seeking
health care appointments are now able to schedule one at their local VA within 30 days.
Note: Numbers may not add up to 100% due to rounding.
SOURCES: “Attempted Fix for VA Health Delays Creates New Bureaucracy,”
npr.org; Patient Access Data, www.va.gov (accessed 3/9/18).
Total appointments requested in 2017:
208,065,313
195,604,902 total
Scheduled
within 30 days
93%
7,306,571 total
4%
Scheduled
within 31–60 days
2,835,626 total
1.4%
Scheduled
within 61–90 days
545,582 total
0.3%
Scheduled
within 90+ days
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
WHO PAR TICIPATES?
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch11_346-373.indd 369 11/28/18 4:37 PM
Practice Quiz
1. Which of the following statements
about Congress and the bureaucracy
is not true? (p. 349)
a) Bureaucracies employ people who
have much more specialized
expertise in specific policy areas
than do members of Congress.
b) Members of Congress often prefer
to delegate politically difficult
decision-making to bureaucrats.
c) While Congress is responsible for
making laws, the bureaucracy is
responsible for filling in the blanks
by determining how the laws should
be implemented.
d) Congress banned rule making by
the federal bureaucracy in 1995.
e) Congress relies heavily on bureau-
cratic flexibility in implementing
laws because updating legislation
can take many years, and bureau-
crats can ensure that laws are
administered in ways that take new
conditions into account.
2. The Civil Service Act of 1883 required
that appointees to positions within the
federal bureaucracy (p. 351)
a) pledge an oath of loyalty to the
United States.
b) register as independents rather
than as members of an organized
political party.
c) be qualified for the job to which
they were appointed.
d) serve for no more than ten years.
e) serve for no fewer than ten years.
Ask Questions about Federal Agencies
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
Find out how veterans access their bene�ts and more about the U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs by visiting www.va.gov. For more information
on veterans access to health care, visit www.accestocare.va.gov.
To �nd more information on how the bureaucracy affects your life, visit
www.usa.gov/federal-agencies and search by agency.
Ask a question about how federal agencies can help you.
Most agencies have FAQ and contact pages on their websites.
370 S T U D Y G U I D E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch11_346-373.indd 370 11/28/18 4:37 PM
3. Which of the following best describes
the size of the federal service?
(p. 352)
a) The size of the federal service has
grown exponentially since 1980.
b) The size of the federal service has
changed very little since 1980.
c) The size of the federal service
reached its peak in 1955 and has
been dramatically declining ever
since.
d) The federal service has employed
at least 15 percent of the American
workforce every year since 1950.
e) The federal service was eliminated
during the 1990s in order to hire
more state government employees.
4. Which of the following is an example of
a government corporation? (p. 354)
a) national Aeronautics and Space
Administration
b) Amtrak
c) Federal Bureau of Investigation
d) Environmental Protection Agency
e) Department of Justice
5. A stable relationship between a
bureaucratic agency, an interest group,
and a legislative committee is called
(p. 356)
a) a standing committee.
b) a conference committee.
c) a cabinet.
d) an issue network.
e) an iron triangle.
6. The State Department’s primary
mission is (p. 359)
a) gathering intelligence.
b) unifying the nation’s military
departments.
c) engaging in diplomacy.
d) investigating terrorism.
e) overseeing domestic security
efforts.
7. Which of the following statements
about the Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) is most accurate? (p. 361)
a) It was passed following the Sep-
tember 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
b) The national Security Archive is
legally prohibited from using the FOIA
to obtain information about the activi-
ties of national security agencies.
c) The range of information deemed
sensitive has been heavily reduced in
response to the threat of terrorism.
d) The range of information deemed
sensitive has been greatly ex-
panded in response to the threat of
terrorism.
e) President Obama instructed federal
agencies that they should reject
all FOIA requests made during his
term in office.
8. Americans refer to government policy
about banks, credit, and currency as
(p. 362)
a) monetary policy.
b) deficit policy.
c) fiscal policy.
d) interstate commerce policy.
e) regulatory policy.
9. Which of the following is an example of
a revenue agency? (p. 363)
a) the Office of Management and
Budget
b) the Treasury Department
c) the Federal Reserve Board
d) the Internal Revenue Service
e) the Commerce Department
10. Which president instituted the
bureaucratic reform called the national
Performance Review? (p. 364)
a) Richard nixon
b) Lyndon Johnson
c) Jimmy Carter
d) Bill Clinton
e) George W. Bush
11. When congressional hearings on
bureaucratic agency operations are
prompted by media attention or
advocacy group complaints, it is an
example of (p. 365)
a) “police patrol” oversight.
b) “fire alarm” oversight.
c) “watchdog” oversight.
d) devolution.
e) preemption.
12. Devolution refers to (p. 367)
a) the gradual decline in efficiency
that always comes when
government begins to implement
a new program.
371S T U D Y G U I D E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch11_346-373.indd 371 11/28/18 4:37 PM
b) moving all or part of a program
from the public sector to the
private sector.
c) a policy of reducing or eliminating
regulatory restraints on the
conduct of individuals or private
institutions.
d) a policy to remove a program
from one level of government by
passing it down to a lower level of
government.
e) reducing the overall number of
regulatory agencies in the federal
bureaucracy.
Key Terms
bureaucracy (p. 349) the complex structure
of offices, tasks, rules, and principles of
organization that are employed by all large-
scale institutions to coordinate effectively
the work of their personnel
department (p. 352) the largest subunit of
the executive branch; the secretaries of the
15 departments form the Cabinet
devolution (p. 367) a policy to remove a
program from one level of government by dele-
gating it or passing it down to a lower level of
government, such as from the national govern-
ment to the state and local governments
Federal Reserve System (p. 362) a system
of 12 Federal Reserve banks that facilitates
exchanges of cash, checks, and credit;
regulates member banks; and uses mon-
etary policies to fight inflation and deflation
“fire alarm” oversight (p. 365) episodic,
as-needed congressional hearings on
bureaucratic agency operations, usually
prompted by media attention or advocacy
group complaints
fiscal policy (p. 362) the government’s use
of taxing, monetary, and spending powers
to manipulate the economy
government corporation (p. 354) govern-
ment agency that performs a service
normally provided by the private sector
implementation (p. 349) the efforts of de-
partments and agencies to translate laws
into specific bureaucratic rules and actions
independent agency (p. 353) agency that is
not part of a cabinet department
iron triangle (p. 356) the stable, cooperative
relationships that often develop among a
congressional committee, an administrative
agency, and one or more supportive interest
groups; not all of these relationships are trian-
gular, but the iron triangle is the most typical
merit system (p. 351) a product of civil
service reform, in which appointees to
positions in public bureaucracies must
objectively be deemed qualified for those
positions
oversight (p. 365) the effort by Congress,
through hearings, investigations, and other
techniques, to exercise control over the
activities of executive agencies
“police patrol” oversight (p. 365) regular or
even preemptive congressional hearings
on bureaucratic agency operations
privatization (p. 364) the transfer of all or
part of a program from the public sector
to the private sector
regulatory agency (p. 356) a department,
bureau, or independent agency whose prima-
ry mission is to impose limits, restrictions, or
other obligations on the conduct of individu-
als or companies in the private sector
revenue agency (p. 363) an agency
responsible for collecting taxes; examples
include the Internal Revenue Service for
income taxes, the U.S. Customs Service
for tariffs and other taxes on imported
goods, and the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for
collection of taxes on the sales of those
particular products
372 S T U D Y G U I D E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch11_346-373.indd 372 11/28/18 4:37 PM
Gormley, William, and Stephen Balla. Bureaucracy and Democracy: Accountability and
Performance. 3rd ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2012.
Kettl, Donald F. System under Stress: The Challenge to 21st Century Governance. 3rd ed.
Los Angeles: Sage/CQ Press, 2014.
Kettl, Donald F. The Politics of the Administrative Process. 6th ed. Los Angeles: Sage/CQ
Press, 2014.
Light, Paul C. A Government Ill Executed: The Decline of the Federal Service and How to
Reverse It. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008.
Lowi, Theodore J. The End of Liberalism. new York: W. W. norton, 1979.
Moffitt, Susan. Making Public Policy: Participatory Bureaucracy in American Democracy.
new York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
verkuil, Paul. Outsourcing Sovereignty: Why Privatization of Government Functions
Threatens Democracy and What We Can Do about It. new York: Cambridge University
Press, 2007.
Weiner, Tom. Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA. new York: Doubleday, 2007.
Wildavsky, Aaron, and naomi Caiden. The New Politics of the Budgetary Process. new
York: Longman, 2003.
Wood, B. Dan. Bureaucratic Dynamics: The Role of Bureaucracy in a Democracy. Boulder,
CO: Westview, 1994.
Zegart, Amy B. Spying Blind: The CIA, The FBI, and the Origins of 9/11. Princeton, nJ:
Princeton University Press, 2009.
For Further Reading
373S T U D Y G U I D E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch11_346-373.indd 373 11/28/18 4:37 PM
The Federal
Courts
121212
chapter
WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES AND WHY IT MATTERS Mark
Janus works for the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services
as a child support specialist. He is not a member of the union representing
many public-sector workers in the state, the American Federation of State,
County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). Nonetheless, he is required to
pay a “fair-share” fee to the union on the grounds that nonmembers benefit
from the union’s bargaining activities over issues such as pay and benefits.
Nonmembers do not have to contribute to the union’s political activities, such
as endorsements of political candidates.
Janus argues, however, that all activity that public-sector unions engage in
is inherently political. In particular, he disagreed with the union’s bargaining
for increased benefits when Illinois was facing a budget crisis due in part to
mismanagement of the state pension program. “The union’s fight is not my
fight,” he says. “For years it supported politicians who put the state into its
current budget and pension crises. . . . That’s not public service.” He believes
that being forced to pay a fee that supports the union’s activities violates his
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch12_374-405.indd 374 11/28/18 4:37 PM
The Federal
Courts
Although the Supreme Court is often viewed as the least
political of the three branches, its rulings touch on major
political issues that affect Americans in many ways. Here
Mark Janus (center) stands with supporters after winning
his Supreme Court case that could have a profound effect
on how unions operate.
375
First Amendment rights. His case went to the Supreme Court, which heard
oral arguments in February 2018.
After taking office in 2017, Trump nominated conservative appeals court
judge Neil Gorsuch to the vacant seat. With the Gorsuch appointment, con-
servatives once again enjoyed a 5–4 Supreme Court majority. Perhaps not
suprisingly, the Gorsuch appointment resulted in a conservative decision in
Janus v. AFSCME, Mr. Janus’s First Amendment rights would be upheld. But
union supporters say the decision will have devastating effects on public-
sector unions’ ability to protect workers, including female, African American,
and Hispanic employees, who face a smaller gap in pay in union jobs com-
pared to nonunion jobs, according to the Economic Policy Institute and the
National Women’s Law Center.1
For both Democrats and Republicans, the importance of the Supreme
Court’s 5–4 decision underscored the significance of President Trump’s
Supreme Court appointments. Had Obama nominee Merrick Garland, rather
than Trump nominee Neil Gorsuch, been seated on the High Court, the
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch12_374-405.indd 375 11/28/18 4:37 PM
mandatory-dues requirement would likely have been upheld. With the Janus
decision in mind, Democrats and Republicans prepared to redouble their
efforts to win subsequent battles over judicial appointments, as President
Trump announced the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, another conservative
judge, to take the place of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who announced his retire-
ment in July 2018. After a divisive political battle, Kavanaugh was confirmed by
the Senate and joined the Court in October.
Every year, nearly 25 million cases are tried in American courts. Cases
can arise from disputes between citizens, from efforts by government agen-
cies to punish wrongdoing, from citizens’ efforts to prove that their rights
have been infringed on as a result of government action—or inaction—and
from efforts by interest groups to promote their agendas. The framers of the
Constitution called the Supreme Court the “least dangerous branch” of
American government. Today, though, it is not unusual to hear the Court
described as an all-powerful “imperial judiciary.” But before we can under-
stand this transformation and its consequences, we must look in some
detail at America’s judicial process.
★ Identify the general types of cases and types of courts in our legal
system (pp. 377–81)
★ Describe the different levels of federal courts and their functions
(pp. 381–85)
★ Explain how the Supreme Court exercises the power of judicial review
(pp. 385–90)
★ Describe the process the Supreme Court follows in the exercise of its
power of judicial review (pp. 390–97)
★ Consider the personal and political influences on judges and the
courts (pp. 397–99)
CHAP TER GOAL S
376 C H A P T E R 1 2 T H E F E D E R A L C O u R T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch12_374-405.indd 376 11/28/18 4:37 PM
The Legal System Settles Disputes
Originally, a “court” was the place
where a sovereign ruled—where the
king or queen governed. Settling
disputes between citizens was part of
governing. In modern democracies,
courts and judges have taken over from monarchs the power to resolve disputes by
hearing the facts on both sides, applying the relevant law or principle to the facts,
and deciding which side possesses greater merit. But since judges are not monarchs,
they must have a basis for their authority. That basis in the United States is the
Constitution and the law.
COURT CASES PROCEED UNDER CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LAW
Court cases in the United States proceed under two broad categories of law: criminal
law and civil law.
Cases of criminal law deal with disputes or actions involving criminal penalties.
Criminal law regulates the conduct of individuals, defines crimes, and specifies
punishment for acts defined as illegal. The government charges an individual with
violating a statute (a law) that has been enacted to protect the public health, safety,
morals, or welfare. In criminal cases, the government is always the plaintiff (the
individual or organization that brings a complaint in court) and alleges that a
Identify the general types of cases
and types of courts in our legal
system
In criminal cases, the government charges an individual with violating a statute protecting health,
safety, morals, or welfare. Most such cases arise in state and municipal courts. Here, an Illinois
county court hears testimony in a murder case.
377T H E L E G A L S y S T E M S E T T L E S D I S P u T E S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch12_374-405.indd 377 11/28/18 4:37 PM
criminal violation has been committed by a named defendant (the one against whom
a complaint is brought in a criminal or civil case). Most criminal cases arise in state
and municipal courts and involve matters ranging from traffic offenses to robbery
and murder. While the great bulk of criminal law is still a state matter, a large and
growing body of federal criminal law deals with infringements from tax evasion and
mail fraud to acts of terrorism and the sale of narcotics. Defendants found guilty of
criminal violations may be fined or sent to prison.
Cases of civil law involve disputes among individuals or between individuals and
the government that do not involve criminal penalties. Unlike criminal cases, the
losers in civil cases cannot be fined or incarcerated, although they may be required
to pay monetary damages for their actions. In a civil case, the one who brings a
complaint is the plaintiff and the one against whom the complaint is brought is the
defendant. The two most common types of civil cases involve contracts and torts.
In a typical contract case, an individual or a corporation charges that it has suffered
because of another’s violation of a specific agreement between the two. For example,
the Smith Manufacturing Corporation may charge that Jones Distributors failed to
honor an agreement to deliver raw materials at a specified time, causing Smith to
lose business. Smith asks the court to order Jones to compensate it for the damage
it allegedly suffered. In a typical tort case, one individual charges that he has been
injured by another’s negligence or malfeasance. Medical malpractice suits are one
example of tort cases. Another important area of civil law is administrative law,
which involves disputes over the jurisdiction, procedures, or authority of adminis-
trative agencies. A plaintiff may assert, for example, that an agency did not follow
proper procedures when issuing new rules and regulations. A court will then exam-
ine the agency’s conduct in light of the Administrative Procedure Act, the legislation
that governs agency rule making.
In deciding cases, courts apply statutes (laws) and legal precedents (prior cases
whose principles are used by judges as the basis for their decisions in present cases).
State and federal statutes, for example, often govern the conditions under which
contracts are and are not legally binding. Jones Distributors might argue that it
was not obliged to fulfill its contract with the Smith Manufacturing Corporation
because actions by Smith, such as the failure to make promised payments, consti-
tuted fraud under state law. Attorneys for a physician being sued for malpractice,
meanwhile, may search for prior instances in which courts ruled that actions similar
to those of their client did not constitute negligence. Such precedents are applied
under the doctrine of stare decisis, a Latin phrase meaning “let the decision stand.”
It is the doctrine that a previous decision by a court applies as a precedent in similar
cases until that decision is overruled.
TYPES OF COURTS INCLUDE TRIAL ,
APPELL ATE, AND SUPREME
In the United States, systems of courts have been established both by the federal
government and by the governments of the individual states. Both systems have
several levels, as shown in Figure 12.1. More than 97 percent of all court cases in the
378 C H A P T E R 1 2 T H E F E D E R A L C O u R T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch12_374-405.indd 378 11/28/18 4:37 PM
United States are heard in state courts. The overwhelming majority of criminal cases,
for example, involve violations of state laws prohibiting such actions as murder,
robbery, fraud, theft, and assault. If such a case is brought to trial, it will be heard in
a state trial court (the first court to hear a criminal or civil case), in front of a judge
and sometimes a jury, who will determine whether the defendant violated state law.
If the defendant is convicted, she may appeal the conviction to a higher court, such
as a state court of appeals (a court that hears the appeals of trial court decisions) and
from there to a state’s supreme court (the highest court in a particular state or in the
FIGURE 12.1
The U.S. Court System
The state and federal court systems both include several types of courts. The Supreme
Court hears appeals from both systems.
The U.S. Supreme Court
9 justices appointed for life
STATEFEDERAL
Certiorari
Discretionary
review
State Supreme Courts
Decide issues of law
based on briefs and oral
argument
Intermediate Appellate
Courts
Exist in 40 states
Trial courts of
limited jurisdiction
State Trial Courts
Often known as Superior Court or
Circuit Court. Try questions of law
and fact, with and without a jury
Federal agencies
U.S. District Courts
95 districts
Decide issues of law and
fact, with and without jury
U.S. Court of Appeals
12 circuits
Decide questions of law based
on briefs and oral argument
379T H E L E G A L S y S T E M S E T T L E S D I S P u T E S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch12_374-405.indd 379 11/28/18 4:37 PM
United States, which primarily serves an appellate function). The government is not
entitled to appeal if the defendant is found not guilty in a criminal case.
The party filing an appeal, known as an appellant, usually must show that the trial
court made a legal error in deciding the case. Appeals courts do not hear witnesses
or examine additional evidence and will only consider new facts under unusual
circumstances. Thus, for example, a physician who loses a malpractice case might
appeal on the basis that the trial court misapplied the relevant law or incorrectly
instructed the jury. It should be noted that most criminal and civil cases are settled
before trial through negotiated agreements between the parties. In criminal cases,
these agreements are called plea bargains.
Cases are heard in the federal courts if they involve federal laws, treaties with
other nations, or the U.S. Constitution; these areas are the official jurisdiction (the
sphere of a court’s power and authority) of the federal courts. In addition, any
case in which the U.S. government is a party is heard in the federal courts. If, for
example, an individual is accused of violating a federal criminal statute, such as
evading the payment of income taxes, a federal prosecutor would bring charges
before a federal judge. Civil cases involving the citizens of more than one state and
in which more than $75,000 is at stake may be heard in either the federal or the state
courts, usually depending on the preference of the plaintiff.
Federal courts serve another purpose in addition to trying cases within their
jurisdiction: that of hearing appeals from state-level courts. In both civil and crimi-
nal cases, a decision of the highest state court can be appealed to the U.S. Supreme
Court by raising a federal issue. A defendant who appeals a lower-court decision
in federal court might assert, for example, that he was denied the right to coun-
sel or was otherwise deprived of the due process of law (the right of every citizen
against arbitrary action by national or state governments) guaranteed by the federal
Constitution, or that important issues of federal law were at stake in the case. The
U.S. Supreme Court is not obligated to accept such appeals and will do so only if it
believes that the matter has considerable national significance.
In addition, in criminal cases, defendants who have been convicted in a state
court may request a writ of habeas corpus from a federal district court. Sometimes
known as the “Great Writ,” habeas corpus is a court order that the individual in
custody be brought into court and shown the cause for her detention. The court
then evaluates the sufficiency of the cause and may order the release of a prisoner
deemed to be held in violation of his legal rights. Habeas corpus is guaranteed by the
Constitution and can be suspended only in cases of rebellion or invasion. In 1867,
Congress’s distrust of southern courts led it to authorize federal district judges to
issue such writs to prisoners who they believed had been deprived of constitutional
rights in state court. Generally speaking, state defendants seeking a federal writ of
habeas corpus must show that they have exhausted all available state remedies and
must raise issues not previously raised in their state appeals. Federal courts of appeal
and, ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court have appellate jurisdiction for federal
district court habeas decisions.
Although the federal courts hear only a small fraction of all the civil and criminal
cases decided each year in the United States, their decisions are extremely important.
380 C H A P T E R 1 2 T H E F E D E R A L C O u R T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch12_374-405.indd 380 11/28/18 4:37 PM
It is in the federal courts that the Constitution and federal laws that govern all
Americans are interpreted and their meaning and significance established. More-
over, it is in the federal courts that the powers and limitations of the increasingly
powerful national government are tested. Finally, through their power to review the
decisions of the state courts, it is ultimately the federal courts that dominate the
American judicial system.
The Federal Courts Hear a Small
Percentage of All Cases
During the year ending in March
2017 federal district courts (the lowest
federal level) received 362,028 cases.
Though large, this number is less than
1 percent of the number of cases heard by state courts. The federal courts of appeal
listened to 58,951 cases during that period, and about 15 percent of the verdicts
were appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Most of the roughly 9,000 cases filed
with the Supreme Court yearly are dismissed without a ruling on their merits. The
Court has broad latitude to decide what cases it will hear and generally listens to
only those cases it deems raise the most important issues. In recent years, fewer than
80 cases per year have received full-dress Supreme Court review.2
THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS HANDLE MOST CASES
Most of the cases of original federal jurisdiction are handled by the federal dis-
trict courts. Original jurisdiction is the authority to initially consider a case. It is dis-
tinguished from appellate jurisdiction, which is the authority to hear appeals from
a lower court’s decision. Courts of original jurisdiction are the courts that are
responsible for discovering the facts in a controversy and creating the record on
which a judgment is based. In courts that have appellate jurisdiction, judges receive
cases after the factual record is established by the trial court. Ordinarily, new facts
cannot be presented before appellate courts. Article III of the Constitution gives
the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in a limited number of cases including
(1) cases between the United States and one of the 50 states, (2) cases between two or
more states, (3) cases involving foreign ambassadors or other ministers, and (4) cases
brought by one state against citizens of another state or against a foreign country.
Article III assigns original jurisdiction in all other federal cases to the lower courts
that Congress was authorized to establish. Importantly, the Constitution gives the
Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction in all federal cases. Almost all cases heard by
the Supreme Court are under its appellate jurisdiction.
The 94 federal district courts are staffed by 678 federal district judges. District
judges are assigned to district courts according to the workload; the busiest of these
courts may have as many as 28 judges. Only one judge is assigned to each case,
except where statutes provide for three-judge courts to deal with special issues. The
Describe the different levels of
federal courts and their functions
381T H E F E D E R A L C O u R T S H E A R A S M A L L P E R C E N TA G E O F A L L C A S E S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch12_374-405.indd 381 11/28/18 4:37 PM
routines and procedures of the federal district courts are essentially the same as those
of the lower state courts, except that federal procedural requirements tend to be
stricter. States, for example, do not have to provide a grand jury, a 12-member trial
jury, or a unanimous jury verdict. Federal courts must follow all these procedures.
THE APPELL ATE COURTS HEAR 20 PERCENT
OF LOWER- COURT CASES
Roughly 20 percent of all lower-court and federal agency cases are accepted for
review by the federal appeals courts and by the Supreme Court in its capacity as an
appellate court. There are 13 U.S. Court of Appeals judicial districts, or circuits,
with a total of 179 judges. Those districts consist of 11 that divide up the nation
geographically plus one for the District of Columbia and one federal circuit that
deals with patents, trademarks, international trade, and claims against the federal
government (see Figure 12.2).
FIGURE 12.2
Federal Appellate Court Circuits
The 94 federal district courts are organized into 12 regional circuits: the 11 shown here
plus the District of Columbia, which has its own circuit. Each circuit court hears appeals
from lower federal courts within the circuit. A thirteenth federal circuit court, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, hears appeals from a number of specialized
courts such as the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
SOURCE: United States Courts, “Geographic Boundaries,” www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/federal-courts-
public/court-website-links (accessed 8/23/16).
1
2
3
4
115
6
7
8OR
ID
MT
WY
ND
SD
NV
UT
CO
NM
AK
NE
KS
TX
MN
IA
MO
IL
WI
MI
IN
OH
KY
TN
WV
PA
NY
VA
NC
SCAR
LA
MS AL GA
FL
10
ME
NHVT
MA
RI
CT
NJ
DE
MD
DC
HI
N. Mariana
Islands
U.S. Virgin Isl.
Puerto Rico
Guam
WA
9
CA
OKAZ
382 C H A P T E R 1 2 T H E F E D E R A L C O u R T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch12_374-405.indd 382 11/28/18 4:37 PM
Except for cases selected for review by the Supreme Court, decisions made by the
appeals courts are final. Because of this finality, certain safeguards have been built
into the system. The most important is the provision of more than one judge for
every appeals case. Each court of appeals has from 6 to 28 permanent judgeships,
depending on the workload of the circuit. Although normally three judges hear
appealed cases, in some instances a larger number of judges sit together en banc.
Another safeguard is provided by the assignment of a Supreme Court justice as the
circuit justice for each of the circuits. Since the creation of the appeals court in 1891,
the circuit justice’s primary duty has been to review appeals arising in the circuit in
order to expedite Supreme Court action. The most frequent and best-known action
of circuit justices is that of reviewing requests for stays of execution when the full
Court is unable to do so—primarily during the summer, when the Court is in recess.
THE SUPREME COURT IS THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL
The Supreme Court is America’s highest court. Article III of the Constitution vests
“the judicial power of the United States” in the Supreme Court, and this court
is supreme in fact as well as form. The Supreme Court is the only federal court
established by the Constitution. The lower federal courts were created by Congress
and can be restructured or, presumably, even abolished by the legislative branch.
The Supreme Court is made up of a chief justice and eight associate justices
(see Table 12.1). The chief justice presides over the Court’s public sessions and
conferences and is the first to speak and vote. Voting then proceeds from most to
TABLE 12.1
Supreme Court Justices, 2019
(in Order of Seniority)
NAME
YEAR OF
BIRTH
PRIOR
EXPERIENCE
APPOINTED
BY
YEAR OF
APPOINTMENT
Clarence Thomas 1948 Federal judge G. H. W. Bush 1991
Ruth Bader Ginsburg 1933 Federal judge Clinton 1993
Stephen Breyer 1938 Federal judge Clinton 1994
John Roberts, Jr.
(Chief Justice)
1955 Federal judge G. W. Bush 2005
Samuel Alito 1950 Federal judge G. W. Bush 2006
Sonia Sotomayor 1954 Federal judge Obama 2009
Elena Kagan 1960 Solicitor general Obama 2010
Neil Gorsuch 1967 Federal judge Trump 2017
Brett Kavanaugh 1965 Federal judge Trump 2018
383T H E F E D E R A L C O u R T S H E A R A S M A L L P E R C E N TA G E O F A L L C A S E S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch12_374-405.indd 383 11/28/18 4:37 PM
least senior. In the Court’s actual deliberations and decisions, however, the chief
justice has no more authority than the other justices. Each justice casts one vote.
To some extent, the influence of the chief justice is a function of her own leader-
ship ability. Some chief justices, such as the late Earl Warren, have been able to
lead the Court in a new direction. In other instances, forceful associate justices,
such as the late Felix Frankfurter, are the dominant figures on the Court.
The Constitution does not specify the number of justices who should sit on the
Supreme Court; Congress has the authority to change the Court’s size. In the early nine-
teenth century, there were six Supreme Court justices; later there were seven. Congress set
the number of justices at nine in 1869, and the Court has remained that size ever since.
JUDGES ARE APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT
AND APPROVED BY THE SENATE
Federal judges are nominated by the president and are generally selected from
among the more prominent or politically active members of the legal profession.
Many federal judges previously served as state court judges or state or local prose-
cutors. There are no formal qualifications for service as a federal judge. In general,
presidents endeavor to appoint judges who possess legal experience and good char-
acter and whose partisan and ideological views are similar to their own. Once the
president has formally nominated an individual, the nominee must be considered
by the Senate Judiciary Committee and confirmed by a majority vote in the full
Senate. In recent years, the judicial appointments process has been affected by
increasing partisan conflict. Senate Democrats have sought to prevent Republican
presidents from appointing conservative judges, while Senate Republicans have
worked to prevent Democratic presidents from appointing liberal judges. During
the early months of the Obama administration, Republicans were able to slow the
judicial appointment process through filibusters and other procedural maneuvers
so that only 3 of the president’s 23 nominations for federal judgeships were con-
firmed by the Senate.3 Obama’s allies urged the president to take a more aggressive
stance or risk allowing Republicans to block what had been considered a key
Democratic priority. In 2013 the Senate voted 52 to 48 to end the use of the
filibuster against all executive branch and judicial nominees except those to the
Supreme Court, allowing President Obama to quickly secure the appointment of
more than 300 new district court judges and 55 new appeals court judges.
In 2017, as we saw earlier, Republicans turned the tables and extended these rule
changes to include Supreme Court nominees, thus blocking Democratic efforts to
prevent President Trump from appointing Neil Gorsuch to the High Court. In July
2018, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who had been a swing vote on the Court, announced
his resignation. President Trump nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace
Kennedy. Kavanaugh was generally seen as a conservative in the Gorsuch mold.
Liberal groups promised an all-out fight to block the nomination but, with Republican
control of the Senate and the elimination of filibusters on judicial appointments,
there was little chance Democrats could derail the Kavanaugh appointment.
If political factors play an important role in the selection of district and
appellate court judges, they are decisive when it comes to Supreme Court
384 C H A P T E R 1 2 T H E F E D E R A L C O u R T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch12_374-405.indd 384 11/28/18 4:37 PM
appointments. Because the Court has
so much influence over law and politics,
virtually all presidents have made an
effort to select justices who share their
political views.
As of 2018, five of the nine current
justices were appointed by Republican pres-
idents. With the exception of the months
between the passing of Antonin Scalia in
February 2016 and the confirmation of
Neil Gorsuch in April 2017, the Court had
a conservative majority for 45 years. This
majority has propelled the Court in a
more conservative direction in a variety
of areas, including civil rights (Chapter 4)
and election law.
Supreme Court nominations have come to involve intense partisan struggle in
recent decades. The struggle over filling the Scalia vacancy in 2016 reflected the
heightened partisanship over court nominees. In eleven past instances when presi-
dents had put forward nominees to fill Supreme Court vacancies in the last years
of their terms, the Senate considered and voted on them.4 In 2016, however, the
Republican-controlled Senate refused to even consider President Obama’s nominee,
Judge Merrick Garland, leaving the seat vacant for a year until President Trump suc-
cessfully nominated Judge Gorsuch.
The Kavanaugh nomination touched off one of the most intense political
struggles in recent American history. Days before the Senate was to vote, Christine
Blasey Ford came forward to assert that the judge had attempted to sexually assault
her 36 years ago when he was 17 and she was 15. Kavanaugh vehemently denied
the accusation as well as accusations of sexual impropriety by two other women
who had known him in college. Televised testimony before the Senate Judiciary
Committee by Kavanaugh and Ford divided the Senate and the nation, primar-
ily along partisan lines. Democrats argued that Kavanaugh was unfit to serve on
the Court while Republicans asserted that the charges against Kavanaugh had
been invented for political reasons. An FBI investigation failed to shed light on the
allegations, and Kavanaugh was confirmed, receiving the votes of all but one Repub-
lican and only one Democrat.5
The Power of the Supreme
Court Is Judicial Review
The term judicial review refers to the
power of the judiciary to review and,
if necessary, declare actions of the leg-
islative and executive branches invalid
or unconstitutional. It is sometimes
After Justice Anthony Kennedy announced
his retirement in 2018, Trump nominated
Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Many
feel that Kavanaugh will shift the Court in a
more conservative direction.
Explain how the Supreme Court
exercises the power of judicial
review
385T H E P O W E R O F T H E S u P R E M E C O u R T I S J u D I C I A L R E v I E W
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch12_374-405.indd 385 11/28/18 4:37 PM
also used to describe the scrutiny that appellate courts give to the actions of trial
courts, but strictly speaking, this is improper usage. A higher court’s examina-
tion of a lower court’s decisions might be called “appellate review,” but it is not
judicial review.
JUDICIAL REVIEW COVERS ACTS OF CONGRESS
Because the Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the power of judicial
review over congressional enactments, the Court’s exercise of it seems like something
of a usurpation. But judicial review was debated at the Constitutional Conven-
tion. Some delegates expected the courts to exercise this power, while many others
were “departmentalists,” believing that each branch of the new government would
interpret the Constitution as it applied to its own actions, with the judiciary mainly
ensuring that individuals did not suffer injustices. Ambiguity over the framers’
intentions was settled in 1803 in the case of Marbury v. Madison.6 The Court said,
It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department [the judicial branch] to
say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound
and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the
operation of each. . . . So, if a law [e.g., a statute or treaty] be in opposition to the Constitution,
if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either
decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the
Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules
governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
The Court’s legal power to review acts of Congress has not been seriously
questioned since 1803 in part because the Supreme Court tends to give acts of
Congress an interpretation that will make them constitutional. For example, in its
2012 decision upholding the constitutionality of the ACA, the Court agreed with
the many legal scholars who had argued that Congress had no power under the
Constitution’s commerce clause to order Americans to purchase health insurance.
But rather than invalidate the act, the Court declared that the law’s requirement
that all Americans purchase insurance was actually a tax and, thus, represented a
constitutionally acceptable use of Congress’s power to levy taxes.7
In more than two centuries, the Court has concluded that fewer than 160
acts of Congress directly violated the Constitution.8 These cases are often highly
controversial. For example, in 2007, 2010, and 2014, the high court struck down
key portions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, through which Congress
had sought to regulate spending in political campaigns.9 The Court found that
provisions of the act limiting political advertising violated the First Amendment.
In the 2017 case of Matal v. Tam the Court also cited free speech concerns in
striking down a federal law that prohibited trademarks that disparaged people or
groups.10 The decision was cheered by fans of the Washington “Redskins” football
team. These cases are important but unusual in that the Court rarely overturns
acts of Congress.
386 C H A P T E R 1 2 T H E F E D E R A L C O u R T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch12_374-405.indd 386 11/28/18 4:37 PM
Once appointed, Supreme Court justices
“shall hold their Offices during good
Behaviour,”a which has effectively meant they
serve for life. Only once (in 1804) has the
Senate started impeachment proceedings
against a Supreme Court justice, and this
judge was ultimately acquitted.b
While the founding fathers may have
created life terms with the intention of
preserving judicial independence and
isolating justices from partisan pressures,
the life term limits may have created
other political problems. Scholars point
out that the extreme partisan nature and
tensions that emerge during Supreme
Court appointment hearings (as described
in this chapter) may be due to the life
term rule.c After all, appointing a justice
favorable to your partisan position is
considered a major political coup given
that the average Supreme Court justice
serves over 25 years.
Constitutional courts (courts with the power
of judicial review) aim to preserve judicial
independence as they play an important role
in guaranteeing democracy by checking exe-
cutive overreach. Other countries, however,
have sought to balance this with the need
of also having a more dynamic and changing
court. Canada, for instance, sets a mandatory
retirement age of 75 for their Supreme Court
justices. Other countries have set term limits
so that justices serve one long, nonrenewable
term. This system insulates justices from
political pressures yet still promotes judicial
turnover. If the united States used the same
rules as Germany (see below), only 3 of the
9 current justices—Sotomayor, Kagan, and
the recently-appointed Gorsuch—would still
be on the court.
Term Limits for High
Court Justices
a U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 1.
b U.S. Senate, “Senate Prepares for Impeachment Trial,” www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_Tries_Justice.
htm (accessed 4/15/18).
c Steven G. Calabresi and James Lindgren, “Term Limits for the Supreme Court: Life Tenure Reconsidered,” Harvard Journal of
Law & Public Policy 29, no. 3 (2005): 769–878.
SOURCE: Central Intelligence Agency, “Judicial Branch,” The World Factbook, www.cia.gov/index
.html (accessed 4/15/18).
TERM LIMITS MANDATORY
RETIREMENT AGE
Chilean Constitutional Court 9 years –
–
–
68
70
65
70
65
75
75
9
12
12
Life
Life
Life
Life
Life
6
French Constitutional Council
German Constitutional Court
High Court of Australia
India Supreme Court
South African Constitutional Court
South Korean Constitutional Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Supreme Federal Court of Brazil
U.S. Supreme Court
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch12_374-405.indd 387 11/28/18 4:37 PM
www.cia.gov/index.html
www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_Tries_Justice.htm
JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLIES TO PRESIDENTIAL ACTIONS
The federal courts also review presidential actions from time to time. In recent
decades, the courts have, more often than not, upheld presidential power in such
areas as foreign policy, war and emergency powers, legislative power, and adminis-
trative authority. But the Supreme Court ruled on three cases involving President
George W. Bush’s antiterrorism initiatives and claims of executive power, and in two
of the three cases placed some limits on presidential authority.
One important case was Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.11 Yaser Esam Hamdi, apparently
a Taliban soldier, was captured by American forces in Afghanistan and brought to
the United States, where he was incarcerated at the Norfolk Naval Station. Hamdi
was classified as an enemy combatant and denied civil rights, including the right to
counsel, despite the fact that he had been born in the United States and was a U.S.
citizen. In 2004 the Supreme Court ruled that Hamdi was entitled to a lawyer and
“a fair opportunity to rebut the government’s factual assertions.” Thus, the Court
imposed restrictions on the president’s power, although it also affirmed the presi-
dent’s most important claim: the unilateral power to declare individuals, including
U.S. citizens, “enemy combatants” who could be detained by the United States.
In the 2006 case of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld,12 Salim Hamdan, a Taliban fighter,
was captured in Afghanistan and held at the Guantánamo Bay naval base. The
Bush administration planned to try Hamdan before a military commission created
by a 2002 presidential order. The Supreme Court ruled that this presidentially
created commission violated federal law and U.S. treaty obligations. In response,
After President Trump’s “travel ban” was implemented in early 2017, many court cases challenged
this decision, and eventually one case was tried before the Supreme Court. In a 5–4 decision, the
Court upheld the travel ban, sparking outrage from Democratic lawmakers.
388 C H A P T E R 1 2 T H E F E D E R A L C O u R T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch12_374-405.indd 388 11/28/18 4:37 PM
Bush pressed Congress to rewrite the law, which it did, enacting the Military
Commissions Act. This law gave the president legal authority for his actions.
Section 7 of the law said that Guantánamo prisoners could not bring habeas cor-
pus petitions to federal courts to seek their release. In the 2008 case of Boumediene
v. Bush,13 however, the Supreme Court struck down Section 7, saying that habeas
corpus was a fundamental right.
Judicial review of presidential actions is not limited to presidential war powers and
the realm of terrorism. In the 2017 case of Trump v. International Refugee Assistance
Project, the Court overturned lower court injunctions blocking President Trump’s
temporary ban on travelers from six majority Muslim countries.14 The Court’s deci-
sion at least temporarily allowed the government to enforce the ban with exceptions
for some travelers such as those with close family members in the United States. The
Court ultimately upheld the ban in Trump v. Hawaii in June 2018.15
JUDICIAL REVIEW ALSO APPLIES TO STATE ACTIONS
The logic of the supremacy clause of Article VI of the Constitution, which states that
laws passed by the national government and all treaties “shall be the supreme Law
of the Land” and superior to all laws adopted by any state or any subdivision, implies
that the Court may review the constitutionality of state laws. Furthermore, in the
Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress conferred on the Supreme Court the power to
reverse state constitutions and laws whenever they are clearly in conflict with the U.S.
Constitution, federal laws, or treaties.16 This power gives the Supreme Court appel-
late jurisdiction over all of the millions of cases handled by U.S. courts each year.
The supremacy clause of the Constitution also provides that “the Judges in every
State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State
to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Under this authority, the Supreme Court has
frequently overturned state constitutional provisions or statutes and state court
decisions it deems contrary to the federal Constitution or federal statutes.
The civil rights arena abounds with examples of state laws that were overturned
because the statutes violated guarantees of due process and equal protection con-
tained in the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment. For example, in the 1954
case of Brown v. Board of Education, the Court overturned statutes from Kansas,
South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware that either required or permitted segre-
gated public schools, on the basis that such statutes denied black schoolchildren
equal protection of the law.17 In 2003 the Court ruled that Texas’s law criminalizing
sodomy violated the right to liberty protected by the due process clause.18 In the
2017 case of Pavan v. Smith, the Court overturned an Arkansas law that denied
same-sex couples the right to include a spouse’s name on a birth certificate—a right
granted to other couples.19 The Court said the statute denied same-sex couples equal
protection of the law.
State statutes in other areas of law are equally subject to challenge. Many of the
Supreme Court’s recent decisions overturning state law have come in cases con-
cerning election law. In 2015, for example, the Court ruled against an Alabama
legislative districting plan that opponents charged was designed to reduce the
influence of black voters.20 During the same year the Court ruled against an
389T H E P O W E R O F T H E S u P R E M E C O u R T I S J u D I C I A L R E v I E W
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch12_374-405.indd 389 11/28/18 4:37 PM
effort by the Arizona legislature to invali-
date a districting plan drawn up by an inde-
pendent commission created by a voter
referendum.21 In the 2017 case of Cooper
v. Harris, the Court invalidated a North
Carolina legislative districting plan that
moved tens of thousands of black voters
into congressional districts that already
had large black majorities.22 This tactic is
known as “packing,” and is designed to
reduce the number of seats that might
be affected by some group of voters by
packing them all into as few districts as
possible.
One realm in which the Court con-
stantly monitors state conduct is that of
law enforcement. As we saw in Chapter 4,
the Supreme Court has developed a num-
ber of principles regulating police conduct
to ensure that the police do not violate
constitutional liberties. These principles,
however, must often be updated to keep
pace with changes in technology. In the
2012 case of United States v. Jones, the
Supreme Court found that police use of
a Global Positioning System tracker—a
device invented more than two centuries
after the adoption of the Bill of Rights—constituted a “search” as defined by the Fourth
Amendment. In the 2014 case of Riley v. California, the Court held that the police could
not undertake a warrantless search of the digital contents of a cell phone—another
device hardly imagined by the framers.23
Most Cases Reach the
Supreme Court by Appeal
Article III of the Constitution and
Supreme Court decisions define judi-
cial power as extending only to “cases
and controversies.” This means that the
case before a court must be an actual
controversy, not a hypothetical one, with two truly adversarial parties. The courts have
interpreted this language to mean that they do not have the power to render advisory
opinions to legislatures or agencies about the constitutionality of proposed laws or
regulations. Furthermore, even after a law is enacted, the courts will generally refuse
Describe the process the Supreme
Court follows in the exercise of its
power of judicial review
The Supreme Court has the power to review
state action. In Pavan v. Smith, the Supreme
Court overturned Arkansas’s law that dis-
allowed same-sex parents to have both of
their names listed on their children’s birth
certificates. Here, Marisa Pavan, the plaintiff
in the case, holds her daughter and her birth
certificate showing both parents’ names.
390 C H A P T E R 1 2 T H E F E D E R A L C O u R T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch12_374-405.indd 390 11/28/18 4:37 PM
to consider its constitutionality until it is actually applied. Even with this provision,
given that millions of disputes arise every year, the job of the Supreme Court would be
impossible if it were not able to control the flow of cases and its own caseload.
Parties to a case must also have standing—that is, they must show that they have a
substantial stake in the outcome of the case. The traditional requirement for standing
has been to show injury to oneself; that injury can be personal, economic, or even
aesthetic, such as a neighbor’s building a high fence that blocks one’s view of the
ocean. In order for a group or class of people to have standing (as in class-action suits),
each member must show specific injury. This means that a general interest in the
environment, for instance, does not provide a group with sufficient basis for standing.
The Supreme Court also uses a third criterion in determining whether it will
hear a case: that of mootness. In theory, this requirement disqualifies cases that are
brought too late—after the relevant facts have changed or the problem has been
resolved by other means. The criterion of mootness, however, is subject to the discre-
tion of the courts, which have begun to relax the rules of mootness, particularly in
cases where a situation that has been resolved is likely to come up again.
Most cases reach the Supreme Court through the writ of certiorari, which is granted
whenever four of the nine justices agree to review a decision of a lower court.
(Certiorari comes from the Latin for “to make more certain.”) The term certiorari
is sometimes shortened to cert, and cases deemed to merit certiorari are referred to
as “certworthy.” An individual who loses in a lower federal court or state court and
wants the Supreme Court to review the decision has 90 days to file a petition for a
writ of certiorari with the clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court. Petitions for thousands
of cases are filed with the Court every year.
Since 1972 most of the justices have participated in a “certiorari pool” in which
their law clerks work together to evaluate the petitions. Each petition is reviewed by
one clerk, who writes a memo for all the justices participating in the pool, summa-
rizing the facts and issues and making a recommendation. Clerks for the other jus-
tices add their comments to the memo. After the justices have reviewed the memos,
any one of them may place any case on the discuss list, which is circulated by the
chief justice. If a case is not placed on the discuss list, it is automatically denied
certiorari. Cases placed on the discuss list are considered and voted on during the
justices’ closed-door conference.
For certiorari to be granted, four justices must be convinced that the case satisfies
Rule 10 of the Rules of the U.S. Supreme Court. Rule 10 states that certiorari is not
a matter of right but is to be granted only when there are special and compelling
reasons. These include conflicting decisions by two or more circuit courts, conflicts
between circuit courts and state courts of last resort, conflicting decisions by two or
more state courts of last resort, decisions by circuit courts on matters of federal law
that should be settled by the Supreme Court, a circuit court decision on an important
question that conflicts with Supreme Court decisions, cases that present important
questions of civil rights or civil liberties, and cases in which the federal government is
an appellant. It should be clear from this list that the Court will usually take action
under only the most compelling circumstances. Ultimately, however, the question of
which cases to accept can come down to the preferences and priorities of the justices.
391M O S T C A S E S R E A C H T H E S u P R E M E C O u R T B y A P P E A L
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch12_374-405.indd 391 11/28/18 4:37 PM
As Figure 12.3 shows, the Court is inundated by appeals, and the number of
appeals has skyrocketed over the years, even though the Court actually rules on less
than 1 percent of these appeals.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL , L AW CLERKS, AND INTEREST
GROUPS ALSO INFLUENCE THE FLOW OF CASES
In addition to the judges themselves, three other entities play an important role in
shaping the flow of cases through the federal courts: the solicitor general, federal law
clerks, and interest groups.
FIGURE 12.3
Number of Cases Filed in the U.S. Supreme
Court, 1938–2017 Terms
NOTE: Number of cases filed in term starting in year indicated.
SOURCES: Years 1938–69, 1970–83, 1984–99: The United States Law Week (Washington, DC: Bureau of National
Affairs), vol. 56, no. 3102; vol. 59, no. 3064; vol. 61, no. 3098; vol. 63, no. 3134; vol. 65, no. 3100; vol. 67,
no. 3167; vol. 69, no. 3134 (copyright © Bureau of National Affairs Inc.); 2000–05: U.S. Bureau of the Census,
Statistical Abstract of the United States; 2006–10: Office of the Clerk, Supreme Court of the United States; and
2011–14: Supreme Court of the United States, Cases on Docket, www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/caseload-
statistics-data-tables. 2017 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/year-
end/2017year-endreport (accessed 4/5/18).
1940
8,000
9,000
10,000
11,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
392 C H A P T E R 1 2 T H E F E D E R A L C O u R T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch12_374-405.indd 392 11/28/18 4:37 PM
The Solicitor General If any single person has greater influence than individual
judges over the federal courts, it is the solicitor general of the United States. The
solicitor general is the third-ranking official in the Justice Department (below the
attorney general and the deputy attorney general) but the top government lawyer in
virtually all cases before the Supreme Court in which the government is a party. The
solicitor general controls the flow of cases by screening them before any agency of
the federal government can appeal them to the Supreme Court; indeed, the justices
rely on the solicitor general to “screen out undeserving litigation and furnish them
with an agenda to government cases that deserve serious consideration.”24 More than
half of the Supreme Court’s total workload consists of cases under the direct charge
of the solicitor general. Typically, more requests for appeals are rejected than are
accepted by the solicitor general. Without the solicitor general’s support, requests
directly from government agencies are seldom reviewed by the Court.
The solicitor general can enter a case even when the federal government is not
a direct litigant, by writing an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief. A “friend
of the court” is not a direct party to a case but seeks to assist the Supreme Court in
reaching a decision by presenting additional briefs. Other interested parties may file
amicus briefs as well.
In addition to exercising substantial control over the flow of cases, the solicitor
general can shape the arguments used before the federal courts. Indeed, the Supreme
Court tends to give special attention to the way the solicitor general characterizes
the issues.
Law Clerks Every federal judge employs law clerks to research legal issues and
assist with the preparation of opinions. Each Supreme Court justice is assigned four
clerks. The clerks are almost always honors graduates from the nation’s most pres-
tigious law schools. A clerkship with a Supreme Court justice is a great honor and
generally indicates that the fortunate individual is likely to reach the very top of the
legal profession. The work of the Supreme Court clerks is a closely guarded secret,
but some justices rely heavily on their clerks for advice in writing opinions and in
deciding whether specific cases ought to be heard by the Court. In a recent book,
a former law clerk to the late justice Harry Blackmun charged that Supreme Court
justices yielded “excessive power to immature, ideologically driven clerks, who in
turn use that power to manipulate their bosses.”25
Lobbying for Access: Interests and the Court At the same time that the Court
exercises discretion over which cases it will review, groups and forces in society often
seek to persuade the justices to listen to their problems. Lawyers representing inter-
est groups try to choose the proper client and the proper case so that the issues in
question are most dramatically and appropriately portrayed. When possible, they
also pick a district with a sympathetic judge in which to bring the case. Sometimes
they wait for an appropriate political climate.
Group litigants have to plan carefully when to use and when to avoid publicity.
They must also attempt to develop a proper record at the trial court level, one that
includes some constitutional arguments and even, when possible, errors on the part
393M O S T C A S E S R E A C H T H E S u P R E M E C O u R T B y A P P E A L
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch12_374-405.indd 393 11/28/18 4:37 PM
of the trial court. One of the most effective strategies that litigants use in getting
cases accepted for review by the appellate courts is to bring the same type of suit
in more than one circuit (that is, to develop a “pattern of cases”), in the hope that
inconsistent treatment by two different courts will improve the chance of a Supreme
Court review.
The two most notable users of the “pattern of cases” strategy in recent years have
been the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). For many years, the NAACP (and
its Defense Fund—now a separate group) has worked through local chapters
and with many individuals to encourage litigation on issues of racial discrimination
and segregation. Sometimes it distributes petitions to be signed by parents and filed
with local school boards and courts, deliberately sowing the seeds of future litiga-
tion. The NAACP and the ACLU often encourage private parties to bring suit and
then join the suit as amici curiae.
THE SUPREME COURT’S PROCEDURES MEAN
CASES MAY TAKE MONTHS OR YEARS
Preparation The Supreme Court’s decision to accept a case is the beginning of what
can be a lengthy and complex process (see Figure 12.4). First, the attorneys on both
sides must prepare briefs—written documents that may be several hundred pages
long in which the attorneys explain, using case precedents, why the Court should
rule in favor of their client. Briefs are filled with referrals to precedents specifically
chosen to show that other courts have frequently ruled in the same way that the
Supreme Court is being asked to rule. The attorneys for both sides muster the most
compelling precedents they can in support of their arguments.
As the attorneys prepare their briefs, they often ask sympathetic interest groups
for help. Groups are asked to file amicus curiae briefs that support the claims of
one or the other litigant. In a case involving separation of church and state, for
example, liberal groups such as the ACLU and Citizens for the American Way
are likely to be asked to file amicus briefs in support of strict separation, whereas
conservative religious groups are likely to file amicus briefs advocating increased
public support for religious ideas. Often, dozens of briefs will be filed on each side
of a major case. Amicus filings are a primary method used by interest groups to
lobby the Court.
Oral Argument The next stage of a case is oral argument, in which attorneys for both
sides appear before the Court to present their positions and answer questions posed
by justices. Each attorney has only a half hour to present the case, and this time
includes interruptions for questions. Certain members of the Court, such as the late
Justice Scalia, are known to interrupt attorneys dozens of times. Others, such as Jus-
tice Thomas, seldom ask questions. For an attorney, the opportunity to argue a case
before the Supreme Court is a singular honor and a mark of professional distinc-
tion. It can also be a harrowing experience as justices interrupt a carefully prepared
presentation to ask pointed questions. Oral argument can be very important to the
394 C H A P T E R 1 2 T H E F E D E R A L C O u R T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch12_374-405.indd 394 11/28/18 4:37 PM
FIGURE 12.4
Time Line of a Supreme Court Case
This calendar of events in the case of Janus v. American Federation of State, County,
and Municipal Employees, discussed at the start of this chapter, illustrates the steps
of the process as a case moves through the Supreme Court.
SOURCE: www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/janus-v-american-federation-state-county-municipal-employees
-council-31/ (accessed 9/26/18).
June 6, 2017
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed.
July 7, 2017
Filing of briefs and amicus curiae briefs in support of the petitioner.
August 11, 2017
Brief of respondent American Federation of State, County,
and Municipal Employees, Council 31 in opposition filed.
August 30, 2017
The case is distributed for conference.
September 28, 2017
The petition (certiorari) is granted.
December 20, 2017
Date for oral argument is set for February 26, 2018.
December 2017
Briefs and amicus curiae briefs are filed on behalf
of petitioner.
January 2018
Briefs and amicus curiae briefs are filed on behalf of
respondent.
February 26, 2018
Oral argument of one hour
June 27, 2018
Decision
395M O S T C A S E S R E A C H T H E S u P R E M E C O u R T B y A P P E A L
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch12_374-405.indd 395 11/28/18 4:37 PM
www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/janus-v-american-federation-state-county-municipal-employees-council-31/
outcome of a case. It allows justices to better understand the heart of the case and to
raise questions that might not have been addressed in the opposing side’s briefs. It
is not uncommon for justices to go beyond the strictly legal issues and ask opposing
counsel to discuss the implications of the case for the Court and the nation at large.
Conference Following oral argument, the Court discusses the case in its Wednes-
day or Friday conference, a strictly private meeting that no outsiders are permitted
to attend. The chief justice presides over the conference and speaks first; the other
justices follow in order of seniority. The justices discuss the case and eventually reach
a decision on the basis of a majority vote. If the Court is divided, a number of votes
may be taken before a final decision is reached. As the case is discussed, justices
may try to influence or change one another’s opinions. At times, this may result in
compromise decisions.
Opinion Writing After a decision has been reached, one of the members of the
majority is assigned to write the opinion—the written explanation of the Supreme
Court’s decision in a particular case. This assignment is made by the chief justice
or by the most senior justice in the majority if the chief justice is on the losing
side. The assignment of the opinion can make a significant difference to the inter-
pretation of a decision. Lawyers and judges in the lower courts will examine the
opinion carefully to ascertain the Supreme Court’s intent. Differences in wording
and emphasis can have important implications for future litigation. Once the
majority opinion is drafted, it is circulated to the other justices. Some members
of the majority may decide that they do not agree with all the language of the
opinion and therefore write “concurring” opinions that support the decision but
offer a different rationale or emphasis. In assigning an opinion, serious thought
must be given to the impression the case will make on lawyers and the public and
to the probability that one justice’s opinion will be more widely accepted than
another’s.
One of the more dramatic instances of this tactical consideration occurred in
1944, when Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone chose Justice Felix Frankfurter to write
the opinion in the “white primary” case Smith v. Allwright. The chief justice believed
that this sensitive case, which overturned the southern practice of prohibiting black
participation in nominating primaries, required the efforts of the most brilliant and
scholarly jurist on the Court. But the day after Stone made the assignment, Justice
Robert H. Jackson wrote a letter to Stone urging a change of assignment. In his let-
ter, Jackson argued that Frankfurter, a foreign-born Jew from New England, would
not win the South with his opinion, regardless of its brilliance. Stone accepted the
advice and substituted Justice Stanley Reed, an American-born Protestant from
Kentucky and a southern Democrat in good standing.26
Dissent Justices who disagree with the majority decision of the Court may choose
to publicize their disagreement in the form of a dissenting opinion (a decision writ-
ten by a justice in the minority in a particular case in which the justice wishes to
express his reasoning in the case). Dissents can be used to express opposition to
396 C H A P T E R 1 2 T H E F E D E R A L C O u R T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch12_374-405.indd 396 11/28/18 4:37 PM
an outcome or to signal to defeated political forces in the nation that their posi-
tion is supported by at least some members of the Court. Because there is no need
to please a majority, dissenting opinions can be more eloquent and less guarded
than majority opinions. The Supreme Court often produces 5–4 decisions, with
dissenters writing long and detailed opinions that, they hope, will help them to
persuade a swing justice to join their side on the next round of cases dealing with a
similar topic. During the Court’s 2006–07 term, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was
so unhappy about the majority’s decisions in a number of cases that she began to
read forceful dissents from the bench, a practice she has continued to underscore
her disagreements with several recent decisions and point the way toward other
possibilities.
Supreme Court Decisions Are
Influenced by Activism and Ideology
The Supreme Court explains its
decisions in terms of law and prece-
dent. But although law and prece-
dent do have an effect on the
Court’s deliberations and eventual
decisions, throughout its history, the Court has shaped and reshaped the law.
In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, for example, the Supreme
Court held that the Constitution, law, and precedent permitted racial segre-
gation in the United States. Beginning in the late 1950s, however, the Court
found that the Constitution prohibited segregation on the basis of race and
ruled that racial categories in legislation were always suspect. By the 1970s and
’80s the Court once again held that the Constitution permitted the use of racial
categories—when such categories were needed to help members of minority
groups achieve full participation in American society. In the 1990s the Court
began to retreat from this position, too, indicating that governmental efforts
to provide extra help to racial minorities could represent an unconstitutional
infringement on the rights of the majority.
Institutional Interests The Supreme Court’s justices are acutely aware of the
Court’s place in history, and they care about protecting the Court’s power and
reputation. This desire to protect the institutional integrity of the Court can
sometimes influence judicial thinking. Chief Justice John Roberts seemed to have
institutional concerns in mind when he surprised fellow conservatives by casting
the deciding vote in favor of the constitutionality of the ACA in 2012. Roberts
had been widely expected to oppose the president’s health care reform effort.
However, the Court’s conservative majority had come under increasing political
fire for its positions on such matters as campaign finance and affirmative action.
Roberts, according to one commentator, saw himself as “uniquely entrusted with
the custodianship of the court’s legitimacy, reputation, and stature” and was
Consider the personal and political
influences on judges and the
courts
397A C T I v I S M A N D I D E O L O G y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch12_374-405.indd 397 11/28/18 4:37 PM
determined to show that the Court stood above mere political ideology.27 Roberts
repeated his support of the ACA in 2015 in the case of King v. Burwell.
Activism and Restraint The judicial philosophy of judges plays an important
role in their decision-making. One element of judicial philosophy is the issue of
activism versus restraint. Over the years, some justices have believed that courts
should narrowly interpret the Constitution according to the stated intentions of
its framers and defer to the views of Congress when interpreting federal statutes.
Justice Frankfurter, for example, advocated judicial deference to legislative bodies
and avoidance of the “political thicket” in which the Court would entangle itself
by deciding questions that were essentially political rather than legal in character.
Advocates of judicial restraint are sometimes called “strict constructionists” because
they refuse to go beyond the clear words of the Constitution in interpreting the
document’s meaning.
The alternative to restraint is judicial activism. Activist judges, such as the former
chief justice Earl Warren, believe that the Court should go beyond the words of
the Constitution or a statute to consider the broader societal implications of its
decisions. Activist judges sometimes strike out in new directions, promulgating new
interpretations or inventing new legal and constitutional concepts when they believe
these to be socially desirable. For example, Justice Harry Blackmun’s opinion in Roe
v. Wade was based on a constitutional right to privacy that is not found in the words
of the Constitution but was, rather, from the Court’s prior decision in Griswold v.
Connecticut.28 Blackmun and the other members of the majority in the Roe case
argued that the right to privacy was implied by other constitutional provisions. In
this instance of judicial activism, the Court knew the result it wanted to achieve
and was not afraid to make the law conform to the desired outcome.
Activism and restraint can overlap with but are not necessarily the same as
liberalism and conservatism. For example, conservative politicians often castigate
“liberal activist” judges and call for the appointment of conservative jurists who
will refrain from reinterpreting the law. Indeed, the Rehnquist Court, dominated
by conservatives, was among the most activist courts in American history, striking
out in new directions in such areas as federalism and election law. The Roberts Court
is continuing along the same route. As the examples of these conservative courts
illustrate, a judge may be philosophically conservative and believe in strict con-
struction of the Constitution but also be jurisprudentially activist and believe
that the courts must play an active and energetic role in policy making, if nec-
essary striking down acts of Congress to ensure that the intent of the framers
is fulfilled.
Political Ideology and Partisanship The philosophy of activism versus restraint
is sometimes a smokescreen for political ideology, and indeed, the liberal or
conservative attitudes or partisan leanings of justices play an important role in
their decisions.29 In the past, liberal judges have often been activists, willing
to use the law to achieve social and political change, whereas conservatives have
been associated with judicial restraint. Interestingly, however, in recent years some
398 C H A P T E R 1 2 T H E F E D E R A L C O u R T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch12_374-405.indd 398 11/28/18 4:37 PM
conservative justices who have long called for restraint have actually become activists
in seeking to undo some of the work of liberal jurists. From the 1950s to the ’80s,
the Supreme Court took an activist role in such areas as civil rights, civil liberties,
abortion, voting rights, and police procedures. For example, the Supreme Court
was more responsible than any other governmental institution for breaking down
America’s system of racial segregation. The Supreme Court virtually prohibited
states from interfering with the right of a woman to seek an abortion and sharply
curtailed state restrictions on voting rights. And it was the Supreme Court that
placed restrictions on the behavior of local police and prosecutors in criminal cases.
In a series of decisions since 1989, however, the conservative justices appointed by
Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush were able to swing the
Court to a more conservative position on civil rights, affirmative action, abortion
rights, property rights, criminal procedure, voting rights, desegregation, and the
power of the national government.
The political struggles of recent years amply illustrate the importance of judicial
ideology. Is abortion a fundamental right or a criminal activity? How much separa-
tion must there be between church and state? Does application of the Voting Rights
Act to increase minority representation constitute a violation of the rights of whites?
The answers to these and many other questions cannot be found in the words of the
Constitution. They must be located, instead, in the hearts and minds of the judges
who interpret that text.
In a historic decision in 2015, the Supreme Court declared same-sex marriage a fundamental right
protected by the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution.
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch12_374-405.indd 399 11/28/18 4:37 PM
The Federal Courts
WHAT DO WE WANT?
In the original conception of the framers, the judiciary was to be the institution that
would protect individual liberty from the government. As we saw in Chapter 2, the fram-
ers believed that in a democracy the great danger was what they termed “tyranny of
the majority”—the possibility that a popular majority, “united or actuated by some com-
mon impulse or passion,” would “trample on the rules of justice.”30 The framers hoped
that the courts would protect liberty from the potential excesses of democracy. And for
most of American history, this was precisely the role played by the federal courts. The
courts’ most important decisions were those that protected the freedoms—to speak,
worship, publish, vote, and attend school—of groups and individuals whose political
views, religious beliefs, or racial or ethnic backgrounds made them unpopular.
Today, Americans of all political persuasions seem to view the courts as useful
instruments through which to pursue their political and policy goals. Conservatives
want to ban abortion and help business maintain its profitability, whereas liberals want
to protect the environment and help enhance the power of workers in the workplace.
(The “Who Participates?” feature on the facing page looks at efforts to influence the
Supreme Court through amicus briefs). These may all be noble goals, but they pres-
ent a basic dilemma for students of American government. If the courts are simply
one more set of policy-making institutions, then who is left to protect the liberty of
individuals?
Students should realize that the decisions made by the Supreme Court today
will have important consequences for their lives and futures. The Court’s campaign
finance decisions will have consequences for who will govern the nation you inherit.
The Court’s decisions on health care influence your access to health insurance, the
type of care you receive, and its cost. The Court’s decisions in the realm of equal
protection do and will impact your life (in particular, gays and lesbians with respect to
marriage) and career chances. The Court’s decisions in the realm of immigration will
affect who will and will not be able to call themselves Americans. The Court’s decision
in Mark Janus’s case against public sector unions could influence your future job and
taxes. The Supreme Court is not an abstract entity in far-off Washington. It reaches
directly into your life.
400 C H A P T E R 1 2 T H E F E D E R A L C O u R T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch12_374-405.indd 400 11/28/18 4:37 PM
Influencing the
Supreme Court?
Average Amicus Briefs per Case
Amicus Briefs for Selected Landmark Cases
2000s1980s1970s 1990s 2010s (through 2017)1960s
Obergefell v.
Hodges, 2015
(marriage equality)
147
Grutter v.
Bollinger, 2003
(af�rmative action
admissions policy)
107
Brown v. Board of
Education, 1954
(racial segregation)
6
National Federation of
Independent Business
v. Sebelius, 2012
(Affordable Care Act, individual mandate)
136
WHO PAR TICIPATES?
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
SOURCES: Anthony J. Franze and R. Reeves Anderson,“Record Breaking Term for
Amicus Curiae in Supereme Court Re�ects New Norm,” The National Law Journal,
www.nationallawjournal.com/supremecourtbrief/id=202735095655/
Record-Breaking-Term-for-Amicus-Curiae-Re�ects-New-Norm (accessed 12/8/15);
Thomas G. Hansford and Kristen Johnson, "The Supply of Amicus Curiae Briefs in
the Market for Information at the U.S. Supreme Court," Justice System Journal,
35, no. 4 (2014): 362–82; and Anthony J. Franze and R. Reeves Anderson,“In
Quiet Term, Drop in Amicus Curiae at the Supreme Court,” Supreme Court Brief,
September 6, 2017, www.law.com (accessed 12/23/17).
8
4 5
11
21
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch12_374-405.indd 401 11/28/18 4:37 PM
www.nationallawjournal.com/supremecourtbrief/id=202735095655/Record-Breaking-Term-for-Amicus-Curiae-Re�ects-New-Norm
Look inside the Federal Courts
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
Find which groups �led amicus briefs for U.S. Supreme Court cases at
www.scotusblog.com, and read a few of the briefs.
Click on the “Court Locator” tab at www.uscourts.gov to �nd which federal
courts are near you and to view their calendar of oral arguments. Court
dockets and some case �les are available about www.pacer.gov.
Watch videos of cases from the Cameras in Courts pilot project at
www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/cameras-courts.
Practice Quiz
1. What is the name for the body of law
that deals with disputes not involving
criminal penalties? (p. 378)
a) civil law
b) privacy law
c) plea bargains
d) household law
e) common law
2. The doctrine that previous court
decisions should apply as precedents
in similar cases is known as (p. 378)
a) habeas corpus.
b) a writ of certiorari.
c) stare decisis.
d) rule of four.
e) senatorial courtesy.
3. Where do most trials in America take
place? (p. 378)
a) state courts
b) appellate courts
c) federal courts
d) federal circuit courts
e) the Supreme Court
4. The term writ of habeas corpus refers
to (p. 380)
a) a short, unsigned decision by an ap-
pellate court that rejects a petition to
review the decision of a lower court.
b) a criterion used by courts to screen
cases that no longer require
resolution.
c) a decision of at least four of
the nine Supreme Court justices to
review a decision of a lower court.
d) a court order that an individual in
custody be brought into court and
shown the cause for his or her
detention.
e) a brief filed by the solicitor general
when the federal government is
not a direct litigant in a Supreme
Court case.
402 S T u D y G u I D E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch12_374-405.indd 402 11/28/18 4:37 PM
5. Which of the following is not included
in the original jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court? (p. 381)
a) cases between the united States
and one of the 50 states
b) cases brought by one state against
citizens of another state or against
a foreign country
c) cases involving challenges to the
constitutionality of state laws
d) cases between two or more states
e) cases involving foreign ambassa-
dors or other ministers
6. The size of the Supreme Court is
determined by (p. 384)
a) the president.
b) the chief justice.
c) the Department of Justice.
d) Congress.
e) the Constitution.
7. The Supreme Court’s decision in
Marbury v. Madison was important
because (p. 386)
a) it invalidated state laws prohibiting
interracial marriage.
b) it ruled that the recitation of
prayers in public schools is
unconstitutional under the
establishment clause of the First
Amendment.
c) it established that arrested people
have the right to remain silent, the
right to be informed that anything
they say can be held against them,
and the right to counsel before and
during police interrogation.
d) it provided an expansive definition
of commerce under the interstate
commerce clause.
e) it established the power of judicial
review.
8. Which of the following is not included
as a “special and compelling” reason
to hear a case under Rule 10 of the
Rules of the Supreme Court of the
united States? (p. 391)
a) The president of the united States
authors an amicus curiae brief on
the issue in question.
b) A circuit court decision on the
issue in question conflicts with
previous Supreme Court decisions.
c) There are conflicting decisions by
two or more state courts of last
resort on the issue in question.
d) There are conflicting decisions be-
tween circuit courts and state courts
of last resort on the issue in question.
e) There are conflicting decisions by
two or more circuit courts on the
issue in question.
9. Which of the following play an important
role in shaping the flow of cases heard
by the Supreme Court? (p. 393)
a) the attorney general, the secretary
of state, and the American Bar
Association
b) the solicitor general, federal law
clerks, and interest groups
c) the president, Congress, and the
Department of Justice
d) state legislatures
e) the federal district and circuit courts
10. Which of the following is a brief
submitted to the Supreme Court
by someone other than one of the
parties in the case? (p. 393)
a) amicus curiae
b) habeas corpus
c) writ of certiorari
d) ex post brief
e) de jure brief
11. A dissenting opinion is written by
(p. 396)
a) the chief justice of the Supreme Court.
b) a Supreme Court justice who
agrees with the majority’s ultimate
decision but wishes to offer a dif-
ferent rationale or emphasis.
c) a Supreme Court justice who dis-
agrees with the majority decision.
d) the solicitor general.
e) a Supreme Court justice assigned
by the chief justice.
12. If a justice refuses to go beyond the
clear words of the Constitution in inter-
preting the document’s meaning, he or
she would be considered an advocate
of which judicial philosophy? (p. 398)
a) judicial restraint
b) judicial activism
c) stare decisis
d) judicial liberalism
e) judicial conservatism
403S T u D y G u I D E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch12_374-405.indd 403 11/28/18 4:37 PM
Key Terms
amicus curiae (p. 393) literally, “friend of
the court”; individuals or groups who are
not parties to a lawsuit but who seek to
assist the Supreme Court in reaching a
decision by presenting additional briefs
briefs (p. 394) written documents in which
attorneys explain, using case precedents,
why the court should find in favor of their
client
chief justice (p. 383) justice on the Supreme
Court who presides over the Court’s public
sessions and whose official title is chief
justice of the united States
civil law (p. 378) the branch of law that
deals with disputes that do not involve
criminal penalties
court of appeals (p. 379) a court that hears
the appeals of trial court decisions
criminal law (p. 377) the branch of law
that regulates the conduct of individuals,
defines crimes, and specifies punishment
for acts defined as illegal
defendant (p. 378) the one against whom
a complaint is brought in a criminal or
civil case
dissenting opinion (p. 396) a decision
written by a justice in the minority in a par-
ticular case in which the justice wishes to
express his or her reasoning in the case
due process of law (p. 380) the right of
every citizen against arbitrary action by
national or state governments
judicial activism (p. 398) judicial philosophy
that posits that the Court should go beyond
the words of the Constitution or a statute
to consider the broader societal implica-
tions of its decisions
judicial restraint (p. 398) judicial philosophy
whose adherents refuse to go beyond the
clear words of the Constitution in interpret-
ing the document’s meaning
judicial review (p. 385) the power of the
courts to review and, if necessary, declare
actions of the legislative and executive
branches invalid or unconstitutional; the
Supreme Court asserted this power in
Marbury v. Madison
jurisdiction (p. 380) the sphere of a court’s
power and authority
mootness (p. 391) a criterion used by
courts to screen cases that no longer
require resolution
opinion (p. 396) the written explanation
of the Supreme Court’s decision in a
particular case
oral argument (p. 394) the stage in
Supreme Court procedure in which
attorneys for both sides appear before
the Court to present their positions and
answer questions posed by justices
original jurisdiction (p. 381) the authority
to initially consider a case; distinguished
from appellate jurisdiction, which is the
authority to hear appeals from a lower
court’s decision
plaintiff (p. 377) the individual or organiza-
tion that brings a complaint in court
plea bargain (p. 380) a negotiated agreement
in a criminal case in which a defendant
agrees to plead guilty in return for the
state’s agreement to reduce the severity of
the criminal charge the defendant is facing
precedent (p. 378) prior case whose
principles are used by judges as the basis
for their decisions in present cases
solicitor general (p. 393) the top government
lawyer in all cases before the Supreme
Court in which the government is a party
standing (p. 391) the right of an individual
or organization to initiate a court case, on
the basis of having a substantial stake in
the outcome
404 S T u D y G u I D E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch12_374-405.indd 404 11/28/18 4:37 PM
stare decisis (p. 378) literally, “let the
decision stand”; the doctrine that a
previous decision by a court applies as
a precedent in similar cases until that
decision is overruled
supremacy clause (p. 389) Article vI of the
Constitution, which states that laws passed
by the national government and all treaties
“shall be the supreme Law of the Land”
and superior to all laws adopted by any
state or any subdivision
supreme court (p. 379) the highest court in
a particular state or in the united States;
this court primarily serves an appellate
function
For Further Reading
trial court (p. 379) the first court to hear
a criminal or civil case
writ of certiorari (p. 391) a decision of at
least four of the nine Supreme Court
justices to review a decision of a lower
court; certiorari is Latin, meaning “to make
more certain”
writ of habeas corpus (p. 380) a court order
that the individual in custody be brought
into court and shown the cause for
detention; habeas corpus is guaranteed
by the Constitution and can be suspended
only in cases of rebellion or invasion
Baum, Lawrence. The Supreme Court. 12th ed. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2015.
Breyer, Stephen. The Court and the World: American Law and the New Global Realities.
New york: Knopf, 2015.
Chemerinsky, Erwin. Closing the Courthouse Door: How Your Constitutional Rights Became
Unenforceable. New Haven, CT: yale university Press, 2017.
Epstein, Lee, and Thomas G. Walker. Constitutional Law for a Changing America. 8th ed.
Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2013.
Fisher, Louis. Constitutional Dialogues. Princeton, NJ: Princeton university Press, 1988.
Greenberg, Jan Crawford. Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story of the United States Supreme
Court. New york: Penguin, 2008.
Hall, Kermit L., James Ely, and Joel Grossman. The Oxford Companion to the Supreme
Court. New york: Oxford university Press, 2005.
Hirshman, Linda. Sisters in Law: How Sandra Day O’Conner and Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Went to the Supreme Court and Changed the World. New york: Harper, 2015.
Irons, Peter. A People’s History of the Supreme Court. New york: Penguin, 2006.
Johnson, Timothy R. Oral Arguments and Decision Making on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Albany: State university of New york Press, 2004.
O’Brien, David M. Storm Center: The Supreme Court in American Politics. 11th ed. New
york: W. W. Norton, 2017.
Spitzer, Robert J. Saving the Constitution from Lawyers. New york: Cambridge university
Press, 2008.
Toobin, Jeffrey. The Oath: The Obama White House and the Supreme Court. New york:
Anchor, 2013.
405S T u D y G u I D E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch12_374-405.indd 405 11/28/18 4:37 PM
Domestic Policy
WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES AND WHY IT MATTERS
Marcella Wagner was a promising student in a nursing program at a public
university. She was driving to class one day when the driver next to her
swerved into her path, causing her car to roll over, crushing the roof. The
hit-and-run accident left her paralyzed from the chest down.1
No longer able to care for herself without assistance, Wagner was eligible
for Medicaid, the government health insurance program for low-income peo-
ple, which also provides long-term care to the disabled. Wagner is eligible for
Medicaid as a disabled person, but she still has to meet the income and
asset limits that determine eligibility, because Medicaid is a means-tested
program for the poor. After her accident, she and her husband Dave had to
spend down their assets to meet California’s eligibility limit, which is $3,150
(excluding their house and one vehicle), and they must keep their income
below 133 percent of the poverty level (just over $27,000 in 2017 dollars for
a family of three; they have a child). Medicaid provides fairly comprehensive
health insurance, but payments to doctors and hospitals are low compared to
131313
chapter
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch13_406-443.indd 406 11/28/18 5:40 PM
Domestic Policy
other forms of insurance, and Wagner sometimes has difficulty finding doctors
willing to see her as a patient.
Wagner’s mother-in-law, Mary Ann, now lives in Minnesota but often goes
to California to help out Marcella and Dave. As a senior citizen she gets
health insurance through Medicare, the government health insurance program
for older Americans. Medicare is a contributory social insurance program for
which Mary Ann is qualified as a retiree who paid a payroll tax during her work-
ing years that helps fund the program. Most doctors and hospitals accept
Medicare, which pays more than Medicaid.
Marcella Wagner is the sister-in-law and Mary Ann the mother of one of
this book’s authors, Andrea Campbell. Campbell’s interaction with American
social policy is different still from her mother’s or sister-in-law’s. Like many
Americans working full-time, Campbell has private health insurance through
her employer. Government still plays a role by subsidizing her insurance:
she and her employer share the cost of her health insurance, but neither is
taxed on the portion of the monthly premium they pay. Campbell’s private
The crafting of social policies leads to challenging
trade-offs, the outcomes of which deeply affect people’s
lives. Upon being permanently disabled after a horrible
accident, Marcella Wagner and her family faced difficult
choices as they navigated America’s complicated system
of social programs and government benefits.
407
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch13_406-443.indd 407 11/28/18 5:40 PM
health insurance covers some benefits that her mother’s Medicare does not,
such as vision and hearing, but she has to use doctors within her plan’s net-
work or pay more, unlike her mother, whose Medicare insurance works the
same nationwide.
As Campbell’s family’s experience shows, American social policy has three
main goals. It provides opportunity: in the hopes of a stable, well-paying
career in nursing, Wagner had pursued training at a public university with the
help of government-provided student loans. It addresses the risks that people
might face in their everyday lives that are expensive and difficult to meet:
illness, unemployment, loss of income due to aging, or, as in Wagner’s
case, disability. And it seeks to alleviate poverty, the most controversial goal.
American social policy pursues these goals along three tracks: social insur-
ance (like Mary Ann’s Medicare), social assistance (Marcella’s Medicaid), and
tax expenditures (Andrea’s private health insurance, subsidized through the
tax code).
In the last several chapters, we examined the parts of the government
that make policy: Congress, the presidency, the bureaucracy, and the courts.
In this chapter, we will examine the different approaches to achieving
policy goals. We will then examine one broad area of domestic public policy:
social policy. We focus on social policy because much of the government’s
annual budget goes to social programs, because such spending is often
controversial, and because this process illustrates how the government tries
to accomplish its goals.
★ Explain how different kinds of public policies achieve their goals using
different means (pp. 409–16)
★ Trace the history of government programs designed to promote
economic security (pp. 416–22)
★ Describe how education, health, and housing policies try to advance
equality of opportunity (pp. 423–32)
★ Explain how contributory, noncontributory, and tax expenditure
programs benefit different groups of Americans (pp. 432–37)
CHAP TER GOAL S
408 C H A P T E R 1 3 D o M e S T I C P o L I C y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch13_406-443.indd 408 11/28/18 5:40 PM
The Tools for Making Policy
Are Techniques of Control
Most of this book has focused on how
government gets things done. This
chapter and Chapter 14 will focus
on what the government produces,
called public policy. Public policy can be
defined simply as a law, a rule, a statute, or an edict that expresses the government’s
goals and provides for rewards and punishments to promote those goals’ attain-
ment. Public policy can include a law passed by Congress, a presidential directive, a
Supreme Court ruling, or a rule issued by a bureaucratic agency.
In trying to achieve some purpose, public policy is inherently coercive, even
when motivated by the best and most benign intentions. Note that the word policy
shares a root with the word police. Both terms come from the Greek words polis and
politeia, which refer to the political community and the sources of public authority.
So it is important to remember that although the idea of coercion seems inherently
negative, it is in fact a vital and necessary part of governing. (If overused or misused,
however, coercion can obviously be harmful.)
Techniques of control are to policy makers what tools are to a carpenter. There
are a limited number of techniques that the government can use, each with its own
logic and limitations. An accumulation of experience helps us to understand when
a certain technique is likely to work. Still, just as carpenters will have different ideas
about the best tool for a job, so policy makers will disagree about which techniques
work best and when. What we offer here is a workable elementary handbook of
techniques that will be useful for analyzing policy.
Table 13.1 lists some important techniques of control available to policy makers.
These techniques can be grouped into three categories: promotional, regulatory, and
redistributive policies.
PROMOTIONAL POLICIES GET PEOPLE TO DO
THINGS BY GIVING THEM REWARDS
Promotional policies use positive incentives to encourage behavior. Their purpose is
to encourage people to do something they might not otherwise do or to get people
to do more of what they are already doing. Sometimes the purpose is merely to
compensate people for something done in the past. Promotional techniques can be
classified into at least two separate types: subsidies and contracting.
Subsidies Subsidies are simply government grants of cash or other valuable commodi-
ties, such as land, to individuals or an organization that are used to promote activities
desired by the government, to reward political support, or to buy off political opposi-
tion. Subsidies were the dominant form of public policy of the national government
and the state and local governments throughout the nineteenth century. They continue
to be an important category of public policy at all levels of government.
Explain how different kinds of
public policies achieve their goals
using different means
409T h e T o o L S f o r M A k I N G P o L I C y A r e T e C h N I q u e S o f C o N T r o L
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch13_406-443.indd 409 11/28/18 5:40 PM
TABLE 13.1
Techniques of Public Control
TYPE OF
POLICY TECHNIQUES DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES
Promotional Subsidies and grants
of cash, land, etc.
“Patronage”—the promotion of private
activity through what recipients consider
“benefits” (example: in the nineteenth
century the government encouraged
westward settlement by granting land to
those who went west)
Contracts Agreements with individuals or firms in
the “private sector” to purchase goods
or services
Licenses unconditional permission to do something
that is otherwise illegal (franchise, permit)
regulatory Criminal penalties heavy fines or imprisonment, loss of
citizenship
Civil penalties Less onerous fines, probation, public
exposure, restitution
Administrative
regulations
The setting of interest rates, maintenance
of health and safety standards, and the
investigation and publicizing of wrongdoing
Subsidies and
contracts
Can be considered regulatory when certain
conditions are attached (example: the
government refuses to award a contract to
firms that show no evidence of affirmative
action in hiring)
regulatory taxes Taxes that keep down consumption or
production (liquor, gas, cigarette taxes)
redistributive expropriation “eminent domain”—the power to take
private property for public use
Taxes Alteration of the redistribution of money by
changing taxes or tax rules
Budgeting and
spending through
subsidies and
contracts
Deficit spending to pump money into
the economy when it needs a boost;
creation of a budget surplus by cutting
spending or increasing taxes to discourage
consumption in inflationary times
fiscal use of
credit and interest
(monetary techniques)
Change in interest rates to affect both
demand for money and consumption
(example: the federal reserve Board raises
interest rates to slow economic growth and
ward off inflation)
410 C H A P T E R 1 3 D o M e S T I C P o L I C y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch13_406-443.indd 410 11/28/18 5:40 PM
Economic sectors receiving substantial subsidies include agriculture, energy,
transportation, health, and national defense. Policies using the subsidy technique
have continued to be plentiful in the modern era, even after the 1990s, when
there was widespread public and official hostility toward subsidies. For example, in
2017 the annual value of corporate subsidies, not including agriculture, was
estimated at $110 billion.2
Subsidies have always been a technique favored by politicians because they can
be treated as benefits that can be spread widely in response to many demands that
might otherwise produce profound political conflict. Subsidies can, in other words,
be used to buy off the opposition.
Contracting Like any corporation, a government agency must purchase goods and
services by contract. The law requires open bidding for a substantial proportion of
these contracts because government contracts are extremely valuable to businesses
in the private sector and because the opportunities and incentives for abuse are
very great. Yet contracting is more than a method of buying goods and services.
It is also an important technique of policy because government agencies are often
authorized to use their contracting power (the power of government to set conditions
on companies seeking to sell goods or services to government agencies) as a means of
encouraging corporations to improve themselves, helping to build up whole sectors
of the economy, and encouraging certain desirable goals or behavior, such as equal
employment opportunity.
Military contracting has long been a major element in government spending. So
tight was the connection between defense contractors and the federal government
during the Cold War that as he was leaving office President Eisenhower warned
the nation to beware of the powerful “military–industrial complex.” After the Cold
War, as military spending and production declined, major defense contractors began
to look for alternative business activities to supplement the reduced demand for
weapons. Since the terrorist attacks of 2001, however, the military budget has been
awash in new funds, and military contractors are flooded with business. President
George W. Bush increased the Pentagon budget by more than 7 percent a year,
requesting so many weapons systems that one observer called the budget a “weapons
smorgasbord.”3 Military contractors geared up to produce not only weapons for
foreign warfare but also surveillance systems to enhance domestic security.
REGUL ATORY POLICIES ARE RULES
BACKED BY PENALTIES
Regulation is a technique of control in which the government adopts rules that
impose restrictions on the conduct of private citizens. The conduct may be regu-
lated because people feel it is harmful to others, or threatens to be, such as drunk
driving or false advertising. Or the conduct may be regulated because people think
it’s immoral, whether it harms others or not, such as prostitution, gambling, or
drinking. Because there are many forms of regulation, we have subdivided them
here: (1) police regulation, through civil and criminal penalties; (2) administrative
regulation; (3) regulatory taxation; and (4) expropriation.
411T h e T o o L S f o r M A k I N G P o L I C y A r e T e C h N I q u e S o f C o N T r o L
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch13_406-443.indd 411 11/28/18 5:40 PM
Police Regulation “Police regulation” comes closest to the traditional exercise of
police power—a power traditionally reserved to the states to regulate the health,
safety, and morals of its citizens. After a person’s arrest and conviction, these tech-
niques are administered by courts and, where necessary, penal institutions. They are
regulatory techniques.
Civil penalty usually refers to a fine or some other form of material restitution
(such as public service) as a sanction for violating civil laws or common law principles
or committing negligence. Civil penalties can range from a five-dollar fine for a
parking violation to a more onerous penalty for late payment of income taxes to the
much more onerous penalties for violating antitrust laws against unfair competition
or environmental protection laws against pollution. Criminal penalty usually refers
to imprisonment but can also involve heavy fines and the loss of certain civil rights
and liberties, such as the right to vote.
Administrative Regulation Police regulation addresses conduct considered
immoral. But what about conduct that is not considered morally wrong but that
may have harmful consequences? For example, there is nothing morally wrong
with radio or television broadcasting. But government regulates broadcasting on a
particular frequency or channel because there would be virtual chaos if everybody
could broadcast on any frequency at any time.
This kind of conduct is thought of less as policed conduct and more as regulated
conduct. This type of regulation is sometimes called administrative regulation
because the controls are given over to civilian agencies rather than to the police
and the rules are made by regulatory agencies and commissions. Each regulatory
agency has extensive powers to keep a sector of the economy under surveillance and
to make rules dealing with the behavior of individual companies and people. But
these administrative agencies have fewer powers of punishment than the police and
the courts have, and the administrative agencies generally rely on the courts to issue
orders enforcing the rules and decisions.
Table 13.1 lists subsidies and contracts as examples of both promotional and
regulatory policies; although these techniques might normally be thought of as
strictly promotional policies, they can also be used for administrative regulation. It
all depends on whether the law sets serious conditions on eligibility for the subsidy
or contract. To put it another way, the government can use the threat of losing a
valuable subsidy or contract to improve compliance with the goals of regulation.
For example, social welfare subsidies (benefits) can be lowered to encourage or force
people to take low-paying jobs, or they can be increased to calm political unrest
when people are engaging in political protest.4
Regulatory Taxation In many instances, the primary purpose of a tax is not to raise
revenue but to influence conduct, often to discourage or eliminate an activity alto-
gether by making it too expensive for most people. Such taxes are called regulatory
taxes. For example, since the end of Prohibition, although there has been no penalty
for the production or sale of alcoholic beverages, the alcohol industry has not been
free from regulation. First, all alcoholic beverages have to be licensed, allowing only
those companies that are “bonded” to put their product on the market. Beyond that,
412 C H A P T E R 1 3 D o M e S T I C P o L I C y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch13_406-443.indd 412 11/28/18 5:40 PM
federal and state taxes on alcohol are made disproportionately high, on the theory
that, in addition to the revenue gained, less alcohol will be consumed. The same is
true of cigarette taxes.
Expropriation Confiscation of property with or without compensation for a public
use, or expropriation, is a widely used technique of control in the United States,
especially in land-use regulation. Almost all public works, from highways to parks
to government office buildings, involve the forceful taking of some private property
in order to acquire sufficient land for the necessary construction.
We generally call the power to expropriate eminent domain (the right of govern-
ment to take private property for public use), a power that is recognized as inherent
in any government. The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides an
important safeguard against abuse, saying that private property cannot be taken for
public use “without just compensation.” Thus, the government is not permitted to
use that power except through a strict due process, and it must offer “fair market
value” for the land sought.
Forcing individuals to work for a public purpose is another form of expropria-
tion. The draft of young men for the armed forces, court orders to strikers to return
to work, and sentences for convicted felons to do community service are examples
of the regular use of expropriation in the United States.
REDISTRIBUTIVE POLICIES AFFECT
BROAD CL ASSES OF PEOPLE
Redistributive policies are usually of two types, monetary and fiscal; but they have
a common purpose: to control people by manipulating the entire economy rather
than by regulating people directly. Whereas regulatory policies focus on individual
conduct, redistributive policies seek to control conduct more indirectly by altering
the conditions of conduct or manipulating the environment of conduct.
Monetary Policies Monetary policies allow government to regulate the economy
through the manipulation of the supply of money and credit. America’s most
powerful institution in this area of monetary policy is the Federal Reserve Board
(the Fed), the governing board of the Federal Reserve System, consisting of a chair
and six other members, all appointed by the president with the consent of the
Senate. The Fed can affect the total amount of credit available through the interest
(called the federal funds rate) that member banks charge one another for loans. If
the Fed significantly decreases the federal funds rate, it can give a boost to a sagging
economy. In the steep recession that began in 2008, the Fed acted aggressively. By
December 2008 it had cut rates nine times, from a high in September 2007 of
4.75 percent to a historically low zero percentage rate. Moreover, the Federal Reserve
kept interest rates at or near that level well into 2017, in an attempt to encourage
new lending and thus economic growth.5 If the Fed raises the federal funds rate,
it can put a brake on the economy because the higher rates make it more expen-
sive to borrow money. This makes it more difficult for new businesses to get loans,
413T h e T o o L S f o r M A k I N G P o L I C y A r e T e C h N I q u e S o f C o N T r o L
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch13_406-443.indd 413 11/28/18 5:40 PM
for instance. The Federal Reserve is responsible for ensuring high employment
as well as price stability, but it has been particularly important in fighting infla-
tion. During the late 1970s and early ’80s, with inflation at record-high levels,
Federal Reserve chair Paul Volcker aggressively raised interest rates in order to dampen
inflation. Although his actions provoked a sharp recession, they raised the stature of
the Fed, demonstrating its ability to manage the economy.
Fiscal Policies Fiscal policies are the government’s use of taxing, monetary, and
spending powers to manipulate the economy. Personal and corporate income taxes,
which raise most of the U.S. government’s revenues, are the most prominent exam-
ples. While the direct purpose of an income tax is to raise revenue, each tax has a
different impact on the economy; and government can plan for that impact.
Although the primary purpose of the graduated income tax is, of course, to raise
revenue, an important second objective is to collect revenue in such a way as to
reduce the disparities of wealth between the lowest and the highest income brackets.
We call this a policy of redistribution. Another policy objective of the income tax is
the encouragement of the capitalist economy by rewarding investment. The tax laws
allow individuals or companies to deduct from their taxable income any money
they can justify as an investment or a “business expense”; this gives an incentive
to individuals and companies to spend money to expand their production, their
advertising, or their staff and reduces the income taxes that businesses have to pay.
Americans have long debated the appropriate levels of taxation on individual
and corporate income. After passing major income tax cuts in 2001, President Bush
proposed and Congress passed a sweeping new round of cuts in 2003. Bush’s plan
Financial markets closely watch the statements of the Federal Reserve. Here, Fed Chair Jerome
Powell speaks about the necessity of raising interest rates to fight inflation.
414 C H A P T E R 1 3 D o M e S T I C P o L I C y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch13_406-443.indd 414 11/28/18 5:40 PM
was intended to promote investment by reducing taxes on most stock dividends, to
spur business activity by offering tax breaks to small businesses, and to stimulate the
economy by reducing the tax rates for all taxpayers. In 2006, Congress extended the
rate reductions on dividends and capital gains, a move that estimates showed would
cost the treasury $70 billion over five years.
President Obama and the Democratic leadership proposed extending the tax
cuts for everyone with annual incomes under $250,000; those making more would
have their income taxes revert back to the rates in the 1990s. Republicans and some
Democrats preferred to extend the tax cuts for everyone. In 2010, Obama and
Congress reached a deal to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years, when they were
extended again and made permanent. In 2017, Congress enacted President Trump’s
major tax cut package that was estimated to add $1.5 trillion to the national debt.
Spending Power as Fiscal Policy Perhaps the most important redistributive
technique of all is the most familiar one: the “spending power,” which is a combi-
nation of subsidies and contracts. Government can use these techniques to achieve
policy goals far beyond buying goods and services and regulating individual
conduct. This is why subsidies and contracts show up yet again in Table 13.1 as
redistributive techniques.
Agricultural subsidies are one example of the national government’s use of its
purchasing power as a fiscal or redistributive technique. Since the 1930s the federal
government has attempted to raise and to stabilize the prices of several important
agricultural products, such as corn and wheat, by authorizing the Department of
Agriculture to buy enormous amounts of these commodities if prices on the market
fall below a fixed level.
SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT
INTERVENE IN THE ECONOMY?
Until 1929 most Americans believed that government had little to do with actively
managing the economy. The world was guided by the theory that the economy, if
left to its own devices, would produce full employment and maximum production.
This traditional view of the relationship between government and the economy
crumbled in 1929 before the stark reality of the Great Depression of 1929–39.
When President Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office in 1933, he energetically
threw the federal government into the business of fighting the depression. One of
the main ways that the federal government sought to keep the economy healthy was
through decisions about taxing and spending in accordance with the ideas of the
British economist John Maynard Keynes. Keynesians argue that by pumping money
into the economy, particularly by running deficits during periods of recession,
government can stimulate demand and create a cycle of increased production and
jobs that will pull the economy out of recession.
In the 1980s growing numbers of Republicans began to reject the idea that
government could help ensure economic prosperity. Instead, they argued that freeing
markets from government intervention would produce the best economic results.
Many Democrats, on the other hand, continued to believe that government has an
415T h e T o o L S f o r M A k I N G P o L I C y A r e T e C h N I q u e S o f C o N T r o L
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch13_406-443.indd 415 11/28/18 5:40 PM
important role to play in promoting a strong economy. This fundamental disagree-
ment between the parties over the appropriate role of government underlies the
fierce contemporary political debates over the government’s role in the economy.
Today, some of the most intense conflicts between Democrats and Republicans
concern taxes. This conflict came to a head when Congress passed President Trump’s
sweeping tax cut bill in 2017. Passed along party-line votes in both houses (most
Republicans for, Democrats against), the bill sought to stimulate economic growth
by enacting tax cuts for all, with the biggest share going to the wealthy. The law
dropped the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent; reduced the top
individual tax rate from 39.6 percent to 37 percent; and doubled the standard
deduction and child tax credit. It also capped the amount of state and local taxes
that filers could claim as a deduction, and eliminated personal exemptions. In all,
the cuts would add $1.5 trillion to the national debt over ten years.6
Social Policy and the Welfare
System Buttress Equality
For much of American history, local
governments and private charities
were in charge of caring for the poor.
During the 1930s, when this largely
private system of charity collapsed in
the face of widespread economic destitution, the federal government created the
beginnings of an American welfare state. The idea of the welfare system was new; it
meant that the national government would oversee programs designed to promote
economic security for all Americans—not just for the poor. Today, the American
system of social welfare includes many different policies enacted over the years since
the Great Depression. Because each program is governed by distinct rules, the type
and level of assistance available vary widely.
THE HISTORY OF THE GOVERNMENT WELFARE
SYSTEM DATES ONLY TO THE 1930S
There has always been a welfare system in America, but until 1935 it was almost
entirely private, composed of an extensive system of voluntary philanthropy through
churches and other religious groups, ethnic and fraternal societies, communities and
neighborhoods, and philanthropically inclined rich individuals. Most often it was
called charity, and although it was private and voluntary, it was thought of as a public
obligation.
The traditional approach of charity crumbled in the face of the stark reality of
the Great Depression. During the depression, misfortune became so widespread
and private wealth shrank so drastically that private charity was out of the question
and the distinction between deserving and undeserving became impossible to draw.
Following the crash of 1929 around 20 percent of the workforce immediately became
Trace the history of government
programs designed to promote
economic security
416 C H A P T E R 1 3 D o M e S T I C P o L I C y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch13_406-443.indd 416 11/28/18 5:40 PM
unemployed; this figure grew as the depression stretched into years. Moreover, few of
the unemployed had any monetary resources or any family farm on which to fall back.
Banks failed, wiping out the savings of millions who had been prudent enough or
fortunate enough to have any savings at all. Thousands of businesses failed as well,
throwing middle-class Americans onto the bread lines along with unemployed labor-
ers, dispossessed farmers, and those who had never worked in any capacity. The Great
Depression proved to Americans that poverty could be a result of imperfections in the
economic system as well as of individual irresponsibility. It also forced Americans to
drastically alter their standards regarding who was deserving and who was not.
Once poverty and dependency were accepted as problems inherent in the
economic system, a large-scale public policy approach was not far away. By the
time President Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office in 1933, the question was not
whether there was to be a public welfare system but how generous or restrictive that
system would be.
THE MODERN WELFARE SYSTEM HAS THREE PARTS
The modern welfare state in the United States consists of three separate categories
of welfare: contributory and noncontributory programs, many created by the Social
Security Act of 1935; and the tax expenditure system, first established by the new
federal income tax in 1913 and expanded over time.
Contributory Programs The category of welfare programs that are financed by
taxation or other mandatory contributions by their present or future recipients can
justifiably be called “forced savings” because these programs force working Americans
During the Great Depression, the government took a more active role in helping poor and struggling
Americans. Here, people line up to receive free bread.
417S o C I A L P o L I C y A N D T h e W e L fA r e S y S T e M B u T T r e S S e q u A L I T y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch13_406-443.indd 417 11/28/18 5:40 PM
to contribute a portion of their earnings to provide income and benefits during their
retirement years. These contributory programs are what most people have in mind when
they refer to Social Security or social insurance, a contributory welfare program into
which working Americans contribute a percentage of their wages and from which
they receive cash benefits after retirement. Under the original contributory program,
old-age insurance, the employer and the employee were each required to pay an
equal amount, which in 1937 was set at 1 percent of the first $3,000 of wages, to
be deducted from the paycheck of each employee and matched by the same amount
from the employer. This percentage has increased over the years; the contribution in
2018 was 7.65 percent subdivided as follows: 6.2 percent on the first $128,400 of
income for Social Security benefits, plus 1.45 percent on all earnings for Medicare.7
Starting in 2014, households earning over $250,000 a year paid an extra 0.9 percent
in Medicare taxes as a result of a provision in the Affordable Care Act.
The formula by which Social Security benefits are calculated is redistributive,
aiming to provide lower-income workers with a higher proportion of their contribu-
tions than higher-income workers receive. This is because the goal of Social Security
is to ensure a basic income to all workers once they retire. Research has shown,
however, that due to different mortality rates and other factors, the system does not
end up redistributing from well-off to less well-off workers as much as intended
by the formula. The system does redistribute to women, who on average earn less
than men, have fewer years in the workforce (and hence tend to contribute less to
Social Security than do men), and live longer than men.8 In the short term, Social
Security redistributes money from the young to the old: the taxes of current workers
are paying for the benefits received by current retirees. But Social Security also plays
a vital role for young people by providing survivor benefits to those whose parents
die, retire, or become disabled. Surviving spouses also receive survivor benefits. In
addition, in 1956 Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) was created to provide
a monthly cash benefit to the permanently disabled.9
The biggest single expansion in contributory programs since 1935 was the estab-
lishment in 1965 of Medicare, a form of national health insurance for the elderly
and the disabled that provides substantial medical services to elderly persons who
are already eligible to receive old-age, survivors’, and disability insurance under the
original Social Security system. In 2003, Congress added a prescription drug benefit
to the package of health benefits for the elderly. Social Security benefits and costs are
adjusted through indexing, whereby benefits paid out under contributory programs
are modified annually by cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs)—changes made to the level
of benefits of a government program based on the rate of inflation. Of course, Social
Security taxes (contributions) also increased after almost every benefit increase.
Unemployment insurance is another contributory program that is funded by a
combination of federal and state taxes. States set benefit levels and eligibility crite-
ria for receiving unemployment insurance and tax employers to fund the program.
In most states, benefits last for a maximum of 26 weeks. Such benefits are gen-
erally funded by federal taxes. Unemployment benefits are meant to help replace
lost wages, but they do so at a low level: most workers receive only half of their
wages. Moreover, because states impose criteria about how long people must work
418 C H A P T E R 1 3 D o M e S T I C P o L I C y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch13_406-443.indd 418 11/28/18 5:40 PM
or how much they must earn to become eligible for unemployment insurance, only
about half of workers who lose their jobs receive unemployment benefits.10
Noncontributory Programs Social programs that provide assistance to people based
on demonstrated need rather than any contribution they have made—noncontributory
programs—are also known as “social assistance programs” or, more commonly, as
“welfare.” Eligibility for social assistance is determined by means testing, a procedure
that requires applicants to show a financial need for assistance. The 1935 Social Security
Act founded cash assistance to families with children (later known as AFDC) and
cash assistance to the poor, elderly, blind, and disabled (later changed to Supplemental
Security Income or SSI). In the ensuing decades the government also created programs
to provide housing assistance, food stamps, and school lunches.
The largest single category of expansion was the establishment in 1965 of
Medicaid, a federally and state-funded, state-operated program that provides extended
medical services to low-income Americans. Noncontributory programs underwent
another major transformation in the 1970s in the level of benefits they provide.
Besides being means-tested, noncontributory programs are state-based; grants-in-aid
are provided by the federal government to the states as incentives to establish the
programs, but states retain considerable leeway to establish eligibility criteria (see
Chapter 3). Thus, from the beginning there were considerable disparities in benefits
from state to state. The national government sought to rectify the dispari ties in levels
of old-age benefits in 1974 by creating the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) pro-
gram to augment benefits for the aged, the blind, and the disabled. SSI provides
uniform minimum benefits across the entire nation and includes mandatory COLAs.
The TANF program is also administered by the states, and, as with the old-age
benefits just discussed, benefit levels vary widely from state to state (see Figure 13.1).
In 2017 the states’ monthly TANF benefits for a family of three varied from $170 in
Mississippi to $1,021 in New Hampshire.11 Most TANF payments are much lower
than New Hampshire’s and well below the federal poverty line, which was $20,420
per year or $1,702 per month in 2017.12
The number of people receiving AFDC benefits expanded in the 1970s, in part
because new welfare programs had been established in the mid-1960s: Medicaid and
the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which is still sometimes called by
its old name, food stamps. SNAP is the largest antipoverty program, which provides
recipients with a debit card for food at most grocery stores. Collectively, these
programs provide what are called in-kind benefits—noncash goods and services
provided by the government that the beneficiary would otherwise have to pay for
in cash. At the time, AFDC recipients were automatically eligible for Medicaid and
food stamps (a linkage later broken by the 1996 welfare reform).
Tax Expenditures In addition to contributory and noncontributory programs, the
United States provides social welfare benefits through tax breaks—credits, deductions,
and preferential tax rates that subsidize social welfare through what some analysts call
the shadow welfare state. The tax expenditure system includes benefits that employers
may offer to their workers, such as medical insurance and retirement plans—both
419S o C I A L P o L I C y A N D T h e W e L fA r e S y S T e M B u T T r e S S e q u A L I T y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch13_406-443.indd 419 11/28/18 5:40 PM
traditional pensions and 401(k)s (whether employers offer these “fringe benefits” is
optional). The federal government subsidizes such benefits by not taxing the pay-
ments that employers and employees make for health insurance and pensions.
The shadow welfare state also includes tax breaks that individuals can file for when
they prepare their federal tax returns. For example, taxpayers can deduct the amount
they paid in interest on a home mortgage from the income they report on their tax
returns, as well as state and local taxes they paid up to a $10,000 cap. There are also tax
deductions for out-of-pocket medical expenses, child care, charitable contributions, and
so on. There are dozens of such tax breaks in the tax code. By reducing taxes, these
tax breaks lower the effective cost of home ownership, health insurance, child-rearing,
and other subsidized activities. But such benefits are concentrated among middle- and
upper-income people who are most likely to have employer-provided benefits at work
and to engage in subsidized activities such as buying a house. People often do not think
FIGURE 13.1
Monthly Spending on TANF Benefits
Spending on TANF benefits varies widely across the country. In 14 states, monthly benefits
for a single-parent family of three are below $300; in 17 states, they are above $500. In
which regions does spending on TANF benefits tend to be highest? In which regions is it
generally lower?
SOURCE: Ife Floyd and Liz Schott, “TANF Cash Benefits Have Fallen by More Than 20 Percent in Most States and
Continue to Erode,” Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, October 13, 2017, www.cbpp.org/research/family
-income-support/tanf-cash-benefits-have-fallen-by-more-than-20-percent-in-most-states (accessed 8/19/18).
ME
NH
MA
RI
NJ
DE
MD
DC
WI
IL
AL GA
FL
SC
NC
MS
MI
OHIN
KY
TN
VA
PA
NY
WV
VT
NE
ND
SD
KS
OK
TX
MN
IA
MO
AR
LA
MT
ID
CO
NM
AK
AZ
NV
WY
WA
OR
CA
HI
CT
Below $300 $300 to $399 $400 to $499 $500 and above
UT
420 C H A P T E R 1 3 D o M e S T I C P o L I C y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch13_406-443.indd 420 11/28/18 5:40 PM
of these tax expenditures as part of social policy because they are not as visible as the
programs that provide direct payments or services to beneficiaries. But tax expendi-
tures represent a significant federal investment that mostly benefit middle- and upper-
income people: although the 2017 tax bill signed by President Trump alters some tax
expenditures, they still cost the national treasury over $1 trillion in forgone revenue
each year—about the amount collected by the personal income tax, and greater than
the amount spent on Social Security, the largest federal program.
WELFARE REFORM HAS DOMINATED THE
WELFARE AGENDA IN RECENT YEARS
From the 1960s to the 1990s, opinion polls consistently showed that the public
viewed welfare beneficiaries as “undeserving.”13 Underlying that judgment was
the belief that welfare recipients did not want to work. These negative assessments
were amplified by racial stereotypes. By 1973, 46 percent of welfare recipients
were African American. Although the majority of recipients were white, media
portrayals helped to create the widespread perception that the vast majority of
welfare recipients were black. A careful study by Martin Gilens has shown how
racial stereotypes of blacks as uncommitted to the work ethic reinforced public
opposition to welfare.14
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as “food stamps,” helps
people in need buy food. Today recipients use a government-provided debit card that is accepted at
most grocery stores. In 2017, 42.9 million Americans were enrolled in SNAP.
421S o C I A L P o L I C y A N D T h e W e L fA r e S y S T e M B u T T r e S S e q u A L I T y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch13_406-443.indd 421 11/28/18 5:40 PM
During the recession of the early 1990s welfare rolls reached an all-time high.
Sensing continuing public frustration with welfare, when Bill Clinton was a presi-
dential candidate he vowed “to end welfare as we know it,” an unusual promise for
a Democrat. When Republicans gained control of Congress in the 1994 midterm
election, they proposed a dramatic reform of welfare, which Clinton, facing a
campaign for re-election in 1996, signed. The Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) repealed AFDC and replaced it with
the TANF program. In place of the individual entitlement to assistance, the new law
created block grants to the states and allowed states much more discretion in design-
ing their cash-assistance programs to needy families. The new law also established
time limits, restricting recipients to two years of assistance and creating a lifetime
limit of five years. It imposed new work requirements on those receiving welfare,
and it restricted most legal immigrants from receiving benefits. The aim of the new
law was to reduce welfare caseloads, promote work, and reduce out-of-wedlock
births. Notably, reducing poverty was not one of its stated objectives.
After this law was enacted, the number of families receiving assistance dropped
by 60 percent nationwide. The sharp decline in the number of recipients was widely
hailed as a sign that welfare reform was working. Indeed, former welfare recipients
have been more successful at finding and keeping jobs than many critics of the law
predicted. One important indicator of how welfare has changed is the proportion of
funds it provides in cash assistance. Before the 1996 reform, assistance was provided
largely in the form of a cash grant. After the reform, 64 percent of welfare funds were
allocated for noncash services and 36 percent for cash assistance.15 This means that an
increasing proportion of welfare funds is spent on such costs as assistance with trans-
portation to work, temporary shelter, or one-time payments for emergencies so that
people do not end up on the welfare rolls. The orientation of assistance has shifted
away from subsidizing people who are not in the labor force and toward addressing
temporary problems that low-income people face and providing assistance that facili-
tates work.16 But critics point out that most former welfare recipients are not paid
enough to pull their families out of poverty. While the 1996 law has helped reduce
welfare caseloads, it has done little to reduce the underlying problem of poverty.17
Because the TANF block grants to the states were not adjusted to inflation, federal
funds for welfare have fallen in real terms. TANF was unable to keep pace with the
growth of poverty caused by the Great Recession that started in 2008.18 Advocates
for the poor contrasted it to the growth of the supplemental nutrition program
(SNAP, or food stamps), whose growth closely tracked the rise in unemployment and
poverty during the recession. In 2007, before the recession took hold, approximately
26.3 million individuals received SNAP benefits. By 2015 that number had risen
to approximately 45 million people a month, close to 15 percent of all Americans.19
In 2018, close to 42 million Americans per month received SNAP. 20
In April 2018, President Trump signed an executive order requesting cabinet
secretaries review assistance programs, such as TANF, SNAP, and housing assistance,
and strengthen or add work requirements for benefits. In January 2018 the admin-
istration allowed states to impose work requirements for Medicaid for the first time
in the program’s history.
422 C H A P T E R 1 3 D o M e S T I C P o L I C y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch13_406-443.indd 422 11/28/18 5:40 PM
The Cycle of Poverty Can Be Broken by
Education, Health, and Housing Policies
The welfare state not only supplies
a measure of economic security
but also provides opportunity. The
American belief in equality of oppor-
tunity makes such programs particu-
larly important. Programs that provide opportunity keep people from falling into
poverty, and they offer a hand up to those who are poor. At their best, opportunity
policies allow all individuals to rise as high as their talents will take them. Three
types of policies are most significant in opening opportunity: education policies,
health policies, and housing policies.
EDUCATION POLICIES PROVIDE LIFE TOOLS
Those who understand American federalism (see Chapter 3) already are aware that
most of the education of the American people is provided by the public policies
of state and local governments. What may be less obvious is that these education
policies—especially the policy of universal compulsory public education—are the
most important single force in the distribution and redistribution of opportunity
in America.
Compared to state and local efforts, the role of national government education
policy has been limited for most of American history. After World War II the federal
government stepped up its role in education policy with the enactment of the GI Bill
of Rights of 1944. The GI Bill, however, was aimed almost entirely at postsecondary
schooling; the national government did not enter the field of elementary education
until after 1957.21
What finally brought the national government into elementary education was
embarrassment over the fact that the Soviet Union had beaten the United States into
space with the launching of the world’s first satellite, Sputnik, in 1957. As a result,
in 1958 the federal government adopted the policy under the National Defense
Education Act of improving education in science and mathematics. The federal
government recognized the role of education in promoting equal opportunity. In
1965 the Elementary and Secondary Education Act offered federal aid for education
by allocating funds to school districts with substantial numbers of children from
families who were unemployed or earning less than $2,000 a year. Today, the federal
government spends $79 billion, 10 percent of all spending, on K–12 education;
states and localities each account for 45 percent of spending. Over time, how-
ever, federal education funds have become less targeted on low-income districts as
Congress has failed to update the formula for allocating funds.22
The federal government also pursued the goal of equal opportunity in
education through its support for racial desegregation. This meant dismantling
the system of “separate but equal” education in the South and challenging de facto
Describe how education, health,
and housing policies try to
advance equality of opportunity
423T h e C y C L e o f P oV e r T y C A N B e B r o k e N
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch13_406-443.indd 423 11/28/18 5:40 PM
racial segregation in the North. Throughout the 1960s the Justice Department
played a major role in pressing for desegregation and in monitoring progress of
school integration. Yet, more than 50 years after the Civil Rights Act, this goal has
remained elusive. Segregated patterns in housing create segregated schools unless
vigorous policy interventions are implemented. However, such policies, including
requirements for cross-district busing and provisions for affordable housing in
affluent suburbs, have been struck down by the courts.
The Republican administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush
refocused the goal of federal education policy away from equal opportunity and
toward higher standards. The Department of Education’s influential 1983 report, “A
Nation at Risk,” identified low education standards as the cause of America’s declin-
ing international economic competitiveness. A new era emphasizing standards and
testing began, although at first the federal role was primarily advisory to the states.
The federal role was substantially increased in 2001 by President George W.
Bush’s signature education initiative, No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Supported
by Democrats and Republicans, the law sought to combine the goals of higher
standards and equality of opportunity. It aimed to improve standards through stron-
ger federal requirements for student testing and school accountability. Every child
in grades 3 through 8 had to be tested yearly for proficiency in math and reading.
The law aimed to promote equality of opportunity with two provisions: first, for a
school to be judged a success, it had to show positive test results for all subcatego-
ries of children—minority race and ethnicity, English learners, and disability—not
just overall averages. Second, parents with children in schools whose scores were
poor had the right to transfer their children to a better school or to get funds for
tutoring and summer programs. Because of strong congressional opposition to
creating a national test, the states were made responsible for setting standards and
devising appropriate tests.
NCLB soon generated considerable controversy. Many states branded it an
“unfunded mandate,” noting that the law placed expensive new obligations on
schools to improve their performance but provided woefully inadequate resources.
Teachers objected that “teaching to the test” undermined critical-thinking skills.
In some states, up to half of the schools failed to meet the new standards, which
resulted in a costly challenge to get more students up to speed. Under the federal
law, they were required to improve student performance by providing such new
services as supplemental tutoring, longer school days, and additional summer school.
Critics also charged that NCLB actually undermined equal opportunity because
it ended up punishing underperforming schools that bear the greatest burden for
teaching the neediest students.23
The Obama administration sought a major overhaul of NCLB. By 2015 most
states had received waivers from NCLB.24 Later that year, Congress passed a
bipartisan bill replacing NCLB, creating a new program called the Every Student
Succeeds Act. The new law returned control to the states for school performance and
made them responsible for devising their own methods of ensuring accountability.
Controversial federal requirements for teachers’ evaluations and mandated stan-
dards were eliminated. Every Student Succeeds continues to mandate testing and
424 C H A P T E R 1 3 D o M e S T I C P o L I C y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch13_406-443.indd 424 11/28/18 5:40 PM
disaggregation of testing results by minority race and ethnicity, English learners, and
disability. It also requires states to intervene to correct problems in the lowest
5 percent of schools but it leaves the specific remedies up to the states. While many
people hailed the new law, others charged that it would do little to alter the achieve-
ment gap between richer and poorer schools.25
The Obama administration also supported charter schools—publicly funded
schools that are free from the bureaucratic rules and regulations of the school dis-
trict in which they are located and free to design specialized curricula and to use
resources in ways they think most effective. One of the Obama administration’s
legislative initiatives, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, included a new
$4.3-billion program called Race to the Top, which offered competitive grants to
state education systems. The administration awarded sizable grants to 11 states and
to Washington, D.C., for proposing bold new programs for assessing teachers and
overhauling failing schools.26 Several years after the program began, however, it was
clear that states had promised more than they could do in the limited time that the
funds were provided.27
The Secretary of Education under Donald Trump, Betsy DeVos, came to office
a strong proponent of charter schools and vouchers, which allow students to use
public funds to attend private schools. After a year in office, DeVos planned to focus
much of her effort on reducing the size of the Education Department, hoping to free
up more resources to fund school choice and a free-market approach to education.
Supporters of public education, including teacher unions, worried that her policies
would undercut support for the public school system.28
HEALTH POLICIES MEAN FEWER SICK DAYS
Until recent decades, no government in the United States—national, state, or local—
concerned itself directly with individual health. But public responsibility was always
accepted for public health. After New York City’s newly created Board of Health was
credited with holding down a cholera epidemic in 1867, most states created statewide
public health agencies, recognizing that government can play an important role in
preventing the spread of disease and reducing the likelihood of injury.
The U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) has been in existence since 1798 but
was only a small part of public-health policy until after World War II. It is headed by
the U.S. Surgeon General. It includes, among other agencies, the National Institutes
of Health (NIH), dedicated to biomedical research, and the Centers for Disease
Control and Protection, which monitors outbreaks of disease and implements preven-
tion measures and awareness campaigns about HIV/AIDS, Ebola, Zika, and other
public health threats.
Additional federal commitments to the improvement of public health include
the numerous laws aimed at cleaning up and defending the environment (including
the creation in 1970 of the Environmental Protection Agency) and laws attempting
to improve the health and safety of consumer products (regulated by the Consumer
Product Safety Commission, created in 1972). Health policies aimed directly
at the poor include nutritional programs, such as SNAP and the school lunch
425T h e C y C L e o f P oV e r T y C A N B e B r o k e N
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch13_406-443.indd 425 11/28/18 5:40 PM
program, and Medicaid. In 2016 federal grants to states for Medicaid totaled an
estimated $392 billion, up from $41 billion in 1990.29 Medicaid covers the poor and
people who are disabled; it also assists the elderly poor who cannot pay Medicare
premiums. Because there is no provision for long-term care in the United States,
Medicaid has become the de facto program financing nursing home residents when
they have exhausted their savings. In fact, the disabled and elderly account for
65 percent of all Medicaid spending.30 Medicaid is the single largest medical insur-
ance program in the United States, covering 72.4 million people, a number that
rose by 24 percent after the ACA’s expansion provisions (discussed below) were
put into place.31
As Figure 13.2 shows, the government has committed large resources to health
care programs. While they yield great benefits by providing health care to millions,
these programs have seen their costs rise dramatically in recent years—far more than
the rate of inflation—prompting growing calls for major changes in spending and
funding.32
After the 2008 election, the Obama administration and the Democratic Con-
gress pressed forward with comprehensive health care reform. The administration
aimed to cover most Americans who lacked health insurance with a reform strategy
that built on the existing system. The plan enacted in 2010, the Affordable Care Act
(ACA), had three key features: the first was the creation of new state-based insurance
exchanges where individuals could buy health insurance, along with insurance
regulation that would prohibit insurers from denying benefits for a variety of
Protecting public health has always been a focus of federal, state, and local governments. Here,
Florida Surgeon General and Secretary Celeste Philip speaks to residents about protecting
themselves against the 2015–16 outbreak of the Zika virus.
426 C H A P T E R 1 3 D o M e S T I C P o L I C y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch13_406-443.indd 426 11/28/18 5:40 PM
Countries that spend more on health care
see better health outcomes—except for
the united States. Americans spend more
on health care than almost any other country,
yet life expectancy remains low in com-
parison. A 2017 report cites three reasons
why the united States lags in health out-
comes: a highly fragmented system that
leaves many people uninsured, poor health-
related behaviors (e.g., higher levels of ob esity,
drug usage, traffic accidents, homicide),
and higher rates of poverty and income
inequality.a
In addition the united States’ fragmented
health care system contributes to health care
inefficiencies, which undermine the quality
of care while increasing costs.b If the u.S.
government wants to reduce medical costs
and improve the quality of health care, what
would be the best policies to tackle these
problems?
U.S. Health Care: High
Cost, Poor Outcomes
a OECD, “Health at a Glance,” 2017, www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/health_glance-2017-en ?expires=1526931082&id
=id&accname=guest&checksum=30893EF283DD3E267220A7DA219DEF49, p. 48 (accessed 5/21/18).
b N.F. Hanna, Dying of Health Care: How the System Harms Americans Physically and Financially, and How to Change It
(Friday Harbor, WA: Copernicus Healthcare, 2016).
12,00010,0008,0006,0004,000
Health spending in U.S. dollars includes government pending, voluntary contributions,
and out-of-pocket spending
2,000$0
85 years
84
83
82
81
80
79
78
77
76
75
74
Chile
Czech Republic
Germany
United Kingdom
Estonia
Finland
France
Hungary
Ireland
Israel
Japan
Korea Luxembourg
Mexico
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovakia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
HEALTH SPENDING AND LIFE EXPECTANCY, 2015
Turkey
United States
Greece
NOTE: Health spending in U.S. dollars includes government pending, voluntary contributions, and out-of-pocket
spending.
SOURCES: OECD, “Health Spending” and “Life Expectancy at Birth,” 2017, data.oecd.org (accessed 5/21/18).
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch13_406-443.indd 427 11/28/18 5:40 PM
www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/health_glance-2017-en ?expires=1526931082&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=30893EF283DD3E267220A7DA219DEF49
reasons such as preexisting conditions. With a few exceptions, the legislation also
makes insurers cover preventive care, such as vaccinations, mammograms, and other
screenings, in full. The second provision of the ACA, known as “the individual
mandate,” required uninsured individuals to purchase health insurance; those who
do not have insurance are subject to a fine (scheduled to rise over time) of 1 percent
of yearly household income or $95, whichever was larger. The third major provi-
sion of the ACA was a set of subsidies to help the uninsured and small businesses
purchase insurance as well as an expansion of the public programs Medicaid and
the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The Medicaid expansion
made more people eligible for the program by opening it to people with incomes up
to 138 percent of the poverty level ($28,676 a year for a family of three in 2018).33
FIGURE 13.2
The Size of the Welfare State
Spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security is projected to rise as a percent
of gross domestic product (GDP). Social Security, a contributory program that provides
income to the elderly, is by far the largest welfare program in the United States. Which
program is the smallest?
SOURCES: Congressional Budget Office, www.cbo.gov (accessed 8/19/18); and Office of Management and Budget,
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals (accessed 8/19/18). See endnote 30 for specific reports.
SPENDING AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP
19801970 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2035
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7%
Medicaid
Medicare
Social Security
Unemployment SNAP
(food stamps)
Projections
428 C H A P T E R 1 3 D o M e S T I C P o L I C y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch13_406-443.indd 428 11/28/18 5:40 PM
The reform also allowed working-aged adults without dependent children to qualify
for the program for the first time. Figure 13.3 shows the percentage of Americans
without health insurance over time.
The new health care reform law faced challenges from state governments soon
after it was enacted. Twenty-one states filed lawsuits against the legislation on
the grounds that the provision requiring individuals to purchase health insurance
expanded the commerce clause beyond its constitutional limits. The states also
objected to provisions that required them to expand their Medicaid programs
to cover more poor people or lose the Medicaid funds that they received from
the federal government. Even though the federal government initially paid
for 100 percent of the expansion and starting in 2016 would cover 90 percent of
new costs, the states argued that the federal government had overstepped its pow-
ers in withdrawing all federal Medicaid funds if states did not comply with new
coverage requirements.
FIGURE 13.3
Health Insurance Coverage, 1972–2017
The percentage of Americans under 65 without health insurance reached 18.2 percent
in 2010, when the ACA was enacted. With implementation beginning in 2014, the
uninsurance rate fell to 10 percent in 2016. The Congressional Budget Office predicts
that the repeal of the individual mandate, effective 2019, will increase the number of
uninsured by 4 million in 2019 and 13 million in 2027.
SOURCES: 1995–2015 Kaiser Family Foundation, Key Facts about the Uninsured Population, September 2016,
Figure 1, http://files.kff.org/attachment/Fact-Sheet-Key-Facts-about-the-Uninsured-Population (accessed
6/12/17).
1972
20%
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
19921982 2002 2010 2017
18.2
13.3ACA is signed
into law
Individual mandate
goes into effect
PERCENTAGE UNINSURED
429T h e C y C L e o f P oV e r T y C A N B e B r o k e N
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch13_406-443.indd 429 11/28/18 5:40 PM
The Supreme Court decided these suits in 2012, ruling that most of the act
was constitutional.34 Chief Justice John Roberts, regarded as a conservative,
surprised many observers by writing the decision that declared the individual
mandate constitutional. However, the decision found that the mandate could not
be justified as constitutional under the commerce clause, which the administration
relied on in its arguments before the Court. Because the mandate regulated eco-
nomic inactivity (i.e., failure to purchase health insurance), Roberts argued that it
could not be justified under the commerce clause, which regulates economic activity.
Instead, the Court ruled that the requirement to purchase insurance was legal under
Congress’s taxing powers (since, under the law, failure to purchase insurance results
in a penalty). The Court also ruled that Congress did not have the power to take
existing Medicaid funds away from states if they did not comply with the expan-
sion requirements. In response, 19 states decided not to expand their Medicaid
programs, leaving 3 million people who would have qualified for Medicaid without
access to health care.35
The politics of health care reform remain a focus of partisan contention. By
2016 Republican members of the House of Representatives had voted 62 times
to repeal the act and the public remained split.36 President Trump campaigned
on the repeal and replacement of Obamacare, and after Republicans won
unified control of the presidency and both houses of Congress in the November
2016 election, they devised an Obamacare replacement bill. The measure met
stiff resistance as it ended the Medicaid entitlement by turning the program into
Because of their large population and strength in voting and organizing, the elderly in America receive
many benefits from the federal government. Medicare and Social Security are two of America’s most
popular social policies.
430 C H A P T E R 1 3 D o M e S T I C P o L I C y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch13_406-443.indd 430 11/28/18 5:40 PM
a block grant to the states, and it permitted states to apply for waivers that would
have effectively ended some regulatory protections for people with pre-existing
conditions, among other changes. By fall 2017, Republicans had ended their
efforts to repeal the ACA entirely, but did succeed in repealing the individual
mandate to purchase health insurance in the Tax Cut and Jobs Act, enacted in
December 2017. The Trump administration also cut the ACA enrollment period
in half in late 2017 and reduced funds for advertising. Nonetheless, nearly
as many Americans signed up for ACA health plans for 2018 as had enrolled
for 2017.37
HOUSING POLICIES PROVIDE RESIDENTIAL STABILITY
Opportunity is also closely connected to housing. Access to quality, affordable
housing gives individuals and families stability and freedom from pollution, infec-
tious disease, chronic disease, injury, and anxiety and depression. The effects of
quality housing are especially strong for children.38 The United States has one of
the highest rates of home ownership in the world, and the central thrust of federal
housing policy has been to promote home ownership. The federal government has
traditionally done much less to provide housing for low-income Americans who
cannot afford to buy homes.
Federal housing programs were first created in the 1930s, when many Americans
found themselves unable to afford housing. Through public housing for low-
income families, which originated in 1937 with the Wagner-Steagall National
Housing Act, and subsidized private housing after 1950, the percentage of Ameri-
can families living in overcrowded conditions was reduced from 20 percent in
1940 to 9 percent in 1970. Federal policies made an even greater contribution
to reducing “substandard” housing, defined by the U.S. Census Bureau as dilapi-
dated houses without hot running water and without some other plumbing. In
1940 almost 50 percent of American households lived in substandard housing. By
1950 this had been reduced to 35 percent; by 1975 the figure was reduced further,
to 8 percent.39
Despite these improvements in housing standards, federal housing policy
through the 1970s was largely seen as a failure. Restricted to the poorest of the
poor and marked by racial segregation and inadequate spending, public housing
contributed to the problems of the poor by isolating them from shopping, jobs,
and urban amenities. Dilapidated high-rise housing projects stood as a symbol of
the failed American policy of “warehousing the poor.”
By the 1980s, the orientation of housing policy had changed. Federal housing
assistance for low-income Americans shifted toward housing vouchers (now called
housing choice vouchers) that provide recipients with support to rent in the
private market. Although this program does not promote the same kind of
isolation of the poor, most cities and suburbs have long waiting lists to receive
vouchers; only one-quarter of eligible individuals and families receive them.40
Another concern is that vouchers provide too little money to cover rental costs in
very active housing markets.
431T h e C y C L e o f P oV e r T y C A N B e B r o k e N
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch13_406-443.indd 431 11/28/18 5:40 PM
Beginning in 2007 and 2008, a home loan crisis presented the government with
a different kind of housing problem. During the housing boom of the early 2000s,
many homeowners had received loans that they later could not afford to repay. This
was caused in part by the deregulation of the mortgage industry in 1999, which
allowed many new mortgage companies to form, offering loans that cost little at
first but required large payments from homeowners later. This “predatory lending”
targeted unsophisticated buyers and made it very hard for borrowers to understand
the terms of the loans. Lending standards were relaxed to the point that rising num-
bers of borrowers were offered “no-doc” loans, which required no documentation of
the borrowers’ income. As more and more Americans took out such loans, demand
for housing rose, and housing prices skyrocketed. This was the housing bubble—
a bubble that was bound to burst because so many borrowers would not be able
to pay back their loans. As growing numbers of homeowners began to default on
their loans in 2007, banks foreclosed on their houses, and the value of housing
began to drop. This downward spiral set off the major recession that began in 2008.
As borrowers defaulted, banks holding that debt—including the biggest banks in
America—teetered on the edge of failure and threatened to destabilize the entire
economy. Many of the new mortgage companies went bankrupt. As unemployment
rose, more families, unable to pay their mortgages, lost their homes. Many home-
owners found that their homes were “underwater,” meaning that the homeowners
owed more on their mortgages than the homes were now worth. By 2015 over
5 million homes had been lost to foreclosure.41
Social Policy Spending Benefits the
Middle Class More Than the Poor
The three categories of social policy,
contributory, noncontributory, and
tax expenditure programs, generally
serve different groups of people. We
can understand much about the devel-
opment of social policy by examining
which constituencies benefit from different policies.
The strongest and most generous programs are those in which the beneficiaries
are widely perceived as deserving of assistance and are politically powerful. Because
Americans prize work, constituencies who have “earned” their benefits in some way
or those who cannot work because of a disability are usually seen as most deserv-
ing of government assistance. Politically powerful constituencies are those who vote
as a group, lobby effectively, and mobilize to protect the programs from which
they benefit.
When we study social policies from a group perspective, we can see that senior
citizens and the middle class receive the most benefits from the government’s social
policies and that children and the working poor receive the fewest. In addition,
America’s social policies do little to change the fact that minorities and women are
more likely to be poor than white Americans and men.
Explain how contributory, non
contributory, and tax expenditure
programs benefit different groups
of Americans
432 C H A P T E R 1 3 D o M e S T I C P o L I C y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch13_406-443.indd 432 11/28/18 5:40 PM
SENIOR CITIZENS RECEIVE OVER A
THIRD OF ALL FEDERAL DOLL ARS
The elderly are the beneficiaries of the two strongest and most generous social
policies: retirement pensions (what we call Social Security) and health insurance
for older Americans (Medicare). As these programs have grown, they have provided
most elderly Americans with economic security and have dramatically reduced the
poverty rate among the elderly. In 1959, before very many people over the age of
65 received social insurance, the poverty rate for the elderly was 35 percent; by
2016 it had dropped to 9.3 percent.42 Because of this progress, many people call
Social Security the most effective antipoverty program in the United States.43 This
does not mean that the elderly are rich, however; in 2016 the median income of
elderly households was $39,823, well below the national median income. The aim
of these programs is to provide security and prevent poverty.44
Even with the success of these programs at reducing poverty among the elderly,
older African Americans and Latinos are much more likely to be poor than are
white seniors. In 2016 the poverty rate for African Americans over age 65 was
18.5 percent and for Latinos over age 65 was 17.4 percent, compared to only
7.1 percent of non-Hispanic whites over 65. The difference is due in part to the
lower wages of these groups during their working years since Social Security
benefits are pegged to wages. Social Security may do less to pull immigrants
out of poverty depending on the number of years they have worked in the
United States.45
One reason that Social Security and Medicare are politically strong is that senior
citizens are widely seen as a deserving population. Because of their age, they are
not expected to work. Moreover, both programs are contributory, and a work his-
tory is a requirement for receiving a Social Security pension. But these programs are
also strong because they serve a constituency that has become quite powerful. The
elderly are a very large group: in 2016 there were 49.2 million Americans aged 65 and
over. The size of this group is of such political
importance also because the elderly turn out
to vote in higher numbers than the rest of the
population.
In addition, the elderly have developed
strong and sophisticated lobbying organi-
zations that can influence policy making
and mobilize elderly Americans to defend
these programs against proposals to cut
them. One important and influential orga-
nization is AARP (formerly the American
Association of Retired Persons). AARP had
38 million members in 2016, amounting to
one-fourth of all voters. It also has a sophis-
ticated lobbying organization in Washing-
ton that employs 51 lobbyists and a staff of
nearly 50 policy analysts.46
When government has tried to reform
Social Security or Medicare, beneficiaries
of these programs have rallied together—
often successfully—in opposition.
433S o C I A L P o L I C y S P e N D I N G B e N e f I T S M I D D L e C L A S S M o r e T h A N P o o r
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch13_406-443.indd 433 11/28/18 5:40 PM
THE MIDDLE AND UPPER CL ASSES
BENEFIT FROM SOCIAL POLICIES
Americans don’t usually think of the middle and upper classes as benefiting from
social policies, but government action promotes the social welfare of these groups in
a variety of ways. First, health insurance and pensions for the elderly help the middle
class by relieving them of the burden of caring for elderly relatives. Before these
programs existed, old people were more likely to live with and depend financially on
their adult children. Many middle-class families whose parents and grandparents are
in nursing homes rely on Medicaid to pay nursing home bills.
Second, the middle and upper classes are the chief beneficiaries of the shadow
welfare state of tax expenditures.47 Beyond the Earned Income Tax Credit (or EITC,
described below), which principally benefits the working poor, the great major-
ity of tax expenditure benefits go to middle- and upper-income households. For
example, while households with incomes under $30,000 receive 70 percent of the
EITC, households with incomes over $200,000 claim 40 percent of the property
tax deduction, 46 percent of the home mortgage deduction, and 71 percent each of
the state and local tax deduction and the deduction for charitable contributions.48
THE WORKING POOR RECEIVE FEWER BENEFITS
People who are working but are poor or are just above the poverty line receive only
limited assistance from government social programs. This is somewhat surpris-
ing, given that Americans value work so highly. But the working poor are typically
employed in jobs that do not provide pensions or health insurance; often, they are
renters because they cannot afford to buy homes. This means they cannot benefit
from the shadow welfare state that subsidizes the social benefits enjoyed by most
middle-class Americans. Because the wages of less educated workers have declined
significantly since the 1980s and minimum wages have not kept pace with inflation,
the problems of the working poor remain acute.
Government programs that assist the working poor include the ACA (discussed
earlier), the EITC, and SNAP. The EITC was implemented in 1976 to provide poor
workers some relief from increases in the taxes that pay for Social Security. As it has
expanded, the EITC has provided a modest wage supplement for the working poor,
allowing them to catch up on utility bills or pay for children’s clothing.
Poor workers can also receive benefits from the SNAP program. To be eligible,
households must earn below 130 percent of the poverty line (about $26,600 a year
for a three-person family in 2018). The average monthly benefit for a family of three
is $376 a month.49 Food advocates such as Feeding America have encouraged peo-
ple to take “the SNAP Challenge,” in which people who do not need SNAP spend
$1.50 a meal (the average for SNAP recipients) for a week. In the words of one high-
profile participant, “I was hungry last week—laser-focused on how much food was
left in the fridge and how many dollars were left in my wallet. I was scared about
eating portions that were too big, and wasn’t sure what to do if my food ran out.”50
The working poor are more likely to be in jobs that do not provide health
benefits from their employers. By expanding Medicaid to cover workers who earn
434 C H A P T E R 1 3 D o M e S T I C P o L I C y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch13_406-443.indd 434 11/28/18 5:40 PM
up to 138 percent of the poverty line ($28,676 for a family of three in 2018),
the ACA sought to ensure coverage for this group. However, the decision of
19 states to opt out of Medicaid expansion left a gap in coverage. Latinos and
African Americans were more likely to be harmed by this gap than whites: 27 percent
of Hispanics and 16 percent of blacks lacked access to health insurance as a result of
these state decisions, but only 11 percent of whites were affected in this way.51 Even
though the working poor may be seen as deserving, they lack political power because
they are not organized.
SPENDING FOR THE NONWORKING POOR IS DECLINING
The only nonworking, able-bodied poor people who receive federal cash assistance
are parents who are caring for children. The primary source of cash assistance for
these families is the state-run TANF program; such families also rely on the SNAP
program and Medicaid. Able-bodied adults who are not caring for children are not
eligible for federal assistance other than SNAP. Many states provide small amounts
of cash assistance to such individuals through programs called “general assistance,”
but most states have abolished or greatly reduced their general-assistance programs
in an effort to encourage these adults to work. Americans don’t like to subsidize
adults who are not working, but they do not want to harm children.
AFDC was the most unpopular social spending program, and as a result, it was
vulnerable to change. Under its replacement, TANF, states receive a fixed amount
of federal funds (no adjustment for inflation), whether the welfare rolls rise or
fall. Welfare recipients have little political power to resist cuts to their benefits.
During the late 1960s and early 1970s, the short-lived National Welfare Rights
Organization sought to represent the interests of welfare recipients. But keeping the
organization in operation proved difficult because its members and its constituents
had few resources and were difficult to organize.52 Because welfare recipients are
widely viewed as undeserving and are not politically organized, they have played
little part in debates about welfare.
The deep recession that started in 2008 meant that record numbers of Americans
were without work. In part because of eligibility expansions during the George W.
Bush administration, the numbers of people receiving SNAP benefits during this
period soared. At the height in 2013, over 47 million people (more than one in
seven Americans) received SNAP benefits. As the unemployment rate declined,
the number of SNAP beneficiaries began to decline as well, although in 2018,
42.3 million people continued to rely on SNAP.53 These numbers reflect the high
levels of need that persisted long after the recession.
MINORITIES, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN ARE
MOST LIKELY TO FACE POVERTY
Minorities, women, and children are disproportionately poor. Much of this poverty
is the result of disadvantages rooted in the position of these groups in the labor
market. In 2016 the poverty rate for African Americans was 22 percent, and for
Latinos it was 19.4 percent. For non-Hispanic whites, it was 8.8 percent.54 Much
435S o C I A L P o L I C y S P e N D I N G B e N e f I T S M I D D L e C L A S S M o r e T h A N P o o r
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch13_406-443.indd 435 11/28/18 5:40 PM
of this economic inequality stems from the fact that minority workers tend to have
low-wage jobs. Minorities are also more likely to become unemployed and to remain
unemployed for longer periods of time than are white Americans. African Americans,
for example, typically have experienced twice as much unemployment as have
other Americans. The combination of low-wage jobs and unemployment often
means that minorities are less likely to have jobs that give them access to the shadow
welfare state. They are more likely to fall into the precarious categories of the
working poor or the nonworking poor.
Policy analysts have increasingly examined the “feminization of poverty,” or
the fact that women are more likely than men to be poor. This problem is par-
ticularly acute for single mothers, who are more than twice as likely as the average
American to fall below the poverty line (see Figure 13.4). When the Social Security
Act was passed in 1935, the main programs for poor women were Aid to Dependent
Children (ADC) and survivors’ insurance for widows. The framers of the act
FIGURE 13.4
Poverty Levels in the United States,
1966–2016
Poverty rates in the U.S. population vary considerably. The rate of poverty among female-
headed households declined significantly in the 1990s, increased since 2000, and declined
again after 2000. Which group has seen the greatest reduction in its poverty level since 1966?
SOURCES: U.S. Census Bureau, Historical Poverty Tables, “Table 2. Poverty Status of People by Family Relationship,
Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1959 to 2016” and “Table 3. Poverty Status of People, by Age, Race, and Hispanic Origin,”
www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-poverty-people.html (accessed 9/7/18).
Female-headed households
People 65 and older
All people
People under 18
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
PERCENTAGE LIVING BELOW POVERTY LINE
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45%
In 1982 the percentage of elderly people in
poverty dropped below the national average.
In the early 1980s the poverty
rate for children began to rise.
436 C H A P T E R 1 3 D o M e S T I C P o L I C y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch13_406-443.indd 436 11/28/18 5:40 PM
believed that ADC would gradually disappear as more women became eligible for
survivors’ insurance. The social model behind the Social Security Act was that of
a male breadwinner with a wife and children. Women were not expected to work,
and if a woman’s husband died, ADC or survivors’ insurance would help her stay at
home and raise her children. The framers of Social Security did not envision today’s
large number of single women heading families. At the same time, they did not
envision that so many women with children would also be working. This combination
of changes helped make AFDC (the successor program to ADC) more controversial.
Many people asked why welfare recipients shouldn’t work, if the majority of women
who were not on welfare worked. Such questions led to the welfare reform of 1996,
which created TANF.
One of the most troubling issues related to American social policy is the number
of American children who live in poverty. The rate of child poverty in 2016 was
18 percent—5.3 percentage points higher than that of the population as a whole.
African American and Latino children experience much higher rates of poverty than
do whites. In 2016 the rate of child poverty for white children was 10.8 percent,
while 26.6 percent of Latino children and 30.8 percent of black children lived in
poverty.55 High rates of child poverty stem in part from the design of American
social policies. Because these policies do not generously assist able-bodied adults
who aren’t working and because these policies offer little help to the working poor,
the children of these adults are likely to be poor as well.
As child poverty has grown, several lobbying groups have emerged to represent
children’s interests; the best known of these is the Children’s Defense Fund. But
even with a sophisticated lobbying operation and although their numbers are
large, poor children do not vote and therefore wield little political power.
Domestic Policy
WHAT DO WE WANT?
Public policy encompasses many different ways for the government to achieve its
objectives. All public policies are tools of government control, but the means chosen
to achieve their goals can have a major effect on how the public feels about those
policies. After all, who wouldn’t rather be encouraged to do something by being paid to
do it instead of being told that failure to do the very same thing may result in jail time?
This might lead you to think that the government should do everything by relying on
payments or subsidies, but for many areas of public life, this is simply not possible—
not to mention incredibly expensive.
economic policy has changed dramatically in recent decades. The American econo-
my is now far more open to the rest of the world, and many American firms do most of
their production in China and other developing economies. At the same time, the distri-
bution of economic gains in the united States has shifted upward. As the debate about
437D o M e S T I C P o L I C y : W h AT D o W e W A N T ?
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch13_406-443.indd 437 11/28/18 5:40 PM
more or less government has led to a series of policy stalemates among politicians,
the income of the American middle class has mostly stagnated and the gains going to
the top 1 percent have soared. Some Americans think the government should do more
to address income inequality through tax policy, for example by taxing the wealthy at
higher rates.
Social policies, established in the 1930s, have stirred up much controversy. Liberals
often argue that more generous social policies are needed if the united States is
truly to ensure equality of opportunity, saying that the government needs to go beyond
simply providing opportunity and should ensure more equal conditions, especially
where children are concerned. Conservatives, on the other hand, often argue that
social policies that offer income support take the ideal of equality too far and, in the
process, do for individuals what those individuals should be doing for themselves. from
this perspective, social policies make the government too big, and big government
is seen as a fundamental threat to Americans’ liberties.
Where do average Americans fit in these debates? Americans are often said to be
philosophical conservatives and operational liberals.56 When asked about government
social policy in the abstract, they say they disapprove of activist government—a con-
servative view. But when they must evaluate particular programs, Americans generally
express support—a liberal perspective. Some programs are more popular than others.
Policies in which the recipients are regarded as deserving, such as programs for the
elderly, receive more support than those that assist working-age people. Programs
that have a reputation for effectiveness and those that require people to help
themselves through work are also viewed favorably.57 In sum, most Americans take a
pragmatic approach to social welfare policies: they favor programs that work, and they
want to reform those that seem not to work.
one way to think about the role of social policy is to consider what you would do if
you faced a threat to your ability to support yourself and those around you. Imagine if
you had difficulty paying for school. The “Who Participates?” feature on the facing
page looks at the growth in student loans and describes some government programs
to help students pay off their loans. or imagine you experienced a catastrophic acci-
dent like we saw with Marcella Wagner at the beginning of the chapter, or had a parent
fall ill, or had a job that did not pay enough to make ends meet. What strategies would
you use to overcome those risks? Are there government policies in place to help in
these situations? What do you think about government playing such a role for you or
for other individuals? Does current government policy reflect your views, and if not,
what could you as an individual do to make your voice heard?
438 C H A P T E R 1 3 D o M e S T I C P o L I C y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch13_406-443.indd 438 11/28/18 5:40 PM
194
154
70
48
161
129
56
38
Total
$392B
Growing Student
Debt Burden
Student Loan Balances (in billions of dollars)
60+
50−59
30−39
40−49
< 30
Age group
20082005 2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
25
273
229
109
78
248
202
96
67
20
13
312
281
140
97
35
320
320
163
113
43
356
354
184
126
49
369
383
208
136
58
299
257
127
91
29
376
408
230
150
67
217
171
82
55
16
8
Total
$1,231B
Total
$803B
SOURCE: Federal Reserve Bank of New York Consumer Credit Panel,
“2016 Student Loan Update,” newyorkfed.org (accessed 12/26/17).
WHO PAR TICIPATES?
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch13_406-443.indd 439 11/28/18 5:40 PM
Practice Quiz
1. Monetary policy seeks to influence the
economy through (p. 413)
a) taxing and spending.
b) privatizing and nationalizing
selected industries.
c) the availability of credit and money.
d) foreign exchange of currency.
e) administrative regulation.
2. The most powerful institution in
determining America’s monetary policy
is (p. 413)
a) the Department of Commerce.
b) the Department of the Treasury.
c) the federal judiciary.
d) the federal reserve Board.
e) the president.
3. Government attempts to manipulate
the economy by using its taxing and
spending powers are called (p. 414)
a) antitrust policies.
b) expropriation policies.
c) monetary policies.
d) fiscal policies.
e) redistributive policies.
4. A policy whose objective is to tax or
spend in such a way as to reduce
the disparities of wealth between the
highest and lowest income brackets is
called (p. 414)
a) antitrust policy.
b) deregulation.
c) discretionary spending.
d) equalization.
e) redistribution.
Contact the Government
about Student Loan Issues
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
If you have Perkins Loans and go to work in public service, including
the active-duty military, education, health services, and public safety,
you might be eligible for Perkins Loans cancellation: https://studentaid
.ed.gov/sa/repay-loans/forgiveness-cancellation.
If your employer is a government organization, a 501(c)(3) nonpro�t, or a
private company that provides public services, you may qualify to get your
federal loans forgiven through the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF)
program: www.studentaid.ed.gov/sa/repay-loans/
forgiveness-cancellation/public-service.
Contact your member of Congress with your opinion on how government
agencies should regulate student loans.
440 S T u D y G u I D e
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch13_406-443.indd 440 11/28/18 5:40 PM
5. The united States’ welfare state was
constructed initially in response to
(p. 416)
a) the Civil War.
b) World War II.
c) political reforms of the Progres-
sive era.
d) the Great Depression.
e) the growth of the military–industrial
complex.
6. Which of the following is an example of
a contributory program? (p. 418)
a) Medicaid
b) Medicare
c) Temporary Assistance for Needy
families
d) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program
e) Aid to families with Dependent
Children
7. Means testing requires that applicants
for welfare benefits show (p. 419)
a) that they are capable of getting to
and from their workplace.
b) that they have the ability to store
and prepare food.
c) a financial need for assistance.
d) that they have the time and re-
sources to take full advantage of
federal educational opportunities.
e) that they are natural-born citizens
who have never been convicted of
a felony.
8. Which of the following are examples
of in-kind benefits? (p. 419)
a) Medicaid and the Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program
b) Social Security and the Troubled
Assets relief Program
c) Medicare and unemployment
compensation
d) the GI Bill of rights and the equal
rights Amendment
e) the earned Income Tax Credit and
No Child Left Behind
9. What event prompted the federal
government to enter the field of
elementary education? (p. 423)
a) the Civil War
b) the Great Depression
c) World War II
d) the Soviet union’s launching of
Sputnik
e) the civil rights movement
10. Which of the following was not part of
the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001?
(p. 424)
a) a provision allowing parents whose
child is attending a failing school to
transfer the child to a better school
b) a requirement that states failing to
meet national standards improve
student performance by provid-
ing supplemental tutoring, longer
school days, and additional sum-
mer school
c) a requirement that schools show
positive results for all subcatego-
ries of students and not just
positive overall averages
d) a requirement that a national test
be used to evaluate every student
around the country
e) a requirement that every child in
grades 3 through 8 be tested yearly
for proficiency in math and reading
11. Who are the chief beneficiaries of the
“shadow welfare state”? (p. 434)
a) children
b) the elderly
c) the nonworking poor
d) the working poor
e) the middle class
12. Which three government programs
provide assistance to the working
poor? (p. 434)
a) Temporary Assistance for Needy
families, Medicare, and the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program
b) the Affordable Care Act, the
earned Income Tax Credit, and the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program
c) Temporary Assistance for Needy
families, Social Security, and the
earned Income Tax Credit
d) Temporary Assistance for Needy
families, Medicare, and the
Affordable Care Act
e) Social Security, Medicaid, and
Medicare
441S T u D y G u I D e
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch13_406-443.indd 441 11/28/18 5:40 PM
Key Terms
contracting power (p. 411) the power of
government to set conditions on companies
seeking to sell goods or services to
government agencies
contributory programs (p. 418) social
programs financed in whole or in part by
taxation or other mandatory contributions
by their present or future recipients
cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) (p. 418)
changes made to the level of benefits of
a government program based on the rate
of inflation
Federal Reserve System (p. 413) a system
of 12 federal reserve banks that
facilitates exchanges of cash, checks, and
credit; regulates member banks; and uses
monetary policies to fight inflation and
deflation
fiscal policy (p. 414) the government’s use
of taxing, monetary, and spending powers to
manipulate the economy
indexing (p. 418) periodic process of adjust-
ing of social benefits or wages to account
for increases in the cost of living
in-kind benefits (p. 419) noncash goods and
services provided to needy individuals and
families by the federal government
means testing (p. 419) a procedure by
which potential beneficiaries of a public-
assistance program establish their eligibility
by demonstrating a genuine need for the
assistance
Medicaid (p. 419) a federally and state-
financed, state-operated program providing
medical services to low-income people
Medicare (p. 418) a form of national health
insurance for the elderly and the disabled
monetary policies (p. 413) efforts to
regulate the economy through the manipu-
lation of the supply of money and credit;
America’s most powerful institution in this
area of monetary policy is the federal
reserve Board
noncontributory programs (p. 419) social
programs that provide assistance to people
based on demonstrated need rather than
any contribution they have made
public policy (p. 409) a law, a rule, a statute,
or an edict that expresses the government’s
goals and provides for rewards and punish-
ments to promote those goals’ attainment
redistribution (p. 414) collecting revenue in
such a way as to reduce the disparities of
wealth between the lowest and the highest
income brackets
Social Security (p. 418) a contributory
welfare program into which working Americans
contribute a percentage of their wages and
from which they receive cash benefits after
retirement or if they become disabled
subsidies (p. 409) government grants of
cash or other valuable commodities, such
as land, to individuals or an organization;
used to promote activities desired by the
government, to reward political support, or
to buy off political opposition
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP) (p. 419) the largest antipoverty
program, which provides recipients with a
debit card for food at most grocery stores;
formerly known as food stamps
tax expenditures (p. 419) government
subsidies provided to employers and
employees through tax deductions for
amounts spent on health insurance and
other benefits
442 S T u D y G u I D e
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch13_406-443.indd 442 11/28/18 5:40 PM
Baldwin, robert, Martin Cave, and Martin Lodge. Understanding Regulation. New york:
oxford university Press, 2012.
Campbell, Andrea Louise. Trapped in America’s Safety Net. Chicago: university of
Chicago Press, 2014.
Cohen, David k., and Susan L. Moffitt. The Ordeal of Equality: Did Federal Regulation
Fix the Schools? Cambridge, MA: harvard university Press, 2009.
Desmond, Matthew. Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City. New york: Crown,
2016.
edin, kathryn J., and Luke Shafer. $2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America.
New york: houghton Mifflin harcourt, 2015.
hacker, Jacob S. The Great Risk Shift: Why American Jobs, Families, Health Care, and
Retirement Aren’t Secure—And How We Can Fight Back. New york: oxford university
Press, 2006.
howard, Christopher. The Welfare State Nobody Knows: Debunking Myths about U.S.
Social Policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton university Press, 2007.
Mettler, Suzanne. Degrees of Inequality: How the Politics of Higher Education Sabotaged
the American Dream. New york: Basic Books, 2014.
ravitch, Diane. Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to
America’s Public Schools. New york: knopf, 2013.
Soss, Joe, richard C. fording, and Sanford f. Schramm. Disciplining the Poor: Neoliberal
Paternalism and the Persistent Power of Race. Chicago: university of Chicago Press,
2011.
Wailoo, keith, Alan Cohen, Julian Zelizer, and David Colby, eds. Medicare and Medicaid
at 50. New york: oxford university Press, 2015.
Weir, Margaret, Ann orloff, and Theda Skocpol, eds. The Politics of Social Policy in the
United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton university Press, 1988.
For Further Reading
443S T u D y G u I D e
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch13_406-443.indd 443 11/28/18 5:40 PM
WHAT GOVERNMENT DOES AND WHY IT MATTERS
Foreign policy may seem like a distant or abstract matter, but it carries tremen-
dous consequences for ordinary people. In January 2017, President Trump
signed an executive order banning travel to the United States for people from
Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The president’s purpose
was to protect U.S. borders and prohibit entry from countries with lax security
standards. As with any public policy, views on the travel ban varied. Amanda
Patrick of Georgia, a 38-year-old tax associate with a young son, supported
the ban, saying, “The biggest thing for me, especially with having a child now,
is the safety factor. Just people coming in that we aren’t properly vetting.”
Susan Richardson, a 74-year-old artist and entrepreneur from Florida and an
immigrant from England, believes countries have a right to defend their bor-
ders: “When I came to this country, if you didn’t have the right visa, if you didn’t
have somebody who sponsored you, you were turned back at the airport.”1
For yet others, the travel ban has meant personal turmoil. Mohamed Iye,
an American citizen born in Somalia, was about to be reunited with his Somali
141414
chapter
Foreign
Policy
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch14_444-474.indd 444 11/28/18 5:36 PM
wife and two American daughters after a two-year separation when the travel
ban was issued, stranding his family in Nairobi. He and many others joined
lawsuits against the ban. “It was never my intention to go against the presi-
dent of the United States. I was just following the law and doing everything
the way it’s in the books. And it came to this.” Ali Asaei, a 27-year-old originally
from Iran who holds a master’s degree and works at a psychiatric research
institute in New York, also joined a lawsuit against the travel ban. He hadn’t
seen his family in four years, and their visa applications to visit him were
rejected after the travel ban went into effect. He said that in Iran, “There is no
freedom of speech, no freedom of press. . . . One of the reasons I came here
was because I thought, here we’re going to have the freedom of speech and
religion and all these. But if I don’t have those freedoms, then what would be
the point of staying here?”2
The Trump administration’s travel ban was challenged in the federal courts
and was finally upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2018 case of Trump
v. Hawaii.3 The issue illustrates just one of the complexities of foreign policy.
America’s foreign policy can have profound effects on
the lives of individuals here and abroad. President
Trump’s decision to ban immigration from certain
countries put many lives in limbo, like that of Mohamed
Iye (pictured here). Iye was reunited with his family after
being stranded in Kenya when the ban was declared.
445
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch14_444-474.indd 445 11/28/18 5:36 PM
A government’s first duty is to protect its citizens, but should protection mean
the exclusion of citizens of foreign countries from America’s shores? What
about foreign trade? America’s interests and those of foreign countries are
so closely intertwined that the Trump administration’s tariffs against foreign
auto companies, and subsequent retaliation from America’s trading partners,
hurt workers in South Carolina where BMWs (a German car) are assembled
and then shipped all over the world. In the realm of security interests, when
dealing with America’s rivals such as Russia, China, and North Korea, what
is the proper mix of such foreign policy tools as diplomacy, economic pres-
sure, and the threat of force? To make matters even more complicated, some
threats require international rather than national responses, but achieving
international cooperation is sometimes problematic. President Trump has
demanded that America’s NATO allies pay a larger share of the collective cost
of defense, though his demands threaten to undermine the NATO alliance.
The United States, like other nations, struggles to strike the right balance
between competition and cooperation in the international arena.
★ Explain how foreign policy is designed to promote security, prosperity,
and humanitarian goals (pp. 447–53)
★ Identify the major players in foreign-policy making, and describe their
roles (pp. 453–58)
★ Describe the means the United States uses to carry out foreign policy
today (pp. 458–64)
★ Analyze the foreign policy problems facing American policy makers
today (pp. 464–68)
CHAP TER GOAL S
446 C H A P T E R 1 4 F O R E I G N P O L I C Y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch14_444-474.indd 446 11/28/18 5:36 PM
Foreign Policy Goals Are Related
The term foreign policy refers to the
programs and policies that determine
America’s relations with other nations
and foreign entities. Foreign policy
includes diplomacy, military and
security policy, international human rights policies, and various forms of economic
policy such as trade policy and international energy policy. Of course, foreign policy
and domestic policy are not completely separate categories: domestic politics affects
foreign policy and foreign policy certainly affects domestic politics. Take security
policy, for example. Defending the nation requires the design and manufacture of
tens of billions of dollars in military hardware. The manufacture of this military
equipment provides jobs in American communities where the equipment is built,
while paying for it involves raising taxes or choosing not to fund other programs.
Although U.S. foreign policy has a number of purposes, three main, interrelated
goals stand out. These are security, prosperity, and the creation of a better world.
SECURITY IS BASED ON MILITARY STRENGTH
To many Americans, the chief purpose of the nation’s foreign policy is protection
of U.S. security in an often hostile world. Traditionally, the United States has been
concerned about threats that might emanate from other countries, such as Nazi
Germany during the 1940s and then Soviet Russia until the Soviet Union’s collapse
in 1991. Today, American security policy is concerned not only with the actions
of other nations but also with the activities of terrorist groups and other hostile
non-state actors.4 To protect the nation’s security from foreign threats, the United
States has built an enormous military apparatus and a complex array of intelligence-
gathering institutions, such as the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), charged with
evaluating and anticipating challenges from abroad.5
During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, American security was based
mainly on the geographic isolation of the United States. We were separated by two
oceans from European and Asian powers, and many Americans thought that our
security would be best preserved by remaining aloof from international power strug-
gles. This policy of avoiding involvement in the affairs of other nations was known
as isolationism. In his 1796 Farewell Address, President George Washington warned
Americans to avoid permanent alliances with foreign powers; and in 1823, President
James Monroe warned foreign powers not to meddle in the Western Hemisphere.
Washington’s warning and what came to be called the Monroe Doctrine were the
cornerstones of the U.S. foreign policy of isolationism until the end of the nine-
teenth century. The United States saw itself as the dominant power in the Western
Hemisphere and, indeed, believed that its “manifest destiny” was to expand from sea
to sea. The rest of the world, however, should remain at arm’s length.
In the twentieth century, technology made oceans less a barrier to foreign threats,
and the world’s growing economic interdependence meant that the nation could
Explain how foreign policy is
designed to promote security,
prosperity, and humanitarian goals
447F O R E I G N P O L I C Y G O A L S A R E R E L AT E d
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch14_444-474.indd 447 11/28/18 5:36 PM
no longer ignore events abroad. Early in the twentieth century, the United States
entered World War I on the side of Great Britain and France when the Wilson
administration concluded that a German victory would adversely affect Ameri ca’s
economic and security interests. In 1941 the United States was drawn into
World War II when Japan attacked the U.S. Pacific fleet anchored at Pearl Harbor,
Hawaii. Even before the attack, the Roosevelt administration had concluded that
the United States needed to act to prevent a victory by the German–Japanese–Italian
Axis alliance.
Following World War II, the United States developed a new security policy
known as containment to check or “contain” the growing power of the Soviet Union,
which by the end of the 1940s had built a huge empire, enormous military forces,
and nuclear weapons and bombers capable of attacking the United States. The
United States was committed to maintaining its own military might as a means of
deterrence, to discourage the Soviets from attacking the United States or its allies.
Some Americans wanted a more aggressive policy and argued that we should attack
the Soviets before it was too late, a policy known as preventive war. Others said that we
should show our peaceful intentions and attempt to placate the Soviets. This policy
is called appeasement.
The policies that the United States adopted, deterrence and containment, could be
seen as midway between aggression and appeasement. A nation pursuing a policy
of deterrence, on the one hand, signals its peaceful intentions but, on the other
hand, indicates its willingness and
ability to fight if attacked. Thus,
during the era of confrontation
with the Soviet Union between
the late 1940s and 1990, known
as the Cold War, the United States
frequently asserted that it had no
intention of attacking the Soviet
Union but at the same time built
a huge military force, including a
vast arsenal of nuclear weapons and
intercontinental missiles, and fre-
quently asserted that in the event
of a Soviet attack it would respond
with overwhelming force. The
Soviet Union announced that its
nuclear weapons were also intended
for deterrent purposes. Eventually,
the two sides possessed such enor-
mous arsenals of nuclear missiles
that each had the ability to destroy
the other in the event of war. This
heavily armed standoff came to be
called a posture of mutually assured
During the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet
Union engaged in an arms race, each acquiring
nuclear weapons to deter the other from attacking.
448 C H A P T E R 1 4 F O R E I G N P O L I C Y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch14_444-474.indd 448 11/28/18 5:36 PM
destruction. During the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, the United States and the Soviet
Union came to the brink of war when President Kennedy declared that the Soviet
Union must remove its nuclear missiles from Cuba and threatened to use force if
the Soviets refused. After an extremely intense several weeks, the crisis was defused
by a negotiated compromise in which the Soviets agreed to remove their missiles
in exchange for a guarantee from the United States that it would not invade Cuba.
The two superpowers had come so close to nuclear war that afterward the leaders of
both nations sought ways to reduce tensions. This effort led to a period of détente,
in which a number of arms control agreements were signed and the threat of war
was reduced.
In 1991 the Soviet Union collapsed, partly because its huge military expenditures
undermined its inefficient, centrally planned economy. The new Russia, though still
a formidable power, posed less of a threat to the United States. Within several years,
however, new security threats emerged, requiring new policy responses. The Septem-
ber 11, 2001, terrorist attacks demonstrated a threat against which some security
scholars had long warned: that non-state actors and so-called rogue states might
acquire significant military capabilities, including nuclear weapons, and would not
be affected by America’s deterrent capabilities.
Unlike nation-states (political entities consisting of a people with some common
cultural experience who also share a common political authority, recognized by
other sovereignties), which have governments and fixed borders, terrorist groups are
non-state actors having no fixed geographic location that can be attacked. Terrorists
may believe that they can attack and melt away, leaving the United States with no
one against whom to retaliate. Hence, the threat of massive retaliation does not
deter them. Rogue states are nations with unstable and erratic leaders who seem to
pursue policies driven by ideological or religious fervor rather than careful consid-
eration of economic or human costs. The United States considers North Korea to
be a rogue state.
To counter these new security threats, the George W. Bush administration
shifted from a policy of deterrence to one of preventive war—the willingness
to strike first in order to prevent an enemy attack. The United States declared
that, if necessary, it would take action to disable terrorist groups and rogue states
before they could develop the ability to do it harm. This idea gained impor-
tant support after the September 11, 2001, attacks. The Bush administration’s
“global war on terror” was an expression of this notion of prevention, as was the
U.S. invasion of Iraq. This policy has also been advanced by the Trump admin-
istration. The United States has refused to rule out the possibility that it would
attack North Korea or Iran if it deemed those nations’ nuclear programs to be
an imminent threat to American security interests. Accompanying this shift
in military doctrine was a significant increase in overall U.S. military spending
(see Figure 14.1).
President Obama took a less aggressive line, saying that the United States would
rely on diplomacy and economic sanctions. President Trump, however, said that
the United States was prepared to use overwhelming force against its adversaries.
Trump called North Korean leader Kim Jong-un “Little Rocket Man” and declared
449F O R E I G N P O L I C Y G O A L S A R E R E L AT E d
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch14_444-474.indd 449 11/28/18 5:36 PM
that only force would thwart Kim’s ambitions. Nevertheless, in April 2018, Trump
agreed to a meeting with Kim to discuss ways of reducing tensions on the Korean
Peninsula. After the two leaders met in June 2018, Trump declared that progress
had been made toward a more peaceful resolution of the Korean conflict. In July
2018, Trump met with Russian president Vladimir Putin. Trump called the meet-
ing a great success but critics charged that the president had not been sufficiently
aggressive in demanding an accounting for Russian attempts to influence the 2016
American election.
FIGURE 14.1
U.S. Spending on National
Defense since 2000
During the 1990s the budget for national defense declined as the country enjoyed a
“peace dividend” following the conclusion of the Cold War. After the attacks of September
11, 2001, and the commencement of the war on terrorism, however, national defense
spending rose steadily; in a decade, spending increased by 70 percent. Since that time
defense spending has fallen.
*Data for 2019 are estimated.
SOURCE: Office of Management and Budget, “Table 3.1—Outlays by Superfunction and Function: 1940–2023,”
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/historical-tables/ (accessed 7/23/18).
400
0
450
500
550
600
650
700
$750
BILLIONS OF CONSTANT 2009 DOLLARS
2000 2005 2010 2015 2019*
450 C H A P T E R 1 4 F O R E I G N P O L I C Y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch14_444-474.indd 450 11/28/18 5:36 PM
ECONOMIC PROSPERITY HELPS ALL NATIONS
A second major goal of U.S. foreign policy is to promote American prosperity.
America’s international economic policies are intended to expand employment
opportunities in the United States, to maintain access to foreign energy supplies at
a reasonable cost, to promote foreign investment in the United States, and to lower
the prices Americans pay for goods and services.
The most important international organization for promoting free trade is the
World Trade Organization (WTO), established in 1995. The WTO grew out of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), established in 1947, which set many of the rules
governing international trade. Since World War II, GATT had brought together a
wide range of nations for regular negotiations designed to reduce barriers to trade.
Such barriers, many believed, had contributed to the breakdown of the world eco-
nomy in the 1930s and had helped cause World War II. The WTO has 164 members
worldwide, including the United States. Similar policy goals are pursued in regional
arrangements, such as the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA), formerly
known as NAFTA, a trade treaty among the United States, Canada, and Mexico to
lower and eliminate tariffs among the three countries.
The United States is the world’s largest importer and exporter of goods and
services. In 2013 the United States exported more than $1.5 trillion in goods and
services while importing $2.2 trillion in goods and services. Roughly 11 million jobs
in the United States are directly tied to international trade. Accordingly, America
has a vital interest in maintaining international trade and monetary practices that
promote American prosperity.
AMERICA SEEKS A MORE HUMANE WORLD
A third goal of American policy is to make the world a better place for all its inhab-
itants. Many Americans believe that the United States has an obligation to protect
human rights and to provide assistance to needy groups throughout the world. Other
Americans say we should spend our resources at home and let other nations look after
their own people. A third group of Americans view human rights and humanitarian
policies as a form of “soft power,” serving American interests and winning friends by
demonstrating our concern for the less fortunate throughout the world. This third
group has generally been dominant within the American foreign policy community.
The main forms of policy that address this goal are international environmen-
tal policy, international human rights policy, and international peacekeeping. The
United States also contributes to international organizations that work for global
health and against hunger, such as the World Health Organization. These policies
are often seen as secondary to the other goals of American foreign policy and are
forced to give way if they interfere with security or foreign economic policy. More-
over, while the United States spends billions annually on security policy and hun-
dreds of millions on trade policy, it spends relatively little on environmental, human
rights, and peacekeeping efforts.
In the realm of international environmental policy, the United States supports
various international efforts to protect the environment. These include the United
451F O R E I G N P O L I C Y G O A L S A R E R E L AT E d
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch14_444-474.indd 451 11/28/18 5:36 PM
Building Influence
through International
Connections
Since World War II, the United States
has been considered the leading global
hegemon: an international actor so powerful
that it can spread its influence across
continents. When thinking of U.S. hegemony,
most people focus on the dominant military
power of the United States. However, the
military is only one tool for expanding a
country’s interest, and we might consider a
country’s level of globalization to be another
measure of influence. Globalization is the
process of increasing interactions across
country borders and between societies
and economies; countries that are more
globalized have built multiple connections
and influence.
Comparing the United States to two main
international challengers, Russia and China,
we can see how highly integrated the United
States is into the global system. While
all three countries are close on political
globalization, the United States has a clear
lead in social and economic globalization.
This means that in terms of international
negotiations, the United States has more
tools at its disposal than any other country.
SOURCE: Savina Gygli et al., “The KOF Globalization Index—Revisited,” KOF Working
Paper, No. 439, 2018, www.kof.ethz.ch (accessed 5/29/18).
95%
81
64
90
66
51
39
94
LEVEL OF GLOBALIZATION, 2015
52
United States Russia China
Political Social Economic
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch14_444-474.indd 452 11/28/18 5:36 PM
Nations (UN) Framework Convention on Climate Change, an international agree-
ment to study and ameliorate harmful changes in the global environment, and the
Montreal Protocol, an agreement signed by more than 150 countries to limit the
production of substances potentially harmful to the world’s ozone layer. The United
States has a long-standing commitment to human rights and is a party to most major
international human rights agreements. This commitment, though, has a lower
priority in American foreign policy than the nation’s security concerns and eco-
nomic interests. Thus, the United States is likely to overlook human rights violations
by its major trading partners, such as China, and remain silent in the face of
human rights violations by such allies as Saudi Arabia. Nevertheless, human rights
concerns do play a role in American foreign policy. For example, beginning in
2007 the United States has annually made available several million dollars in small
grants to pay medical and legal expenses incurred by individuals who have been
the victims of retaliation in their own countries for working against their gov-
ernments’ repressive practices. In this small way, the United States is backing its
often-asserted principles.
Another form of U.S. policy designed to improve the condition of the world is
support for international peacekeeping efforts. At any point in time, a number of
border wars, civil wars, and guerrilla conflicts are flaring somewhere in the world,
usually in its poorer regions. These wars often generate humanitarian crises in the
form of casualties, disease, and refugees. In cooperation with international agencies
and other nations, the United States funds a number of efforts to keep the peace
in volatile regions and to deal with the health care and refugee problems associated
with conflict. In 2015 the United States provided nearly $2 billion in humanitarian
assistance to help Syrian refugees displaced by the civil war in that nation and by the
end of 2016 had donated over $5 billion to the cause.6
As the world’s wealthiest nation, the United States also recognizes an obligation
to render assistance to nations facing crises and emergencies. In 2014, for example,
the United States pledged $300 million in humanitarian aid to the people of South
Sudan, a population at grave risk of famine caused by military conflict between
government and rebel forces.
American Foreign Policy Is Shaped by
Government and Nongovernment Actors
As we have seen, domestic policies are
made by governmental institutions
and influenced by a variety of inter-
est groups, political movements, and
even the mass media. The same is true
in the realm of foreign policy. The president and his chief advisers are the princi-
pal architects of U.S. foreign policy. However, the Congress, the bureaucracy, the
courts, political parties, interest groups, and trade associations also play important
roles in this realm. Often, the president and Congress are at odds over foreign policy.
Identify the major players in
foreign-policy making, and describe
their roles
453A M E R I C A N F O R E I G N P O L I C Y I S S H A P E d
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch14_444-474.indd 453 11/28/18 5:36 PM
THE PRESIDENT LEADS FOREIGN POLICY
The president is the leading figure in the conduct of American foreign policy. The
president’s foreign policy powers today, particularly in the military realm, are far
greater than the Constitution’s framers had thought wise. The framers gave the
power to declare war to Congress and made the president the nation’s top military
commander if and when Congress chose to go to war. Today, presidents both com-
mand the troops and decide when to go to war.
All four recent presidents, like most of their predecessors, were faced with
momentous challenges to American security and to America’s international inter-
ests. George W. Bush, in particular, was compelled to develop a response to the
September 11, 2001, terror attacks. By 2002 foreign policy had become the cen-
terpiece of the Bush administration’s agenda. In a June 1, 2002, speech at West
Point, the president announced a policy of unilateral action and preemptive war—
what came to be called the Bush Doctrine. Bush said, “. . . our security will require
all Americans . . . to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our
liberty and to defend our lives.” In his 2014 West Point speech, President Obama
appeared to articulate a different policy when he said the United States must reduce
its reliance on military force and make more use of diplomacy. But even though
Obama expressed reservations about unilateral preemption, during the Obama
years the United States continued to launch many attacks against suspected ter-
rorists before they were able to strike. President Trump rattled America’s allies by
declaring an “America first” foreign policy and adopting a confrontational posture
toward North Korea and Iran. In terms of actions, however, as of July 2018, Trump
The president meets with many foreign leaders, often after key agreements have been hammered out
by the president’s staff. In a highly controversial move, President Trump met alone with Russian presi-
dent Vladimir Putin in July 2018, leaving many staffers and observers wondering what the two said.
454 C H A P T E R 1 4 F O R E I G N P O L I C Y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch14_444-474.indd 454 11/28/18 5:36 PM
seemed to have given diplomacy a greater emphasis as evidenced by his meetings
with North Korea’s leader and Russian president Putin.
As the dominant figure in the realm of American foreign and military policy,
the president exercises substantial control over the nation’s diplomatic and mili-
tary institutions and, as a result, is in a position to decide with whom, when,
and how the United States will interact in the international arena. Since World
War II, American military forces have fought in many parts of the world. In every
instance, the decision to commit troops to battle was made by the president, often
without much consultation with the Congress. When President Obama ordered
special operations soldiers to attack Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan,
members of Congress learned of the operation and bin Laden’s death from news
broadcasts—just like other Americans. And it is the president and his emissaries
who conduct negotiations with Russia, Iran, North Korea—and a host of other
nations—to deal with international problems and crises.
Presidents can also make use of executive agreements to partially bypass congres-
sional power in the realm of foreign relations. Executive agreements are presidential
orders enforceable by the courts that do not require Senate ratification. Since presi-
dents seem free to use executive agreements as they see fit, the importance of the
Senate’s constitutional treaty power has sharply diminished. Since 1947 the United
States has entered into more than 17,000 different agreements with other nations
and international entities. Of these, only 6 percent were submitted to the Senate
for approval.7
THE BUREAUCRACY IMPLEMENTS
AND INFORMS POLICY DECISIONS
The major foreign policy actors in the bureaucracy are the secretaries of the departments
of State, Defense, and the Treasury; the Joint Chiefs of Staff, especially the chair; and
the director of the CIA. Since 1947, a separate unit in the White House has overseen
the vast foreign policy establishment for the purpose of synthesizing all the messages
arising out of the bureaucracy and helping the president make his own foreign policy.
This is the National Security Council. It is a “subcabinet” made up of the major players
just listed plus others whom each president appoints. Since the profound shake-up of
September 11, 2001, two key players have been added: the secretary of the Department
of Homeland Security, created in 2002, and the director of national intelligence, estab-
lished in 2005, to collate and coordinate intelligence coming in from multiple sources
and to report a synthesis of all this to the president on a daily basis.
Since the creation of the CIA and the Department of Defense in 1947, the secre-
tary of defense and the director of the CIA have often been rivals engaged in power
struggles for control of the intelligence community.8 For the most part, secretaries of
defense have prevailed in these battles, and the Defense Department today controls
more than 80 percent of the nation’s intelligence capabilities and funds. The crea-
tion of the position of director of national intelligence to coordinate all intelligence
activities set off new Washington power struggles as the “intelligence czar” faced
opposition from both the CIA and the Department of Defense.
455A M E R I C A N F O R E I G N P O L I C Y I S S H A P E d
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch14_444-474.indd 455 11/28/18 5:36 PM
In the wake of September 11, 2001, military and law-enforcement agencies
increased their role in America’s foreign-policy making.9 In recent years, American
ambassadors have complained that they have been relegated to secondary status as
the White House has looked to military commanders for information, advice, and
policy implementation. For every region of the world, the U.S. military has assigned
a “combatant commander,” usually a senior general or admiral, to take charge of
operations in that area. In many instances, these combatant commanders, who con-
trol troops, equipment, and intelligence capabilities, have become the real eyes, ears,
and voices for American foreign policy in their designated regions.
CONGRESS’S LEGAL AUTHORITY CAN BE DECISIVE
Although the Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war (see Table 14.1),
Congress has exercised this power on only five occasions: the War of 1812, the
Mexican War (1846), the Spanish–American War (1898), World War I (1917), and
World War II (1941). For the first 150 years of American history, Congress’s role
in foreign policy was limited because the United States’ role in world affairs was
limited. The treaty power was and is an important entrée of the Senate into foreign-
policy making. But since World War II and the continual involvement of the United
States in international security and foreign aid, Congress as a whole has become a
major foreign-policy maker because most modern foreign policies require financ-
ing. Since Congress controls the “power of the purse,” the appropriation of money
requires action by both the House of Representatives and the Senate. For example,
PRESIDENT CONGRESS
War power Commander in chief of
armed forces
Provide for the common defense;
declare war
Treaties Negotiate treaties Ratification of treaties by two-
thirds majority (Senate)
Appointments Nominate high-level
government officials
Confirm president’s appointments
(Senate)
Foreign commerce No explicit powers, but treaty
negotiation and appointment
powers pertain
Explicit power “to regulate
foreign commerce”
General powers Executive power; veto Legislative power; power
of the purse; oversight and
investigation
TABLE 14.1
Principal Foreign Policy Powers
Granted by the Constitution
456 C H A P T E R 1 4 F O R E I G N P O L I C Y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch14_444-474.indd 456 11/28/18 5:36 PM
Congress’s first act after the September 11, 2001, attacks was to authorize the presi-
dent to use “all necessary and appropriate force,” coupled with a $40-billion emer-
gency appropriations bill for homeland defense. Although President Bush believed
he possessed the constitutional authority to invade Iraq, he still sought congressional
approval, which he received in October 2002.
Not only does the president need Congress to provide funding for foreign and
military policy initiatives but also, under the Constitution, many presidential agree-
ments with foreign nations have to be approved by Congress. Article II, Section 2 of
the Constitution declares that proposed treaties with other nations must be submit-
ted by the president to the Senate and approved by a two-thirds vote. Because this
“supermajority” is usually difficult to achieve, presidents generally prefer executive
agreements, discussed above, with other nations.
Another aspect of Congress’s role in foreign policy is the Senate’s power to con-
firm the president’s nominations of cabinet members, ambassadors, and other
high-ranking officials (such as the director of the CIA, but not the director of the
National Security Council). A final constitutional power of Congress is the regula-
tion of “commerce with foreign nations.”
Other congressional players are the foreign policy, military policy, and intelligence
committees: in the Senate, these are the Foreign Relations Committee, the Armed
Services Committee, the Intelligence Committee, and the Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Committee; in the House, these are the Foreign Affairs Com-
mittee, the Intelligence Committee, the Homeland Security Committee, and the
Armed Services Committee. Usually, a few members of these committees who have
spent years specializing in foreign affairs become trusted members of the foreign pol-
icy establishment and are influential makers of foreign policy. In fact, several members
of Congress have left the legislature to become key foreign affairs cabinet members.
INTEREST GROUPS PRESSURE FOREIGN
POLICY DECISION MAKERS
Although the president, the executive branch “bureaucracy,” and Congress are the
true makers of foreign policy, the “foreign policy establishment” is a much larger
arena, including what can properly be called the shapers of foreign policy: a host of
unofficial, informal players who possess varying degrees of influence depending on
their prestige, reputation, socioeconomic standing, and, most important, the party
and ideology that are dominant at a given moment.
By far the most important category of nonofficial player is the interest group—
that is, the interest group to which one or more foreign policy issues are of long-
standing and vital relevance. Most of these are “single-issue” economic groups, such
as the tobacco industry and the computer hardware and software industries, which
become most active when their particular issue is on the agenda.
Another type of interest group with a well-founded reputation for influence in
foreign policy comprises people who strongly identify with a particular country.
For example, many Jewish Americans and Evangelical Protestants possess strong
emotional ties to Israel. In 2015 some Jewish groups lobbied heavily but ultimately
457A M E R I C A N F O R E I G N P O L I C Y I S S H A P E d
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch14_444-474.indd 457 11/28/18 5:36 PM
unsuccessfully against the Obama
administration’s agreement with
Iran to limit its nuclear program,
which they argued posed a threat to
both the United States and Israel.
In 2018 these groups strongly sup-
ported President Trump’s decision
to move the American embassy
from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, over the
strenuous objection of most in the
Middle East and American allies.
Similarly, Americans of Irish her-
itage still maintain vigilance about American policies toward Ireland and Northern
Ireland. Cuban Americans have long been a powerful voice in support of maintaining
sanctions against Cuba. This helps explain why relations with Cuba were not normal-
ized until 2015, and remain tenuous.
A third type of interest group is devoted to human rights or other global causes,
such as protection of the environment. Such groups are made up of people who,
instead of having self-serving economic or ethnic interests in foreign policy, are
genuinely concerned about the welfare and treatment of people throughout the
world—particularly those who suffer under harsh political regimes. One quite
influential example is Amnesty International, whose exposés of human rights abuses
have altered the practices of many regimes around the world. Ecological and envi-
ronmental groups, have staged major protests to support the reduction in global
greenhouse gases and other environmental causes.
A final actor in the realm of foreign policy is public opinion. For the most part,
the public is not as engaged in foreign policy issues as they are with domestic issues.
However, public opinion does begin to count when the nation is at war. Americans
are often impatient with military actions that seem long and drawn out, producing
costs and casualties for reasons that no longer seem clear. Fear of public opinion is
one reason that presidents have favored professional military forces and technologies
like drones that would reduce the immediacy of war to America’s general public.
Tools of American Foreign Policy Include
Diplomacy, Force, and Money
We will deal here with those instru-
ments of American foreign policy
most important in the modern epoch:
diplomacy, the United Nations, the
international monetary structure,
economic aid and sanctions, collective security, military deterrence, and arbitration.
Each of these instruments will be evaluated in this section for its utility in the con-
duct of American foreign policy, and each will be assessed in light of the history and
development of American values.
Describe the means the United
States uses to carry out foreign
policy today
Cuban Americans have strong voices in Congress in
Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), among others.
458 C H A P T E R 1 4 F O R E I G N P O L I C Y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch14_444-474.indd 458 11/28/18 5:36 PM
DIPLOMACY
We begin this treatment of instruments with diplomacy. Diplomacy is the represen-
tation of a government to other foreign governments. Its purpose is to promote
national values or interests by peaceful means. The United States maintains diplo-
matic missions throughout the world. American ambassadors are tasked with main-
taining good relations with foreign governments, promoting a positive view of the
United States abroad, and securing information about foreign governments that
might be helpful to the United States in its international dealings. When it comes to
major diplomatic initiatives, however, such as new international agreements, presi-
dents or their personal representatives usually take charge.
Diplomacy, by its very nature, is overshadowed by spectacular international
events, dramatic initiatives, and meetings among heads of state or their direct
personal representatives. The traditional American distrust of diplomacy continues
today, albeit in weaker form. Impatience with or downright distrust of diplomacy
has been built not only into all the other instruments of foreign policy but also into
the modern presidential system itself.10 So much personal responsibility has been
heaped on the presidency that it is difficult for presidents to entrust any of their
authority or responsibility in foreign policy to professional diplomats in the State
Department and other bureaucracies.
THE UNITED NATIONS IS THE WORLD’S CONGRESS
The utility of the United Nations (UN) to the United States as an instrument of foreign
policy can be too easily underestimated because the UN is a very large and unwieldy
institution with few powers and no armed forces to implement its rules and resolu-
tions. It is an organization of nations founded in 1945 to be a channel for negotia-
tion and a means of settling international disputes peaceably. The UN can serve as a
useful forum for international discussions and an instrument for multilateral action.
Most peacekeeping efforts to which the United States contributes, for example, are
undertaken under UN auspices.
The UN’s supreme body is the General Assembly, comprising one representative
of each of the 192 member states; each member representative has one vote, regard-
less of the size of the country. Important issues require a two-thirds majority vote, and
the annual session of the General Assembly runs only from September to December
(although it can call extra sessions). The General Assembly has little organization that
can make it an effective decision-making body, with only six standing committees,
few tight rules of procedure, and no political parties to provide priorities and disci-
pline. Its defenders are quick to add that although it lacks armed forces, it relies on
the power of world opinion—and this is not to be taken lightly. The powers of the
UN devolve mainly to the organization’s “executive committee,” the UN Security
Council, which alone has the real power to make decisions and rulings that member
states are obligated by the UN Charter to implement. The Security Council may be
called into session at any time, and each member (or a designated alternate) must
be present at UN headquarters in New York at all times. The council is composed of
15 members: 5 are permanent (the victors of World War II), and 10 are elected by
459T O O L S O F A M E R I C A N F O R E I G N P O L I C Y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch14_444-474.indd 459 11/28/18 5:36 PM
the General Assembly for unrepeatable two-year terms. The 5 permanent members
are China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Each of the
15 members has only one vote, and a 9-vote majority of the 15 is required on all
substantive matters. But each of the 5 permanent members also has a negative vote, a
“veto”; and one veto is sufficient to reject any substantive proposal.
THE INTERNATIONAL MONETARY STRUCTURE
HELPS PROVIDE ECONOMIC STABILITY
Fear of a repeat of the economic devastation that followed World War I brought the
United States together with its allies (except the Soviet Union) to Bretton Woods,
New Hampshire, in 1944 to create a new international economic structure for the
postwar world. One major goal of this structure was to prevent economic instability
that might, in turn, lead to political instability and war. Participants in the Bretton
Woods conference were mindful of the economic collapse in Germany that opened
the way for Nazism. At the same time, the structure would give the United States and
its allies greater leverage in the economic and political affairs of developing countries.
The Bretton Woods Conference resulted in two institutions: the International
Bank for Reconstruction and Development (commonly called the World Bank) and
the International Monetary Fund. The World Bank’s chief mission is development
aid to poor countries through long-term capital investments.
The World Bank was set up to finance long-term capital. Leading nations took on
the obligation of contributing funds to enable the World Bank to make loans to capital-
hungry countries. (The U.S. quota has been about one-third of the total.) The
International Monetary Fund (IMF) was set up to provide for the short-term flow of money. It
provides loans and facilitates international monetary exchanges. After the war, the dollar,
instead of gold, was the chief means by which the currencies of one country would be
“changed into” currencies of another country for purposes of making international trans-
actions. To permit debtor countries with no international balances to make purchases
and investments, the IMF was set up to lend dollars or other appropriate currencies
to such needy member countries to help them overcome temporary trade deficits.
During the 1990s the importance of the IMF increased through its efforts to
reform some of the largest debtor nations and formerly communist countries, to
bring them more fully into the global capitalist economy. The future of the IMF, the
World Bank, and all other private sources of international investment will depend
in part on extension of more credit to the developing world because credit means
investment and productivity. But the future may depend even more on reducing
existing debt from previous extensions of credit.
ECONOMIC AID HAS TWO SIDES
Every year, the United States provides nearly $30 billion in economic assistance to
other nations. Some aid has a humanitarian purpose, such as helping to provide
health care, shelter for refugees, or famine relief. Much American aid, however, is
designed to promote American security interests or economic concerns. For exam-
ple, the United States provides military assistance to a number of its allies in the
460 C H A P T E R 1 4 F O R E I G N P O L I C Y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch14_444-474.indd 460 11/28/18 5:36 PM
form of advanced weapons or loans to help them purchase such weapons. These
loans generally stipulate that the recipient must purchase the designated weapons
from American firms. In this way the United States hopes to bolster its security and
economic interests with one grant. The two largest recipients of American military
assistance are Israel and Egypt, American allies that fought two wars against each
other. The United States believes that its military assistance allows both countries to
feel sufficiently secure to remain at peace with each other.
Aid is an economic carrot. Sanctions are an economic stick. Economic sanctions
that the United States employs against other nations include trade embargoes, bans
on investment, and efforts to prevent the World Bank or other international institu-
tions from extending credit to a nation against which the United States has a griev-
ance. Sanctions are most often employed when the United States seeks to weaken
what it considers a hostile regime or when it is attempting to compel some particular
action by another regime. In 2014, for example, the United States imposed economic
sanctions against Russia in response to the Russian annexation of Crimea, which
the United States regards as part of Ukraine. In 2017 the United States tightened its
already existing economic sanctions against North Korea in response to that nation’s
missile tests. The United States also uses economic sanctions to advance its interna-
tional humanitarian policy goals by imposing them against governments with records
of serious violations of civil and political rights.11
COLLECTIVE SECURITY IS DESIGNED TO DETER WAR
Collective security means the development of alliances and agreements among a
group of nations that pledge to aid one another in fending off or confronting secu-
rity threats. In 1947 most Americans hoped that the United States could meet its
world obligations through the UN and economic structures alone. But most foreign-
policy makers anticipated the need for military entanglements at the time of draft-
ing the original UN Charter by insisting on language that recognized the right of
all nations to provide for their mutual defense independent of the UN. Almost
immediately after enactment of the Marshall Plan, designed to promote European
economic recovery, the White House and other top officials urgently requested the
Senate to ratify and both houses of Congress to finance mutual defense alliances.
The first collective security agreement was the Rio Treaty (ratified by the Senate
in 1947), which created the Organization of American States. This was the model
treaty, anticipating all succeeding collective security treaties by providing that an
armed attack against any of its members “shall be considered as an attack against
all the American States,” including the United States. A more significant break with
U.S. tradition of avoiding peacetime entanglements came with the North Atlantic
Treaty (signed in 1949), which created the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
Comprising the United States, Canada, and most of Western Europe, NATO was
formed to counter the perceived threat from the Soviet Union.
In 1998 the expansion of NATO took its first steps toward including former
Warsaw Pact members, extending membership to the Czech Republic, Hungary,
and Poland.12 Most of Washington embraced this expansion as the true and fitting
461T O O L S O F A M E R I C A N F O R E I G N P O L I C Y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch14_444-474.indd 461 11/28/18 5:36 PM
end of the Cold War, and the U.S. Senate echoed this with a resounding 80–19 vote
to induct these three former Soviet satellites into NATO. After the collapse of the
Soviet Union, the importance of NATO as a military alliance seemed to wane. How-
ever, since 2014 the resurgence of Russia as a military power forced NATO members
once again to look to one another for support. In 2014, Russia seized the Crimean
Peninsula from Ukraine and appeared to pose a threat to the Baltic states and other
portions of the old Soviet empire. Russia also sent military forces to support the
Assad regime in Syria. Facing an aggressive new Russia, NATO’s period of relative
quiet seemed to be coming to a close.
The attack on the United States on September 11, 2001, was the first time in its
more than 50-year history that Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty was invoked; it
provides that an attack on one country is an attack on all the member countries. In
fighting “the war on terror,” the Bush administration recognized that no matter how
preponderant American power was, some aspects of U.S. foreign policy could not be
achieved without multilateral cooperation. On the other hand, the United States did
not want to be constrained by its alliances. The global coalition initially forged after
September 11, 2001, numbered more than 170 countries. Not all joined the war
effort in Afghanistan, but most, if not all, provided some form of support for some
aspect of “the war on terror,” such as economic sanctions and intelligence.
MILITARY FORCE IS “POLITICS BY OTHER MEANS”
The most visible instrument of foreign policy is military force. The United States
has built the world’s most imposing military, with army, navy, marine, and air force
units stationed around the globe. The United States is responsible for one-third of
Often military efforts abroad do not turn out as the government or the public expected. Although
most Americans were in favor of U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan following September 11,
2001, public opinion on the issue has shifted.
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch14_444-474.indd 462 11/28/18 5:36 PM
the world’s total military expenditures. The Prussian military strategist Carl von
Clausewitz famously called war “politics by other means.” By this he meant that
nations used force or the threat of force not simply to demonstrate their capacity for
violence but to achieve their foreign policy goals. Military force may be needed to
protect a nation’s security interests and economic concerns. Ironically, force may also
be needed to achieve humanitarian goals. For example, in 2014 and 2015, inter-
national military force was required to protect tens of thousands of Yazidi refugees
threatened by ISIS forces in Iraq. Without the use of military force, humanitarian
assistance to the Yazidis would have been irrelevant.
Military force is generally seen as a last resort to be avoided if possible because a
number of problems are commonly associated with its use. First, the use of military
force is extremely costly in both human and financial terms. In the past 50 years, tens
of thousands of Americans have been killed and hundreds of billions of dollars spent
in America’s military operations. Second, the use of military force is inherently risky.
However carefully policy makers and generals plan for military operations, results
can seldom be fully anticipated. For example, American policy makers expected,
accurately, to defeat the Iraqi army quickly and easily in 2003. Policy makers did
not anticipate, however, that American forces would still be struggling years later
to defeat the insurgency that arose in the war’s aftermath. Finally, in a democracy,
any government that chooses to address policy problems through military means is
almost certain to encounter political difficulties. Generally speaking, the American
public will support relatively short and decisive military engagements. If, however,
a conflict drags on, producing casualties and expenses with no clear outcome, the
public loses patience and opposition politicians point to the government’s lies and
ineptitude.
SOF T POWER USES PERSUASION
The term soft power refers to efforts by one nation to influence the people and govern-
ments of other nations by persuasion rather than coercion. The instruments of soft
power include development aid, cultural diplomacy, student exchange programs,
and other mechanisms designed to shape perceptions. Cultural programs that send
American actors, athletes, and musicians around the world are thought to offer a
positive view of the United States that will encourage foreign governments and their
citizens to see America as the “good guy” in international disputes. Exchange pro-
grams that bring foreign students to the United States serve a similar purpose. The
effects of soft power are difficult to measure but the United States makes an effort
to promote its “brand” of freedom and democracy throughout the world. Other
nations do the same. Chinese development projects in Africa, for example, are partly
intended to promote a favorable image of China on the continent.
ARBITRATION RESOLVES DISPUTES
The final foreign policy tool is dispute arbitration. Arbitration is the resolution of
a disagreement by a neutral third party. International arbitration is sometimes seen
as a form of “soft power” as distinguished from military force, economic sanctions,
463T O O L S O F A M E R I C A N F O R E I G N P O L I C Y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch14_444-474.indd 463 11/28/18 5:36 PM
and other coercive foreign policy instruments. The United States will occasionally
turn to international tribunals to resolve disputes with other countries. For example,
in 2008 the U.S. government asked the International Court of Justice to resolve a
long-standing dispute with Italy over American property confiscated by the Italian
government decades earlier.
More important, the United States relies heavily on the work of arbitral panels
to maintain the flow of international trade on which the U.S. economy depends.
U.S. firms would be reluctant to do business abroad if they could not be certain
that their property and contractual rights would be honored by other nations. Arbi-
tration helps produce that certainty. Almost every international contract contains
an arbitration clause requiring that disputes between the parties will be resolved
not by foreign governments but by impartial arbitral panels accepted by both sides.
By the terms of the New York Convention, virtually every nation in the world has
agreed to accept and enforce arbitral verdicts. The United States has incorporated
the terms of the New York Convention into federal law, and U.S. courts vigorously
enforce arbitral judgments. The United States may not be happy with the outcome
of every arbitral proceeding, but the arbitral system is essential to America’s eco-
nomic interests.
Current Foreign Policy Issues
Facing the United States
The United States currently faces
many foreign policy problems, but a
few stand out: relations with China
and Russia; relations with Iran and
North Korea; the global environ-
ment; and international trade policy. Each reveals how the key players in foreign
policy use the tools at their disposal to achieve their policy goals.
A POWERFUL CHINA AND A RESURGENT RUSSIA
After the United States, China and Russia are the world’s greatest military powers.
China is an economic power as well, with an economy that in some respects already
outpaces America’s and continues to grow. China seems determined to expand its
military capabilities and to replace the United States as the dominant power in Asia.
The United States has no desire to engage in a military conflict with China but,
at the same time, would prefer to blunt Chinese ambitions. The relationship between
the United States and China is not at a point of crisis but represents a growing con-
cern for American policy makers.
While relations with China are a long-term problem, the United States’ inter-
actions with Russia present a more immediate set of issues. Once a global super-
power and America’s chief rival in the world, Russia remains heavily armed but
economically weak. Under its current leader, Vladimir Putin, Russia has challenged
Analyze the foreign policy problems
facing American policy makers
today
464 C H A P T E R 1 4 F O R E I G N P O L I C Y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch14_444-474.indd 464 11/28/18 5:36 PM
the United States in Europe and in the Middle East, and has even meddled in
American politics.13
The first in this series of direct Russian challenges to the United States came in
2014, when Russian forces seized control of the Crimean Peninsula, an area that
had been part of Ukraine, though many of the peninsula’s inhabitants were ethnic
Russians. Russian president Vladimir Putin said Russia’s actions were necessary
to prevent disorder and bloodshed and to reassert Russia’s historic rights to the
region. Russian troops next massed along other portions of the Ukrainian border.
The Obama administration urged the Russians to withdraw, announced a pro-
gram of economic sanctions, and sought through diplomacy to encourage NATO
allies to impose sanctions as well. The result illustrated the difficulties inherent in
collective action and the use of sanctions. Many of the United States’ European
allies depend on Russian energy supplies and engage in a good deal of trade with
the Russians. As a result, while all agreed in principle that Russia should withdraw
from Crimea, none were prepared to follow the American lead of imposing sanc-
tions, and it seemed that nothing would be done to dislodge the Russians from
the area.
In 2015, Russia challenged the United States in another part of the world
when Russian forces entered the Syrian civil war in support of the Assad regime,
which the United States had sought to oust. Russia claimed that its military
actions were aimed at the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other terrorist
groups, but in reality Russian attacks seemed to be directed at anti-Assad rebels.
With American military advisers fighting alongside some of these same rebel
groups, there was danger of a direct clash between Russia and the United States.
President Obama called for Russian withdrawal and for negotiations to prevent
an accidental confrontation between Russian and American military forces. In
2016, Russia claimed to have withdrawn its forces, but it was unclear whether
this action had, in fact, occurred. During the course of the year, the United States
and Russia continued to negotiate—and violate—new agreements as the fighting
continued.
To counter Russia’s actions, the United States has worked to strengthen
and enlarge NATO to include Eastern European nations that feel threatened
by Russia, including Poland, Lithuania, Albania, Bulgaria, and Slovenia. Russia,
for its part, views NATO’s expansion into its former satellite empire as a
provocative action and has sought to enhance its own military capabilities in
the region.
In 2016 Russia also sought to intrude into American presidential politics.
Russian agents purchased ads on Facebook and other social media designed to
cause dissention in the United States, and to exploit ethnic and economic tensions.
For the most part, Russian efforts seemed to favor Donald Trump and oppose
Hillary Clinton. What effect these efforts had is open to question.
Both the Chinese and the Russians have made use of extensive electronic “hack-
ing” to break into the computer systems of American government agencies and
American firms. Both countries deny these allegations—as does the United States
when accused of hacking into Russian and Chinese systems.14
465C U R R E N T F O R E I G N P O L I C Y I S S U E S FA C I N G T H E U N I T E d S TAT E S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch14_444-474.indd 465 11/28/18 5:36 PM
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION IN IRAN AND NORTH KOREA
Unlike China and Russia, Iran and North Korea are not great powers, but both pres-
ent challenges to the United States, especially in the realm of nuclear proliferation.
For years the United States has worried that Iran is working toward obtaining nuclear
weapons with which it could threaten Saudi Arabia and Israel—both close U.S.
allies—and bring Middle Eastern oil fields under its control. To prevent Iran from
obtaining nuclear weapons, U.S. presidents have used a mix of carrots (in the form of
diplomacy) and sticks (in the form of sanctions). In 2015 the United States and Iran
signed an agreement; the Iranians pledged not to build nuclear weapons in exchange
for a lifting of the economic sanctions. Critics of the agreement expressed fears that it
would not deter the Iranians from continuing with their nuclear program, and dur-
ing his presidential campaign Donald Trump promised to abrogate the agreement.
With North Korea, U.S. diplomacy has thus far been futile, because North
Korea’s major backer and trading partner—China—will not cooperate with efforts
by the United States to undermine the North Korean regime. China regards North
Korea as a useful pawn on the geopolitical chessboard, preventing the United States
and two of its allies, Japan and South Korea, from dominating the Sea of Japan. As
a result, the North Koreans have continued to build nuclear warheads and to test
missiles capable of carrying them. The current North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un,
angered the Chinese by arresting and killing several members of North Korea’s lead-
ership, including members of Kim’s own family, whom he deemed too closely asso-
ciated with China. With his actions, Kim reduced Chinese influence over North
Korea’s policies, leaving the country’s Chinese patrons unsure of how to proceed.
The Secretary of State is America’s chief diplomat. Here, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo meets
with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un.
466 C H A P T E R 1 4 F O R E I G N P O L I C Y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch14_444-474.indd 466 11/28/18 5:36 PM
President Trump met with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un in June 2018 seeking
to improve America’s relations with North Korea and, perhaps, to move that nation
out of the Chinese orbit.
TRADE POLICY
Trade is one of the most contentious issues in contemporary international relations.
The United States has accused China and other nations of unfair trade practices that
limit the sale of goods in their markets while they export billions of dollars in goods
to the United States. Trade also affects job growth in the United States, which has
been low for several years. Populist politicians like Donald Trump charge that this
is the result of trade policies that allowed American jobs to be exported to Asia and
Mexico where labor is cheaper. Trade, as we saw above, supports many millions of
jobs in the United States. However, U.S. workers whose jobs were lost when indus-
tries moved abroad call for tariffs and other remedies they hope might bring their
jobs back to the United States.
Many workers voted for Donald Trump, who criticized U.S. trade policies during
his campaign and promised to bring these jobs back. One of Trump’s first acts in
office was to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a free-trade
agreement between the United States and 11 Pacific Rim nations. Trump said the
TPP would allow foreign countries to profit at America’s expense.
Trade disputes have especially complicated America’s relationship with China.
In 2010 the United States accused China of manipulating trade rules to its own
advantage, and China, in return, accused the United States of mismanaging its own
economy. In 2012, China announced that it would reduce its purchases of U.S. gov-
ernment securities in order to become less vulnerable to fluctuations in the value of the
dollar. The United States pointed out that this might result in a reduction of its imports
of Chinese goods. President Trump has declared that the Chinese trade unfairly and
has promised to change the rules in America’s favor—a move sure to increase Chinese
enmity toward the United States. In 2018, President Trump announced the imposi-
tion of $50 billion in tariffs on Chinese steel, aluminum, and electronic goods sold to
the United States. China quickly announced that it would retaliate with tariffs on U.S.
farm products, seafoods, and autos sold in China. These moves raised the prospect of
an all-out trade war between the world’s two largest economies.
GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
A final trouble spot for American policy makers is international environmental pol-
icy. The environment is a global matter. Pollutants produced in one country affect all
others. Generally speaking, the United States supports various international efforts
to protect the environment. These include the United Nations Framework Con-
vention on Climate Change, an international agreement to study and ameliorate
harmful changes in the global environment, and the Montreal Protocol, an agree-
ment signed by over 150 countries to limit the production of substances potentially
harmful to the world’s ozone layer. Other nations have criticized the United States
for withdrawing from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, an agreement setting limits on
467C U R R E N T F O R E I G N P O L I C Y I S S U E S FA C I N G T H E U N I T E d S TAT E S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch14_444-474.indd 467 11/28/18 5:36 PM
industrial countries’ emissions of greenhouse gases. The United States asserted that
the Kyoto Protocol would harm American economic interests. The Kyoto Protocol
expired in 2012, but 37 of the original signatories signed the Doha Amendment
to renew their commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The United States
refrained from signing this new agreement as well.
In 2015, however, the United States did signed on to the Paris Agreement to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Each country agreed to reduce emissions but
would set its own contribution to the effort. Many Republicans, including Donald
Trump, opposed the agreement, and as president, Trump ended U.S. participation
in the Paris Agreement, stating that strict environmental controls would undermine
American manufacturing interests and cause more jobs to leave the United States
in favor of developing nations without such standards. America’s western European
allies, on the other hand, remain committed to the Paris Agreement and view the
American administration as uninformed and reckless.
Foreign Policy and Democracy
WHAT DO WE WANT?
The harsh realities of foreign policy often clash with the United States’ history and
ideals. U.S. democratic and liberal traditions lead Americans to hope for a world in
which ideals rather than naked interests govern foreign policy and in which U.S. leaders
follow those ideals. American ideals are what attracted many of those affected by the
2017 travel ban (and generations of immigrants before them) to the United States in
the first place. Traditional American values assert that our foreign policies should have
a higher purpose than narrow self-interest and that America would use force only as a
last resort. But the realities of foreign policy often collide with these historical ideals,
leaving U.S. policy makers to struggle to explain their actions and avoid admitting to
motivations that might not sit well with the public.
International events can make it difficult to pursue those ideals. The forces of global-
ization mean that it is easier than ever for small groups of extremists with violent inten-
tions to travel to American shores and carry out their plans. (The “Who Participates?”
feature on the facing page shows public opinion on security issues and reflects strong
concern about international terrorism among all age groups.) On the other hand, those
same forces of globalization have been the source of many positive outcomes. Greater
trade reduces the price of many products for American consumers as well as for those
abroad. Furthermore, many scholars believe that the increasing global economic inter-
dependence is a force for peace: nations that trade heavily with each other are less
likely to go to war with each other. What can U.S. leaders do in the future to make sure
that globalization is a positive force that promotes U.S. security and prosperity?
468 C H A P T E R 1 4 F O R E I G N P O L I C Y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch14_444-474.indd 468 11/28/18 5:36 PM
SOURCE: Pew Research Center, “Partisans Have Starkly Different Opinions
about How the World Views the U.S.,” pewresearch.org (accessed 1/11/18).
Iran’s nuclear program Global climate change
83%
28%
45%
63%
Cyberattacks from
other countries ISIS
75%
70%
64%
74%
China’s power
& in�uence
43%
48%
North Korea’s
nuclear program
75%
74%
Russia’s power
& in�uence
63%
38%
As we learned in this chapter, public opinion can in�uence foreign policy. However, many
Americans are not engaged with or knowledgeable about foreign policy. Moreover, public
opinion varies by political party. These �gures show what percentage of members of each
major political party think each issue is a major threat to the United States.
Democrats
Republicans
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
WHO PAR TICIPATES?
Public Opinion on
Security Issues
Percentage who think each is a major threat
to the well-being of the United States
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch14_444-474.indd 469 11/28/18 5:36 PM
Practice Quiz
1. Which of the following terms best
describes the American posture
toward the world prior to the twentieth
century? (p. 447)
a) interventionist
b) isolationist
c) appeasement
d) humanitarian
e) internationalist
2. Which of the following terms describes
an effort to forestall war by giving
in to the demands of a hostile power?
(p. 448)
a) appeasement
b) deterrence
c) détente
d) containment
e) “Minuteman” theory of defense
3. The World Trade Organization is
(p. 451)
a) an agency in the federal executive
branch that analyzes trade deficits.
b) an American interest group that
lobbies Congress for the passage
of agricultural and manufacturing
tariffs.
c) an American interest group that
lobbies Congress for the passage
of so-called Fair Trade laws.
d) an international organization
composed of Western European
countries that oppose free trade.
e) an international organization
promoting free trade that grew
out of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade.
Stay Informed about International News
WHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DOWHAT YOU CAN DO
Consider working with an interest group on a foreign policy issue you
care about, such as Amnesty International (human rights), Move America
Forward (supporting American troops), or Just Foreign Policy (equality
and justice from a nonpartisan perspective).
Learn more about the issues above and others through coverage in
major U.S. newspapers such as the New York Times (www.nytimes.com)
and the Wall Street Journal (www.wsj.com).
For in-depth conversations about world affairs, watch videos at the
World Affairs Council (www.worldaffairs.org) or the Council on Foreign
Relations (www.cfr.org).
470 S T U d Y G U I d E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch14_444-474.indd 470 11/28/18 5:36 PM
4. The Bush Doctrine refers to (p. 454)
a) the idea that the United States
should not allow foreign powers to
meddle in the Western Hemisphere.
b) the idea that the United States
should avoid future wars by giving
in to the demands of hostile foreign
powers.
c) the idea that the United States
should take preemptive action
against threats to its national
security.
d) the idea that the United States
should never take preemptive
action against threats to its
national security.
e) the idea that the United States
should always secure international
approval before taking any military
action.
5. An agreement made between the pres-
ident and another country that has the
force of a treaty but does not require
the Senate’s “advice and consent” is
called (p. 454)
a) an executive order.
b) an executive privilege.
c) an executive agreement.
d) a diplomatic decree.
e) arbitration.
6. The Constitution assigns the power to
declare war to (p. 456)
a) the National Security Council.
b) the president.
c) the chief justice of the United
States.
d) the secretary of defense.
e) Congress.
7. Which of the following statements
about the United Nations is not true?
(p. 459)
a) It has a powerful army to implement
its decisions.
b) It gives every country one vote in
the General Assembly.
c) The five permanent members of
the UN Security Council are China,
France, Russia, the United Kingdom,
and the United States.
d) It was designed to be a channel
for negotiation and a means of
settling international disputes
peaceably.
e) Important issues require a
two-thirds majority vote.
8. Which of the following were founded
during the 1940s in order to create a
new international monetary structure
for the postwar world? (p. 460)
a) the Federal Reserve System
and the Council of Economic
Advisors
b) the North Atlantic Treaty Organiza-
tion and the Southeast Asia Treaty
Organization
c) the International Monetary Fund
and the World Bank
d) the International Court of Justice
and the Warsaw Pact
e) the Office of Management and
Budget and the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade
9. Cultural programs that send Ameri-
can actors, athletes, and musicians
around the world in order to promote a
positive view of the United States are
examples of the use of (p. 463)
a) soft power.
b) star power.
c) arbitration.
d) détente.
e) hard power.
10. In 2015 the United States entered into
an international agreement to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions called the
(p. 468)
a) Kyoto Protocol.
b) doha Amendment.
c) Trans-Pacific Partnership.
d) Montreal Protocol.
e) Paris Agreement.
471S T U d Y G U I d E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch14_444-474.indd 471 11/28/18 5:36 PM
Key Terms
appeasement (p. 448) the effort to
forestall war by giving in to the demands
of a hostile power
Bush Doctrine (p. 454) foreign policy based
on the idea that the United States should
take preemptive action against threats to
its national security
Cold War (p. 448) the period of struggle
between the United States and the former
Soviet Union lasting from the late 1940s
to about 1990
containment (p. 448) a policy designed to
curtail the political and military expansion
of a hostile power
deterrence (p. 448) the development and
maintenance of military strength as a
means of discouraging attack
diplomacy (p. 459) the representation
of a government to foreign governments
executive agreement (p. 455) an agree-
ment, made between the president and
another country, that has the force of a
treaty but does not require the Senate’s
“advice and consent”
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT) (p. 451) international trade
organization, in existence from 1947
to 1995, that set many of the rules
governing international trade
International Monetary Fund (IMF) (p. 460)
an institution established in 1944 that
provides loans and facilitates international
monetary exchange
isolationism (p. 447) avoidance of involve-
ment in the affairs of other nations
nation-states (p. 449) political entities
consisting of people with some common
cultural experience (nation) who also share
a common political authority (state), recog-
nized by other sovereignties (nation-states)
non-state actors (p. 447) groups other than
nation-states that attempt to play a role in
the international system; terrorist groups
are one type of non-state actor
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
(p. 461) an organization, comprising the
United States, Canada, and most of West-
ern Europe, formed in 1949 to counter the
perceived threat from the Soviet Union
preventive war (p. 448) policy of striking
first when a nation fears that a foreign foe
is contemplating hostile action
United Nations (UN) (p. 459) an organization
of nations founded in 1945 to be a channel
for negotiation and a means of settling
international disputes peaceably; the UN
has had frequent successes in providing a
forum for negotiation and on some occa-
sions a means of preventing international
conflicts from spreading; on a number of
occasions, the UN has supported U.S.
foreign policy goals
United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement
(USMCA) (p. 451) trade treaty among the
United States, Canada, and Mexico to
lower and eliminate tariffs among the
three countries
World Trade Organization (WTO) (p. 451)
international organization promoting
free trade that grew out of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
472 S T U d Y G U I d E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch14_444-474.indd 472 11/28/18 5:36 PM
Art, Robert. The Use of Force: Military Power and International Politics. New York: Rowman
and Littlefield, 2009.
Gaddis, John L. The Cold War: A New History. New York: Penguin, 2005.
Ginsberg, Benjamin. The Worth of War. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2014.
Haass, Richard. A World in Disarray: Foreign Policy and the Crisis of the Old Order.
New York: Penguin, 2017.
Hook, Steven W., and John Spanier. American Foreign Policy since World War II. 20th ed.
Washington, dC: CQ Press, 2016.
Ikenberry, John. American Foreign Policy. New York: Wadsworth, 2010.
Jentleson, Bruce. American Foreign Policy: The Dynamics of Choice in the 21st Century.
5th ed. New York: W. W. Norton, 2013.
Mandelbaum, Michael. The Case for Goliath: How America Acts as the World’s Government
in the 21st Century. Washington, dC: Public Affairs Press, 2005.
Mearsheimer, John J., and Stephen M. Walt. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.
New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2008.
Nasr, Vali. The Dispensable Nation: American Foreign Policy in Retreat. New York: Anchor
Books, 2014.
For Further Reading
473S T U d Y G U I d E
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch14_444-474.indd 473 11/28/18 5:36 PM
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch14_444-474.indd 474 11/28/18 5:36 PM
The Declaration of Independence
In Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the
political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers
of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God
entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare
the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty
and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.—That whenever
any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People
to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect
their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long estab-
lished should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience
hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right
themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of
abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them
under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government,
and to provide new Guards for their future security.—Such has been the patient sufferance
of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former
Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of
repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute
Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance,
unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so sus-
pended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people,
unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right
inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant
from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into
compliance with his measures.
Appendix
A1
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 1 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A2 A P P E N D I X T h e D e C l a r aT I o n o f I n D e p e n D e n C e
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his
invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected;
whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at
large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of
invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstruct-
ing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their
migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for estab-
lishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the
amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass
our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our
legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution,
and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they
should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighboring Province, establishing
therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an
example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamen-
tally the Forms of our Govern ments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to
legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging
War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives
of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the
works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty &
perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a
civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms
against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall
themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the
inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an
undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 2 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A3T h e D e C l a r aT I o n o f I n D e p e n D e n C e A P P E N D I X
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble
terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose
character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a
free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them
from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction
over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here.
We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the
ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt
our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of
consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separa-
tion, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.
We, Therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress,
Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions,
do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish
and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent
States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political
connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved;
and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace,
contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Indepen-
dent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance
on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our
Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 3 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A4 A P P E N D I X T h e D e C l a r aT I o n o f I n D e p e n D e n C e
The foregoing Declaration was, by order of Congress, engrossed, and signed by the
following members:
John Hancock
Resolved, That copies of the Declaration be sent to the several assemblies, conventions, and
committees, or councils of safety, and to the several commanding officers of the continental
troops; that it be proclaimed in each of the United States, at the head of the army.
NE W JERSE Y
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark
PENNSYLVANIA
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
DEL AWARE
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas M’Kean
MARYL AND
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll,
of Carrollton
VIRGINIA
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton
NORTH CAROLINA
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
SOUTH CAROLINA
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton
GEORGIA
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton
NE W HAMPSHIRE
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Matthew Thornton
MASSACHUSET TS
BAY
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
RHODE ISL AND
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
CONNECTICUT
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
NE W YORK
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 4 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A5T h e a r T I C l e s o f C o n f e D e r aT I o n A P P E N D I X
The Articles of Confederation
agreed to by Congress november 15, 1777;
ratified and in force March 1, 1781
To all whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed
to our Names, send greeting. Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America, in
Congress assembled, did, on the fifteenth day of November, in the Year of Our Lord One
thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence
of America, agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the
States of Newhampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhodeisland and Providence Plantations,
Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-
Carolina, South-Carolina and Georgia in the words following, viz. “Articles of Confederation
and perpetual Union between the states of Newhampshire, Massachusettsbay, Rhodeisland
and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware,
Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina and Georgia.
Art. I. The Stile of this confederacy shall be “The United States of America.”
Art. II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every Power,
Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United
States, in Congress assembled.
Art. III. The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each
other, for their common defence, the security of their Liberties, and their mutual and general
welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made
upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence
whatever.
Art. IV. The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among
the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states,
paupers, vagabonds and fugitives from Justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and
immunities of free citizens in the several states; and the people of each state shall have free
ingress and regress to and from any other state, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of
trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions and restrictions as the inhabit-
ants thereof respectively, provided that such restriction shall not extend so far as to prevent
the removal of property imported into any state, to any other state, of which the Owner is an
inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any state,
on the property of the united states, or either of them.
If any Person guilty of, or charged with treason, felony, or other high misdemeanor in any
state, shall flee from Justice, and be found in any of the united states, he shall, upon demand
of the Governor or executive power, of the state from which he fled, be delivered up and
removed to the state having jurisdiction of his offence.
Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these states to the records, acts and judicial
proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other state.
Art. V. For the more convenient management of the general interests of the united states,
delegates shall be annually appointed in such manner as the legislature of each state shall
direct, to meet in Congress on the first Monday in November, in every year, with a power
reserved to each state, to recall its delegates, or any of them, at any time within the year, and
to send others in their stead, for the remainder of the Year.
No state shall be represented in Congress by less than two, nor by more than seven
Members; and no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 5 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A6 A P P E N D I X T h e a r T I C l e s o f C o n f e D e r aT I o n
any term of six years; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be capable of holding any office
under the united states, for which he, or another for his benefit receives any salary, fees or
emolument of any kind.
Each state shall maintain its own delegates in a meeting of the states, and while they act
as members of the committee of the states.
In determining questions in the united states, in Congress assembled, each state shall have
one vote.
Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any
Court, or place out of Congress, and the members of congress shall be protected in their
persons from arrests and imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and
attendance on congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace.
Art. VI. No state without the Consent of the united states in congress assembled, shall
send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement,
or alliance or treaty with any King, prince or state; nor shall any person holding any office
or profit or trust under the united states, or any of them, accept of any present, emolument,
office or title of any kind whatever from any king, prince or foreign state; nor shall the united
states in congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.
No two or more states shall enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance whatever
between them, without the consent of the united states in congress assembled, specifying
accurately the purposes for which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall
continue.
No state shall lay any imposts or duties, which may interfere with any stipulations in trea-
ties, entered into by the united states in congress assembled, with any king, prince or state,
in pursuance of any treaties already proposed by congress, to the courts of France and Spain.
No vessels of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any state, except such number
only, as shall be deemed necessary by the united states in congress assembled, for the
defence of such state, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any state, in
time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgment of the united states, in con-
gress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defence
of such state; but every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia,
sufficiently armed and accoutred, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use,
in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms,
ammunition and camp equipage.
No state shall engage in any war without the consent of the united states in congress
assembled, unless such state be actually invaded by enemies, or shall have received certain
advice of a resolution being formed by some nation of Indians to invade such state, and the
danger is so imminent as not to admit of a delay, till the united states in congress asssembled
can be consulted; nor shall any state grant commissions to any ships or vessels of war, nor
letters of marque or reprisal, except it be after a declaration of war by the united states in
congress assembled, and then only against the kingdom or state and the subjects thereof,
against which war has been so declared, and under such regulations as shall be established
by the united states in congress assembled, unless such state be infested by pirates; in which
case vessels of war may be fitted out for that occasion, and kept so long as the danger shall
continue, or until the united states in congress assembled shall determine otherwise.
Art. VII. When land-forces are raised by any state for the common defence, all officers of
or under the rank of colonel, shall be appointed by the legislature of each state respectively, by
whom such forces shall be raised, or in such manner as such state shall direct, and all vacan-
cies shall be filled up by the state which first made the appointment.
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 6 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A7T h e a r T I C l e s o f C o n f e D e r aT I o n A P P E N D I X
Art. VIII. All charges of war, and all other expences that shall be incurred for the com-
mon defence or general welfare, and allowed by the united states in congress assembled,
shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several states in
proportion to the value of all land within each state, granted to or surveyed for any Person,
as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according
to such mode as the united states in congress assembled, shall from time to time direct
and appoint.
The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direc-
tion of the legislatures of the several states within the time agreed upon by the united states
in congress assembled.
Art. IX. The united states in congress assembled, shall have the sole and exclusive right
and power of determining on peace and war, except in the cases mentioned in the sixth
article—of sending and receiving ambassadors—entering into treaties and alliances, provided
that no treaty of commerce shall be made whereby the legislative power of the respective
states shall be restrained from imposing such imposts and duties on foreigners, as their own
people are subjected to, or from prohibiting the exportation of any species of goods or com-
modities whatsoever—of establishing rules for deciding in all cases, what captures on land or
water shall be legal, and in what manner prizes taken by land or naval forces in the service of
the united states shall be divided or appropriated—of granting letters of marque and reprisal
in times of peace—appointing courts for the trial of piracies and felonies committed on the
high seas and establishing courts for receiving and determining finally appeals in all cases
of captures, provided that no member of congress shall be appointed a judge of any of the
said courts.
The united states in congress assembled shall also be the last resort on appeal in all dis-
putes and differences now subsisting or that hereafter may arise between two or more states
concerning boundary, jurisdiction or any other cause whatever; which authority shall always
be exercised in the manner following. Whenever the legislative or executive authority or law-
ful agent of any state in controversy with another shall present a petition to congress stating
the matter in question and praying for a hearing, notice thereof shall be given by order of
congress to the legislative or executive authority of the other state in controversy, and a day
assigned for the appearance of the parties by their lawful agents, who shall then be directed
to appoint by joint consent, commissioners or judges to constitute a court for hearing and
determining the matter in question: but if they cannot agree, congress shall name three
persons out of each of the united states, and from the list of such persons each party shall
alternately strike out one, the petitioners beginning, until the number shall be reduced to
thirteen; and from that number not less than seven, nor more than nine names as congress
shall direct, shall in the presence of congress be drawn out by lot, and the persons whose
names shall be so drawn or any five of them, shall be commissioners or judges, to hear and
finally determine the controversy, so always as a major part of the judges who shall hear the
cause shall agree in the determination: and if either party shall neglect to attend at the day
appointed, without shewing reasons, which congress shall judge sufficient, or being present
shall refuse to strike, the congress shall proceed to nominate three persons out of each state,
and the secretary of congress shall strike in behalf of such party absent or refusing; and the
judgment and sentence of the court to be appointed, in the manner before prescribed, shall
be final and conclusive; and if any of the parties shall refuse to submit to the authority of
such court, or to appear to defend their claim or cause, the court shall nevertheless proceed
to pronounce sentence, or judgment, which shall in like manner be final and decisive, the
judgment or sentence and other proceedings being in either case transmitted to congress,
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 7 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A8 A P P E N D I X T h e a r T I C l e s o f C o n f e D e r aT I o n
and lodged among the acts of congress for the security of the parties concerned: provided
that every commissioner, before he sits in judgment, shall take an oath to be administered
by one of the judges of the supreme or superior court of the state, where the cause shall be
tried, “well and truly to hear and determine the matter in question, according to the best of
his judgment, without favour, affection or hope of reward:” provided also, that no state shall
be deprived of territory for the benefit of the united states.
All controversies concerning the private right of soil claimed under different grants of
two or more states, whose jurisdictions as they may respect such lands, and the states which
passed such grants are adjusted, the said grants or either of them being at the same time
claimed to have originated antecedent to such settlement of jurisdiction, shall on the petition
of either party to the congress of the united states, be finally determined as near as may be in
the same manner as is before prescribed for deciding disputes respecting territorial jurisdic-
tion between different states.
The united states in congress assembled shall also have the sole and exclusive right and
power of regulating the alloy and value of coin struck by their own authority, or by that of
the respective states—fixing the standard of weights and measures throughout the united
states—regulating the trade and managing all affairs with the Indians, not members of any of
the states, provided that the legislative right of any state within its own limits be not infringed
or violated—establishing and regulating post-offices from one state to another, throughout
all the united states, and exacting such postage on the papers passing thro’ the same as may
be requisite to defray the expences of the said office—appointing all officers of the land
forces, in the service of the united states, excepting regimental officers— appointing all the
officers of the naval forces, and commissioning all officers whatever in the service of the united
states—making rules for the government and regulation of the said land and naval forces,
and directing their operations.
The united states in congress assembled shall have authority to appoint a committee, to sit
in the recess of congress, to be denominated “A Committee of the States,” and to consist of
one delegate from each state; and to appoint such other committees and civil officers as may
be necessary for managing the general affairs of the united states under their direction—to
appoint one of their number to preside, provided that no person be allowed to serve in the
office of president more than one year in any term of three years; to ascertain the necessary
sums of Money to be raised for the service of the united states, and to appropriate and apply
the same for defraying the public expenses—to borrow money, or emit bills on the credit of
the united states, transmitting every half year to the respective states an account of the sums
of money so borrowed or emitted,—to build and equip a navy—to agree upon the number
of land forces, and to make requisitions from each state for its quota, in proportion to the
number of white inhabitants in such state; which requisition shall be binding, and thereupon
the legislature of each state shall appoint the regimental officers, raise the men and cloath,
arm and equip them in a soldier like manner, at the expense of the united states; and the
officers and men so cloathed, armed and equipped shall march to the place appointed, and
within the time agreed on by the united states in congress assembled: But if the united states
in congress assembled shall, on consideration of circumstances judge proper that any state
should not raise men, or should raise a smaller number than its quota, and that any other
state should raise a greater number of men than the quota thereof, such extra number shall
be raised, officered, cloathed, armed and equipped in the same manner as the quota of such
state, unless the legislature of such state shall judge that such extra number cannot be safely
spared out of the same, in which case they shall raise officer, cloath, arm and equip as many of
such extra number as they judge can be safely spared. And the officers and men so cloathed,
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 8 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A9T h e a r T I C l e s o f C o n f e D e r aT I o n A P P E N D I X
armed and equipped, shall march to the place appointed, and within the time agreed on by
the united states in congress assembled.
The united states in congress assembled shall never engage in a war, nor grant letters of
marque and reprisal in time of peace, nor enter into any treaties or alliances, nor coin money,
nor regulate the value thereof, nor ascertain the sums and expenses necessary for the defence
and welfare of the united states, or any of them, nor emit bills, nor borrow money on the
credit of the united states, nor appropriate money, nor agree upon the number of vessels of
war, to be built or purchased, or the number of land or sea forces to be raised, nor appoint
a commander in chief of the army or navy, unless nine states assent to the same: nor shall a
question on any other point, except for adjourning from day to day be determined, unless by
the votes of a majority of the united states in congress assembled.
The congress of the united states shall have power to adjourn to any time within the year,
and to any place within the united states, so that no period of adjournment be for a longer
duration than the space of six Months, and shall publish the Journal of their proceedings
monthly, except such parts thereof relating to treaties, alliances or military operations, as in
their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the delegates of each state on any
question shall be entered on the Journal, when it is desired by any delegate; and the delegates
of a state, or any of them, at his or their request shall be furnished with a transcript of the
said Journal, except such parts as are above excepted, to lay before the legislatures of the
several states.
Art. X. The committee of the states, or any nine of them, shall be authorised to execute,
in the recess of congress, such of the powers of congress as the united states in congress
assembled, by the consent of nine states, shall from time to time think expedient to vest them
with; provided that no power be delegated to the said committee, for the exercise of which,
by the articles of confederation, the voice of nine states in the congress of the united states
assembled is requisite.
Art. XI. Canada acceding to this confederation, and joining in the measures of the united
states, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this union: but no other
colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine states.
Art. XII. All bills of credit emitted, monies borrowed and debts contracted by, or under
the authority of congress, before the assembling of the united states, in pursuance of the
present confederation, shall be deemed and considered as a charge against the united states,
for payment and satisfaction whereof the said united states and the public faith are hereby
solemnly pledged.
Art. XIII. Every state shall abide by the determinations of the united states in congress
assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the
Articles of this confederation shall be inviolably observed by every state, and the union
shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them;
unless such alteration be agreed to in a congress of the united states, and be afterwards
confirmed by the legislatures of every state.
And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the
legislatures we respectively represent in congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify
the said articles of confederation and perpetual union. Know Ye that we the undersigned del-
egates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents,
in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm
each and every of the said articles of confederation and perpetual union, and all and singular
the matters and things therein contained: And we do further solemnly plight and engage the
faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the united
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 9 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A10 A P P E N D I X T h e a r T I C l e s o f C o n f e D e r aT I o n
states in congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said confederation are submitted
to them. And that the articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the states we respectively
represent, and that the union shall be perpetual. In Witness whereof we have hereunto set our
hands in Congress. Done at Philadelphia in the state of Pennsylvania the ninth day of July, in
the Year of our Lord one Thousand seven Hundred and Seventy-eight, and in the third year
of the independence of America.
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 10 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A11T h e C o n s T I T U T I o n o f T h e U n I T e D s TaT e s o f a M e r I C a A P P E N D I X
The Constitution of the
United States of America
[preamble]
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice,
insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.
ARTICLE I
SECTION 1
[legislative powers]
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which
shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
SECTION 2
[house of representatives, how constituted, power of impeachment]
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by
the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications
requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five
Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected,
be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
Representatives and direct Taxes1 shall be apportioned among the several States which
may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be
determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for
a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.2 The actual
Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of
the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they
shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty
Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration
shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight,
Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four,
Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Caro-
lina five, and Georgia three.3
When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority
thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have
the sole Power of Impeachment.
1Modified by sixteenth amendment.
2Modified by fourteenth amendment.
3Temporary provision.
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 11 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A12 A P P E N D I X T h e C o n s T I T U T I o n o f T h e U n I T e D s TaT e s o f a M e r I C a
SECTION 3
[the senate, how constituted, impeachment trials]
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by
the Legislature thereof,4 for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall
be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class
shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of
the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third
may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during
the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments
until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.5
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years,
and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an
Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no
Vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the
Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the
United States.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that
Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is
tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concur-
rence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office,
and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United
States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial,
Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
SECTION 4
[election of senators and representatives]
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be
prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law
make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first
Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.6
SECTION 5
[quorum, journals, meetings, adjournments]
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own
Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller
Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance
of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
4Modified by seventeenth amendment.
5Modified by seventeenth amendment.
6Modified by Twentieth amendment.
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 12 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A13
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disor-
derly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the
same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays
of the Members of either House on any questions shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those
Present, be entered on the Journal.
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other,
adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses
shall be sitting.
SECTION 6
[compensation, privileges, disabilities]
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be
ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all
Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their
Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from
the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any
other Place.
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be
appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have
been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and
no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House
during his Continuance in Office.
SECTION 7
[procedure in passing bills and resolutions]
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate
may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall,
before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve
he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it
shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed
to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass
the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall
likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law.
But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and
the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of
each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days
(Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like
Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return,
in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House
of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be pre-
sented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be
approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the
Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in
the Case of a Bill.
T h e C o n s T I T U T I o n o f T h e U n I T e D s TaT e s o f a M e r I C a A P P E N D I X
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 13 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A14
SECTION 8
[powers of congress]
The Congress shall have Power
To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for
the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and
Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the
Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of
Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of
Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the
United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to
Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences
against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning
Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a
longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insur-
rections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part
of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respec-
tively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to
the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding
ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress,
become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority
over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the
Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful
Buildings;—And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the
foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the
United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
SECTION 9
[some restrictions on feder al power]
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper
to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred
A P P E N D I X T h e C o n s T I T U T I o n o f T h e U n I T e D s TaT e s o f a M e r I C a
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 14 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A15
and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for
each Person.7
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.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or
Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.8
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one
State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter,
clear, or pay Duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made
by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public
Money shall be published from time to time.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office
of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any pres-
ent, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
SECTION 10
[restrictions upon powers of states]
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque
and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a
Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing
the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on
Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection
Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports,
shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to
the Revision and Control of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops,
or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State,
or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent
Danger as will not admit of delay.
ARTICLE II
SECTION 1
[executive power, election, qualifications of the president]
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall
hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the
same Term, be elected, as follows9
7Temporary provision.
8Modified by sixteenth amendment.
9number of terms limited to two by Twenty-second amendment.
T h e C o n s T I T U T I o n o f T h e U n I T e D s TaT e s o f a M e r I C a A P P E N D I X
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 15 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A16
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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an
Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by ballot for two Persons, of whom
one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a
List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign
and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the
President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House
of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having
the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole
Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have
an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one
of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the
said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall
be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose
shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States
shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the person having
the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain
two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.10
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which
they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of
the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall
any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five
Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or his Death, Resignation, or Inabil-
ity to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice
President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resigna-
tion or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then
act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a
President shall be elected.
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall
neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected,
and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or
any of them.
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or
Affirmation:—“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of
President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and
defend the Constitution of the United States.”
SECTION 2
[powers of the president]
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and
of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
10Modified by Twelfth and Twentieth amendments.
A P P E N D I X T h e C o n s T I T U T I o n o f T h e U n I T e D s TaT e s o f a M e r I C a
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 16 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A17
he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive
Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall
have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in
Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Trea-
ties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by
and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public
Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United
States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be
established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior
Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads
of Departments.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the
Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their
next Session.
SECTION 3
[powers and duties of the president]
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and
recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;
he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case
of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn
them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public
Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all
the Officers of the United States.
SECTION 4
[impeachment]
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed
from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes
and Misdemeanors.
ARTICLE III
SECTION 1
[judicial power, tenure of office]
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such
inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges,
both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and
shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished
during their Continuance in Office.
SECTION 2
[jurisdiction]
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitu-
tion, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their
Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all
Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States
T h e C o n s T I T U T I o n o f T h e U n I T e D s TaT e s o f a M e r I C a A P P E N D I X
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 17 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A18
shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citi-
zens of another State;—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same
State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens
thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.11
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in
which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the
other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to
Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial
shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not
committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may
by Law have directed.
SECTION 3
[treason, proof, and punishment]
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in
adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of
Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession
in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of
Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person
attainted.
ARTICLE IV
SECTION 1
[faith and credit among states]
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial
Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Man-
ner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
SECTION 2
[privileges and immunities, fugitives]
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the
several States.
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony or other Crime, who shall flee from
Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the
State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of
the Crime.
No person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another,
shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour,
but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.12
11Modified by eleventh amendment.
12repealed by the Thirteenth amendment.
A P P E N D I X T h e C o n s T I T U T I o n o f T h e U n I T e D s TaT e s o f a M e r I C a
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 18 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A19
SECTION 3
[admission of new states]
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be
formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the
Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of
the States concerned as well as of the Congress.
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations
respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this
Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any
particular State.
SECTION 4
[guar antee of republican government]
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of
Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of
the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against
domestic Violence.
ARTICLE V
[amendment of the constitution]
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose
Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds
of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either
Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified
by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths
thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;
Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hun-
dred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section
of the first Article;13 and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal
Suffrage in the Senate.
ARTICLE VI
[debts, supremacy, oath]
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Consti-
tution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the
Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursu-
ance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the
United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall
be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State
Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the
13Temporary provision.
T h e C o n s T I T U T I o n o f T h e U n I T e D s TaT e s o f a M e r I C a A P P E N D I X
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 19 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A20
several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no
religious Test shall be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the
United States.
ARTICLE VII
[r atification and establishment]
The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment
of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.14
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth
Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and
of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have
hereunto subscribed our Names,
G:0 WASHINGTON—
Presidt. and deputy from Virginia
14The Constitution was submitted on september 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention, was
ratified by the conventions of several states at various dates up to May 29, 1790, and became effective
on March 4, 1789.
PENNSYLVANIA
B Franklin
Thomas Mifflin
Robt. Morris
Geo. Clymer
Thos. FitzSimons
Jared Ingersoll
James Wilson
Gouv Morris
DEL AWARE
Geo: Read
Gunning Bedford jun
John Dickinson
Richard Bassett
Jaco: Broom
MARYL AND
James McHenry
Dan of St Thos. Jenifer
Danl. Carroll
VIRGINIA
John Blair—
James Madison Jr.
NORTH CAROLINA
Wm. Blount
Richd. Dobbs Spaight
Hu Williamson
SOUTH CAROLINA
J. Rutledge
Charles Cotesworth
Pinckney
Charles Pinckney
Pierce Butler
GEORGIA
William Few
Abr Baldwin
NE W HAMPSHIRE
John Langdon
Nicholas Gilman
MASSACHUSET TS
Nathaniel Gorham
Rufus King
CONNECTICUT
Wm. Saml. Johnson
Roger Sherman
NE W YORK
Alexander Hamilton
NE W JERSE Y
Wil: Livingston
David Brearley
Wm. Paterson
Jona: Dayton
A P P E N D I X T h e C o n s T I T U T I o n o f T h e U n I T e D s TaT e s o f a M e r I C a
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 20 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A21a M e n D M e n T s T o T h e C o n s T I T U T I o n A P P E N D I X
Amendments to the Constitution
Proposed by Congress and Ratified by the Legislatures of the Several
States, Pursuant to Article V of the Original Constitution.
Amendments I–X, known as the Bill of Rights, were proposed by Congress on September 25, 1789,
and ratified on December 15, 1791.
AMENDMENT I
[freedom of religion, of speech, and of the press]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
AMENDMENT II
[right to keep and bear arms]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people
to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
AMENDMENT III
[quartering of soldiers]
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the
Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
AMENDMENT IV
[security from unwarr antable search and seizure]
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
AMENDMENT V
[rights of accused persons in criminal proceedings]
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a
presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces,
or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or in public danger; nor shall any
person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty,
or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation.
AMENDMENT VI
[right to speedy trial, witnesses, etc.]
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial,
by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 21 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A22 A P P E N D I X a M e n D M e n T s T o T h e C o n s T I T U T I o n
which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have com-
pulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel
for his defence.
AMENDMENT VII
[trial by jury in civil cases]
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right
of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined
in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
AMENDMENT VIII
[bails, fines, punishments]
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punish-
ments inflicted.
AMENDMENT IX
[reservation of rights of people]
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or
disparage others retained by the people.
AMENDMENT X
[powers reserved to states or people]
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to
the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
AMENDMENT XI
[proposed by congress on march 4, 1794; declared r atified
on january 8, 1798.]
[restriction of judicial power]
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law
or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another
State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
AMENDMENT XII
[proposed by congress on december 9, 1803; declared r atified
on september 25, 1804.]
[election of president and vice president]
The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-
President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves;
they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the
person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted
for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of
votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 22 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A23a M e n D M e n T s T o T h e C o n s T I T U T I o n A P P E N D I X
government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;—the President
of the Senate shall, in presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the
certificates and the votes shall then be counted;—The person having the greatest number
of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole
number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons
having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President,
the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in
choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state
having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from
two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if
the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall
devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice- President
shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the
President.—The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the
Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed,
and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the
Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds
of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to
a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible
to that of Vice-President of the United States.
AMENDMENT XIII
[proposed by congress on january 31, 1865; declared r atified
on december 18, 1865.]
SECTION 1
[abolition of slavery]
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the
party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject
to their jurisdiction.
SECTION 2
[power to enforce this article]
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
AMENDMENT XIV
[proposed by congress on june 13, 1866; declared r atified on july 28, 1868.]
SECTION 1
[citizenship rights not to be abridged by states]
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,
are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make
or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 23 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A24 A P P E N D I X a M e n D M e n T s T o T h e C o n s T I T U T I o n
SECTION 2
[apportionment of representatives in congress]
Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respec-
tive numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not
taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and
Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial
officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male
inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or
in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of repre-
sentation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens
shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
SECTION 3
[persons disqualified from holding office]
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-
President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State,
who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United
States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any
State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or
rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may
by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
SECTION 4
[what public debts are valid]
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts
incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or
rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume
or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United
States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations
and claims shall be held illegal and void.
SECTION 5
[power to enforce this article]
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
AMENDMENT XV
[proposed by congress on february 26, 1869; declared r atified
on march 30, 1870.]
SECTION 1
[negro suffr age]
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the
United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
SECTION 2
[power to enforce this article]
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 24 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A25a M e n D M e n T s T o T h e C o n s T I T U T I o n A P P E N D I X
AMENDMENT XVI
[proposed by congress on july 2, 1909; declared r atified
on february 25, 1913.]
[authorizing income ta xes]
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source
derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census
or enumeration.
AMENDMENT XVII
[proposed by congress on may 13, 1912; declared r atified on may 31, 1913.]
[popular election of senators]
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected
by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each
State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the
State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive
authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the
legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments
until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator
chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
AMENDMENT XVIII
[proposed by congress december 18, 1917; declared r atified
on january 29, 1919.]
SECTION 1
[national liquor prohibition]
After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of
intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the
United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby
prohibited.
SECTION 2
[power to enforce this article]
The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.
SECTION 3
[r atification within seven years]
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Consti-
tution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years
from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.1
1repealed by the Twenty-first amendment.
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 25 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A26 A P P E N D I X a M e n D M e n T s T o T h e C o n s T I T U T I o n
AMENDMENT XIX
[proposed by congress on june 4, 1919; declared r atified on august 26, 1920.]
[woman suffr age]
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the
United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
AMENDMENT XX
[proposed by congress on march 2, 1932; declared r atified
on february 6, 1933.]
SECTION 1
[terms of office]
The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January,
and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3rd day of January, of the years
in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of
their successors shall then begin.
SECTION 2
[time of convening congress]
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon
on the 3rd day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.
SECTION 3
[death of president-elect]
If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall
have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been
chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have
failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have
qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect
nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or
the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly
until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
SECTION 4
[election of the president]
The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from
whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice
shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from
whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have
devolved upon them.
SECTION 5
[amendment takes effect]
Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of
this article.
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 26 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A27a M e n D M e n T s T o T h e C o n s T I T U T I o n A P P E N D I X
SECTION 6
[r atification within seven years]
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the
Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from
the date of its submission.
AMENDMENT XXI
[proposed by congress on february 20, 1933; declared r atified
on december 5, 1933.]
SECTION 1
[national liquor prohibition repealed]
The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby
repealed.
SECTION 2
[tr ansportation of liquor into “dry” states]
The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States
for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby
prohibited.
SECTION 3
[r atification within seven years]
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the
Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within
seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
AMENDMENT XXII
[proposed by congress on march 21, 1947; declared r atified
on february 27, 1951.]
SECTION 1
[tenure of president limited]
No person shall be elected to the office of President more than twice, and no person who
has held the office of President or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to
which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President
more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President
when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may
be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this
Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during
the remainder of such term.
SECTION 2
[r atification within seven years]
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the
Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from
the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 27 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A28 A P P E N D I X a M e n D M e n T s T o T h e C o n s T I T U T I o n
AMENDMENT XXIII
[proposed by congress on june 16, 1960; declared r atified
on march 29, 1961.]
SECTION 1
[elector al college votes for the district of columbia]
The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such
manner as the Congress may direct:
A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of
Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a
State, but in no event more than the least populous State; they shall be in addition to those
appointed by the States, but they shall be considered, for the purposes of the election of
President and Vice President, to be electors appointed by a State; and they shall meet in the
District and perform such duties as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.
SECTION 2
[power to enforce this article]
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
AMENDMENT XXIV
[proposed by congress on august 27, 1962; declared r atified
on january 23, 1964.]
SECTION 1
[anti-poll ta x]
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for
President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or
Representative of Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State
by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
SECTION 2
[power to enforce this article]
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
AMENDMENT XXV
[proposed by congress on july 6, 1965; declared r atified
on february 10, 1967.]
SECTION 1
[vice president to become president]
In case of the removal of the President from office or his death or resignation, the Vice
President shall become President.
SECTION 2
[choice of a new vice president]
Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a
Vice President who shall take the office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both houses
of Congress.
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 28 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A29a M e n D M e n T s T o T h e C o n s T I T U T I o n A P P E N D I X
SECTION 3
[president may declare own disability]
Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker
of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the
powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to
the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting
President.
SECTION 4
[alternate procedures to declare and to end presidential disability]
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive
departments, or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President
pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written dec-
laration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice
President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and
the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists,
he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of
either the principal officers of the executive department, or of such other body as Congress
may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate
and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President
is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide
the issue, assembling within forty eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Con-
gress, within twenty one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress
is not in session, within twenty one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines
by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and
duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting Presi-
dent; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
AMENDMENT XXVI
[proposed by congress on march 23, 1971; declared r atified on july 1, 1971.]
SECTION 1
[eighteen-year-old vote]
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall
not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
SECTION 2
[power to enforce this article]
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
AMENDMENT XXVII
[proposed by congress on september 25, 1789; declared r atified
on may 8, 1992.]
[congress cannot r aise its own pay]
No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall
take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 29 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A30 A P P E N D I X T h e f e D e r a l I s T pa p e r s
The Federalist Papers
NO. 10: MADISON
Among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to
be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction.
The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character
and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail
therefore to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he
is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced
into the public councils have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular gov-
ernments have everywhere perished, as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics
from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable
improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and
modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality
to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and
expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens,
equally the friends of public and private faith and of public and personal liberty, that our
governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival
parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the
rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.
However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence of
known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found,
indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor
have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at
the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes;
and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements and alarm
for private rights which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must
be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit
has tainted our public administration.
By a faction I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or
minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or
of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests
of the community.
There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes;
the other, by controlling its effects.
There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying
the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same
opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.
It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it is worse than the disease.
Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it
could not be a less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nour-
ishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life,
because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.
The second expedient is as impracticable, as the first would be unwise. As long as the
reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be
formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 30 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A31T h e f e D e r a l I s T pa p e r s A P P E N D I X
and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects
to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which
the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests.
The protection of these faculties is the first object of Government. From the protection of
different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and
kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments
and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests
and parties.
The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them every-
where brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of
civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning Government, and
many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders
ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions
whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have in turn divided mankind
into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed
to vex and oppress each other, than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this
propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion
presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle
their unfriendly passions, and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and
durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those
who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society.
Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed
interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser
interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes,
actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering
interests forms the principal task of modern Legislation, and involves the spirit of party and
faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of Government.
No man is allowed to be judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias
his judgment and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a
body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the
most important acts of legislation but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning
the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens; and what are
the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine?
Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties
on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet
the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or in other
words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufacturers
be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufacturers? are questions
which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably
by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on
the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartial-
ity; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are
given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they
overburden the inferior number is a shilling saved to their own pockets.
It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing
interests and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will
not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all
without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 31 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A32 A P P E N D I X T h e f e D e r a l I s T pa p e r s
the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or
the good of the whole.
The inference to which we are brought is that the causes of faction cannot be removed and
that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.
If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle,
which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the admin-
istration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence
under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of
popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest
both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private
rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and
the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our enquiries are directed.
Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which alone this form of government can be
rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored and be recommended to
the esteem and adoption of mankind.
By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the exis-
tence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or
the majority, having such co-existent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number
and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the
impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor
religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on
the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number
combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.
From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure Democracy, by which I
mean a Society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the
Government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion
or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication
and concert results from the form of Government itself; and there is nothing to check the
inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such
Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found
incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as
short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have
patronized this species of Government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind
to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would at the same time be perfectly equal-
ized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
A Republic, by which I mean a Government in which the scheme of representation takes
place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us
examine the points in which it varies from pure Democracy, and we shall comprehend both
the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.
The two great points of difference between a Democracy and a Republic are: first, the
delegation of the Government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest;
secondly, the greater number of citizens and greater sphere of country over which the latter
may be extended.
The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public
views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom
may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of jus-
tice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a
regulation it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 32 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A33T h e f e D e r a l I s T pa p e r s A P P E N D I X
the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people
themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men
of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by cor-
ruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests of the
people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive Republics are most favorable
to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of
the latter by two obvious considerations.
In the first place it is to be remarked that however small the Republic may be, the Rep-
resentatives must be raised to a certain number in order to guard against the cabals of a few;
and that however large it may be they must be limited to a certain number in order to guard
against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of Representatives in the two cases
not being in proportion to that of the Constituents, and being proportionally greatest in the
small Republic, it follows that if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than
in the small Republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater
probability of a fit choice.
In the next place, as each Representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens
in the large than in the small Republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to
practise with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suf-
frages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre on men who possess the
most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.
It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of
which inconveniencies will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors,
you render the representative too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser
interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little
fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The Federal Constitution forms
a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the
national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.
The other point of difference is the greater number of citizens and extent of territory
which may be brought within the compass of Republican than of Democratic Govern-
ment; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be
dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be
the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests,
the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the num-
ber of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they
are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend
the sphere and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less prob-
able that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other
citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to
discover their own strength and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impedi-
ments, it may be remarked, that where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable
purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose
concurrence is necessary.
Hence, it clearly appears that the same advantage which a Republic has over a
Democracy in controlling the effects of faction is enjoyed by a large over a small
republic—is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does this advantage consist
in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments ren-
der them superior to local prejudices and to schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that
the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments.
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 33 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A34 A P P E N D I X T h e f e D e r a l I s T pa p e r s
Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event
of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the
increased variety of parties comprised within the Union increase this security? Does it, in
fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret
wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here again the extent of the Union gives it the
most palpable advantage.
The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States but will
be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States: a religious sect may de-
generate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed
over the entire face of it must secure the national Councils against any danger from that
source: a rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or
for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the
Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely
to taint a particular county or district than an entire State.
In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy
for the diseases most incident to Republican Government. And according to the degree of
pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit
and supporting the character of federalist.
P U B L I U S
No v e m b e r 2 2 , 1 7 8 7
NO. 51: MADISON
To what expedient, then, shall we finally resort, for maintaining in practice the necessary
partition of power among the several departments as laid down in the constitution? The only
answer that can be given is that as all these exterior provisions are found to be inadequate the
defect must be supplied, by so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its
several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other
in their proper places. Without presuming to undertake a full development of this important
idea I will hazard a few general observations which may perhaps place it in a clearer light, and
enable us to form a more correct judgment of the principles and structure of the government
planned by the convention.
In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different
powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to
the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own;
and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little
agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. Were this principle
rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supreme executive,
legislative, and judiciary magistracies should be drawn from the same fountain of author-
ity, the people, through channels having no communication whatever with one another.
Perhaps such a plan of constructing the several departments would be less difficult in prac-
tice than it may in contemplation appear. Some difficulties, however, and some additional
expense would attend the execution of it. Some deviations, therefore, from the principle
must be admitted. In the constitution of the judiciary department in particular, it might be
inexpedient to insist rigorously on the principle: first, because peculiar qualifications being
essential in the members, the primary consideration ought to be to select that mode of choice
which best secures these qualifications; second, because the permanent tenure by which the
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 34 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A35T h e f e D e r a l I s T pa p e r s A P P E N D I X
appointments are held in that department must soon destroy all sense of dependence on the
authority conferring them.
It is equally evident that the members of each department should be as little dependent as
possible on those of the others for the emoluments annexed to their offices. Were the executive
magistrate, or the judges, not independent of the legislature in this particular, their indepen-
dence in every other would be merely nominal.
But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same
department consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary con-
stitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision
for defence must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected
with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature that such
devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government
itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government
would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on
government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by
men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to con-
trol the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people
is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the
necessity of auxiliary precautions.
This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives,
might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see
it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim
is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on
the other; that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights.
These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme
powers of the State.
But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In
republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for
this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them,
by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with
each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the
society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by
still further precautions. As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be
thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should
be fortified. An absolute negative on the legislature appears, at first view, to be the natural
defense with which the executive magistrate should be armed. But perhaps it would be nei-
ther altogether safe nor alone sufficient. On ordinary occasions it might not be exerted with
the requisite firmness, and on extraordinary occasions it might be perfidiously abused. May
not this defect of an absolute negative be supplied by some qualified connection between
this weaker branch of the stronger department, by which the latter may be led to support
the constitutional rights of the former, without being too much detached from the rights
of its own department?
If the principles on which these observations are founded be just, as I persuade myself
they are, and they be applied as a criterion to the several State constitutions, and to the fed-
eral Constitution, it will be found that if the latter does not perfectly correspond with them,
the former are infinitely less able to bear such a test.
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 35 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A36 A P P E N D I X T h e f e D e r a l I s T pa p e r s
There are, moreover, two considerations particularly applicable to the federal system of
America, which place that system in a very interesting point of view.
First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to
the administration of a single government; and usurpations are guarded against by a
division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound
republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two
distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct
and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people.
The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be
controlled by itself.
Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the
oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other
part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united
by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods
of providing against this evil: The one by creating a will in the community independent of
the majority—that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so
many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority
of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all govern-
ments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious
security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views
of the major as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against
both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United
States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the
society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests and classes of citizens, that the rights
of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of
the majority. In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for
religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other
in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number
of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and
number of people comprehended under the same government. This view of the subject must
particularly recommend a proper federal system to all the sincere and considerate friends of
republican government: Since it shows that in exact proportion as the territory of the Union
may be formed into more circumscribed Confederacies, or States, oppressive combinations
of a majority will be facilitated; the best security, under the republican form, for the rights of
every class of citizens, will be diminished; and consequently the stability and independence of
some member of the government, the only other security, must be proportionally increased.
Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will
be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the
forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may
as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured
against the violence of the stronger: And as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals
are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may
protect the weak as well as themselves: So, in the former state, will the more powerful fac-
tions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will
protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful. It can be little doubted that if the
State of Rhode Island was separated from the Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of
rights under the popular form of government within such narrow limits would be displayed
by such reiterated oppressions of factious majorities that some power altogether independent
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 36 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A37T h e f e D e r a l I s T pa p e r s A P P E N D I X
of the people would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had
proved the necessity of it. In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great
variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole
society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general
good; and there being thus less danger to a minor from the will of the major party, there
must be less pretext, also, to provide for the security of the former, by introducing into the
government a will not dependent on the latter, or, in other words, a will independent of the
society itself. It is no less certain than it is important, notwithstanding the contrary opinions
which have been entertained, that the larger the society, provided it lie within a practicable
sphere, the more duly capable it will be of self-government. And happily for the republican
cause, practicable sphere may be carried to a very great extent by a judicious modification and
mixture of the federal principle.
P U B L I U S
Fe b r u a r y 6 , 1 7 8 8
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 37 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A38 A P P E N D I X T h e a n T I - f e D e r a l I s T pa p e r s
The Anti-Federalist Papers
essay by Brutus in the New York Journal
When the public is called to investigate and decide upon a question in which not only the
present members of the community are deeply interested, but upon which the happiness and
misery of generations yet unborn is in great measure suspended, the benevolent mind cannot
help feeling itself peculiarly interested in the result.
In this situation, I trust the feeble efforts of an individual, to lead the minds of the people
to a wise and prudent determination, cannot fail of being acceptable to the candid and dis-
passionate part of the community. Encouraged by this consideration, I have been induced to
offer my thoughts upon the present important crisis of our public affairs.
Perhaps this country never saw so critical a period in their political concerns. We have
felt the feebleness of the ties by which these United-States are held together, and the want
of sufficient energy in our present confederation, to manage, in some instances, our general
concerns. Various expedients have been proposed to remedy these evils, but none have
succeeded. At length a Convention of the states has been assembled, they have formed a
constitution which will now, probably, be submitted to the people to ratify or reject, who
are the fountain of all power, to whom alone it of right belongs to make or unmake consti-
tutions, or forms of government, at their pleasure. The most important question that was
ever proposed to your decision, or to the decision of any people under heaven, is before
you, and you are to decide upon it by men of your own election, chosen specially for this
purpose. If the constitution, offered to your acceptance, be a wise one, calculated to preserve
the invaluable blessings of liberty, to secure the inestimable rights of mankind, and promote
human happiness, then, if you accept it, you will lay a lasting foundation of happiness for
millions yet unborn; generations to come will rise up and call you blessed. You may rejoice
in the prospects of this vast extended continent becoming filled with freemen, who will
assert the dignity of human nature. You may solace yourselves with the idea, that society, in
this favoured land, will fast advance to the highest point of perfection; the human mind will
expand in knowledge and virtue, and the golden age be, in some measure, realised. But if,
on the other hand, this form of government contains principles that will lead to the subver-
sion of liberty—if it tends to establish a despotism, or, what is worse, a tyrannic aristocracy;
then, if you adopt it, this only remaining assylum for liberty will be shut up, and posterity
will execrate your memory.
Momentous then is the question you have to determine, and you are called upon by every
motive which should influence a noble and virtuous mind, to examine it well, and to make
up a wise judgment. It is insisted, indeed, that this constitution must be received, be it ever so
imperfect. If it has its defects, it is said, they can be best amended when they are experienced.
But remember, when the people once part with power, they can seldom or never resume it
again but by force. Many instances can be produced in which the people have voluntarily
increased the powers of their rulers; but few, if any, in which rulers have willingly abridged
their authority. This is a sufficient reason to induce you to be careful, in the first instance,
how you deposit the powers of government.
With these few introductory remarks, I shall proceed to a consideration of this constitution:
The first question that presents itself on the subject is, whether a confederated govern-
ment be the best for the United States or not? Or in other words, whether the thirteen United
States should be reduced to one great republic, governed by one legislature, and under the
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 38 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A39T h e a n T I - f e D e r a l I s T pa p e r s A P P E N D I X
direction of one executive and judicial; or whether they should continue thirteen confederated
republics, under the direction and controul of a supreme federal head for certain defined
national purposes only?
This enquiry is important, because, although the government reported by the convention
does not go to a perfect and entire consolidation, yet it approaches so near to it, that it must,
if executed, certainly and infallibly terminate in it.
This government is to possess absolute and uncontroulable power, legislative, executive
and judicial, with respect to every object to which it extends, for by the last clause of sec-
tion 8th, article 1st, it is declared “that the Congress shall have power to make all laws which
shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other
powers vested by this constitution, in the government of the United States; or in any depart-
ment or office thereof.” And by the 6th article, it is declared “that this constitution, and the
laws of the United States, which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and the treaties made,
or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law
of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the consti-
tution, or law of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.” It appears from these articles
that there is no need of any intervention of the state governments, between the Congress and
the people, to execute any one power vested in the general government, and that the con-
stitution and laws of every state are nullified and declared void, so far as they are or shall be
inconsistent with this constitution, or the laws made in pursuance of it, or with treaties made
under the authority of the United States.—The government then, so far as it extends, is a
complete one, and not a confederation. It is as much one complete government as that of
New-York or Massachusetts, has as absolute and perfect powers to make and execute all laws,
to appoint officers, institute courts, declare offences, and annex penalties, with respect to every
object to which it extends, as any other in the world. So far therefore as its powers reach, all
ideas of confederation are given up and lost. It is true this government is limited to certain
objects, or to speak more properly, some small degree of power is still left to the states, but
a little attention to the powers vested in the general government, will convince every candid
man, that if it is capable of being executed, all that is reserved for the individual states must
very soon be annihilated, except so far as they are barely necessary to the organization of the
general government. The powers of the general legislature extend to every case that is of the
least importance—there is nothing valuable to human nature, nothing dear to freemen, but
what is within its power. It has authority to make laws which will affect the lives, the liberty,
and property of every man in the United States; nor can the constitution or laws of any state, in
any way prevent or impede the full and complete execution of every power given. The legisla-
tive power is competent to lay taxes, duties, imposts, and excises;—there is no limitation to this
power, unless it be said that the clause which directs the use to which those taxes, and duties
shall be applied, may be said to be a limitation: but this is no restriction of the power at all, for
by this clause they are to be applied to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and
general welfare of the United States; but the legislature have authority to contract debts at their
discretion; they are the sole judges of what is necessary to provide for the common defence,
and they only are to determine what is for the general welfare; this power therefore is neither
more nor less, than a power to lay and collect taxes, imposts, and excises, at their pleasure; not
only [is] the power to lay taxes unlimited, as to the amount they may require, but it is perfect
and absolute to raise them in any mode they please. No state legislature, or any power in the
state governments, have any more to do in carrying this into effect, than the authority of one
state has to do with that of another. In the business therefore of laying and collecting taxes, the
idea of confederation is totally lost, and that of one entire republic is embraced. It is proper
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 39 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A40 A P P E N D I X T h e a n T I - f e D e r a l I s T pa p e r s
here to remark, that the authority to lay and collect taxes is the most important of any power
that can be granted; it connects with it almost all other powers, or at least will in process of
time draw all other after it; it is the great mean of protection, security, and defence, in a good
government, and the great engine of oppression and tyranny in a bad one. This cannot fail of
being the case, if we consider the contracted limits which are set by this constitution, to the late
[state?] governments, on this article of raising money. No state can emit paper money—lay any
duties, or imposts, on imports, or exports, but by consent of the Congress; and then the net
produce shall be for the benefit of the United States: the only mean therefore left, for any state
to support its government and discharge its debts, is by direct taxation; and the United States
have also power to lay and collect taxes, in any way they please. Every one who has thought on
the subject, must be convinced that but small sums of money can be collected in any country,
by direct taxe[s], when the foederal government begins to exercise the right of taxation in all
its parts, the legislatures of the several states will find it impossible to raise monies to support
their governments. Without money they cannot be supported, and they must dwindle away,
and, as before observed, their powers absorbed in that of the general government.
It might be here shewn, that the power in the federal legislative, to raise and support
armies at pleasure, as well in peace as in war, and their controul over the militia, tend, not
only to a consolidation of the government, but the destruction of liberty.—I shall not, how-
ever, dwell upon these, as a few observations upon the judicial power of this government, in
addition to the preceding, will fully evince the truth of the position.
The judicial power of the United States is to be vested in a supreme court, and in such
inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The powers of these
courts are very extensive; their jurisdiction comprehends all civil causes, except such as arise
between citizens of the same state; and it extends to all cases in law and equity arising under
the constitution. One inferior court must be established, I presume, in each state, at least,
with the necessary executive officers appendant thereto. It is easy to see, that in the common
course of things, these courts will eclipse the dignity, and take away from the respectability, of
the state courts. These courts will be, in themselves, totally independent of the states, deriv-
ing their authority from the United States, and receiving from them fixed salaries; and in the
course of human events it is to be expected, that they will swallow up all the powers of the
courts in the respective states.
How far the clause in the 8th section of the 1st article may operate to do away all idea of
confederated states, and to effect an entire consolidation of the whole into one general govern-
ment, it is impossible to say. The powers given by this article are very general and comprehen-
sive, and it may receive a construction to justify the passing almost any law. A power to make
all laws, which shall be necessary and proper, for carrying into execution, all powers vested by
the constitution in the government of the United States, or any department or officer thereof,
is a power very comprehensive and definite [indefinite?], and may, for ought I know, be exer-
cised in a such manner as entirely to abolish the state legislatures. Suppose the legislature of
a state should pass a law to raise money to support their government and pay the state debt,
may the Congress repeal this law, because it may prevent the collection of a tax which they
may think proper and necessary to lay, to provide for the general welfare of the United States?
For all laws made, in pursuance of this constitution, are the supreme lay of the land, and the
judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of the dif-
ferent states to the contrary notwithstanding.—By such a law, the government of a particular
state might be overturned at one stroke, and thereby be deprived of every means of its support.
It is not meant, by stating this case, to insinuate that the constitution would warrant a law
of this kind; or unnecessarily to alarm the fears of the people, by suggesting, that the federal
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 40 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A41T h e a n T I - f e D e r a l I s T pa p e r s A P P E N D I X
legislature would be more likely to pass the limits assigned them by the constitution, than
that of an individual state, further than they are less responsible to the people. But what is
meant is, that the legislature of the United States are vested with the great and uncontroula-
ble powers, of laying and collecting taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; of regulating trade,
raising and supporting armies, organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, instituting
courts, and other general powers. And are by this clause invested with the power of making
all laws, proper and necessary, for carrying all these into execution; and they may so exercise
this power as entirely to annihilate all the state governments, and reduce this country to one
single government. And if they may do it, it is pretty certain they will; for it will be found
that the power retained by individual states, small as it is, will be a clog upon the wheels of
the government of the United States; the latter therefore will be naturally inclined to remove
it out of the way. Besides, it is a truth confirmed by the unerring experience of ages, that
every man, and every body of men, invested with power, are ever disposed to increase it, and
to acquire a superiority over every thing that stands in their way. This disposition, which is
implanted in human nature, will operate in the federal legislature to lessen and ultimately to
subvert the state authority, and having such advantages, will most certainly succeed, if the
federal government succeeds at all. It must be very evident then, that what this constitution
wants of being a complete consolidation of the several parts of the union into one complete
government, possessed of perfect legislative, judicial, and executive powers, to all intents and
purposes, it will necessarily acquire in its exercise and operation.
Let us now proceed to enquire, as I at first proposed, whether it be best the thirteen
United States should be reduced to one great republic, or not? It is here taken for granted,
that all agree in this, that whatever government we adopt, it ought to be a free one; that it
should be so framed as to secure the liberty of the citizens of America, and such an one as
to admit of a full, fair, and equal representation of the people. The question then will be,
whether a government thus constituted, and founded on such principles, is practicable, and
can be exercised over the whole United States, reduced into one state?
If respect is to be paid to the opinion of the greatest and wisest men who have ever
thought or wrote on the science of government, we shall be constrained to conclude, that
a free republic cannot succeed over a country of such immense extent, containing such a
number of inhabitants, and these encreasing in such rapid progression as that of the whole
United States. Among the many illustrious authorities which might be produced to this
point, I shall content myself with quoting only two. The one is the baron de Montesquieu,
spirit of laws, chap. xvi. vol. I [book VIII]. “It is natural to a republic to have only a small
territory, otherwise it cannot long subsist. In a large republic there are men of large fortunes,
and consequently of less moderation; there are trusts too great to be placed in any single
subject; he has interest of his own; he soon begins to think that he may be happy, great
and glorious, by oppressing his fellow citizens; and that he may raise himself to grandeur
on the ruins of his country. In a large republic, the public good is sacrificed to a thousand
views; it is subordinate to exceptions, and depends on accidents. In a small one, the inter-
est of the public is easier perceived, better understood, and more within the reach of every
citizen; abuses are of less extent, and of course are less protected.” Of the same opinion is
the marquis Beccarari.
History furnishes no example of a free republic, any thing like the extent of the United
States. The Grecian republics were of small extent; so also was that of the Romans. Both of
these, it is true, in process of time, extended their conquests over large territories of country;
and the consequence was, that their governments were changed from that of free govern-
ments to those of the most tyrannical that ever existed in the world.
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 41 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A42 A P P E N D I X T h e a n T I - f e D e r a l I s T pa p e r s
Not only the opinion of the greatest men, and the experience of mankind, are against
the idea of an extensive republic, but a variety of reasons may be drawn from the reason and
nature of things, against it. In every government, the will of the sovereign is the law. In
despotic governments, the supreme authority being lodged in one, his will is law, and can
be as easily expressed to a large extensive territory as to a small one. In a pure democracy the
people are the sovereign, and their will is declared by themselves; for this purpose they must
all come together to deliberate, and decide. This kind of government cannot be exercised,
therefore, over a country of any considerable extent; it must be confined to a single city, or at
least limited to such bounds as that the people can conveniently assemble, be able to debate,
understand the subject submitted to them, and declare their opinion concerning it.
In a free republic, although all laws are derived from the consent of the people, yet the
people do not declare their consent by themselves in person, but by representatives, chosen
by them, who are supposed to know the minds of their constituents, and to be possessed of
integrity to declare this mind.
In every free government, the people must give their assent to the laws by which they are
governed. This is the true criterion between a free government and an arbitrary one. The for-
mer are ruled by the will of the whole, expressed in any manner they may agree upon; the latter
by the will of one, or a few. If the people are to give their assent to the laws, by persons chosen
and appointed by them, the manner of the choice and the number chosen, must be such, as
to possess, be disposed, and consequently qualified to declare the sentiments of the people; for
if they do not know, or are not disposed to speak the sentiments of the people, the people do
not govern, but the sovereignty is in a few. Now, in a large extended country, it is impossible
to have a representation, possessing the sentiments, and of integrity, to declare the minds of
the people, without having it so numerous and unwieldly, as to be subject in great measure to
the inconveniency of a democratic government.
The territory of the United States is of vast extent; it now contains near three millions of
souls, and is capable of containing much more than ten times that number. Is it practicable
for a country, so large and so numerous as they will soon become, to elect a representation,
that will speak their sentiments, without their becoming so numerous as to be incapable of
transacting public business? It certainly is not.
In a republic, the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar. If
this be not the case, there will be a constant clashing of opinions; and the representatives of
one part will be continually striving against those of the other. This will retard the operations
of government, and prevent such conclusions as will promote the public good. If we apply
this remark to the condition of the United States, we shall be convinced that it forbids that
we should be one government. The United States includes a variety of climates. The produc-
tions of the different parts of the union are very variant, and their interests, of consequence,
diverse. Their manners and habits differ as much as their climates and productions; and their
sentiments are by no means coincident. The laws and customs of the several states are, in
many respects, very diverse, and in some opposite; each would be in favor of its own interests
and customs, and, of consequence, a legislature, formed of representatives from the respec-
tive parts, would not only be too numerous to act with any care or decision, but would be
composed of such heterogenous and discordant principles, as would constantly be contend-
ing with each other.
The laws cannot be executed in a republic, of an extent equal to that of the United States,
with promptitude.
The magistrates in every government must be supported in the execution of the laws,
either by an armed force, maintained at the public expence for that purpose; or by the people
turning out to aid the magistrate upon his command, in case of resistance.
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 42 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A43T h e a n T I - f e D e r a l I s T pa p e r s A P P E N D I X
In despotic governments, as well as in all the monarchies of Europe, standing armies
are kept up to execute the commands of the prince or the magistrate, and are employed for
this purpose when occasion requires: But they have always proved the destruction of liberty,
and [are] abhorrent to the spirit of a free republic. In England, where they depend upon the
parliament for their annual support, they have always been complained of as oppressive and
unconstitutional, and are seldom employed in executing of the laws; never except on extraor-
dinary occasions, and then under the direction of a civil magistrate.
A free republic will never keep a standing army to execute its laws. It must depend upon
the support of its citizens. But when a government is to receive its support from the aid of
the citizens, it must be so constructed as to have the confidence, respect, and affection of the
people. Men who, upon the call of the magistrate, offer themselves to execute the laws, are
influenced to do it either by affection to the government, or from fear; where a standing army
is at hand to punish offenders, every man is actuated by the latter principle, and therefore,
when the magistrate calls, will obey: but, where this is not the case, the government must rest
for its support upon the confidence and respect which the people have for their government
and laws. The body of the people being attached, the government will always be sufficient
to support and execute its laws, and to operate upon the fears of any faction which may be
opposed to it, not only to prevent an opposition to the execution of the laws themselves,
but also to compel the most of them to aid the magistrate; but the people will not be likely
to have such confidence in their rulers, in a republic so extensive as the United States, as
necessary for these purposes. The confidence which the people have in their rulers, in a free
republic, arises from their knowing them, from their being responsible to them for their
conduct, and from the power they have of displacing them when they misbehave: but in a
republic of the extent of this continent, the people in general would be acquainted with very
few of their rulers: the people at large would know little of their proceedings, and it would
be extremely difficult to change them. The people in Georgia and New-Hampshire would
not know one another’s mind, and therefore could not act in concert to enable them to effect
a general change of representatives. The different parts of so extensive a country could not
possibly be made acquainted with the conduct of their representatives, nor be informed of
the reasons upon which measures were founded. The consequence will be, they will have no
confidence in their legislature, suspect them of ambitious views, be jealous of every measure
they adopt, and will not support the laws they pass. Hence the government will be nerveless
and inefficient, and no way will be left to render it otherwise, but by establishing an armed
force to execute the laws at the point of the bayonet—a government of all others the most
to be dreaded.
In a republic of such vast extent as the United-States, the legislature cannot attend to the
various concerns and wants of its different parts. It cannot be sufficiently numerous to be
acquainted with the local condition and wants of the different districts, and if it could, it is
impossible it should have sufficient time to attend to and provide for all the variety of cases
of this nature, that would be continually arising.
In so extensive a republic, the great officers of government would soon become above the
controul of the people, and abuse their power to the purpose of aggrandizing themselves, and
oppressing them. The trust committed to the executive offices, in a country of the extent of
the United-States, must be various and of magnitude. The command of all the troops and
navy of the republic, the appointment of officers, the power of pardoning offences, the col-
lecting of all the public revenues, and the power of expending them, with a number of other
powers, must be lodged and exercised in every state, in the hands of a few. When these are
attended with great honor and emolument, as they always will be in large states, so as greatly
to interest men to pursue them, and to be proper objects for ambitious and designing men,
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 43 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A44 A P P E N D I X T h e a n T I - f e D e r a l I s T pa p e r s
such men will be ever restless in their pursuit after them. They will use the power, when
they have acquired it, to the purposes of gratifying their own interest and ambition, and it is
scarcely possible, in a very large republic, to call them to account for their misconduct, or to
prevent their abuse of power.
These are some of the reasons by which it appears, that a free republic cannot long subsist
over a country of the great extent of these states. If then this new constitution is calculated to
consolidate the thirteen states into one, as it evidently is, it ought not to be adopted.
Though I am of opinion, that it is a sufficient objection to this government, to reject it,
that it creates the whole union into one government, under the form of a republic, yet if this
objection was obviated, there are exceptions to it, which are so material and fundamental,
that they ought to determine every man, who is a friend to the liberty and happiness of
mankind, not to adopt it. I beg the candid and dispassionate attention of my countrymen
while I state these objections—they are such as have obtruded themselves upon my mind
upon a careful attention to the matter, and such as I sincerely believe are well founded. There
are many objections, of small moment, of which I shall take no notice—perfection is not to
be expected in any thing that is the production of man—and if I did not in my conscience
believe that this scheme was defective in the fundamental principles—in the foundation
upon which a free and equal government must rest—I would hold my peace.
B RU T U S
O c t o b e r 1 8 , 1 7 8 7
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 44 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A45p r e s I D e n T s a n D V I C e p r e s I D e n T s A P P E N D I X
Presidents and Vice Presidents
PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT
1 George Washington
(Federalist 1789)
John adams
(Federalist 1789)
2 John adams
(Federalist 1797)
Thomas Jefferson
(Dem.-Rep. 1797)
3 Thomas Jefferson
(Dem.-Rep. 1801)
aaron Burr
(Dem.-Rep. 1801)
George Clinton
(Dem.-Rep. 1805)
4 James Madison
(Dem.-Rep. 1809)
George Clinton
(Dem.-Rep. 1809)
elbridge Gerry
(Dem.-Rep. 1813)
5 James Monroe
(Dem.-Rep. 1817)
Daniel D. Tompkins
(Dem.-Rep. 1817)
6 John Quincy adams
(Dem.-Rep. 1825)
John C. Calhoun
(Dem.-Rep. 1825)
7 andrew Jackson
(Democratic 1829)
John C. Calhoun
(Democratic 1829)
Martin Van Buren
(Democratic 1833)
8 Martin Van Buren
(Democratic 1837)
richard M. Johnson
(Democratic 1837)
9 William h. harrison
(Whig 1841)
John Tyler
(Whig 1841)
10 John Tyler
(Whig and Democratic 1841)
11 James K. polk
(Democratic 1845)
George M. Dallas
(Democratic 1845)
12 Zachary Taylor
(Whig 1849)
Millard fillmore
(Whig 1849)
13 Millard fillmore
(Whig 1850)
14 franklin pierce
(Democratic 1853)
William r. D. King
(Democratic 1853)
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 45 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A46 A P P E N D I X p r e s I D e n T s a n D V I C e p r e s I D e n T s
PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT
15 James Buchanan
(Democratic 1857)
John C. Breckinridge
(Democratic 1857)
16 abraham lincoln
(Republican 1861)
hannibal hamlin
(Republican 1861)
andrew Johnson
(Unionist 1865)
17 andrew Johnson
(Unionist 1865)
18 Ulysses s. Grant
(Republican 1869)
schuyler Colfax
(Republican 1869)
henry Wilson
(Republican 1873)
19 rutherford B. hayes
(Republican 1877)
William a. Wheeler
(Republican 1877)
20 James a. Garfield
(Republican 1881)
Chester a. arthur
(Republican 1881)
21 Chester a. arthur
(Republican 1881)
22 Grover Cleveland
(Democratic 1885)
Thomas a. hendricks
(Democratic 1885)
23 Benjamin harrison
(Republican 1889)
levi p. Morton
(Republican 1889)
24 Grover Cleveland
(Democratic 1893)
adlai e. stevenson
(Democratic 1893)
25 William McKinley
(Republican 1897)
Garret a. hobart
(Republican 1897)
Theodore roosevelt
(Republican 1901)
26 Theodore roosevelt
(Republican 1901)
Charles W. fairbanks
(Republican 1905)
27 William h. Taft
(Republican 1909)
James s. sherman
(Republican 1909)
28 Woodrow Wilson
(Democratic 1913)
Thomas r. Marshall
(Democratic 1913)
29 Warren G. harding
(Republican 1921)
Calvin Coolidge
(Republican 1921)
30 Calvin Coolidge
(Republican 1923)
Charles G. Dawes
(Republican 1925)
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 46 17/11/18 2:17 pm
A47p r e s I D e n T s a n D V I C e p r e s I D e n T s A P P E N D I X
PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT
31 herbert hoover
(Republican 1929)
Charles Curtis
(Republican 1929)
32 franklin D. roosevelt
(Democratic 1933)
John nance Garner
(Democratic 1933)
henry a. Wallace
(Democratic 1941)
harry s. Truman
(Democratic 1945)
33 harry s. Truman
(Democratic 1945)
alben W. Barkley
(Democratic 1949)
34 Dwight D. eisenhower
(Republican 1953)
richard M. nixon
(Republican 1953)
35 John f. Kennedy
(Democratic 1961)
lyndon B. Johnson
(Democratic 1961)
36 lyndon B. Johnson
(Democratic 1963)
hubert h. humphrey
(Democratic 1965)
37 richard M. nixon
(Republican 1969)
spiro T. agnew
(Republican 1969)
Gerald r. ford
(Republican 1973)
38 Gerald r. ford
(Republican 1974)
nelson rockefeller
(Republican 1974)
39 James e. Carter
(Democratic 1977)
Walter Mondale
(Democratic 1977)
40 ronald reagan
(Republican 1981)
George h. W. Bush
(Republican 1981)
41 George h. W. Bush
(Republican 1989)
J. Danforth Quayle
(Republican 1989)
42 William J. Clinton
(Democratic 1993)
albert Gore, Jr.
(Democratic 1993)
43 George W. Bush
(Republican 2001)
richard Cheney
(Republican 2001)
44 Barack h. obama
(Democratic 2009)
Joseph r. Biden, Jr.
(Democratic 2009)
45 Donald J. Trump
(Republican 2017)
Michael r. pence
(Republican 2017)
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 47 17/11/18 2:17 pm
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_01appendix_a1-a48.indd 48 17/11/18 2:17 pm
Endnotes
CHAPTER 1
1. Lindsey Bever, “Meet Saira Blair, 18, Soon to Be the Nation’s Youngest Lawmaker,”
Washington Post, November 7, 2014, www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/
wp/2014/11/07/meet-saira-blair-18-soon-to-be-the-nations-youngest-lawmaker/?utm
_term=.708303648d03 (accessed 1/16/18); Lucy McCalmont, “Conservative,
Lawmaker, Student,” Politico, November 5, 2014, www.politico.com/story/2014/11/
saira-blair-west-virginia-112602 (accessed 11/16/18); Jae Jones, “This Texas City Just
Elected the Youngest City Council Member in the State,” The Nation, June 1, 2017,
www.thenation.com/article/texas-city-just-elected-youngest-person-hold-office
-state/ (accessed 1/16/18); City of Prairie View, TX, Kendric Jones website, www
.prairieviewtexas.gov/departments/kendric_jones_-_pos_3.php (accessed 1/16/18).
2. Arch Puddington and Tyler Roylance, Freedom in the World, 2016, Essay: Democratic
Breakthroughs in the Balance,” Freedom House, www.freedomhouse.org/sites/
default/files/FH_FITW_Report_2016 (accessed 4/10/16).
3. Eugen Weber, Peasants into Frenchmen: The Modernization of Rural France, 1870–1914
(Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1976), chap. 5.
4. Harold Lasswell, Politics: Who Gets What, When, How (New York: Meridian
Books, 1958).
5. Abby Goodnough, “Maine Voters Approve Medicaid Expansion, a Rebuke of Gov.
LePage,” New York Times, November 7, 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/us/
maine-medicaid-healthcare.html (accessed 12/27/17).
6. This definition is taken from Norman H. Nie, Jane Junn, and Kenneth Stehlik-Barry,
Education and Democratic Citizenship in America (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1996).
7. Kyle Dropp and Brendan Nyhan, “One-Third Don’t Know Obamacare and Affordable
Care Act Are The Same,” New York Times, The Upshot, February 7, 2017, www
.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/upshot/one-third-dont-know-obamacare-and-affordable
-care-act-are-the-same.html?_r=0 (accessed 12/28/17).
8. John B. Horrigon and Lee Rainie, “Americans’ Views on Open Government Data,”
Pew Research Center, April 21, 2015, www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/21/open
-government-data/ (accessed 7/22/15).
9. Carroll Doherty, Jocelyn Kiley, Alec Tyson, and Bridget Jameson, Pew Research
Center, “Beyond Distrust: How Americans View Their Government” November 23,
2015, http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2015/11/11-23-2015
-Governance-release (accessed 4/15/18).
10. Pew Research Center, “Beyond Distrust.”
11. U.S. Census Bureau, Population Clock, April 15, 2018, www.census.gov/popclock/
(accessed 4/15/18).
A49
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a49-a80.indd 49 17/11/18 2:17 pm
www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/11/07/meet-saira-blair-18-soon-to-be-the-nations-youngest-lawmaker/?utm_term=.708303648d03
www.politico.com/story/2014/11/saira-blair-west-virginia-112602
www.thenation.com/article/texas-city-just-elected-youngest-person-hold-office-state/
www.prairieviewtexas.gov/departments/kendric_jones_-_pos_3.php
www.freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/FH_FITW_Report_2016
www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/us/maine-medicaid-healthcare.html
www.nytimes.com/2017/02/07/upshot/one-third-dont-know-obamacare-and-affordable-care-act-are-the-same.html?_r=0
www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/21/open-government-data/
12. Susan B. Carter et al., eds., Historical Statistics of the United States: Millennial
Edition Online (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006), Table Aa145–184,
Population, by Sex and Race: 1790–1990, 23. Current data available at U.S. Census
Bureau, www.census.gov (accessed 2/25/12).
13. Carter et al., Historical Statistics of the United States, Table Aa145–184, Population, by
Sex and Race: 1790–1990, 23.
14. Carter et al., Historical Statistics of the United States, Table Aa145–184, Population, by
Sex and Race: 1790–1990, 23; Table Aa2189–2215, Hispanic Population Estimates.
15. U.S. Census Bureau, “Statistical Abstract of the United States,” www.census.gov
(accessed 11/13/07); Claude S. Fischer and Michael Hout, A Century of Difference:
How America Changed in the Last One Hundred Years (New York: Russell Sage
Foundation, 2006), 36.
16. Carter et al., Historical Statistics of the United States, Table Aa22–35, Selected
Population Characteristics.
17. Michael B. Katz and Mark J. Stern, One Nation Divisible: What America Was and
What It Is Becoming (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2006), 16.
18. Carter et al., Historical Statistics of the United States, Table Aa145–184, Population,
by Sex and Race: 1790–1990, 23; Karen R. Humes, Nicholas A. Jones, and Roberto
R. Ramirez, “Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: 2010. 2010 Census Briefs,”
no. C210BR-02 (Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, March 2011), 4, www.census
.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02 (accessed 10/14/2011).
19. U.S. Census Bureau, “2016 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates: Selected
Characteristics of the Native and Foreign-Born Populations.”
20. U.S. Census Bureau, “2014 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates,” www
.census.gov/popest/data/counties/asrh/2014/PEPSR6H.html (accessed 4/11/16).
21. Bryan Baker and Nancy Rytina, “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Popula-
tion Residing in the United States: January 2012,” Population Estimates, Office of
Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security, March 2013, www.dhs
.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Unauthorized%20Immigrant%20Population%20
Estimates%20in%20the%20US%20January%202012_0 (accessed 12/26/17).
22. Robert P. Jones and Daniel Cox, “America’s Changing Religious Identity, 2016,”
Public Religion Research Institute, September 6, 2017, www.prri.org/wp-content/
uploads/2017/09/PRRI-Religion-Report (accessed 11/4/17).
23. Jones and Cox, “America’s Changing Religious Identity.”
24. U.S. Census Bureau, “Demographic Trends in the 20th Century, Table 5: Population
by Age and Sex for the United States: 1900 to 2000,” www.census.gov/prod/
2002pubs/censr-4 (accessed 4/11/16); U.S. Census Bureau, “Population
Estimates, Age and Sex,” www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045217
(accessed 12/26/17).
25. Central Intelligence Agency, “World Factbook: Urbanization,” 2017, www.cia.gov/
library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2212.html (accessed 4/15/18).
26. Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez, “Income Inequality in the United States, 1913–1998,”
Quarterly Journal of Economics 18, no. 1 (2003), 1–39 (tables and figures updated to 2014,
June 2015), elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/TabFig2014prel.xls (accessed 4/11/16).
27. U.S. Census Bureau, “Income: Historical Income Data, Tables F-2, F-3, and F-6,”
www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/index.html (accessed 4/12/16).
28. U.S. Census Bureau, “Historical Poverty Tables, Table 2: Poverty Status of People by
Family Relationship, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1959 to 2014,” www.census.gov/
hhes/www/poverty/data/historical/hstpov2.xls (accessed 4/11/16).
29. Jesse Sussell and James A. Thomson, “Are Changing Constituencies Driving Rising
Polarization in the U.S. House of Representatives?” R AND Corporation Research
A50 E N D N O T E S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a49-a80.indd 50 17/11/18 2:17 pm
www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02
www.census.gov/popest/data/counties/asrh/2014/PEPSR6H.html
www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Unauthorized%20Immigrant%20Population%20Estimates%20in%20the%20US%20January%202012_0
www.prri.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/PRRI-Religion-Report
www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/censr-4
www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2212.html
www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/historical/hstpov2.xls
Report RR-396-RC, 2015, www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR896.html
(accessed 1/15/18).
30. Herbert McClosky and John Zaller, The American Ethos: Public Attitudes toward
Capitalism and Democracy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984), 19.
31. J. R. Pole, The Pursuit of Equality in American History (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1978), 19.
32. New York Times/CBS News Poll, “Americans’ Views on Income Inequality and
Workers’ Rights,” www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/06/03/business/income
-inequality-workers-rights-international-trade-poll.html (accessed 12/27/17); Frank
Newport, “Majority Say Wealthy Americans, Corporations Taxed Too Little,”
April 18, 2017, news.gallup.com/poll/208685/majority-say-wealthy-americans
-corporations-taxed-little.aspx (accessed 12/27/17).
33. Pew Research Center, “Public Trust in Government, 1958–2017,” www.people-press
.org/2017/05/03/public-trust-in-government-1958-2017/ (accessed 12/27/17).
34. Pew Research Center, “Public Trust in Government, 1958–2017.”
35. Joseph S. Nye, Jr., “Introduction: The Decline of Confidence in Government,” in
Why People Don’t Trust Government, ed. Joseph S. Nye, Philip D. Zelikow, and
David C. King (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), 4.
CHAPTER 2
1. “Jim Obergefell,” Biography, 2015, www.biography.com/people/jim-obergefell
(accessed 3/4/18).
2. Obergefell v. Hodges 576 U.S. — (2015).
3. Richard E. Neustadt, Presidential Power and the Modern Presidents: The Politics of
Leadership from Roosevelt to Reagan (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1991), 29
4. The social makeup of colonial America and some of the social conflicts that divided
colonial society are discussed in Jackson Turner Main, The Social Structure of
Revolutionary America (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1965).
5. George B. Tindall and David E. Shi, America: A Narrative History, 8th ed. (New York:
W. W. Norton, 2010), 202.
6. For a discussion of events leading up to the Revolution, see Charles M. Andrews, The Colo-
nial Background of the American Revolution (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1924).
7. See Carl Becker, The Declaration of Independence (New York: Knopf, 1942).
8. See Merrill Jensen, The Articles of Confederation (Madison: University of Wisconsin
Press, 1970).
9. Reported in Samuel E. Morrison, Henry Steele Commager, and William Leuchtenburg, The
Growth of the American Republic, vol. 1 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1969), 244.
10. Quoted in Morrison, Commager, and Leuchtenburg, Growth of the American
Republic, 242.
11. Charles A. Beard, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States
(New York: Macmillan, 1913).
12. Max Farrand, ed., The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, 4 vols., rev. ed., vol. 1
(New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1966).
13. Farrand, Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, 476.
14. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, The Federalist Papers, ed. Clinton
L. Rossiter (New York: New American Library, 1961), no. 71.
15. The Federalist Papers, no. 62.
16. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
17. Max Farrand, The Framing of the Constitution of the United States (New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press, 1962), 49.
A51E N D N O T E S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a49-a80.indd 51 17/11/18 2:17 pm
www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/06/03/business/income-inequality-workers-rights-international-trade-poll.html
www.people-press.org/2017/05/03/public-trust-in-government-1958-2017/
18. Melancton Smith, quoted in Herbert J. Storing, What the Anti-Federalists Were For
(Chicago: University of Chicago, 1981), 17.
19. The Federalist Papers, no. 57.
20. “Essays of Brutus,” no. 15, in The Complete Anti-Federalist, ed. Herbert Storing
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981).
21. The Federalist Papers, no. 10.
22. The Federalist Papers, no. 51.
CHAPTER 3
1. Steph Sherer, “Medical Marijuana Users Caught in State-Federal Conflict,” CNN,
November 10, 2014, www.cnn.com/2014/09/05/opinion/sherer-medical
-marijuana-prosecutions/index.html (accessed 7/31/17).
2. National Council of State Legislatures, “State Medical Marijuana Laws,” October 17,
2018, www.ncsl.org/research/health/state-medical-marijuana-laws.aspx (accessed
10/23/18); “33 Legal Medical Marijuana States and DC,” November 7, 2018, https://
medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000881 (accessed 11/7/18).
3. Sherer, “Medical Marijuana Users.”
4. John Hudak, “The Disorienting Effect of Marijuana on the Trump Administration,”
Brookings Institution, April 20, 2017, www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/04/20/
disorienting-effects-of-marijuana-on-the-trump-administration/ (accessed 7/31/17).
5. ProCon.org, “35 States with Legal Gay Marriage and 15 States with Same-Sex
Marriage Bans,” updated November 20, 2014, http://gaymarriage.procon.org/view
.resource.php?resourceID=004857 (accessed 5/11/16).
6. United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. — (2013).
7. Hicklin v. Orbeck, 437 U.S. 518 (1978).
8. Sweeny v. Woodall, 344 U.S. 86 (1952).
9. A good discussion of the constitutional position of local governments is in York
Willbern, The Withering Away of the City (Bloomington: Indiana University Press,
1971). For more on the structure and theory of federalism, see Thomas R. Dye,
American Federalism: Competition among Governments (Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books, 1990), chap. 1, and Martha Derthick, “Up-to-Date in Kansas City: Reflec-
tions on American Federalism,” 1992 John Gaus Lecture, PS: Political Science and
Politics 25 (December 1992): 671–75.
10. For a good treatment of the contrast between national political stability and
social instability, see Samuel P. Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies
(New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1968), chap. 2.
11. McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819).
12. Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824).
13. The Sherman Antitrust Act, adopted in 1890, for example, was enacted not to restrict
commerce but rather to protect it from monopolies, or trusts, so as to prevent unfair
trade practices and to enable the market again to become self-regulating. Moreover,
the Supreme Court sought to uphold liberty of contract to protect businesses. For ex-
ample, in Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905), the Court invalidated a New York
law regulating the sanitary conditions in bakeries and the hours of labor for bakers on
the grounds that the law interfered with liberty of contract.
14. Kenneth T. Palmer, “The Evolution of Grant Policies,” in The Changing Politics of
Federal Grants, ed. Lawrence D. Brown, James W. Fossett, and Kenneth T. Palmer
(Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1984), 15.
15. The key case in this process of expanding the power of the national government is
generally considered to be NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U.S. 1
A52 E N D N O T E S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a49-a80.indd 52 17/11/18 2:17 pm
www.cnn.com/2014/09/05/opinion/sherer-medical-marijuana-prosecutions/index.html
www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/04/20/disorienting-effects-of-marijuana-on-the-trump-administration/
http://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004857
(1937), in which the Supreme Court approved federal regulation of the workplace
and thereby virtually eliminated interstate commerce as a limit on the national
government’s power.
16. United States v. Darby Lumber Co., 312 U.S. 100 (1941).
17. W. John Moore, “Pleading the 10th,” National Journal, July 29, 1996, 1940.
18. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).
19. Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997).
20. Morton Grodzins, The American System, ed. Daniel J. Elazar (Chicago: Rand
McNally, 1966).
21. See Terry Sanford, Storm over the States (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967).
22. James L. Sundquist, Making Federalism Work, with David W. Davis (Washington,
DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1969), 271. Wallace was mistrusted by the architects
of the War on Poverty because he was a strong proponent of racial segregation.
He believed in “states’ rights,” which meant that states, not the federal government,
should decide what liberty and equality meant.
23. See Don Kettl, The Regulation of American Federalism (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State
University Press, 1983).
24. Eliza Newlin Carney, “Power Grab,” National Journal, April 11, 1998, 798.
25. Philip Rucker, “Obama Curtails Bush’s Policy of ‘Preemption,’” Washington Post,
May 22, 2009, A3.
26. See Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Federal Regulation of State
and Local Governments: The Mixed Record of the 1980s (Washington, DC: Advisory
Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, July 1993).
27. Robert Jay Dilger and Richard S. Beth, “Unfunded Mandates Reform Act: History,
Impact, and Issues” (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, April 19,
2011), 40, http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc40084/m1/1/high_res_d/
R40957_2011Apr19 (accessed 11/16/13).
28. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Federal Regulation of State
and Local Governments, iii.
29. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Federal Regulation of State
and Local Governments, 51.
30. Robert Frank, “Proposed Block Grants Seem Unlikely to Cure Management
Problems,” Wall Street Journal, May 1, 1995, 1.
31. Sarah Kershaw, “U.S. Rule Limits Emergency Care for Immigrants,” New York Times,
September 22, 2007, A1.
32. National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. — (2012).
Adam Liptak, “In Health Law, Asking Where U.S. Power Stops,” New York Times,
November 14, 2011, A1.
33. King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. — (2015). Robert Barnes, “Affordable Care Act
Survives Supreme Court Challenge,” Washington Post, June 25, 2015, www
.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/obamacare-survives-supreme-court
-challenge/2015/06/25/af87608e-188a-11e5-93b7-5eddc056ad8a_story.html
(accessed 8/16/15).
34. National Conference of State Legislatures, “2013 Report on State Immigration Laws,”
www.ncsl.org/research/immigration/immgration-report-august-2013.aspx (accessed
11/3/13).
35. Terry Frieden, “Justice Department Sues Utah over State Immigration Law,” CNN,
November 22, 2011, www.cnn.com/2011/11/22/us/utah-immigration-law/ (accessed
4/21/16).
36. Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. — (2012).
37. United States v. Texas, 579 U.S. — (2016).
A53E N D N O T E S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a49-a80.indd 53 17/11/18 2:17 pm
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc40084/m1/1/high_res_d/R40957_2011Apr19
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/obamacare-survives-supreme-court-challenge/2015/06/25/af87608e-188a-11e5-93b7-5eddc056ad8a_story.html
38. Alexander Bolton, “GOP Looks for Plan B after Failure of Immigration Measures,”
The Hill, February 16, 2018, www.thehill. com/homenews/senate/374143-gop-looks
-for-plan-b-after -failure-of-immigration-measures (accessed 2/18/18).
39. “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” Executive
Order 13768, January 25, 2017, www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/30/
2017-02102/enhancing-public-safety-in-the-interior-of-the-united-states (accessed
7/27/17).
40. Vivian Yee and Rebecca R. Ruiz, “Sessions Once Again Threatens Sanctuary
Cities,” New York Times, July 26, 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/07/26/us/politics/
sessions-sanctuary-cities.html?_r=0 (accessed 7/27/2017).
41. Rafael Bernal, “Momentum Builds for Bill to Help ‘Dreamers’,” The Hill, July 29,
2017, http://thehill.com/latino/344421-momentum-builds-for-bill-to-help-dreamers
(accessed 7/30/2017).
CHAPTER 4
1. This account taken from: April Baer, “The Slants: Trading in Stereotypes,” NPR,
June 11, 2008, www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90278746; Katy
Steinmetz, “‘The Slants’ Suit: Asian-American Band Goes to Court over Name,”
TIME, October 23, 2013, http://entertainment.time.com/2013/10/23/the-slants-suit
-asian-american-band-goes-to-court-over-name/; Kat Chow, “The Slants: Fighting
for the Right to Rock a Racial Slur,” NPR, January 19, 2017, www.npr.org/sections/
codeswitch/2017/01/19/510467679/the-slants-fighting-for-the-right-to-rock-a-racial
-slur; Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. — (2017), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/
us/582/15-1293/opinion3.html; Ian Shapira and Ann E. Marimow, “Washington
Redskins Win Trademark Fight over the Team’s Name,” Washington Post, June 29,
2017, www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/2017/06/29/a26f52f0-5cf6-11e7
-9fc6-c7ef4bc58d13_story.html?utm_term=.22ed3bf39917 (accessed 2/4/18).
2. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, The Federalist Papers, ed. Clinton
Rossiter (New York: New American Library, 1961), no. 84, 513.
3. The Federalist Papers, no. 84, 513.
4. Let there be no confusion about the words liberty and freedom. They are synonymous and
interchangeable. Freedom comes from the German Freiheit. Liberty is from the French
liberté. Although people sometimes try to make them appear to be different, both of
them have equal concern with the absence of restraints on individual choices of action.
5. Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 7 Peters 243, 246 (1833).
6. The Fourteenth Amendment also seems designed to introduce civil rights. The final
clause of the all-important Section 1 provides that no state can “deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It is reasonable to conclude
that the purpose of this provision was to obligate the state governments as well as the
national government to take positive actions to protect citizens from arbitrary and
discriminatory actions, at least those based on race.
7. For example, The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U. S. 36 (1873).
8. Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897).
9. Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925).
10. Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931); Hague v. C.I.O., 307 U.S. 496 (1939).
11. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).
12. Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937).
13. Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963).
14. Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962).
A54 E N D N O T E S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a49-a80.indd 54 17/11/18 2:17 pm
www.nytimes.com/2017/07/26/us/politics/sessions-sanctuary-cities.html?_r=0
http://entertainment.time.com/2013/10/23/the-slants-suit-asian-american-band-goes-to-court-over-name/
www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2017/01/19/510467679
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/582/15-1293/opinion3.html
www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/2017/06/29/a26f52f0-5cf6-11e7-9fc6-c7ef4bc58d13_story.html?utm_term=.22ed3bf39917
15. Doe v. Santa Fe Independent School District, 530 U.S. 290 (2000).
16. Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985).
17. Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984).
18. Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005).
19. McCreary v. ACLU of Kentucky, 545 U.S. 844 (2005).
20. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943). The case it
reversed was Minersville School District v. Gobitus, 310 U.S. 586 (1940).
21. Holt v. Hobbs, 574 U.S. — (2015); Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v.
Abercrombie and Fitch Stores, Inc., 575 U.S. — (2015); Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores,
573 U.S. — (2014).
22. Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919).
23. United States v. Carolene Products Company, 304 U.S. 144 (1938), 4n. This footnote
is one of the Court’s most important doctrines. See Alfred H. Kelly, Winfred A.
Harbison, and Herman Belz, The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development,
7th ed., vol. 2 (New York: W. W. Norton, 1991), 519–23.
24. Schenk v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
25. Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization, 307 U.S. 496 (1939).
26. Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931).
27. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989).
28. Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. — (2011).
29. For a good general discussion of “speech plus,” see Louis Fisher, American Constitu-
tional Law (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1990), 544–6. The case upholding the buffer
zone against the abortion protesters is Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, 512 U.S.
753 (1994).
30. Bethel School District v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
31. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
32. Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007).
33. Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931).
34. New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971).
35. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972).
36. New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).
37. See Zeran v. America Online, 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997).
38. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
39. Concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964).
40. Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).
41. Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997).
42. United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008).
43. United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, 529 U.S. 803 (2000).
44. Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 564 U.S. — (2011).
45. Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942).
46. Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951).
47. Broadcasting Company v. Acting Attorney General, 405 U.S. 1000 (1972).
48. City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent, 466 U.S. 789 (1984).
49. 44 Liquormart, Inc. and Peoples Super Liquor Stores Inc., Petitioners v. Rhode Island
and Rhode Island Liquor Stores Association, 517 U.S. 484 (1996).
50. Lorillard Tobacco v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525 (2001).
51. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).
52. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).
53. McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).
54. Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990).
A55E N D N O T E S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a49-a80.indd 55 17/11/18 2:17 pm
55. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). Although Mapp went free in this case, she was
later convicted in New York on narcotics trafficking charges and served 9 years of a
20-year sentence.
56. For a good discussion of the issue, see Fisher, American Constitutional Law, 884–9.
57. Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. — (2013).
58. United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. — (2012).
59. Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. — (2013).
60. Riley v. California, 573 U.S. — (2014).
61. Marjorie Cohn, “NSA Metadata Collection: Fourth Amendment Violation,” JURIST,
January 15, 2014, www.jurist.org/forum/2014/01/marjorie-cohn-nsa-metadata.php
(accessed 4/19/16).
62. Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937).
63. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
64. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963). For a full account of the story of the trial
and release of Clarence Earl Gideon, see Anthony Lewis, Gideon’s Trumpet (New York:
Random House, 1964). See also David O’Brien, Storm Center, 8th ed. (New York:
W. W. Norton, 2008).
65. Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).
66. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976).
67. Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008).
68. Snyder v. Louisiana, 522 U.S. 472 (2008).
69. Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. — (2015).
70. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).
71. Griswold v. Connecticut, concurring opinion. In 1972 the Court extended the privacy
right to unmarried women: Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972).
72. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
73. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
74. Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).
75. Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337 (1938).
76. The District of Columbia case came up, too, but since the District of Columbia is not
a state, this case did not directly involve the Fourteenth Amendment and its “equal
protection” clause. It confronted the Court on the same grounds, however—that
segregation is inherently unequal. Its victory in effect was “incorporation in reverse,”
with equal protection moving from the Fourteenth Amendment to become part of
the Bill of Rights. See Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954).
77. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
78. The Supreme Court first declared that race was a suspect classification requiring strict
scrutiny in the decision Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944). In this case,
the Court upheld President Roosevelt’s executive order of 1941 allowing the military
to exclude persons of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast and to place them in
internment camps. It is one of the few cases in which classification based on race
survived strict scrutiny.
79. For good treatments of this long stretch of the struggle of the federal courts to
integrate the schools, see Paul Brest and Sanford Levinson, Processes of Consti-
tutional Decision-Making: Cases and Materials, 2nd ed. (Boston: Little, Brown,
1983), 471–80; and Alfred H. Kelly, Winfred A. Harbison, and Herman Belz,
The American Constitution: Its Origins and Development, 6th ed. (New York:
W. W. Norton, 1983), 610 –16.
80. Pierre Thomas, “Denny’s to Settle Bias Cases,” Washington Post, May 24, 1994, A1.
81. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701
(2007).
A56 E N D N O T E S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a49-a80.indd 56 17/11/18 2:17 pm
82. John A. Powell, “Segregated Schools Ruling Not All Bad: In Rejecting Seattle’s
Integration Bid Top Court Majority Also Held that Avoiding Racial Isolation Is a
Legitimate Public Goal,” Newsday, July 16, 2007, A33.
83. See especially Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964). Almost immediately
after passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a case was brought challenging the
validity of Title II, which covered discrimination in public accommodations. Ollie’s
Barbecue was a neighborhood restaurant in Birmingham, Alabama. It was located
11 blocks away from an interstate highway and even farther from railroad and bus
stations. Its table service was for whites only; there was only take-out service for
blacks. The Supreme Court agreed that Ollie’s was strictly an intrastate restaurant,
but since a substantial proportion of its food and other supplies were bought from
companies outside the state of Alabama, there was a sufficient connection to inter-
state commerce; therefore, racial discrimination at such restaurants would “impose
commercial burdens of national magnitude upon interstate commerce.” Although
this case involved Title II, it had direct bearing on the constitutionality of Title VII.
84. In 1970 this act was amended to outlaw for five years literacy tests as a condition for
voting in all states.
85. See Douglas S. Massey and Nancy A. Denton, American Apartheid: Segregation and
the Making of the Underclass (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993), chap. 7.
86. Michael Powell, “Bank Accused of Pushing Mortgage Deals on Blacks,” New York
Times, June 6, 2009, A16; Office of the Illinois Attorney General, “Madigan Sues
Wells Fargo for Discriminatory and Deceptive Mortgage Lending Practices,”
press release, July 31, 2009, www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/pressroom/2009_07/
20090731.html (accessed 10/23/09).
87. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) was the cabinet depart-
ment charged with administering most federal social programs. In 1980, when
education programs were transferred to the newly created Department of Education,
HEW was renamed the Department of Health and Human Services.
88. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978).
89. Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003).
90. Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003).
91. Fisher v. University of Texas, 570 U.S. — (2013).
92. Fisher v. University of Texas, No. 14-981 — (2016).
93. See Jane J. Mansbridge, Why We Lost the ER A (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1986); and Gilbert Steiner, Constitutional Inequality (Washington, DC:
Brookings Institution Press, 1985).
94. See Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973).
95. Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986).
96. Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U.S. 60 (1992).
97. United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996).
98. Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007).
99. Claire Zillman, “Barnes & Noble Is Latest Retailer to Face Transgender
Discrimination Lawsuit,” Fortune, May 7, 2015, http://fortune.com/2015/05/07/
barnes-noble-transgender-lawsuit/ (accessed 1/10/16).
100. Helene Cooper, “Transgender People Will Be Allowed to Enlist in the Military
as a Court Case Advances,” New York Times, December 11, 2017, www.nytimes
.com/2017/12/11/us/politics/transgender-military-pentagon.html (accessed 7/26/18).
101. Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974).
102. Dick Kirschten, “Not Black and White,” National Journal, March 2, 1991, 497.
103. R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 506 U.S. 377 (1992).
104. United States v. Texas, 579 U.S. — (2016).
A57E N D N O T E S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a49-a80.indd 57 17/11/18 2:17 pm
105. See the discussion in Robert A. Katzmann, Institutional Disability: The Saga of
Transportation Policy for the Disabled (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution
Press, 1986).
106. For example, after pressure from the Justice Department, one of the nation’s largest
rental-car companies agreed to make special hand controls available to any customer
requesting them. See “Avis Agrees to Equip Cars for Disabled,” Los Angeles Times,
September 2, 1994, D1.
107. For more, see Dale Carpenter, Flagrant Conduct: The Story of Lawrence v. Texas
(New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2012).
108. Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986).
109. Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996).
110. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. — (2015).
CHAPTER 5
1. Suzanna Hupp, “In Their Own Words: The Gun Rights Advocate,” Texas Monthly,
March 23, 2016, www.texasmonthly.com/list/in-their-own-words/the-gun-rights
-advocate/ (accessed 3/3/18).
2. Brianna Sacks, “After Florida School Shooting, Several Survivors and Victims’
Parents Pan Trump’s Idea to Arm Teachers,” BuzzFeed News, February 24, 2018,
www.buzzfeed.com/briannasacks/students-and-parents-react-to-armed-teacher
-proposal?utm_term=.rtNPqM580#.xrVbnry1A (accessed 3/3/8).
3. Samantha Smith, “Young people less likely to view Iraqi, Syrian refugees as major
threat to U.S.,” Pew Research, February 3, 2017, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/
2017/02/03/young-people-less-likely-to-view-iraqi-syrian-refugees-as-major-threat-to
-u-s/ (accessed 6/26/18).
4. M. Lodge and C. S. Taber, “Three Steps toward a Theory of Motivated Political
Reasoning,” in Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality,
ed. A. Lupia, M. McCubbins, and S. Popkin (London: Cambridge University Press,
2000); George E. Marcus, W. Russell Neuman, and Michael MacKuen, Affective In-
telligence and Political Judgment (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000); David
Redlawsk, “Hot Cognition or Cool Consideration? Testing the Effects of Motivated
Reasoning on Political Decision Making,” Journal of Politics 64 (2002): 1021–44; David
Redlawsk, Andrew Civettini, and Karen Emmerson, “The Affective Tipping Point: Do
Motivated Reasoners Ever ‘Get It’?” Political Psychology 31, no. 4 (2010): 563–93.
5. Caroline J. Tolbert, David P. Redlawsk, and Kellen J. Gracey, “Racial Attitudes and
Emotional Responses to the 2016 Republican Candidates,” Journal of Election, Public
Opinion and Parties 28, no. 2 (2018): 245–62.
6. Marcus, Neuman, and MacKuen, Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment.
7. See Karen Mossberger, Caroline Tolbert, and Ramona McNeal, Digital Citizenship:
The Internet, Society and Participation (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008).
8. See Harry Holloway and John George, Public Opinion (New York: St. Martin’s, 1986).
See also Paul R. Abramson, Political Attitudes in America (San Francisco: Freeman, 1983).
9. Lydia Saad, “Conservative Lead in U.S. Ideology Down to Single Digits,” Gallup,
January 11, 2018, https://news.gallup.com/poll/225074/conservative-lead-ideology
-down-single-digits.aspx (accessed 10/10/18); Jocelyn Kiley and Michael Dimock,
“The GOP’s Millennial Problem Runs Deep,” September 25, 2014, www.pewresearch
.org/fact-tank/2014/09/25/the-gops-millennial-problem-runs-deep/ (accessed 3/4/16).
10. Pippa Norris, ed., Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Government
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1999); Robert Putnam, Bowling Alone: The
Collapse and Revival of American Community (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000).
A58 E N D N O T E S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a49-a80.indd 58 17/11/18 2:17 pm
www.texasmonthly.com/list/in-their-own-words/the-gun-rights-advocate/
www.buzzfeed.com/briannasacks/students-and-parents-react-to-armed-teacher-proposal?utm_term=.rtNPqM580#.xrVbnry1A
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/03/young-people-less-likely-to-view-iraqi-syrian-refugees-as-major-threat-to-u-s/
https://news.gallup.com/poll/225074/conservative-lead-ideology-down-single-digits.aspx
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/25/the-gops-millennial-problem-runs-deep/
11. Todd Donovan and Shaun Bowler, Reforming the Republic: Democratic Institutions for
the New America (New York: Prentice Hall, 2004).
12. Pew Research Center, “Public Trust in Government: 1958–2017,” May 3, 2017,
www.people-press.org/2017/05/03/public-trust-in-government-1958-2017/
(accessed 2/2/18).
13. See Angus Campbell et al., The American Voter (New York: Wiley, 1960), 147.
14. Omid Aziz, Derrick McMillen, and Tony Liu, “72 Hours to Launch Celebrate Pride,”
July 2, 2015, https://code.facebook.com/posts/778505998932780/72-hours-to
-launch-celebrate-pride/ (accessed 3/2/16).
15. “Changing Attitudes on Gay Marriage,” www.gallup.com/poll/183272/record-high
-americans-support-sex-marriage.aspx, and Pew Research Center, “Changing
Attitudes on Gay Marriage,” July 29, 2015, www.pewforum.org/2015/07/29/
graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/ (accessed 2/23/16).
16. Jennifer A. Heerwig and Brian J. McCabe, “Education and Social Desirability Bias:
The Case of a Black Presidential Candidate,” Social Science Quarterly 90, no. 3 (2009):
674–86.
17. Raymond E. Wolfinger and Steven J. Rosenstone, Who Votes? (New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press, 1980). See also Steven J. Rosenstone and John Mark
Hansen, Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America (New York:
Macmillan, 1993).
18. Katherine Tate, Black Faces in the Mirror (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
1993).
19. Brakkton Booker, “How Equal Is American Opportunity? Survey Shows Attitudes
Vary by Race,” NPR, September 21, 2015, www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/
09/21/442068004/how-equal-is-american-opportunity-survey-shows-attitudes-vary
-by-race (accessed 2/24/16).
20. Pew Research Center, “Across Racial Lines, More Say Nation Needs to Make
Changes to Achieve Racial Equality,” U.S. Politics & Policy, August 5, 2015, www
.people-press.org/2015/08/05/across-racial-lines-more-say-nation-needs-to-make
-changes-to-achieve-racial-equality/8-4-2015_02a/ (accessed 2/24/16).
21. Matt Barreto and Gary M. Segura, Latino America: How America’s Most Dynamic
Population Is Poised to Transform the Politics of the Nation (New York: Public Affairs,
2014).
22. “Trump Gets Negative Ratings for Many Personal Traits, but Most Say He Stands
Up for His Beliefs,” Pew Research Center, October 1, 2018, www.people-press.org/
2018/10/01/trump-gets-negative-ratings-for-many-personal-traits-but-most-say-he
-stands-up-for-his-beliefs/ (accessed 10/10/18).
23. Michael Lipka, “Religious ‘Nones’ Are Not Only Growing, They’re Becoming More
Secular,” Pew Research Center, Fact Tank, November 11, 2015, www.pewresearch
.org/fact-tank/2015/11/11/religious-nones-are-not-only-growing-theyre-becoming
-more-secular/ (accessed 11/11/15).
24. 2014 Cooperative Comparative Election Study.
25. Donald Green, Bradley Palmquist, and Eric Schickler, Partisan Hearts and Minds:
Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters (New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press, 2002).
26. See Richard Lau and David Redlawsk, How Voters Decide: Information Processing
during an Election Campaign (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
27. Cooperative Comparative Election Study 2014, Harvard University, released
February 2015, http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/cces/home (accessed 12/16/15).
28. John R. Zaller, The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1992).
A59E N D N O T E S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a49-a80.indd 59 17/11/18 2:17 pm
https://code.facebook.com/posts/778505998932780/72-hours-to-launch-celebrate-pride/
www.gallup.com/poll/183272/record-high-americans-support-sex-marriage.aspx
www.pewforum.org/2015/07/29/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/
www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/09/21/442068004/how-equal-is-american-opportunity-survey-shows-attitudes-vary-by-race
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/11/religious-nones-are-not-only-growing-theyre-becoming-more-secular/
29. Carol Glynn et al., Public Opinion, 2nd ed. (Boulder, CO: Westview, 2004), 293. See
also Michael X. Delli Carpini and Scott Keeter, What Americans Know about Politics
and Why It Matters (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996).
30. Delli Carpini and Keeter, What Americans Know about Politics.
31. Adam J. Berinsky, “Assuming the Costs of War: Events, Elites and American Support
for Military Conflict,” Journal of Politics 69, no. 4 (2007): 975–97; Zaller, Nature and
Origins of Mass Opinion.
32. Richard R. Lau and David P. Redlawsk, “Advantages and Disadvantages of Cogni-
tive Heuristics in Political Decision Making,” American Journal of Political Science 45
(October 2001): 951–71; Lau and Redlawsk, How Voters Decide.
33. James Druckman, Erik Petersen, and Rune Slothuus, “How Elite Partisan Polarization
Affects Public Opinion Formation,” American Political Science Review 107, no. 1
(February 2013): 57–79.
34. Tony Dokoupil, “Is the Internet Making Us Crazy? What the New Research Says,”
Newsweek, July 9, 2012, www.newsweek.com/internet-making-us-crazy-what-new
-research-says-65593; Nicholas Carr, The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our
Brains (New York: W. W. Norton, 2011).
35. Benjamin Ginsberg, The American Lie: Government by the People and Other Political
Fables (Boulder, CO: Paradigm, 2007).
36. Peter Marks, “Adept in Politics and Advertising, 4 Women Shape a Campaign,” New
York Times, November 11, 2001, B6.
37. Jason Gainous and Kevin Wagner, Tweeting to Power: The Social Media Revolution in
American Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013).
38. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
39. See Gillian Peele, Revival and Reaction (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985). See also Connie
Paige, The Right-to-Lifers (New York: Summit, 1983).
40. David W. Moore, “Support for Invasion of Iraq Remains Contingent on U.N.
Approval,” Gallup, November 12, 2002, www.gallup.com/poll/7195/support
-invasion-iraq-remains-contigent-un-approval.aspx; Pew Research Center, “Public
Attitudes toward the War in Iraq: 2003–2008,” March 19, 2008, www.pewresearch
.org/2008/03/19/public-attitudes-toward-the-war-in-iraq-20032008 (accessed 2/19/14).
41. Benjamin I. Page and Robert Y. Shapiro, “Effects of Public Opinion on Policy,”
American Political Science Review 77, no.1 (1983): 175–90.
42. Page and Shapiro, “Effects of Public Opinion on Policy.”
43. Pew Research Center, “Mixed Views of Economic Policies and Health Care Reform
Persist,” U.S. Politics & Policy, October 8, 2009, www;people-press.org/2009/10/08/
mixed-views-of-economic-policies-and-health-care-reform-persist (accessed 3/18/14).
44. Christopher Wlezien, “The Public as Thermostat: Dynamics of Preferences for Spend-
ing,” American Journal of Political Science 39, no. 4 (1995): 981–1000.
45. Malcolm E. Jewell, Representation in State Legislatures (Lexington: University Press of
Kentucky, 1982).
46. Lawrence R. Jacobs and Robert Y. Shapiro, Politicians Don’t Pander: Political Manipulation
and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000).
47. Herbert Asher, Polling and the Public (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2001), 64.
48. Drew DeSilver and Scott Keeter, “The Challenges of Polling when Fewer People
Are Available to Be Polled,” Fact Tank, July 21, 2015, www.pewresearch.org/fact
-tank/2015/07/21/the-challenges-of-polling-when-fewer-people-are-available-to-be
-polled/ (accessed 3/1/16).
49. Michael Kagay and Janet Elder, “Numbers Are No Problem for Pollsters, Words Are,”
New York Times, August 9, 1992, E6.
A60 E N D N O T E S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a49-a80.indd 60 17/11/18 2:17 pm
www.newsweek.com/internet-making-us-crazy-what-new-research-says-65593
www.gallup.com/poll/7195/support-invasion-iraq-remains-contigent-un-approval.aspx
www.pewresearch.org/2008/03/19/public-attitudes-toward-the-war-in-iraq-20032008
50. See Adam Berinsky, “The Two Faces of Public Opinion,” American Journal of Political
Science 43, no. 4 (1999): 1209–30. See also Adam Berinsky, “Political Context and
the Survey Response: The Dynamics of Racial Policy Opinion,” Journal of Politics 64,
no. 2 (2002): 567–84.
51. Christopher Wlezien and Stuart Soroka, “The Relationship between Public Opinion
and Policy,” in Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior, ed. Russell Dalton and
Hans-Dieter Klingemann (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 799–817.
52. Martin Gilens, “Inequality and Democratic Responsiveness,” Public Opinion
Quarterly 69, no. 5 (2005): 778–96; Larry Bartels, Unequal Democracy. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008.
53. Ryan Claassen and Benjamin Highton, “Does Policy Debate Reduce Information
Effects in Public Opinion? Analyzing the Evolution of Public Opinion on Health
Care,” Journal of Politics 68, no. 2 (2006): 410–20.
CHAPTER 6
1. Julian P. Boyd et al., ed., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson (Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press), www.jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu/ (accessed 5/30/14).
2. Rodney Tiffen, “Journalism in the Trump Era,” Inside Story, February 24, 2017,
http://insidestory.org.au/journalism-in-the-trump-era (accessed 6/26/18).
3. Columbia Journalism Review, “Covering Trump,” http://archives.cjr.org/resources/
index.php, (accessed 7/3/18).
4. For a criticism of the increasing consolidation of the media, see the essays in Patricia
Aufderheide et al., Conglomerates and the Media (New York: New Press, 1997).
5. Pew Research Center, “2017 Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel,”
March 27, 2017, http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2017/
05/09125944/PJ_2017.05.10_Media-Attitudes_TOPLINE (accessed 1/22/18).
6. Pew Research Center, “Amid Criticism, Support for Media’s ‘Watchdog’ Role Stands
Out,” August 8, 2013, www.people-press.org/2013/08/08/amid-criticism-support-for
-medias-watchdog-role-stands-out (accessed 4/27/14).
7. Pew Research Center, “Digital News Fact Sheet” August 7, 2017, www.journalism
.org/fact-sheet/digital-news/ (accessed 1/22/18).
8. Clay Shirky, Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing without Organizations
(New York: Penguin Books, 2008).
9. Amy Mitchell, Jesse Holcomb, Rachel Weisel, “State of the News Media 2016,”
Pew Research Center, June 15, 2016, www.journalism.org/2016/06/15/state-of-the
-news-media-2016/?utm_content=buffer6871f&utm_medium=social&utm_source
=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer (accessed 6/29/18).
10. Shirky, Here Comes Everybody, 2008; Mitchell et al., “State of the News Media 2016.”
11. Robert McChesney and John Nichols, The Death and Life of American Journalism:
The Media Revolution That Will Begin the World Again (New York: Nation Books,
2010).
12. “Newspapers Fact Sheet,” Pew Research Center, June 13, 2018, www.journalism.org/
fact-sheet/newspapers/ (accessed 10/10/18).
13. Darrell West, The Next Wave: Using Digital Technology to Further Social and Political
Innovation (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2011).
14. Laura Wamsley, “Big Newspapers Are Booming: ‘Washington Post’ to Add 60
Newsroom Jobs,” NPR, December 27, 2016, www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/
2016/12/27/507140760/big-newspapers-are-booming-washington-post-to-add-sixty
-newsroom-jobs (accessed 1/22/18).
A61E N D N O T E S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a49-a80.indd 61 17/11/18 2:17 pm
http://archives.cjr.org/resources/index.php
http://archives.cjr.org/resources/index.php
http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2017/05/09125944/PJ_2017.05.10_Media-Attitudes_TOPLINE
www.people-press.org/2013/08/08/amid-criticism-support-for-medias-watchdog-role-stands-out
www.people-press.org/2013/08/08/amid-criticism-support-for-medias-watchdog-role-stands-out
www.journalism.org/fact-sheet/digital-news/
www.journalism.org/fact-sheet/digital-news/
www.journalism.org/2016/06/15/state-of-the-news-media-2016/?utm_content=buffer6871f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
www.journalism.org/fact-sheet/newspapers/
www.journalism.org/fact-sheet/newspapers/
www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/27/507140760/big-newspapers-are-booming-washington-post-to-add-sixty-newsroom-jobs
www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/27/507140760/big-newspapers-are-booming-washington-post-to-add-sixty-newsroom-jobs
www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/12/27/507140760/big-newspapers-are-booming-washington-post-to-add-sixty-newsroom-jobs
15. Michael Barthel, “Circulation and Revenue Fall for Industry Overall,” Pew Research
Center, June 1, 2017, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/01/circulation-and
-revenue-fall-for-newspaper-industry/(accessed 1/22/18).
16. Mitchell, Holcomb, and Weisel, “State of the News Media 2016.”
17. Mitchell, Holcomb, and Weisel, “State of the News Media 2016.”
18. Pew Research Center, “Audio and Podcasting Fact Sheet,” July 12, 2018, www
.journalism.org/fact-sheet/audio-and-podcasting/ (accessed 10/12/18).
19. Mitchell, Holcomb, and Weisel, “State of the News Media 2016.”
20. Pew Research Center, “The Internet’s Broader Role in Campaign 2008,” January 11,
2008, www.people-press.org/2008/01/11/internets-broader-role-in-campaign-2008/;
and Pew Research Center, “Journalism, Satire or Just Laughs? ‘The Daily Show with
Jon Stewart’ Examined,” May 8, 2008, www.journalism.org/2008/05/08/journalism
-satire-or-just-laughs-the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-examined/ (both accessed
7/3/18).
21. West, The Next Wave; Edward Glaeser, Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest
Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier, and Happier (New York:
Penguin Press, 2011).
22. Pew Research Center, “Internet Use over Time,” 2014, www.pewinternet.org/
datatrend/internet-use/internet-use-over-time (accessed 4/29/2014).
23. Amy Mitchell, Jeffrey Gottfried, and Katerina Eva Matsa, “Millennials and Political
News: Social Media—The Local TV for the Next Generation?” June 1, 2015, Pew
Research Center, www.journalism.org/2015/06/01/millennials-political-news/
(accessed 1/14/16).
24. Jeffrey Gottfried and Elisa Shearer, “News Use across Social Media Platforms 2016,”
Pew Research Center, May 26, 2016, www.journalism.org/2016/05/26/news-use
-across-social-media-platforms-2016/ (accessed 6/17/16).
25. Antony Wilhelm, Digital Nation: Toward an Inclusive Information Society (Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press, 2006); Paul DiMaggio et al., “Social Implications of the Internet,”
Annual Review of Sociology 27, no. 1 (2001): 307–36.
26. Karen Mossberger, Caroline J. Tolbert, and Allison Hamilton, “Measuring Digital
Citizenship: Mobile Access and Broadband,” International Journal of Communi-
cation 6 (2012): 2492–528; Brian A. Krueger, “A Comparison of Conventional
and Internet Political Mobilization,” American Politics Research 34, no. 6 (2006):
759–76.
27. Karen Mossberger, Caroline J. Tolbert, and Mary Stansbury, Virtual Inequality:
Beyond the Digital Divide (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2003);
Pippa Norris, Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet
Worldwide (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001).
28. Karen Mossberger, Caroline J. Tolbert, and Ramona S. McNeal, Digital Citizenship
(Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008); Pew Research Center, “Internet Broadband
Fact Sheet,” February 5, 2018, www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheet/internet-broadband/
(accessed 3/19/18).
29. National Telecommunications & Information Administration, Digital Nation: 21st
Century America’s Progress towards Universal Broadband Access (Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Commerce, 2011).
30. Thom File, “Voting in America: A Look at the 2016 Presidential Election,” U.S.
Census, May 20, 2017, www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2017/05/
voting_in_america.html (accessed 3/19/18).
31. Aaron Smith and Monica Anderson, “Social Media Use in 2018,” Pew Research
Center, March 1, 2018, www.pewinternet.org/2018/03/01/social-media-use-in-2018/
(accessed 3/19/18).
A62 E N D N O T E S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a49-a80.indd 62 17/11/18 2:17 pm
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/01/circulation-and-revenue-fall-for-newspaper-industry/
www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/01/circulation-and-revenue-fall-for-newspaper-industry/
www.pewinternet.org/datatrend/internet-use/internet-use-over-time
www.journalism.org/2016/05/26/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2016/
www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2017/05/voting_in_america.html
32. Michael Barthel et al., “The Evolving Role of News on Twitter and Facebook,”
Pew Research Center, July 14, 2015, www.journalism.org/2015/07/14/the-evolving
-role-of-news-on-twitter-and-facebook/ (accessed 1/14/16).
33. Jason Gainous and Kevin Wagner, Tweeting to Power: The Social Media Revolution in
American Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013).
34. Richard Davis, “Interplay: Political Blogging and Journalism,” in iPolitics: Citizens,
Elections, and Governing in the New Media Era, ed. Richard L. Fox and Jennifer M.
Ramos (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 76–99.
35. Pew Research Center Publications, “State of the News Media 2010,” March 15, 2010,
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1523/state-of-the-news-media-2010 (accessed 9/11/12);
West, The Next Wave.
36. Matthew A. Baum, “Preaching to the Choir or Converting the Flock: Presidential
Communication Strategies in the Age of Three Medias,” in iPolitics: Citizens,
Elections, and Governing in the New Media Era, ed. Richard L. Fox and Jennifer M.
Ramos (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 183–205.
37. Eli Pariser, The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You (New York:
Penguin Press, 2011).
38. Larry Bartels, Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008).
39. Shanto Iyengar and Donald R. Kinder, News That Matters: Television and American
Opinion (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 63.
40. New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971).
41. Red Lion Broadcasting Company v. Federal Communications Commission, 395 U.S.
367 (1969).
42. United Nations General Assembly, “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion
and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression, 2011,” www2.ohchr
.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en (accessed 3/14/16).
43. See Martin Linsky, Impact: How the Press Affects Federal Policymaking (New York:
W. W. Norton, 1986).
CHAPTER 7
1. “Meet Keli Carender, Tea Party Organizer in Seattle, Washington,” Taxdayteaparty
.com, March 15, 2009, http://taxdayteaparty.com/2009/03/meet-keli-carender-tea
-party-organizer-in-seattle-washington/ (accessed 1/26/18).
2. Alan Greenblatt, “With Major Issues Fading, Capitol Life Lures Fewer,” Congressional
Quarterly Weekly Report, October 25, 1997, 2625.
3. For a discussion of third parties in the United States, see Daniel Mazmanian,
Third Parties in Presidential Elections (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution
Press, 1974).
4. Rolfe, Meredith, Voter Turnout: A Social Theory of Political Participation (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2012).
5. Jeffrey Gottfried and Elisa Shearer, “News Use across Social Media Platforms
2016,” Pew Research Center, Journalism & Media, May 26, 2016, www.journalism
.org/2016/05/26/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2016/ (accessed 6/25/16).
6. Katerina Eva Matsa and Amy Mitchell, “8 Key Takeaways about Social Media
and News,” Pew Research Center, Journalism & Media, March 26, 2014, www
.journalism.org/2014/03/26/8-key-takeaways-about-social-media-and-news/
(accessed 1/12/16).
7. Helen Margetts, Peter John, Scott Hale, and Taha Yasseri, Political Turbulence: How
Social Media Shape Collective Action (New York: Oxford University Press, 2017).
A63E N D N O T E S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a49-a80.indd 63 17/11/18 2:17 pm
www.journalism.org/2015/07/14/the-evolving-role-of-news-on-twitter-and-facebook/
www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/A.HRC.17.27_en
http://taxdayteaparty.com/2009/03/meet-keli-carender-tea-party-organizer-in-seattle-washington/
www.journalism.org/2016/05/26/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2016/
www.journalism.org/2014/03/26/8-key-takeaways-about-social-media-and-news/
8. Amy Mitchell and Emily Guskin, “Twitter News Consumers Young, Mobile and
Educated,” Pew Research Center, Journalism & Media, November 4, 2013, www
.journalism.org/2013/11/04/twitter-news-consumers-young-mobile-and-educated/
(accessed 4/12/16).
9. Caroline J. Tolbert, David P. RedLawsk and Kellen J. Gracey, “Racial Attitudes and
Emotional Responses to the 2016 Republican Candidates,” Journal of Election,
Public Opinion and Parties 28, no. 2 (2018): 245–62.
10. For a discussion of the decline in voter turnout over time, see Ruy A. Teixeria, The
Disappearing American Voter (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1992).
See also Michael McDonald and Samuel Popkin, “The Myth of the Vanishing Voter,”
American Political Science Review 95 (2001): 963–74; and Michael McDonald, “2012
November General Election Turnout Rates,” United States Election Project, www
.electproject.org/2012g (accessed 9/14/12).
11. Robert Jackman, “Political Institutions and Voter Turnout in the Democracies,”
American Political Science Review 81 (June 1987): 420.
12. Angus Campbell et al., The American Voter (New York: Wiley, 1960); Steven
Rosenstone and John Mark Hansen, Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in
America (New York: Macmillan, 1993).
13. Sidney Verba and Norman H. Nie, Participation in America: Political Democracy and
Social Equality (New York: Harper and Row, 1972).
14. Jan E. Leighley and Jonathan Nagler, “Socioeconomic Class Bias in Turnout,
1964–1988: The Voters Remain the Same,” American Political Science Review 86,
no. 3 (1992): 725–36.
15. Rosenstone and Hansen, Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy, 59.
16. Michael P. McDonald and John Samples, eds., The Marketplace of Democracy:
Electoral Competition and American Politics (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution
Press, 2006).
17. Mark N. Franklin, “Electoral Participation,” in Comparing Democracies: Elections
and Voting in Global Perspective, ed. Lawrence LeDuc, Richard G. Niemi, and Pippa
Norris (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996), 216–35; G. Bingham Powell, “American
Voter Turnout in Comparative Perspective,” American Political Science Review 80,
no. 1 (1986): 17–43.
18. National Conference of State Legislatures, “Voter Identification Requirements,”
www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/voter-id.aspx (accessed 4/11/16).
19. Matt Barreto, Stephen Nuño, and Gabriel Sanchez, “The Disproportionate Impact
of Voter-ID Requirements on the Electorate—New Evidence from Indiana,” PS:
Political Science & Politics 42 (2009): 111–16.
20. See Morris Fiorina, “Parties and Partisanship: A Forty Year Retrospective,” Political
Behavior 24, no. 2 (June 2002): 93–115.
21. On the limited polarization among ordinary voters, see Morris P. Fiorina,
Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America, with Samuel J. Abrams and
Jeremy C. Pope (New York: Pearson Longman, 2004); on growing partisan
attachment among a subset of voters, see Alan Abramowitz and Kyle Saunders,
“Why Can’t We Just Get Along? The Reality of a Polarized America,” The Forum
3, no. 2 (2005): 1–22.
22. League of United Latin American Citizens v. Wilson, CV-94-7569 (C.D. Calif. 1995);
Adam Nagourney, “Court Strikes Down Ban on Gay Marriage in California,”
New York Times, February 7, 2012, www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/us/marriage-ban
-violates-constitution-court-rules.html (accessed 8/21/12).
A64 E N D N O T E S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a49-a80.indd 64 17/11/18 2:17 pm
www.journalism.org/2013/11/04/twitter-news-consumers-young-mobile-and-educated/
www.electproject.org/2012g
www.nytimes.com/2012/02/08/us/marriage-ban-violates-constitution-court-rules.html
23. State legislatures determine the system by which electors are selected. Almost all states
use this “winner-take-all” system. Maine and Nebraska, however, provide that one
electoral vote goes to the winner in each congressional district and two electoral votes
go to the winner statewide.
24. Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). In the presidential election of 1824, no candidate
received a majority of the electoral vote, so the election was thrown into the House of
Representatives. It chose John Quincy Adams, even though Andrew Jackson won the
nationwide popular vote.
25. GDELT Project, “Presidential Campaign 2016: Candidate Television Tracker,”
television.gdeltproject.org/cgi-bin/iatv_campaign2016/iatv_campaign2016 (accessed
11/11/16).
26. Nancy Scola, “Massive Twitter Data Release Sheds Light on Russia Trump Strategy,”
Politico, October 17, 2018, www.politico.com/story/2018/10/17/twitter-foreign-
influence-operations-910005
27. Tim Craig, “Democrats’ Gains in State Capitols Mark a Significant Turnaround for
Party,” Washington Post, November 8, 2018, A27.
28. Center for Responsive Politics, “Behind the Candidates: Campaign Committees and
Outside Groups,” www.opensecrets.org/pres16/raised-summ (accessed 11/12/16).
29. McCutcheon et al. v. Federal Election Commission, 572 U.S. — (2014).
30. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010); SpeechNow v.
FEC, 558 U.S. — (2010).
31. McCutcheon et al.
32. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
CHAPTER 8
1. Matt Miller, “Young Americans Get the Shaft,” Washington Post, June 13, 2012,
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/young-americans-get-the-shaft/2012/06/13/
gJQAeHp4ZV_story.html?utm_term=.4a68ebb3076f 9 (accessed 1/26/18).
2. This account drawn from Araz Hachadourian, “Who’s Lobbying for Millennial
Interests? Meet the ‘A ARP for Young People,’” Yes! Magazine, May 19, 2016, www
.yesmagazine.org/people-power/millennials-have-the-numbers-to-move-our-politics
-and-theyre-about-to-get-their-own-lobbyists-20160519 (accessed 1/26/18); and
Association of Young Americans, joinaya.com/ (accessed 1/26/18).
3. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, ed. J. P. Mayer and trans. George
Lawrence (New York: Harper Collins, [1835–40] 1988), 513.
4. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, The Federalist Papers, ed. Clinton
L. Rossiter (New York: New American Library, 1961), no. 10, 83.
5. The Federalist Papers, no. 10.
6. The best statement of the pluralist view is in David Truman, The Governmental Process
(New York: Knopf, 1951), chap. 2.
7. Beth L. Leech, National Survey of Governmental Relations, 2012; Center for
Responsive Politics, “Political Action Committees,” www.opensecrets.org/pacs/;
Lobbyists.Info, www.lobbyists.info/ (accessed 12/2/15).
8. Megan R. Wilson, “Lobbying’s Top 50: Who’s Spending Big,” The Hill, February 7,
2017, www.thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/business-a-lobbying/318177-lobbyings
-top-50-whos-spending-big (accessed 4/5/18).
9. Frank R. Baumgartner et al., Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and
Why (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009).
A65E N D N O T E S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a49-a80.indd 65 17/11/18 2:17 pm
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/young-americans-get-the-shaft/2012/06/13/gJQAeHp4ZV_story.html?utm_term=.4a68ebb3076f 9
www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/millennials-have-the-numbers-to-move-our-politics-and-theyre-about-to-get-their-own-lobbyists-20160519
www.opensecrets.org/pacs/;Lobbyists.Info, www.lobbyists.info/
10. Erika Falk, Erin Grizard, and Gordon McDonald, “Legislative Issue Advertising in
the 108th Congress: Pluralism or Peril?” Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics
11, no. 4 (Fall 2006): 148–64.
11. Truman, Governmental Process.
12. For an exploration of lower-class interest groups and social movements, see
Frances Piven and Richard Cloward, Poor People’s Movements (New York:
Vintage, 1978).
13. Piven and Cloward, Poor People’s Movements.
14. E. E. Schattschneider, The Semisovereign People: A Realist’s View of Democracy in
America (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1960).
15. Kay Lehman Schlozman and John T. Tierney, Organized Interests and American
Democracy (New York: Harper and Row, 1986), 60.
16. Clay Shirky, Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing without Organizations
(New York: Penguin, 2008).
17. Mancur Olson, The Logic of Collective Action (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1965).
18. Lisa Stiffler, “How Connected Students Are Wielding the Internet to Fight for
Gun Control and Climate Protection,” GeekWire, March 23, 2018, www.geekwire
.com/2018/vocal-students-wielding-internet-powerful-weapon-fight-gun-control
-climate-protection/ (accessed 4/24/18).
19. John Herbers, “Special Interests Gaining Power as Voter Disillusionment Grows,”
New York Times, November 14, 1978.
20. For discussions of lobbying, see Allan J. Cigler and Burdett A. Loomis, eds.,
Interest Group Politics (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1983). See also Jeffrey M. Berry,
Lobbying for the People (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1977).
21. Andrew Chin, “A Case of Insecure Browsing,” Newsobserver.com, September 30,
2004, www.unclaw.com/chin/scholarship/nando (accessed 3/30/16).
22. David Kirkpatrick, “Congress Finds Ways of Avoiding Lobbyist Limits,” Washington
Post, February 11, 2007, 1.
23. Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
24. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).
25. Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989).
26. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. — (2015).
27. “How the NR A Relies More on Grassroots Mobilization Rather Than Lobby-
ing,” U.S. News and World Report, December 18, 2012, http://usnews.tumblr.
com/post/38229308383/how-the-nra-relies-more-on-grassroots-mobilization
(accessed 12/11/15).
28. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).
29. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
30. Center for Responsive Politics, “Behind the Candidates: Campaign Committees
and Outside Groups,” December 6, 2017, www.opensecrets.org/pres16/raised-summ
(accessed 4/6/18).
31. Center for Responsive Politics, “2016 Outside Spending, by Super PAC,”
www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?chrt=V&type=S (accessed
11/10/16).
32. Center for Responsive Politics, “2018 Outside Spending, by Super PAC,” November 8,
2018, www.opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?chrt=V&type=S (accessed 11/8/18).
33. Elisabeth R. Gerber, The Populist Paradox (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
1999), 6.
34. The Federalist Papers, no. 10.
35. Olson, Logic of Collective Action.
A66 E N D N O T E S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a49-a80.indd 66 17/11/18 2:17 pm
www.geekwire.com/2018/vocal-students-wielding-internet-powerful-weapon-fight-gun-control-climate-protection/
CHAPTER 9
1. “Small Business Owners Praise GOP Tax Bill,” Fox Business, December 20, 2017,
www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017/12/20/small-business-owners-praise-gop-tax-bill
.html (accessed 2/3/18).
2. Erin Dooley and Meridith McGraw, “Program That Provides Low-Cost Health Care
to 9M Children Set to Expire,” ABC News, September 29, 2017, abcnews.go.com/US/
program-low-cost-health-care-9m-children-set/story?id=50188069 (accessed 2/4/18).
3. Juliette Cubanski and Tricia Neuman, “The Facts of Medicare Spending and Financ-
ing,” Kaiser Family Foundation Issue Brief, July 18, 2017, www.kff.org/medicare/
issue-brief/the-facts-on-medicare-spending-and-financing/ (accessed 2/4/18).
4. Jennifer E. Manning, “Membership of the 114th Congress,” Congressional Research
Service, September 7, 2016 www.senate.gov/CRSpubs/c527ba93-dd4a-4ad6-b79d
-b1c9865ca076 (accessed 11/10/16); Ballotpedia, “U.S. Senate” and “U.S. House,”
www.ballotpedia.org (accessed 11/10/16); and U.S. Census Quick Facts, www.census
.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00 (accessed 11/10/16).
5. Jennifer E. Manning, Membership of the 112th Congress: A Profile, Congressional
Research Service 7-5700, September 20, 2011, 2, http://fpc.state.gov/documents/
organization/174246 (accessed 1/23/12).
6. For some interesting empirical evidence, see Angus Campbell et al., Elections and the
Political Order (New York: Wiley, 1966), chap. 11.
7. Partnership for a More Perfect Union at the Congressional Management Foundation,
“Communicating with Congress: How Citizen Advocacy Is Changing Mail
Operations on Capitol Hill,” 2011, http://congressfoundation.org/storage/documents/
CMF_Pubs/cwc-mail-operations (accessed 1/23/12).
8. John S. Saloma, Congress and the New Politics (Boston: Little, Brown, 1969), 184–85.
A 1977 official report using less detailed categories came up with almost the same
impression of Congress’s workload. Commission on Administrative Review,
“Administrative Reorganization and Legislative Management,” H.R. Doc. No.
95-232 (September 28, 1977), vol. 2, especially 17–19.
9. Dan Balz, “Dodd, Dorgan, and Ritter to Retire as Democrats Face a Difficult
Mid-Term Year,” Washington Post, January 7, 2010, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
content/article/2010/01/06/AR2010010602543.html (accessed 9/17/18).
10. Simone Pathe, “Democrats Identify Vulnerable Incumbent Members for 2018,”
Roll Call, March 6, 2017, www.rollcall.com/politics/democrats-identify-vulnerable
-members-2018 (accessed 3/22/18).
11. See Barbara C. Burrell, A Woman’s Place Is in the House: Campaigning for Congress in
the Feminist Era (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994); and David Broder,
“Key to Women’s Political Parity: Running,” Washington Post, September 8, 1994, A17.
12. Mark Hugo Lopez and Paul Taylor, “The 2010 Congressional Reapportionment and
Latinos,” Pew Research Center, Hispanic Trends, January 5, 2011, www.pewhispanic
.org/2011/01/05/the-2010-congressional-reapportionment-and-latinos (accessed 2/24/14).
13. R. E. Cohen, “Did Redistricting Sink the Democrats?” National Journal, December 17,
1994, 2984.
14. Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995).
15. Bernie Becker, “Reapportionment Roundup,” New York Times, December 24, 2009,
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/reapportionment-roundup/ (accessed
1/31/10).
16. L. Paige Whitaker, “Congressional Redistricting and the Voting Rights Act: A Legal
Overview,” Congressional Research Service, April 13, 2015, www.fas.org/sgp/crs/
misc/R42482 (accessed 7/1/16).
A67E N D N O T E S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a49-a80.indd 67 17/11/18 2:17 pm
www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2017/12/20/small-business-owners-praise-gop-tax-bill.html
www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/the-facts-on-medicare-spending-and-financing/
www.senate.gov/CRSpubs/c527ba93-dd4a-4ad6-b79d-b1c9865ca076
www.senate.gov/CRSpubs/c527ba93-dd4a-4ad6-b79d-b1c9865ca076
www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/00
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/174246
http://congressfoundation.org/storage/documents/CMF_Pubs/cwc-mail-operations
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/06/AR2010010602543.html
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/06/AR2010010602543.html
www.rollcall.com/politics/democrats-identify-vulnerable-members-2018
www.rollcall.com/politics/democrats-identify-vulnerable-members-2018
www.pewhispanic.org/2011/01/05/the-2010-congressional-reapportionment-and-latinos
www.pewhispanic.org/2011/01/05/the-2010-congressional-reapportionment-and-latinos
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42482
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42482
17. Chris Cillizza, “What the Supreme Court’s Voting Rights Act Decision Means for
Politics,” Washington Post, June 25, 2013, www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/
2013/06/25/what-the-voting-rights-act-decision-means-for-politics (accessed 12/2/13).
18. Tarini Parti, “High Court Reasserts Voting Rights Act in Alabama Decision,”
Politico, March 25, 2015, www.politico.com/story/2015/03/supreme-court-alabama
-redistricting-ruling-116384 (accessed 9/14/15).
19. Tom Hamburger and Richard Simon, “Everybody Will Know If It’s Pork,” Los Angeles
Times, January 6, 2007, A1.
20. Don Seymour, “House Republicans Renew Earmark Ban for 113th Congress,”
website of the Speaker of the House, November 16, 2012, www.speaker.gov/general/
house-republicans-renew-earmark-ban-113th-congress (accessed 12/1/13).
21. Aaron Blake, “Trump Wants to Bring Earmarks Back,” Washington Post, January 10,
2018, www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/01/10/trump-wants-to-bring
-earmarks-back-heres-why-its-not-so-crazy/?utm_term=.5748db2288a1 (accessed 3/22/18).
22. Martin Frost and Tom Davis, “How to Fix What Ails Congress; Bring Back
Earmarks,” Los Angeles Times, February 8, 2015, www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/
la-oe-frost-earmark-spending-20150209-story.html (accessed 9/14/15).
23. Associated Press, “Congress Passes Rare Private Immigration Bills,” December 15,
2010, www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20101215/us-private-immigration-bills/
(accessed 2/1/12).
24. Richard Fenno, Jr., Home Style: House Members in Their Districts (Boston: Little, Brown, 1978).
25. Edward Epstein, “Dusting Off Deliberation,” CQ Weekly, June 14, 2010, 1436–42;
Sarah Binder, “Where Have All the Conference Committees Gone?” The Monkey
Cage (blog), December 21, 2011, themonkeycage.org/blog/2011/12/21/where-have
-all-the-conference-committees-gone (accessed 2/7/12).
26. Rebecca Kimitch, “CQ Guide to the Committees: Democrats Opt to Spread the
Power,” Congressional Quarterly Weekly, April 16, 2007, 1080.
27. U.S. Senate, Senate Action on Cloture Motions, www.senate.gov/pagelayout/
reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm (accessed 11/9/18).
28. Jeremy W. Peters, “Senate Vote Curbs Filibuster Power to Stall Nominees,” New York
Times, November 22, 2013, A1.
29. Sean Sullivan and Mike DeBonis, “Congress Averts Homeland Security Shutdown
with One-Week Extension,” Washington Post, February 28, 2015, www.washingtonpost
.com/politics/house-gop-hopes-to-pass-stopgap-dhs-funding-before-midnight-shutdown/
2015/02/27/22021530-be88-11e4-b274-e5209a3bc9a9_story.html (accessed 9/21/15).
30. See John W. Kingdon, Congressmen’s Voting Decisions (New York: Harper &
Row, 1973), chap. 3; and R. Douglas Arnold, The Logic of Congressional Action
(New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990).
31. Eric Lipton and Ben Protess, “Banks’ Lobbyists Help in Drafting Financial Bills,”
New York Times, May 23, 2013, dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/banks-lobbyists-help-
in-drafting-financial-bills/; Michael Corkery, “Citigroup Becomes the Fall Guy in the
Spending Bill Battle,” New York Times, December 12, 2014, dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/
12/12/citigroup-becomes-the-fall-guy-in-the-spending-bill-battle/ (accessed 9/21/15).
32. Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein, “Vital Statistics,” The Brookings
Institution, May 21, 2018, www.brookings.edu/multi-chapter-report/vital-statistics
-on-congress/ (accessed 7/1/18).
33. Center for Responsive Politics, Open Secrets.org, www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot
.php?cmte=C00525600&cycle=2016 (accessed 10/13/16).
34. Daniel Newhauser, “Three Booted from GOP Whip Team as Leaders Crack Down,”
National Journal, June 16, 2015, www.nationaljournal.com/congress/2015/06/16/
Three-Booted-From-GOP-Whip-Team-Leaders-Crack-Down (accessed 9/21/15).
A68 E N D N O T E S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a49-a80.indd 68 17/11/18 2:17 pm
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/06/25/what-the-voting-rights-act-decision-means-for-politics
www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm
www.brookings.edu/multi-chapter-report/vital-statistics-on-congress/
www.brookings.edu/multi-chapter-report/vital-statistics-on-congress/
www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00525600&cycle=2016
www.nationaljournal.com/congress/2015/06/16/Three-Booted-From-GOP-Whip-Team-Leaders-Crack-Down
35. Mann and Ornstein, “Vital Statistics,” Table 6-4.
36. Frank Newport, “Congressional Approval Sinks to Record Low,” Gallup, Politics,
November 12, 2013, www.gallup.com/poll/165809/congressional-approval-sinks
-record-low.aspx (accessed 4/17/14).
37. See Geoffrey C. Layman, Thomas M. Carsey, and Juliana Menasce Horowitz,
“Party Polarization in American Politics: Characteristics, Causes, and Consequences,”
Annual Review of Political Science 9 (2006): 83–110.
38. Michael S. Schmidt and Maggie Haberman, “Aides for Hillary Clinton and Benghazi
Committee Dispute Testimony Plan,” New York Times, July 25, 2015, www.nytimes
.com/2015/07/26/us/clinton-to-testify-publicly-before-house-committee-investigating
-benghazi-attacks.html (accessed 9/21/15).
39. Gregory Krieg, “FBI Boss Comey’s 7 Most Damning Lines on Clinton,” CNN, July
5, 2016, www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/politics/f bi-clinton-email-server-comey-damning
-lines/ (accessed 9/21/16).
40. Carroll J. Doherty, “Impeachment: How It Would Work,” Congressional Quarterly
Weekly Report, January 31, 1998, 222.
CHAPTER 10
1. This account is drawn from Amy Nixon, “Community Raises Funds to Support
Hartley Family after Son Dies in Work Accident,” Tennessean, May 4, 2017, www
.tennessean.com/story/news/local/cheatham/2017/05/04/community-raises-funds
-support-hartley-family-after-son-dies-work-accident/101283588/ (accessed 3/2/18);
Eric Lipton, “Why Has the E.P.A. Shifted on Toxic Chemicals? An Industry
Insider Helps Call the Shots,” New York Times, October 21, 2017, www.nytimes
.com/2017/10/21/us/trump-epa-chemicals-regulations.html (accessed 3/2/18); and
Jamie Smith Hopkins, “EPA Wants to Restrict Sometimes-Deadly Paint Stripper
Chemical,” The Center for Public Integrity, January 12, 2017, www.publicintegrity
.org/2017/01/12/20589/epa-wants-restrict-sometimes-deadly-paint-stripper-chemical
(accessed 3/2/18).
2. These statutes are contained mainly in Title 10 of the U.S. Code, Sections 331, 332,
and 333.
3. Devlin Barrett and Abby Phillip, “Trump Pardons Former Arizona Sheriff Joe
Arpaio,” Washington Post, August 25, 2017, www.washingtonpost.com/world/
national-security/trump-pardons-former-arizona-sheriff-joe-arpaio/2017/08/25/
af bff4b6-86b1-11e7-961d-2f373b3977ee_story.html?utm_term=.a1ee89306fef
(accessed 2/20/18).
4. In United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203 (1942), the Supreme Court confirmed that an
executive agreement is the legal equivalent of a treaty, despite the absence of Senate
approval. This case approved the executive agreement that was used to establish
diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union in 1933. An executive agreement, not a
treaty, was used in 1940 to exchange “50 overage destroyers” for 99-year leases on
some important military bases.
5. For a different perspective, see William F. Grover, The President as Prisoner: A
Structural Critique of the Carter and Reagan Years (Albany: State University of
New York Press, 1988).
6. There is a third source of presidential power implied from the provision for “faithful
execution of the laws.” This is the president’s power to impound funds—that is, to
refuse to spend money Congress has appropriated for certain purposes. One author
referred to this as a “retroactive veto power” (Robert E. Goosetree, “The Power of
the President to Impound Appropriated Funds,” American University Law Review
A69E N D N O T E S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a49-a80.indd 69 17/11/18 2:17 pm
www.tennessean.com
[January 1962]). Many modern presidents used this impoundment power freely and
to considerable effect, and Congress has occasionally delegated such power to the
president by statute. But in reaction to the Watergate scandal, Congress adopted the
Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which was designed to circumscribe
the president’s ability to impound funds by requiring that the president spend all
appropriated funds unless both houses of Congress consented to an impoundment
within 45 days of a presidential request. Therefore, since 1974, the use of impoundment
has declined significantly. Presidents have had to either bite their tongues and accept
unwanted appropriations or revert to the older and more dependable but politically
limited method of vetoing the entire bill.
7. For more on the veto, see Robert J. Spitzer, The Presidential Veto: Touchstone of the
American Presidency (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1988).
8. John Yoo, The Powers of War and Peace (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003).
See also Dana Nelson, “The Unitary Executive Question: What Do McCain and
Obama Think of the Concept?” Los Angeles Times, October 11, 2008, www.latimes
.com/opinion/la-oe-nelson11-2008oct11-story.html (accessed 7/30/18).
9. See Eric Posner and Adrian Vermeule, The Executive Unbound: After the Madisonian
Republic (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011); Robert J. Spitzer, “The Unitary
Executive and the Bush Presidency,” in The George W. Bush Presidency, ed. Meena
Bose (New York: Nova Publishers, 2016).
10. “Unchecked Abuse,” Washington Post, January 11, 2006, www.washingtonpost.com/
wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/10/AR2006011001536.html (accessed 7/30/18).
11. Louis Fisher, “Invoking Inherent Powers: A Primer,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 37,
no. 1 (March 2007): 1–22.
12. Harold C. Relyea, “National Emergency Powers,” Congressional Research Service,
2007, http://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/98-505 (accessed 3/27/18).
13. Andrew Reeves, “Political Disaster: Unilateral Powers, Electoral Incentives, and
Presidential Disaster Declarations,” Journal of Politics 73, no. 4 (October 2011):
1142–51.
14. A substantial portion of this section is taken from Theodore J. Lowi, The Personal
President (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1985), 141–50.
15. Article I, Section 3, provides that “The Vice-President . . . shall be President of the
Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.” This is the only vote
the vice president is allowed.
16. Samuel Kernell, Going Public: New Strategies of Presidential Leadership, 4th ed.
(Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2006); also, Jeffrey K. Tulis, The Rhetorical Presidency
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987).
17. Tulis, The Rhetorical Presidency, 91.
18. Sidney M. Milkis, The President and the Parties (New York: Oxford University Press,
1993), 97.
19. James MacGregor Burns, Roosevelt: The Lion and the Fox (New York: Harcourt, Brace,
1956), 317.
20. Kernell, Going Public, 79.
21. Claire Cain Miller, “How Obama’s Internet Campaign Changed Politics,” New York
Times, November 7, 2008; David Plouffe, The Audacity to Win: The Inside Story and
Lessons of Barack Obama’s Historic Victory (New York: Penguin, 2009).
22. Gallup, “Presidential Job Approval Center,” www.gallup.com/poll/124922/presidential
-approval-center.aspx (accessed 3/14/14).
23. Lowi, The Personal President.
24. Lowi, The Personal President, 11.
A70 E N D N O T E S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a49-a80.indd 70 17/11/18 2:17 pm
www.latimes.com/opinion/la-oe-nelson11-2008oct11-story.html
www.gallup.com/poll/124922/presidential-approval-center.aspx
25. Harold W. Stanley and Richard G. Niemi, Vital Statistics on American Politics,
2001–2002 (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2001), 250–51.
26. Milkis, The President and the Parties, 128.
27. Milkis, The President and the Parties, 160.
28. John M. Broder, “Powerful Shaper of U.S. Rules Quits, with Critics in Wake,” New
York Times, August 4, 2012, A1.
29. Nadja Popovich, “67 Environmental Rules on the Way Out under Trump,” New York
Times, January 31, 2018, www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/climate/trump
-environment-rules-reversed.html (accessed 2/20/18).
30. A complete inventory is provided in Harold C. Relyea, “Presidential Directives:
Background and Review,” Congressional Research Service Report 98-611 (Washington,
DC: Library of Congress, November 9, 2001).
31. Terry M. Moe and William G. Howell, “The Presidential Power of Unilateral Action,”
Journal of Law, Economics and Organization 15, no. 1 (January 1999): 133–34.
32. Peter Baker, “Obama Is Making Plans to Use Executive Power for Action on Several
Fronts,” New York Times, February 13, 2010, A12.
33. Harold C. Relyea, “Presidential Directives: Background and Overview,” Congressional
Research Service, November 26, 2008, http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/98-611
(accessed 7/30/18)
34. Adam L. Warber, Executive Orders and the Modern Presidency (Boulder, CO: Lynne
Rienner Publishers, 2006), 118–20.
35. Vivian S. Chu and Ted Garvey, “Executive Orders: Issuance, Modification, and
Revocation,” Congressional Research Service, April 16, 2014, http://fas.org/sgp/crs/
misc/RS20846 (accessed 3/25/18).
36. Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654 (1981).
37. Mark Killenbeck, “A Matter of Mere Approval: The Role of the President in the Creation
of Legislative History,” University of Arkansas Law Review 239, no. 48 (1995).
38. Philip Cooper, By Order of the President (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas,
2002), 201.
39. Louis Fisher, Congressional Abdication on War and Spending (College Station: Texas
A&M Press, 2000).
CHAPTER 11
1. This account draws from Abby Goodnough, Monica Davey, and Mitch Smith,
“When the Water Turned Brown,” New York Times, January 23, 2016, www
.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/us/when-the-water-turned-brown.html; Amy Davidson,
“The Contempt That Poisoned Flint’s Water,” New Yorker, January 22, 2016, www
.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/the-contempt-that-poisoned-flints-water; and
Lindsey Smith, “This Mom Helped Uncover What Was Really Going On with Flint’s
Water,” Michigan Public Radio, December 4, 2015, http://michiganradio.org/post/
mom-helped-uncover-what-was-really-going-flint-s-water (accessed 8/11/17).
2. Flint Water Advisory Task Force, Final Report, March 2016, www.michigan.gov/
documents/snyder/FWATF_FINAL_REPORT_21March2016_517805_7
(accessed 8/11/17).
3. Amy B. Zegart, Spying Blind: The CIA, the FBI, and the Origins of 9/11 (Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 2009).
4. John M. Broder, “U.S. Issues Limits on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Cars,” New
York Times, April 2, 2010, B1.
A71E N D N O T E S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a49-a80.indd 71 17/11/18 2:17 pm
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS20846
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS20846
www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/us/when-the-water-turned-brown.html
www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/us/when-the-water-turned-brown.html
www.newyorker.com
www.newyorker.com
http://michiganradio.org/post/mom-helped-uncover-what-was-really-going-flint-s-water
http://michiganradio.org/post/mom-helped-uncover-what-was-really-going-flint-s-water
5. Lisa Friedman and Brad Plumer, “E.P.A. Announces Repeal of Major Obama-Era
Carbon Emissions Rule,” New York Times, October 9, 2017, www.nytimes.com/
2017/10/09/climate/clean-power-plan.html (accessed 10/24/17).
6. Margaret Cronin Fisk, Kartikay Mehrotra, Alan Katz, and Jeff Plungis, “Volkswagen
Agrees to $15 Billion Diesel-Cheating Settlement,” Bloomberg News, June 28, 2016,
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-28/volkswagen-to-pay-14-7-billion-to
-settle-u-s-emissions-claims (accessed 7/8/16).
7. Congressional Budget Office, “Comparing the Compensation of Federal and Private-
Sector Employees, 2011–2015,” April 2017, www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress
-2017-2018/reports/52637-federalprivatepay (accessed 12/20/17).
8. Office of Personnel Management, “Profile of Federal Civilian Non-Postal Employees,”
September 30, 2017, www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/
federal-employment-reports/reports-publications/profile-of-federal-civilian-non-postal
-employees/ (accessed 10/13/18).
9. The President’s Budget FY18, Analytical Perspectives, www.whitehouse.gov/omb/
budget (accessed 8/10/17).
10. President Barack Obama, First Inaugural Address, January 21, 2009, https://
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2009/01/21/president-barack-obamas-inaugural
-address (accessed 8/5/17).
11. Lisa Rein and Andrew Ba Tran, “How the Trump Era Is Changing the Federal
Bureaucracy,” Washington Post, December 30, 2017, www.washingtonpost.com/
politics/how-the-trump-era-is-changing-the-federal-bureaucracy/2017/12/30/
8d5149c6-daa7-11e7-b859-f b0995360725_story.html?utm_term=.c60128f90c6f
(accessed 9/11/18); U.S. Department of Defense, “About the Department of
Defense,” www.defense.gov/About/ (accessed 12/20/17). The DOD also employs
about 750,000 civilians.
12. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Table B-1. Employees on Nonfarm Payrolls by Industry
Sector and Selected Industry Detail,” www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cesbtab1.htm
(accessed 7/15/16).
13. There are historical reasons that American cabinet-level administrators are called
“secretaries.” During the Second Continental Congress and the subsequent confed-
eral government, standing committees were formed to deal with executive functions
related to foreign affairs, military and maritime issues, and public financing. The
heads of those committees were called “secretaries” because their primary task was to
handle all correspondence and documentation related to their areas of responsibility.
14. Morgan Chalfant, “Homeland Security Sees Power Grow under Trump,” The Hill,
October 19, 2017, http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/356131-homeland
-security-sees-power-grow-under-trump (accessed 11/10/17).
15. Laura Koran, Elise Labott, and Nicole Gaouette, “Tillerson Visits Russia as Tensions
over Syria Flare,” CNN, April 11, 2017, www.cnn.com/2017/04/11/politics/rex-tillerson
-putin-russia-g7/index.html (accessed 8/11/17).
16. U.S. Department of State, “Department Organization Chart: November 2016,”
www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/dos/99484.htm (accessed 8/5/17); Robbie Gramer,
“Lawmakers Slam Tillerson’s Bungled State Department Reforms,” Foreign Policy,
November 15, 2017, http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/11/15/lawmakers-slam-tillersons
-bungled-state-department-reforms-diplomacy-foreign-service-trump-administration
-redesign-congress-corker-cardin/ (accessed 1/5/18).
17. For more detail, consult John E. Harr, The Professional Diplomat (Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1972), 11; and Nicholas Horrock, “The CIA Has
Neighbors in the ‘Intelligence Community,’” New York Times, June 29, 1975, sec. 4, 2.
A72 E N D N O T E S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a49-a80.indd 72 17/11/18 2:17 pm
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-28/volkswagen-to-pay-14-7-billion-to-settle-u-s-emissions-claims
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-28/volkswagen-to-pay-14-7-billion-to-settle-u-s-emissions-claims
www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/52637-federalprivatepay
www.cbo.gov/system/files/115th-congress-2017-2018/reports/52637-federalprivatepay
www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/reports-publications/profile-of-federal-civilian-non-postal-employees/
www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/reports-publications/profile-of-federal-civilian-non-postal-employees/
www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment-reports/reports-publications/profile-of-federal-civilian-non-postal-employees/
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-trump-era-is-changing-the-federal-bureaucracy/2017/12/30/8d5149c6-daa7-11e7-b859-fb0995360725_story.html?utm_term=.c60128f90c6f
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-trump-era-is-changing-the-federal-bureaucracy/2017/12/30/8d5149c6-daa7-11e7-b859-fb0995360725_story.html?utm_term=.c60128f90c6f
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-trump-era-is-changing-the-federal-bureaucracy/2017/12/30/8d5149c6-daa7-11e7-b859-fb0995360725_story.html?utm_term=.c60128f90c6f
www.cnn.com/2017/04/11/politics/rex-tillerson-putin-russia-g7/index.html
www.cnn.com/2017/04/11/politics/rex-tillerson-putin-russia-g7/index.html
See also Roger Hilsman, The Politics of Policy Making in Defense and Foreign Affairs,
3rd ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1993).
18. In 2017 the Department of Defense had over 1.3 million active duty personnel and
nearly 750,000 civilian employees. U.S. Department of Defense, “About the
Department of Defense,” www.defense.gov/About/ (accessed 12/20/17).
19. Congressional Research Service, “Defense Primer: The Department of Defense,”
December 13, 2016, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/IF10543 (accessed 8/10/17).
20. Louise Osborne, “Europeans Outraged over NSA Spying, Threaten Action,” USA
Today, October 29, 2013, www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/10/28/report
-nsa-spain/3284609/ (accessed 1/24/14).
21. Mary Madden and Lee Rainie, “Americans’ Views about Data Collection and Security,”
Pew Research Center, Internet, Science & Tech, May 20, 2015, www.pewinternet.org/
2015/05/20/americans-views-about-data-collection-and-security/ (accessed 9/30/15).
22. David Cole, “Here’s What’s Wrong with the USA Freedom Act,” The Nation, May 6, 2015,
www.thenation.com/article/heres-whats-wrong-usa-freedom-act/ (accessed 11/10/17).
23. U.S. Department of the Treasury, “The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It,” www
.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current (accessed 7/7/16).
24. For an account of the Financial Stability Oversight Council and the passage of the
Dodd-Frank financial regulatory legislation, see John T. Woolley and J. Nicholas
Ziegler, “The Two-Tiered Politics of Financial Reform in the United States,” in
Crisis and Control: Institutional Change in Financial Market Regulation, ed.
Renate Mayntz (Frankfurt, Germany: Campus Verlag, 2012); the council’s early
activities are described in Financial Stability Oversight Council, “2011 Annual
Report,” www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fsoc/Documents/FSOCAR2011 , and in
Edward V. Murphy and Michael B. Bernier, Financial Stability Oversight Council:
A Framework to Mitigate Systemic Risk (Washington, DC: Congressional Research
Service, November 15, 2011), www.llsdc.org/assets/DoddFrankdocs/crs-r42083
(accessed 1/3/12).
25. The Editorial Board, “Don’t Cheer as the I.R.S. Grows Weaker,” New York Times,
December 29, 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/12/29/opinion/dont-cheer-as-the-irs
-grows-weaker.html (accessed 7/30/18).
26. The title of this section was inspired by Peri Arnold, Making the Managerial Presidency
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986).
27. Daniel P. Gitterman, Calling the Shots: The President, Executive Orders, and Public
Policy (Washington, DC: Brookings, 2017).
28. Paul C. Light, A Government Ill Executed: The Decline of the Federal Service and How
to Revive It (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008).
29. For more details and evaluations, see David Rosenbloom, Public Administration (New
York: Random House, 1986), 186–221; Charles H. Levine and Rosslyn Kleeman,
“The Quiet Crisis in the American Public Service,” in Agenda for Excellence: Public
Service in America, ed. Patricia Ingraham and Donald Kettl (Chatham, NJ: Chatham
House, 1992); and Patricia Ingraham and David Rosenbloom, “The State of Merit in
the Federal Government,” in Agenda for Excellence.
30. John Micklethwait, “Managing to Look Attractive,” New Statesman 125, November
8, 1996, 24.
31. Robert M. Gates, Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War (New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
2014); Leon Panetta, Worthy Fights: A Memoir of Leadership in War and Peace (New
York: Penguin, 2014).
32. Michael J. Glennon, National Security and Double Government (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2015).
A73E N D N O T E S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a49-a80.indd 73 17/11/18 2:17 pm
www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/10/28/report-nsa-spain/3284609/
www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current
www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/debt/current
33. Michael Crowley, “The Deep State Is Real. But It Might Not Be What You Think,”
Politico Magazine, September/October 2017, www.politico.com/magazine/story/
2017/09/05/deep-state-real-cia-f bi-intelligence-215537 (accessed 11/10/17).
34. David Epstein and Sharyn O’Halloran, Delegating Powers: A Transaction Cost Politics
Approach to Policymaking under Separate Powers (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1999).
35. Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein, The Broken Branch: How Congress Is
Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track (New York: Oxford University
Press, 2006).
36. Linette Lopez and Lydia Ramsey, “‘You Asked for It’—Congress Railed on the
Maker of EpiPen,” Business Insider, September 21, 2016, www.businessinsider.com/
mylan-ceo-heather-bresch-house-oversight-committee-hearing-epipen-2016-9
(accessed 11/9/17); see Mathew D. McCubbins and Thomas Schwartz, “Congressional
Oversight Overlooked: Police Patrols versus Fire Alarms,” American Journal of
Political Science 28, no. 1 (1984): 165–79.
37. Michael D. Shear and Michael S. Schmidt, “Benghazi Panel Engages Clinton
in Tense Session,” New York Times, October 22, 2015, www.nytimes.com/2015/
10/23/us/politics/hillary-clinton-benghazi-committee.html?_r50 (accessed
10/29/15).
38. The Office of Technology Assessment was a fourth research agency serving
Congress until 1995. It was one of the first agencies scheduled for elimination
by the 104th Congress. Until 1983, Congress had still another tool of legislative
oversight: the legislative veto. Agencies were obliged to submit to Congress every
proposed decision or rule, which would then lie before both chambers for 30 to 60
days. If Congress took no action by a one-house or two-house resolution explicitly
to veto the proposed measure during the prescribed period, the measure became
law. In 1983 the Supreme Court declared the legislative veto unconstitutional on
the grounds that it violated the separation of powers—that is, the resolutions Con-
gress passed to exercise its veto were not subject to presidential veto, as required by
the Constitution. See Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462
U.S. 919 (1983).
CHAPTER 12
1. This account draws from Austin Berg, “Meet the Man Who Could End Forced
Union Fees for Government Workers,” Illinois Policy, 2018, www.illinoispolicy.org/
story/meet-the-man-who-could-end-forced-union-fees-for-government-workers/
(accessed 3/3/18); and P. R. Lockhart, “What the Latest Union Case Before the
Supreme Court Could Mean for Workers of Color,” Vox, February 26, 2018, www
.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/26/17053328/janus-afscme-supreme-court
-unions-minorities (accessed 3/3/18).
2. United States Courts, “Judicial Business 2014,” www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/
judicial-business-2014 (accessed 9/19/15).
3. Michael A. Fletcher, “Obama Criticized as Too Cautious, Slow on Judicial Posts,”
Washington Post, October 16, 2009, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2009/10/15/AR2009101504083.html (accessed 3/1/10).
4. Timothy S. Huebner, “In Election Years, a History of Confirming Court Nominees,”
New York Times, February 16, 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/opinion/
in-election-years-a-history-of-confirming-court-nominees.html (accessed 3/15/18).
A74 E N D N O T E S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a49-a80.indd 74 17/11/18 2:17 pm
www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/09/05/deep-state-real-cia-fbi-intelligence-215537
www.nytimes.com
www.vox.com
www.vox.com
www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2014
www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/judicial-business-2014
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/15/AR2009101504083.html
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/15/AR2009101504083.html
www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/opinion/in-election-years-a-history-of-confirming-court-nominees.html
5. John Bowden, “Timeline: Brett Kavanaugh’s Nomination to the Supreme Court,”
The Hill, October 6, 2018, https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/410217-timeline
-brett-kavanaughs-nomination-to-the-supreme-court (accessed 10/16/18).
6. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
7. National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012).
8. U.S. Government Printing Office, “Acts of Congress Held Unconstitutional in
Whole or in Part by the Supreme Court of the United States,” www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
pkg/GPO-CONAN-2013/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2013-11 (accessed 4/20/14).
9. Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, 551 U.S. 449 (2007); Citizens
United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010); McCutcheon v. Federal
Election Commission, 572 U.S. — (2014).
10. Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. — (2107).
11. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004).
12. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006).
13. Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008).
14. Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project 582 U.S. — (2017).
15. Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. — (2018).
16. The Supreme Court affirmed this review power in Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 1
Wheat. 304 (1816).
17. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
18. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
19. Pavan v. Smith, 582 U.S. — (2017).
20. Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 575 U.S. — (2015).
21. Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 576
U.S. — (2015).
22. Cooper v. Harris 581 U.S. — (2017).
23. United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. — (2012); Riley v. California, 573 U.S. — (2014).
24. Robert Scigliano, The Supreme Court and the Presidency (New York: Free Press, 1971),
161. For an interesting critique of the solicitor general’s role during the Reagan adminis-
tration, see Lincoln Caplan, “Annals of the Law,” New Yorker, August 17, 1987, 30–62.
25. Edward Lazarus, Closed Chambers (New York: Times Books, 1998), 6.
26. Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944).
27. Charles Krauthammer, “Why Roberts Did It,” Washington Post, June 29, 2012, www
.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-why-roberts-did-it/2012/06/28/
gJQA4X0g9V_story.html (accessed 4/22/14).
28. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).
29. R. W. Apple, Jr., “A Divided Government Remains, and with It the Prospect of
Further Combat,” New York Times, November 7, 1996, B6.
30. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, The Federalist Papers, ed. Clinton
Rossiter (New York: New American Library, 1961), no. 10, 78.
CHAPTER 13
1. See Andrea Louise Campbell, Trapped in America’s Safety Net (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 2014).
2. David Brunori, “Where Is the Outrage Over Corporate Welfare?” Forbes, March 14,
2014, www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts/2014/03/14/where-is-the-outrage-over
-corporate-welfare/#3f4a0aa727dd (accessed 1/1/18); Michael B. Tanner, “No to Coal
Subsidies, No to Corporate Welfare,” Cato Institute, August 16, 2017, www.cato.org/
publications/commentary/no-coal-subsidies-no-corporate-welfare, (accessed 10/25/17).
A75E N D N O T E S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a49-a80.indd 75 17/11/18 2:17 pm
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2013/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2013-11
www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts/2014/03/14/where-is-the-outrage-over-corporate-welfare/#3f4a0aa727dd
www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalysts/2014/03/14/where-is-the-outrage-over-corporate-welfare/#3f4a0aa727dd
3. James Dao, “The Nation; Big Bucks Trip Up the Lean New Army,” New York Times,
February 10, 2002, sec. 4, 5.
4. For an evaluation of the policy of withholding subsidies to carry out desegregation
laws, see Gary Orfield, Must We Bus? (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press,
1978). For an evaluation of the use of subsidies to encourage work or to calm political
unrest, see Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward, Regulating the Poor: The Functions
of Public Welfare (New York: Random House, 1971).
5. Federal Reserve Board, “Open Market Operations,” www.federalreserve.gov/
monetarypolicy/openmarket.htm (accessed 8/1/16).
6. Thomas Kaplan, “House Gives Final Approval to Sweeping Tax Overhaul,” New
York Times, December 20, 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/12/20/us/politics/tax-bill
-republicans.html (accessed 7/31/18).
7. Social Security Administration, www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/quickfacts/prog_highlights/
RatesLimits2018.html (accessed 4/15/18).
8. C. Eugene Steuerle, Adam Carasso, and Lee Cohen, How Progressive Is Social Security
and Why? (Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2004), www.urban.org/research/
publication/how-progressive-social-security-and-why (accessed 5/3/14).
9. John R. Kearney, “Social Security and the ‘D’ in OASDI: The History of a Federal
Program Insuring Earners against Disability,” Social Security Bulletin 66 (3): 2005–6,
www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v66n3/v66n3p1.html (accessed 6/7/17).
10. Workers must have lost their job through no fault of their own. For a full description
of the program see Chad Stone and William Chen, “Introduction to Unemployment
Insurance,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, July 30, 2014, www.cbpp.org/
research/introduction-to-unemployment-insurance (accessed 11/18/15).
11. Ife Floyd and Liz Schott, “TANF Cash Benefits Have Fallen by More Than 20 Percent
in Most States and Continue to Erode,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
October 13, 2017, www.cbpp.org/research/family-income-support/tanf-cash-benefits
-have-fallen-by-more-than-20-percent-in-most-states (accessed 8/19/18).
12. This poverty threshold is for a household of three persons that includes two children.
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Planning and Evaluation, Poverty Guidelines, January 13, 2018, http://aspe.hhs.gov/
poverty-guidelines (accessed 7/10/18).
13. See Martin Gilens, Why Americans Hate Welfare (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1999), chaps. 3, 4.
14. Gilens, Why Americans Hate Welfare.
15. U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Temporary Assistance for Needy Families,”
December 2012, www.gao.gov/assets/660/650635 (accessed 10/31/15).
16. Center for Law and Social Policy, “Analysis of Fiscal Year 2006 TANF and MOE
Spending by States,” http://clasp.org (accessed 4/9/08).
17. See the discussion of the law and the data presented in House Ways and Means
Committee, Background Material and Data on Programs within the Jurisdiction of the
Committee on Ways and Means (Green Book), Section 7, “Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF),” WMCP 106-14, http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov (accessed
3/26/08); Rebecca M. Blank, “Evaluating Welfare Reform in the United States,”
Journal of Economic Literature 40 (December 2002): 1105–66.
18. LaDonna Pavetti and Liz Schott, “TANF’s Inadequate Response to Recession High-
lights Weakness of Block-Grant Structure,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
July 14, 2011, www.cbpp.org/research/family-income-support/tanfs-inadequate
-response-to-recession-highlights-weakness-of-block (accessed 6/1/16).
19. Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, “Chartbook: SNAP Helps Struggling
Families Put Food on the Table,” April 18, 2012, www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/
A76 E N D N O T E S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a49-a80.indd 76 17/11/18 2:17 pm
www.cbpp.org/research/family-income-support/tanfs-inadequate-response-to-recession-highlights-weakness-of-block
www.cbpp.org/research/family-income-support/tanfs-inadequate-response-to-recession-highlights-weakness-of-block
chart-book-snap-helps-struggling-families-put-food-on-the-table (accessed 6/1/16);
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),” www.fns.usda.gov/pd/34SNAPmonthly.htm
(accessed 5/3/14)
20. Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, “Chartbook: SNAP Helps Struggling Families
Put Food on the Table,” April 18, 2012, www.cbpp.org/research/food-assistance/
chart-book-snap-helps-struggling-families-put-food-on-the-table (accessed 6/1/16);
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “National and/or State
Level Monthly and/or Annual Data,” April 6, 2018, https://fns-prod.azureedge.net/
sites/default/files/pd/34SNAPmonthly (accessed 4/15/18).
21. There were a couple of minor precedents. One was the Smith-Hughes Act of 1917,
which made federal funds available to the states for vocational education at the
elementary and secondary levels. Another was the Lanham Act of 1940, which made
federal funds available to schools in “federally impacted areas,” that is, areas with an
unusually large number of government employees and/or where the local tax base was
reduced by large amounts of government-owned property.
22. New America Foundation, “PreK–12 Financing Overview,” June 29, 2015, atlas
.newamerica.org/school-finance (accessed 7/10/16).
23. David K. Cohen and Susan L. Moffitt, The Ordeal of Equality: Did Federal Regulation
Fix the Schools? (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009).
24. Rich Motoko, “‘No Child’ Law Whittled Down by White House,” New York Times,
July 6, 2012, A1; U.S. Department of Education, Elementary and Secondary
Education, “ESEA Flexibility,” www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/index
.html (accessed 5/11/14).
25. Valerie Strauss, “The Successor to No Child Left Behind Has, It Turns Out, Big
Problems of Its Own,” Washington Post, December 7, 2015, www.washingtonpost
.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/12/07/the-successor-to-no-child-left-behind-has
-it-turns-out-big-problems-of-its-own/ (accessed 7/11/16).
26. Sam Dillon, “Obama Proposes Sweeping Change in Education Law,” New York
Times, March 14, 2010, A1; Veronica DeVore, “‘Race to the Top’ Education
Funds Awarded to 9 States and D.C.,” August 24, 2010, www.pbs.org/newshour/
rundown/2010/08/round-two-results-announced-for-race-to-the-top.html (accessed
11/13/12).
27. Elaine Weiss, “Mismatches in Race to the Top Limit Educational Improvement: Lack
of Time, Resources, and Tools to Address Opportunity Gaps Puts Lofty State Goals
Out of Reach,” Economic Policy Institute, September 12, 2013, www.epi.org/
publication/race-to-the-top-goals/ (accessed 5/11/14).
28. Tim Alberta, “The Education of Betsy DeVos,” Politico, November/December 2017,
www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/01/betsy-devos-secretary-education
-profile-2017-215768 (accessed 1/4/18).
29. Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2017, Historical Tables, “Table 12.3,
Total Outlays for Grants to State and Local Governments, by Function, Agency, and
Program: 1940–2017,” www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2017/
assets/hist (accessed 7/11/18).
30. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, “Medicaid: A Primer—Key Information on the
Nation’s Health Coverage Program for Low-Income People,” March 1, 2013, https://
kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/7334-05 (see p. 26) (accessed
6/2/16).
31. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, “Total Monthly Medicaid and CHIP Enroll-
ment,” http://kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/total-monthly-medicaid-and
-chip-enrollment/ (accessed 11/4/15).
A77E N D N O T E S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a49-a80.indd 77 17/11/18 2:17 pm
www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/index.html
www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/index.html
www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/12/07/the-successor-to-no-child-left-behind-has-it-turns-out-big-problems-of-its-own/
www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/12/07/the-successor-to-no-child-left-behind-has-it-turns-out-big-problems-of-its-own/
www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/12/07/the-successor-to-no-child-left-behind-has-it-turns-out-big-problems-of-its-own/
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2017/assets/hist
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2017/assets/hist
http://kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/total-monthly-medicaid-and-chip-enrollment/
http://kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/total-monthly-medicaid-and-chip-enrollment/
32. Congressional Budget Office, Long-Term Budget Projections (July 2016), “Table 1.
Summary Data for the Extended Baseline,” www.cbo.gov/about/products/
budget_economic_data (accessed 7/16/16); Congressional Budget Office, Updated
Budget Projections: 2016 to 2026, “Table 4. Mandatory Outlays Projected in CBO’s
Baseline,” www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/
51384-MarchBaseline_OneCol (accessed 7/16/16); Congressional Budget Office,
Historical Budget Data (March 2016), “Table 5. Mandatory Outlays,” www.cbo.gov/
about/products/budget_economic_data (accessed 7/16/16); Congressional Budget
Office, Baseline Projections for Selected Programs, Medicaid (Mar 2016), “Detail
of Spending and Enrollment for Medicaid for CBO’s March 2016 Baseline,” www
.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/51301-2016-03-Medicaid (accessed 7/16/16); Office
of Management and Budget, Historical Tables, “Table 11.3—Outlays for Payments
for Individuals by Category and Major Program: 1940–2021,” www.whitehouse.gov/
omb/budget/Historicals (accessed 7/16/16).
33. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, “The Coverage Gap: Uninsured Poor Adults in
States that Do Not Expand Medicaid—An Update,” June 12, 2018, kff.org/health
-reform/issue-brief/the-coverage-gap-uninsured-poor-adults-in-states-that-do-not
-expand-medicaid-an-update/ (accessed 9/10/18).
34. National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. — (2012). The
ACA survived another major challenge when the Supreme Court upheld the law in
King v. Burwell in 2015.
35. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, “The Coverage Gap.”
36. Jennifer Steinhauer, “House Votes to Send Bill to Repeal Health Law to Obama’s
Desk,” New York Times, January 6, 2016, www.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/us/
politics/house-votes-to-send-bill-to-repeal-health-law-to-obamas-desk.html
(accessed 7/11/16).
37. Amy Goldstein, “ACA Enrollment for 2018 Nearly Matches Last Year’s, Despite
Trump Administration Efforts to Undermine It,” Washington Post, December 21,
2017, www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/12/21/aca-enrollment
-for-2018-nearly-matches-last-years-despite-trump-administration-efforts-to
-undermine-it/?utm_term=.71fd6fc2204e (accessed 4/15/18).
38. James Krieger and Donna L. Higgins, “Housing and Health: Time Again for Public
Health Action,” American Journal of Public Health 92, no. 5 (May 2002): 758–68.
39. John E. Schwarz, America’s Hidden Success, 2nd ed. (New York: W. W. Norton, 1988),
41–42.
40. Congressional Budget Office, “Federal Housing Assistance for Low-Income House-
holds,” September 2015, www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/
reports/50782-lowincomehousing-onecolumn (accessed 5/29/17).
41. ATTOM Data, “U.S. Foreclosure Activity Drops to 12-Year Low in 2017,” January 16,
2018, www.attomdata.com/news/foreclosure-trends/2017-year-end-u-s-foreclosure
-market-report/ (accessed 3/29/18).
42. U.S. Census Bureau, “Income and Poverty in the United States: 2016,” Table 5,
www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p60-256
(accessed 9/10/18).
43. See, for example, Theodore R. Marmor, Jerry L. Mashaw, and Philip L. Harvey,
America’s Misunderstood Welfare State (New York: Basic Books, 1990), 156; U.S.
Census Bureau, “Income and Poverty in the United States: 2016,” www.census.gov/
content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p60-256 (accessed 4/16/18).
44. U.S. Census Bureau, “Income and Poverty in the United States: 2016,” www.census
.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p60-256 (accessed
9/10/18).
A78 E N D N O T E S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a49-a80.indd 78 17/11/18 2:17 pm
www.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/us/politics/house-votes-to-send-bill-to-repeal-health-law-to-obamas-desk.html
www.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/us/politics/house-votes-to-send-bill-to-repeal-health-law-to-obamas-desk.html
www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/50782-lowincomehousing-onecolumn
www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/50782-lowincomehousing-onecolumn
www.attomdata.com/news/foreclosure-trends/2017-year-end-u-s-foreclosure-market-report/
www.attomdata.com/news/foreclosure-trends/2017-year-end-u-s-foreclosure-market-report/
www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p60-256
www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p60-256
45. U.S. Census Bureau, “Income and Poverty in the United States: 2015,” Table B-2,
www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p60-256
(accessed 5/29/17).
46. See Andrea Louise Campbell, How Policies Make Citizens: Senior Political
Activism and the American Welfare State (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 2005).
47. Christopher Howard, The Hidden Welfare State: Tax Expenditures and Social Policy in
the United States (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999); Jacob S. Hacker,
The Divided Welfare State: The Battle over Public and Private Benefits in the United
States (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002).
48. U.S. Congress Joint Committee on Taxation, “Estimates of Federal Tax Expenditures
for Fiscal Years 2016–2020,” www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&
id=4971 (accessed 5/29/2017).
49. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),” www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligibility#Income
(accessed 7/11/16); Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Policy Basics:
Introduction to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),” updated
February 7, 2018, www.cbpp.org/research/policy-basics-introduction-to-the
-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap (accessed 9/10/18).
50. “Panera CEO: On Food Stamps, I Can’t Eat in My Own Restaurant,” September 25,
2013, https://cnneatocracy.wordpress.com/2013/09/25/panera-ceo-on-food-stamps
-i-cant-eat-in-my-own-restaurant/ (accessed 5/12/14).
51. Samantha Artiga, Anthony Damico, and Rachel Garfield, “The Impact of the
Coverage Gap for Adults in States not Expanding Medicaid by Race and Ethnicity,”
October 26, 2015, http://kff.org/disparities-policy/issue-brief/the-impact-of-the
-coverage-gap-in-states-not-expanding-medicaid-by-race-and-ethnicity/ (accessed
11/11/15).
52. Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward, Poor People’s Movements (New York:
Pantheon, 1977), chap. 5.
53. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, “National and/or
State Level Monthly and/or Annual Data,” April 6, 2018, www.fns.usda.gov/pd/
supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap (accessed 9/10/18).
54. U.S. Census Bureau, “Income and Poverty in the United States: 2016.”
55. U.S. Census Bureau, “Income and Poverty in the United States: 2016,” Table B-2.
56. L. Free and Hadley Cantril, The Political Beliefs of Americans (New York: Simon and
Schuster, 1968).
57. Fay Lomax Cook and Edith Barrett, Support for the American Welfare State (New York:
Columbia University Press, 1992); and Hugh Heclo, “The Political Foundations of
Antipoverty Policy,” in Fighting Poverty, ed. Sheldon H. Danziger and Daniel H.
Weinberg (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986), 312–40.
CHAPTER 14
1. Lyric Lewin, “In Support of a Travel Ban,” CNN Politics, March 2017, www.cnn
.com/interactive/2017/03/politics/travel-ban-supporters-cnnphotos/ (accessed 2/1/18).
2. Vivian Yee, “Meet the Everyday People Who Have Sued Trump. So Far, They’ve
Won,” New York Times, March 29, 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/us/trump
-travel-ban.html (accessed 4/12/18).
3. Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. — (2018).
4. Rupert Smith, The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World (New York:
Vintage, 2008).
A79E N D N O T E S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a49-a80.indd 79 17/11/18 2:17 pm
www.cnn.com
www.cnn.com
www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/us/trump-travel-ban.html
www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/us/trump-travel-ban.html
5. D. Robert Worley, Shaping U.S. Military Forces: Revolution or Relevance in a
Post–Cold War World (Westport, CT: Praeger Security International, 2006).
6. Better World Campaign, “How the U.S. Funds the UN,” https://betterworldcampaign
.org/us-un-partnership/how-the-us-funds-the-un/ (accessed 9/19/14).
7. U.S. Senate, “Treaties,” www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/
Treaties.htm (accessed 4/15/18).
8. Benjamin Ginsberg, The American Lie: Government by the People and Other Political
Fables (Boulder, CO: Paradigm, 2007).
9. Paul R. Pillar, Terrorism and American Foreign Policy (Washington, DC: Brookings
Institution Press, 2003).
10. See Theodore Lowi, The Personal President: Power Invested, Promise Unfulfilled
(Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1985), 167–9.
11. For information on current U.S. sanctions programs, visit U.S. Department of
the Treasury, “Sanctions Programs and Country Information,” www.treasury.gov/
resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Pages/Programs.aspx (accessed 6/11/14).
12. The Warsaw Pact was signed in 1955 by Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary,
the German Democratic Republic (East Germany), Poland, Romania, and the Soviet
Union. Albania later dropped out. The Warsaw Pact was terminated in 1991.
13. Scott Shane and Mark Mazzetti, “Inside a Three-Year Russian Campaign to Influence
U.S. Voters, New York Times, February 16, 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/us/
politics/russia-mueller-election.html (accessed 4/15/18).
14. Elias Groll, “Feds Quietly Reveal Chinese State-Backed Hacking Operation,” Foreign
Policy, November 30, 2017, www.foreignpolicy.com/2017/11/30/feds-quietly-reveal
-chinese-state-backed-hacking-operation/ (accessed 4/15/18).
A80 E N D N O T E S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_02endnotes_a49-a80.indd 80 17/11/18 2:17 pm
www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm
www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm
www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/us/politics/russia-mueller-election.html
www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/us/politics/russia-mueller-election.html
www.foreignpolicy.com/2017/11/30/feds-quietly-reveal-chinese-state-backed-hacking-operation/
www.foreignpolicy.com/2017/11/30/feds-quietly-reveal-chinese-state-backed-hacking-operation/
Answer Key
Chapter 1
1. C
2. D
3. B
4. D
5. D
6. A
7. D
8. A
9. E
10. D
11. C
12. C
13. C
14. D
Chapter 2
1. B
2. A
3. B
4. C
5. C
6. E
7. D
8. E
9. E
10. A
11. D
12. A
Chapter 3
1. B
2. C
3. C
4. E
5. A
6. A
7. D
8. B
9. B
10. D
11. D
12. B
Chapter 4
1. E
2. B
3. A
4. E
5. B
6. D
7. A
8. A
9. C
10. D
11. C
Chapter 5
1. C
2. C
3. A
4. D
5. E
6. E
7. A
8. C
9. B
10. A
11. B
Chapter 6
1. B
2. A
3. B
4. D
5. D
6. A
7. B
8. C
9. C
10. C
11. B
Chapter 7
1. A
2. E
3. D
4. E
5. B
6. D
7. C
8. C
9. B
10. D
11. C
Chapter 8
1. A
2. B
3. E
4. D
5. C
6. B
7. B
8. E
9. D
10. E
11. C
12. D
Chapter 9
1. B
2. A
3. D
4. B
5. C
6. D
7. B
8. D
9. D
10. E
11. C
12. B
13. A
14. A
Chapter 10
1. B
2. C
3. B
4. C
5. E
6. A
7. C
8. A
9. C
10. B
11. D
12. A
Chapter 11
1. D
2. C
3. B
4. B
5. E
6. C
7. D
8. A
9. D
10. D
11. B
12. D
Chapter 12
1. A
2. C
3. A
4. D
5. C
A81
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_03answer_a81-a82.indd 81 17/11/18 2:16 pm
6. D
7. E
8. A
9. B
10. A
11. C
12. A
Chapter 13
1. C
2. D
3. D
4. E
5. D
6. B
7. C
8. A
9. D
10. D
11. E
12. B
Chapter 14
1. B
2. A
3. D
4. C
5. C
6. E
7. A
8. C
9. A
10. E
A82 A N S W E R K E Y
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_03answer_a81-a82.indd 82 17/11/18 2:16 pm
Credits
PHOTOGRAPHS
Front Matter: Page vii: AP Photo/Cliff Owen;
p. viii (top): Alex Wong/Getty Images; p. ix
(top): Rob Hotakainen/MCT/Newscom; (bottom)
Anthony Pidgeon/Redferns/Getty Images; p. x:
Jay Mallin/ZUMAPRESS.com/Alamy live news;
p. xi: Lyndon French/The New York Times/
Redux; p. xii: Rod Lamkey/Getty Images; p. xiii
(top): American Benefits Council; (bottom):
Courtesy Guy Berkebile; p. xiv: Cheriss May/
ZUMA Press/Newscom; p. xv (top): © G92,
MJ3, F31/Zuma Press; (bottom): AP Photo/
Andrew Harnik; p. xvi: AP Photo/Record
Searchlight, Andreas Fuhrmann; p. xvii: Jerry
Holt/Star Tribune/ZUMA Press.
Chapter 1: Page 2: Shutterstock; p. 3 (left): AP
Photo/Cliff Owen; (right): Courtesy Kendric
Jones; p. 8: Erik McGregor/Pacific Press/
Newscom; p. 11: Rue des Archives/Granger,
NYC—All rights reserved; p. 14: Jim West/
Alamy Stock Photo; p. 18: Peter Casolino/
Alamy Stock Photo; p. 20: Screenshot 2016
U.S. Department of Education Office of Federal
Student Aid; p. 21: Ethan Miller/Getty Images.
Chapter 2: Page 30: Shutterstock; p. 31: Alex
Wong/Getty Images; p. 36: Bettmann/Corbis via
Getty Images; p. 37: Paul J. Richards/AFP/Getty
Images; p. 40: Sarin Images/Granger, NYC—
All rights reserved; p. 43: Samuel Jennings
(active 1789–1834) Liberty Displaying the Arts
and Sciences, or The Genius of America Encour-
aging the Emancipation of the Blacks, 1792. Oil
on canvas. 60 1/4" 3 74." Library Company of
Philadelphia. Gift of the artist, 1792; p. 54: Paul
J. Richards/AFP/Getty Images.
Chapter 3: Page 66: Sergey Pykhonin/Alamy
Stock Vector; p. 67: Rob Hotakainen/MCT/
Newscom; p. 71: AP Photo/Adam Beam; p. 77:
Library of Congress; p. 78: Library of Congress;
p. 84: Ilene MacDonald/Alamy Stock Photo;
p. 85: AP Photo; p. 89: Ethan Miller/Getty
Images.
Chapter 4: Page 96: Shutterstock; p. 97: An-
thony Pidgeon/Redferns/Getty Images; p. 105:
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images; p. 107: Michael
S. Williamson/The Washington Post via Getty
Images; p. 115: AP Photo/Matt York; p. 118:
Tracy A. Woodward/The Washington Post via
Getty Images; p. 120: Win McNamee/Getty
Images; p. 122: Library of Congress; p. 124:
Bettmann/Getty Images; p. 132: AP Photo/
Ron Edmonds; p. 133: Kent Sievers/The World-
Herald via AP; p. 137: Drew Angerer/CNP/
AdMedia/Newscom.
Chapter 5: Page 144: Shutterstock; p. 145
(left): Jay Mallin/ZUMAPRESS.com/Alamy live
news; (right): Tom Brenner/The New York Times/
Redux; p. 148: AP Photo/Evan Vucci; p. 153:
Shelly Rivoli/Alamy Stock Photo; p. 159 (top):
Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images; (bottom): Twitter/
@realDonaldTrump; p. 162 CALVIN AND
HOBBES © 1994 Watterson. Reprinted with
permission of Andrews McMeel Syndication. All
rights reserved; p. 168 (top): Bettmann/Getty
Images; (bottom): Lionel Hahn/ABACAPRESS
.com/Sipa via AP Images.
Chapter 6: Page 176 (both): Shutterstock;
p. 177: Lyndon French/The New York Times/
Redux; p. 181: (left): Paul Marotta/Getty Images;
(right): AP Photo/Richard Drew; p. 191: Melina
Mara/The Washington Post via Getty Images;
p. 194: Kyodo via AP Images; p. 195: AP Photo/
Mary Altaffer.
Chapter 7: Page 204: Shutterstock; p. 205
(photo): Rod Lamkey/Getty Images; (illustration):
A83
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_04credit_a83-a84.indd 83 17/11/18 2:16 pm
Shutterstock; p. 209: Mario Tama/Getty Images;
p. 214: Granger, NYC—All rights reserved;
p. 225: Scott Olson/Getty Images; p. 230: Smith
Collection/Gado/Getty Images; p. 235: Whitney
Curtis/Getty Images.
Chapter 8: Page 246: Shutterstock; p. 247:
American Benefits Council; p. 251: AP Photo/
Sue Ogrocki; p. 265: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images.
Chapter 9: Page 274: Shutterstock; p. 275: (left):
Courtesy Guy Berkebile; (right): Scott Olson/
Getty Images; p. 280: Chip Somodevilla/Getty
Images; P. 285: AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin;
p. 290: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Getty Images;
p. 298: Rachel Mummey for The Washington Post
via Getty Images; p. 302: DPA Picture Alliance/
Alamy Stock Photo.
Chapter 10: Page 314: Shutterstock; p. 315:
Cheriss May/ZUMA Press/Newscom; p. 317:
Bettmann/Getty Images; p. 319: AP Photo/
File; p. 320: Anthony Wallace/AFP/Getty Images;
p. 326: U.S. Army photo by Capt. Tyson Friar;
p. 330: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Getty
Images; p. 333: Twitter/@realDonaldTrump;
p. 338: T.J. Kirkpatrick/Bloomberg via Getty
Images.
Chapter 11: Page 346: Shutterstock; p. 347:
© G92, MJ3, F31/Zuma Press; p. 350: Michael
Williamson/The Washington Post via Getty
Images; p. 355: NG Images/Alamy Stock Photo;
p. 360 (both): Yasin Ozturk/Anadolu Agency/
Getty Images; p. 366: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg
via Getty Images.
Chapter 12: Page 374: Shutterstock; p. 375:
AP Photo/Andrew Harnik; p. 377: AP Photo/
Michael Tarm; p. 388: Mark Wilson/Getty
Images; p. 390: Michael Hibblen/KUAR News;
p. 399: Alex Wong/Getty Images.
Chapter 13: Page 406: LEO crafts/iStock/
Getty Images; p. 407: AP Photo/Record Search-
light, Andreas Fuhrmann; p. 414: Drew Angerer/
Getty Images; p. 417: Joseph Barnell/SuperStock;
p. 421: Derek Davis/Portland Press Herald via
Getty Images; p. 426: Education & Exploration 1/
Alamy Stock Photo; p. 430: Bryan R. Smith/
AFP/Getty Images; p. 433: Saul Loeb/Getty
Images.
Chapter 14: Page 444 (both): Shutterstock;
p. 445: Jerry Holt/Star Tribune/ZUMA Press;
p. 448: Bettmann/Getty Images; p. 454: Mikhail
Metzel/TASS via Getty Images; p. 458: Michele
Eve Sandberg/Corbis via Getty Images; p. 462:
Adek Berry/Stringer/Getty Images; p. 466: Korean
Central News Agency/Korea News Service via
AP, File.
TEXT
Figure 5.1: Graph from “Large Majorities
See Checks and Balances, Right to Protest as
Essential for Democracy,” Pew Research Center,
Washington, DC (May 2017) http://www.people
-press.org/2017/03/02/large-majorities-see-checks
-and-balances-right-to-protest-as-essential-for
-democracy/democracy_11/. Reprinted with
permission.
Figure 11.3: “Iron Triangles” republished
with permission of Wadsworth, a division of
Cengage Learning from Incomplete Conquest:
Governing America, 2nd ed. by Theodore J. Lowi
(New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1981),
p. 139. © 1981 by CBS College.
A84 C R E D I T S
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_04credit_a83-a84.indd 84 17/11/18 2:16 pm
http://www.people-press.org/2017/03/02/large-majorities-see-checks-and-balances-right-to-protest-as-essential-for-democracy/democracy_11/
Glossary/Index
Page numbers in italic refer to figures or photos.
A
AARP, 246, 257, 433
Abercrombie and Fitch, 105
abortion, 120, 161
ACA. See Affordable Care Act
access
to congressional floor, 301
cultivated by interest groups, 261, 262
internet, 188, 197
ACLU. See American Civil Liberties Union
activism, judicial, 398–99
actors
in American foreign policy, 453–58
non-state, 447–49
ADA. See Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Adams, John, 35, 36, 38
Adams, Samuel, 35
ADC (Aid to Dependent Children), 436–37
administrative orders, 336, 338
administrative regulation, 412
administrative strategy (presidential), 334–39
adversarial journalism, 194
advice and consent, 305
AFDC. See Aid to Families with Dependent Children
affirmative action, 128–30 government policies
or programs that seek to redress past injustices
against specified groups by making special
efforts to provide members of these groups
with access to educational and employment
opportunities
Affordable Care Act (ACA), 162, 426, 428, 429
attempts to repeal, 298
and freedom of religion, 105
funding for, 84
Medicaid expansion, 7
and Medicare taxes, 418
political knowledge about, 8–9
repeal and replacement of, 430–31
state Medicaid programs under, 88
Supreme Court decision on, 386
for the working poor, 434
Afghanistan War
costs of, 352
Obama’s conduct of, 454
U.S. involvement in, 462
Africa
Americans from, 10
colonization in, 17
African Americans
affirmative action points for, 128–29
citizenship for, 12
confidence in federal government, 21, 23
in Congress, 279
and the death penalty, 118
as digital citizens, 188
Medicaid gap for, 435
mortgage discrimination against, 128
police misconduct against, 124
and post–World War II racial discrimination,
122–23
poverty rate for, 433, 435
as proportion of population, 12, 13
and public opinion differences, 154, 155
and racism, 154, 155
and school segregation, 123–24
separate but equal rule, 121
Southern treatment of, 81
unemployment rate for, 435–36
voting by, 224
voting rights for, 7, 121
as welfare recipients, 421
age; see also older Americans
in American population profile, 13–14
voters compared to population by, 307
of voters in 2016 election, 341
agencies, 353–54
for external security, 359–60
independent, 353
for internal security, 359
monetary, 362
regulatory, 356
revenue, 363
agency representation, 278–81 a type of
representation in which a representative is held
accountable to a constituency if he or she fails
to represent that constituency properly; this
is incentive for the representative to provide
good representation when his or her personal
backgrounds, views, and interests differ from
those of his or her constituency
agenda-setting, 191–92 the power of the media
to bring public attention to particular issues
and problems
A85
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a85-a119.indd 85 11/28/18 5:28 PM
primary base of, 207
and ratification of Constitution, 51–56
appeals, filing, 380
appeasement, 448 the effort to forestall
war by giving in to the demands of a
hostile power
appellant, 380
appellate courts, 382, 382–83
Apple, 54
Apple Corporation, 115
appointments, political, 384–85
apportionment, 283–86, 284, 285 the
process, occurring after every decennial census,
that allocates congressional seats among the
50 states
appropriations, 304 the amounts of money
approved by Congress in statutes (bills) that
each unit or agency of government can spend
arbitration, 463–64
Arizona
districting plan in, 390
immigration law in, 89, 133–34
and 2010 reapportionment, 284
Arizona v. United States, 89
Arkansas, 319, 389
Arpaio, Joe, 320
Arthur, John, 30–31
Article III (U.S. Constitution), 381, 390–91
Articles of Confederation, 37–38, 45 America’s
first written constitution; served as the basis for
America’s national government until 1789
Asaei, Ali, 445
Asia, ethnic and racial diversity in, 17
Asian Americans
civil rights of, 132–34
as digital citizens, 188
as proportion of population, 11, 13
Asians, ban on naturalization of, 11
Assad, Bashar al-, 465
assembly, freedom of, 106–8
Associated Press, 180, 181
Association of Young Americans (AYA), 246–47
AT&T, 250
attitude (or opinion) a specific preference on a
particular issue
about politics, 147–52
defined, 147
political, 147
Australia, 226
authoritarian government, 5 a system of rule
in which the government recognizes no formal
limit but may nevertheless be restrained by the
power of other social institutions
automobile emission standards, 350
agents of socialization, 152–57 social
institutions, including families and schools,
that help to shape individuals’ basic political
beliefs and values
Agricultural Research Service, 353
agricultural subsidies, 415
AIDS, 425
Aid to Dependent Children (ADC), 436–37
Aid to Families with Dependent Children
(AFDC), 419, 435, 437
Air America, 180
Alabama
and comity clause, 72
immigration law in, 133
legislative districting, 389
Montgomery bus boycott, 124
Alabama syndrome, 81
Alaska, 72
Alien and Sedition Acts, 106
ambassadors, 454, 455
amendments, 56–60, 58–59 a change added
to a bill, law, or constitution; see also Bill
of Rights
as “higher law,” 57–60
list of, 58–59
methods for creating, 56–57, 57
process for creating, 48
proposed, 56–57
American Chemistry Council, 315
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), 110, 394
American Federation of State, County, and
Municipal Employees (AFSCME), 374
American Medical Association, 250
American population
changes over time in, 10–16
political knowledge of, 157–60
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 425
American Revolution (1776), 6
and balance of power among states, 37–38
forces contributing to, 34
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA),
84, 87, 136
amicus curiae, 393, 394 literally, “friend of
the court”; individuals or groups who are
not parties to a lawsuit but who seek to assist
the Supreme Court in reaching a decision by
presenting additional briefs
Amtrak, 354
Andrus, Ethel Percy, 257
Annapolis Convention, 39
Antifederalists those who favored strong state
governments and a weak national government
and were opponents of the constitution
proposed at the American Constitutional
Convention of 1787
and bill of rights, 99, 100
Federalists vs., 52
as outsiders, 211
A86 G L O S S A R Y / I N D E X
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a85-a119.indd 86 11/28/18 5:28 PM
Blades, Joan, 254
Blair, Saira, 2–4, 3
block grants, 85, 86 federal grants-in-aid that
allow states considerable discretion in how the
funds are spent
blogs
of Congress members, 281
as news source, 182, 188
Bloomberg News, 188
Blue Cross Blue Shield, 250
Boehner, John, 290, 302, 302, 306
Boeing, 250
Boston Massacre (1770), 35
Boston Tea Party, 35, 36
Boumediene v. Bush, 389
bourgeoisie, 6
Bowers v. Hardwick, 136
Boyd, Wes, 254
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, 80
Brazil, 55
government employment in, 357
voter turnout in, 226
Brennan, William, 110
Bretton Woods agreement, 460
Breyer, Stephen, 104
briefs, 394 written documents in which
attorneys explain, using case precedents, why
the court should find in favor of their client
British taxes, 34–35
broadcast media, 184–85, 194–97 television,
radio, or other media that transmit audio and/
or video content to the public
Brown, Ben, 246–47, 247
Brown, Dwayne, 355
Brown, Linda, 122–23
Brown, Oliver, 122–23
Brown v. Board of Education, 123–24, 263, 390
the 1954 Supreme Court decision that struck
down the “separate but equal” doctrine as
fundamentally unequal; this case eliminated
state power to use race as a criterion for
discrimination in law and provided the
national government with the power to
intervene by exercising strict regulatory policies
against discriminatory actions
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 111
Bryan, William Jennings, 213, 218
Buckley v. Valeo, 239
budgeting, zero-base, 360
bureaucracy, 346–69 the complex structure
of offices, tasks, rules, and principles of
organization that are employed by all large-
scale institutions to coordinate effectively the
work of their personnel
control of, 363–67
defined, 349
B
background checks, for firearm sales, 113
Bakke, Allan, 129
Bakke case, 129
balance of powers, 43–51, 50
ballot initiative, 7, 230, 267 a proposed law or
policy change that is placed on the ballot by
citizens or interest groups for a popular vote
ballots, bilingual, 126
bandwagon effect, 169 a shift in electoral
support to the candidate whom public-opinion
polls report as the front-runner
banks, Federal Reserve, 362
Barron v. Baltimore, 101
bear arms, right to, 112–13
Beard, Charles, 40
Beck, Nancy, 315
Bedford, Gunning, 41
beliefs, 147
Berkebile, Guy, 274, 306
biases
in interest groups, 253–54
in media, 181
in polling, 165
bicameral, 44, 277 having a legislative assembly
composed of two chambers or houses;
distinguished from unicameral
big data, bureaucracy and, 368
bill a proposed law that has been sponsored by
a member of Congress and submitted to the
clerk of the House or Senate
in conference committees, 296–97
debate on, 293, 295
private, 287
that die in committee, 293
bill of attainder a law that declares a person
guilty of a crime without a trial
Bill of Rights, 16, 44, 48, 51 the first 10
amendments to the Constitution, ratified in
1791; they ensure certain rights and liberties of
the people; see also individual amendments
First Amendment, 103–11
Second Amendment, 112–13
Fourth Amendment, 114–15
Fifth Amendment, 115–17
Sixth Amendment, 117
Eighth Amendment, 118–19
and civil rights, 99–103
origin of, 99, 100
and right to privacy, 119–20
bin Laden, Osama, 187, 455
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, 238,
266, 386
Black Lives Matter movement, 8, 124, 265, 265
Blackmun, Harry, 393, 398
A87G L O S S A R Y / I N D E X
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a85-a119.indd 87 11/28/18 5:28 PM
Cable News Network (CNN), 184
Calhoun, John C., 77
California
display of Communist flag in, 107
electoral votes of, 231
gun regulations in, 112
public accommodation settlements in, 125
recall elections in, 231
referenda in, 231
same-sex marriage in, 136–37
transgender persons in, 90
voter registration in, 225
cameras, digital, 189
campaign funds, 237–39
Campbell, Andrea, 407–8
Canada, 387
federal system in, 69
government employment in, 357
NATO, 461
voter turnout in, 226
USMCA, 451
candidates
characteristics of, 229
media influence on perceptions of, 192
nomination of, 208
recruitment of, 208
capitalism, 16
capital punishment, 118–19
Cardozo, Benjamin, 103
Carender, Keli, 204–6, 205
Carlson, Tucker, 181
Carter, Jimmy, 364
cases filed, in Supreme Court, 392
casino gambling, 134
categorical grants, 78 congressional grants given
to states and localities on the condition that
expenditures be limited to a problem or group
specified by law
Catholics
and abortion, 161
immigrants as, 10–11
political opinions of, 156
as proportion of Americans, 12
caucus (political) a normally closed political
party business meeting of citizens to select
candidates, elect officers, plan strategy, or make
decisions regarding legislative matters
congressional, 280, 289
state, 230
CDA (Communications Decency Act), 110, 195
CDC (Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention), 425
CEA (Council of Economic Advisers), 329
cell phones, 189
censorship, 108
Center for Responsive Government, 267
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC), 425
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), 193, 318, 354,
447, 455
and democracy, 368
for economic strength, 362–63
for efficiency improvement, 349–55
executive branch, 352–55
and foreign policy, 455–56
getting information from, 370
globally, 352
merit system in, 351
for national security, 358–61
for the public welfare, 356, 358, 358
size of, 352, 353
bureaucrats, 349–51
Bureau of Indian Affairs, 134
bureaus, federal, 353
Burger, Warren, 131
Bush, George H. W., and administration
bureaucracy under, 367
education policies, 424
powers used by, 324
Supreme Court justices appointed by, 399
Thomas proposed by, 385
Bush, George W., and administration
approval ratings for, 334
assistance programs under, 435
on big government, 352
Defense Appropriation Bill, 323
directives to administrative agencies, 335
election of 2000, 168–69, 218–19
electoral votes for, 232
executive management under, 364
executive orders of, 336
foreign policy initiatives of, 454
growth of government under, 87
and illegal immigrants, 86
and invasion of Iraq, 456–57
leaks during, 193–94
legislative initiatives of, 322
military budget increase under, 411
No Child Left Behind, 424
North Atlantic Treaty invocation by, 462
powers used by, 324
preventive war policy of, 449
response to September 11 attacks, 322
response to terrorism, 161–62, 192
and SCHIP program, 86
Supreme Court justices appointed by, 399
tax cuts of, 414–15
vetoes of, 322
and war on terror, 192, 388–89
Bush Doctrine, 454 foreign policy based on the
idea that the United States should take preemptive
action against threats to its national security
Bush v. Gore, 232
C
Cabinet, 327 the secretaries, or chief
administrators, of the major departments of
the federal government; Cabinet secretaries are
appointed by the president with the consent of
the Senate
A88 G L O S S A R Y / I N D E X
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a85-a119.indd 88 11/28/18 5:28 PM
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 238,
266–67
civic engagement, on social media, 199
Civil Aeronautics Act, 82
civil cases, 378
civil law, 378 the branch of law that deals
with disputes that do not involve criminal
penalties
civil liberties, 99–103 areas of personal freedom
constitutionally protected from government
interference
Bill of Rights, 99–103, 102
defined, 98, 99
and Doctrine of Incorporation, 101–3, 102
due process of law, 113–19
freedom of religion, 103–11, 140
freedom of speech and of the press, 105–6
global, 135
as protection against government, 100–101
right to own a gun, 112–13
right to privacy, 119–20
civil penalties, 412
civil rights, 120–30 obligation imposed on
government to take positive action to protect
citizens from any illegal action of government
agencies and of other private citizens
and affirmative action, 128–30
defined, 98, 99
for disabled Americans, 136
gender equality, 130–32
and immigration laws, 132–34
for language minorities, 133
for Native Americans, 134
and New Deal coalition, 215
as protection by government, 120–30
racial equality, 120–30
and sexual orientation, 136–37
Supreme Court cases related to, 389
Civil Rights Act of 1875, 121
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 123–24, 130, 131
civil rights movement
after Brown v. Board of Education, 123–24
goals of, 99
and school segregation, 123–24
Southern Manifesto, 79–80
Civil Service Act of 1883, 351
civil service reform, 364
Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, 364
civil society, 252
Civil War, 213
Clausewitz, Carl von, 463
Clean Air Act, 350
Clean Power Plan, 350
“clear and present danger” test, 106 test to
determine whether speech is protected or
unprotected, based on its capacity to present a
“clear and present danger” to society
Cleveland, Grover, 232
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 360
Chamber of Commerce v. Environmental Protection
Agency, 395
Charlottesville, Virginia, white nationalist rally, 148
charter schools, 425
checks and balances, 44, 49–50, 50
mechanisms through which each branch
of government is able to participate in and
influence the activities of the other branches.
Major examples include the presidential veto
power over congressional legislation, the
power of the Senate to approve presidential
appointments, and judicial review of
congressional enactments
on presidential power, 339–40
and unitary executive theory, 323
Cheney, Dick, 334
Chicago Tribune, 184
chief justice, 383–84 justice on the Supreme
Court who presides over the Court’s public
sessions and whose official title is chief justice
of the United States
children, poverty among, 437
Children’s Defense Fund, 437
Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP),
275, 306
China, 453, 460
foreign policy with, 464, 465
influence and international connections of, 452
and North Korea, 466–67
trade policy with, 467
Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, 11
chlorpyrifos, 315–16
Christian Broadcasting Network, 161
Christian Coalition, 253
CIA. See Central Intelligence Agency
Citadel, 131
cities
direct legislation in, 7
home rule for, 72
Citigroup, 298
citizen interest groups, 251
citizen journalism, 189–90 news reported
and distributed by citizens, rather than by
professional journalists and for-profit news
organizations
citizens
civil liberties as protection for, 100–101
digital, 187–88; see also digital citizen
naturalized, 11
political participation by, 2–4
Citizens for the American Way, 394
citizenship, 8–9 informed and active
membership in a political community
for African Americans, 12
digital. See digital citizen
for immigrants, 157
and political knowledge, 157–60
A89G L O S S A R Y / I N D E X
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a85-a119.indd 89 11/28/18 5:28 PM
commander in chief, 318 the role of the
president as commander of the national
military and the state National Guard units
(when called into service)
commerce clause, 75 Article I, Section 8, of the
Constitution, which delegates to Congress the
power “to regulate Commerce with foreign
Nations, and among the several States and with
the Indian Tribes”; this clause was interpreted
by the Supreme Court in favor of national
power over the economy
Commerce Department, 362
commercial speech, 111
committee assignments, 301
committee system (Congress), 210, 289–91
Communications Decency Act (CDA), 110, 195
concurrent powers, 70 authority possessed by
both state and national governments, such as
the power to levy taxes
confederation, 38 a system of government in
which states retain sovereign authority except
for the powers expressly delegated to the
national government
conference a gathering of House Republicans
every two years to elect their House leaders;
Democrats call their gathering the caucus
House, 289
Supreme Court, 396
conference committees, 291 joint committees
created to work out a compromise on House
and Senate versions of a piece of legislation
Congress, 275–307
administrative agency delegations by, 335
amendments proposed by, 56–57
apportionment and redistricting for, 283–86,
284, 285
approval rating in 2014, 152
in Articles of Confederation, 37–38
bureaucracy needed by, 349
bureaucratic responsibility of, 365–66
as check of presidential power, 339–40
committee system of, 289–91
competition within, 207
decision making in, 297–303
delegated powers from, 324
design of, 44–46
differences between House and Senate, 277,
277–78
direct patronage, 286–88
diversity in, 279
and executive orders, 338–39
and foreign policy, 453–58
function of, 274–76
grants-in-aid from, 82
and Great Depression, 77
immigration laws from, 11, 12
incumbency as electoral consideration, 281–86
Clinton, Bill, and administration
approval ratings for, 334
on big government, 352
directives to administrative agencies, 335
and impeachment, 305
impeachment of, 339
National Performance Review, 364
public relations strategy of, 332
same-sex marriage, 30
welfare reforms of, 422
Clinton, Hillary, 219
in 2008 election campaign, 331
in 2016 election campaign, 160, 228, 232–36,
333, 365–66
2016 election votes for, 228
campaign funds for, 237, 267
characteristics of, 229
and divisions in Democratic Party, 217
email server controversy for, 191, 191, 304
fake news stories about, 159, 190
as first lady, 330–31
hearing on email server use, 290
Latinos’ support for, 154
media attention to, 180
polls and 2016 election results, 167, 168
and Russian election interference, 465
and Select Committee on Benghazi, 304,
365–66, 366
closed primary, 230 a primary election in which
voters can participate in the nomination of
candidates but only of the party in which they are
enrolled for a period of time prior to primary day
cloture, 295 a rule or process in a legislative
body aimed at ending debate on a given bill;
in the U.S. Senate, 60 senators (three-fifths)
must agree in order to impose a time limit and
end debate
Club for Growth, 303
CNN (Cable News Network), 184
Coast Guard, 360
coercion, power of, 70
COLAs (cost-of-living adjustments), 418
Cold War, 448, 448, 451 the period of struggle
between the United States and the former
Soviet Union lasting from the late 1940s to
about 1990
collective goods, 255 benefits, sought by
groups, that are broadly available and cannot
be denied to nonmembers
collective security, 461–62
college education, political outlook and, 153
colonists
economic interests of, 34–35
political strife among, 35–36
Colorado, 136
comedy talk shows, 186
Comey, James, 191, 191, 304
comity clause, 72
A90 G L O S S A R Y / I N D E X
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a85-a119.indd 90 11/28/18 5:28 PM
rights in, 62, 100
and weakness of Articles of Confederation,
38–39
Constitutional Amendments, 56–60, 58–59, 61
Constitutional Convention of 1787, 39–40, 386
constitutional democracies, 5
constitutional government, 5 a system of rule
in which formal and effective limits are placed
on the powers of the government
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 355
Consumer Product Safety Commission, 425
containment, 448 a policy designed to
curtail the political and military expansion
of a hostile power
Continental Congress
First, 36
Second, 36–37
contract cases, 378
contracting power, 411 the power of
government to set conditions on companies
seeking to sell goods or services to government
agencies
contributory programs, 417–19, 432 social
programs financed in whole or in part by
taxation or other mandatory contributions by
their present or future recipients
control, public policy as means of, 409–16, 410
cooperative federalism, 80–81, 81, 83 a
type of federalism existing since the New
Deal era in which grants-in-aid have been
used strategically to encourage states and
localities (without commanding them) to
pursue nationally defined goals; also known as
“intergovernmental cooperation”
Cooper v. Harris, 390
cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs), 418
changes made to the level of benefits of a
government program based on the rate of
inflation
Council of Economic Advisers (CEA), 329
Council on Environmental Quality, 329
counsel, right to, 117
court cases, 377–78
Courtney, Joe, 282
court of appeals, 379–80 a court that hears the
appeals of trial court decisions
court-related rights, 115–17
courts, 379
and balance of values, 23
interest groups’ use of, 263–64
state, 378–81
Crimean Peninsula, Russia and, 462, 465
criminal justice system, 72, 154
independent regulatory commissions
established by, 354–55
interest groups’ access to, 262–63
interest groups’ influence on, 260
judicial review of acts of, 385, 388–89
non-lawmaking tasks of, 303–5
organization of, 288–93
oversight by, 365–66
parties and organization of power in, 210
party leadership in, 289
party polarization in, 303
powers of, 47, 50
and the presidency, 331
public opinion of, 306
reapportioning of seats, 14
as representatives of American people,
277–88, 288
rules of lawmaking in, 293–97
social composition of, 278–81, 279
sociological vs. agency representation,
278–81
sources of information on, 308
staff system of, 291
tax cut bills, 416
unfunded mandates of, 82, 84
and unitary executive theory, 323
Congressional Budget Office, 366
Congressional Research Service, 366
Connecticut, 119
Connecticut Compromise, 42
conservatism, 150–51, 151, 398, 438
conservative, 87 today this term refers to
those who generally support the social and
economic status quo and are suspicious of
efforts to introduce new political formulae and
economic arrangements; conservatives believe
that a large and powerful government poses a
threat to citizens’ freedom
constituency the residents in the area from
which an official is elected
of branches of government, 50
of Congress, 280–81
and congressional decision making, 297, 298
defined, 277
constituents, 298
Constitution, U.S., 43–51
Amendments to, 56–60, 58–59
Annapolis Convention, 39
Articles of Confederation vs., 45
balance of powers in, 43–51, 50
changing, 54–60
expressed powers from, 318–22
foreign policy provisions of, 456
future of, 60
original jurisdiction in, 381
powers of president in, 317–27, 454
preamble of, 16
presidential power limited by, 339
purpose of government under, 32
ratification of, 48, 51–56
A91G L O S S A R Y / I N D E X
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a85-a119.indd 91 11/28/18 5:28 PM
education on virtues of, 153
“excessive,” 44
as fundamental value, 19–20
importance of media in, 178
and inadequate political knowledge, 159–60
interest groups’ impact on, 268
and internet, 196
and liberty, 60
public opinion in, 169
representative, 7
as shared value, 149
democratic institutions, confidence in, 164
Democratic Party; see also political parties
on citizenship for immigrants, 157
and congressional polarization, 303
on environmental protection, 157
fundraising by, 237
internal disagreements in, 217
membership of, 207
party identification, 220
and party system, 210–20
policy positions of, 207
and political orientation, 156–57
roots of, 207
and second party system, 213
socialists and, 151
third parties’ effects on, 218–20
trust of government among, 153
demographic change(s)
and political organization, 268
and political values, 24
demonstrations, 264–65
Dennis v. United States, 111
Denny’s restaurant, 125
department, 352 the largest subunit of the
executive branch; the secretaries of the 15
departments form the Cabinet; see also
individual departments
détente, 449
deterrence, 448 the development and
maintenance of military strength as a means of
discouraging attack
devolution, 367 a policy to remove a program
from one level of government by dele-
gating it or passing it down to a lower level
of government, such as from the national
government to the state and local governments
DeVos, Betsy, 425
Dewey, Thomas, 168
digital cameras, 189
digital citizen, 169–70, 187–88 a daily internet
user with high-speed home internet access and
the technology and literacy skills to go online
for employment, news, politics, entertainment,
commerce, and other activities; see also internet
defined, 187–88
and internet access, 187–88
criminal law, 377–78 the branch of law that
regulates the conduct of individuals, defines crimes,
and specifies punishment for acts defined as illegal
criminally accused, due process for, 113–19
cruel and unusual punishment, 118, 118–19
Cuba, 320, 458
Cuban missile crisis, 449
cultural exchange programs, 463
Cunningham, Randy “Duke,” 287
cyberporn, 110
Czech Republic, 357
D
Daily Show, The, 186
“dark money,” 237–38
Dasari, Anooha, 177, 177
Davids, Sharice, 235
Davie, William R., 42
Davis, Gray, 231
death-penalty laws, 118, 118–19
decision making, in Congress, 297–303
Declaration of Independence, 36–37, 37
consent of governed in, 145
on equality, 18–19
inalienable rights in, 16
defendant, 378 the one against whom a
complaint is brought in a criminal or civil case
Defense, Department of, 318, 360
and external national security, 359–60
and foreign policy, 455
Pentagon Papers, 193
security function of, 359–60
Defense of Marriage Act of 1996 (DOMA),
30–32, 71, 136–37, 137
defense spending, 450
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)
program, 89, 89, 133
Deferred Action for Parents of Americans
(DAPA), 89
Delaware, 122
delegated powers, 324 in the Tenth
Amendment to the Constitution, delegated
powers are described as those granted by
the Constitution to the federal government;
however, the term has commonly come to be
used more broadly to refer to constitutional
powers that are assigned to one government
agency but exercised by another with the
express permission of the first
democracy a system of rule that permits citizens
to play a significant part in the governmental
process, usually through the election of key
public officials
bureaucracy controlled in, 368
and campaign funding, 238–39
and conflicts among values, 19–20
constitutional, 5
defined, 5
A92 G L O S S A R Y / I N D E X
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a85-a119.indd 92 11/28/18 5:28 PM
diversity
ethnic, 10
global, 17
of new media, 190
as strength, 23
divided government, 218 the condition in
American government wherein the presidency
is controlled by one party while the opposing
party controls one or both houses of Congress
DNA testing, 115
Doctrine of Incorporation, 101–3, 102
Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer
Protection Act of 2010, 298
dogs, police, 114–15
Doha Amendment, 468
Dole, Bob, 80
DOMA. See Defense of Marriage Act of 1996
domestic policy, 406–39
education policies, 423–25
and foreign policy, 447
health policies, 425–31
housing policies, 431–32
social policy and the welfare system, 416–22,
432–37
as techniques of control, 409–16
domestic power, military sources of, 318–19
double jeopardy, 116 the Fifth Amendment
right providing that a person cannot be tried
twice for the same crime
double state, 365
Douglas, William O., 119
DREAM Act, 133
Drudge Report, 184
Drug Enforcement Administration, 67
dual federalism, 73, 81 the system of
government that prevailed in the United
States from 1789 to 1937 in which most
fundamental governmental powers were shared
between the federal and state governments
due process of law, 380, 389, 399 the right
of every citizen against arbitrary action by
national or state governments
for the criminally accused, 113–19
defined, 100
and property rights, 101
search and seizure, 114–15
E
early voting, 225, 227
earmarks, 286–88
Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), 434
East India Company, 35–36, 36
economic aid, 460, 461
economic equality, 18–19
economic freedom, 16, 18, 18
economic interest groups, 250
economic interests, Kyoto Protocol and, 451
participation by, 9
skills for, 187–88
digital divide, 188 the gap in access to the
internet among demographic groups based on
education, income, age, geographic location,
and race/ethnicity
digital media; see also new media; online media;
online news
bias of, 183
concerns about, 190
media habits and, 186–89
as news source, 178
political fact-checking websites, 182
political influence of, 191–97
as political networking tool, 222
subscriptions to digital newspapers, 184
digital-only news organizations, 188
digital political participation, 221–22
diplomacy, 459 the representation of a
government to foreign governments
diplomatic powers, 320
diplomatic recognition, 320
direct democracy a system of rule that permits
citizens to vote directly on laws and policies
direct legislation, 7
direct lobbying, 261
Director of National Intelligence, 455
direct patronage, 286–88
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund,
136
disabled Americans, civil rights for, 136
disaster relief, 326, 326–27
discrimination
based on disability, 84
employment, 72, 126, 132
gender, 130–32
housing, 128
national origin, 133
racial, 122–23
religious, 105
in school desegregation, 125–26
sex, 132
sexual orientation, 136–37
dispute arbitration, 463–64
dissenting opinion, 396–97 a decision written
by a justice in the minority in a particular case
in which the justice wishes to express his or her
reasoning in the case
district courts, 381
District of Columbia
firearms law in, 112
Medicaid expansion, 84
regulation of marijuana use in, 66
and school segregation, 122
voter registration in, 225
District of Columbia v. Heller, 112
A93G L O S S A R Y / I N D E X
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a85-a119.indd 93 11/28/18 5:28 PM
third parties’ effects on, 218–20, 219
voter turnout for, 209–10, 226, 241, 341
election campaigns; see also presidential primary
elections
1992, 239
1996, 239
2008, 21, 147–48
2012, 239
2014, 281
2016, 21, 147, 154, 160, 184, 190, 206, 222,
228, 229, 239, 333–34, 365–66
funding for, 237–39
future of, 240
and incumbency, 281–86
voter mobilization in, 209, 209–10
electoral college, 44, 231–32, 234 the electors
from each state who meet after the popular
election to cast ballots for president and vice
president
electoral laws, 225, 227
electoral politics, interest groups’ use of, 266–67
electoral process
levels and rules of, 229–32
political parties arising from, 207–8
electoral realignment, 216, 217–18 the point
in history when a new party supplants the
ruling party, becoming in turn the dominant
political force
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
(ESEA), 423
elitist views, 249
Ellsberg, Daniel, 193
emergency powers, of presidents, 326
eminent domain, 117, 413 the right of
government to take private property for
public use
employment
affirmative action in, 128–29
in federal service, 352, 353
employment discrimination, 72, 126, 132, 133
enemy combatants, 388
Energy Department, 362
environment, public opinion on, 157
environmental policy, international, 451–52, 467–68
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 314–16
authority of, 350
in Flint, Michigan, water crisis, 347
as independent agency, 354
presidential control over, 365
regulations by, 350, 350
Volkswagen charged by, 351
EOP (Executive Office of the President), 328–29, 335
EPA. See Environmental Protection Agency
EpiPens, price hike on, 365
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC), 105, 130, 132, 136
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v.
Abercrombie and Fitch Stores, Inc., 105
Economic Opportunity Act, 80–81
economic prosperity, foreign policy for, 451
economic sanctions, 461
economy, 47
federal agencies maintaining, 362–63
government intervention in, 415–16
limited control of president over, 337
media coverage of, 192–93
education
gender discrimination in, 131–32
and internet access, 187–88
language used in, 133
No Child Left Behind Act, 87
school desegregation, 125–26, 129, 423–24
school segregation, 123–24
as source of public opinion, 153–54
Education, Department of, 424, 425
Education Act of 1972, Title IX, 131
education policies, 423–25
EEOC. See Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission
efficiency improvement, 349–55
Egypt, 461
Eighth Amendment, 118–19
Eisenhower, Dwight D.
and diplomatic ties with Cuba, 320
and Little Rock school desegregation, 319
on military-industrial complex, 411
and New Deal programs, 215
racial integration, 319
EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit), 434
elastic clause Article I, Section 8, of the
Constitution (also known as the necessary
and proper clause), which declares that
Congress can write laws needed to carry out
its expressed powers, providing Congress with
the authority to make all laws “necessary and
proper” to do so
election(s)
1876, 232
1888, 232
2000, 232
2008, 216–17, 282
2010, 217, 282
2012, 25, 217
2014, 91, 217
2016, 167, 168, 217–19, 229, 232–37, 241,
304, 341, 465
2018, 232–36
competitiveness of, 224
and electoral college, 231–32
fake news and, 190
as hallmark of political participation, 220
incumbency advantage, 281–86
issues in, 228
in mixed regimes, 50
nominations, 208
online information affecting, 182
political parties’ role in, 207
push polling in, 169
role of social media in, 196
A94 G L O S S A R Y / I N D E X
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a85-a119.indd 94 11/28/18 5:28 PM
executive branch, 352–55; see also bureaucracy
creation of, 46–47
and economic strength, 362–63
efficiency improvement, 349–55
expressed powers of, 320–21
and national security, 358–61
organization of, 352–55
in presidential vs. parliamentary systems, 325
and the public welfare, 356, 358, 358
and school desegregation, 125–26
Executive Office of the President (EOP),
328–29, 335 the permanent agencies
that perform defined management tasks
for the president; created in 1939, the EOP
includes the OMB, the CEA, the NSC, and
other agencies
executive order, 336–39, 337 a rule or
regulation issued by the president that has the
effect and formal status of legislation
ex post facto laws laws that declare an action to
be illegal after it has been committed
expressed powers, 318–22 specific powers
granted by the Constitution to Congress
(Article I, Section 8) and to the president
(Article II)
of Congress, 46
under federalism, 69
expropriation, 413
F
Facebook
“Celebrate Pride” tool on, 153
civic engagement on, 199
as news source, 184, 186, 188–89
number of users, 187, 188–89
political knowledge from, 159
as political networking tool, 222
and public opinion, 153
fact-checking websites, 182, 198
FactCheck.org, 159
Fair Housing Act of 1968, 128
Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, 128
fairness doctrine, 197
fake news, 159, 190
family, as agent of socialization, 153, 153–54
Family and Medical Leave Act, 87
Farook, Syed, 115
far-right conservatives, 217
Faubus, Orval, 319
FBI. See Federal Bureau of Investigation
FCC. See Federal Communications Commission
FDA (Food and Drug Administration), 356
federal aid, 77–78, 79
Federal Aviation Administration, 82
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), 54, 115,
304, 318, 359
Federal Communications Commission (FCC),
176, 177, 194–95, 355
equality
changing views of, 60
and conflicts among values, 23
economic, 18–19
education on importance of, 153
as fundamental value, 18–19
gender, 130–32
and liberty, 60
political, 19
racial, 120–30
for transgender individuals, 132
equality of opportunity, 18, 148–49 a widely
shared American ideal that all people should
have the freedom to use whatever talents and
wealth they have to reach their fullest potential
Equal Pay Act of 1963, 131
equal protection clause, 101, 121, 124, 129,
389, 399 provision of the Fourteenth
Amendment guaranteeing citizens “the equal
protection of the laws”; this clause has served
as the basis for the civil rights of African
Americans, women, and other groups
Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), 130–31
equal time rule, 197 the requirement that
broadcasters provide candidates for the
same political office equal opportunities to
communicate their messages to the public
ESEA (Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965), 423
Espionage Act of 1917, 106
establishment clause, 101 the First Amendment
clause that says that “Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion”;
this law means that a “wall of separation” exists
between church and state
ethics law (Congress), 286–88, 299
ethnic diversity, 10, 17
ethnicity, public opinion differences and, 154
ethnic quotas, 11
Europe
Americans from, 10
citizen–government interactions in, 5–6
ethnic and racial diversity in, 17
in NATO, 461
and negotiations with Syria, 355
European Americans, as proportion of population,
12, 13
Every Student Succeeds Act, 424–25
“excessive democracy,” 44
exclusionary rule, 114 the ability of courts to
exclude evidence obtained in violation of the
Fourth Amendment
executive agreement, 320, 455 an agreement,
made between the president and another
country, that has the force of a treaty but does
not require the Senate’s “advice and consent”
A95G L O S S A R Y / I N D E X
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a85-a119.indd 95 11/28/18 5:28 PM
Federal Reserve System, 362, 413, 414 a system
of 12 Federal Reserve banks that facilitates
exchanges of cash, checks, and credit; regulates
member banks; and uses monetary policies to
fight inflation and deflation
federal spending, 352, 354
federal system, 69, 74 a system of government
in which the national government shares power
with lower levels of government such as states
Federal Trade Commission, 355
“feminization of poverty,” 436–37
Fifteenth Amendment, 61
Fifth Amendment
court-related rights, 115–17
expropriation power, 413
property protection, 101
and right to privacy, 119
fighting words, 111 speech that directly incites
damaging conduct
filibuster, 295–96, 306 a tactic used by members
of the Senate to prevent action on legislation
they oppose by continuously holding the floor
and speaking until the majority backs down;
once given the floor, senators have unlimited
time to speak, and it requires a vote of three-
fifths of the Senate to end a filibuster
filter bubble, 190
filtering, of news, 188–89
financial crisis of 2008–2009, 20–21, 73, 352,
422, 435
Financial Stability Oversight Council, 362
financial transactions, regulation of, 298–99
“fire alarm” oversight, 365 episodic, as-needed
congressional hearings on bureaucratic agency
operations, usually prompted by media
attention or advocacy group complaints
First Amendment, 103–11, 141
on Communications Decency Act, 195
freedom of religion, 103–11
freedom of speech, 105–6, 107
freedom of the press, 108–9, 179
free exercise of religion, 104–5
right of petition, 261
separation of church and state, 103–4
First Continental Congress, 36
First Founding, 33–38
first spouse, 330–31
fiscal policy, 362, 414–15 the government’s use
of taxing, monetary, and spending powers to
manipulate the economy
Fisher, Louis, 340
Fisher v. University of Texas, 130
501(c)(4)s (dark money), 237–38 politically
active nonprofits; under federal law, these
federal courts, 374–401
appellate, 382, 382–83
cases before Supreme Court, 390–97
influences on Supreme Court decisions, 397–99
judges appointed to, 384–85
and judicial review by Supreme Court, 385–90
and the legal system, 377–81
liberty protected by, 400
lower, 381
procedures of Supreme Court, 394–97
Supreme Court, 383–84
federal district courts, 381
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 237,
238, 266
Federal Election Commission, 237, 355
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 326–27
federal government; see also bureaucracy
American people’s expectations of, 20–21
confidence in, 21, 23
Federalists vs. Antifederalists on, 52–55
limits on power of, 48–51, 50
national-state balance, 86–89
powers of, 47, 69–70
as representative democracy, 7
responsibilities of, 67–68
under “traditional system,” 73–75
websites maintained by, 20
federalism, 44, 50–51, 66–99 a system of
government in which power is divided, by a
constitution, between the central (national)
government and regional (state) governments
changing court interpretations of, 78–80
changing definition of, 73
cooperative, 80–81, 81, 83
dual, 73, 81
and national standards, 81–84
and national-state balance, 86–89
New, 85–89, 86
and New Deal, 77–78
politics shaped by, 69–72
regulated, 86
and state control, 85–89
under “traditional system,” 73–75
Federalist Papers, 52 a series of essays written
by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and
John Jay supporting the ratification of the
Constitution
Federalists, 217–18 those who favored a
strong national government and supported
the constitution proposed at the American
Constitutional Convention of 1787
Antifederalists vs., 52
in first party system, 211
primary base of, 207
and ratification of Constitution, 51–56
and rights in the Constitution, 99, 100
federal judges, 47
Federal Labor Relations Authority, 364
Federal Reserve Board, 362, 413–14, 414
A96 G L O S S A R Y / I N D E X
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a85-a119.indd 96 11/28/18 5:28 PM
Frankfurter, Felix, 396, 398
Franklin, Benjamin, 36
Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 131
freedom(s)
advanced by bourgeoisie, 6
in constitutional democracies, 5–6
economic, 16, 18
liberty as, 16, 17
personal, 16
Freedom Caucus, 302
Freedom House, 135
freedom of assembly, 106–8
Freedom of Information Act of 1966 (FOIA),
361, 366
freedom of petition, 106–7
freedom of religion, 103–11, 105
freedom of speech, 97–98, 101, 105–6, 107
and Communications Decency Act, 195
limited protection categories for, 109–11
political speech, 106
speech plus, 108
symbolic speech, 106–8
freedom of the press, 101, 105–6, 179
free exercise clause, 104–5 the First Amendment
clause that protects a citizen’s right to believe
and practice whatever religion he or she chooses
free riders, 255 those who enjoy the benefits
of collective goods but did not participate in
acquiring them
free trade, 451
Frontline program, 282
full faith and credit clause, 71 provision from
Article IV, Section 1, of the Constitution
requiring that the states normally honor the
public acts and judicial decisions that take
place in another state
Fulton, Robert, 76
fundraising, online, 240
G
Gainous, Jason, 189
Gannett Corporation, 181
Garland, Merrick, 375–76, 385
Gates, Bill, 261
GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), 451
gay marriage. See same-sex marriage
gender
and employment discrimination, 126
and political opinions, 154, 156, 157
and public policy issues, 156
voters compared to population by, 307
of voters in 2016 election, 341
gender discrimination, 130–32
gender equality, 130–32
gender gap, 156 a distinctive pattern of voting
behavior reflecting the differences in views
between women and men
nonprofits can spend unlimited amounts on
political campaigns and not disclose their
donors as long as their activities are not
coordinated with the candidate campaigns and
political activities are not their primary purpose
527 committees (Super PACs), 237–38
nonprofit independent groups that receive and
disburse funds to influence the nomination,
election, or defeat of candidates; named after
Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code,
which defines and provides tax-exempt status
for nonprofit advocacy groups
flag burning, 107
Flint, Michigan, water contamination, 346–48,
368
Flint Water Advisory Task Force, 347
Florida, 284
FOIA. See Freedom of Information Act of 1966
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 356
Ford, Gerald, 319–20, 330
foreign aid, 453, 460, 461
foreign policy, 444–69
defined, 447
and domestic policy, 447
goals of, 447–53
institutions and forces shaping, 453–58
and public opinion, 458
tools of, 458–64
Forest Service, 353
Founders
government created by, 33
motives of, 40–41
Founding of America, 30–61
Articles of Confederation, 37–38
and British taxes, 34–35
and colonists’ political strife, 35–36
Declaration of Independence, 36–37
First, 33–38
narrow interests and political conflicts in, 34
Second, 38–43
weakness of Articles of Confederation, 38–39
Fourteenth Amendment
citizenship under, 11
Doctrine of Incorporation, 101–3, 102
due process, 121, 389, 399
equal protection clause, 101, 121, 124, 129,
389, 399
and same-sex marriage, 399
and school segregation, 122–23
and separate but equal rule, 121
Fourth Amendment
and right to privacy, 115, 119
search and seizure, 390
Fox News, 182, 184
framing, 192 the power of the media to
influence how events and issues are interpreted
France, 460
system of government in, 55
unitary system in, 69
A97G L O S S A R Y / I N D E X
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a85-a119.indd 97 11/28/18 5:28 PM
defined, 5
divided, 218
economic interventions of, 415–16
expansion of American participation in, 7
forms of, 5–6
functions and value of, 66–68
fundamental values underlying, 16–20
institutions and procedures of, 5–7
interest groups and expansion of, 258–59
limited, 16, 53
limits on, 6
and political efficacy, 9
and politics, 11
protection against, 100–101; see also civil
liberties
public opinion influenced by, 160
separation of church and state, 103–4
under “traditional system,” 73–75
trust in, 21, 23, 152
types and numbers of, 72
Government Accountability Office, 366
government corporation, 354 government
agency that performs a service normally
provided by the private sector
government policies, public opinion and, 162–63
government spending, 83, 411
government surveillance programs, 193
grand jury, 116 jury that determines whether
sufficient evidence is available to justify a trial;
grand juries do not rule on the accused’s guilt
or innocence
grants-in-aid, 77, 79, 82 programs through
which Congress provides money to state and
local governments on the condition that the
funds be employed for purposes defined by the
federal government
Grassley, Chuck, 298
grassroots mobilization, 258, 265 a lobbying
campaign in which a group mobilizes its
membership to contact government officials in
support of the group’s position
Gratz v. Bollinger, 130
Great Britain
government structure in, 33
taxes levied on colonies, 34–35
Great Compromise, 42–44 the agreement
reached at the Constitutional Convention of
1787 that gave each state an equal number of
senators regardless of its population but linked
representation in the House of Representatives
to population
Great Depression, 77–78, 215, 415–17, 417
Great Recession. See financial crisis of 2008–2009
Greece, 357
Greeks, ancient, 8
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
(GATT), 451 international trade
organization, in existence from 1947 to
1995, that set many of the rules governing
international trade
general election, 230 a regularly scheduled
election involving most districts in the
nation or state, in which voters decide who
wins office; in the United States, general
elections for national office and most state
and local offices are held on the first Tuesday
following the first Monday in November in
even-numbered years (every four years for
presidential elections)
general revenue sharing, 85 the process by which
one unit of government yields a portion of its tax
income to another unit of government, according
to an established formula; revenue sharing
typically involves the national government
providing money to state governments
geography, in population shifts, 14
George Washington, 210
Georgia, 42, 133, 284
Germany, 5, 447
cooperative federalism, 83
government employment in, 357
heads of state and of government in, 325
voter turnout in, 226
gerrymandering, 285 the apportionment of
voters in districts in such a way as to give
unfair advantage to one racial or ethnic group
or political party
Gibbons v. Ogden, 75–76
Gideon, Clarence Earl, 117
Gideon v. Wainwright, 117
Gilens, Martin, 421
Gillibrand, Kirsten, 301
Gingrich, Newt, 291
Ginsburg, Ruth Bader, 397
Glennon, Michael, 365
globalization, 452, 468
global security, 461–62
Global War on Terror, 449
“going public,” 332–34
Goldberg, Arthur, 119
Goldwater, Barry, 215
Google, 159
Gore, Al, 232
Gorsuch, Neil, 296, 375, 384, 385, 387
government, 2–23 institutions and procedures
through which a territory and its people
are ruled; see also federal government; local
governments; state governments
and changes in identity of Americans, 10–16
and citizenship, 8–9
comparing systems of, 55
created by country’s founders, 33
daily life affected by, 20–22
A98 G L O S S A R Y / I N D E X
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a85-a119.indd 98 11/28/18 5:28 PM
and foreign policy, 455
funding for, 296
responsibilities of, 359
security function of, 359
tax collection by, 363
home loan crisis, 431–32
home rule, 72 power delegated by the state to
a local unit of government to manage its own
affairs
Hoover, Herbert, 77, 214
House Freedom Caucus, 302
House of Representatives, 44–46; see also Congress
differences between Senate and, 277, 277–78
funding candidates’ campaigns for, 208
under Great Compromise, 42
majority rule in, 23
number of representatives in, 15
oversight hearings in, 365
party unity in, 299–300, 300
under Three-Fifths Compromise, 42–43
housing policies, 431–32
housing rights, 128
Huffington Post, 182, 188
humanitarian aid, 453
humanitarian rights, 461
human rights interest groups, 457–58
human rights policy, 453
Hunter, Noelle, 281
Hupp, Suzanna, 144, 145
I
ideological groups, 251, 253
ideologies, political, 149–51, 151, 398–99
IMF (International Monetary Fund), 460
immigrants
Asians, 11
and changes in American identity, 10–11
legal citizenship for, 157
as proportion of population, 12
religions of, 14–15
undocumented, 12, 86, 88–89
immigration
as 2016 campaign issue, 228
as controversial issue, 14
DACA program, 89, 89
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, 133
and ethnic diversity, 10–11
laws regulating, 88
Obama’s executive actions on, 296
racial criteria for, 11–12
state legislation on, 88–89
immigration laws, civil rights and, 132–34
immigration reform, 14
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, 133
impeachment, 305, 339 the formal charge
by the House of Representatives that
a government official has committed
“Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
Misdemeanors”
greenhouse gases, 350
Grisham, Michelle Lujan, 280
Griswold, Estelle, 119
Griswold v. Connecticut, 119, 398
Grodzins, Morton, 80
Gruber, Justin, 145, 145
Grutter v. Bollinger, 129
Guantánamo Bay prisoners, 339
gun control debate, 112, 144–46
gun ownership, 112–13, 113
gun violence, 112
Parkland, Florida, shooting, 145, 257
school shootings, 112
Texas restaurant shooting, 144
Guy Chemical Company, 274
H
habeas corpus, 99, 317, 380 a court order
demanding that an individual in custody be brought
into court and shown the cause for detention
Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization,
106–7
Hamdan, Salim, 388
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 388
Hamdi, Yaser Esam, 388
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 388
Hamilton, Alexander, 46, 52, 99
Hamnett, Wendy Cleland, 314–16
Hannity, Sean, 185
Harrison, Benjamin, 232
Harrison, William Henry, 211–13
Hartley, Kevin, 314, 315
Harvey, Larry, 66–68, 67, 90
Hastert rule, 306
hate crimes, 137
Hayes, Rutherford B., 232
Health, Education, and Welfare, Department of, 129
Health and Human Services, Department of, 356
health care, 427, 427
health care reform, 425–31, 438; see also
Affordable Care Act (ACA)
health insurance coverage, 429
health policies, 425–31, 453
Hearst Corporation, 181
Here Comes Everybody (Shirky), 253–54
Hicks, Harrison, 177
Hill, Anita, 385
Hill, The, 188
Hispanics. See Latinos/Hispanics
Hitler, Adolf, 5
HIV, 425
Hobbes, Thomas, 33
Hobby Lobby, 105, 105
Hoffman, Hazel, 274–75, 306
Holder, Eric, 88–89, 132
Holmes, Oliver Wendell, 105
Holt, Gregory, 105
Holt v. Hobbs, 105
Homeland Security, Department of, 89
creation of, 324, 348, 359
DACA and, 89
A99G L O S S A R Y / I N D E X
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a85-a119.indd 99 11/28/18 5:28 PM
interest group, 246–70 individuals who
organize to influence the government’s
programs and policies
active members of, 252
advocation by, 249–54
for children, 437
and congressional decision making, 260, 298–99
cultivation of access by, 262, 262–63
defined, 249–50
direct lobbying by, 261
electoral politics used by, 266–67
and flow of cases to Supreme Court, 393–94
and foreign policy, 457–58
in the Founding of America, 34
impact on democracy, 268
increasing number of, 258–59
litigation by, 263–64
lobbying expenditures of, 269
mobilization of public opinion by, 265
organizational components of, 254–58
“pattern of cases” strategy of, 393–94
pluralist and elitist views of, 249–50
public opinion influenced by, 161
for senior citizens, 433
strategies used by, 259–67
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 362, 363
international arbitration, 463–64
International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development (World Bank), 460
international benefits, U.S. foreign policy for, 451
International Court of Justice, 464
international environmental policy, 451–52, 467–68
international human rights policy, 453
International Monetary Fund (IMF), 460 an
institution established in 1944 that provides
loans and facilitates international monetary
exchange
international monetary structure, 460
international news sources, 470
international peacekeeping efforts, 453, 459
internet; see also social media
access to, 188, 197
attempts to regulate content of, 197
cyberporn on, 110
and global democracy, 196
“going public” on, 333, 334
and information consumption, 159
and interest groups, 257–58
and libel laws, 109
as news source, 182
online news, 186–89
and organization of interest groups, 254–55
political participation on, 221–22
politics changed by, 240
politics on, 169–70
public opinion surveys on, 166
quality of information on, 190
interstate commerce, 76
Interstate Commerce Commission, 354–55
intervention, of government, 415–16
implementation, 349, 351 the efforts of
departments and agencies to translate laws
into specific bureaucratic rules and actions
implied powers, 69, 323–24 powers derived
from the necessary and proper clause of
Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution;
such powers are not specifically expressed
but are implied through the expansive
interpretation of delegated powers
inalienable rights, 16
income
and internet access, 187–88
of middle class, 438
in the United States, 15
voters compared to population by, 307
of voters in 2016 election, 341
of wealthy Americans, 438
income inequality, 144
incumbency, 282 holding the political office for
which one is running
incumbency advantage, 281–86
incumbent, 208 a candidate running for re-election
to a position that he or she already holds
independent agency, 353 agency that is not part
of a cabinet department
Independent Redistricting Commission (Arizona),
285
independent regulatory commissions, 354–55
indexing, 418 periodic process of adjusting of
social benefits or wages to account for increases
in the cost of living
India, 55, 226
information
consumption of, 159
ways of getting/sharing, 182
informational benefits, 256, 256 special
newsletters, periodicals, training programs,
conferences, and other information provided
to members of groups to entice others to join
inherent powers, 324 powers claimed by
a president that are not expressed in the
Constitution but are inferred from it
in-kind benefits noncash goods and services
provided to needy individuals and families by
the federal government
Instagram, 187
institutional advertising, 264 advertising
designed to create a positive image of an
organization
institutional presidency, 327–31, 328
insurance coverage, 429
intelligence agencies, 447, 455
A100 G L O S S A R Y / I N D E X
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a85-a119.indd 100 11/28/18 5:28 PM
Joint Chiefs of Staff, 360, 455
joint committees, 291 legislative committees
formed of members of both the House and
Senate
Jones, Kendric D., 2–4, 3
journalists
as news-gathering professionals, 179–80
professional and citizen, 189–90
judges
appointed to federal courts, 384–85
for district courts, 381
federal, 384–85
Supreme Court justices, 47–48, 383, 383–84
judicial activism judicial philosophy that
posits that the Court should go beyond the
words of the Constitution or a statute to
consider the broader societal implications of
its decisions
judicial branch, 47–48
judicial powers, of the president, 319–20
judicial restraint, 398 judicial philosophy
whose adherents refuse to go beyond the clear
words of the Constitution in interpreting the
document’s meaning
judicial review, 47, 385–90 the power of the
courts to review and, if necessary, declare
actions of the legislative and executive branches
invalid or unconstitutional. The Supreme
Court asserted this power in Marbury v.
Madison (1803)
of acts of Congress, 385, 388–89
of state actions, 389–90
Judiciary Act of 1789, 389
jurisdiction, 380, 381 the sphere of a court’s
power and authority
Justice Department, 67–68, 88–89
and Arizona civil rights, 133–34
and discrimination against transgender
people, 132
and employment discrimination, 126
Microsoft lobbying and, 261
and school desegregation, 125–26, 424
security function of, 359
and state immigration laws, 133–34
K
Kagan, Elena, 385, 387
Kaine, Tim, 228
Kansas, 122
Kavanaugh, Brett, 376, 384, 385
Kennedy, Anthony, 376, 384, 385
Kennedy, John F., 329, 332, 449
Kentucky, 104
Kenya, 196
Kerry, John, 359
iPhone, 54
Iran, 449
and negotiations with Syria, 359
nuclear weapons agreement with, 331,
457–58, 466
Iraq
ISIS in, 463
U.S. involvement in, 462
Iraq War
aftermath of, 463
costs of, 352
as preventive war, 449
public opinion on, 162
Ireland, 357, 458
iron triangle, 262, 262, 356, 358, 358 the
stable, cooperative relationships that often
develop among a congressional committee,
an administrative agency, and one or more
supportive interest groups; not all of these
relationships are triangular, but the iron
triangle is the most typical
IRS (Internal Revenue Service), 362, 363
IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, 363
Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), 359, 463, 465
isolationism, 447 avoidance of involvement in
the affairs of other nations
Israel, 55, 457–58, 461
Italy, 464
Iye, Mohamed, 444–45, 445
J
Jackson, Andrew, 211
Jackson, Robert H., 396
Jacksonian Democrats, 200
Janus, Mark, 374–75, 375
Janus v. AFSCME, 375–76
Japan, 357
government employment in, 357
immigrant assimilation in, 17
racial homogeneity of, 17
voter turnout in, 226
Jay, John, 52
Jefferson, Thomas
and bill of rights, 97–100
and Declaration of Independence, 36–37
on freedom of the press, 178
and Locke’s work, 33
on newspapers, 179
and separation of church and state, 104
Jeffersonian Republicans, 211, 217–18
Jeffersonians (Antifederalists), 207
Jehovah’s Witnesses, 104
Jewish Americans, 12, 457–58
Jewish immigrants, 10–11
Johnson, Andrew, 320, 332, 339
Johnson, Gary, 219
Johnson, Lyndon
election of 1964, 215
as vice president, 329
A101G L O S S A R Y / I N D E X
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a85-a119.indd 101 11/28/18 5:28 PM
legislative initiative, 321 the president’s implied
power to bring a legislative agenda before
Congress
legislative power, of the president, 321–22
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer
(LGBTQ) civil rights, 136–37
Lesko, Debbie, 292
LGBTQ civil rights, 136–37
libel, 109 a written statement made in “reckless
disregard of the truth” that is considered
damaging to a victim because it is “malicious,
scandalous, and defamatory”
liberal democracies, 135
liberalism, 150, 151, 151, 398, 438
liberal today this term refers to those who
generally support social and political reform,
governmental intervention in the economy,
more economic equality, the expansion of
federal social services, and greater concern for
consumers and the environment
libertarian, 150–51, 217 someone who
emphasizes freedom and believes in voluntary
association with small government
Liberty Displaying the Arts and Sciences, 43
liberty freedom from government control; see
also Bill of Rights
and conflicts among values, 23
and development of democracy and equality, 60
as fundamental value, 16, 17
protected by federal courts, 400
as shared value, 148
Libya, 324, 326
likely voter models, 167
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, 132, 132
Limbaugh, Rush, 185
limited government, 16, 53 a principle of
constitutional government; a government whose
powers are defined and limited by a constitution
Lincoln, Abraham
and Civil War, 213
and electoral realignment, 217–18
powers of, 317, 317, 324
LinkedIn, 187
Literary Digest poll, 167
litigation, by interest groups, 263–64
Little Rock, Arkansas, school desegregation, 319, 319
Little Rock Central High School, 124
Livingston, Robert, 36
lobbies, 437; see also interest group
lobbying, 270 a strategy by which organized
interests seek to influence the passage of
legislation or other public policy by exerting
direct pressure on members of the legislature
direct, 261
expenditures on, 269
Keynes, John Maynard, 415
Kim Jong-un, 320, 320, 334, 449, 450, 466,
466, 467
King, Martin Luther, Jr., 124
King v. Burwell, 88, 398
knowledge
effect of digital media on, 190
political, 8–9, 157–60
Korean War, 324
Kyoto Protocol, 451, 467–68
L
labor groups, 250
laissez-faire capitalism, 18 an economic
system in which the means of production and
distribution are privately owned and operated
for profit with minimal or no government
interference
Landon, Alf, 167
Land Ordinance (1785), 39
language, internet access and, 187–88
language minorities
civil rights for, 133
Native Americans as, 134
Lansing, John, 42
Lasswell, Harold, 7
Latinos/Hispanics
affirmative action points for, 129
and apportionment, 284
civil rights of, 132–34
confidence in federal government, 21
in Congress, 279
as digital citizens, 188
Medicaid gap for, 435
mortgage discrimination against, 128
opinions of, 154
poverty rate for, 433, 435–36
as proportion of population, 12, 13
racial classification of, 12
voting by, 224
Latvia, 135
Lau v. Nichols, 133, 134
law clerks, 393
law enforcement, 390–91
lawmaking, 293–97, 294
committee deliberation, 293, 295
conference committees, 296–97
debate, 295–96
and president’s veto, 297
Lawrence v. Texas, 120, 136–37
Lead and Copper Rule, 347
leadership PACs, 300–301
leak, 193
leaked information sources, 193–94
Ledbetter, Lilly, 131
Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., 131
Lee, Richard Henry, 52
legal system, 377–81
legislation, shaped by lobbyists, 261
legislative branch, 44–46
A102 G L O S S A R Y / I N D E X
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a85-a119.indd 102 11/28/18 5:28 PM
marriage, same-sex. See same-sex marriage
Marshall, John, 75
Marshall Plan, 461
Martin, Lockheed, 411
Martin, Luther, 42
Maryland
public accommodation settlements in, 125
slaves in, 42
Maryland v. King, 115
Massachusetts
ban on cigarette advertising in, 111
provincial government of, 35–36
same-sex marriage in, 71
Shays’s Rebellion, 39–40
Matal v. Tam, 386
material benefits, 256, 256 special goods,
services, or money provided to members of
groups to entice others to join
Mattis, James, 360
McCain, John, 168–69, 239, 323
McCain-Feingold bill, 266
McClatchy Corporation, 181
McConnell, Mitch, 281
McCreary v. ACLU of Kentucky, 104
McCulloch, v. Maryland, 75–76
McCutcheon, Shaun, 239
McCutcheon et al. v. Federal Election Commission, 238
McDonald v. Chicago, 112
McKinley, William, 213
means testing, 419 a procedure by which potential
beneficiaries of a public-assistance program
establish their eligibility by demonstrating a
genuine need for the assistance
media, 176–99 print and digital forms of
communication, including television,
newspapers, radio, and the internet, intended
to convey information to large audiences
adversarial journalism, 194
as business, 180
and candidate characteristics, 229
in a democracy, 179
informed consumption of, 198
investigations by, 190
leaked information sources, 193–94
online news, 186–89
ownership of, 180–82
partisan nature of, 181
and political power relations, 191–97
political role of, 178
and public opinion, 158, 161–62, 191–93
regulation of, 194–97
rise of new media, 186–89
roles of, 179
traditional, 179–82
Medicaid, 419, 426 a federally and state-
financed, state-operated program providing
medical services to low-income people
as categorical grant, 78
as domestic policy, 406–8
regulation of, 263
by senior citizens, 433
local broadcast media, 184–85
local governments, 351
local politics, participation in, 91, 92
Locke, John, 33, 36–37
logrolling, 302 a legislative practice whereby
agreements are made between legislators in
voting for or against a bill; vote trading
lower federal courts, 381
M
Maddow, Rachel, 181
Madison, James
on Congress, 46
Federalist Papers, 52
on interest groups, 249
on liberty, 268
on limited government, 54
on representation, 52
on slavery, 42
mail, voting by, 225
Maine, 7
majority leader, 289 the elected leader of the
majority party in the House of Representatives
or in the Senate; in the House, the majority
leader is subordinate in the party hierarchy to
the Speaker of the House
majority party, 210 the party that holds the
majority of legislative seats in either the House
or the Senate
majority rule/minority rights the democratic
principle that a government follows the
preferences of the majority of voters but
protects the interests of the minority
check on, 19–20
Federalists vs. Antifederalists on, 53
with minority rights, 19–20
Malik, Tashfeen, 115
Malkin, Michelle, 205
managerial presidency, 363–65
manifest destiny, 447
Mapp, Dollree, 114
Mapp v. Ohio, 114
Marbury v. Madison, 47–48, 386
March for Our Lives movement, 257, 265
March on Washington (1963), 124
margin of error, 165
marijuana
medical, 66–68, 87
recreational, 67, 87–88
regulation of use of, 67–68, 90
Marine Corps, 360
Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, 145, 169
marketplace of ideas, 105, 160 the public
forum in which beliefs and ideas are exchanged
and compete
A103G L O S S A R Y / I N D E X
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a85-a119.indd 103 11/28/18 5:28 PM
minority party, 210 the party that holds the
minority of legislative seats in either the House
or the Senate
minority rights, majority rule with, 19–20
Miranda, Ernesto, 116–17
Miranda rule, 117 the requirement, articulated
by the Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona
(1966), that persons under arrest must be
informed prior to police interrogation of their
rights to remain silent and to have the benefit
of legal counsel
Mississippi, 86
Missouri, 122
mixed regime, 50
mobilization the process by which large
numbers of people are organized for a political
activity
external, 207
in forming political parties, 207
internal, 207
and political participation, 224
by presidents, 332–34
of public opinion, 265
via social media, 188–90
of voters, 209, 209–10
moderates, 151, 151
monetary agencies, 362
monetary policies, 413–14 efforts to
regulate the economy through the
manipulation of the supply of money and
credit; America’s most powerful institution
in this area of monetary policy is the Federal
Reserve Board
monetary structure, international, 460
money, in politics, 240
Monroe, James, 447
Monroe Doctrine, 447
Montesquieu, Baron de la Brède et de, 33, 48, 50
Montgomery bus boycott, 124
Montreal Protocol, 452, 467
Moonves, Les, 180
mootness, 391 a criterion used by courts to
screen cases that no longer require resolution
Morse v. Frederick, 108
mortgage crisis, 128, 431–32
MoveOn.org, 254
MSNBC, 184
multiracial Americans, 12
Muslim, 12
mutual defense alliances, 461
N
NAACP. See National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People
Nader, Ralph, 219, 259
expansion of, 7, 84, 428–31
middle class benefits from, 434
for the nonworking poor, 435
oversight of, 356
spending on, 428
for the working poor, 434–35
work requirements for, 422
medical marijuana, 66–68, 87
Medicare, 418 a form of national health
insurance for the elderly and the disabled
contributions for, 418
as domestic policy, 407–8, 430
oversight of, 356
senior citizens’ benefits from, 433
spending on, 428
membership association, 255 an organized
group in which members actually play a
substantial role, sitting on committees and
engaging in group projects
merit system, 351 a product of civil service
reform, in which appointees to positions
in public bureaucracies must objectively be
deemed qualified for those positions
Merit Systems Protection Board, 364
methylene chloride, 314, 315
Mexican War, 456
Mexico, 451
government employment in, 357
voter turnout in, 226
Michigan, 129
Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality, 347
Microsoft, 261
micro-targeting, 209–10 when political
campaigns tailor messages to individuals in
small homogeneous groups based on their
group interests to support a candidate or
policy issue
middle class, 432, 434, 438
military
expressed powers of, 318–19
and foreign policy, 455–56
gays in, 137
and national security, 447–50
transgender people in, 132
Military Commissions Act, 389
military contracting, 411
military force, 462–63
military spending, 450
militias, 112
Miller, Judith, 109
Miller v. Johnson, 285–86
minimum wage, 434
minorities, poverty among, 435–36
minority leader, 289 the elected leader of the
minority party in the House or Senate
A104 G L O S S A R Y / I N D E X
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a85-a119.indd 104 11/28/18 5:28 PM
New Federalism, 85–86, 86 attempts by
presidents Nixon and Reagan to return power
to the states through block grants
New Jersey Plan, 41 a framework for the
Constitution, introduced by William Paterson,
that called for equal state representation in the
national legislature regardless of population
new media, 186–89; see also digital media
New Politics movement, 259 a political
movement that began in the 1960s and ‘70s,
made up of professionals and intellectuals for
whom the civil rights and antiwar movements
were formative experiences; the New Politics
movement strengthened public interest groups
news
fake, 159, 190
online, 190
sources of, 185, 198
news aggregator, 186 an application or feed that
collects web content such as news headlines,
blogs, podcasts, online videos, and more in one
location for easy viewing
newsmagazines, 197
news media
new, 186–89
online, 186–89
traditional, 179–82
newspapers, 183–84
New York (state), 109
New York City Board of Health, 425
New York Times, 130, 161, 182, 184
New York Times v. United States, 108
New York v. Sullivan, 109
New Zealand, 357
niche journalism, 188 news reporting devoted to
a targeted portion (subset) of a journalism market
sector or for a portion of readers or viewers based
on content or ideological presentation
niche media, 188
NIH (National Institutes of Health), 356, 425
Nineteenth Amendment, 61
Ninth Amendment, 119
Nixon, Richard, and administration
and block grants, 85
election of 1968, 215
Ford’s pardon of, 319–20
resignation of, 339
“southern strategy” of, 215
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 87, 424
nomination the process by which political parties
select their candidates for election to public office
confirmation of, 457
defined, 208
of federal judges, 384
by political parties, 208
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA), 354, 355
National Association for the Advancement
of Colored People (NAACP), 122,
263, 394
National Defense Education Act of 1958, 423
National Emergencies Act, 326
National Federation of Independent Business v.
Sebelius, 88
national government. See federal government
National Institutes of Health (NIH), 356, 425
National Opinion Research Center, University of
Chicago, 165
National Organization for Women (NOW), 130
national origin discrimination, 126, 133
national origin interest groups, 457–58
National Origins Quota System, 11
National Park Service, 356
National Performance Review (NPR), 364
National Public Radio (NPR), 185–86
National Rifle Association (NRA), 247, 265, 268
National Right to Life Committee, 251–53
national security
clear and present danger to, 106
federal agencies maintaining, 358–61
foreign policy for, 447–50
National Security Agency (NSA), 115, 193, 318,
361, 368
National Security Council (NSC), 318, 329, 455
national standards, 81–84
national-state balance, 86–89
National Taxpayers Union, 253
National Welfare Rights Organization, 435
nation-states, 449 political entities consisting
of people with some common cultural
experience (nation) who also share a common
political authority (state), recognized by other
sovereignties (nation-states)
Native Americans, 11
affirmative action points for, 129
civil rights for, 134
voting rights for, 11
Washington Redskins (NFL) and freedom of
speech, 137–38
NATO. See North Atlantic Treaty Organization
naturalized citizens, 11
Near v. Minnesota, 108
necessary and proper clause, 69 provision
from Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution
providing Congress with the authority to make
all laws necessary and proper to carry out its
expressed powers
net neutrality, 176–78, 195, 198
Nevada, 284
Never Again MSD, 145
New Deal
and federalism, 77–78
party system, 214–15
A105G L O S S A R Y / I N D E X
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a85-a119.indd 105 11/28/18 5:28 PM
and immigration, 89
and Iran nuclear agreement, 331
and Jewish housing in Jerusalem, 457–58
judicial appointment process in, 384–85
judicial appointments of, 384–85
and legalization of same-sex marriage, 137
and Libya attacks, 324, 326
Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, 132
and limitation of state laws, 82, 84
managerial presidency of, 364, 365
marijuana legalization, 67–68
military operations used by, 324, 326
on military policy, 449–50
net neutrality, 176
and No Child Left Behind Act, 424
NSA assessment panel appointed by, 361
on political participation, 2
powers used by, 324, 326
preemption used by, 82
public opinion on, 147–48
public relations strategy of, 333
restoration of ties with Cuba, 320
on role of government, 352
on sexual orientation or gender identity
discrimination, 132
signing statements of, 339
social media use by, 161
Supreme Court nominee of, 301, 385
tax cuts under, 415
Toxic Substances Control Act reform, 314–15,
315
use of internet by, 333
vetoes of, 321
Obamacare. See Affordable Care Act (ACA)
Obergefell, Jim, 31
Obergefell v. Hodges, 31, 71–72, 264
Obergfell, Jim, 30–32
obscenity, 110–11
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA), 356
Occupy Wall Street, 265
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 329, 335
Office of Personnel Management, 364
Office of Secretary of Defense (OSD), 360
Off the Sidelines, 301
older Americans, 433
Olson, Mancur, 255
OMB. See Office of Management and Budget
online fundraising, 240
online media
diversity of, 187
as political networking tool, 222
regulation of, 197
online news, 186–89
concerns about, 190
and investigative power, 190
from traditional media organizations, 184
open primary, 230 a primary election in which
the voter can wait until the day of the primary
to choose which party to enroll in to select
candidates for the general election
noncontributory programs, 419, 432 social
programs that provide assistance to people
based on demonstrated need rather than any
contribution they have made
non-state actors, 447–49 groups other than
nation-states that attempt to play a role in the
international system; terrorist groups are one
type of non-state actor
nonworking poor, social benefits for, 435
North
school segregation in, 123
Three-Fifths Compromise, 42–43
North Atlantic Treaty, 461, 462
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO),
446, 461–62, 465 an organization,
comprising the United States, Canada, and
most of Western Europe, formed in 1949 to
counter the perceived threat from the Soviet
Union
North Carolina, 42, 132, 390
North Dakota, 231
Northern Ireland, 458
North Korea, 320, 449, 450, 454–55, 466–67
Northwest Ordinance (1787), 39
Norway, 357, 357
NOW (National Organization for Women), 130
NPR (National Performance Review), 364
NPR (National Public Radio), 185–86
NRA (National Rifle Association), 265, 268
NSA. See National Security Agency
NSC. See National Security Council
“nuclear option, the,” 295–96
nuclear proliferation, 466–67
nuclear weapons, 449–50, 469
O
Obama, Barack, and administration
Affordable Care Act, 88, 431
and charter schools, 425
Cuba and, 320
and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals,
89, 89
and Democratic Party, 216–17
directives to administrative agencies, 335–36
on earmarks, 287
electoral votes for, 232
EPA’s authority under, 350
executive actions on immigration, 296
executive orders of, 134, 336
and fair pay act, 132
and federal role, 89
foreign policy, 449, 454, 455, 465
foreign policy of, 455
fundraising by, 239
on gays in the military, 137
on government secrecy, 361
and government secrets, 361
government transparency campaign, 361
health care initiative of, 426, 428
A106 G L O S S A R Y / I N D E X
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a85-a119.indd 106 11/28/18 5:28 PM
party unity vote, 299, 300 a roll-call vote in the
House or Senate in which at least 50 percent
of the members of one party take a particular
position and are opposed by at least 50 percent
of the members of the other party
Paterson, William, 41
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of
2010. See Affordable Care Act (ACA)
Patrick, Amanda, 444
patronage, 286–88 the resources available to
higher officials, usually opportunities to make
partisan appointments to offices and to confer
grants, licenses, or special favors to supporters
Paul, Rand, 303
Pavan, Marisa, 390
Pavan v. Smith, 389, 390
Paxton, Ken, 72
pay discrimination, 132
PBS (Public Broadcasting System), 184
peacekeeping efforts, 453, 459
Pelosi, Nancy, 290, 301
Pence, Michael, 228, 329–30, 330
penny press, 186 cheap, tabloid-style newspaper
produced in the nineteenth century, when
mass production of inexpensive newspapers
first became possible due to the steam-powered
printing press; a penny press newspaper cost
one cent compared with other papers, which
cost more than five cents
Pentagon Papers, 108, 161, 193
Perot, Ross, 218, 239
personal freedom, 16; see also liberty
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), 422
petition(s)
freedom of, 107
right of, 261
Pew Research Center, 152, 167
Philip, Celeste, 426
philosophy, political, 33
physician-assisted suicide, 120
plaintiff, 377 the individual or organization that
brings a complaint in court
Plame, Valerie, 109
plea bargain, 380 a negotiated agreement in a
criminal case in which a defendant agrees to
plead guilty in return for the state’s agreement
to reduce the severity of the criminal charge
the defendant is facing
Plessy, Homer, 121
Plessy v. Ferguson, 121, 122
pluralism, 249 the theory that all interests are
and should be free to compete for influence
in the government; the outcome of this
competition is compromise and moderation
opinion, 147 the written explanation of the
Supreme Court’s decision in a particular case;
see also public opinion
dissenting, 396–97
emotional underpinnings of, 147–48
writing, 396
opinion polls. See public-opinion polls
opportunity, equality of, 18, 148–49
oral argument, 394, 396 the stage in Supreme
Court procedure in which attorneys for both
sides appear before the Court to present their
positions and answer questions posed by justices
Oregon, 225
Organization of American States, 461
original jurisdiction, 381 the authority to
initially consider a case; distinguished from
appellate jurisdiction, which is the authority to
hear appeals from a lower court’s decision
OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health
Administration), 356
“outsider” candidates, 240
oversight, 304, 365–66 the effort by Congress,
through hearings, investigations, and other
techniques, to exercise control over the
activities of executive agencies
P
PAC. See political action committee
packing technique, 390
Page, Benjamin, 162
Paj, Ajit, 176, 179
Palko, Frank, 116
Palko v. Connecticut, 116
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle
School District No. 1, 125–26
Paris Agreement, 468
Parkland, Florida, shooting, 145, 257
Parks, Rosa, 124
parliamentary system
bicameral body vs., 306
executive branch in, 325
parliaments, 6
partisan politics, 210
partisanship
in Benghazi hearings, 365
and congressional decision making, 302
in media reporting, 181, 183, 190
in public opinion, 147
and Supreme Court, 397–99
of voters, 227
Partnership to Protect Consumer Credit, 251
party identification, 216, 220, 221, 228 an
individual voter’s psychological ties to one
party or another
party leadership, in Congress, 289
party loyalty, political participation and, 227
party system, 210–20, 212
A107G L O S S A R Y / I N D E X
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a85-a119.indd 107 11/28/18 5:28 PM
political participation, 60
in 2008 and 2016 primary campaigns, 21
in 2012 presidential election, 25
and candidate characteristics, 229
by citizens, 2–4, 8–9
digital, 221–22
electoral process, 229–32
expansion of, 7
forms of, 220
issues in, 228
and online news, 186–88
and party loyalty, 227
in state and local politics, 91
and strength of democracy, 159–60
through digital citizenship, 9
via social media, 198, 199
by voting, 220, 222, 225, 227
political parties, 204–41, 221 organized groups
that attempt to influence the government
by electing their members to important
government offices
congressional organization by, 289
defined, 207
and electoral realignments, 217–18
formation of, 60
functions of, 207–8
identification with, 216, 220, 221
interest groups vs., 250
internal disagreements for, 217
microtargeting messages of, 209–10
party loyalty, 227
and political orientation, 156–57
presidents supported by, 331
psychological ties to, 220
purpose of, 204–6
third parties, 218–20
two-party system, 210–20
voter turnout, 209–10, 223–24
political philosophy, 33
political socialization, 152–57 the induction of
individuals into the political culture; learning
the underlying beliefs and values on which the
political system is based
political speech, 106
political system, urban areas representation in, 14
political values, 147–48
and demographic changes, 24
and diversity, 17
in future, 23
politicians, Americans’ suspicions of, 21, 23
Politico, 184, 188
politics conflict over the leadership, structure,
and policies of governments
colonial, 34
defined, 7
electoral, 266–67
goal of, 7
and government, 7
importance of media in, 179
plurality rules, in elections, 232
pocket veto, 297, 321 a presidential veto that
is automatically triggered if the president does
not act on a given piece of legislation passed
during the final 10 days of a legislative session
podcasts, 185–86
polarization
of Congress, 303
of politics, 158
police
misconduct by, 124
public opinion concerning, 154
police dogs, 114–15
“police patrol” oversight, 365 regular or
even preemptive congressional hearings on
bureaucratic agency operations
police power, 70, 76 power reserved to the state
government to regulate the health, safety, and
morals of its citizens
police regulation, 412
political action committee (PAC) a private
group that raises and distributes funds for use
in election campaigns
campaign funding from, 237–39
defined, 250
as interest group strategy, 266–67
interest groups vs., 250
leadership, 300–301
purpose of, 208
Super PACs, 237–38, 267, 299
political campaigns. See election campaigns
political efficacy, 9 the ability to influence
government and politics
political environment
as agent of political socialization, 157
and political participation, 224
political equality, 19 the right to participate in
politics equally, based on the principle of “one
person, one vote”
political ideology, 149–51, 151 a cohesive
set of beliefs that forms a general philosophy
about the role of government
conservatism, 150–51
liberalism, 150
of Supreme Court, 398–99
political knowledge possessing information
about the formal institutions of government,
political actors, and political issues
for citizenship, 8–9
shaping public opinion, 157–60
political mobilization, 188–89; see also mobilization
political opinions, expression of, 171
political outlook, education and, 153
A108 G L O S S A R Y / I N D E X
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a85-a119.indd 108 11/28/18 5:28 PM
precedent, 378 prior case whose principles are
used by judges as the basis for their decisions in
present cases
predatory lending, 128
preemption, 82 the principle that allows the
national government to override state or local
actions in certain policy areas; in foreign policy,
the willingness to strike first in order to prevent
an enemy attack
presidency, 314–41
administrative capabilities of, 334–39
Constitutional powers of, 317–27
creation of, 46–47
delegated powers of, 324
expressed powers of, 318–22
inherent powers claimed for, 324
institutional, 327–31, 328
limits on power of, 339–40
managerial, 363–65
and party lines in Congress, 302
party support for, 331
popular mobilization by, 331–40
powers assigned to, 454–55
president(s)
actions of, and judicial review, 388–89
as chief executive, 363–65
as commander in chief, 318
and electoral college system, 231–32
expanding powers of, 340
as foreign policy leader, 454–55
powers of, 46–47
veto power of, 50, 297
Presidential Election Campaign Fund,
238–39
presidential memoranda, 336–39
presidential nominations, 170, 229
2012, 229
2016, 208, 218–19, 219, 229
presidential pardons, 319–20
presidential primary elections, 229
2016, 21, 23, 192, 208, 238
“outsider” candidates in, 240
president’s oath of office, 317
press, freedom of, 101, 105–6, 179
press relations, 333–34
preventive war, 449 policy of striking first
when a nation fears that a foreign foe is
contemplating hostile action
primary elections, 208, 229 elections within a
political party to select the party’s candidate
for the general election; see also presidential
primary elections
priming, 192 process of preparing the public
to take a particular view of an event or
political actor
print media, 183–84, 194–95
Printz v. United States, 80
institutions of, 6
on internet, 169–70
media and power relations in, 191–97
partisan, 210; see also two-party system
polarization of, 158
public opinion representing attitudes about,
147–52
shaped by federalism, 69–72
PolitiFact, 159
Pompeo, Mike, 359, 360, 466
popular sovereignty, 19 a principle of
democracy in which political authority rests
ultimately in the hands of the people
popular vote, 232
population, representation and, 15–16
Populist Party, 213–14, 218
pork-barrel legislation (or pork), 286–88
appropriations made by legislative bodies for
local projects that are often not needed but
that are created so that local representatives can
win re-election in their home districts
Porkulus Protest, 204–5
pornography, 110–11
poverty
and access to internet, 187–88
among the aged, 433
breaking the cycle of, 423–32
“feminization of,” 436–37
and housing policies, 431
and social policies, 434–35
in the U.S., 436
Powell, Jerome, 414
power influence over a government’s leadership,
organization, or policies
under Articles of Confederation, 37–38
of coercion, 70
in Congress, 210
of Congress, 50, 340
defined, 7
delegated, 324
expressed, 46, 69, 318–22
federal, 49–51, 50, 69–70
Federalists vs. Antifederalists on, 53–54
of the government, 5–6, 20–21
implied, 69, 323
information on abuses of, 190
inherent, 324
knowledge as, 159–60
of the legislative branch, 44–46
police, 76
political power relations, 191–97
of the presidency, 46–47, 314–41, 454–55
of presidents, 317–18
reserved, 70
separation of, 44, 49, 49–50
of state governments, 70
Prairie View A&M, 2, 3
A109G L O S S A R Y / I N D E X
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a85-a119.indd 109 11/28/18 5:28 PM
public opinion, 144–71 citizens’ attitudes about
political issues, leaders, institutions, and events
defined, 147
in a democracy, 169
disapproval of Congress, 303, 306
and dominant political ideologies, 149–51,
151
education’s influence on, 153–54
and foreign policy, 458
and government policies, 162–63
government’s influence on, 160–63, 192–93
interest groups’ mobilization of, 265
measuring, 163–69
media’s influence on, 160–63, 191–93
political knowledge shaping, 157–60
political socialization shaping, 152–57
private groups shaping, 161
representing attitudes about politics, 147–52
on security, 469
shared political values, 148–49, 149
public-opinion polls, 163–66, 172 scientific
instruments for measuring public opinion
design and wording of, 165–66, 166
inaccurate results of, 165–66
samples for, 163, 165
public policy, 409 a law, a rule, a statute, or
an edict that expresses the government’s goals
and provides for rewards and punishments
to promote those goals’ attainment; see also
domestic policy; foreign policy
gender and opinions about, 156
implementation of, 349–51
as techniques of control, 409–16, 410
public-relations strategies, 332–34
public school students, speech by, 108
public school teachers, 251
public-sector groups, 253
Puerto Rico, 326
purposive benefits, 256, 257 selective benefits
of group membership that emphasize the
purpose and accomplishments of the group
push polling, 168–69 a polling technique in
which the questions are designed to shape the
respondent’s opinion
Putin, Vladimir, 450, 454, 454–55, 464–65
R
race
and public opinion differences, 154, 155
and redistricting, 283–86
voters compared to population by, 307
of voters in 2016 election, 341
“whiteness,” 12
Race to the Top program, 425
racial classifications in population, 12
diversity of, 17
global, 17
prior restraint, 108 an effort by a governmental
agency to block the publication of material it
deems libelous or harmful in some other way;
censorship; in the United States, the courts
forbid prior restraint except under the most
extraordinary circumstances
prisoners, freedom of worship for, 105
privacy
right to, 115, 119–20, 398
and unreasonable search, 114–15
private bill, 287 a proposal in Congress to
provide a specific person with some kind
of relief, such as a special exemption from
immigration quotas
private property, 59
and eminent domain, 117, 413
state definitions of, 70
privatization, 364, 366 the transfer of all or
part of a program from the public sector to
the private sector
privileges and immunities clause, 72 provision,
from Article IV, Section 2, of the Constitution,
that a state cannot discriminate against
someone from another state or give its own
residents special privileges
probability sample, 163
pro-business conservatives, 217
professional associations, 250–51
profits, in media business, 180
Progressive Party, 7, 218–19
property rights, 101, 114; see also private
property
proportional representation, 219 a multiple-
member district system in which many
competing political parties are awarded
legislative seats in rough proportion to
the percentage of popular votes that each
party wins.
prospective voting, 228
Protestants
and abortion, 161
immigrants as, 10–11
political opinions of, 156
as proportion of Americans, 12
protests, 124, 264–65
PRWORA (Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act), 422
public accommodations, 125
public broadcasting, 180
Public Broadcasting System (PBS), 184
public health, 425–31
public housing, 431
public interest groups, 251 groups that claim
they serve the general good rather than only
their own particular interest
A110 G L O S S A R Y / I N D E X
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a85-a119.indd 110 11/28/18 5:28 PM
to the vote of the electorate for approval or
rejection
Reform Party, 218
regional population shifts, 14
Regulated Federalism, 86
regulation
of commerce, 76
debate over scope of, 18–19
of financial transactions, 298–99
of media, 194–97
and preemption, 82, 84
regulatory agency, 356, 358 a department,
bureau, or independent agency whose primary
mission is to impose limits, restrictions, or
other obligations on the conduct of individuals
or companies in the private sector
regulatory policies, 411–13
regulatory review, by presidents, 335–36
regulatory taxation, 412–13
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 136
Reid, Harry, 295
religion(s), 140
and employment discrimination, 126
freedom of, 103–11
free exercise of, 104–5, 107
of immigrants, 14–15
and Latinos’ political decisions, 154
and political opinions, 156
separation of church and state, 103–4
religious conservatives, 217
Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 105
religiously unaffiliated, 12
Reno v. ACLU, 110
representation
in Congress, 277, 288
Federalists vs. Antifederalists on, 53
and population, 15–16
proportional, 219
and shifts in population, 15–16
sociological vs. agency, 278–81
and writing of Constitution, 41–42
representative democracy (republic), 7 a system
of government in which the populace selects
representatives, who play a significant role in
governmental decision making
Republican Congressional Campaign Committee
(RCCC), 282
Republican Party; see also political parties
2016 presidential nominations, 208
on citizenship for immigrants, 157
and congressional polarization, 303
divisions within, 303
on environmental protection, 157
external mobilization in building, 207
fundraising by, 237
internal disagreements in, 217
membership of, 207
nomination of Trump, 208
racial discrimination
Black Lives Matter movement, 265, 265
and death-penalty cases, 118
in employment, 126
in housing, 128
post–World War II, 122–23
school segregation, 123–24
racial equality, 120–30
racial immigration criteria, 11–12
racial integration, 319
racial minorities, tolerance for, 154
racial profiling, 124
racial segregation, 81
in public accommodations, 125
in schools, 123–24, 423–24
and Southern Manifesto, 79–80
racism, 154, 155
radio news, 183, 185–86
Randolph, Edmund, 41, 42
random digit dialing, 163 a polling method
in which respondents are selected at random
from a list of 10–digit telephone numbers,
with every effort made to avoid bias in the
construction of the sample
ratification of the Constitution, 48, 51–56
Reagan, Ronald, and administration
education policies, 424
fiscal policy of, 415
on government as a problem, 352
New Federalism, 85–86
Republican coalition under, 215–17
Supreme Court justices appointed by, 399
reapportionment, 284
rebuttal, right of, 197
recall, 231 a procedure to allow voters to remove
state officials from office before their terms
expire by circulating petitions to call a vote
recess appointments, 339–40
Reconstruction, 213, 332
recreational marijuana, 67, 87–88
Reddit, 187, 222
redistribution, 413–15 collecting revenue
in such a way as to reduce the disparities of
wealth between the lowest and the highest
income brackets
redistricting, 283–86, 284, 285, 389–90 the
process of redrawing election districts and
redistributing legislative representatives; this
happens every 10 years to reflect shifts in
population or in response to legal challenges to
existing districts
Red Lion Broadcasting Company v. FCC, 197
Redskins (NFL), 137–38, 386
Reed, Stanley, 396
referendum, 7, 231 the practice of referring a
measure proposed or passed by a legislature
A111G L O S S A R Y / I N D E X
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a85-a119.indd 111 11/28/18 5:28 PM
fireside chats of, 332
fiscal policy of, 415
New Deal, 77–78, 214–15
powers used by, 321, 324
press relations of, 332
public appeals of, 333
welfare system, 417
Rubio, Marco, 458
rural areas, shift of population away from, 14
Russia, 304, 438, 454–55, 460, 462
economic sanctions against, 461
elections influenced by, 196
foreign policy with, 464–65
influence and international connections of, 452
and negotiations with Syria, 359
Ryan, Paul, 302, 306
S
Safe Drinking Water Act, 347
same-sex marriage, 71, 136–37, 159, 264, 389
legalization of, 30–32
nationwide legalization of, 153
states on, 71–72, 137
Supreme Court on, 71, 71–72, 137, 153,
399, 400
sample, 163 a small group selected by
researchers to represent the most important
characteristics of an entire population
sampling error (or margin of error), 165
polling error that arises based on the small
size of the sample
San Bernardino, California, terrorist attack, 54
sanctions, 461
sanctuary cities and states, 89
Sanders, Bernie, 23, 151, 217, 222
Santelli, Rick, 206
Saudi Arabia, 453
Scalia, Antonin, 89, 385, 394
Scalise, Steve, 302
Schattschneider, E. E., 253
SCHIP (State Child Health Insurance Program), 86
school desegregation, 125–26, 129, 423–24
schools, shootings at, 112
school segregation, 123–24
search and seizure, 114–15, 115
Second Amendment, 112–13, 113
Second Continental Congress, 36–37
Second Founding, 38–43
Second Treatise of Civil Government (Locke), 33
secretaries, federal, 352–53
secrets, government, 360–61
security
collective, 461–62
domestic. See national security
public opinion on, 469
segregation, 79–80
housing, 128
school, 123–24, 124, 129
voting, 126–28
and Obama’s judicial appointments, 384–85
and party identification, 220
and party system, 213
policy positions of, 207
and political orientation, 156–57
and preemption, 82
roots of, 207
Southern resentment of, 213
Tea Party movement and, 205
third parties’ effects on, 218–20
as third party, 218–20
trust of government among, 153
and voting rights for slaves, 7
“research” lobby, 253
reserved powers, 70 powers, derived from the
Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, that
are not specifically delegated to the national
government or denied to the states
retrospective voting, 228
revenue agency, 363 an agency responsible
for collecting taxes; examples include the
Internal Revenue Service for income taxes,
the U.S. Customs Service for tariffs and other
taxes on imported goods, and the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
for collection of taxes on the sales of those
particular products
Revolutionary War. See American Revolution
Rhode Island, 111
right(s), 62
to bear arms, 112–13
to counsel, 117
inalienable, 16
of petition, 261
to privacy, 119–20, 398
right of rebuttal, 197 a Federal
Communications Commission regulation
giving individuals the right to have the
opportunity to respond to personal attacks
made on a radio or television broadcast
right to die movement, 120
Riley v. California, 115
Rio Treaty, 461
Roberts, John, 397, 430
Roberts, Pat, 296
Roe v. Wade, 120, 120, 161, 263, 398
rogue states, 449
roll-call vote, 299 a vote in which each legislator’s
yes-or-no vote is recorded as the clerk calls the
names of the members alphabetically
Romer v. Evans, 136
Roosevelt, Eleanor, 330
Roosevelt, Franklin Delano
election of 1932, 214–15
election of 1936, 167
and electoral realignment, 218
A112 G L O S S A R Y / I N D E X
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a85-a119.indd 112 11/28/18 5:28 PM
services, federal, 351
sex discrimination, 132
sexual harassment, 131
sexual orientation; see also same-sex marriage
and civil rights, 136–37
and right to privacy, 120
shadow welfare state, 420
Shapiro, Robert, 162
shared political values, 148–49, 149
Shays, Daniel, 39, 40
Shays’s Rebellion, 39–40, 40
Shelby County v. Holder, 286
Shepard, Matthew, 137
Sherman, Roger, 36
shield laws, 109
Shirky, Clay, 254–55
Sierra Club, 259
signing statements, 339 announcements made
by the president when signing bills into law,
often presenting the president’s interpretation
of the law
simple random sample (or probability
sample), 163 a method used by pollsters to
select a representative sample in which every
individual in the population has an equal
probability of being selected as a respondent
Simpson, Alan, 246
single-issue interest groups, 457
Sixth Amendment, 117
slander, 109 an oral statement made in “reckless
disregard of the truth” that is considered
damaging to the victim because it is “malicious,
scandalous, and defamatory”
Slants, The, 96–98, 97, 137
slavery
laws concerning, 74
Thirteenth Amendment, 121
Three-Fifths Compromise, 42–43
Smith v. Allwright, 396
SNAP. See Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program
Snopes, 159
Snowden, Edward, 193–94, 194, 361
Snyder v. Phelps, 106–8
social desirability effect, 166–67 the effect that
results when respondents in a survey report
what they expect the interviewer wishes to
hear rather than what they believe
social groups, as agent of socialization, 154
socialist, 151 someone who generally believes
in social ownership, strong government, free
markets, and reducing economic inequality
socialization, 152–57
social media, 178 web-based and mobile-based
technologies that are used to turn communication
Select Committee on Benghazi, 304, 365–66, 366
select committees, 290 (usually) temporary
legislative committees set up to highlight or
investigate a particular issue or address an
issue not within the jurisdiction of existing
committees
selection bias, 167–68, 192 the tendency to
focus news coverage on only one aspect of
an event or issue, avoiding coverage of other
aspects
selection bias (surveys) polling error that arises
when the sample is not representative of the
population being studied, which creates errors
in overrepresenting or underrepresenting some
opinions
selective incorporation, 102, 102 the process
by which different protections in the Bill of
Rights were incorporated into the Fourteenth
Amendment, thus guaranteeing citizens
protection from state as well as national
governments
self-incrimination, 116–17
self-selection bias, 190
Senate; see also Congress
advice and consent by, 305
differences between House and, 277, 277–78
funding candidates’ campaigns for, 208
under Great Compromise, 42
and mutual defense alliances, 461
oversight hearings in, 365
party unity in, 299–300, 300
power to confirm nominations, 457
under Three-Fifths Compromise, 43
senior citizens, 433
Senior Executive Service, 364
seniority, 291 the ranking given to an individual
on the basis of length of continuous service on
a committee in Congress
“separate but equal” rule, 121 doctrine that
public accommodations could be segregated by
race but still be considered equal
separation of church and state, 103–4
separation of powers, 44, 49, 49–50 the
division of governmental power among
several institutions that must cooperate in
decision-making
September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, 161–62, 449
bureaucracy after, 348
and Bush’s foreign policy, 454
congressional response to, 456–57
federalism after, 73
foreign policy following, 456
national security after, 361
North Atlantic Treaty after, 462
trust in government and, 21
A113G L O S S A R Y / I N D E X
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a85-a119.indd 113 11/28/18 5:28 PM
South Africa, 55
government employment in, 357
voter turnout in, 226
South Carolina
immigration law in, 133
and school segregation, 122
slaves in, 42
and 2010 reapportionment, 284
Southern Christian Leadership Conference, 124,
264
Southern Manifesto, 79–80
South Sudan, 453
Soviet Union, 5, 423, 447–49, 448, 462–63
Spain, 357
Spanish-American War, 456
Speaker of the House, 210, 289 the
chief presiding officer of the House of
Representatives; the Speaker is the most
important party and House leader and can
influence the legislative agenda, the fate of
individual pieces of legislation, and members’
positions within the House
speech
commercial, 111
freedom of, 101, 105–6, 107, 197
political, 106
by public school students, 108
symbolic, 106–8
speech plus, 108
speed limit controls, 85
spending power, 415
Spirit of the Laws, The (Montesquieu), 33, 49
spoils system, 351
SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance), 418
SSI (Supplemental Security Income) program, 419
Stafford Act, 326
staff organization, 255 type of membership
group in which a professional staff conducts
most of the group’s activities
staff system (Congress), 291, 293
Stalin, Joseph, 5
Stamp Act, 34
standing, 391 the right of an individual or
organization to initiate a court case, on the
basis of having a substantial stake in the
outcome
standing committee, 289–91 a permanent
committee with the power to propose and
write legislation that covers a particular subject,
such as finance or agriculture
stare decisis, 378 literally, “let the decision
stand”; the doctrine that a previous decision by
a court applies as a precedent in similar cases
until that decision is overruled
“state, the,” 5
state actions, judicial review of, 389–90
State Child Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), 86
into interactive dialogue between organizations,
communities, and individuals; social media
technologies take on many different forms
including blogs, Wikis, podcasts, pictures,
video, Facebook, and Twitter
as agent of socialization, 153–54
civic engagement on, 199
Congress members on, 281
demographics of users, 188
government use of, 160–61, 222
interest group mobilization through, 264
and interest group participation, 258
as news source, 184, 186–89
political knowledge from, 158–59
as political networking tool, 222
political participation via, 198, 199, 221–22
role of, in elections, 196
social policy, 416–22
education policies, 423–25
health policies, 425–31
housing policies, 431–32
and the welfare system, 416–22
Social Security, 418, 422, 430, 433 a contributory
welfare program into which working Americans
contribute a percentage of their wages and from
which they receive cash benefits after retirement
or if they become disabled
Social Security Act of 1935, 417–21, 436–37
Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), 418
socioeconomic status status in society based on
level of education, income, and occupational
prestige
of American population, 14–15
and bias in interest groups, 254
and voting, 224
sociological representation, 278–81 a type
of representation in which representatives
have the same racial, gender, ethnic,
religious, or educational backgrounds as their
constituents. It is based on the principle that
if two individuals are similar in background,
character, interests, and perspectives, then one
can correctly represent the other’s views
soft power, 451, 463
solicitor general, 392–94 the top government
lawyer in all cases before the Supreme Court in
which the government is a party
solidary benefits, 256, 256 selective benefits of
group membership that emphasize friendship,
networking, and consciousness-raising
Sotomayor, Sonia, 385, 387
South
school segregation in, 123
Three-Fifths Compromise, 42–43
treatment of African Americans in, 81
voter registration in, 127
A114 G L O S S A R Y / I N D E X
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a85-a119.indd 114 11/28/18 5:28 PM
Sugar Act of 1764, 34
Sundquist, James, 80–81
Sunstein, Cass, 335
Super PAC, 237–38, 267, 299 an independent
political action committee that may raise
unlimited sums of money from corporations,
unions, and individuals but is not permitted
to contribute to or coordinate directly with
parties or candidates
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP), 419, 422, 434–35 the largest
antipoverty program, which provides recipients
with a debit card for food at most grocery
stores; formerly known as food stamps
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, 419
supremacy clause, 48, 389 Article VI of the
Constitution, which states that laws passed
by the national government and all treaties
“shall be the supreme Law of the Land” and
superior to all laws adopted by any state or any
subdivision
Supreme Court, 385–90 the highest court in
a particular state or in the United States; this
court primarily serves an appellate function
on affirmative action, 129–30
and Affordable Care Act, 88, 431
on Alaska’s employment discrimination, 72
amicus briefs, 401, 402
appeals to, 378–81
on authority of the EPA, 350
on Bill of Rights, 101–3
on campaign funding, 238, 239, 239, 266–67
cases filed in, 392
and civil liberties, 99
on Communications Decency Act, 195
creation of, 47–48
on due process, 113–19
and end of “traditional system,” 75–76
on executive orders, 338
on federal role over states, 87
filibuster rules for nominees, 295–96
flow of cases to, 390–97
and Fourteenth Amendment, 101
and freedom of religion, 103–11, 105
on freedom of speech, 97, 101, 105–6
on freedom of the press, 105–6
on gay and lesbian rights, 264
on gender discrimination, 131–32
on immigration, 134
influences on decisions of, 397–99
and interest group issues, 263
interpretations of federalism, 78–80
judicial review by, 385–90
on national origin discrimination, 133
and Native American gambling, 134
on Obama’s illegal immigrant executive order, 134
original jurisdiction of, 381
process for cases in, 394–97
on racial discrimination, 123–24
State Department, 360
and external national security, 359–60
and foreign policy, 455
and human rights abuses, 453
security function of, 359
state governments
and arms for militias, 112
civil service laws, 351
control by, 85–86
immigration legislation of, 88–89
powers of, 70
responsibilities of, 67–68
under “traditional system,” 73–75
state politics, participation in, 91, 92
states
under Articles of Confederation, 37–38
Bill of Rights applied to, 101–3, 102
and cooperative federalism, 80–81
direct legislation in, 7
education monitoring in, 425
electoral laws of, 225, 227
gun regulations in, 112, 113
immigration laws of, 133–34
as laboratories of democracy, 90
national-state balance, 86–89
obligations among, 70–72
and power of national government, 47
and same-sex marriage, 71–72, 137
unemployment insurance, 418
voter registration in, 225
states of emergencies, declared by presidents, 326
states’ rights, 76, 77, 79–80, 123 the principle
that the states should oppose the increasing
authority of the national government; this
principle was most popular in the period
before the Civil War
Stein Jill, 219
Stevens, Paul, 110
Stewart, Potter, 110
Stone, Harlan F., 79, 396
strict scrutiny, 105–6, 123 a test used by the
Supreme Court in racial discrimination cases
and other cases involving civil liberties and civil
rights that places the burden of proof on the
government rather than on the challengers to
show that the law in question is constitutional
student debt, 439
Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, 124
subsidies, 409, 411, 415 government grants of
cash or other valuable commodities, such as
land, to individuals or an organization; used to
promote activities desired by the government,
to reward political support, or to buy off
political opposition
Sudan, 453
suffrage, 223 the right to vote; also called
franchise
A115G L O S S A R Y / I N D E X
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a85-a119.indd 115 11/28/18 5:28 PM
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF),
419, 420, 422, 435, 437
Tennessee, 90
Tenth Amendment
and expansion of national power, 78–80
powers of government, 46
state powers, 70
states’ rights, 76
term limits, 283 legally prescribed limits on the
number of terms an elected official can serve
terrorism
Bush’s response to, 192
national security and, 361
September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, 449
Texas, 89
apportionment in, 286
flag burning in, 107
religious displays in, 104
sodomy law in, 389
and 2010 reapportionment, 284
young elected officials, 2
Texas restaurant shooting, 144
theory of unitary executive, 323
Third Amendment, 119
third parties, 218–20, 239 parties that organize
to compete against the two major American
political parties
Thirteenth Amendment, 121
Thomas, Clarence, 385, 394
Three-Fifths Compromise, 42–43 the
agreement reached at the Constitutional
Convention of 1787 that stipulated that
for purposes of the apportionment of
congressional seats only three-fifths of slaves
would be counted
Tilden, Samuel, 232
Tillerson, Rex, 359
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
131, 132
Title IX of the 1972 Education Act, 131
Tocqueville, Alexis de, 247–48, 252
tolerance, effect of digital media on, 190
tort cases, 378
totalitarian government, 5 a system of rule in
which the government recognizes no formal
limits on its power and seeks to absorb or
eliminate other social institutions that might
challenge it
trade associations, 250
trade policies, 451, 467
traditional media, 179–82, 191
traditional political participation, 220–21
“traditional system,” 73–75, 74
transgender persons, 90, 132
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), 467
Transportation, Department of, 362
on racial redistricting, 285–86
and regulation of marijuana use, 67–68
on religious freedom, 105, 105
on removal of officials, 323
on right to bear arms, 112–13
and right to privacy, 120
same-sex marriage, 31, 71, 71–72, 136–37,
137, 153, 399, 400
and school segregation, 122, 123, 125–26
on search and seizure, 114–15
and segregation, 122–23, 125–26
on sexual orientation discrimination, 136–37
timeline of case in, 395
on travel ban, 147, 388, 389, 445
Supreme Court justices, 47, 383, 384, 387
supreme courts, state, 379–80
survivor benefits, of Social Security, 418
Sweden, 357
Switzerland
federal system in, 69
voter turnout in, 226
symbolic speech, 106–8
Syria
civil war in, 465
efforts to negotiate with, 359
Syrian refugees, 453
T
Tam, Simon, 96–97
TANF. See Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
tariffs, 446, 451, 467
Tauzin, Billy, 261
taxation
in cooperative federalism, 83
regulatory, 412–13
tax rates, 440
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, 274, 431
taxes
collection of, 363
on imports, 363
tax cuts, 192
tax expenditures, 419–21, 434 government
subsidies provided to employers and employees
through tax deductions for amounts spent on
health insurance and other benefits
Tea Act, 35
teachers, 251
Tea Party movement
creation of, 204–6
economic regulation and, 18
and GOP takeover of House, 264–65
technology
in disseminating political news, 222
and global interdependence, 447–48
in mobilizing voters, 209–10
and public opinion, 169–70
Telecommunications Act of 1996, 82, 110–11,
181–82, 195
television news, 184
A116 G L O S S A R Y / I N D E X
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a85-a119.indd 116 11/28/18 5:28 PM
trust/distrust
in diplomacy, 459
in government, 21, 23, 152
Tunisia, 55
Turkey, 357
turnout, 223–24, 225, 226, 307 the percentage
of eligible individuals who actually vote
in 2008 and 2016 primary campaigns, 21
in 2012 election, 25
in 2016 election, 241
around the world, 226
country comparison of, 226, 226
mobilization of voters, 209, 209–10
parties’ assistance with, 209–10
in U.S. national elections, 226
Tweeting to Power (Gainous and Wagner), 189
21st Century Fox, 181
Twenty-Fourth Amendment, 126
Twenty-Sixth Amendment, 61
Twitter, 278
civic engagement on, 199
Congress members on, 281
as news source, 187–89
number of users, 187, 188–89
Obama’s use of, 160, 161
as political networking tool, 222
presidential presence on, 333
and public opinion, 153
Trump’s and Clinton’s use of, 333
Trump’s use of, 158, 161, 222
Donald Trump’s use of, 334
two-party system, 210–20, 212 a political
system in which only two parties have a
realistic opportunity to compete effectively for
control of the government
tyranny, 53 oppressive and unjust government
that employs cruel and unjust use of power
and authority
U
Ukraine, 461, 465
UMRA (Unfunded Mandates Reform Act), 84
UN (United Nations), 197, 459–60
UN Charter, 461
undersecretaries, federal, 353
undocumented immigrants, 12, 86, 88–89
unemployment, 435–36
unemployment insurance, 418
unfunded mandates, 82, 84 regulations or
conditions for receiving grants that impose costs
on state and local governments for which they
are not reimbursed by the federal government
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), 84
UN General Assembly, 459
Unified Combatant Commands (COCOMs), 360
unions, 250
unitary executive theory, 323
travel ban, 147, 388, 389, 444–45
Treasury Department, 362, 455
treaties, 456
trial court, 379 the first court to hear a criminal
or civil case
Truman, David, 253
Truman, Harry S., 168, 324
Trump, Donald, and administration, 23, 219
2016 election, 160, 190–92, 228, 228,
232–36, 333, 334
on Affordable Care Act, 298
assistance programs under, 422
bureaucracy under, 359
campaign funds for, 237, 267
campaign rhetoric, 233
campaign spending by, 239
on congressional earmarks, 287, 296
diplomacy by, 320, 320
education policies, 425
election integrity commission, 128
Environmental Protection Agency, 315
executive orders of, 336, 337
fake news and, 190
fake news stories about, 159
on filibusters, 296
foreign policy, 449, 450, 454, 454–55, 466
health care policies of, 430
immigration policies, 133
immigration policy, 89, 89
managerial presidency of, 365
media attention to, 180, 190, 192
as outsider candidate, 23
personal traits of, 229
policies repealed by, 336
polls and 2016 election results, 167,
168, 169
powers used by, 326
presidential pardons of, 320
public appeals of, 333
public approval of, 334
and Republican Party, 217, 218, 282
Russian collusion investigation, 304
and Russian election interference, 465
sexual assault charges against, 234
social media used by, 158, 161, 189, 222,
333, 334
spending bill, 303
states of emergency declared by, 319
Supreme Court apointments, 375–76, 384,
385
tariffs of, 446
taxation, 415, 416, 421
Tea Party supporters of, 206
trade policy, 467
transgender military members, 132
travel ban of, 147, 388, 389, 444–45
vice president of, 329
Trump, Melania, 331
Trump v. Hawaii, 445
Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project, 389
A117G L O S S A R Y / I N D E X
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a85-a119.indd 117 11/28/18 5:29 PM
political, 23, 147–48
shared, 148–49, 149
underlying government, 5, 16–20
Van Ordern v. Perry, 104
Verizon, 176–77
veto, 47, 50, 297, 321–22, 322 the president’s
constitutional power to prevent a bill from
becoming a law; a presidential veto may be
overridden by a two-thirds vote of each house
of Congress
vice presidency, 329–30
Vietnam War, 157, 193, 215
violent broadcast content, 111
Virginia
and Annapolis Convention, 39
and school segregation, 122
slaves in, 42
Virginia Military Institute (VMI), 131
Virginia Plan, 41 a framework for the
Constitution, introduced by Edmund
Randolph, that called for representation in the
national legislature based on the population of
each state
Volcker, Paul, 414
Volkswagen, 351
voter ID laws, 126–28, 225
voter registration, 26, 209, 225
voting, 242
on bills, 296
and candidate characteristics, 229
early, 225, 227
factors influencing, 225, 227
issues in, 228
by mail, 225
party loyalty in, 227, 228
as political participation, 220–22, 225, 227
prospective, 228
retrospective, 228
turnout. See turnout
voting rights
Amendments for, 61
as civil right, 126–28, 127
expansion of, 7
for Native Americans, 11
state, 60
and voter ID laws, 126–28
Voting Rights Act amendments of 1970, 133
Voting Rights Act amendments of 1975, 134
Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), 127, 127, 286
W
Wagner, Dave, 406
Wagner, Kevin, 189
Wagner, Marcella, 406–8, 407
Wagner-Steagall National Housing Act of 1937,
431
Wallace, George, 81
Wall Street Journal, 181, 184
unitary system, 69 a centralized government
system in which lower levels of government
have little power independent of the national
government, 8
United Kingdom, 460
false news in, 196
system of government in, 55
voter turnout in, 226
United Nations (UN), 197, 459–60 an
organization of nations founded in 1945 to
be a channel for negotiation and a means of
settling international disputes peaceably; the
UN has had frequent successes in providing a
forum for negotiation and on some occasions
a means of preventing international conflicts
from spreading; on a number of occasions, the
UN has supported U.S. foreign policy goals
United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change, 451–52, 467
United States
government employment in, 357
income in, 15
as member of UN Security Council, 459–60
system of government in, 55
voter turnout in, 226
United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement
(USMCA), 451 trade treaty between the
United States, Canada, and Mexico to lower
and eliminate tariffs among the three countries
United States v. Lopez, 80
United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group,
110–11
University of California–Davis, 129
University of Michigan, 129
University of Missouri protest, 189
UN Security Council, 459
upper class, 434
urban areas, shift of population to, 14
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 250
U.S. Court of Appeals, 382, 382
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 97
U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS), 425
USA Freedom Act, 361
USMCA, 451
USPHS (U.S. Public Health Service), 425
Utah, 133, 284
V
values (or beliefs) basic principles that shape
a person’s opinions about political issues and
events
Americans’ support for, 149
conflict of, 23
defined, 147
democracy, 23
equality, 18–19
liberty, 16, 17
A118 G L O S S A R Y / I N D E X
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a85-a119.indd 118 11/28/18 5:29 PM
White House staff, 327 analysts and advisers to
the president, each of whom is often given the
title “special assistant”
“whiteness,” 12
white non-Hispanics, as digital citizens, 188
WikiLeaks, 194
Wikipedia, 254
Wilson, James, 41, 42
Wilson, Joseph, 109
Wilson, Woodrow, 447
Windsor, Edith, 137
women
in Congress, 277, 280
and gender discrimination, 130–32
parlimentary representation for, 292
poverty among, 436–37
voter support for candidacies of, 229
voting rights for, 7
Women’s Equity Action League, 130
women’s rights movement, 130–32
working poor, social benefits for, 434–35
World Bank, 460
World Health Organization, 451
World Trade Organization (WTO), 451
international organization promoting free
trade that grew out of the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade
World War I, 448, 456
World War II, 448, 456
writ of certiorari, 391 a decision of at
least four of the nine Supreme Court
justices to review a decision of a lower court;
certiorari is Latin, meaning “to make more
certain”
writ of habeas corpus, 317, 380 a court
order that the individual in custody be
brought into court and shown the cause for
detention; habeas corpus is guaranteed by the
Constitution and can be suspended only in
cases of rebellion or invasion
writs, 391
WTO (World Trade Organization), 451
Wyoming, 112
Y
Yates, Robert, 42, 52
YouTube
as news source, 187
presidential presence on, 333
Z
Zika virus outbreak, 426
Walt Disney Company, 181
Walters, Lee Ann, 346–48, 347
war(s)
deterring, 461–62
as politics by other means, 462–63
power to declare, 456
preventive, 449
public opinion on, 458
War of 1812, 456
War on Poverty, 80–81
war on terror/terrorism, 449
War Powers Resolution, 324 a resolution of
Congress that the president can send troops
into action abroad only by authorization of
Congress or if American troops are already
under attack or serious threat
Warren, Earl, 384, 398
Washington (state)
regulation of marijuana use in, 66
and 2010 reapportionment, 284
Washington, D.C. See District of Columbia
Washington, George, 207
on foreign nations, 447
on Shays’s Rebellion, 40
Washington Post, 161, 182
Watergate, 161, 266
websites, as news source, 187
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 263–64
welfare, bureaucracies promoting, 356, 358, 358
welfare reform, 421–22
welfare state, 78
welfare system, 416–22
history of, 416–17
reform of, 421–22
size of, 428
Social Security Act of 1935, 417–21
Westboro Baptist Church demonstrations, 107, 107
West Virginia House of Delegates, 2
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 104
Whig Party, 211–13
whip, 289 a party member in the House or
Senate responsible for coordinating the party’s
legislative strategy, building support for key
issues, and counting votes
whip system, 301–2
whistle-blowers, 193
white Americans
as digital citizens, 188
European Americans as proportion of
population, 12
Medicaid gap for, 435
naturalized, 12
poverty rate for, 435–36
and racism, 154, 155
White House, contacting, 342
A119G L O S S A R Y / I N D E X
wtp12e_ess_ptr_ch99_em_05index_a85-a119.indd 119 11/28/18 5:29 PM
Voter Registration Information
State
Registration Deadline
before Election*
Early Voting
Permitted?**
Identification
Required to
Vote?**
More
Information
Alabama 14 days No Photo ID requested alabamavotes.gov
Alaska 30 days Yes ID requested;
photo not required
elections.alaska.gov
Arizona 29 days Yes ID required; photo
not required
azsos.gov/election
Arkansas 30 days Yes Photo ID
requested
sos.arkansas.gov
California 15 days; election-day
registration permitted
Yes No sos.ca.gov
Colorado 8 days by mail or online;
no in-person deadline
Yes (all voting
by mail)
ID requested;
photo not required
sos.state.co.us
Connecticut 14 days by mail; 7 days
in person; election-day
registration permitted
No ID requested;
photo not required
ct.gov/sots
Delaware 24 days No ID requested;
photo not required
elections.delaware.gov
District of
Columbia
30 days by mail or online;
no in-person deadline
Yes No dcboee.org
Florida 29 days Yes Photo ID
requested
dos.myflorida.com/
elections
Georgia 28 days Yes Photo ID required sos.ga.gov
Hawaii 30 days; no in-person
deadline
Yes Photo ID
requested
hawaii.gov/elections
Idaho 25 days; election-day
registration permitted
Yes Photo ID
requested
idahovotes.gov
Illinois 27 days; 16 days online Yes No elections.il.gov
Indiana 29 days Yes Photo ID required in.gov/sos/elections
Iowa 10 days; election-day
registration permitted
Yes Photo ID required sos.iowa.gov
Kansas 21 days Yes Photo ID required kssos.org
Kentucky 27 days No ID requested;
photo not required
elect.ky.gov
Louisiana 30 days; 20 days online Yes Photo ID requested sos.la.gov
Maine 21 days by mail; no
in-person deadline
Yes No maine.gov/sos
Maryland 21 days Yes No elections.state.md.us
Massachusetts 20 days No No www.sec.state.ma.us
Michigan 30 days No Photo ID requested michigan.gov/sos
Minnesota 21 days; election-day
registration permitted
Yes No mnvotes.org
Mississippi 30 days No Photo ID required sos.ms.gov
Missouri Fourth Wednesday prior
to election
No ID requested;
photo not required
sos.mo.gov
Montana 30 days by mail; no
in-person deadline
Yes ID requested;
photo not required
sos.mt.gov
Nebraska Third Friday prior
to election by mail;
second Friday prior to
election in person
Yes No www.sos.ne.gov
Nevada 31 days by mail;
21 days in person
Yes No nvsos.gov
wtp12e_ess_ptr_endpapers-back_a120-a122.indd 120 19/11/18 1:30 pm
State
Registration Deadline
before Election*
Early Voting
Permitted?**
Identification
Required to
Vote?**
More
Information
New
Hampshire
10 days; election-day
registration permitted
No ID requested;
photo not required
sos.nh.gov
New Jersey 21 days Yes No njelections.org
New Mexico 28 days Yes No sos.state.nm.us
New York 25 days No No www.elections.ny.gov
North
Carolina
25 days Yes No ncsbe.gov
North Dakota No voter registration
required
Yes ID required; photo
not required
vote.nd.gov
Ohio 30 days Yes ID required; photo
not required
sos.state.oh.us
Oklahoma 24 days Yes ID requested;
photo not required
ok.gov/elections
Oregon 21 days Yes (all
voting by
mail)
No sos.oregon.gov
Pennsylvania 30 days No No votespa.com
Rhode Island 30 days; election-day
registration permitted
No Photo ID
requested
www.elections.state.ri.us
South
Carolina
30 days No ID requested;
photo not required
scvotes.org
South Dakota 15 days Yes Photo ID
requested
sdsos.gov
Tennessee 30 days Yes Photo ID required tn.gov/sos/election
Texas 30 days Yes Photo ID
requested
votetexas.gov
Utah 30 days by mail;
7 days in person;
election-day registration
permitted
Yes ID requested;
photo not required
elections.utah.gov
Vermont Wednesday before the
election; no in-person
deadline
Yes No www.sec.state.vt.us/
elections
Virginia 22 days Yes Photo ID required sbe.virginia.gov
Washington 30 days by mail and
online; 8 days in person
Yes (all voting
by mail)
ID requested;
photo not required
sos.wa.gov/elections/
West Virginia 21 days Yes ID requested;
photo not required
sos.wv.gov
Wisconsin 20 days by mail;
election-day
registration permitted
Yes Photo ID required www.sos.state.wi.us
Wyoming 14 days; election-day
registration permitted
Yes No soswy.state.wy.us
* Information collected from Project Vote Smart, votesmart.org/elections/voter-registration (accessed 11/1/18).
** Information collected from National Conference of State Legislatures, www.ncsl.org (accessed 11/1/18). In
states where an ID is “requested,” voters who do not bring ID to the polls may be required to sign an affidavit
of identity, vote on a provisional ballot, have a poll worker vouch for their identity, or take additional steps after
Election Day to make sure their vote is counted.
Note: In November 2018, Arkansas and North Carolina passed ballot measures requiring a photo ID to vote.
Michigan passed ballot measures to implement same-day and automatic voter registration.
wtp12e_ess_ptr_endpapers-back_a120-a122.indd 121 19/11/18 1:30 pm
Cover (We the People 12E_Essentials)
116th
Congressional Map
United States Senate Map
Front Matter
Title Page
Copyright
Contents
Preface
Acknowledgments
Part I Foundations
1 Introduction: The Citizen
and Government
Government
Different Forms of Government Are Defined by Power
and Freedom
Limits on Governments Encouraged Freedom
Expansion of Participation in America Changed the
Political Balance
The Goal of Politics Is Having a Say in What Happens
Citizenship Is Based on Political Knowledge
and Participation
Political Efficacy Means People Can Make
a Difference
The Identity of Americans Has Changed over Time
Immigration and Increasing Ethnic Diversity Have
Long Caused Intense Debate
Who Are Americans Today?
America Is Built on the Ideas of Liberty, Equality, and Democracy
Liberty Means Freedom
America Side By Side Global Diversity
Equality Means Treating People Fairly
Democracy Means That What the People Want Matters
Government Affects Our Lives Every Day
Trust in Government Has Declined
American Political Culture: What Do We Want?
Who Participates? Who Voted in 2016?
Key Terms
For Further Reading
2 The Founding and the Constitution
The First Founding: Ideals, Interests, and Conflicts
Narrow Interests and Political Conflicts Shaped the First
Founding
British Taxes Hurt Colonial Economic Interests
Political Strife Radicalized the Colonists
The Declaration of Independence Explained Why the Colonists
Wanted to Break with Great Britain
The Articles of Confederation Created America’s First National
Government
The Failure of the Articles of Confederation Made the “Second
Founding” Necessary
The Annapolis Convention Was Key to Calling a National
Convention
Shays’s Rebellion Showed How Weak the Government Was
The Constitutional Convention Didn’t Start Out to Write
a New Constitution
The Constitution Created Both Bold Powers and Sharp Limits on Power
The Legislative Branch Was Designed to Be the Most Powerful
The Executive Branch Created a Brand New Office
The Judicial Branch Was a Check on Too Much Democracy
National Unity and Power Set the New Constitution Apart
from the Old Articles
The Constitution Establishes the Process for Amendment
The Constitution Sets Forth Rules for Its Own Ratification
The Constitution Limits the National Government’s Power
Ratification of the Constitution Was Difficult
Federalists and Antifederalists Fought Bitterly over the Wisdom
of the New Constitution
America Side By Side Comparing Systems of Government
Both Federalists and Antifederalists Contributed to the Success
of the New System
Changing the Constitution
Amendments: Many Are Called; Few Are Chosen
The Amendment Process Reflects “Higher Law”
The Constitution: What Do We Want?
Who Participates? Who Gained the Right to Vote through Amendments?
Key Terms
For Further Reading
3 Federalism
Federalism Shapes American Politics
Federalism Comes from the Constitution
The Definition of Federalism Has Changed Radically
over Time
Federalism under the “Traditional System” Gave Most
Powers to the States
The Supreme Court Paved the Way for the End of the Early
Federal System
FDR’s New Deal Remade the Government
Changing Court Interpretations of Federalism Helped the
New Deal While Preserving States’ Rights
Cooperative Federalism Pushes States to Achieve
National Goals
National Standards Have Been Advanced through
Federal Programs
America Side By Side Cooperative Federalism: Competition or a Check on Power?
New Federalism Means More State Control
There Is No Simple Answer to Finding the Right National–State Balance
Federalism: What Do We Want?
Who Participates? Who Participates in State and Local Politics?
Key Terms
For Further Reading
4 Civil Liberties and Civil Rights
The Origin of the Bill of Rights Lies in Those Who Opposed
the Constitution
The Fourteenth Amendment Nationalized the Bill of
Rights through Incorporation
The First Amendment Guarantees Freedom of Religion,
Speech, and the Press
Freedom of Religion
The First Amendment and Freedom of Speech and of the
Press Ensure the Free Exchange of Ideas
Political Speech Is Consistently Protected
Symbolic Speech, Speech Plus, Assembly, and Petition Are Highly Protected
Freedom of the Press Is Broad
Some Speech Has Only Limited Protection
The Second Amendment Now Protects an Individual’s Right to Own a Gun
Rights of the Criminally Accused Are Based on Due Process of Law
The Fourth Amendment Protects against Unlawful Searches and Seizures
The Fifth Amendment Covers Court-Related Rights
The Sixth Amendment’s Right to Counsel Is Crucial for a
Fair Trial
The Eighth Amendment Bars Cruel and Unusual Punishment
The Right to Privacy Means the Right to Be Left Alone
Civil Rights Are Protections by the Government
Plessy v. Ferguson Established “Separate but Equal
Lawsuits to Fight for Equality Came after World War II
The Civil Rights Struggle Escalated after Brown v. Board
of Education
The Civil Rights Acts Made Equal Protection a Reality
Affirmative Action Attempts to Right Past Wrongs
The Civil Rights Struggle Was Extended to Other
Disadvantaged Groups
Americans Have Fought Gender Discrimination
Latinos and Asian Americans Fight for Rights
Native Americans Have Sovereignty but Still Lack Rights
America Side By Side Civil Liberties Around the World
Disabled Americans Won a Great Victory in 1990
LGBTQ Americans
Civil Liberties and Civil Rights: What Do We Want?
Who Participates? Religious Affiliation and Freedom of Religion
Key Terms
For Further Reading
Part II Politics
5 Public Opinion
Public Opinion Represents Attitudes about Politics
Americans Share Common Political Values
America’s Dominant Political Ideologies Are Liberalism
and Conservatism
Americans Exhibit Low Trust in Government
Political Socialization Shapes Public Opinion
Political Knowledge Is Important in Shaping Public Opinion
The Media and Government Mold Opinion
The Government Leads Public Opinion
Private Groups Also Shape Public Opinion
The News Media’s Message Affects Public Opinion
Government Policies Also Respond to Public Opinion
Measuring Public Opinion Is Crucial to Understanding What It Is
Public-Opinion Surveys Are Accurate If Done Properly
America Side By Side Confidence in Democratic Institutions
Why Are Some Polls Wrong?
Public Opinion: What Do We Want?
Who Participates? Who Expresses Their Political Opinions?
Key Terms
For Further Reading
6 The Media
Media Have Always Mattered in a Democracy
Journalists Are News-Gathering Professionals
The Profit Motive Drives the News Business
More Media Outlets Are Owned by Fewer
Companies
The Media Today
Newspapers Still Set the Standard for News
Reporting
Broadcast Media Are Still Popular
Radio Has Adapted to Modern Habits
Digital Media Have Transformed Media Habits
Citizen Journalism Gives People News Power
Concerns about Online News
The Media Affect Power Relations in American Politics
The Media Influence Public Opinion through Agenda-Setting,
Framing, and Priming
Leaked Information Can Come from Government Officials
or Independent Sources
Adversarial Journalism Has Risen in Recent Years
Broadcast Media Are Regulated but Not Print Media
America Side By Side The Internet and Global Democracy
The Media: What Do We Want?
Who Participates? Civic Engagement in the Digital Age
Key Terms
For Further Reading
7 Political Parties, Participation,
and Elections
Parties and Elections Have Been Vital to American Politics
and Government
Political Parties Arose from the Electoral Process
Parties Recruit Candidates
Parties Organize Nominations
Parties Help Get Out the Vote
Parties Organize Power in Congress
America Is One of the Few Nations with a Two-Party System
Parties Have Internal Disagreements
Electoral Realignments Define Party Systems in American
History
American Third Parties Sometimes Change the Major Parties
and Election Outcomes
Group Affiliations Are Based on Voters’ Psychological Ties
to One of the Parties
Political Participation Takes Both Traditional and
Digital Forms
Voting Is the Most Important Form of Traditional Participation
Digital Political Participation Is Surging
Voter Turnout in America Is Low
Why Do People Vote?
America Side By Side Voter Turnout in Comparison
Voters Decide Based on Party, Issues, and Candidate
Party Loyalty Is Important
Issues Can Shape an Election
Candidate Characteristics Are More Important in the Media
Age
The Electoral Process Has Many Levels and Rules
The Electoral College Still Organizes Presidential Elections
The 2016 and 2018 Elections
The 2016 Elections
Understanding the 2016 Results
The 2018 Election: A Blue Wave Meets a Red Wall
The 2018 Election and America’s Future
Money Is Critical to Campaigns
Campaign Funds Come from Direct Appeals, the Rich, PACs, and Parties
Political Parties, Elections, and Participation: What Do We
Want?
Who Participates? Who Participated in the 2016 Presidential Election?
Key Terms
For Further Reading
8 Interest Groups
Interest Groups Form to Advocate for Different
Interests
What Interests Are Represented?
America Side By Side Civil Society Around the World
Some Interests Are Not Represented
Group Membership Has an Upper-Class Bias
The Organizational Components of Groups Include
Money, Offices, and Members
The Internet Has Changed the Way Interest Groups
Foster Participation
The Number of Groups Has Increased in Recent Decades
The Expansion of Government Has Spurred the Growth of Groups
Public Interest Groups Grew in the 1960s and ’70s
Interest Groups Use Different Strategies to Gain Influence
Direct Lobbying Combines Education, Persuasion, and Pressure
Cultivating Access Means Getting the Attention of Decision Makers
Using the Courts (Litigation) Can Be Highly Effective
Mobilizing Public Opinion Brings Wider Attention to an Issue
Groups Often Use Electoral Politics
Groups and Interests: What Do We Want?
Who Participates? How Much Do Major Groups Spend?
Key Terms
For Further Reading
Part III Institutions
9 Congress
Congress Represents the American People
The House and Senate Offer Differences
in Representation
Representation Can Be Sociological or Agency
The Electoral Connection Hinges on Incumbency
Direct Patronage Means Bringing Home the Bacon
The Organization of Congress Is Shaped by Party
Party Leadership in the House and the Senate Organizes Power
The Committee System Is the Core of Congress
The Staff System Is the Power behind the Power
America Side By Side Women’s Parliamentary Representation Worldwide
Rules of Lawmaking Explain How a Bill Becomes a Law
The First Step Is Committee Deliberation
Debate Is Less Restricted in the Senate Than in the House
Conference Committees Reconcile House and Senate Versions
of Legislation
The President’s Veto Controls the Flow of Legislation
Several Factors Influence How Congress Decides
Constituents Matter
Interest Groups Influence Constituents and Congress
Party Leaders Rely on Party Discipline
Partisanship Has Thwarted the Ability of Congress to Decide
Much Congressional Energy Goes to Tasks Other Than
Lawmaking
Congress Oversees How Legislation Is Implemented
Special Senate Powers Include Advice and Consent
Impeachment Is the Power to Remove Top Officials
Congress: What Do We Want?
Who Participates? Who Elects Congress?
Key Terms
For Further Reading
10 The Presidency
Presidential Power Is Rooted in the Constitution
Expressed Powers Come Directly from the Words
of the Constitution
Implied Powers Derive from Expressed Powers
Delegated Powers Come from Congress
Modern Presidents Have Claimed Inherent Powers
America Side By Side Executive Branches in Comparison
Institutional Resources of Presidential Power
Are Numerous
The Cabinet Is Often Distant from the President
The White House Staff Constitutes the President’s Eyes and
Ears
The Executive Office of the President Is a Visible Sign of the
Modern Strong Presidency
The Vice Presidency Has Become More Important since the
1970s
The First Spouse Has Become Important to Policy
Party, Popular Mobilization, and Administration Make
Presidents Stronger
Going Public Means Trying to Whip Up the People
The Administrative Strategy Increases Presidential Control
Presidential Power Has Limits
The Presidency: What Do We Want?
Who Participates? Who Voted for Donald Trump in 2016?
Key Terms
For Further Reading
11 Bureaucracy
Bureaucracy Exists to Improve Efficiency
Bureaucrats Fulfill Important Roles
The Size of the Federal Service Has Actually
Declined
The Executive Branch Is Organized Hierarchically
Federal Bureaucracies Promote Welfare
and Security
Federal Bureaucracies Promote Public Well-Being
America Side By Side Bureaucracy in Comparison
Federal Agencies Provide for National Security
Federal Bureaucracies Help to Maintain a Strong National Economy
Several Forces Control Bureaucracy
The President as Chief Executive Can Direct Agencies
Congress Promotes Responsible Bureaucracy
Can the Bureaucracy Be Reformed?
Bureaucracy and Democracy: What Do We Want?
Who Participates? Waiting for a Veterans Affairs Health Care Appointment
Key Terms
For Further Reading
12 The Federal Courts
The Legal System Settles Disputes
Court Cases Proceed under Criminal and Civil Law
Types of Courts Include Trial, Appellate, and Supreme
The Federal Courts Hear a Small Percentage of
All Cases
The Lower Federal Courts Handle Most Cases
The Appellate Courts Hear 20 Percent of Lower-Court Cases
The Supreme Court Is the Court of Final Appeal
Judges Are Appointed by the President and Approved by the Senate
The Power of the Supreme Court Is Judicial Review
Judicial Review Covers Acts of Congress
America Side By Side Term Limits for High Court Justices
Judicial Review Applies to Presidential Actions
Judicial Review Also Applies to State Actions
Most Cases Reach the Supreme Court by Appeal
The Solicitor General, Law Clerks, and Interest Groups Also
Influence the Flow of Cases
The Supreme Court’s Procedures Mean Cases May Take
Months or Years
Supreme Court Decisions Are Influenced by Activism
and Ideology
The Federal Courts: What Do We Want?
Who Participates? Influencing the Supreme Court?
Key Terms
For Further Reading
Part IV Policy
13 Domestic Policy
The Tools for Making Policy Are Techniques of Control
Promotional Policies Get People to Do Things by Giving
Them Rewards
Regulatory Policies Are Rules Backed by Penalties
Redistributive Policies Affect Broad Classes of People
Should the Government Intervene in the Economy?
Social Policy and the Welfare System Buttress Equality
The History of the Government Welfare System Dates Only
to the 1930s
The Modern Welfare System Has Three Parts
Welfare Reform Has Dominated the Welfare Agenda in
Recent Years
The Cycle of Poverty Can Be Broken by Education, Health, and Housing Policies
Education Policies Provide Life Tools
Health Policies Mean Fewer Sick Days
America Side By Side U.S. Healthcare: High Cost, Poor Outcomes
Housing Policies Provide Residential Stability
Social Policy Spending Benefits the Middle Class More Than the
Poor
Senior Citizens Receive over a Third of All Federal Dollars
The Middle and Upper Classes Benefit from Social Policies
The Working Poor Receive Fewer Benefits
Spending for the Nonworking Poor Is Declining
Minorities, Women, and Children Are Most Likely to Face Poverty
Domestic Policy: What Do We Want?
Who Participates? Growing Student Debt Burden
Key Terms
For Further Reading
14 Foreign Policy
Foreign Policy Goals Are Related
Security Is Based on Military Strength
Economic Prosperity Helps All Nations
America Seeks a More Humane World
America Side By Side Building Influence through International Connections
American Foreign Policy Is Shaped by Government
and Nongovernment Actors
The President Leads Foreign Policy
The Bureaucracy Implements and Informs Policy Decisions
Congress’s Legal Authority Can Be Decisive
Interest Groups Pressure Foreign Policy Decision Makers
Tools of American Foreign Policy Include Diplomacy, Force, and Money
Diplomacy
The United Nations Is the World’s Congress
The International Monetary Structure Helps Provide Economic Stability
Economic Aid Has Two Sides
Collective Security Is Designed to Deter War
Military Force Is “Politics by Other Means
Soft Power Uses Persuasion
Arbitration Resolves Disputes
Current Foreign Policy Issues Facing the United States
A Powerful China and a Resurgent Russia
Nuclear Proliferation in Iran and North Korea
Trade Policy
Global Environmental Policy
Foreign Policy and Democracy: What Do We Want?
Who Participates? Public Opinion on Security Issues
Key Terms
For Further Reading
Appendix
The Declaration of Independence
The Articles of Confederation
The Constitution of the United States of America
Amendments to the Constitution
The Federalist Papers
The Anti-Federalist Papers
Presidents and Vice Presidents
Endnotes
Answer Key
Credits
Glossary/Index
Voter Registration Information pg. 1
Voter Registration Information pg. 2