GOV-240 American Government
Week 6 - Branching Out
This assignment has two separate parts:
Part I:
Answer the DQ’s in 50 words or more:
How do interest groups impact change within existing laws or when creating new laws? What kinds of
actions can interest groups legally take? Think about what types of issues benefit from having interest
groups associated with them. Do these groups act altruistically? Do they act for the betterment of
corporations or individuals?
If you could be part of one of the three branches of the federal government, which would you select and
why? Outline three positive and three negative reasons of holding that position, whether it's Speaker of
the House, the president, or a Supreme Court justice. Which role's responsibilities appear intriguing?
Which appear overwhelming?
How do contemporary political candidates use the media, especially social media, to gain public interest,
to campaign, and try to affect political change? Does social media usage and knowledge hurt or hinder a
candidate? In the future, could the Constitution need to be altered to accommodate social media rights
and civil liberties?
Part II:
Complete the textbook activities listed below. Each response should be a minimum of 75 words or more.
- - DETAILS BELOW - Chapter 13:””What would you do?”
Chapter 14:””What would you do?”
Chapter 16:””What would you do?”
CHAPTER 13
What Would You Do?
NEWS
Memorandum
To: U.S. Representative Hope Shelly
From: Julie Rosen, legislative aide
Subject: The size of the House of Representatives
The House can decide how big it wishes to be. When it was created, there was one representative
for every 30,000 people. Now each one typically represents more than 600,000 people. In most
other democracies, each Member of Parliament represents far fewer than 600,000 people.
Doubling the size of the House may be a way of avoiding term limits.
Should We Have a Bigger Congress?
A powerful citizens’ organization has demanded that the House of Representatives be made larger
so that voters can feel closer to their members. Each representative now speaks for about 600,000
people—far too many, the group argues, to make it possible for all points of view to be heard.
Arguments for:
1. Doubling the size of the House would reduce the huge demand for constituent services each
member now faces.
2. A bigger House would represent more shades of opinion more fairly.
3. Each member could raise less campaign money because his or her campaign would be smaller.
Arguments against:
1. A bigger House would be twice as hard to manage, and it would take even longer to pass
legislation.
2. Campaigns in districts of 300,000 people would cost as much as ones in districts with 600,000
people.
3. Interest groups do a better job of representing public opinion than would a House with more
members.
Your decision
◯Increase size of House
◯Do not increase size of House
CHAPTER 14
What Would You Do?
NEWS
Memorandum
To: President Lucy Barr
From: Office of Legislative Affairs Director Talya Potter
Subject: Passing budget bills under divided government
With the opposition party in control of Congress, media pundits and other commentators are
calling for the president to accept the other party's agenda for the next round of budget bills.
Will the White House and Congress Agree on a Budget?
In the latest budget battle between the White House and Congress, the pressure on the president to
accept a compromise with his political opponents is great, given the looming threat of not only a
government shutdown, but also a debt default by the United States for the first time in the history
of the American republic.
Arguments for:
1. With a reelection battle around the corner, the president cannot afford to get caught up in a
budget battle with Congress.
2. The president's ability to gain public support for his agenda is limited, and even increased
public support will not improve leverage with Congress.
3. The president should defer to Congress as the primary representative of the people in
American politics.
Arguments against:
1. American politics is guided too often by campaigns, and the president will build support for
reelection by acting presidential—that is, by setting the agenda for the budget and not backing
down.
2. The president can build public support through speeches and other forms of communication,
and this support can be used as political capital to negotiate with Congress.
3. The president is the only nationally elected official in American politics (other than the vice
president), and therefore is responsible for identifying and promoting public priorities, even if
this means legislative battles with Congress.
Your decision
◯Favor plan
◯Oppose plan
CHAPTER 16
What Would You Do?
NEWS
Memorandum
To: Senator Brian Will
From: Paul Evan, legislative assistant
Re: Internet surveillance
In 2007, the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
created a secret surveillance program, codenamed PRISM, that—in conjunction with British
intelligence agencies—gathered, tracked, and analyzed massive amounts of “private” data (audio
and video chats, emails, and more) by directly searching the central servers of Microsoft, Yahoo,
Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, and Apple. NSA contractor Edward Snowden
leaked classified information about the program to journalists in 2013, and some people questioned
whether it intruded upon American civil liberties.65 Should the program be continued?
Is the PRISM Internet Surveillance Program Needed?
Congress is discussing whether to continue a secret surveillance program that gathers data from
Internet companies as part of the federal government's counter-terrorism strategy.
Arguments for:
1. Broad data collection is necessary to fight terrorists, who rely almost exclusively on electronic
communications.
2. Although the program was secret, some members of Congress were aware of, and approved,
the surveillance for national security.
3. In the interest of national security, some civil liberties must be curtailed to keep the United
States safe.
Arguments against:
1. Data collection will not substitute for human intelligence gathering, and this program diverts
much needed resources from the latter.
2. Congress has deferred too much to the executive branch in combating terrorism, and needs to
scrutinize surveillance programs much more carefully.
3. While civil liberties are not absolute, especially when national security is at stake, this
program is unnecessarily broad in scope, and allows the federal government to collect data
without sufficient justification for intruding upon constitutionally guaranteed protections.
Your decision
◯Support the program
◯Oppose the program
The reasons for the growth in court activism are clear. One is the sheer growth in the size and
scope of the government as a whole. The courts have come to play a larger role in our lives because
Congress, the bureaucracy, and the president have come to play larger ones. In 1890, hardly
anybody would have thought of asking Congress—much less the courts—to make rules governing
the participation of women in college sports or the district boundaries of state legislatures. Today
such rules are commonplace, and the courts are inevitably drawn into interpreting them. And when
the Court decided how the vote in Florida would be counted during the 2000 presidential election,
it created an opportunity in the future for scores of new lawsuits challenging election results.
The other reason for increased activism is the acceptance by a large number of judges,
conservative as well as liberal, of the activist view of the function of the courts. If courts once
existed solely to “settle disputes,” today they also exist in the eyes of their members to “solve
problems.”
Though the Supreme Court is the pinnacle of the federal judiciary, most decisions, including
many important ones, are made by the several courts of appeals and the 94 district courts. The
Supreme Court can control its own workload by deciding when to grant certiorari. It has become
easier for citizens and groups to gain access to the federal courts (through class-action suits, by
amicus curiae briefs, by laws that require government agencies to pay legal fees). At the same
time, the courts have widened the reach of their decisions by issuing orders that cover whole
classes of citizens or affect the management of major public and private institutions. However, the
courts can overstep the bounds of their authority and bring upon themselves a counterattack from
both the public and Congress. Congress has the right to control much of the courts' jurisdiction,
but it rarely does so. As a result, the ability of judges to make law is only infrequently challenged
directly.
GOV-240 American Government
Week 6 - Branching Out
This assignment has two separate parts:
Part I:
Answer the DQ’s in 50 words or more:
How do interest groups impact change within existing laws or when creating new laws? What kinds of
actions can interest groups legally take? Think about what types of issues benefit from having interest
groups associated with them. Do these groups act altruistically? Do they act for the betterment of
corporations or individuals?
If you could be part of one of the three branches of the federal government, which would you select and
why? Outline three positive and three negative reasons of holding that position, whether it's Speaker of
the House, the president, or a Supreme Court justice. Which role's responsibilities appear intriguing?
Which appear overwhelming?
How do contemporary political candidates use the media, especially social media, to gain public interest,
to campaign, and try to affect political change? Does social media usage and knowledge hurt or hinder a
candidate? In the future, could the Constitution need to be altered to accommodate social media rights
and civil liberties?
Part II:
Complete the textbook activities listed below. Each response should be a minimum of 75 words or more.
- - DETAILS BELOW - Chapter 13:””What would you do?”
Chapter 14:””What would you do?”
Chapter 16:””What would you do?”
CHAPTER 13
What Would You Do?
NEWS
Memorandum
To: U.S. Representative Hope Shelly
From: Julie Rosen, legislative aide
Subject: The size of the House of Representatives
The House can decide how big it wishes to be. When it was created, there was one representative
for every 30,000 people. Now each one typically represents more than 600,000 people. In most
other democracies, each Member of Parliament represents far fewer than 600,000 people.
Doubling the size of the House may be a way of avoiding term limits.
Should We Have a Bigger Congress?
A powerful citizens’ organization has demanded that the House of Representatives be made larger
so that voters can feel closer to their members. Each representative now speaks for about 600,000
people—far too many, the group argues, to make it possible for all points of view to be heard.
Arguments for:
1. Doubling the size of the House would reduce the huge demand for constituent services each
member now faces.
2. A bigger House would represent more shades of opinion more fairly.
3. Each member could raise less campaign money because his or her campaign would be smaller.
Arguments against:
1. A bigger House would be twice as hard to manage, and it would take even longer to pass
legislation.
2. Campaigns in districts of 300,000 people would cost as much as ones in districts with 600,000
people.
3. Interest groups do a better job of representing public opinion than would a House with more
members.
Your decision
◯Increase size of House
◯Do not increase size of House
CHAPTER 14
What Would You Do?
NEWS
Memorandum
To: President Lucy Barr
From: Office of Legislative Affairs Director Talya Potter
Subject: Passing budget bills under divided government
With the opposition party in control of Congress, media pundits and other commentators are
calling for the president to accept the other party's agenda for the next round of budget bills.
Will the White House and Congress Agree on a Budget?
In the latest budget battle between the White House and Congress, the pressure on the president to
accept a compromise with his political opponents is great, given the looming threat of not only a
government shutdown, but also a debt default by the United States for the first time in the history
of the American republic.
Arguments for:
1. With a reelection battle around the corner, the president cannot afford to get caught up in a
budget battle with Congress.
2. The president's ability to gain public support for his agenda is limited, and even increased
public support will not improve leverage with Congress.
3. The president should defer to Congress as the primary representative of the people in
American politics.
Arguments against:
1. American politics is guided too often by campaigns, and the president will build support for
reelection by acting presidential—that is, by setting the agenda for the budget and not backing
down.
2. The president can build public support through speeches and other forms of communication,
and this support can be used as political capital to negotiate with Congress.
3. The president is the only nationally elected official in American politics (other than the vice
president), and therefore is responsible for identifying and promoting public priorities, even if
this means legislative battles with Congress.
Your decision
◯Favor plan
◯Oppose plan
CHAPTER 16
What Would You Do?
NEWS
Memorandum
To: Senator Brian Will
From: Paul Evan, legislative assistant
Re: Internet surveillance
In 2007, the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
created a secret surveillance program, codenamed PRISM, that—in conjunction with British
intelligence agencies—gathered, tracked, and analyzed massive amounts of “private” data (audio
and video chats, emails, and more) by directly searching the central servers of Microsoft, Yahoo,
Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, and Apple. NSA contractor Edward Snowden
leaked classified information about the program to journalists in 2013, and some people questioned
whether it intruded upon American civil liberties.65 Should the program be continued?
Is the PRISM Internet Surveillance Program Needed?
Congress is discussing whether to continue a secret surveillance program that gathers data from
Internet companies as part of the federal government's counter-terrorism strategy.
Arguments for:
1. Broad data collection is necessary to fight terrorists, who rely almost exclusively on electronic
communications.
2. Although the program was secret, some members of Congress were aware of, and approved,
the surveillance for national security.
3. In the interest of national security, some civil liberties must be curtailed to keep the United
States safe.
Arguments against:
1. Data collection will not substitute for human intelligence gathering, and this program diverts
much needed resources from the latter.
2. Congress has deferred too much to the executive branch in combating terrorism, and needs to
scrutinize surveillance programs much more carefully.
3. While civil liberties are not absolute, especially when national security is at stake, this
program is unnecessarily broad in scope, and allows the federal government to collect data
without sufficient justification for intruding upon constitutionally guaranteed protections.
Your decision
◯Support the program
◯Oppose the program
The reasons for the growth in court activism are clear. One is the sheer growth in the size and
scope of the government as a whole. The courts have come to play a larger role in our lives because
Congress, the bureaucracy, and the president have come to play larger ones. In 1890, hardly
anybody would have thought of asking Congress—much less the courts—to make rules governing
the participation of women in college sports or the district boundaries of state legislatures. Today
such rules are commonplace, and the courts are inevitably drawn into interpreting them. And when
the Court decided how the vote in Florida would be counted during the 2000 presidential election,
it created an opportunity in the future for scores of new lawsuits challenging election results.
The other reason for increased activism is the acceptance by a large number of judges,
conservative as well as liberal, of the activist view of the function of the courts. If courts once
existed solely to “settle disputes,” today they also exist in the eyes of their members to “solve
problems.”
Though the Supreme Court is the pinnacle of the federal judiciary, most decisions, including
many important ones, are made by the several courts of appeals and the 94 district courts. The
Supreme Court can control its own workload by deciding when to grant certiorari. It has become
easier for citizens and groups to gain access to the federal courts (through class-action suits, by
amicus curiae briefs, by laws that require government agencies to pay legal fees). At the same
time, the courts have widened the reach of their decisions by issuing orders that cover whole
classes of citizens or affect the management of major public and private institutions. However, the
courts can overstep the bounds of their authority and bring upon themselves a counterattack from
both the public and Congress. Congress has the right to control much of the courts' jurisdiction,
but it rarely does so. As a result, the ability of judges to make law is only infrequently challenged
directly.
Purchase answer to see full
attachment