USA Government & Politics Quiz

The US Constitution remains a foundational document, establishing a codified, entrenched and supreme law. Its structure; detailing separation of powers, checks and balances, and federalism offers a clear institutional framework. However, its vagueness has required judicial interpretation, notably through the Supreme Court. While this has allowed adaptability, it also enables significant debate over originalism vs the living constitution. Its amendment process, deliberately rigid, ensures stability but hinders timely reform. Overall, the Constitution is effective structurally but limited in responsiveness to modern demands.

Federalism divides power between the federal and state governments, protected constitutionally. Over time, this relationship has evolved from dual federalism to cooperative and now often competitive federalism. Issues such as healthcare, education, and abortion laws highlight tensions, especially when states resist federal mandates. The COVID-19 pandemic further exposed discrepancies in state responses. While federalism allows local responsiveness and innovation, it can also lead to inequality and policy fragmentation.

The principle of separation of powers is constitutionally enshrined, creating three distinct branches with separate personnel and responsibilities. However, its practical application is more complex. While institutional boundaries remain intact, political overlap (e.g., executive influence over Congress) often undermines full separation. Partisanship, especially during unified government, can erode checks and balances. Conversely, divided government can lead to effective oversight but also gridlock. Thus, while structurally maintained, separation of powers is variably upheld in practice.

The formal process, requiring two-thirds in Congress and ratification by three-quarters of states, ensures only widely supported amendments pass, protecting constitutional stability. This entrenchment prevents arbitrary change. However, its rigidity is a significant weakness; only 27 amendments have passed since 1789. Key issues such as electoral reform and campaign finance remain unresolved. Additionally, it grants disproportionate power to smaller states. Thus, while protective, the process limits democratic responsiveness.

Congress is directly elected, offering a high degree of democratic legitimacy. The House, with two-year terms, is especially responsive. However, representation is hindered by factors such as gerrymandering, low turnout, and incumbency advantages. While there is increasing diversity, it still lags behind population demographics. Senators represent states equally, leading to disproportionate influence for smaller states. Despite improvements, Congress’s representative effectiveness remains mixed.

The legislative process involves multiple stages; committee scrutiny, floor debate, and potential veto ensuring thoroughness. However, this complexity often leads to inefficiency. The use of filibusters, holds, and the need for supermajorities can delay or block legislation. While this prevents rash decisions, it also fuels gridlock, particularly under divided government. Compromise is essential but increasingly rare due to partisanship. Thus, while the process is robust, its inefficiency is a notable drawback.

Oversight is a key function, enabled by committee investigations, hearings, and budgetary control. It holds the executive accountable and can curb presidential overreach. However, effectiveness varies with political context. During unified government, partisanship often weakens oversight. For example, Republican-led Congresses were less aggressive in scrutinising President Trump than Democrat-led ones. Conversely, divided government enhances scrutiny but can also lead to politicised investigations. Therefore, oversight is significant but inconsistently applied.

The President has significant formal powers as Commander-in-Chief, chief diplomat, and head of the executive. Informal powers, such as persuasion, media presence, and executive orders, expand influence. However, these are checked by Congress, the courts, and federalism. The degree of power often depends on the political context; unified government enhances authority, whereas divided government curtails it. Presidents like Obama and Biden faced strong congressional opposition, limiting effectiveness. Overall, presidential power is substantial but not unchecked.

The term ‘imperial presidency’ suggests dominance, especially in foreign policy. Since the Cold War, presidents have used executive actions and military force without congressional approval (e.g. Iraq 2003, Syria 2017). However, domestically, they are often constrained by Congress, courts, and public opinion. Presidents like Trump and Biden faced legislative gridlock and judicial reversals. While the presidency can appear imperial in scope, especially internationally, it remains structurally limited. Thus, the concept is only partly applicable.

Through judicial review, the Supreme Court has a profound influence on policy. Landmark rulings such as Roe v. Wade (1973), Citizens United (2010), and Dobbs v. Jackson (2022) have had wide-reaching effects. The Court’s decisions can override legislation, setting legal precedents. Critics argue this grants unelected judges excessive power (imperial judiciary), while supporters see it as essential to protecting rights. The impact varies depending on the Court’s ideological composition, but its role in shaping policy is undeniable.

Although designed to be independent, with life tenure and non-partisan status, the Court’s decisions often reflect ideological divisions. Appointments have become politicised, with nominees scrutinised for their political leanings. 5–4 decisions on contentious issues suggest partisanship. However, some justices have defied expectations (e.g. Roberts). While not overtly political, the Court is undeniably influenced by broader ideological and cultural forces. Thus, it is a judicial institution with political dimensions.

Civil rights are enshrined in the Constitution and protected by Supreme Court rulings. Progress has been made in areas such as same-sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges), but setbacks also occur (Shelby County v. Holder weakened the Voting Rights Act). Racial disparities persist in policing, voting access, and economic opportunity. Affirmative action has been scaled back. Therefore, while the legal framework exists, enforcement and effectiveness vary significantly.

Interest groups have considerable influence through lobbying, funding, and litigation. Groups like the NRA and AIPAC shape policy via campaign donations and access to lawmakers. Super PACs and soft money enhance their power, raising concerns about democratic equality. While they promote participation and representation, especially for underrepresented causes, their disproportionate influence can distort policymaking. Effectiveness is high, but not always aligned with the public interest.

The US President is both Head of State and Government, elected separately from the legislature, with fixed terms. The UK Prime Minister is the head of government only, dependent on parliamentary confidence. The President has greater autonomy in foreign policy and defence, while the PM is more constrained by cabinet and party. However, UK PMs with large majorities can be highly powerful (e.g. Thatcher, Blair). While structurally different, both roles can be dominant depending on political context.

The US features strong democratic elements: codified rights, regular elections, and checks and balances. However, the Electoral College, Senate malapportionment, and the power of money in politics undermine equality. The UK lacks a codified constitution but offers greater parliamentary sovereignty and more centralised accountability. The UK’s unelected Lords contrasts with the unelected but powerful US Supreme Court. Each system has strengths and weaknesses; neither is unequivocally more democratic, though the UK may offer more responsiveness, while the US offers stronger rights protection.