Paper 3 Essay Questions
“Federalism remains robust and effective”. How far do you agree with this
statement?
Federalism remains robust and effective Federalism remains weak and
ineffective
10th • States are protected by the 10th • The 10th Amendment has
Amendment Amendment which allows them to been undermined before
rights have autonomy over certain with Obamacare (the
legislative areas which differ from Affordable Care Act)
Federal law • SCOTUS unanimously ruled
• Marijuana is an example where state in the Sebelius case that
laws differ with the Federal Law as Congress has not
well as other states overstepped its role and
• Federal law states that marijuana is undermined the concept of
a Schedule I drug which prohibits its Federalism
use medically and recreationally • This allowed the Federal
• However states like California, government to control an
Alaska and New York have fully aspect of healthcare and
legalised marijuana override the states who
• Some states have kept in line with disagreed with the
Federal law and kept marijuana fully implementation of
illegal such as Idaho and Kansas Obamacare
• There are also other states which • The commerce clause was
only legalised its medical usage also used to justify this ruling
and/or decriminalised the as the law had required
possession of marijuana citizens to purchase medical
• The Federal government has not insurance
attempted to take control over
marijuana policy which shows their
respect to the concept of Federalism
Gun Control • Gun control is a similar story as the • However as states do
Federal government has given large depend on the Federal
amounts of freedom with gun government to give them
legislation and varies greatly state by funding to
state enforce/implement their
• Federal gun legislation has been laws, the federal
quite basic with the National government has weaponised
Firearms Act (NFA) and the Brady Bill it to try and undermine
being some of the major gun Federalism
legislation • This can be seen through
• The NFA restricted the sale and categorical grants which
possession of shotguns, machine meant the Federal
guns and silencers government was giving
• The Brady Bill made it compulsory to funds to the states for
have a basic background check to specific purposes and
own a gun essentially dictating what
the state could spend on and
, • The NFA and Brady Bill essentially limiting the autonomy of the
created a minimum standard for gun state, hence undermining
legislation and had allowed states federalism
the freedom to decide to implement • However it depends on the
of extra legislation administration and there has
• States such as California, New York been times where block
and Hawaii took the initiative to grants were given rather
create very strong gun regulations than categorical which came
• Whereas states like Georgia, with no strings attached and
Arkansas and Idaho decided to keep states had more freedom to
it to the bare minimum in the name choose what to spend it on
of the 2nd Amendment • National Healthcare
• The minimal federal gun legislation requirements state needs to
has allowed for federalism to meet in order to get funding
flourish and allowed the states to
take the issue into their own hands
rather than being dictated by the
federal government
Amendment • The amendment process is a strong • However the large majority
process example of Federalism being of states needed for an
effective amendment to pass can be
• To pass an amendment, Congress ineffective for US society as
will have to gain the support of 3/4 a whole
of state legislatures or conventions, • The fact that thousands of
therefore theoretically it is amendments have been
impossible to take away federalism proposed yet only 27 have
as states would never vote for an been ratified may show that
amendment which either weakens this is Federalism taken too
its powers or takes away federalism far as it stagnates change in
• Hence Federalism remains robust as society and causes the
it is and in the future, it can only be legislative process to be
strengthened ineffective when it comes to
• This is a reason for the electoral reforming amendments
college sticking around as this is one
of the few ways they are still able to
influence the national political
process (such as Wyoming)
Evaluate the view that an incumbency advantage leads to re-election
The incumbency advantage is the theory that an incumbent in an election is likely to be re-elected
under most circumstances. Incumbents, especially in the Presidential elections, will have the
advantage of having been a President and they are able to highlight their successes in office
compared to a newcomer who tends not to have as much experience to offer as the incumbent.
However in this double edged sword, the things that the incumbent may have done which displeases
the public or even what they have not done can then be open for scrutiny by the media and their
opponent(s) and this is more damaging to the incumbent's campaign compared to their successes.
, Incumbency advantage leads to re-election Incumbency advantage does not lead to re-
election
Success in office Failures in office
• Incumbents can use their successes in • An incumbent will then be open to
office to campaign and show the public scrutiny on their failures in office
that they are the right candidate for • This gives an avenue for the
them competitor(s) to attack the
• This is something usually not at the incumbent's ineffectiveness in office
disposal of the competitor as a lot of • Example: Famously, George H W Bush
competitors to a seat may be fresh faces turned back on his promise of no tax
to the political scene increases ('Read my lips, no new
• Example: Obama in 2012 could use the taxes') and proceeded to lose to Bill
successful killing of Osama bin Laden and Clinton in the 1992 Presidential
the appointment of the first Hispanic Elections
female to SCOTUS as his achievements
• Obama went on to beat Romney in the
2012 Presidential Election
Easier media attention Type of media attention
• Incumbents also have the advantage of • Not all media attention is good media
already having media attention as a attention
person in office and has access to more • In Presidential debates, an incumbent
avenues of campaigning than that of a may perform worse than their
new competitor who would be relatively competitor and it could cause public
unknown opinion to swing towards the
• Incumbents would find it easier to spread candidate they deem more competent
their message as they have the credibility which after watching a debate may see
as a President/Senator/Representative it is the new candidate
• Example: Obama announcing the attacks • Example: 1980 Presidential debate
in Benghazi 2013 and the deaths of US where Reagan performed better than
officials highlights his role as the incumbent Jimmy Carter with his
Commander in Chief "there you go again" remark
• Reagan went on to win the 1980
Presidential Election
Absence of primaries Incumbents can still face primaries
• Incumbents do not have to spend • However when incumbents do face
resources on primaries/caucuses primaries, things don't tend to go well
• Parties tend to skip the hassle of going • If there is existence of opposition to
through a primary/caucus if they have an their incumbency, they will have to
incumbent in their seat, they would only spend precious resources to put down
do so if they want to replace the the opposition within their own party
incumbent with someone new and the rather than spend it on their inevitable
incumbent still wants to fight for their opposition
place • This has also been a bad omen for
• Example: Most incumbent Presidents Presidents whenever they had serious
won't have caucuses/primaries with their competition for their party's nominee
own party because the party want to • Example: 1992 George H W Bush had
seem united behind a single figure or primary competition against Pat
else it can translate to disunity to the Buchanan, even though he had won
public if they have others trying to win the primary by a landslide, he then lost
“Federalism remains robust and effective”. How far do you agree with this
statement?
Federalism remains robust and effective Federalism remains weak and
ineffective
10th • States are protected by the 10th • The 10th Amendment has
Amendment Amendment which allows them to been undermined before
rights have autonomy over certain with Obamacare (the
legislative areas which differ from Affordable Care Act)
Federal law • SCOTUS unanimously ruled
• Marijuana is an example where state in the Sebelius case that
laws differ with the Federal Law as Congress has not
well as other states overstepped its role and
• Federal law states that marijuana is undermined the concept of
a Schedule I drug which prohibits its Federalism
use medically and recreationally • This allowed the Federal
• However states like California, government to control an
Alaska and New York have fully aspect of healthcare and
legalised marijuana override the states who
• Some states have kept in line with disagreed with the
Federal law and kept marijuana fully implementation of
illegal such as Idaho and Kansas Obamacare
• There are also other states which • The commerce clause was
only legalised its medical usage also used to justify this ruling
and/or decriminalised the as the law had required
possession of marijuana citizens to purchase medical
• The Federal government has not insurance
attempted to take control over
marijuana policy which shows their
respect to the concept of Federalism
Gun Control • Gun control is a similar story as the • However as states do
Federal government has given large depend on the Federal
amounts of freedom with gun government to give them
legislation and varies greatly state by funding to
state enforce/implement their
• Federal gun legislation has been laws, the federal
quite basic with the National government has weaponised
Firearms Act (NFA) and the Brady Bill it to try and undermine
being some of the major gun Federalism
legislation • This can be seen through
• The NFA restricted the sale and categorical grants which
possession of shotguns, machine meant the Federal
guns and silencers government was giving
• The Brady Bill made it compulsory to funds to the states for
have a basic background check to specific purposes and
own a gun essentially dictating what
the state could spend on and
, • The NFA and Brady Bill essentially limiting the autonomy of the
created a minimum standard for gun state, hence undermining
legislation and had allowed states federalism
the freedom to decide to implement • However it depends on the
of extra legislation administration and there has
• States such as California, New York been times where block
and Hawaii took the initiative to grants were given rather
create very strong gun regulations than categorical which came
• Whereas states like Georgia, with no strings attached and
Arkansas and Idaho decided to keep states had more freedom to
it to the bare minimum in the name choose what to spend it on
of the 2nd Amendment • National Healthcare
• The minimal federal gun legislation requirements state needs to
has allowed for federalism to meet in order to get funding
flourish and allowed the states to
take the issue into their own hands
rather than being dictated by the
federal government
Amendment • The amendment process is a strong • However the large majority
process example of Federalism being of states needed for an
effective amendment to pass can be
• To pass an amendment, Congress ineffective for US society as
will have to gain the support of 3/4 a whole
of state legislatures or conventions, • The fact that thousands of
therefore theoretically it is amendments have been
impossible to take away federalism proposed yet only 27 have
as states would never vote for an been ratified may show that
amendment which either weakens this is Federalism taken too
its powers or takes away federalism far as it stagnates change in
• Hence Federalism remains robust as society and causes the
it is and in the future, it can only be legislative process to be
strengthened ineffective when it comes to
• This is a reason for the electoral reforming amendments
college sticking around as this is one
of the few ways they are still able to
influence the national political
process (such as Wyoming)
Evaluate the view that an incumbency advantage leads to re-election
The incumbency advantage is the theory that an incumbent in an election is likely to be re-elected
under most circumstances. Incumbents, especially in the Presidential elections, will have the
advantage of having been a President and they are able to highlight their successes in office
compared to a newcomer who tends not to have as much experience to offer as the incumbent.
However in this double edged sword, the things that the incumbent may have done which displeases
the public or even what they have not done can then be open for scrutiny by the media and their
opponent(s) and this is more damaging to the incumbent's campaign compared to their successes.
, Incumbency advantage leads to re-election Incumbency advantage does not lead to re-
election
Success in office Failures in office
• Incumbents can use their successes in • An incumbent will then be open to
office to campaign and show the public scrutiny on their failures in office
that they are the right candidate for • This gives an avenue for the
them competitor(s) to attack the
• This is something usually not at the incumbent's ineffectiveness in office
disposal of the competitor as a lot of • Example: Famously, George H W Bush
competitors to a seat may be fresh faces turned back on his promise of no tax
to the political scene increases ('Read my lips, no new
• Example: Obama in 2012 could use the taxes') and proceeded to lose to Bill
successful killing of Osama bin Laden and Clinton in the 1992 Presidential
the appointment of the first Hispanic Elections
female to SCOTUS as his achievements
• Obama went on to beat Romney in the
2012 Presidential Election
Easier media attention Type of media attention
• Incumbents also have the advantage of • Not all media attention is good media
already having media attention as a attention
person in office and has access to more • In Presidential debates, an incumbent
avenues of campaigning than that of a may perform worse than their
new competitor who would be relatively competitor and it could cause public
unknown opinion to swing towards the
• Incumbents would find it easier to spread candidate they deem more competent
their message as they have the credibility which after watching a debate may see
as a President/Senator/Representative it is the new candidate
• Example: Obama announcing the attacks • Example: 1980 Presidential debate
in Benghazi 2013 and the deaths of US where Reagan performed better than
officials highlights his role as the incumbent Jimmy Carter with his
Commander in Chief "there you go again" remark
• Reagan went on to win the 1980
Presidential Election
Absence of primaries Incumbents can still face primaries
• Incumbents do not have to spend • However when incumbents do face
resources on primaries/caucuses primaries, things don't tend to go well
• Parties tend to skip the hassle of going • If there is existence of opposition to
through a primary/caucus if they have an their incumbency, they will have to
incumbent in their seat, they would only spend precious resources to put down
do so if they want to replace the the opposition within their own party
incumbent with someone new and the rather than spend it on their inevitable
incumbent still wants to fight for their opposition
place • This has also been a bad omen for
• Example: Most incumbent Presidents Presidents whenever they had serious
won't have caucuses/primaries with their competition for their party's nominee
own party because the party want to • Example: 1992 George H W Bush had
seem united behind a single figure or primary competition against Pat
else it can translate to disunity to the Buchanan, even though he had won
public if they have others trying to win the primary by a landslide, he then lost
