Below are essay questions that I have used for the final

examination in past years.

In assessing these questions, it is helpful if you do three

things.

it. For example, if the question asks "Is this explanation

correct?," you are being asked if it contains any

information that is wrong. If the question asks "Is this

explanation sufficient?," you are being asked if there is

enough information to understand the situation, or

something else needs to be added.

the question applies to. No question covers all the

material. If a question asks about the stare decisis, it

doesn't help to write about certiorari, no matter how

strongly you feel that the cases accepted by the Court

determine its impact. In fact, it hurts your answer because

all the time you spend writing about say, certiorari

prevents you from including needed material stare decisis

in your answer.

outline an answer. Select the facts that you wish to

include, and decide on the sequence in which you wish to

present them in order to write a coherent essay. These are

the decisions you must make during the mid term, and during

the examination you will be working under much greater time

pressure.

Given the sequence of the course, the final examination will

invariably contain one question about the Congress, one

question about the Supreme Court, and another question or

two drawing on material from the balance of the course.

Here are samples of each.

Congress

passage of the National Health Service Act from drafting

through final passage. Of all the events in this sequence,

which do you think was the most crucial? Why do you think

that was more important than other turning points? What

generalization does this suggest about congressional

politics?

This question asks about the book currently assigned, and

then invites the student to think beyond the book itself to

broader generalizations.

poised for a military strike aimed at driving Saddam

Hussein's troops from Kuwait, the American political system

is reacting as it has since the advent of the Constitution:

Congress is worrying about how best to exercise its

authority over the armed forces, and President Bush, like

so many presidents before him, is acting as though the

Congress doesn't have any authority to exercise." So begins

an article in The Washington Post. Protagonists on both

sides challenge the rights of the other. "The President,"

says Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, "has no right

to declare war. None whatsoever." "You can't have 435

Commanders-in-Chief," says President Bush. "I've read the

Constitution. [Congress has] the right to declare war, and

I have the right, as Commander-in-Chief, to fulfill my

responsibilities." Write an essay analyzing the

constitutional and political factors in this controversy.

This question, asked just before the Gulf War, asks the

students to apply their knowledge of the constitution and

politics to explain real world politics.

background checks of prospective purchasers of weapons (to

prevent sales to known felons) at gun stores, but not at

gun shows. On May 12, the Senate rejected an amendment to

require background checks at gun shows by a vote of 47 in

favor to 51 opposed. There were immediate protests from

those favoring background checks. On May 14, another Senate

vote took place. This time required background checks at

gun shows were approved by a vote of 48 to 47. On May 20, a

still more stringent amendment requiring background checks

at gun shows was passed 51 to 50 with Vice President Gore

breaking a 50 to 50 tie. On all of these amendments, almost

all Democrats and about half a dozen Republicans voted in

favor of background checks (or more stringent background

checks when that was the question), and almost all

Republicans and a very few Democrats voted against.

On May 21, House Democrats demanded that the House

leadership bring a similar bill to the Floor for a vote

during the week of May 24. This did not happen. Instead on

May 25, Speaker Hastert said that the bill would remain in

the Judiciary Committee, and that it would be brought to

the House Floor in three or four weeks.

Write an essay explaining the circumstances, and the

differences between the Senate and the House, that allowed

proponents of background checks at gun shows to reverse an

initial defeat and win quite quickly in the Senate, but

compelled them to wait for the normal order of business in

the House.

Here is a real-world political situation from 1999. This

question asks the students to draw upon their knowledge of

party politics and institutional differences between the

House and the Senate.

The Supreme Court

the actions of the Supreme Court can be analyzed: legal

analysis which rests on the doctrine of stare decisis, and

attitude analysis that studies the Court through such

techniques as scalograms. What does legal analysis allow

you to understand you could not understand through

inferences about the justices' attitudes? What does

attitude analysis allow you to understand you could not

understand by relying on a synthesis of decisions? In your

essay, give specific examples drawn from the right to

counsel cases we have reviewed.

This question asks for a comparison between two approaches

used in class to discuss the Supreme Court.

over the judicial conference, the chief justice can direct

discussion and frame alternatives, thus helping to shape

the outcome of the discussion. More important, the chief

ordinarily speaks first on a case in conference." Is this

an adequate discussion of the chief justice's powers? Write

an essay in which you explain why it is or is not.

Drawn from the text, this question provides an opportunity

for students to show what they know about both the book and

the workings of the court.

Just what is stare decisis? Having defined it, select two

cases from the right to counsel decisions we have reviewed.

In view of the holding in the first case, explain how the

decision in the second upholds (or fails to uphold) stare

decisis.

The question above asks more directly about stare decisis

rather than about the broader area of legal analysis. Since

the right to counsel cases is the single line of cases we

analyze, almost any question based on the lecture material

will ask in one way or another about these cases.

General

Convention, the United States has a bicameral legislature.

What were the intentions of the delegates to the

Constitutional Convention when they created the House and

the Senate? What do you think are the most important

differences between the two chambers today? What

consequences do these differences have for the

opportunities open to individual Representatives and

Senators?

Here we have a question that requires comparison of material

from the very beginning of the course with that covered in

the latter part. Obviously, one needs a command of both

bodies of material to answer this.

practices. Select four. In one paragraph for each, define

the entity and explain its importance.

a) Asst. to the President for Domestic Policy

b) Budget Resolution

c) Committee on Unfinished Business and Postponed Matters

d) Exchange of Notes

e) Foreign Relations Committee

f) Office of Management and Budget

g) Opinion Assignment

h) Supremacy Clause

The items on this list are drawn from throughout the course.

Note that the student is being asked to do two things, to

define the entity and to explain its importance. If only

one is done, the question is not properly answered.

a new method of analysis: action analysis for our

constitutional origins, survey analysis for citizen

participation, role theory for the presidency, group theory

for Congress, and legal analysis for the Supreme Court.

Select one method of analysis. What would it have

illuminated (and what would it have prevented you from

seeing) if it had been applied to one of the other four

subjects covered in the course? Why?

This question tests the student's understanding of at least

one of the methods used throughout the course. A good

answer also requires enough knowledge of the substance

covered in the "other" section to sense what the approach

would have shown or revealed.