Questions & explanations
1. How does the German Federal Constitutional Court review laws? Give an example of a type of case.
The German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) can review laws in several ways. One way is 'concrete review': when a regular court thinks a law is unconstitutional, it stops the case and sends the question to the constitutional court. Another is 'abstract review': the government or a group of lawmakers can ask the court to check a law without a real case. The court also hears individual complaints (Verfassungsbeschwerde) from people claiming their rights are violated. For example, in 2009, the court said the Lisbon Treaty (a European Union treaty) did not break Germany's constitution but required more democratic checks. So the court checks both laws and government actions.
2. How does international pressure affect legitimacy in these regimes?
International pressure can both help and harm hybrid regimes' legitimacy. If foreign powers criticize the regime as undemocratic, it may push the regime to make small reforms, which can increase its domestic legitimacy. However, if the regime feels threatened, it may crack down harder, which reduces legitimacy abroad. Some regimes use anti-Western rhetoric to turn international criticism into a rallying point for national pride. Aid and trade deals often require minimum democratic standards, so regimes may pretend to reform to keep benefits. Ultimately, international pressure rarely forces a hybrid regime to become fully democratic, but it can shape how the regime manages its image.
3. Compare the removal protections for heads of executive departments (like the Secretary of State) versus independent agency commissioners. Why the difference?
The head of an executive department, like the Secretary of State, is a 'executive officer' who serves at the President's pleasure. The President can fire them for any reason. In contrast, independent agency commissioners (like at the FCC) have 'for-cause' removal protection: they can be fired only for inefficiency, neglect, or wrongdoing. The difference is because Congress wanted these agencies to make expert, non-political decisions. By protecting them from political firing, they can be more independent. The Supreme Court has allowed this difference since Humphrey's Executor. So executive departments are fully under the President, while independent agencies are partly separate.
4. Compare the Glorious Revolution and the American Revolution in terms of consent and rights.
Both revolutions rejected rule without consent and demanded rights, but they were different. The Glorious Revolution was mostly about limiting the king's power within an existing system, keeping a monarchy. The American Revolution created a completely new republic with a written constitution. The Glorious Revolution focused on Parliament's consent, while the American Revolution stressed the consent of all citizens. The American colonists fought because they had no representation in British Parliament. Both events inspired ideas that governments must protect individual rights and get the people's approval. Their outcomes shaped constitutional systems in the UK and the US.
5. How can we use the capabilities approach to think about fairness between people from different countries?
The capabilities approach can be used for transnational justice, which means fairness across borders. It says that all people everywhere should have access to basic capabilities. This includes things like health, education, and political participation. Governments and international groups should work to raise everyone above a minimum level. For example, richer countries might help poorer ones improve healthcare or schools. The approach does not focus on national boundaries but on what each person needs to live well. It encourages thinking about global responsibility, not just within one country. This is different from theories that only care about people in one nation.
6. Compare the U.S. budget process with India's budget process (mention India's equivalents).
In the U.S., the President proposes a budget to Congress, but Congress passes its own budget resolution. India follows a similar pattern: the government presents the Union Budget in February, which is like the U.S. President's budget. In India, the budget is passed by the Parliament after discussion and approval of demands for grants. The U.S. uses separate appropriations bills; India passes a single Finance Bill and an Appropriation Bill. Both countries have budget committees: India's Standing Committees on Finance examine the budget. The key difference is that India's budget is largely controlled by the executive, while the U.S. Congress has more power to alter it.
7. Compare O'Donnell's 'delegative democracy' with full democracy.
Guillermo O'Donnell described 'delegative democracy' as a system where elected leaders rule with little accountability between elections. In full democracy, institutions like courts, legislatures, and media check the executive. In delegative democracy, presidents bypass these checks, claiming direct connection to the people. Elections are often free but not fair in how power is exercised. Full democracy has strong horizontal accountability—institutions control each other. Delegative democracy relies on vertical accountability (elections only), so leaders can ignore law and opposition. This weakens legitimacy over time because no one monitors the ruler.
8. What is the main idea behind separation of powers in U.S. foreign policy?
Separation of powers in U.S. foreign policy means the Constitution gives different jobs to the President and Congress. The President runs foreign relations day-to-day, like talking to other countries. Congress has powers like declaring war, making treaties, and controlling money for foreign aid. The Supreme Court case Curtiss-Wright (1936) said the President is the main voice for the U.S. in foreign affairs. But Zivotofsky (2015) showed Congress can also speak on some foreign issues, like passports. The treaty clause says the President makes treaties, but the Senate must agree by two-thirds vote. So both branches share power, which can cause disputes.
9. What is one difficulty in using the capabilities approach to decide what each country owes to people in other countries?
One difficulty is deciding which country is responsible for helping people elsewhere. The capabilities approach says everyone should have basic capabilities, but it does not say exactly who must provide them. Some argue that rich countries have a duty because they have more resources. Others say that countries should first help their own citizens. Another problem is that capabilities are hard to measure and compare across cultures. What is a basic capability in one place might be less important in another. Also, it can be hard to decide how much help is enough. These are big questions in transnational justice that the approach does not fully answer.
10. Give an example of a major decision by the South African Constitutional Court that affected separation of powers.
A major decision is the 2016 case 'Economic Freedom Fighters v. Speaker of the National Assembly' about President Jacob Zuma's Nkandla home upgrades. The court ruled that the President and Parliament failed to follow a Public Protector's report. The court said the Public Protector (a watchdog) is part of the system of checks, and both President and Parliament must respect its findings. This decision showed that the Constitutional Court can enforce accountability even against the President and legislative branch. It reinforced that no branch is above the constitution. So the court checked executive and legislative power using the constitution.
11. Compare the model of constitutional review in the U.S. (all courts) with the Kelsenian model in Germany. Which one concentrates power more?
In the U.S., every court—from the lowest to the Supreme Court—can decide if a law is constitutional. This is called 'decentralized review.' In Germany, only the Federal Constitutional Court can decide, which is 'centralized review' or the Kelsenian model. The U.S. model spreads power among many courts, but the Supreme Court has the final say. The German model concentrates power in one court. So the German model concentrates power more in that one court. However, the German court has more limited jurisdiction because it only hears constitutional cases. Both models aim to protect the constitution, but they distribute authority differently.
12. Compare 'intermediate scrutiny' with 'strict scrutiny' in terms of which laws they apply to.
Intermediate scrutiny applies to laws that discriminate based on gender or illegitimacy, while strict scrutiny applies to race, national origin, and fundamental rights like free speech. Intermediate scrutiny requires the law to serve an important government interest and be substantially related to that interest. Strict scrutiny requires a compelling interest and narrow tailoring. Intermediate is somewhat easier for the government to satisfy than strict scrutiny. For example, a law admitting only women to a nursing school might pass intermediate scrutiny if there is a strong reason, but a race-based law would likely fail strict scrutiny.