Questions & explanations
1. Compare the federalism of Brazil and Nigeria in terms of decentralization.
Brazil is highly decentralized: states and municipalities have real power, raise their own taxes, and have elected governments with substantial authority. Nigeria is more centralized: the federal government controls most oil revenue and has strong influence over states. Brazilian states have more fiscal autonomy, while Nigerian states rely heavily on federal allocations. Both countries have large regional inequalities, but Brazil's system gives poorer states equalization transfers, while Nigeria's derivation principle benefits oil-producing states. In Brazil, municipalities are important actors; in Nigeria, local governments are weaker and often controlled by states. Overall, Brazil devolves more power to subnational units.
2. If a president claims executive privilege to prevent a witness from testifying, how could a court decide whether that privilege applies?
The court would first check if the testimony involves official presidential discussions or national security. If yes, the privilege can be claimed. Then the court weighs the president's need for secrecy against the other side's need for the testimony. For example, in a criminal case, the defendant's right to a fair trial might be more important. The court also looks if the information can be obtained from other sources. If not, the court might order the president to allow the testimony. However, the president could still refuse, leading to a constitutional crisis. Courts have the final say on the law, but enforcing it against a president is hard. Usually, courts try to find a compromise to avoid a direct fight.
3. Compare the reasoning in Citizens United with a case that upheld limits on contributions.
In Citizens United, the Court said independent expenditures by corporations cannot be limited because they do not cause corruption. The government's interest in preventing corruption is only about direct quid pro quo exchanges, not general influence. In Buckley v. Valeo, the Court upheld limits on direct contributions because contributions can lead to corruption or the appearance of it. Both cases agree that preventing corruption is a good reason for limits. But they differ on what counts as corruption. Citizens United says independent spending is too indirect to be corrupt, while contributions are directly given to the candidate. This difference allows contributions to be capped but not independent spending.
4. How does absolute immunity for a president differ from qualified immunity for other government officials?
Absolute immunity means the president cannot be sued for any official actions taken while in office, even if those actions were harmful. This protects the president's ability to make decisions without fear of lawsuits. Qualified immunity, which applies to other officials like police officers, is weaker. It protects them only if they did not violate clearly established rights. If they broke a known law, they can be sued. For the president, there is no exception: even if he knowingly harms someone through official policy, he is immune from civil damages. For example, a president cannot be sued for ordering a military strike, but a police officer can be sued for using excessive force if the law was clear.
5. If a state wants to reduce the influence of money in politics, what types of limits might be constitutional?
The state can limit direct contributions to candidates to a reasonable amount. It can also require full disclosure of donations and spending. It can offer public funding to candidates who agree not to take private money. It can ban foreign donations. But the state cannot limit independent expenditures, because the Supreme Court says that is protected speech. It also cannot limit how much a candidate spends from their own personal wealth, as that is considered personal speech. Some states have tried small donor matching programs, which are seen as constitutional because they encourage many small donations. Overall, the state must balance reducing money with not restricting political speech too much.
6. What type of federalism does Brazil have?
Brazil has a cooperative federal system with three levels: the Union, 26 states plus the Federal District, and over 5,500 municipalities. It is one of the most decentralized federations in the world, with strong autonomy for states and municipalities. The constitution grants states powers over areas like education, health, and security. However, the federal government has large taxing authority and redistributes revenues through equalization funds. Brazil's federalism is marked by significant regional inequalities, especially between the richer South and Southeast and the poorer North and Northeast. The system encourages collaboration but also faces challenges of coordination and fiscal imbalance.
7. Compare the approaches of the Calman, Silk, and Smith Commissions to changing devolution.
All three commissions aimed to strengthen devolution by giving more powers to subnational governments. Calman focused on Scotland's fiscal accountability, suggesting a mix of tax powers and continued UK-wide welfare. Silk for Wales similarly recommended tax devolution but also more legislative powers. Smith for Scotland was broader, including major tax and welfare devolution, partly due to the independence referendum's near result. They differed in scope: Calman was more cautious, Smith more ambitious. All advocated for greater local tax-raising to make governments responsible. The commissions show the gradual expansion of devolution in the UK, especially after political events like referendums.
8. What is executive privilege?
Executive privilege is the president's right to keep some information secret from the public, Congress, and even courts. This privilege helps the president get honest advice from advisors without fear of public exposure. It covers discussions within the executive branch, like cabinet meetings or national security matters. However, the privilege is not absolute. Courts can force the president to release information if it is needed for a criminal trial or if Congress has a strong need. The most famous example is United States v. Nixon, where the Supreme Court ordered President Nixon to turn over tapes. The privilege is meant to protect the function of the presidency, not the president personally.
9. Give an example of a situation where a court might enforce a subpoena against a president.
A court might enforce a subpoena if Congress or a grand jury needs evidence of a crime. For example, during the Watergate scandal, a court ordered President Nixon to give secret recordings as evidence in a criminal case. The Supreme Court said that the need for evidence in a criminal trial outweighs the president's privilege. Another example is when a president is sued for unofficial acts, like actions taken before becoming president, the court can subpoena documents. In 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that President Trump had to comply with a subpoena for his financial records from a state prosecutor. Courts will enforce subpoenas when the information is important and cannot be gotten elsewhere.
10. How does Russia's asymmetric federalism work?
Russia has an asymmetric federal system where different types of regions have different levels of autonomy. It includes republics, krais, oblasts, and autonomous okrugs. Republics, which are based on ethnic groups, have their own constitutions and official languages. Other regions have less autonomy. In practice, the federal government under President Putin has centralized power significantly, reducing regional independence. Many regions depend on federal transfers. Asymmetry was meant to accommodate diversity, but recent reforms have made all regions more equal under federal control. The system remains top-down, with regional leaders often appointed by the center rather than fully elected.
11. Compare the federalism of Nigeria and Russia in terms of ethnic accommodation.
Nigeria's federalism recognizes ethnic diversity through the creation of states to give groups a sense of belonging, but it has not resolved ethnic conflicts. Russia's asymmetric federalism grants special status to ethnic republics, but in practice centralization has eroded their autonomy. Both use territorial units to manage diversity, but Nigeria's states are more numerous and have less ethnic homogeneity, while Russia's republics are directly tied to specific ethnic groups. In Nigeria, the federal character principle tries to balance ethnic representation in government jobs. In Russia, recent laws have reduced regional powers, and ethnic tensions remain, especially in the North Caucasus.
12. Compare how a court with high legitimacy versus low legitimacy might handle a decision that goes against majority opinion.
A high-legitimacy court can make an unpopular decision and still have its ruling followed because people trust its process. For example, the US Supreme Court desegregated schools in 1954 despite strong opposition, and over time it was accepted. A low-legitimacy court might face protests, defiance, or even violence if it goes against the majority. People may suspect the court is corrupt or political. Such a court might need to build public support carefully before issuing a big ruling. The high-legitimacy court relies on its reputation to enforce decisions, while the low-legitimacy court must depend on other branches to back it up. Legitimacy gives the court power even when it is disliked.