<p>you can't put political parties like the free soilers and whigs in the same category.</p>
<p>yah, that would seriously be ridiculous. Democrat/Republican forms the American political dichotomy. Free-soilers do not.</p>
<p>I'm not grouping them. That was in response to the poster that said political parties don't have narrow purposes.</p>
<p>Dichotomy today, yes. In the 1800s, there was a different dichotomy. And I never said that Free-Soilers were part of the American dichotomy...</p>
<p>here are my answers (rate them)</p>
<p>1] (a) interest groups want a law passed for their benefit
(b) political parties want to mobilize voters + elect ppl to office w/ their ideology.
(c) funding, advertising... ex: PACs, media
(d) elected political officals appropriate funding to groups and pass the laws they want..</p>
<p>2] (a) grants money to certain group of ppl (ex: elderly, poor)
(b) Social Security Tax
(c) baby-boomers - increased aging
(d) aging population again
(e) would increase pay in, and decrease pay in..</p>
<p>3] (a) federal agencies have skill + congress doesnt have time to deal w/ everything
(b) Federal Reserve - can pass monetary policy w/o advising congress (discount rate, reserve requirement, etc..)
(c) Limiting appropriation, and shutting down some independent agencies</p>
<p>4] (a) Virginia Plan and New Jersey Plan conflicted -- constitution wouldnt pass; wanted checks and balances and equal representation of both citizens + states federally.
(b) impeachment. framers wanted the whole country to be represented in making that decision
(c) confirming judges.. expertise needed from few members -- to prevent deadlock..</p>
<p>^^^ that's almost exactly what I put down. </p>
<h1>1 same</h1>
<h1>2 same</h1>
<h1>3 a) used Congress doesn't have time and something else I can't remember</h1>
<p>b) same
c)used limiting appropriation and something else</p>
<h1>4) a) same</h1>
<p>b) used spending bills must orginate in House
c) used treaties</p>
<p>i hate #4 --</p>
<p>its absurd to ask "WHY THE FRAMERS DID THAT"...
no one actually knows that well..</p>
<p>its obvious that they wanted a centralized govt w/ checks+balances and that they were influenced by small state / big state representation conflict..
otherwise, u'll have to read into many documents to actually determine those answers..</p>
<p>and AP Govt is just a general US Govt class...</p>
<p>hopefully they grade that question very liberally...</p>
<p>haha for that question i said...</p>
<p>house impeaches</p>
<p>senate convicts</p>
<p>and just backed it up with bs answer stating that "the otherwise very powerful legislature is thus checked in itself" lol</p>
<p>
[quote]
2] (a) grants money to certain group of ppl (ex: elderly, poor)
(b) Social Security Tax
(c) baby-boomers - increased aging
(d) aging population again
(e) would increase pay in, and decrease pay in..
[/quote]
</p>
<p>for 2b i put employers/employee ...which is from social security obviously so hopefully i get what im sayin</p>
<p>The grading rubric, in general, is pretty liberal, cornholio. I'm sure you'll get the points as long as you gave a reasonable explanation, even if it's not an absolute truth (since, like you said, nobody really knows).</p>
<p>For 4 (b) and (c), I used the fact that taxing and spending bills must originate in the House and that the Senate has the power to declare war. My reasons were "no taxation without representation" and the fact that the Senate would be less likely than the House to involve the country in a meaningless war, since the House was more subject to the sometimes radical sentiments of the people (whereas, at the time the Constitution was ratified, the Senate wasn't elected directly by the people).</p>
<p>weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee</p>
<p>a great FRQ to BS</p>