AP Gov EVERYTHING You Need to Know! Units 1-5 Review

what is up people welcome back and welcome to the  granddaddy of all review videos in this video i'm   gonna go over everything you need to know for the  entire ap exam so let's get right to it and hey   as that music's playing go ahead and smash that  like button and subscribe if you haven't already okay so i have time stamps for the units in the  description if you want to jump to something   specific and i also want to remind you that i have  videos reviewing each unit as well as the cases   and the documents so if you haven't watched those  yet i strongly encourage you to do so because this   will be much less detail-oriented than those  videos and last thing before we start is i want   to remind you about the ultimate review packet  it really has everything you need to get ready   for the exam including great study guides tons  of practice questions three full length practice   exams everything to help you feel confident  before this exam all right unit one is foundations   of american democracy we'll start with the  declaration of independence which contains three   ideals of democracy when jefferson said that all  men are endowed with certain unalienable rights   that among these are life liberty and the pursuit  of happiness he's describing what we call natural   rights that there are rights we enjoy simply by  being human jefferson continues on saying that to   secure these rights governments are instituted  among men this is the social contract which   suggests the purpose of government is to protect  people's natural rights and then jefferson says   that government derives its power from the consent  of the governed and that people have the right to   abolish and establish governments and this is  popular sovereignty that people are the source   of governmental power our other main founding  document the us constitution helps us with the   other two ideals it sets up a limited government  meaning the federal government only has the powers   granted to it by the constitution additionally  it sets up a republican form of government which   means that rather than people voting on laws  people vote for representatives who will then   vote on the laws to make the policies so the u.s  has a representative democracy and there are three   models that attempt to describe this type of  democracy participatory democracy emphasizes   broad citizen participation in politics and civil  society allowing as many people as possible to   have an influence on public policy it's focused on  the individual pluralist democracy focuses on the   role of group based activism such as interest  groups and political parties and these groups   compete for power and influence over policy elite  democracy suggests a more limited or filtered   role for individuals like when people vote for  representatives instead of voting on policies   or if the electoral college and people vote for  electors instead of actually voting directly on   the president along with debates over the type of  democracy the constitution set up there is also   debate over the balance of governmental power  and individual rights and we can highlight that   debate through two of our required documents in  federalist number 10 james madison argued that   the biggest threat to nation was factions and that  in democracies majority factions would tyrannize   the minority his solution was a large republic  a representative government that would limit   the power of the majority as well as a federal  system that divides power between the state and   national government an anti-federalist paper  brutus number one argued in favor of democracy   and local control over policies wanting people to  have as much power as possible and warning about   potential destruction of liberty that would take  place as a result of the overly strong government   set up by the new constitution speaking of the  constitution we know that it wasn't the first   attempt at setting up a national government before  that came the articles of confederation which was   based on the principle of state sovereignty where  states had the ultimate authority over themselves   it delegated a few specific powers to the national  government like the power to declare war make   treaties borrow money and create currency  but there was only a legislative branch it   had no enforcement powers it couldn't regulate  interstate commerce and importantly it couldn't   tax when shae's rebellion occurred the response  left a lot to be desired and helped shift public   opinion in favor of expanding the power of the  national government through a new constitution   the constitution itself is largely the result of  a series of compromises and we'll talk about four   of them here the great compromise established  a bicameral legislature in which the house of   representatives would be based off population and  the senate represents states equally there was   also debate over how to select the president with  the compromise being that the electoral college   would select the president and that each state  would decide for itself how to choose its members   of the electoral college there's also the infamous  three-fifths compromise which decided that slaves   would be counted as three-fifths of a person for  apportioning the house and electoral college and   this led to southern states being over-represented  in the house and the presidency over the first 70   years of the nation's history and fourth was  the compromise on the importation of slaves   which basically meant that they agreed that the  slave trade could not be abolished for 20 years   again this compromise being the only way to secure  southern support for the constitution in article   5 the constitution set up an amendment process so  that changes could be made in the future but not   too easily the primary method requires two-thirds  of both houses of congress to propose an amendment   followed by three-fourths of the states to ratify  the federalists supported the new constitution   and a stronger central government while the  anti-federalists opposed the constitution and   they advocated for states rights and they demanded  the inclusion of a bill of rights the framers of   the constitution were very concerned about how  much power the federal government would have   so they created a system with separation  of powers allocating different jobs to the   three branches of the national government the  legislative branch makes laws the executive   enforces laws and the judiciary interprets  laws additionally checks and balances allow   each branch to have certain ways to influence  or limit the other branches in federalist number   51 madison argued that this was necessary  because while we need to have a government   we also need to make sure that government doesn't  have too much power and one way to do that was to   separate their powers and then make sure that  they each have some influence over the others   more on this later additionally the constitution  set up federalism the division of powers between   the states and the national government we  often describe this as dynamic federalism   because the specific balance of power between  states and the national government has changed   over time speaking in extremely broad strokes  the trend has been that the national government   has gained more power while states have declined  in influence but there are exceptions before we   get to that though let's get a little bit vocab  delegated powers are powers of the constitution   gave to the national government allowing it to do  specific things like coining money declaring war   and regulating interstate commerce these are  powers that belong only to the national government   the 10th amendment reminds us that there are  reserve powers everything not delegated to the   national government or denied to the states is  reserved to the states so there isn't a list in   the constitution but basically everything that's  left over including things like a general police   power education health welfare and licensing and  concurrent powers are executed by both states   and the national government they can both raise  taxes and borrow money for example for citizens   this creates an interesting situation where  there are multiple levels of government over us   and depending what the particular issue is we  might have to listen to the national government   other times the states and sometimes to both in  the past that relationship could be described as   dual or layer cake federalism where there is a  pretty clear line between whether something was   a national or a state issue states in the national  government remain superior and supreme in their   own spheres of influence but throughout the  progressive era and culminating with the new   deal during fdr's presidency we saw a shift to  cooperative or marble cake federalism where the   lines between state and national responsibility  become blurred and where administration and the   cost of major programs begin to be shared remember  when i mentioned that things like education health   and welfare are reserved to the states well then  how do we have programs like social security   medicare or no child left behind there's two basic  explanations for the massive increase in national   power money and changes in the way we interpret  the constitution so let's follow the money   there are basically four different ways that money  has gone from the national government to state   governments so first up are categorical grants  which provide money to states for a specific   purpose the states get the money but congress  tells the states specifically how to spend   that money additionally congress often includes  incentives or conditions of aid that states must   follow in order to qualify to receive the money  when reagan wanted to raise the drinking age of 21   the national government made doing so a condition  to receive money for transportation technically   states had the option to say yes or no but you  guys are 18 so you tell me whatever you say   chose to do states prefer to receive block grants  because the money is for a broader purpose so they   have more discretion but not total freedom over  how the money gets spent until the late 80s there   used to be something known as federal revenue  sharing which states like even more because this   provided money to the states that they could spend  however they wanted with no strings attached but   this program ended decades ago on the other end of  the spectrum are funded and unfunded mandates this   is where the national government establishes rules  that states have to follow and they may or may   not provide money for implementation but either  way here the states have no option big picture   from this section grants have helped shift the  balance of power towards the national government   as they are now able to influence policy areas  that are outside of its constitutional purview   the other major cause for this shift  deals with a few key constitutional causes   the supremacy clause tells us that when there's  a conflict between states and the national law   the national law and constitution are superior  there's also the necessary and proper clause that   last line in article 1 section 8 that basically  says oh yeah and congress knew other stuff as   long as it's necessary and proper for carrying  out their enumerated powers enumerated powers   are the ones that are directly written down but  with this clause congress also has implied powers   expanding their power and both of these clauses  come up in mcculloch versus maryland the necessary   and proper clause means that congress can create a  national bank even though the constitution doesn't   specifically say they can and states can't tax  the national government because the supremacy   clause says the national government is superior to  round out our big three of constitutional clauses   we have the commerce clause which allows  congress to regulate interstate commerce   importantly this has been reinterpreted to allow  congress to regulate anything affecting interstate   commerce and therefore is a major cause in the  expansion of federal power our required case u.s   vs lopez provides an exception though because in  this 1995 case for the first time in 60 years the   court struck down a federal law establishing that  there is a limit to congress's power under the   commerce clause and they reaffirm that the 10th  amendment does reserve some powers to the states   okay and that's unit one so now let's get right to  unit two and focus on the branches of the national   government first up congress okay we know that  the main power of congress has passed legislation   and we also know that it's divided into the house  and senate so let's get into some of the key   differences between the house and the senate the  house represents the people is based on population   and has 435 members who each served two-year terms  while the senate was designed to represent states   and each state has two senators so there are 100  members total and they serve six-year terms the   enumerated powers of congress include passing a  federal budget taxation coining money declaring   war and maintaining the armed forces implied  powers allow them to enact legislation on economic   environmental and social issues based  on the necessary and proper clause   let's briefly talk about leadership in the  house and the senate the speaker of the house   is the most powerful person in the house and is  always from the majority party while the leader   of the senate is known as the senate majority  leader the vice president is officially the   president of the senate but only has one power  and that's the cast tie breaking votes both the   house and the senate make use of committee systems  standing committees are permanent committees where   most of the work in congress takes place we're  talking here about things like holding hearings   discussing and revising editing bills as well  as providing oversight on the implementation   of legislation that's already been passed the  committee chair is always from the majority party   then there's conference committees which are  a type of joint committee so they include   both members of the house and the senate when  the house and senate pass different versions of   the same bill it goes to a conference committee  which then attempts to come up with some kind of   compromised version of the bill that can be passed  by both houses and then sent to the president but   the house and senate differ significantly in how  they're structured since the house is so large   it's more formal with a lot more rules for example  there's a germanis requirement which means that   all speeches on the floor must be on topic to the  bill at hand and there's a time limit for how long   members can speak additionally there's the house  rules committee an extra step in the process of   a bill becoming a law and this committee can  make rules for floor debate including whether   amendments can be added to a bill or not the  house also has discharge petitions which require   a majority vote of the whole house which can then  force the bill out of committee so that it can be   reviewed by the entire house it can form itself  into a committee of the whole which can help to   facilitate the passage of legislation quickly the  senate is much less formal for example there's   no germaneous requirement there's no time  limit for debate and this opens the door to   something known as a filibuster long speech that's  designed to prevent a bill from being voted on   this is usually a tactic of the minority party and  can prevent legislation that has majority support   from passing it only requires a simple majority  to pass legislation in both house and the senate   but it requires a three-fifths super majority to  invoke cloture and in debate on the bill and you   should probably know that these days senators just  need to announce their intention to filibuster   as opposed to actually doing it so it serves  as a major obstacle in the law making process   senders can also issue holds which basically  function like a silent filibuster and serve to   prevent a bill from being discussed or voted upon  while holds in filibusters slow down the process   it can pass unanimous consent agreements which  can expedite and speed up passage of routine   legislation congress has the power to purse and  one important part of this power is to create   an annual budget with two types of spending  discretionary spending refers to spending that   is authorized annually by congress for things like  defense and education spending which can be set as   high or as low as they want to do each year on the  other hand mandatory spending refers to spending   that is required by law to take place so congress  and the president don't set a budget for this kind   of spending the largest area of mandatory spending  is on entitlement programs these are things like   social security and medicare where people are  entitled to certain benefits based on the rules   of those programs and about 70 percent of  federal spending is considered mandatory   and this number continues to grow as boomers get  older and retire this reduces the opportunity to   increase discretionary spending on other things  unless tax revenues are raised or budget deficits   are increased safe to say politicians have chosen  budget deficits there's also poor bear legislation   which refers to laws that provide tangible  benefits like jobs or money for a representative's   district and then help that representative get  reelected and log rolling refers to vote trading   by members of congress you vote for the stuff  that i want from my district and i'll vote for the   stuff for your district that i couldn't care less  about democracy in action along the same lines   there's different views regarding how much freedom  congressmen are given by their constituents the   delegate model is the idea that the representative  should follow public opinion of his constituents   even if he or she personally disagrees whereas  the trustee role suggests that a member is free   to vote how she thinks is best even if her  constituents disagree a third option politico   is a blend of both wearing a representative can  usually feel free to use her own judgment but at   certain times is compelled to follow the public  opinion of her constituents but what about how   congressmen get into office now obviously they're  elected by people in their districts or state   but let's focus on house elections and how those  districts get determined in the first place there   are 435 seats in the house a portion based on  population so every 10 years following the census   reapportionment takes place changing the number of  seats each state has in the house with some states   gaining in other states losing seats following  that it's up to each state legislature to redraw   the congressional district's map for their state a  process known as redistricting there's only a few   rules they have to follow one is from the court's  ruling in baker versus carr which allowed the   court to review redistricting plans in a quarter  of the 14th amendment's equal protection clause   and based on the one person one one-vote principle  requires that districts be roughly the same size   despite that ruling state legislatures are  still free to engage in partisan gerrymandering   drawing districts in bizarre shapes to benefit  their party in a 1993 case shaw versus reno the   court said that racial gerrymandering is  unconstitutional even if the district is   being drawn based on race in order to increase  minority representation elections sometimes have   led to divided government which just means that  the house senate and the presidency are not all   controlled by the same party when that happens  it's known as unified government it's obviously   more difficult to get things done during periods  of divided government which often tends to lead   to something known as legislative gridlock it  leads to partisan votes against presidential   initiatives or refusal by the senate to confirm  appointments by presidents from the opposite party   in recent decades we've seen more and more  instances of this as well as an increase in   party polarization as the two parties grow further  apart from each other ideologically which again   contributes to this problem of gridlock on that  note let's turn our attention to the presidency   the president is the head of the executive branch  whose job is to enforce laws made by congress   the role of the president has expanded since the  founding but for now let's start with some of   the formal and informal powers of the president  we find the formal powers in article 2 of the   constitution and there really isn't too much there  surprisingly the president's role in legislation   is that she can sign the bill into law or she  can veto it a veto is a message to congress with   her reasons for rejecting it congress can override  the veto with a two-thirds vote in both houses but   this has only happened about four percent of the  time so this is a very strong check the president   has on congress there's also the pocket veto  which means that the president takes no action   and if the session of congress ends within 10  days of sending the bill to the president then it   does not become a law otherwise if congress is in  session it becomes a law without the president's   signature the president is also commander-in-chief  of the armed forces meaning she is in charge of   overseeing the branches of the military and  directing troop movements you'll recall that   only congress can declare war so this is a good  example of separation of powers the president is   also allowed to make treaties with foreign nations  though these treaties need to be ratified by the   senate and just ask woodrow wilson how easy that  is presidents also have informal powers in foreign   policy like the ability to make executive  agreements which are essentially treaties   except they don't require senate confirmation so  they're more convenient for presidents to get into   but they're also really easy for the next  president to exit from like how the us joined the   paris climate accord then it left now it's back  and it'll probably leave again in a couple years   presidents are also very dependent on bargaining  and persuasion because there's not really much   they can do by themselves so they have to convince  somebody congress usually to go along with them   this might include bargaining over things like  appointments budgets and legislative priorities   and it can also involve presidents attempting to  persuade the public who could then put pressure on   their members of congress to cooperate with the  president additionally presidents often issue   signing statements when signing a bill into law  that gives the president's interpretation of the   bill and provides instructions to the executive  agencies that are in charge of implementing that   law and lastly executive orders are a major  policy tool for presidents since these allow   her to make policy that has the force of law and  doesn't require congressional approval now this   does not mean the president can rule by executive  order though as their purpose is to enforce laws   made by congress so if they're in conflict with  laws or the constitution they can be shut down   most commonly they're used to direct the  bureaucracy and informed policy where presidents   do have very broad discretion but in most areas of  domestic policy the president is heavily reliant   on congress and therefore there are many  opportunities for tension and confrontation   especially with the senate for one when it  comes to positions at the present nominates and   the senegal firms such as federal judges cabinet  secretaries ambassadors and the heads of executive   agencies this is different from positions within  the white house office that don't require senate   confirmation such as the president chief of staff  press secretary and advisors judicial appointments   including supreme court justices are especially  noteworthy and fraught with tension though   because as we'll soon review these often represent  a president's longest lasting influence since they   serve life terms as mentioned earlier presidential  power has clearly expanded since the passage of   the constitution in federalist number 70 alexander  hamilton made the case for a single unitary   executive arguing that it was necessary for the  executive to be able to quickly respond in moments   of disaster war and that public opinion would  actually be a stronger check on a single executive   than on a plural or group executive because at  least we'd all know who to blame or who to credit   for a situation today some argue for even more  expansive interpretations of presidential power   and a stronger executive while others advocate for  a more limited role closer to what's outlined in   the constitution and by the way after fdr won  the presidency for approximately the 19th time   this 22nd amendment was ratified limiting  presidents to serve only two terms one of the   major changes in the presidency in recent years  has to do with changes in communication technology   yep i'm talking about social media which allows  presidents to communicate directly with the public   and to be less reliant on traditional news media  the bully pulpit refers to the fact that because   she's the president this position allows the  president to speak out on any issue she wants and   whatever she says is automatically newsworthy she  can use this to try to help push her policy agenda   similarly the state of the union address is a  nationally televised speech delivered to congress   and the president here tries to use this to gain  support for her agenda and pressure congress into   supporting those priorities next we're going  to stay in the executive branch and talk about   the bureaucracy which is made up of several  million people who do the day-to-day job of   enforcing laws and providing government services  these people are known alternately as bureaucrats   and civil servants and since the reforms of the  merit system they've been hired because they   qualify for the job not as part of a political  patronage system while the vast majority of   bureaucrats are non-political the heads of many  agencies and departments are chosen politically   being nominated by the president and subject to  senate confirmation so the workers non-political   their bosses super political awkward now there are  four types of beer crack agencies and we'll go to   order from mostly significant cabinet departments  are the big guys there's only 17 of them and   they have authority over a broad area of policy  things like justice defense treasury again big   picture power then there's independent regulatory  commissions which sometimes fall underneath the   cabinet department and they have a narrow area  of responsibility usually a particular industry   that the agency oversees and regulates there are  also independent executive agencies which have a   frustratingly similar name but these agencies  are often trying to achieve some policy goal   such as the epa attempting to reduce pollution or  the cfpb protecting consumers both are independent   in the sense that they have some independence from  the president and from the cabinet departments   and the president may not be able to fire or  remove the top level administrators the idea here   is that this frees up decision makers at these  independent agencies to do what they believe is   best not what is politically expedient lastly  government corporations like amtrak and the postal   service basically function like a private company  providing a service that isn't provided by the   private sector typically because it's something  that's not profitable here's the important part   long story short congress passes legislation  but lacks the time expertise and ability   to be involved in all the details so they tell  a particular agency or department to implement   the law and then fill in the details for them so  congress passes the clean air act and then gives   the epa the discretionary authority to figure out  how best to achieve the goals set out in that law   along with this they're also given  rule-making authority so the regulations   made by the agencies have the power of law  even though they weren't made by congress   not only that but the agencies also have the  power to enforce the regulations they've made   so as a result some people believe that these  agencies comprised of unelected bureaucrats have   too much power since they aren't accountable to  the electorate and yet they have this regulatory   authority they are subject to numerous checks  and balances though such as just a review and   the presidential executive orders that change the  priorities of agencies but the most significant   check by far is congressional oversight which  allows a congressional committee to check up on   the agency and ensure that its actions please  members of congress including investigations   requiring the heads of these agencies to testify  at hearings if congress doesn't like what they   hear they can use their power of the purse to  reduce the agency's budget or even abolish the   agency altogether okay and our final branch the  judiciary article three of the constitution barely   says anything about it but today this branch has  grown into something significant and powerful   let's start with what hamilton said about  the judiciary way back in federalist number   78 there he argued that the constitution  established an independent judiciary with judges   serving life terms that would be free to strike  down laws that were contrary to the constitution   and that last part became official policy in  marbury vs madison the og of all cases when the   court established judicial review saying that it  had the power to strike down laws and executive   actions that were unconstitutional what a boss  move of course the fact the constitution doesn't   explicitly mention judicial review and the fact  that the court gave themselves this power and that   they aren't elected this can lead to some people  questioning the legitimacy of the court's power   compounding this is the fact that the court  lacks the ability to enforce its rulings so it's   in a situation where it has to be careful not to  stray too far from what's politically acceptable   federal judges including supreme court justices  are nominated by presidents and are subject to   sending confirmation and presidents attempt to  nominate justices who are ideologically similar   to themselves at times when the ideology of the  court's majority shifts we may see the court   overturning old and establishing new precedents a  precedent is a past ruling that influences future   decisions and tells other federal judges how to  rule on similar issues courts often follow the   legal principle starry decisis let the decision  stand which means to follow precedent but the   supreme court is free to ignore that and establish  new precedence if a ruling is particularly   controversial or unpopular the president may  refuse to implement it or vow to nominate   justices who would undo that decision additionally  congress can change the jurisdiction of the court   and not allow it to rule on an issue anymore or  could vote to increase the number of justices   on the court in hopes of changing the ideology of  the court's majority the strongest check though   is to propose a constitutional amendment which  if ratified would nullify the court's holding   sometimes it might be as simple as passing a  modified version of the law that was struck   down to make sure that it satisfies the court's  objection like when congress updated the gun-free   school zones act to ban guns that were part of  interstate commerce after they took a nail in u.s   versus lopez so what's the proper role for the  judiciary advocates of judicial restraint argue   that since justices are unelected they should  defer to the democratically elected branches and   only strike down legislation that is clearly  unconstitutional others argue for judicial   activism wherein the justices are empowered to  strike down laws they believe are unconstitutional   that term though is often used by critics of a  decision who are implying the court overstepped   its proper place but hamilton said we needed  a judiciary that would defend the constitution   from encroachments by congress and the president  so maybe they're the heroes we need but not the   heroes we deserve i don't know are you still with  me i know we're flying but let's keep going unit   3 civil liberties and civil rights now when i  say civil liberties i'm talking about personal   individual freedoms governments can't take away we  primarily find a list of protected civil liberties   in the bill of rights which doesn't guarantee  that we have certain rights but rather says   there are certain things the federal government  can't do so let's blast through these ready   first amendment the government can't  take away your freedom of religion speech   press or assembly second amendment it can't  take away your right to keep and bear arms third   amendment it can't force you to let troops take  over your house during peace time fourth amendment   they can't search you unreasonably fifth amendment  they can't try you twice for the same crime and   you can't be forced to incriminate yourself among  other things sixth amendment you have a right to   a speedy and public tribe by a jury of your peers  in criminal cases seventh amendment says you have   that same right in civil cases eighth amendment  no cruel or unusual punishment or excessive bail   and the ninth amendment says that hey there are  other liberties too even if we didn't mention them   here but it's another amendment the 14th that's  actually the most important for this unit because   it fundamentally changed our interpretation of  the bill of rights the 14th amendment has a due   process clause which said that states can't take  away a person's life liberty or property without   due process of law and anyway about 50 years later  this gives birth to something known as selective   incorporation which is the application of the bill  of rights to the states on a case-by-case basis   today nearly the entire bill of rights has been  incorporated so it now restricts state governments   just like the federal government from violating  those fundamental rights now let's get into   more detail on some of those amendments okay the  first amendment's freedom of religion is actually   broken into two parts first is the establishment  clause congress shall make no law respecting an   establishment of religion so no official religion  but also nothing to help or harm religions   in engle versus vital the court struck down  state-sponsored prayer in public schools   holding that it violated the establishment  clause by promoting religious belief the free   exercise clause is the next part of that line  congress shall make no law prohibiting the free   exercise of a person's religion so basically  congress can't prevent you from practicing   religion and in wisconsin versus yoder they ruled  that amish families free exercise rights were more   important and outweighed the state's interest in  mandating compulsory school attendance and the   court said let there be homeschooling and they saw  that it was good okay next up my personal favorite   free speech congress shall make no law abridging  the freedom of speech seems pretty clear to me but   apparently not to some people shank vs us was a  world war one era case in which the court upheld   a congressional law that prohibited speech  intended to harm the war effort specifically   the court held that speech that creates a clear  and present danger can be banned and even though   that part's no longer true it's still important  because it's at the precedent there can be time   place and mana restrictions on speech 50 years  later in tinker versus des moines the court went   the other way and extended free speech protection  of students and teachers in public schools ruling   that symbolic speech like black armbands is pure  speech and therefore constitutionally protected   on the other hand defamatory or obscene speech may  not be protected the court usually rules in favor   of free speech and the same is true of freedom of  the press in new york times versus u.s the court   bolstered freedom of the press preventing the  nixon administration from blocking publication of   classified documents holding that there is a heavy  presumption against prior restraint or censorship   even when national security is involved so the  second amendment underwent a major shift recently   in 2008 the court held that the constitution  established an individual right to bear arms   and then in mcdonald vs chicago it incorporated  that individual right to bear arms to the states   preventing them from violating that constitutional  right all right so that brings us to the fourth   amendment another favorite okay so what's an  unreasonable search basically an officer needs   to have a warrant probable cause or consent for  a search and according to the exclusionary rule   illegally obtained evidence cannot be used  against you at trial then in the late 1960s the   court decided that people had to be informed of  their fifth and sixth amendment rights in what's   become known as the miranda rule you've heard it  you have the right to mean silent you have the   right to an attorney yada yada yada but there is  an exception known as the public safety exception   and that says that even if the police  haven't mirandized the suspect yet   and they ask him a question during an active  situation where the public could be in danger   that the suspect's answer can be used as evidence  in trial additionally in gideon versus wainwright   the court incorporated the sixth amendment's  guarantee of the right to counsel forcing states   to provide defendants with an attorney if they  can't afford one not a ton to say about the eighth   amendment obviously the death penalty is currently  still allowed so it's not viewed as cruel or   unusual punishment but some forms of the death  penalty have been struck down as well as things   like who can receive it or for what crimes one  of the big picture themes for this whole section   is the attempt to balance individual freedom with  public order and safety some court decisions move   us towards more freedom while others go the other  way towards safety but to trade off because then   we're giving up some freedom but we still have  one more thing left in civil liberties remember   the ninth amendment says if there are unenumerated  rights that belong to the people well in 1965 the   court officially decided that privacy is one of  those rights and then in 1973 in roe versus wade   the court held that the right of privacy covers  a woman's decision to have an abortion in more   recent cases though the court has recognized the  states may have an interest in regulating and   restricting abortion however keep your eyes peeled  by the way for a major court ruling on this issue   later this year okay so now we're shifting over  to civil rights civil rights protect people from   discrimination based on group characteristics  like race national origin religion and sex the   14th amendment's equal protection clause is often  seen as the constitutional basis for lots of civil   rights legislation since it basically told  states they couldn't treat people differently   under the law we can view martin luther king jr's  letter from a birmingham jail as a call to fulfill   the inclusive promises of the declaration of  independence when it said all men are created   equal and the preamble of the constitution would  declare that this government was being established   by we the people within civil rights we can think  of the 1960 civil rights movement for rights for   black americans and the women's rights movement  additional movements include the pro-life movement   as well as the lgbtq rights movement which  have each enjoyed various levels of success   at different levels of government brown vs board  of education declared that race-based segregation   of public schools was an unconstitutional  violation of the equal protection clause   this was followed a decade later by the civil  rights act of 1964 a landmark piece of legislation   that banned discrimination in employment and  public accommodations on the basis of race color   national origin religion or sex the following  year the voting rights act of 1965 banned literacy   tests and other obstacles to vote and this led  to a dramatic increase in minority voter turnout   the women's rights movement saw success with  the civil rights act as well as the equal pay   act of 1963 which did what the name suggests and  title ix of the educational amendments act of 1972   basically this law prohibited schools that take  public money from engaging in sex discrimination   it's also important to point out that  court cases and legislation haven't   always expanded civil rights an infamous 1896  ruling by the court upheld separate but equal   as constitutional and ushered in 50 years of jim  crow laws legalizing segregation in the south and   as we learned earlier shaw versus reno the court  prohibited racial gerrymandering even if it's done   with the specific purpose of increasing minority  representation another modern corollary to this is   affirmative action which are first policies that  require businesses and colleges to take active   steps to increase the hiring and admission  of racial minorities most commonly black and   hispanic americans as this video is being recorded  affirmative action is still constitutional though   it's been somewhat limited but the debate rages  on on the one hand some say the constitution is   colorblind and therefore any distinction based on  race is automatically unconstitutional the other   side says no it's race conscious and only forbids  racial classifications that are intended to harm   minorities not ones designed to help and unit 3  ends on that cheering note on to unit 4 pause the   video splash the mod in your face do another shot  of 5 hour energy do what you got to do but let's   keep going unit 4 is american political ideologies  and beliefs and is mercifully a short unit   so once upon a time there's america and some  americans are conservative some are liberal and   others are libertarian and there's even people who  aren't any of those but the ap exam doesn't care   about them so neither do we but the basic idea  is that there are certain core values shared by   americans like individualism equality opportunity  free enterprise rule of law and limited government   and while there's broad agreement in these  basic concepts people of different ideologies   interpret them differently a political ideology  is a consistent set of beliefs about the purpose   and scope of government so let's talk about  and massively oversimplify our big three   conservatives typically like economic freedom low  taxes less regulation and less government effort   in promoting social and economic equality but  they favor a stronger government when it comes to   defense police and law enforcement and often favor  restrictions on things like abortion same-sex   rights and marijuana liberals or progressives  are basically the opposite they prefer   more economic regulation higher taxes and for more  services to be provided by governments especially   in areas like health care and education they  prefer a smaller role for government in defense   and policing and prefer to protect the rights  of the accused and favor personal privacy like   reproductive rights and sex equality libertarians  are the easiest to summarize and caricature   freedom good government usually bad basically  they favor maximum social and economic freedom   and argue for a very limited role for government  sticking to things like protecting private   property and individual rights to them government  is a necessary evil but should be kept as   small as possible the republican party's platform  aligns more closely to conservative positions   while the democratic party's platform aligns more  closely to liberal positions shocking i know but   remember not to mix a party and ideology  they're not interchangeable on the ap test   and just for fun real quick let's throw in  two economic ideologies why not keynesians   argue that when the economy is in a recession the  government should increase spending to stimulate   the economy while supply-side economists  argue that the better move is to cut taxes   government tax and spending policy is known as  fiscal policy as you might remember from unit 2   but the federal reserve can do something  called monetary policy instead monetary   policy influences the money supply and interest  rates and when the economy is in a recession the   response is to increase the money supply and lower  interest rates when the problem is high inflation   the money supply and raise interest rates okay but  how do people end up with a particular ideology   well our term for that is political socialization  which refers the process by which people obtain   their ideology family schools friends media  religious organizations are all part of the   process with family being the most significant  source of political socialization additionally   there are generational effects younger generations  like millennials and zoomers are more liberal than   older generations like boomers now this is not to  be confused with life cycle effects which refers   to how people's ideology evolve over the course  of their own lifetime including the issues they   believe are most relevant there's also something  called the impressionable age hypothesis which   suggests that major political events that occur  early in life can have a lasting impact on a   person's ideology okay next up is public opinion  let's start with types of polls an opinion poll   is exactly what it sounds like a poll that  seeks people's opinions on various topics   a benchmark poll is typically administered  when a person is thinking about officially   becoming a candidate in an election to help them  understand how they're perceived by the public   tracking polls usually ask the same group of  people a question like a presidential approval   over a set of months to see fluctuations in the  response and insurance exit polls are conducted   on election day with actual voters and help to  predict the outcome before the votes are actually   counted to be scientifically valid polls must  have random samples in which all members of the   population have an equal chance of being selected  it also must be stratified meaning that the sample   reflects characteristics of the population  and since they're only using a sample of the   population there will be a sampling error meaning  that some of the results are just chance variation   and therefore aren't perfectly accurate getting  within about a three percent margin of error is   viewed as acceptable focus groups are smaller and  aren't scientific but they allow respondents to   share more detailed in-depth responses so they  can be useful to campaigns and that's unit 4.   hang in you've almost made it last up unified  political participation and it's a doozy to   begin with let's review voting rights real quick  states are in charge of elections but a series   of constitutional amendments have expanded voting  rights the 15th amendment says that race can't be   a barrier to voting the 19th says that sex isn't  a barrier to voting either the 26th amendment   says that age can't be a barrier for anybody  at least 18 and the 24th amendment banned poll   taxes in 1964. okay so now we know who can vote  but how can we explain people's voting behavior   we have four models of voting behavior to help  us do that party lane voting is super simple the   person votes for all the candidates from a single  party all she needs to know is who's a democrat or   who's the republican and that's it retrospective  voting is voting based on whether you think that   the incumbent candidate and party are doing well  and therefore should be re-elected or not on the   other hand prospective voting is voting based on  the future and which candidate you prefer for the   issues that the country could face going forward  and lastly rational choice voting is voting based   on what's in your individual best interest like  an old person voting for a candidate who promises   to expand social security and then there's the  issue of people actually showing up and voting   at one level this can be as simple as whether a  person has strong political efficacy the belief   that her vote matters and that she can influence  policy there are also structural barriers like the   requirement in most states that voters must  register before the election and there may   be more or fewer options when it comes to early  voting and mailed voting depending on your state   additionally there are lots of elections in the us  so turnout is highest for presidential elections   and lowest for midterm and primaries and there  are certain demographic characteristics that   are more correlated with engagement and voting  as well people with higher levels of education   higher income middle age and older people as  well as religious people are each more likely   to vote then there are the factors that influence  which party a person votes for and we have five of   them to consider here the best predictor of  how a personal vote is party identification   not surprisingly people who identify with  a party vote overwhelmingly for that party   similarly ideology influences voter choice as  does religious affiliation gender race ethnicity   and other demographic characteristics additionally  candidate characteristics like their personality   whether they're perceived as trustworthy that  kind of thing matter as do contemporary political   issues especially for retrospective voters alright  with that out of the way the rest of the unit   focuses on four pivotal linkage institutions that  connect people to the government political parties   interest groups elections and the media first  up parties parties bring together people who   have similar political beliefs and try to gain  power and win elections that's their main purpose   gain power there are a handful of functions of  parties as they work to accomplish this goal   they mobilize and educate voters meaning they  try to convince people to vote for their party's   candidate and they work to make sure that people  actually go to the polls and vote every four   years parties adopt a platform which lays out the  beliefs goals and positions of the party parties   also recruit candidates to run for office trying  to find people who they believe can win elections   since like we said that's their fundamental  purpose additionally parties help with campaign   management and do things like raise money and  develop a coherent media strategy to benefit the   candidates and the party but parties change and  adapt and both major parties have been undergoing   significant changes in the recent past one  changes the rise of candidate centered campaigns   where the candidates have a passionate following  an appeal that's separate from their identity   as a member of the party additionally big changes  to campaign finance laws have empowered candidates   to be their own person and to be less reliant on  the party fundraising additionally parties have   changed to appeal to their demographic coalitions  and we've seen the republican party remade in the   image of trump and the democratic party lurch  further to the left to disenchanted progressives   lastly there was a major regional realignment of  the late 60s 1990s which saw the south shift from   being overwhelmingly democratic to being reliably  republican over the last three decades or so the   us has been experiencing a party dealing as  more people choose to be independent or no   party affiliation leaving the two major parties  while it's true the us has a two-party system   there are other parties referred to as third  parties and there are both formal and informal   obstacles to third party success formal barriers  include how elections are currently run and   they disadvantage anybody that isn't democrat or  republican something like winner take all voting   districts that only reward the candidate who comes  in first place in that district which is obviously   very rare for third-party candidates there are  also informal barriers they face like the lack   of media attention and fundraising and the fact  that many people feel like they'd be wasting their   vote if they actually voted for them additionally  sometimes a major party incorporates a popular   part of the third party's agenda if it's getting  popular and this is bittersweet for the party   they're influencing policy but they aren't going  to benefit politically from it by gaining power   another linkage institution that  connects people to policy making is   interest groups and there are thousands of  interest groups and they vary tremendously   but we most often focus on groups that attempt to  influence a narrow area of policy for example gun   rights or women's reproductive rights purpose  influence policy good next how do they do it   well functions include educating voters and office  holders lobbying drafting legislation mobilizing   membership to pressure representatives to vote  for or against a piece of legislation lobbying   is when the interest group hires someone  to directly pressure a member of congress   often providing her with information to convince  her to vote a certain way and may even be able   to help draft legislation being in the room  where it happens suggesting the wording of a   bill some interest groups are also able to exert  influence by working with bureaucratic agencies   and congressional committees in relationships  known as iron triangles or issue networks   this is basically a symbiotic relationship where  they each help each other out now the thing is   there is significant inequality of political and  economic resources said another way some interest   groups are really powerful and others not so much  and so they have unequal access to decision makers   big strong well-funded groups have more access  than smaller groups and there are also social   movements as discussed earlier which attempt to  impact society and policy making these are often   more organic and decentralized which can affect  their effectiveness okay hanging people we're   almost there next up elections and i'll try not  to give anybody 2016 or 2020 ptsd but that said   let's start with presidential elections there's a  lot to get here so let's go to get the nomination   a candidate has to win her party's nomination  which means winning a majority of delegates at the   national convention they win delegates by winning  primaries and caucuses in different states some   states have open primaries which are elections  that any registered voter can participate in   while other states have close primaries which  only allow registered party members to participate   still other states have something known as a  caucus which isn't really so much an election as   much as a meeting of party members where they vote  and publicly decide to eliminate candidates until   they have a winner next comes the general election  where the winner gets to be president to win   the candidate needs a majority of the electoral  votes currently 270. the nationwide popular vote   doesn't matter rather candidates focus on winning  individual states for example whichever candidate   wins florida in 2024 will receive 30 electoral  votes now because 48 states are winner-take-all   it doesn't matter whether they win by one vote  or by a million they get all the electoral votes   this causes candidates to focus primarily on swing  states which are states that are competitive and   ideally have larger amounts of electoral votes the  more the better i only tell you that the current   setup is just a little controversial and makes a  great essay prompt modern campaigns have become   much longer with very long two plus year election  cycles becoming the norm the amount of money being   spent on campaigns has skyrocketed and in turn  the amount of time and effort spent fundraising   has also risen dramatically campaigns have become  more and more reliant on social media and attempt   to go viral in efforts to connect with younger  voters candidates have also become very dependent   on professional consultants to manage and run  campaigns another major topic is campaign finance   so here's the quick and dirty version in 2002  congress passed the bipartisan campaign reform act   which banned soft money among other things soft  money refers to money contributed to a political   party and was basically seen as a loophole because  there are hard limits on how much you can give to   a candidate so instead give it to the party  and then the party gives it to the candidate   so this law banned that but the supreme court  in citizens united vs fec struck down that ban   allowing soft money once again but the court also  held that political spending out of corporations   and labor unions is a form of protected speech  under the first amendment this led to the creation   of super pacs a regular pac or political action  committee is an organization that raises money   to support a campaign and mostly spends that money  independently of the candidate herself with super   pacs they can only spend the money independently  the other difference is that corporations and   labor unions can only give to super pacs not to  regular packs and finally the media not much here   good news basically there's been huge changes  over time about how people get their news from   newspapers to radio to tv to cable tv to internet  and now social media one main role of the media   is to act as a gatekeeper choosing what to report  on thus affecting what people know about and what   they think is important the watchdog role refers  to investigative journalism where they're supposed   to keep public figures accountable and then  there's the scorekeeper role typified by horse   race journalism which follows polling results  and threatens to turn elections into popularity   contest instead of reporting on you know the  qualifications and platforms of the candidates   there are more media choices than ever before  right now but that doesn't necessarily mean people   are better informed there has been a sharp rise in  ideologically oriented programming which basically   gives the slanted version of the news that their  audience wants to hear as well as consumer-driven   media outlets that care more about views clicks  and engagement than making sure that people are   actually you know well informed and then there's  the problem where people are sometimes unsure   about the credibility of news sources and the  information that's being presented and on that   kind of bleak note you've survived this has been a  money production i'm exhausted i can't believe you   made it this far if you're hearing me right now  i pretty much guarantee you're passing this test   if you're about to walk in and take it right now  i wish you all the best trust me you got this

Channel: Carey LaManna

Views: 142,127

Keywords:

Id: CieIoTfABZI

Length: 50min 46sec (3046 seconds)

Published: Mon Apr 11 2022