AP US Government & Politics:: Unit 2

The U.S. House of Representatives, one of the two significant chambers of Congress, is historically and structurally notable primarily for:

- **A)** The House of Representatives having no meaningful, describable relationship to significant population-based congressional representation, or the broader significant bicameral legislative structure already discussed in an earlier unit's coverage of the Great Compromise
- **B)** Granting each state an identical, equal number of representatives regardless of population, a characterization that confuses the House with the different, though related, Senate already discussed in an earlier unit's coverage of the Great Compromise
- **C)** Allocating each state's own number of representatives substantially according to that state's own population, with representatives serving comparatively short, two-year terms - the House of Representatives illustrates a further significant example of the significant bicameral compromise already discussed in an earlier unit's coverage of the Great Compromise, substantially reflecting more direct, frequent popular accountability given its own considerably shorter term length
- **D)** Members serving six-year, rather than two-year, terms, a characterization that confuses the House's own specific term length with the different, though related, Senate's own six-year term length

The U.S. Senate, the other significant chamber of Congress relative to the House of Representatives already discussed above, is historically and structurally notable primarily for:

- **A)** Granting each state exactly two senators regardless of population, with senators serving comparatively longer, six-year terms - the Senate illustrates a further significant example of the significant bicameral compromise already discussed in an earlier unit's coverage of the Great Compromise, substantially designed to protect smaller states' own interests and to provide a somewhat more deliberative, less immediately electorally-pressured legislative body relative to the House already discussed above
- **B)** The Senate having no meaningful, describable relationship to significant equal state representation, or the broader significant bicameral legislative structure already discussed in an earlier unit's coverage of the Great Compromise
- **C)** Allocating each state's own number of senators according to that state's own population, a characterization that confuses the Senate with the different, though related, House of Representatives already discussed above
- **D)** Senators serving two-year, rather than six-year, terms, a characterization that confuses the Senate's own specific term length with the different, though related, House's own two-year term length

The significant filibuster, a significant Senate procedural tactic, is historically notable primarily for:

- **A)** The filibuster having no meaningful, describable relationship to significant Senate procedural delay of legislative action, or the broader significant legislative process already discussed at multiple points throughout this unit
- **B)** A tactic available exclusively within the House of Representatives, rather than the Senate, a characterization that confuses the filibuster with a House, rather than Senate, procedural mechanism, since the House's own considerably larger membership generally requires more restrictive debate rules
- **C)** A tactic that requires only a simple majority vote to overcome, a characterization that understates the filibuster's own actual, well-documented requirement of a considerably more demanding supermajority (generally 60 votes) to invoke cloture and end debate
- **D)** Allowing individual senators to prolong debate on proposed legislation substantially to delay or prevent a final vote, generally requiring a considerable supermajority (60 votes under current Senate rules) to invoke "cloture" and formally end this specific extended debate - the filibuster illustrates a further significant example of a significant Senate procedural tool that can considerably shape the practical legislative process beyond the Constitution's own formal textual requirements

Considering the specific significant congressional committee system, already implicit in this unit's broader coverage of the legislative process, congressional committees are historically notable primarily for:

- **A)** Congressional committees having no meaningful, describable relationship to significant detailed legislative review and specialization, or the broader significant legislative process already discussed at multiple points throughout this unit
- **B)** Providing significant, detailed review and consideration of proposed legislation within specific significant policy areas, substantially allowing individual members of Congress to develop considerable policy expertise and exercise very significant practical influence over whether specific legislation advances toward a full floor vote - congressional committees illustrate a further significant example of how the practical legislative process operates through significant institutional structures beyond the Constitution's own formal textual provisions alone
- **C)** A structure that reviews every piece of proposed legislation with no meaningful specialization or division of labor of any kind, a characterization that does not accurately reflect the committee system's own actual, well-documented specific policy-area specialization
- **D)** A structure established considerably after, rather than as part of, the ordinary practical operation of Congress, a characterization that understates how thoroughly integrated committees are within Congress's own ordinary legislative operation

Gerrymandering, a significant practice of drawing congressional and other legislative district boundaries substantially to favor a particular political party or incumbent, is historically notable primarily for:

- **A)** Substantially manipulating district boundaries, at times through significant techniques such as "packing" (concentrating opposing voters within a comparatively small number of districts) or "cracking" (dispersing opposing voters across multiple districts to dilute their own collective influence), to achieve a particular significant electoral advantage - gerrymandering illustrates a further significant example of how the practical process of periodic legislative redistricting could generate very considerable political controversy regarding electoral fairness
- **B)** Gerrymandering having no meaningful, describable relationship to significant district boundary manipulation, or the broader significant redistricting process already discussed at multiple points throughout this unit
- **C)** A practice that generates no meaningful political controversy of any kind, a characterization that significantly understates gerrymandering's own actual, well-documented very considerable political controversy
- **D)** A practice confined exclusively to a single specific political party, with no meaningful broader, bipartisan use of any kind, a characterization that understates gerrymandering's own actual, well-documented broader use by multiple political parties across different states and time periods

Considering the specific significant formal powers of the U.S. presidency, already enumerated within Article II of the Constitution, these significant formal powers are historically notable primarily for including:

- **A)** The presidency's own significant formal powers having no meaningful, describable relationship to significant constitutionally enumerated executive authority, or the broader significant separation of powers already discussed in an earlier unit
- **B)** Exclusive, unchecked authority over all significant federal governmental functions with no meaningful role for Congress or the judiciary of any kind, a characterization that directly contradicts the broader significant checks and balances system already discussed in an earlier unit
- **C)** Significant authority including serving as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, negotiating treaties (subject to Senate ratification already discussed in an earlier unit), and nominating federal judges and executive officials (subject to Senate confirmation already discussed in an earlier unit) - these significant formal powers illustrate a further significant example of how the Constitution grants the presidency considerable, if not unchecked, executive authority already discussed at multiple points throughout this unit
- **D)** A complete absence of any significant enumerated presidential authority of any kind, a characterization that directly contradicts the very significant, well-documented enumerated presidential authority already discussed at multiple points throughout this unit

Considering the specific significant informal powers of the U.S. presidency, distinct from the formal constitutional powers already discussed above, these significant informal powers are historically notable primarily for including:

- **A)** The presidency's own significant informal powers having no meaningful, describable relationship to significant practical presidential influence beyond formal constitutional authority, or the broader significant evolution of presidential power already discussed at multiple points throughout this unit
- **B)** Significant practical tools including executive orders (already discussed further below in this unit), the "bully pulpit" (using the presidency's own considerable public visibility to shape public opinion and pressure Congress), and considerable influence over the broader legislative agenda, even though these specific tools are not always explicitly enumerated within the Constitution's own formal text - these significant informal powers illustrate a further significant example of how presidential influence has evolved considerably beyond the Constitution's own specific formal textual provisions already discussed above
- **C)** A complete absence of any significant informal presidential influence of any kind beyond the Constitution's own explicit formal textual provisions, a characterization that significantly understates the very significant, well-documented informal presidential influence already discussed at multiple points throughout this unit
- **D)** Powers explicitly enumerated within Article II of the Constitution, a characterization that confuses these specific informal powers with the different, though related, formal constitutional powers already discussed above

Executive orders, a significant tool U.S. Presidents may use to direct federal governmental operations, are historically notable primarily for:

- **A)** Executive orders having no meaningful, describable relationship to significant unilateral presidential direction of federal governmental operations, or the broader significant informal presidential powers already discussed above
- **B)** Requiring formal congressional approval before taking effect, a characterization that directly contradicts executive orders' own actual, well-documented specific unilateral, rather than congressionally-approved, character
- **C)** Possessing formal constitutional status identical to legislation passed by Congress, a characterization that overstates executive orders' own actual, well-documented more limited legal status, generally subject to potential judicial review and, at times, reversal by a subsequent president or by new legislation
- **D)** Allowing the President to unilaterally direct federal governmental agencies and operations without requiring specific congressional legislative approval, substantially within the scope of the President's own existing constitutional or legislatively-delegated authority - executive orders illustrate a further significant example of the significant informal presidential powers already discussed above, even though they remain subject to potential judicial review and, at times, reversal by a subsequent president or new legislation