Notes · PoliticsUK · A-Levels

The US Constitution and Federalism

The US Constitution of 1787 is a codified, entrenched, supreme law built on the separation of powers, checks and balances and federalism. This topic examines its nature and principles, the deliberately difficult amendment process, its strengths and weaknesses, the federal division of powers, and how federalism has developed and remains contested.

5 sections~23 min reading time3 competenciesLevel Foundation 1 · Standard 2 · Advanced 2

T·131313 / 18

Exam profile

AO1 · Demonstrate knowledge of the nature, principles, amendment process and federalism of the US ConstitutionAO2 · Analyse how the constitutional principles distribute and check power and how federalism has evolvedAO3 · Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the Constitution and the state of federalism, reaching a substantiated judgement

Operators:explain and analyseevaluateto what extentanalyse and evaluate this statementexamine

basic level

AS-Level expects the principles of the Constitution and the basics of federalism.

higher level

The full A-Level requires sustained evaluation of the codified constitution and of the changing federal-state balance, reaching a judgement.

Depth

Text

Contents · 5 sections

The US Constitution and Federalism

The nature and principles of the US Constitution#

FoundationAQA 7152/2: The US Constitution and federalismDfE GCE Politics subject content

Separation of powers and checks and balances

Fig. 1The three branches are separate but check and balance one another, so that power is fragmented and cooperation is forced.

The US Constitution, drawn up at the Philadelphia Convention in 1787, is the supreme law of the United States and stands in deliberate contrast to the UK's uncodified constitution. It is codified - its fundamental rules are gathered into a single, authoritative written document; entrenched - it is protected by a special, difficult amendment procedure and cannot be changed by ordinary legislation; and supreme - it is the 'higher law' against which all other laws and government actions are tested, so that a law or action found to conflict with it can be struck down. Understanding these three features - codified, entrenched, supreme - and how they differ from the UK arrangement is the foundation for everything that follows.

The Constitution was shaped by the framers' central fear: tyranny, whether of a single ruler or of an overbearing government. To guard against it they built in the principle of the separation of powers, dividing government into three separate branches - the legislature (Congress), the executive (the President) and the judiciary (the courts) - each with its own personnel and its own sphere, so that no single branch could accumulate all power. This drew on the theory that concentrated power is dangerous and that liberty is best protected by dispersing it, and it is the structural heart of the American system, in sharp contrast to the UK's fusion of the executive and legislature.

The separation of powers is reinforced by a system of checks and balances, which is the principle that most repays careful understanding. Rather than keeping the branches wholly separate, the Constitution gives each branch some power to limit and check the others, so that the branches are interdependent and must cooperate. Congress makes law but the President can veto it, and Congress can override the veto; the President appoints officials and judges and makes treaties, but the Senate must confirm appointments and ratify treaties; the courts can declare the actions of Congress and the President unconstitutional, but the President appoints judges and the Senate confirms them, and Congress controls the courts' structure and can impeach judges. Each branch is thus checked by the others, forcing negotiation and preventing any one from dominating.

Two further principles complete the framework. Federalism divides power between the national (federal) government and the states, so that power is dispersed not only between branches (horizontally) but between levels of government (vertically) - a further guard against concentrated power. And limited government - the idea that government's powers are defined and restrained by the Constitution, including the protection of individual rights in the Bill of Rights - ensures that government may do only what the Constitution authorises. Together, the separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism and limited government form an interlocking system designed to fragment and restrain power in order to protect liberty - the defining logic of the US Constitution, and the source of both its strengths (protection against tyranny) and its weaknesses (the potential for gridlock).

Worked example

How checks and balances prevent tyranny

Explain how the system of checks and balances prevents any one branch from dominating.

Legislative checks
Congress makes law, controls the budget, confirms appointments and ratifies treaties (Senate), and can impeach and remove the President and judges.
Executive checks
The President can veto legislation, appoints judges and officials, and directs foreign and military policy - checking Congress and shaping the judiciary.
Judicial checks
The courts can declare the actions of Congress and the President unconstitutional (judicial review), checking both elected branches.
The effect
Because each branch can block or limit the others, none can act alone on major matters - power is fragmented and cooperation is forced, guarding against tyranny.

Result: Checks and balances give each branch powers to limit the others - Congress's override and impeachment, the President's veto and appointments, the courts' judicial review - so that no branch can dominate and major action requires cooperation, the framers' safeguard against tyranny.

Typical mistakes

Confusing the separation of powers (separate branches) with checks and balances (each branch limiting the others) - they are related but distinct.
Treating the Constitution as merely 'written' - its key features are that it is codified, entrenched AND supreme.

Active revision

Explain and analyse three principles of the US Constitution. (9 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for politics (Department for Education)

The amendment process (Article V)#

StandardAQA 7152/2: The US Constitution and federalismDfE GCE Politics subject content

The Article V amendment process

Fig. 2Amendment requires a supermajority to propose and a larger supermajority to ratify - deliberately difficult, so the text rarely changes.

Because the Constitution is entrenched, it can be changed only through the special, deliberately demanding procedure set out in Article V, and knowing this procedure precisely is essential. Amendment is a two-stage process of proposal and ratification, and there are two routes at each stage. An amendment can be PROPOSED either by a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress (the route used for every amendment so far) or by a national constitutional convention called by two-thirds of the states (never used). It must then be RATIFIED either by the legislatures of three-quarters of the states or by conventions in three-quarters of the states. The supermajorities required at every stage - two-thirds to propose, three-quarters to ratify - make amendment extremely difficult.

The difficulty of the process is deliberate and has major consequences. The framers wanted the Constitution to be stable and above the reach of transient majorities or a single branch, so they set the bar for formal change very high - an amendment needs broad, cross-party and cross-state agreement that is hard to achieve. As a result, the Constitution has been amended only a small number of times in over two centuries, and most proposed amendments fail. The first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, were added soon after ratification to protect individual liberties (such as freedom of speech and religion and the right to a fair trial), and later amendments have addressed matters such as the abolition of slavery, the extension of the vote, and the structure of government - but such changes are rare and hard-won.

The rigidity of the formal amendment process is balanced by other, informal ways in which the Constitution's meaning changes, and a strong answer notes them. The most important is interpretation by the Supreme Court: because the Constitution is often expressed in broad, general language, the Court's rulings on what it means can, in effect, update the Constitution without any change to its text - the meaning of the same words evolving as the Court interprets them for new circumstances. Constitutional meaning also develops through practice and precedent, and through the growth of institutions the framers did not foresee. So while the TEXT changes rarely, its MEANING and application evolve continuously through judicial interpretation.

The amendment process is therefore central to evaluating the Constitution, and it can be argued both ways. Its defenders argue that the difficulty of amendment protects fundamental rights and the structure of government from being swept away by temporary majorities or partisan advantage, giving stability and continuity, and that the required supermajorities ensure that lasting change reflects a broad national consensus. Its critics argue that the process is so difficult that the Constitution has become rigid and hard to update, so that changes widely thought desirable cannot be made, and that this throws too much weight onto the unelected Supreme Court, which effectively amends the Constitution through interpretation - transferring a democratic function to judges. A good answer can explain the process precisely and weigh this trade-off between stability and rigidity, which recurs in the evaluation of the codified constitution.

Worked example

Why the Constitution is so rarely amended

Explain why the US Constitution has been formally amended so few times.

The supermajorities
Amendment requires two-thirds of both houses of Congress to propose and three-quarters of the states to ratify - very high thresholds.
The need for consensus
These supermajorities demand broad, cross-party and cross-state agreement, which is hard to achieve on contested questions.
The deliberate design
The framers wanted stability and to place the Constitution above transient majorities, so they made change deliberately difficult.
The alternative route
Because formal amendment is so hard, constitutional change instead flows largely through Supreme Court interpretation of the existing text.

Result: The Constitution is rarely amended because Article V's supermajorities demand a broad national consensus that is hard to achieve - a deliberate design for stability - so constitutional change flows mainly through Supreme Court interpretation rather than formal amendment.

Typical mistakes

Muddling the proposal and ratification thresholds (two-thirds to propose, three-quarters to ratify) or the two routes at each stage.
Forgetting that the Constitution's MEANING changes through Supreme Court interpretation even though its TEXT rarely changes.

Active revision

Explain and analyse three features of the constitutional amendment process. (9 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: AQA AS and A-level Politics (7152) specification (AQA)

The strengths and weaknesses of the codified constitution#

AdvancedAQA 7152/2: The US Constitution and federalismDfE GCE Politics subject content

The codified constitution: strengths and weaknesses

Fig. 3The Constitution's fragmentation and entrenchment protect liberty and rights but also produce gridlock and rigidity - two sides of one design.

Evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the codified, entrenched US Constitution is a classic essay, and the same features can be read as strengths or as weaknesses depending on what one values - which is the key to a balanced answer. The principal strengths are protection and stability. By entrenching the fundamental rules and rights in a supreme law that ordinary government cannot change, the Constitution protects individual rights (through the Bill of Rights) and the structure of limited government against encroachment by a transient majority or an over-mighty branch. Its clarity gives certainty - citizens, officials and courts can know what the Constitution requires - and its stability has given the United States a continuous constitutional order for over two centuries, adapting through interpretation while retaining its framework.

The separation of powers and checks and balances are a further strength, guarding against tyranny. By fragmenting power between three branches and two levels of government, and by requiring the branches to check and cooperate with one another, the Constitution makes it very hard for any individual or faction to seize control, protecting liberty from concentrated power. Federalism disperses power further and allows diversity between the states. For its defenders, this elaborate fragmentation of power is the Constitution's genius - a machine deliberately designed so that ambition checks ambition and no one can rule alone.

The weaknesses are, in large part, the same features seen from the other side. The very fragmentation of power that guards against tyranny also produces gridlock: because major action requires the agreement of separate, independent branches (and often of both chambers of Congress and the President), government can be paralysed when the branches disagree - especially under divided government, when different parties control the presidency and Congress - so that necessary decisions are blocked and government appears unable to act. The entrenchment that protects rights also produces rigidity: the Constitution is very hard to amend, so provisions widely thought outdated or defective cannot easily be changed, and the burden of updating it falls on the unelected Supreme Court.

Two further weaknesses complete the critique and can be weighed in a judgement. First, the difficulty of formal amendment and the breadth of constitutional language give the unelected Supreme Court enormous power to determine the Constitution's meaning, which critics see as undemocratic - a 'juristocracy' in which nine unelected judges effectively make constitutional law. Second, the fragmentation and the protection of state and minority interests can produce a 'tyranny of the minority', in which a determined minority (in the Senate, or through the amendment veto of a few states) can block the will of the national majority. Reaching a judgement means recognising that the Constitution's strengths and weaknesses are two sides of the same design: the fragmentation and entrenchment that protect liberty and rights are the same features that produce gridlock, rigidity and minority obstruction. A defensible conclusion is that the Constitution remains a remarkable and enduring safeguard of liberty and rights, but that its capacity for gridlock and its rigidity are real and growing costs - so that whether one judges it a success depends on whether one prizes the protection of liberty against government over the capacity of government to act. The essential skill is to argue this trade-off to a clear conclusion.

Worked example

Model essay plan: do the Constitution's strengths outweigh its weaknesses?

Plan a 25-mark answer evaluating whether the strengths of the US Constitution outweigh its weaknesses.

Introduction and thesis
Note that the same features are strengths and weaknesses; signal a judgement - it remains a remarkable safeguard of liberty but at a growing cost in gridlock. Frame the trade-off.
The strengths
Entrenched rights and limited government; clarity and certainty; two centuries of stability; separation of powers and checks and balances guard against tyranny; federalism disperses power.
The weaknesses
Fragmentation produces gridlock under divided government; entrenchment produces rigidity; the unelected Supreme Court effectively updates the Constitution; the risk of minority obstruction ('tyranny of the minority').
Two sides of one design
The fragmentation and entrenchment that protect liberty are the same features that produce gridlock and rigidity - so the judgement turns on what one values.
Judgement
Conclude that the Constitution remains an enduring safeguard of liberty and rights, but that its capacity for gridlock and rigidity are real, growing costs - so whether its strengths outweigh its weaknesses depends on prizing protection from government over the capacity to govern.

Result: A top-band plan shows that the Constitution's fragmentation and entrenchment are simultaneously its strengths (protection from tyranny, stable rights) and its weaknesses (gridlock, rigidity, minority obstruction), and judges that it remains a remarkable safeguard of liberty whose costs in gridlock are real and growing - a conclusion turning on whether one prizes protection from government or the capacity to govern.

Typical mistakes

Listing strengths and weaknesses as unrelated, missing that they are two sides of the same design (fragmentation and entrenchment).
Failing to reach a judgement - the essay rewards a clear line on whether the protection of liberty outweighs the costs of gridlock and rigidity.

Active revision

'The strengths of the US Constitution outweigh its weaknesses.' Analyse and evaluate this statement. (25 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for politics (Department for Education)

Federalism: the division of powers#

StandardAQA 7152/2: The US Constitution and federalismDfE GCE Politics subject content

The federal division of powers

Fig. 4The Constitution divides power into federal (enumerated/implied), state (reserved) and concurrent powers shared by both levels.

Federalism is the division of sovereignty between a national (federal) government and the state governments, each with its own guaranteed sphere of authority, and it is fundamental to the American system in a way that distinguishes it sharply from the UK. Unlike UK devolution, where power is granted by a sovereign Parliament and can in law be reclaimed, in a true federal system the powers of both levels are entrenched in the Constitution, so that neither the federal government nor the states can abolish the other - the states have a constitutionally guaranteed existence. This entrenched, two-level division of power is a further way, alongside the separation of powers, in which the Constitution fragments and disperses authority to guard against tyranny.

The Constitution distributes powers among several categories that a good answer can name. Enumerated (or delegated) powers are those specifically granted to the federal government (for example, to coin money, declare war, and regulate interstate commerce). Implied powers are those the federal government may exercise as reasonably necessary to carry out its enumerated powers, derived from the 'necessary and proper' clause - a source of the expansion of federal power. Reserved powers are those not given to the federal government nor denied to the states, which the Tenth Amendment reserves to the states or the people - the constitutional basis of states' rights. Concurrent powers are those exercised by both levels (such as taxation). This categorisation frames the constant negotiation over where authority lies.

The Tenth Amendment and the tension it embodies are central to the topic. By reserving to the states all powers not delegated to the federal government, the Tenth Amendment enshrines the principle that the states retain a wide, guaranteed sphere of authority and that the federal government is one of limited, enumerated powers. Yet the 'necessary and proper' clause and the commerce clause have been interpreted to allow a large expansion of federal power over time, so that the practical balance between the levels has shifted well beyond what a strict reading of the Tenth Amendment might suggest. The relationship between these constitutional provisions - the reserved powers of the states versus the implied and commerce powers of the federal government - is the legal terrain on which the federal-state balance is fought out.

Federalism is more than a legal division; it shapes the whole character of American government and politics, which is why it recurs across the USA topics. It allows diversity between the states (which can pursue different policies on many matters, acting as 'laboratories of democracy'), brings some government closer to the people, and disperses power as a further check on the centre. It also produces complexity, variation and conflict - fifty states with their own laws, and continual disputes over the proper boundary between federal and state authority, many of them settled by the Supreme Court. Understanding the categories of power, the Tenth Amendment, and the entrenched, guaranteed character of the states' position is the basis for analysing how federalism has developed and why it remains one of the most contested features of American politics.

Worked example

Why US federalism differs from UK devolution

Explain the key difference between US federalism and UK devolution.

US federalism
The powers of both the federal government and the states are entrenched in the codified Constitution; the states have a constitutionally guaranteed existence and sphere.
The Tenth Amendment
Powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states, so the states' authority does not depend on the centre's permission.
UK devolution
Devolved powers are granted by an Act of a sovereign Parliament, which retains the legal right to amend, reclaim or abolish them.
The consequence
US states cannot be abolished by the federal government (entrenched); UK devolved bodies exist at the pleasure of a sovereign Parliament (statutory).

Result: US federalism entrenches the states' powers in the Constitution, so the states are constitutionally guaranteed and cannot be abolished by the centre, whereas UK devolved powers are granted by a sovereign Parliament that could in law reclaim them - the difference between a true federation and quasi-federal devolution.

Typical mistakes

Confusing federalism (entrenched, guaranteed two-level division) with UK devolution (statutory, reclaimable).
Muddling the categories of power - enumerated (granted), implied (necessary and proper), reserved (Tenth Amendment, states), concurrent (both).

Active revision

Explain and analyse three features of the federal division of powers in the USA. (9 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: AQA AS and A-level Politics (7152) specification (AQA)

The development of federalism and contemporary debates#

AdvancedAQA 7152/2: The US Constitution and federalismDfE GCE Politics subject content

The development of federalism

Fig. 5The federal-state balance has shifted over time - from dual (separate spheres) towards cooperative and coercive federalism - and remains contested.

Although the Constitution's text on federalism has changed little, the practical balance between the federal government and the states has shifted enormously over time, and a strong answer can trace this development through recognisable phases. In the early republic the dominant model is often called 'dual federalism' - a conception of the two levels as operating in separate, clearly divided spheres, like a 'layer cake', with the federal government confined to its enumerated powers and the states dominant in most domestic matters. This reflected a limited federal government and a strong assertion of states' rights, and it broadly prevailed through the nineteenth and into the early twentieth century.

The twentieth century saw a decisive expansion of federal power, producing 'cooperative federalism'. Driven by the economic crisis of the Great Depression and the response to it, by industrialisation and a national economy, by war, and by the civil-rights era, the federal government took on far greater responsibilities, and the two levels came to work together (and the federal government to fund and direct state activity) across many policy areas - a 'marble cake' in which the levels are intermingled rather than separate. The federal government used its spending power and grants (with conditions attached) to shape state policy, and its authority expanded through broad interpretations of the commerce and 'necessary and proper' clauses. This long expansion of the centre is the dominant trend of the modern era.

Later developments show the balance being contested and partly reversed, which a good answer notes. From the later twentieth century there were efforts to return power and responsibility to the states - sometimes called 'new federalism' - through devolving programmes and giving states more discretion, reflecting a political reaction against the growth of Washington. At the same time the federal government has continued to expand into new areas and at times to impose requirements on the states (sometimes called 'coercive federalism', where federal mandates and conditions compel state action). The balance has thus oscillated, pushed by economic circumstances, crises, party control and ideology, rather than moving in a single direction.

Federalism remains one of the most contested features of American politics, and the contemporary debate is the evaluative pay-off. Because federalism entrenches a division of power that the Constitution leaves partly open to interpretation, the proper boundary between federal and state authority is continually fought over - in Congress, in the states, and above all in the Supreme Court, whose interpretations of the commerce clause and the Tenth Amendment have repeatedly redrawn the line. The debate has a strong partisan and ideological dimension: conservatives have tended to champion states' rights and a smaller federal government, while liberals have more often looked to federal power to secure national standards and rights - so that federalism maps onto deep divisions over the size and role of government. Evaluating federalism today means recognising that the long-term trend has been towards a much stronger federal government than the framers envisaged, that this expansion has been real but contested and partly reversed, and that the federal-state balance remains genuinely unsettled and politically charged - a living constitutional question rather than a fixed division. The strongest answers trace the development, explain the causes of the shifts, and reach a judgement about where the balance now lies and why it remains contested.

Worked example

Explaining the expansion of federal power

Explain why the federal government has become far more powerful than the framers envisaged.

Economic crisis and response
The Great Depression prompted a vast expansion of federal activity, with the centre taking responsibility for the economy and welfare - shifting from dual to cooperative federalism.
A national economy and society
Industrialisation, a national market and modern communications made many problems national in scale, drawing the federal government in.
The spending power and grants
The federal government used grants (with conditions) to shape state policy across many areas, extending its reach through funding.
Supreme Court interpretation
Broad readings of the commerce and 'necessary and proper' clauses legitimised the expansion of federal authority.

Result: Federal power expanded far beyond the framers' design because economic crises, a national economy, the federal spending power and broad Supreme Court interpretations of the commerce and necessary-and-proper clauses shifted the balance from dual towards cooperative and coercive federalism - a real but contested transformation.

Typical mistakes

Treating federalism as a fixed division rather than a balance that has shifted (mostly towards the federal government) and remains contested.
Ignoring the role of the Supreme Court and of party/ideology in redrawing the federal-state line.

Active revision

Evaluate the view that federalism in the USA has been transformed since the Constitution was written. (25 marks)

Active recall

Recall the key points — then reveal.

Sources: GCE AS and A level subject content for politics (Department for Education)

References & sources

Sources

Department for Education

GCE AS and A level subject content for politics

AQA

AQA AS and A-level Politics (7152) specification

The US Constitution and Federalism

5 sections~23 min reading time3 competenciesLevel Foundation 1 · Standard 2 · Advanced 2

The US Constitution and Federalism

Key points

How checks and balances prevent tyranny

Key points

Why the Constitution is so rarely amended

Key points

Model essay plan: do the Constitution's strengths outweigh its weaknesses?

Key points

Why US federalism differs from UK devolution

Key points

Explaining the expansion of federal power

Sources

The US Constitution and Federalism

Key points

How checks and balances prevent tyranny

Key points

Why the Constitution is so rarely amended

Key points

Model essay plan: do the Constitution's strengths outweigh its weaknesses?

Key points

Why US federalism differs from UK devolution

Key points

Explaining the expansion of federal power

Sources