Exam-style question
Try this first
Which factor deserves greatest weight when evaluating media attitudes public opinion — constraints on presidential power, including formal checks and balances, congressional party support, the Supreme Court, media attitudes and public opinion? Use the relevant political concepts and evidence from The executive branch of government President.
- A.Define judicial power and independence, compare the UK and USA through the UK Supreme Court interprets law within parliamentary sovereignty, whereas the US Supreme Court can invalidate legislation that conflicts with the codified Constitution, test evidence, then judge how far constitutional foundations alter judicial power, appointments and political impact.
- B.Define judicial power and independence, then write two separate country descriptions with no connection.
- C.Start with a judgement and omit the institutional evidence.
- D.Assume the two Supreme Courts possess identical strike-down powers and avoid evaluating the difference.
Model answer
What a good answer should say
- The correct answer is Define judicial power and independence, compare the UK and USA through the UK Supreme Court interprets law within parliamentary sovereignty, whereas the US Supreme Court can invalidate legislation that conflicts with the codified Constitution, test evidence, then judge how far constitutional foundations alter judicial power, appointments and political impact.
Explanation
Why this works
Define judicial power and independence, compare the UK and USA through the UK Supreme Court interprets law within parliamentary sovereignty, whereas the US Supreme Court can invalidate legislation that conflicts with the codified Constitution, test evidence, then judge how far constitutional foundations alter judicial power, appointments and political impact. This is correct because the structure links AO1 knowledge, AO2 comparison and AO3 judgement to judicial power and independence.
Apply judicial review, parliamentary sovereignty, constitutional supremacy, appointments, tenure, precedent and rights adjudication precisely. the UK Supreme Court interprets law within parliamentary sovereignty, whereas the US Supreme Court can invalidate legislation that conflicts with the codified Constitution.
A structural viewpoint emphasises formal rules; however, a rational or cultural viewpoint may explain how actors use those rules. Overall, judge the evidence from a named ruling, appointment process, constitutional provision or institutional conflict and explain whether constitutional foundations alter judicial power, appointments and political impact for "Analyse and evaluate constraints on presidential power, including formal checks and balances, congressional party support, the Supreme Court, media attitudes and public opinion.".
Common mistake
No common mistake is linked to this question yet.