Political Parties (Lesson 2): A Sparknotes History 1788-1892

Anna Steinbrecher

Chicago, IL
September 15, 2012

Before you make fun of my juvenile drawing, let me just say that it is 10pm after a long day and I only made it to "Drawing 101" in my general education classes Freshman year. So if the gold stars still aren't distracting you, hopefully I can go on to talk about Political Parties. I'm doing this in two segments (1788-1892, 1892-Present) just so you guys don't have to scroll so much. 

Contrary to most conventional assumption, Americans did not just wake up one day and decide that they were going to have two political parties which would be capital-R Republicans or capital-D Democrats. In fact, if you talked to a Republican or Democrat about 60 years ago, chances are they would have very little in common with the party now. So why and how do political parties change? Well, political parties change because people change, lives change, beliefs change, and circumstances change. Ideologies, economics, religion, ethnic groups, technology and education have all shifted dramatically over America's past 200+ years, so it only makes sense that politicians and party platforms would change, too, to keep up with the pace. Politicians will need to adapt to the political climate to gain enough votes to win. You'll see this as we go on. 

I'm a big fan of history as a Political Science major. I think the more history you know - whether it's family history, cultural history, national history, whatever - the more enriched your world view tends to be. Also, as an avid reader, history can be told like a story and unfolds in narratives and sequences of events. The best way to understand the evolution of the political parties is to start at the beginning and work our way forward. So let's go back in time right after we gained our independence.

1788-1824: The First Party Systems (Federalists v. Anti-Federalists 

Member this guy? He's on the dollar bill. George Washington, having been one of the most successful generals in the American Revolutionary war, was elected unanimously in 1788 as the first President. However, one should be aware that at the time of the founding, there was a sharp debate about what the new government should look like, and if it weren't for George Washington's general esteem we may not have had a federal government. Cue our first two political parties...

THE FEDERALISTS                         THE ANTI-FEDERALISTS (Jeffersonians)

   

Surprised to see these two men on the opposite ends of the spectrum? Did you think that the Founding Fathers just sat around and had untaxed British Tea while brainstorming the new Republic?  I know we like to think of the Founding Fathers as a rough translation of the 12 Apostles - here to save the American continent and pave the way for righteous and egalitarian government - but it didn't exactly happen like that. No doubt they were all highly-educated and intelligent men, but there was a lot of difference in opinion among them. America has always had conflicting opinions about government and there was never a golden age of political consensus. Have I said that enough, yet? Sorry, I just get tired of romanticizing things without taking a realistic look at the circumstances and details.

Like I mentioned before in Lesson 1, America had a hard time trying to justify the creation of a unifying federal government. Alexander Hamilton (credited as the creator of the Federalist Party) wrote a series of essays called "The Federalist Papers" with fellow Founding Fathers James Madison (aka the man responsible for the Bill of Rights) and John Jay. The Federalist movement pushed the ratification of the Constitution and the formation of the new government, while the anti-Federalists (also called "Jeffersonians" ,or Democratic-Republicans, after political figurehead Thomas Jefferson) pushed for a more individualized state-by-state system. 

FEDERALISTS

• Majority from New England and the East
• Urban/Coastal
• Manufacturing and commerce
• Wanted strong currency and interstate commerce

ANTI-FEDERALISTS/JEFFERSONIANS/DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICANS

• Southern 
• Rural
• Concerned about economic prospects of the South 
• Special emphasis on Virginia (where Jefferson represented) which had a very large slave population

It should be emphasized that one of the major incentives for Hamilton to create such a strong national government was economic in nature. After the American Revolution, the country was broke, so-to-speak. Not to mention a lot of the men who had financed the war were among the political elite and wanted their money back. Alexander Hamilton proposed various economic programs to ensure that debts were paid off, and wanted a strong national currency to increase America's legitimacy.

The debate, for the most part, was silenced when Washington took office. Washington, although not self-identifying as a Federalist, was the unifying force within the system and often sympathized with the Federalist cause. He appointed Alexander Hamilton as the first Secretary of State, and after Washington left office, his Vice President John Adams won the President. Adams was a member of the Federalist party, as well.

But the conflict resurfaced during the third Presidential race between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. There was a shift of power during the election of 1800, often cited as "The Revolution of 1800". In this election, Jefferson and the Jeffersonians (Democratic-Republicans) beat out John Adams, causing a massive shift of power. A central debate among the two parties were issues relating to the support of the French Revolution (Jefferson in favor, Adams opposed) and the matter of centralized government (Jefferson opposed, Adams in favor). When Thomas Jefferson and the anti-Federalists took office, there was some strife that played out both in the political and private sphere (as a side note, this is where that important case Marbury v. Madison comes up for judicial review).
I'm sure everyone is familiar with political attack ads now, and we often think that things in politics get overheated and dramatic, but the political election of 1800 and some other elections afterwards got incredibly tense. Some arguably moreso than now. Could you imagine a candidate dying for some insulting remark they made about their opponent? Well that's what happened eventually with Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr in 1804. Aaron Burr was Thomas Jefferson's Vice President during Jefferson's first term and a fellow anti-Federalist until Jefferson decided not to choose Burr the next election. Cast out of the White House, Burr decided to run for governor of New York, instead. And lost. And blamed his loss on Federalist smear campaigns that attacked him. After his loss in New York, a scathing letter that Alexander Hamilton had written about Burr was published in the Albany Register calling him" "a dangerous man, and one who ought not be trusted with the reins of government". When Burr wrote Hamilton, who was still defending his honor from his recent sex scandal with Maria Reynolds at the time, asking him to recant his statements Hamilton refused and things escalated quickly. Burr eventually challenged Hamilton to a duel. Burr won, killing Hamilton, although his political career never recovered.

If you want a more incoherent, and definitely more entertaining, view of the story, check out "Drunk History's featuring Michael Cera as Alexander Hamilton...

Note: The fact that Hamilton chose not to shoot his first bullet (and lose) is widely debated. 

1828-1860: The Second Party Systems (Whigs v. Democrats)

This period can be seen as a transition into new political titles and a shift away from the first era of American Politics. Although the anti-Federalists had gone by many names (Jeffersonians/Democratic-Republicans), they eventually become just the "Democrats", although the new party looked slightly different. Likewise the Federalist party, experiencing a decline after Jefferson's election in 1800, gave way to the "Whigs". This era is also known as the "Jacksonian democracy" period (as opposed to the "Jeffersonian" democracy in the time before).

THE WHIGS                                         THE DEMOCRATS

The two pictures above are the two candidates from the election of 1828. Although the Whigs did not formally emerge until 1833, John Quincy Adams (NOT to be confused with the 2nd President mentioned above, John Adams) is seen to be one of the founders of the Whig movement. The name "Whig" is a reference to a common term during the American Revolution by American soldiers identifying themselves as opposed to the British monarchy. 

So let's look at the demographics for these two parties:

WHIGS

• New England
• Urban/Coastal
• Labor AND big business (later you have the Rockefellers & Carnegies in support)
• Protectionism*

DEMOCRATS

• Southern
• Frontier
• Farmers
• State's rights
• Free-trade and pro-slavery

If you look at those demographics, it is hard to imagine such huge tycoons in the same party as labor and in opposition of free-trade. But PROTECTIONISM was very popular in urban areas. This meant that through taxes and "tariffs", big business would have the upper hand and a monopoly on the market with politicians giving them preferential treatment to their outside competitors. If goods and products that were coming in from foreign territories were heavily taxed, it meant that the local businesses had a upper-hand in the game. Whigs were also in support of government infrastructure such as schools and railroads, so that meant large government contracts for big business if they were elected. Going down to the Southern states, farmers pushed for free-trade so that they could get a better deal economically when exporting or buying their goods. The period of Jacksonian democracy was ruled by the Democratic party until slavery became a heated topic towards the second half of the century.

1854-1892: The Third Party Systems (Republican/GOP v. Democrats)

Now we are starting to see some familiar names, right? After the Jacksonian era, dominated by the Democratic party, the political tides shifted again with a new hot-button issue arising: slavery. The Whigs transition into the Republican Party, and the Democrats stay the same except their support is fragmented in the North and South. Slavery had been a controversial issue from the get-go. As a VERY brief history of slavery in the United States let's look at the time line up until this point:
1619: First slaves arrive in Jamestown Virginia. Slavery was seen as a cheaper form of labor than the previous mode: indentured servitude from the lower-class European workers. Tobacco was a large slave industry, and later the invention of the cotton gin would solidify the economic reliance on the labor source.
1775-1783: During and after the American Revolution, Americans in the North who were not reliant on slavery were quick to get rid of it.
1781- Thomas Jefferson writes "Notes on the State of Virginia" in which he discusses theories of superiority and white supremacy. He asserted that nature had made whites superior in both beauty and intelligence, but his views on slavery were problematic and contradictory (oftentimes supporting and opposing different legislation in favor of abolition). Jefferson himself owned 175-225 slaves and lived in Virginia (one of the largest slave States in the colonies) and is believed to have fathered several children with his slave Sally Hemings.
1830s-1860s: The movement to abolish slavery picks up steam in the North, led by Frederick Douglass. The emergence of the "Underground Railroad" gives slaves shelter and provides the means for slaves to be transported to the Northern, free States.
1860s onward: Lincoln is elected. The Civil War begins.

THE REPUBLICANS (GOP)          THE DEMOCRATS        

THE SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS

This third period in American government was one of complete polarization and marked a shift in ideology yet again. This is also the time period in which the debate on slavery became potent, especially with the South quitting the Union and deciding that they wanted to form their own CONFEDERACY which would separate them entirely from the North.

The pictures above are from the 1860 election. The race was between Abraham Lincoln (Republican, former Whig), Steven A. Douglas (Northern Democrats) and John C. Breckinridge (Southern Democrats). With Lincoln winning, seven Southern states seceded (quit) and formed the Confederacy before Lincoln took office. In 1861, the Civil War began and the Union soldiers soon started battling the Confederate army. 

This is a a rough map of how the political parties and the opposition lined up during the war. The Confederate Army (Southern Democrats) was comprised of eleven states. I've actually tried to coordinate the map with the Army's uniform colors. 

As most Americans are aware, the North won and preserved the Union of the United States. This meant the abolition of slavery, but also the economic and political crippling of the South after the war which was "punished" by the North through RECONSTRUCTION. Lincoln was assassinated on April 15, 1865, only 6 days after General Robert E. Lee (commander of the Confederate Army) had officially surrendered to the Union Army.  

 And just for good measure, here is another "Drunk History" focusing on Frederick Douglass, a freed American slave and prominent African American intellectual who was central to the abolitionist movement against slavery. Featuring Will Ferrell as Abraham Lincoln, Don Cheadle as Frederick Douglass, and Zooey Deschanel as Mary Todd Lincoln...

General: Political Ideology

Anna Steinbrecher
Chicago, IL
September 17, 2012

If you get nothing else from these lessons, remember that politics can be roughly defined as the process of figuring out:
1. Who gets what 
2. When they get it 
3. How they will get it. 
Despite that fact, ideology comes into play in political debates almost every time. Putting aside notions of "right" and "wrong", let's just take a look at the various political ideologies and where the American public lines up. Below is a nice little chart I made on paint during my 9:40 class...

So there are many different ways that we can map this spectrum out. Some would argue that it is more of a loop than a straight line, but I think this is probably the easiest to comprehend. 

Let's start with the Conservative side because Liberal ideology actually emerges as a response to Conservative ideology and theory. 

Some defining characteristics of Conservative ideology is as follows:
-The belief in a Free Market economy
- and minimum government interference
Conservatives believe that the Free Market will allocate resources efficiently and increase wealth.

On the furthest right we have ANARCHY. Now some of you might assert that "fascism" is the furthest right on the spectrum, but that's not the case. Fascism actually manages to combine a lot of elements from both sides in a unique way (it actually has a lot of state and government authority). Anarchy would be the complete absence of government. That means no regulation, no enforcement of contracts, no common currency. This is what Thomas Hobbes described as "the state of nature". And despite what some punk rockers might assert, it's not pretty. 

Now as we move left on the spectrum keep in mind that we just are adding certain degrees of control and government interference. 

LIBERTARIANISM prefers as little government interference as possible. There are things like contract enforcement, property protection, and a government protection agency like the police, but beyond that libertarians want as little regulation as possible. 

Moving towards the far left let's take a look at Liberal Ideology. As stated before, the liberal movements grew somewhat as a response to conservative theory. 

On the furthest left we have TOTALITARIANISM which places complete control in the government's hands. Now even though there have been many countries that have had totalitarian-like regimes, the term is often misused. The problem with totalitarianism (among many other things) is that it is almost impossible to maintain. Maoist China is an example of a regime that might be asserted as totalitarian. The Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia would be another example. But these kinds of regimes are short-lived mainly because they are not sustainable. 

Next you have COMMUNISM which, again, has appeared almost nowhere in modern political society. Communism can be defined as the control of BOTH industry AND property by the government (a common order or group of people engaged in equal ownership). This means that everything belongs to everyone and no one, with the state acting as the mediating device. People often confuse socialism, communism, and totalitarianism, but what separates them is the amount of state control. 

SOCIALISM combines a lot of state-owned industries with the concept of private property. This means that a lot (if not all) of the industry will be regulated by the state, but private property still exists (you can still own land). Contrary to much rhetoric, President Obama is not a socialist and I would feel confident saying that over 90% of politicians out there are vehemently opposed to completely state-run industry.

PROS AND CONS OF EACH SIDE:
Conservatism: INEQUALITY
Conservatism makes no promises of equality. In fact, it pretty much guarantees that there will be none. There are going to be winners and losers in a free-market economy, which many people often see as unfair. People's abilities to succeed in conservative society often depend on external factors and opportunities, and the more wealthy one becomes (or is born) the more opportunities they will have. A common critique on conservative ideology from an economic standpoint is that those born into privilege will have to work less hard than those who are born into poverty who have the odds stacked against them. This is somewhat antithetical to the American belief that if one works hard one will be able to succeed, and even if one does succeed it is often on a sliding scale. 

Liberalism: LESS-INCENTIVE
Liberalism looked at conservatism and tried to correct for the inequality in society. In liberal theory, regulations and government programs were designed to make sure that people had equal access to resources (education, healthcare, etc.). The negative side effect to liberal programs is that as people start gaining more and more benefits from the government, their incentives to work goes down. This means that production in the countries will eventually go down if the labor force is not as motivated (economies like 20th century Russia have collapsed from this sort of inefficiency). 

So where is American government right now? 
Well it is somewhere in the middle of the two extremes. The Democrats and the Republicans now occupy two sides in-between socialism and libertarianism with the majority of the American public in the middle or CENTRIST position. This means that while most Americans love the benefits afforded by a capitalist economy, we also really like government programs like public education, medicare and social security (if you disagree, try running on a platform that argues against them and we'll talk after your very imminent political suicide). 

HOWEVER! It is important to know that right now, the United States is undergoing a period of dramatic (and if you're a Political Scientist, scary) POLARIZATION. 

Polarization occurs when the distance between the two parties increases (so in this case the Republicans and Democrats become less likely to compromise), and the distance within the parties themselves decreases (the party platforms and beliefs are more unified within the Democrats or the Republicans). Now in case one wonders what the natural extent of two extremely polarized political parties means, I will point to one case in American history: The Civil War. Increased polarization means an increased likelihood of conflict. 

The Federal Government (Lesson 1): An Introduction to the 3 Branches

Anna Steinbrecher

Chicago, IL
September 15, 2012


So, this will be your basic intro to American Politics for dummies, starting with those of you who are not familiar with the basic structures of American government. Whether it's because you have forgotten your 4th grade Social Studies class (I mean that was how many years ago?) or because you never actually had anyone sit down and lay these things out for you, this will give you a basic working knowledge of the branches and their functions. For anyone rolling your eyes, please, by all means go back to your multi-tabbed web JSTOR browser and your muted CSPAN...

American government was laid down in that glorious document we refer to as THE CONSTITUTION (somewhere an eagle is soaring through sun-lined clouds in slow motion), written in 1787 by the FOUNDING FATHERS. Sure, everyone knows that. And people are pretty familiar that at the end of the Constitution there is this nice document that everyone fights over called THE BILL OF RIGHTS, containing 10 amendments (changes or clarifications to the document) that came later. As a side note, there are, in fact, 27 amendments that have been made to the Constitution, however only the first ten make up the "Bill of Rights".

So what does the government look like? Well America has two things that can help distinguish itself from other countries: capitalism (economic) and democracy (political), which are not synonymous and are often times at odds with one another. America was founded on the ideas of "liberalism" which grew out of a few major historical events (not to be confused with being a "liberal"/progressive). Before some of these big events - the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, the Protestant Reformation and the French Revolution - government was mainly monarchies and authoritarian regimes which governed feudal and agrarian societies of poor and uneducated citizens. After some political and religious turmoil (killed a few monarchs, had a few wars, fought with the Catholic church), we got a lot of people sitting down and talking about people's fundamental rights as human beings. The Founding Fathers drew from a number of political and philosophical sources - namely the works of JOHN LOCKE, THOMAS HOBBES, and other LIBERAL THEORISTS - to create a society which they envisioned would place the rights of the people in their own hands (just which people they included is a matter of debate and controversy, see SLAVERY, THE TRAIL OF TEARS and SUFFRAGE MOVEMENT). But that's the quick precursor paragraph refreshment. Now let's take a look at how things played out with the formation of government...

Let's first take a look at the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches.

The Federal Government is usually the sector that people are the most familiar with because it is the most recognizable on the national scale. Its level of power is also the source of a lot of debate and has been for quite some time. In fact, at the time the Constitution was being written and ratified, three of the Founding Fathers had to publish a series of essays defending the newly formed government (these 85 essays are known as "The FEDERALIST PAPERS").

According to the Constitution, the Federal Government is laid out into three distinct sectors in order to provide a system of "checks and balances". Now it is a common thing in the United States for voters such as you and I to complain about the level of inefficiency that goes on in the government (the whole "why can't we just all get along" approach), but if you read on I think you will find that not only was the country designed that way, but it was done so deliberately. To quote one of my Professors: "Conflict is embedded in our government because there is conflict in American society" (Wayne Steger, De Paul University). Which means that if there is argument and disagreement in government, it is only because our country is incredibly diverse and the government is a reflection of that.

So let's start with the one that everyone is probably the most familiar with:
The Executive Branch (4 year term).
The Executive Branch is made up of:

• President, 
• Vice President
• and the subsequent cabinet members who are delegated power within that branch.  There are a lot of departments within the Executive Branch. For a full list of them, see EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS.

For roughly the next two months and the past four years, as most people would know (I hope), Barack Obama is our 44th President with Joe Biden acting as our Vice President. A President can sign or veto (reject) legislation enacted by Congress. In addition the President acts as the chief diplomat to foreign countries and is also the "Commander-in-Chief" of the United States Armed Forces (Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and the Coast Guard) which means that the President has the primary deciding role in military policy (with the exception of declaring war, arguably). Presidents can also issue "pardons" and write "signing statements" on legislature.

The Legislative Branch (terms vary)
The Legislative Branch is often referred to as "Congress" and is made up of:

• The US House of Representatives (2 year term, 435 members)
• The US Senate (6 year term, 100 members)
• In total=535 members

The US House of Representatives is currently made up of elected "congressmen" or "congresswomen" and are elected by "districts". There are A LOT of representatives (currently 435) because each representative is supposed to be assigned to an equal amount of voters (approximately 600,000 by current standards). Ever wonder why states have such funny district lines? It is because the population isn't equally dispersed in density. Cities like Chicago and New York will not only have more districts, but they will also be smaller because there are more people concentrated in one area. More dispersed or rural areas like Southern Illinois will have larger district boundaries to capture the needed 600,000 voters. The shape of the district lines are a matter of more complex issues, including "gerrymandering", but we can get to that topic at a later date. Each member of Congress serves a total of two years before they have to run for re-election. We will discuss the implications of the election terms in the section following this one, aptly named: The Federal Government (Lesson 2): The Implications of the Federal Government Structure.

Here is a great site where you can browse and find your own representative on a map just by typing in the state or zip code you'd like.

The US Senate is comparatively smaller to the House of Representatives, holding a fixed membership of 100 (2 for each state). You will hear the word "constituency" a lot in political terminology, which is just a nice way of saying the targeted audience, or voter. For a Congress member, their constituency is their district. For a Senator, their constituency is their state. And for a President...well, their constituency is the entire country, more or less. Senators have the second longest term in federal government, other than the members of the Judicial Branch. Their terms are 6 years long, but instead of having elections for the entire Senate every 6 years the elections are spaced out so that approximately 1/3 of the Senate is up for election every two years.

Both the House and Senate are in charge of passing legislature. They are the ones that have the power to tax, the power to regulate commerce, to declare war, to establish courts outside of the Supreme Court, to establish post offices and copyright laws, and much more. Congressional power is often referred to as "the power of the purse strings" due to their heavy influence on monetary legislature and regulation.

Within both the House and the Senate, there are quite a long list of committees and subcommittees. Basically, the members are divided up and placed on a specific area of focus. For example: Paul Ryan, who is the Republican nominee for Vice President this election season, is the chairman of the House Budget Committee. Can anyone guess what the House Budget Committee does? Surprise, surprise, it oversees, monitors and regulates the federal budget. For a full list of the committees in both sectors of Congress, click here.

In addition to the committees, one might also hear about "majority" and "minority" within the House or the Senate. Let's take a look at some pretty pictures...

Source: Wikipedia

Each dot represents a member of the US House of Representatives, with the red symbolizing the Republican Party and the blue representing the Democratic Party. Currently from last election cycle (2010), the Republican Party has control as the House majority.

Source: Wikipedia

Likewise, here is a map of the US Senate. Currently there are 53 Democrats (2 Independents that caucus with the Dems) in the Senate and 47 Republicans, giving the Democrats the Senate majority.

The advantages gained and behaviors exhibited by Congressional majorities is something we'll discuss in the next chapter, too. For now just safely assume that depending on which party you're in, it is better to have more voting power in a majority to a certain extent (there are safeguards and political ramifications to protect against tyrannical party "bullying" from the majority).

The Judicial Branch 

(IT4L, or for those who don't speak acronyms: the "in this for life" club)
The Judiciary section of the Federal government is comprised of the Supreme Court. There are 9 appointed "Justices" who all serve tenure once they have been appointed by the President (with a little advisement and consent from the Senate). For those of you who may not know the Justices, here is a list of our current Supreme Court members:

• Justice Elena Kagan (Obama Administration 2010-current)
• Justice Sonya Sotomayor (Obama Administration, 2009-current)
• Chief Justice John Roberts (Bush Jr. Administration, 2005-current) *remember him when we talk about healthcare
• Justice Samuel A. Alito (Bush Jr. Administration, 2001-current)
• Justice Stephen G. Breyer (Clinton Administration, 1994-current)
• Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Clinton Administration, 1993-current)
• Justice Clarence Thomas (Bush Sr. Administration, 1991-current)
• Justice Anthony Kennedy (Reagan Administration, 1988-current)
• Justice Antonin Scalia (Reagan Administration, 1986-current)

Whereas the Legislative and Executive Branch have a lot of power to enact laws, the Judicial Branch has a lot of power of interpretation. More so than many other countries, in fact. If you are ever in a room full of American lawyers, try mentioning the Supreme Court case Marbury vs. Madison (1803) and talk a lot about how much you just love "judicial review". As a quick summary, Marbury v. Madison was the case that really made sure the Judicial Branch was not just the "dumb cousin" in the federal government. Through the case, the courts were then able to declare legislation "void" or "unconstitutional", a sort of legislative back-tracking process that further put pressures on the Legislative and Executive bodies. Judicial Review allows courts to examine the Constitutionality of a statute and strike down the document if they find it conflicts with the law (Um, hello? Healthcare debates, anyone? Civil Rights?). If you are ever in Washington D.C. and make it to  the Supreme Court Building there is a plaque in place that contains the quote "It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judiciary Department to say what the law is", which comes from the Marbury v. Madison decision. Okay, enough nerding out on case-law. 

It takes a lot for a case to make it to the Supreme Court, and there are very few cases heard every year. Once a case reaches the court, they will eventually issue the majority "opinion" which is written by an appointed Justice. Opinions are usually pretty lengthy (and really boring if you are a undergrad in Constitutional Law reading them at 3am) explanations that contain a lot of lawyer-words like "jurisprudence" and "so-and-so clause" telling why the court reached the decision they did. Oftentimes other Justices will tack-on other opinions where they might want to add in their two cents (whether it's in agreement, disagreement, or clarification). If you ever want to get a brief glimpse into the life of a law student or just want to make your eyes bleed for the next 20-30 minutes, you can take a crack at the Court's recent opinion on Arizona's S.B 1070 . 

Once Justices are in, they're in for life. This is because they are supposed to be the sector of government most removed from public opinion and political persuasion. Of course no system is perfect (and everyone has their biases), but the goal is to make them objective. 

Okay, feeling any better yet? Did you know most of this? Are you completely overwhelmed? Take a little bit to process and then check back for our next lesson on what the structure of government means for political behavior and outcomes.