Practice Final 2025

 The following will give you an idea of the format of the final exam. As you prepare, also reread the air midterm:  https://gov20h.blogspot.com/2025/10/air-midterm-2025.html

I. Briefly identify 12 of 14 items (4 points each). Explain each item's meaning and significance. What is fair game for an identification?

• Items that we have discussed in class or on the blog;
• Items that appear in bold or italics in the readings;
• Items that cover several pages in the readings.

1. Democratic memos
2. Original application and original sense
3. Partisan trifectas
4. Article II
5. The jury “as a political institution”
6. Majority faction
7. The 10th Amendment
8. The Creationism Act
9. Transactional politics
10. The exclusionary rule
11. Timothy Matlack
12. Upton Sinclair and EPIC
13. Michele Bachmann
14. The nuclear freeze

II. Short essays. Answer three of four. Each answer should take about half a page. (6 points each).

• Briefly explain the origin and meaning of this passage: “[O]f those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.” 
• Explain the differences among PIE, PO, PIG, and POG.
• Explain the origin and meaning of this passage: "Whenever possible, go outside the experience of the enemy."
• What does Mike Madrid say about Latinx?

III. Answer two of three essay questions (17 points each). Each answer should take about 2-3 large bluebook pages or 3-4 small bluebook pages.

• How would Tocqueville explain why a case such as Edwards v. Aguillard came to the Supreme Court?
• See this article [below].  Why did the witness invoke Madison and Hamilton?  What would supporters and opponents of the president say to these Founders? 
• In certain ways, do Texas and California depart from their red- state/blue-state stereotypes?  Explain.

Bonus Questions (one point each). Very briefly identify the following:

Robert F. Prevost

Robert Bonta

Kevin Roberts

Robert Yandow

Robert Garcia

=====================

Harvard Law Prof. Noah Feldman's testimony during Wednesday's impeachment hearing took a turn for the mystical Wednesday afternoon, when he seemed to claim that impeaching President Trump was necessary so that lawmakers would be able to answer to Alexander Hamilton and James Madison when they bump into them in the afterlife.

Feldman was fielding questions from attorney Norm Eisen, who questioned witnesses at the behest of House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., when he claimed that Trump's actions were exactly what the framers of the Constitution forewarned.

HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING ON TRUMP IMPEACHMENT: LIVE UPDATES

"It's very unusual for the framers' predictions to come true that precisely, and when they do we have to ask ourselves. Some day, we will no longer be alive, and we will go wherever it is we go, the good place or the other place, and we may meet there Madison and Hamilton," Feldman suggested. "And they will ask us, 'When the president of the United States acted to corrupt the structure of the republic, what did you do?' And our answer to that question must be that we followed the guidance of the framers, and it must be that if the evidence supports that conclusion, that the House of Representatives moves to impeach him."

Immediately prior to the morbid warning, Feldman claimed he had been an "impeachment skeptic" when Robert Mueller's Russia report came out. But he said that changed after President Trump's July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that resulted in the impeachment inquiry due to suspicion that the president sought help in investigating political rivals.

CLICK HERE TO CHECK OUT THE FOX NEWS APP

His past social media activity, however, suggests otherwise. On March 7, 2017, less than two months after Trump took office, Feldman penned a Bloomberg piece that claimed Trump risked impeachment over tweets he posted accusing President Obama of tapping his phones.

•