Compare democratic and non-democratic governments

Grade 12 Social Studies Worksheet - Challenge Me

Circle the best answer.

1. Read this first

   Use this

   Cards A to C on Germany in 1933 (card A and card B are summaries in our words from standard histories; card B's vote table is real data). Card A, "The decree of February 28, 1933". Who made it: written for this sheet. Summary in our words, not a quotation: A fire at the Reichstag building on February 27 was followed on February 28 by a decree that suspended Articles 114, 115, 117, 118, 123, 124 and 153 of the Weimar Constitution until further notice. Those articles protected personal liberty, the home, the privacy of mail, free expression and the press, assembly, association and property. Card B, "The Enabling Act of March 23, 1933". Who made it: written for this sheet from standard histories and a published table of the vote. Summary in our words, not a quotation: The act let the cabinet, led by Chancellor Adolf Hitler, make laws without the Reichstag, even laws that departed from the constitution. A law that changed the constitution needed a two-thirds majority. The Reichstag had 647 deputies. Table, columns Party | Deputies | Yes | No | Did not vote: Nazi | 288 | 288 | 0 | 0; Social Democratic | 120 | 0 | 94 | 26; Communist | 81 | 0 | 0 | 81; Center | 73 | 72 | 0 | 1; National People's | 52 | 52 | 0 | 0; Bavarian People's | 19 | 19 | 0 | 0; five other parties | 14 | 13 | 0 | 1; all parties | 647 | 444 | 94 | 109. Notes: the 81 Communist deputies were arrested or barred from attending. Card C, "Two readings by historians". Who made it: written for this sheet. Summary in our words, not a quotation: Reading 1: the vote shows that democratic procedures were used to end democracy, since the Reichstag followed the rule for changing the constitution. Reading 2: the vote was not a free choice, since it took place after rights were suspended and with Communist deputies arrested or barred.

2. 1.

   A student says: "The act passed only because 109 deputies, including the arrested Communists, did not vote." Noah tests the claim against card B. What is the best verdict?

   • Not supported: the vote was 444 to 94, so a free chamber also passed the act by a wide margin
   • Supported: the 81 Communists and 94 other no votes make 175, which is more than a third of 647
   • Supported: a vote with 109 deputies absent is void, since card B requires two thirds of all deputies to vote
   • Not by the count: even if all 109 had voted no, 444 of 647 is 68.6 percent, above two thirds
3. 2.

   Luz looks for evidence that would most help decide between the two readings on card C. Which evidence is it?

   • How many deputies the Social Democrats had in 1932, to compare with the 120 deputies in card B
   • Whether 444 is above two thirds of 647, a figure that both readings already accept and card B lets a reader easily work out
   • How the Reichstag had voted on earlier laws, to see whether its yes votes had grown more common
   • What deputies said or wrote at the time about pressure on them, since the count cannot show whether choices were free
4. 3.

   A student says the 94 no votes show the Reichstag voted freely. Bo looks for the strongest objection in cards A and B. Which is it?

   • The decree was issued before the vote, so no vote after it could count under the Weimar Constitution, whatever the count
   • The 94 came from one party, so they show that party's view and nothing about the rest of the chamber on the question
   • The 94 no votes were fewer than the 444 yes votes, and a free chamber would have split much more evenly between the sides
   • Those 94 voted after speech and assembly were suspended and with 81 colleagues barred, so they show opposition, not free conditions
5. 4.

   Claim: "A government that follows its own rules for changing the constitution is a democracy." Zee tests it against cards A to C. What is the best verdict?

   • False as stated: the two-thirds rule was met, but the decree had suspended the freedoms that a free vote relies on
   • Untestable: a vote in 1933 in another country cannot be used to test a claim about democracy now
   • True: the vote reached the two-thirds majority that the constitution required for the change, which is what the claim says
   • False: a vote held under any pressure is void as a vote of the body, whatever the count

6. Use this

   Cards A and B on the federal and the national (the excerpts are exact). Card A, "The Federalist No. 39". Who made it: James Madison, writing as Publius. When: January 1788. For whom: the people of New York. Why: to explain whether the Constitution is federal or national. Excerpt 1: "The House of Representatives will derive its powers from the people of America; and the people will be represented in the same proportion, and on the same principle, as they are in the legislature of a particular State. So far the government is NATIONAL, not FEDERAL." Excerpt 2: "The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress. So far the government is FEDERAL, not NATIONAL." Excerpt 3: "The difference between a federal and national government, as it relates to the OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, is supposed to consist in this, that in the former the powers operate on the political bodies composing the Confederacy, in their political capacities; in the latter, on the individual citizens composing the nation, in their individual capacities." Excerpt 4: "The proposed Constitution, therefore, is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally, in the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national." Card B, "The Basic Law of Germany". Who made it: the Parliamentary Council, in 1949; English text published by the German Federal Ministry of Justice. When: in force May 23, 1949. For whom: the people of Germany. Why: to set up the German federation. Excerpt 1 (Article 20): "The Federal Republic of Germany is a democratic and social federal state." Excerpt 2 (Article 51): "The Bundesrat shall consist of members of the Land governments, which appoint and recall them." Excerpt 3 (Article 70): "The Länder shall have the right to legislate insofar as this Basic Law does not confer legislative power on the Federation." Excerpt 4 (Article 79): "Any such law shall be carried by two thirds of the Members of the Bundestag and two thirds of the votes of the Bundesrat."

7. 5.

   Ari applies Madison's test of where powers come from (card A, excerpt 2) to the Bundesrat in card B. What does it show?

   • It cannot be applied, since Madison wrote of a Senate and Germany has no body of that name
   • It is national: Bundesrat members vote on laws that apply to individual citizens, as the House does in Congress
   • It is federal: each Land elects its Bundesrat members by popular vote, as with the Senate in 1788
   • Its members come from the Land governments, as the Senate drew on the States, so on this test it is federal
8. 6.

   Esme applies Madison's amendment test (card A, excerpt 4) to Article 79 on card B. What does it show?

   • Mixed: two thirds in the Bundestag, which speaks for the people, and in the Bundesrat, which speaks for the Länder
   • National: amendment needs just the Bundestag, where the people are represented, and the Bundesrat merely confirms
   • Federal: amendment needs the consent of each Land, as with consent among States under a confederation
   • It cannot be judged, since Article 79 does not say who the Members of the Bundestag represent
9. 7.

   Claim: "Germany is a federation in name only, since the Bundestag makes most laws." Tala tests it against card B. What is the best verdict?

   • Not shown: Articles 51 and 70 give the Länder a voice and residual lawmaking, but card B counts no laws
   • Supported: Article 70 limits the Länder to what the Basic Law does not give to the Federation
   • Untestable: a federation is a label, and a label cannot be tested against the text of a constitution
   • Refuted: Article 79(3) protects the Länder from amendment, so the Federation cannot take their powers from them

10. Use this

    Cards A to D on emergency power (the excerpts are exact; card D is made up). Card A, "Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), Justice Jackson concurring". Who made it: Justice Robert Jackson, agreeing with the result in the steel seizure case. When: June 2, 1952. For whom: the parties, other courts and the public. Why: to explain the limits of presidential power. Excerpt 1: "Presidential powers are not fixed but fluctuate, depending upon their disjunction or conjunction with those of Congress." Excerpt 2: "When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter." Card B, "Jackson on emergencies". Same maker, date, readers and aim as card A. Excerpt 1: "They knew what emergencies were, knew the pressures they engender for authoritative action, knew, too, how they afford a ready pretext for usurpation. We may also suspect that they suspected that emergency powers would tend to kindle emergencies." Excerpt 2: "Aside from suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in time of rebellion or invasion, when the public safety may require it, they made no express provision for exercise of extraordinary authority because of a crisis." Card C, "Jackson on the Weimar Constitution". Same maker, date, readers and aim as card A. Excerpt: "…the President of the Republic, without concurrence of the Reichstag, was empowered temporarily to suspend any or all individual rights … This proved a temptation to every government, whatever its shade of opinion, and in 13 years suspension of rights was invoked on more than 250 occasions." Card D, "Corvana (made up)". Who made it: written for this sheet. Summary in our words, not a quotation: Corvana's constitution lets the president suspend any right for 30 days if public safety is seriously endangered. The legislature has 120 seats and meets only when the president calls it. It can cancel a suspension by a vote of 61 members. The president may order a new suspension when the 30 days end. In the last four years the president has ordered 6 suspensions, and the legislature has met 2 times.

11. 8.

    Jun compares Corvana (card D) with the one emergency clause Jackson names (card B, excerpt 2). Which statement is best supported?

    • The two are alike: each lets the executive suspend rights whenever public safety requires it, in any danger
    • Corvana's is wider: any right for any serious danger, against one writ in rebellion or invasion
    • Corvana's is narrower, since its legislature can cancel any suspension by a vote of 61 members
    • Neither is checked, since Jackson says the framers made no provision for reviewing an emergency
12. 9.

    A critic says emergency powers are needed because crises come without warning. Ren replies with cards B and C. Which reply is strongest?

    • The framers knew what emergencies were, so card B shows they would have wanted the President to hold the power
    • Presidential power fluctuates with Congress, so an emergency power is fine whenever Congress agrees to it
    • Weimar's power was used more than 250 times in 13 years, so it became routine, not a response to rare crises
    • Hitler persuaded Hindenburg to suspend the rights, so emergency power ends democracy wherever it is used
13. 10.

    A writer says Corvana's rule is safe, since its legislature can cancel any suspension. Milo looks for missing evidence. What would most challenge the writer?

    • Whether the first suspension lasted the full 30 days, to see if the president obeys the limit
    • Whether the legislature could meet and vote within the 30 days, when only the president can call it
    • How many suspensions the president ordered in the last four years, a figure that card D already gives
    • How many of the 120 seats the president's party holds, since that would show who can reach 61 votes