Part 1: Multiple Choice- 55 questions in 80 minutes

Text Based Analysis

The friends and adversaries of the plan of the convention, if they agree in nothing else, concur at least in the value they set upon the trial by jury…the more the operation of the institution has fallen under my observation, the more reason I have discovered for holding it in high estimation…as a defense against the oppressions of a hereditary monarch…and a barrier to the tyranny of popular magistrates in a popular government.  Discussions of this kind would be more curious than beneficial, as all are satisfied of the utility of this institution, and of its friendly aspect to liberty. –Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No 83

• Which of the following statements is most consistent with the author's argument in the passage?

  • Judicial panels in cases on appeal will assure fairness in the adjudication of the laws

  • A citizen jury in our judicial branch will serve to prevent tryanny and safeguard liberty from other officials in the government

  • The jury system is about the only proposal in the Constitution that is worthy because both sides agree on it

  • Juries are common in state courts and therefore are unnecessary in the federal court system

• Which concept is the author most likely trying to protect or guarantee?

  • Sovereignty

  • Representative law making

  • Equality

  • Rights of the accused

Knowledge Based

This is the largest category of multiple choice questions. These are the types of questions that you are probably most familiar with from previous classes.

• Which of the following is true of the Electoral College?

  • The Electoral College votes for members of the House of Representatives

  • The Electoral College votes for State Governors

  • The Electoral College votes for the President

  • The Electoral College votes for Senators

• Searching a person's car without a warrant or consent to search, a local police officier finds an illegal firearm.  Which of the following concepts might prevent the firearm from being introduced as evidence at trial?

  • Exclusionary rule

  • Probable cause

  • Freedom of speech

  • Right to remain silent

Part 2: Free Response Questions-4 Questions in 100 minutes

Concept Application

This type of FRQ will ask you to respond to a polticial scenario that often takes the form of a quoted passage from the news or another document.  The task is to explain how the scenario relates to political principles, institutions, processes, policy, or behavior using substantive examples to support your answers.

“Every day, more than 115 people in the United States die after overdosing on opioids. The misuse of and addiction to opioids—including prescription pain relievers, heroin, and synthetic opioids such as fentanyl—is a serious national crisis that affects public health as well as social and economic welfare. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that the total "economic burden" of prescription opioid misuse alone in the United States is $78.5 billion a year, including the costs of healthcare, lost productivity, addiction treatment, and criminal justice involvement.”-National Institute on Drug Abuse, March 2018.

• A-Describe a power Congress could use to address the issues outlined in this scenario

• B-In the context of the scenario, explain how the use of Congressional power described in part A can be affected by its interaction with special interest groups.

• C-In the context of the scenario, explain how the interaction between Congress and special interest groups can be affected by the media.

Supreme Court Comparison

This type of FRQ asks you to compare a non-required Supreme Court case to one of the 15 required cases.

The 1942 Supreme Court case of Betts v. Brady centered on Smith Betts, a poor person indicted on burglary in Maryland.  He had no money to hire a lawyer, so he requested that one be made available to him by the state.  A previous case had concluded that defendants had the right to an attorney.  However, the judge refused.  Betts pleaded not guilty, served as his own counsel, and was found guilty.  He held onto his conviction that he was entitled to a lawyer and appealed the case.  When it reached the Supreme Court, the question the Court faced was, “Does refusing a poor person an attorney violate the Constitution?”  The Supreme Court ruled that it did not, that the state could not prevent a defendant from using an attorney but it was not obligated to provide one.

• A-Identify the Constitutional clause that is common to both Betts v. Brady and Gideon v. Wainwright.

• B-Explain how the facts of the cases led to different or similar rulings

• C-Explain how the ruling in Betts v. Brady relates to the process of selective incorporation

Argumentative

This FRQ requires developing an argument in the form of an essay and using evidence from one or more of the required foundational documents to support your claim.  This FRQ is worth the most and as such you should spend the most time on it.

Develop an argument that explains whether or not breaking the law in the course of civil disobedience is acceptable.

• Articulate a defensible claim or thesis that responds to the prompt and establishes a line of reasoning

• Support your claim with at least 2 pieces of accurate and relevant information.

  • At least one piece of evidence must be from one of the following foundational documents:
    14th amendment or "A Letter From a Birmingham Jail.

  • Use a second piece of evidence from the other foundational document above or from your study of Civil Rights

• Use reasoning to explain why your evidence supports your claim/thesis

• Respond to an opposing or alternate perspective using refutation, concession, or rebuttal.

Click on this link to view a guide on how to better write this type of FRQ!