In the 1824 election none of the major candidates gained a clear majority; however, Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams emerged as the two leading candidates in the popular vote. Due to the lack of a clear winner, the election had to be decided in the House of Representatives. Henry Clay, himself a candidate in the election, allegedly offered his support to John Quincy Adams, helping him win the Presidency, In exchange, Clay was made Adams’ Secretary of State. Andrew Jackson would campaign, partially, on the platform of the "corrupt-bargain" in the next election, 1828.

Judicial review establishes that the judicial branch of the government has the right to analyze the constitutionality of certain actions undertaken by the legislative and executive branches of government. It is part of the checks and balances aspect of American government that ensures that no one branch of the United States government can wield absolute power at the expense of the other two branches.

This is an incredibly interesting story. Essentially, there were four justices on the Supreme Court, Butler, McReynolds, Sutherland, and Van Devanter, who were extremely conservative. They always voted in a bloc, and nearly always voted to strike down FDRs New Deal legislation. This earned them the name “the Four Horsemen.” Since they always voted in a bloc (and there were four of them) it took only one other justice to disagree with the legislation to cobble together a majority and strike the law down. During the beginning of the New Deal era, this happened relatively frequently, much to FDR’s chagrin.

Seeing no end in sight, and getting more frustrated by the day, FDR managed to come up with what he thought was a solution: get Congress to pass a bill that added more members to the Supreme Court. As President, he could appoint them, and since Congress was overwhelmingly Democrat, the Senate would likely confirm his appointees.

So, FDR comes up with a plan for a bill: craft a piece of legislation under the ruse of helping the poor, old, enfeebled members of the Supreme Court. His “subtle” bill would have allowed him to appoint 1 new associate justice for every justice over the age of 70 years, up to a total of 6 additional members. Nearly everyone saw the bill for what it was, and it quickly earned the derisive moniker of the “court packing plan,” as it would have allowed him to “pack” the court with like-minded justices, and thus his New Deal legislation would pass. It didn’t pass Congress.

The Supreme Court and the Cabinet are two bodies appointed by the President, and so they do not have the power to approve these appointments. The House of Representatives and the Vice President also do not have this power. The power to offer “advice and consent” on the issue of presidential appointments is reserved by the Senate, according to Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution.

The Constitution specifically requires the “advice and consent” (that’s the actual language, hence the quotation marks) of the Senate when ratification of a treaty is at hand. In other words, in order for our country to successfully reach a treaty with another country, the Senate must give their “advice and consent.” In slightly more concrete terms, the Senate must approve (or ‘ratify’) the treaty by a supermajority ( vote). This, as you can imagine, is a rather difficult task. It has caused the embarrassment of one President in particular: Woodrow Wilson. Woodrow Wilson failed to gain Senate approval of the Treaty of Versailles, and his brainchild, the League of Nations. This was rather embarrassing to President Wilson, as he had essentially stumped around Europe campaigning for the League of Nations only to have his own country fail to back him. 

This is an interesting, and somewhat convoluted question. As the prompt says, the President’s ability to wage war is technically checked by Congress’ ability to declare war (i.e. ONLY Congress can declare war). That said, there have been a total of 0 declared wars since WWII. Yes, you read that correctly, zero. What about Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, etc etc?

The answer lies in the President’s ability to direct troop movement (as the Commander-in-chief). Very long story short, the president can technically skirt the issue of a declared war by directing troops to go somewhere and intervene—this is often called an “armed conflict.”

Congress attempted to reign in the President’s unfettered ability to create/aid in armed conflicts by passing the War Powers Act of 1973, which imposed various procedural hurdles on a President attempting to move troops for that purpose. 

A line-item veto is when the President simply vetoes a portion of a piece of proposed legislation, and then sends it back to Congress for approval. This way the whole piece does not have to be redrafted, and legislators simply have to agree on whether the portion vetoed is necessary or not.

The system of checks and balances is the way that the U.S. government balances power between the executive, judicial, and legislative branches. It is known as such because of the way that each branch is able to check the others and balance them out if one gains too much power over another.

This should have been a relatively simple question. When both the president and the majority of both chambers of congress belong to the same political party, we refer to this as “unified government.” The name, of course, makes sense, because—as they’re both of the same party—government is unified. Whenever government is unified, there’s a greater chance of increased legislation and reform (do you see why?).

This should have been a relatively simple question. Divided government is the exact opposite of unified government—not too shocking, given the name. Because both the president and either one or both chambers of Congress are of two different political parties, it becomes much more difficult to create and pass legislation, leading to gridlock.