Lecture: Midterm Review & Exam
Lecture script · about 15–20 minutes spoken · Week 8
Opening
Think about the claims you hear about the places you belong to. Maybe you're a nursing student reading a hospital's bylaws. Maybe you're a business major sitting in on a company board. Maybe you're a neighbor at a city council meeting. Someone says, "The rules say the board has seven seats." Someone else says, "The board never meets." A third says, "The board ought to be replaced." Three sentences, one board, and three different kinds of work.
That's where this lecture ends up. First, though, let's look back. You've had seven weeks of terms, texts, and cases, and a pile that size is hard to review. So I'm going to ask each week for two things only: the one distinction it asks you to keep, and the one text that carries it. Week 1 gave you empirical and normative claims. Week 2 gave you power, authority, and legitimacy. Weeks 3 and 4 gave you the ideologies and the theories people argue over. Week 5 sorted regimes, Week 6 asked what constitutions do, and Week 7 wired legislatures to executives.
Then I'll hand you one new tool, the three-layer read, and we'll run it on the Senate. After that comes the midterm, and then Week 9 turns to the courts.
1. Sort by kind, not topic
Start with two sentences about one campus senate. "Our senate has a fixed number of seats." "Our senate ought to have more seats for transfer students." Same senate. Different jobs.
Here's the term. An empirical claim is a claim about what is, or why something happens, that can be checked against evidence and can turn out to be false. A normative claim is a claim about what ought to be, such as what is fair or worth doing, that is defended by argument from values and premises and can be argued well or badly. You sort by kind, not by topic. "The Senate has 100 members" and "the Senate ought to be proportional to population" share a topic and differ in kind.
The week's text was the Declaration of Independence, from 1776. Week 1 sorted four of its claims. The claim that "all men are created equal" is normative. "Governments are instituted among Men" is empirical-leaning, a claim about where governments come from. The consent standard is normative, and so is the conclusion that the people may "alter or to abolish" a destructive government. That's 3 normative claims plus 1 empirical-leaning claim, 4 in all.
One trap to watch for. The Declaration's trio is "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". "Life, liberty, and property" is Locke's trio, and chatbots mix them up all the time.
Pause and try this. Is "the Senate has 100 members" empirical or normative, and how would you check it?
Say your answer out loud before you go on.
Here's the answer. It's empirical, because you can check it against the text of Article I, Section 3, which gives two senators to each State.
2. Power, authority, legitimacy
Picture a pickup basketball game. The referee blows a whistle and everyone stops. A stranger yelling "stop" from the sidewalk gets ignored. And an armed robber gets your wallet with no right to it at all.
Here are the three terms. Power is the capacity to make another actor comply, to do what it otherwise would not, with force included among the means. Authority is power that the people subject to it recognize as rightful, a right to command that is usually attached to an office or a rule. Legitimacy is the broad, widely shared belief that a ruler or a whole system has a right to rule and deserves obedience. The robber has power over you, and neither of the other two.
The text pair was Hobbes against Locke. Hobbes wrote Leviathan in 1651. He pictured life without a common power as "solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short", and yes, that's the 1651 spelling. Hobbes fears chaos, so he wants a strong sovereign. Locke wrote the Second Treatise of Government in 1689. In section 95 he holds that no one can be "subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent". Locke fears tyranny, so he wants a limited trust the people can take back. The two books are 38 years apart, and they reach opposite worries.
Pause and try this. A summary credits Locke with "solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short". What went wrong?
Use the memory hook before you answer.
Here's the answer. The thinkers are swapped: that fragment is Hobbes's, from Leviathan in 1651, because Hobbes is the one who fears chaos.
3. Values, fears, argues
Imagine three neighbors at a town meeting arguing about the town's only bus line. One wants to sell it. One wants to expand it with new taxes. One wants to keep it running as it always has. Each one brings a whole package of ideas.
That package is an ideology: a coherent set of ideas about how society should work and who should hold power; it is normative at its core and rests on empirical claims about human nature and about how economies behave. This course describes ideologies. It never ranks them. You ask three questions of each one: what does it value, what does it fear, and how does it argue?
The text pair was the Manifesto against Burke. Marx and Engels, in 1848, open Part I with "The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles." That's an empirical claim about history, and the normative conclusion rests on it. Burke, in 1790, holds that "A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation." He values tested institutions and fears sweeping change. The two texts are 58 years apart.
Pause and try this. Is the Manifesto's opening sentence empirical or normative?
Think about whether the historical record could check it.
Here's the answer. It's empirical, because it's a claim about history that the record could check and could show to be false.
4. The harm principle, exactly
Picture a city council arguing about a helmet rule for adult scooter riders. One side says helmets save lives. The other says adults should choose for themselves. The real question is when power over a person is rightful.
Here's the term. The harm principle is Mill's rule, from On Liberty in 1859, that power over an unwilling adult member of a community is rightful only to prevent harm to others, never for that person's own good. Mill's own words matter here: power over a member of a "civilised community" is rightful only "to prevent harm to others", and "His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." The word is harm. It is not offense.
Week 4 ran four cases. The helmet rule was ruled out. Drunk driving was permitted, because the risk falls on others. The offensive book was ruled out. The outbreak was a hard case. That's 1 permitted, 2 ruled out, and 1 hard case, 4 in all. Week 4 also set Rawls against Nozick, in words only. Rawls draws the veil of ignorance, and Nozick keeps the state minimal.
Pause and try this. A chatbot says Mill allows power to stop "harm or offense". What's the fix?
Check the pinned sentence word by word.
Here's the answer. Drop "or offense", because neither pinned sentence mentions offense; Mill limits power to preventing harm to others.
5. The floor and the house
Think about a club that holds a fair election for president every year. Then the president expels anyone who criticizes the board. The club has real elections. Something important is still missing.
Here are the terms. An electoral democracy is the minimal definition of democracy: a regime with free, fair, competitive elections that the people in power can lose, whether or not rights, the press, and the courts are fully protected. A liberal democracy is a regime that meets the electoral floor and adds protected rights, a free press, an independent judiciary, and the rule of law. Elections are the floor, not the whole house.
The week's text was a speech in the House of Commons in 1947, printed in Hansard at column 207. Churchill says "it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time". The lesson is in the first four words. The words "it has been said" mark the line as one he was repeating. So you never credit him with coining it.
Pause and try this. A country holds fair elections that incumbents lose, but its government can remove judges at will. Electoral or liberal?
Ask whether it meets the floor, then the rest of the house.
Here's the answer. It's an electoral democracy, because it meets the floor of fair elections but lacks independent courts.
6. Does the rulebook bind?
Picture a club whose bylaws cap what the treasurer can spend without a vote. Then the treasurer spends far more, and nobody stops it. The club has bylaws. The bylaws don't bind.
Here are the terms. A constitution is the fundamental set of rules for how a political system is organized. Constitutionalism is the practice of a political system's fundamental rules actually binding the people who rule, so that officeholders stay within the limits the rules set. Having a rulebook is one question. Whether it binds is another.
The text was The Federalist No. 51, from 1788: "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition." Give each branch the means and the motive to resist the others. Week 6 also did the Article V arithmetic. The Senate's 100 members, two per State, mean 50 States. Three fourths of 50 is 37.5, and a State can't ratify by half, so an amendment needs 38 States. And illustrative Ostrel had a written constitution but met only 2 of the 5 rule-of-law elements.
Pause and try this. Ostrel has a written constitution. Does that make its government limited?
Remember what the rule-of-law check found.
Here's the answer. No, because a constitution is not constitutionalism; Ostrel met only 2 of the 5 elements, so its rulebook didn't bind its rulers.
7. The removal test
Think about two student clubs. In one, the board picks a chair it can replace at any meeting. In the other, members elect a president for the year, and the board can remove that president only for serious misconduct. Same campus, two wirings.
Here's the term. The removal test is the question of how a failing government would be removed, by a vote of no confidence, by impeachment, or by both, used to tell the three executive designs apart. Confidence votes point to parliamentary. Impeachment points to presidential. A cabinet that can fall while the elected president stays points to semi-presidential.
The text pair was Bagehot against Article II. Bagehot, in 1867, called the fusion of the executive and legislative powers the "efficient secret" of the English Constitution. Article II, Section 1 vests "The executive Power" in a President, elected apart from Congress. And the Inter-Parliamentary Union counts 188 national parliaments, 81 bicameral and 107 unicameral. That's a count, not a cause.
Pause and try this. Germany has a president. Is it presidential?
Run the removal test, not the title.
Here's the answer. No, it's parliamentary, because its government is removed through the legislature's confidence, and the title of president doesn't decide the design.
8. The three-layer read
Here's the one new tool. Picture a neighborhood association arguing about its board. One neighbor reads the bylaws aloud. Another says the board hasn't met in months. A third says the board ought to be replaced. They're all talking about one board, and they're talking past each other.
The three-layer read is a classroom model for reading any claim about an institution by first naming which of three layers it sits on: what the rules say, what actually happens, or what ought to happen. The design layer reports what the rules say, so you check it against the text. The practice layer reports what actually happens, so you check it against evidence such as a case, a count, or an index. The verdict layer says what ought to happen, so you argue for it from values. A careful analysis names its layer before it says anything else.
Notice how it grows out of Week 1. Design and practice are both empirical. The verdict is normative. The three-layer read splits the empirical side in two, because the rules and the reality can come apart. Ostrel showed you that. In the chapter's layer sort, six claims came out 2 design, 2 practice, and 2 verdict.
Pause and try this. "In Ostrel, decrees rewrite the tax rules several times a month with no notice." Which layer?
Ask whether it reports the rules, the reality, or a judgment.
Here's the answer. It's the practice layer, because it reports what actually happens, and you'd check it against evidence, not against the constitution's text.
9. The Senate, three ways
Let's take one institution through all three layers. Article I, Section 3 says "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State". That's the design layer. Senators serve six-year terms, and with 100 senators you get 50 States. You check all of that against the text.
The practice layer asks what two senators per State produces in lawmaking. The running analysis claims a second chamber slows legislation and catches errors. That claim is contested, and this course pins no figure that settles it. So the honest move is to name the evidence you'd need, not to invent a number.
The verdict layer asks whether the Senate ought to be built this way. Proponents argue that equal representation gives smaller units a voice worth slower lawmaking. Critics respond that most parliaments are unicameral, 107 of 188, and that a malapportioned chamber can dilute accountability. The reply says that worry argues for an elected, well-apportioned second chamber, not for none. The verdict is yours.
Pause and try this. "The Senate is unfair." Which layer is that sentence on?
Look for the hidden "ought".
Here's the answer. It's the verdict layer, because "unfair" is a judgment argued from values, and quoting Article I, Section 3 can't settle it.
Closing
Let me pull it together. Sort a claim by its kind, not its topic. Power isn't authority, and Hobbes fears chaos while Locke fears tyranny. Describe each ideology by what it values, fears, and argues, and never rank it. Read Mill exactly: harm to others, not offense. Elections are the floor, not the whole house, and "it has been said" means Churchill was repeating. A constitution isn't constitutionalism. The removal test, not the title, names the design. And every claim about an institution sits on a layer: design, practice, or verdict.
Next in this module come the slide deck, the Readings and Resources page, the practice set, the discussion, and the midterm, which checks Objectives 1 to 5 as taught in Weeks 1 to 7, with no AI help. Then Week 9, Political Institutions II: Judiciaries, Courts & Judicial Review, takes the three-layer read into the courts.
Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com