Evaluate the view that Congress is ineffective at holding the president to account.
“Evaluate” requires you to weigh Congress’s successes and limitations in holding the president to account and reach a substantiated judgement. For 30 marks, develop a balanced essay supported by precise examples, distinguishing between exposing presidential conduct, constraining presidential decisions and imposing sanctions.
Edexcel A-Level Politics: question, source and specification
Question: Evaluate the view that Congress is ineffective at holding the president to account.
You must consider this view and the alternative to this view in a balanced way. (30 marks)
Specification code: 9PL0
Component: 3A: Comparative Politics, USA
Relevant specification content: Section 2.2.3, covering congressional oversight, relations with the presidency and the effectiveness of checks on other branches. Sections 3.3.2 and 3.4, concerning limitations on presidential power and presidential accountability to Congress, are also relevant.
The following is an original indicative mark scheme aligned with Pearson’s assessment framework. It is not an official Pearson mark scheme for this exact question.
Edexcel A-Level Politics: indicative mark scheme
Assessment objectives
Assessment objective | Marks | What a strong answer demonstrates |
AO1: Knowledge and understanding | 10 | Accurate understanding of investigations, impeachment, legislative and financial powers, and Senate confirmation powers. |
AO2: Analysis | 10 | Developed explanations of how these mechanisms produce accountability and why their effectiveness varies. |
AO3: Evaluation | 10 | Sustained judgements about whether Congress secures explanations, changes presidential behaviour or imposes meaningful consequences. |
Key distinction: Holding a president to account is broader than removing them from office. However, simply opposing the president’s policy preferences does not automatically demonstrate effective scrutiny of presidential conduct.
Indicative assessment levels
Level | Marks | Typical characteristics |
5 | 25–30 | Thorough knowledge, perceptive analysis and sustained, substantiated evaluation leading to a convincing conclusion. |
4 | 19–24 | Accurate knowledge, clear analytical reasoning and mostly developed evaluation supporting a justified conclusion. |
3 | 13–18 | Generally sound knowledge and some developed analysis, but uneven evaluation or partially supported judgements. |
2 | 7–12 | Some relevant knowledge, limited explanation and weakly supported evaluation. |
1 | 1–6 | Limited knowledge, largely descriptive assertions and little effective evaluation. |
0 | 0 | No creditworthy material. |
These descriptions summarise the generic levels. Pearson’s guidance states that answers which do not consider both views in a balanced way cannot progress beyond Level 2.
Indicative content supporting the view
1. Partisanship can weaken independent scrutiny.
Members of the president’s party may prioritise shared policy objectives and electoral interests.
Congressional majorities influence committee leadership, investigative priorities and legislative scheduling.
Unified government can reduce incentives to investigate the executive aggressively.
Evaluation: Party alignment affects willingness to use powers, rather than removing those powers. Unified government does not guarantee presidential protection on every issue.
2. Impeachment is difficult to translate into conviction.
The House can impeach by a simple majority.
Conviction requires two-thirds of senators present.
A president can therefore avoid conviction with support from a sufficiently large Senate minority.
Trump was acquitted in both Senate impeachment trials. In February 2021, 57 senators voted guilty and 43 voted not guilty, falling short of the required threshold. He had already left office by that trial.
Evaluation: This demonstrates the difficulty of imposing the strongest constitutional sanction, but acquittal alone does not prove that the investigation or trial served no accountability function.
3. Obtaining executive information can be difficult.
Committees can seek documents and testimony, including through subpoenas.
Executive privilege claims and disputes over compliance can obstruct investigations.
Enforcement may involve litigation or referral to executive-branch prosecutors.
Evaluation: Congress has significant investigative authority, but does not always control the mechanisms needed to secure prompt compliance. Executive privilege is qualified, not an absolute exemption from scrutiny.
4. Presidential resistance can defeat congressional attempts at restraint.
Presidents can veto legislation intended to restrict executive action.
Congress then needs two-thirds support in each chamber to override.
In 2019, the Senate failed to override Trump’s veto of the Yemen War Powers Resolution, voting 53–45 in favour of overriding, below the required threshold.
Evaluation: A congressional majority may express opposition without securing a binding change in presidential policy.
Indicative content challenging the view
Want to read more?
Subscribe to revision-notes.com to keep reading this exclusive post.