I took AP U.S. Government and Politics my sophomore year, in 2023. Taking the class, I was fascinated to learn about the foundations of our democracy. We studied U.S. history along with government structure, learning how our forefathers tried different government ideas, eventually getting to the strong system that has lasted 250 years. For the first time in a long time, I felt pride in my government, or at least the government we had in 1776. 

I took the class before Trump’s second presidency, before the drama of his campaign, before the government seemed to fall apart before my eyes. However, even while taking the class, I began to fancy myself more politically knowledgeable than some politicians.

Every person who holds political office should have to get a five on the AP U.S. Government and Politics exam to prove their competency to run the country.

To me, the most memorable topic in AP Gov was studying the U.S. Constitution. We focused first on the Bill of Rights, analyzing the language of each amendment. I had not before realized the specific rights citizens have — freedom of expression being a major one — that the government explicitly cannot infringe upon. Politicians should review these rights more thoroughly, because oftentimes, it seems that they’d rather take them away.

Additionally, the course teaches about the values that our founding fathers wanted to instill in the nation, one being the Rule of Law. No one, not even a government official, is above the law, and while this fact is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, provisions like the Supremacy Clause, as well as the 5th and 14th due process amendments, make it obvious.

Every time that a president has avoided legal discipline goes directly against the values of our Constitution. For instance, Trump tried to disrupt the electoral process during Biden’s election, inciting violence at our nation’s capital. He’s also been convicted — declared guilty — of multiple crimes. 

Other important lessons in AP Gov are the required documents and Supreme Court cases. 

The document I remember most was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” Dr. King analyzed just and unjust laws, and how civil disobedience, or breaking unjust laws, was necessary to create social progress. When the government deploys the National Guard to combat protests against ICE raids, it limits freedom of assembly. If political officials read Dr. King’s letter — with respect and open-mindedness — they might have a better understanding of society, and what they owe to the people they represent. 

We, of course, read the Declaration of Independence. Everyone knows what the Declaration of Independence says: humans have natural rights (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), as well as the right to rebel against a tyrannical government that does not protect its citizens. People in office should refamiliarize themselves with the actual language of the document, so they can have a clearer sense of what freedom meant to the colonists.

The Federalist Papers also left a significant impact on my perspective on our government. 

Fed. 10 describes the danger of one large faction controlling everything, and how a large representative government curbs this danger, because it allows the creation of several, smaller, competing factions. Now, political parties cycle. Sometimes Republicans have more influence, and sometimes Democrats do. That is a natural process, and it has been that way since the first political parties — the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans — formed. I take Fed. 10’s proposed danger of one group controlling everything, and I raise you with the danger of one person controlling everything.                      

Fed. 51 discusses a separation of powers with checks and balances. Those are kind of buzz words at this point, but really they mean that nobody in the government has too much power, like a king. Where have the checks gone?

In Fed. 70, Alexander Hamilton advocates that a single, energetic president is necessary for the success of the nation. However, he did not want a president who overreaches their power; he wanted a strong president to quickly respond to national danger. He also thought it would be safer for citizens to only have one executive to keep an eye on, instead of a group. Sometimes presidents have to push boundaries, but not in ways that harm citizens. For example, Congress has the power of the purse — not the president — calling into question the constitutionality of Trump’s tariffs, which hurt consumers by raising prices.

Fed. 78 details the responsibility of the judiciary. The Supreme Court is supposed to be impartial, serving life-long terms, so that they can maintain a standard of judgement and continue the precedents of previous cases. The judiciary lacks any power in terms of enforcing laws, but it is essential to checking the powers of the other branches, especially the executive; the judiciary is the most integral part of ensuring the president does not mimic tyrannical power by making unconstitutional executive orders.

We also learned about important historical Supreme Court cases. 

My favorite case was Tinker v. Des Moines. In this case, students got in trouble at school for wearing black arm bands to protest the Vietnam War. The Supreme Court ruled that the students were allowed to wear these arm bands, citing the right to freedom of speech and applying this right to symbols. Some districts around the nation have banned the display of Pride flags in schools. The flag symbolizes the struggles that LGBTQ+ Americans face, and the equality they deserve. Tinker v. Des Moines clearly sets a precedent that allows people in schools to advocate for their political ideas with symbols like the Pride flag.

Another significant case was Engel v. Vitale. In this case, a public school in New York instated a voluntary prayer for students. The Supreme Court ruled that this prayer violated the Establishment Clause, because the government-funded school had to maintain a separation between church and state. Recently, multiple U.S. states have passed laws mandating the display of the 10 Commandments in classrooms, which is in clear violation of the precedent Engel v. Vitale set.

Of course, for political officials to get anything out of the AP Gov curriculum, they would need to put an effort into learning from it. Also, politicians should probably be more knowledgeable about government than a high schooler, but we have to start somewhere.

The fact that basic principles of government — principles that high schoolers learn — seem absent from the work of many politicians, is disgraceful. We should not have to wonder if our politicians have read the Constitution or not. We should not have to do a double take at every executive order, knowing they’re against the values of our democracy. We the People deserve smart politicians, who know what it means to uphold our republic.