Grading the AP Gov Required Civic Action Project-Related Work in the Era of ChatGPT

The challenge posed and how I plan to respond

AP Gov teachers, as you all know, the Course and Exam Description (CED) requires us to provide our students with an opportunity to produce a tangible end product relating to the AP U.S. Government and Politics course. However, it does not mandate a specific end product. Instead, we can offer a diverse range of options, such as research papers, podcasts, school board or city council presentations, PSAs, blog posts, media guides, and more.

In the past, when it came to grading my students’ tangible end products, I would typically rely on a rubric. I’m guessing you did too. However, in the Era of ChatGPT, grading the end product, regardless of a rubric’s presence, is no longer sufficient, I thnk.

With AI language models capable of generating high-quality content, merely assessing the end product’s quality will surely fail to capture the depth of student engagement with the material and their ability to apply the concepts learned in the course.

So, if solely grading the tangible end product is no longer viable, what alternative approach can we adopt?

After thoughtful consideration, I have decided to assess the students’ ability to answer several logically anticipatable questions, with these questions to be asked after the students have submitted their tangible end product.

To illustrate this approach, I have included below a three-page research paper created by one of my students in collaboration with ChatGPT.

Following the research paper, I have also included a bank of reasonably anticipatable follow-up questions. On “test day,” I asked my student to answer ten of these, some verbally and some in writing, with the lockdown browser installed.

It was the student’s oral and written responses that I evaluated, not the tangible end product itself.

By focusing on evaluating the student’s responses instead of merely grading their paper, I believe I achieved a more comprehensive and accurate assessment of their knowledge, critical thinking abilities, and engagement with the AP Gov Required Project.

I invite you now to review the student’s Research Paper and the accompanying “logically anticipatable follow-up questions.” I hope this provides you with a deeper understanding of my approach to grading my students’ required project-related work in the Era of ChatGPT.

The Research Paper:

The question of whether a President of the United States has the power to pardon themselves if accused of a crime has been a topic of legal and constitutional debate. This issue gained prominence in recent years, generating significant public interest and raising important questions about the limits of presidential power and the principles of justice and accountability. Understanding the constitutional framework surrounding presidential pardons and their potential application to the highest office in the land is crucial in assessing the implications of such a scenario. This research aims to delve into the historical, legal, and ethical dimensions of the self-pardon question to provide a comprehensive analysis of the subject.

The thesis of this research paper is that the President does not possess the constitutional authority to pardon themselves if accused of a crime. Through an examination of constitutional provisions, legal precedents, and the fundamental principles of democracy and checks and balances, it becomes clear that self-pardons would undermine the fundamental principles of justice, accountability, and the rule of law. This paper will explore various legal arguments, historical contexts, and ethical considerations to substantiate this thesis and contribute to the ongoing discussion on the scope of presidential powers.

II. Historical Perspective on Presidential Pardons
The power of the President to grant pardons is rooted in Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, which states that the President “shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.” This broad grant of authority allows the President to forgive or mitigate the punishment for federal crimes, providing a mechanism for mercy, second chances, and the correction of potential injustices within the criminal justice system.

Throughout history, there have been several instances of controversial presidential pardons that have ignited public debate and tested the limits of the pardon power. These cases serve as important precedents and shed light on the potential implications of self-pardons.

One of the most notable instances of a presidential pardon surrounded President Richard Nixon. Facing the Watergate scandal and impending impeachment, Nixon resigned from office in 1974. Shortly after his resignation, his successor, President Gerald Ford, issued a full and unconditional pardon to Nixon. This pardon sparked public outcry and accusations of a cover-up, raising questions about the extent to which a President can use the pardon power to shield themselves from accountability.

In the final days of his presidency, President Bill Clinton issued a series of controversial pardons, including the pardon of financier Marc Rich, who was indicted on charges of tax evasion and trading with Iran during the hostage crisis. The circumstances surrounding this pardon, including allegations of political favoritism and financial contributions, generated widespread criticism and led to calls for reforming the pardon process.

During his tenure, President Donald Trump utilized his pardon power in ways that drew significant attention and controversy. He issued pardons to individuals with personal connections or political support, including those convicted of high-profile crimes. These pardons raised concerns about potential abuse of power, undermining the principles of justice and impartiality.

These examples highlight the potential for presidential pardons to be used in contentious ways, fueling debates about the extent of executive authority and the necessity for accountability. While these cases do not specifically address self-pardons, they contribute to the broader discussion on the limits and consequences of the pardon power.

By examining historical instances of controversial pardons, we can gain insights into the motivations, implications, and public reactions to executive clemency. Such analysis provides a valuable context for evaluating the potential implications of a self-pardon and understanding the broader implications for the balance of power in the United States government.

III. The Constitutionality of Self-Pardons
Proponents of self-pardons argue that the broad language of the Constitution grants the President the power to pardon without any explicit limitations. They contend that since the text does not explicitly exclude self-pardons, the President should have the authority to extend the pardon power to themselves. Additionally, they argue that self-pardons serve as a safeguard against politically motivated prosecutions, ensuring that the President is not unfairly targeted for political reasons. Supporters of self-pardons also contend that the President’s ability to pardon themselves aligns with the principles of executive privilege and the concept of a unitary executive, where the President has substantial autonomy in matters relating to law enforcement and justice.

Critics of self-pardons assert that the Constitution should be interpreted in light of its underlying principles, such as the rule of law and the separation of powers. They argue that the ability to pardon oneself would undermine these principles by allowing the President to act as judge and jury in their own case, effectively placing the President above the law. Such a scenario could create a dangerous imbalance of power and erode the checks and balances system that is fundamental to the functioning of American democracy. Moreover, opponents of self-pardons contend that the Constitution should be read in a manner that upholds the fundamental notions of fairness, justice, and accountability, which are compromised when a President pardons themselves for potential wrongdoing.

Legal scholars and experts offer varying interpretations of the constitutional provisions related to self-pardons. Some argue that the framers intended to exclude self-pardons by emphasizing the fundamental principles of checks and balances and the inherent limitations on self-dealing. They assert that allowing self-pardons would go against the intention of the framers and the spirit of the Constitution. Others argue that the absence of explicit prohibition should not be interpreted as permission and that the principles of justice and accountability should take precedence.

The constitutionality of self-pardons remains a subject of debate, with no definitive legal consensus. It is a complex issue that requires careful examination of constitutional text, historical context, legal precedent, and fundamental democratic principles. The resolution of this debate would have significant implications for the interpretation of presidential powers, the accountability of public officials, and the preservation of the rule of law in the United States.

IV. Legal Precedents and Interpretations
In assessing the constitutionality of self-pardons, it is essential to examine relevant court cases that have addressed the scope of the pardon power and its limitations. While there is no direct legal precedent specifically addressing self-pardons, court decisions provide insights into the broader interpretation of presidential powers and the boundaries of the pardon authority. Cases such as United States v. Nixon (1974) and Ex parte Garland (1866) have explored the limits of the pardon power in relation to pardoning co-conspirators and past acts.

Legal scholars and experts have expressed diverse perspectives on the question of self-pardons. Some argue that self-pardons are inconsistent with the principles of justice, accountability, and the rule of law. They contend that the President cannot be his or her own judge and should be subject to the same legal processes and checks as any other individual. Others contend that the Constitution grants the President broad and unfettered pardon powers, including the ability to self-pardon. They argue that absent explicit constitutional prohibition, the President retains the authority to extend the pardon power to themselves.

Legal experts’ opinions often draw from constitutional interpretation, historical context, and an analysis of democratic principles. These varying viewpoints contribute to the ongoing debate surrounding self-pardons and highlight the complexity of the issue.

V. Checks and Balances on Presidential Power
One of the key mechanisms for checks and balances on presidential power is the role of Congress. The legislative branch holds the power to oversee the executive branch and can initiate impeachment proceedings against a President who abuses their authority or engages in misconduct. Impeachment serves as a constitutional safeguard against presidential abuses, ensuring accountability and protecting the integrity of the system of government.

The judiciary plays a critical role in interpreting and applying the law, including the scope of presidential powers. Courts have the authority to review and scrutinize the actions of the President, ensuring that they are consistent with the Constitution and applicable laws. Judicial interpretations and decisions provide essential guidance in establishing the limits of presidential authority and preventing potential abuses.

VI. Ethical and Practical Implications
Self-pardons raise ethical concerns and can significantly impact public perception of the presidency and the broader democratic system. Granting oneself a pardon may be seen as an abuse of power, eroding public trust and confidence in the administration of justice. The ethical implications extend beyond legality, encompassing the principles of fairness, integrity, and transparency.

The use of self-pardons can have far-reaching consequences for the rule of law. Allowing a President to pardon themselves could create a precedent that undermines the fundamental principle that no individual, including the President, is above the law. It may weaken the checks and balances system, blur the separation of powers, and hinder the accountability of the executive branch. Additionally, self-pardons may have implications for the perception of justice, potentially diminishing confidence in the fairness and impartiality of the legal system.

VII. Conclusion
In summary, the debate over self-pardons revolves around the interpretation of the Constitution, legal precedent, and democratic principles. While there is no direct legal consensus on the constitutionality of self-pardons, arguments against self-pardons emphasize the importance of checks and balances, accountability, and the principles of justice. The absence of explicit prohibition does not necessarily imply permission, and self-pardons may be seen as incompatible with the rule of law.

Based on the research and analysis conducted, it is evident that the question of whether the President can pardon themselves if accused of a crime is a complex and contentious issue. While there is no definitive legal precedent specifically addressing self-pardons, the broader interpretation of the Constitution, historical context, and democratic principles provide valuable insights.

Considering the arguments in favor of self-pardons, such as the broad language of the Constitution and the preservation of executive autonomy, it is crucial to balance these arguments with the principles of justice, accountability, and the rule of law. The potential consequences of self-pardons on public perception, the integrity of the legal system, and the checks and balances mechanism should be carefully considered.

In my personal perspective, I align with the arguments against self-pardons. Granting the President the power to pardon themselves would undermine the principles of justice, fairness, and the accountability of public officials. It is essential to maintain the checks and balances system, upholding the idea that no individual, including the President, is above the law. The Constitution should be interpreted in a manner that promotes the fundamental democratic values upon which our system of government is built.

It is worth noting that the issue of self-pardons is a subject of ongoing debate and may require further clarification from the courts or potential constitutional amendments. It is vital for legal scholars, policymakers, and the public to continue engaging in these discussions to ensure the preservation of a robust and accountable democracy.

In conclusion, the question of whether the President can pardon themselves if accused of a crime raises significant constitutional, legal, and ethical considerations. While the ultimate resolution may require additional legal clarity, it is crucial to uphold the principles of justice, accountability, and the rule of law in our democratic society.

The Bibliography:

Tribe, Laurence H. To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment. Basic Books, 2018. (Book)

Amar, Akhil Reed. “Pardon Me? The Constitutional Case Against Presidential Self-Pardons.” Harvard Law Review, vol. 133, no. 2, 2019, pp. 323–385.

United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974). (Legal Case)

Gerhardt, Michael J. “Constitutional Morality and the Political Rule of Law: Is the President Virtuous?” Fordham Law Review, vol. 85, no. 6, 2017, pp. 2439–2456.

Painter, Richard W., and Norman L. Eisen. “The Emoluments Clause: Its text, meaning, and application to Donald J. Trump.” Minnesota Law Review, vol. 101, no. 4, 2017, pp. 1607–1633.

Volokh, Eugene. “Self-Pardons, Impeachments, and the OLC.” Reason, 18 July 2017

Congressional Research Service. “Presidential Pardons: Overview and Selected Legal Issues.”. (Government Report)

“U.S. Constitution. Art. II, Sec. 2.” Legal Information Institute, Cornell University Law School,

Hamilton, Alexander. “Federalist №74.” The Federalist Papers. Ed. Clinton Rossiter. New York: Signet, 2003.

Hamilton, Alexander. “The Command of the Military and Naval Forces, and the Pardoning Power of the Executive.” The Federalist Papers, №74.

Moore, Kathleen Dean. The Presidential Pardon Power. University Press of Kansas, 1987.

Ruckman, P.S. Jr. “Presidential pardons: Few, far-between, and rarely fair.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology.

United States, Department of Justice, Office of the Pardon Attorney. “Pardons.” United States Department of Justice.

The Reasonably Anticapatable Follow-Up Questions:

1. In your paper, you mentioned that the President can grant reprieves and pardons. Could you explain the difference between a reprieve and a pardon?
2. What are some historical examples of controversial pardons by Presidents that you discussed in your paper?
3. You mentioned President Richard Nixon’s pardon in your paper. Can you summarize the circumstances surrounding his pardon and the public reaction to it?
4. In the section about President Bill Clinton’s pardons, can you provide a brief overview of the controversies surrounding those pardons?
5. Your paper mentions President Donald Trump’s use of the pardon power. How did his pardons contribute to the debate on self-pardons, if at all?
6. Can you summarize the legal arguments in favor of self-pardons that you discussed in your paper?
7. What are some counterarguments against self-pardons that you presented in your research?
8. In your own words, explain the constitutional basis for the President’s power to grant pardons.
9. Based on your research, how do legal experts differ in their interpretations of the constitutionality of self-pardons?
10. Did you encounter any court cases that specifically addressed self-pardons during your research?
11. Your paper discussed the role of Congress in oversight and impeachment proceedings. How does Congress serve as a check on presidential power in the context of self-pardons?
12. How does the judiciary play a role in interpreting and limiting presidential powers, including the power to pardon?
13. In terms of public perception and accountability, how do self-pardons impact the perception of justice and fairness in the legal system?
14. Can you explain the potential consequences of self-pardons on the rule of law in your own words?
15. How has the issue of presidential pardons, including self-pardons, been covered in the news during the time you’ve worked on your paper?
16. Throughout your research, did you interview anyone or consult any experts in the field? Did you rely solely on books and articles found online?
17. Why did you choose not to include any survey results, such as those from Pew Research, to gauge public opinion on self-pardons?
18. Did you come across any research or scholarly articles on platforms like JSTOR that provided insights into the topic of self-pardons?
19. In addition to the sources cited in your bibliography, did you utilize any primary sources or government reports to support your arguments?
20. Have you considered conducting a survey of students in your class to gather their perspectives on self-pardons? If not, what factors influenced that decision?
21. How did the historical context of the Watergate scandal influence the public’s reaction to President Nixon’s pardon and the subsequent debate on self-pardons?
22. Your paper discussed the concept of executive privilege. How does executive privilege relate to the pardon power and the debate on self-pardons?
23. Did you come across any legal arguments or interpretations that suggest a potential middle ground between complete self-pardoning authority and a complete prohibition on self-pardons?
24. In your research, did you explore any international perspectives on self-pardons? How do other countries approach this issue?
25. Can you discuss any potential constitutional remedies or checks that could address the issue of self-pardons if they were deemed unconstitutional?
26. How do the principles of fairness and equal treatment under the law factor into the debate on self-pardons?
27. Did you examine any historical examples or legal arguments regarding self-pardons in state-level pardoning practices, or did your research focus solely on the presidential context?
28. How does the potential for self-pardons impact the effectiveness of other mechanisms of accountability, such as investigations conducted by independent counsels or special prosecutors?
29. Were there any notable dissenting opinions or arguments within the legal community regarding the constitutionality of self-pardons that you encountered during your research?
30. In your own words, summarize the potential implications of allowing self-pardons on the integrity of the justice system and the public’s trust in the executive branch.
31. To what extent if any did you fact-check and ensure the accuracy and credibility of the sources you’ve included in your bibliography?
32. How did you go about verifying the accuracy and credibility of the sources you included in your bibliography?
33. Did you cross-reference information from multiple sources to ensure consistency and reliability?
34. Can you explain the process you followed to determine the credibility of each source? Did you consider factors such as the author’s credentials, publication reputation, or peer-reviewed research?
35. Were there any sources that you found particularly challenging to validate? If so, what steps did you take to address this challenge?
36. Did you encounter any conflicting information or sources with different viewpoints? If so, how did you navigate those discrepancies to arrive at a well-rounded perspective?
37. Did you consult with your peers, teacher, or other experts in the field to discuss and evaluate the credibility of any of your sources?
38. In hindsight, is there anything you would have done differently in terms of fact-checking and evaluating the sources for your research paper?