2305 United States Government

First Unit Exam Review/Study Guide

Fall 2013
Define the terms but do not stop there. You want to know
the significance of these terms. The how, the why, the who,
the what, the when, the where of each term. Make yourself
a Microsoft Word document and have it on hand for your
exam. Take extensive notes on these terms from your
textbook.
American Dream
The American Dream is a national ethos of the United States, a set of ideals in which freedom
includes the opportunity for prosperity and success, and an upwardsocial mobility for the family and
children, achieved through hard work in a society with few barriers. In the definition of the American
Dream by James Truslow Adams in 1931, "life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone,
with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement" regardless of social class or
circumstances of birth.[1]
The American Dream is rooted in the Declaration of Independence, which proclaims that "all men are
created equal" with the right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." [2]

Conservative
Historically, the central themes in American conservatism have included respect for American
traditions, support of republicanism and the rule of law, Judeo-Christian values, anti-Communism,
advocacy ofAmerican exceptionalism and a defense of Western civilization from the threats posed
by moral relativism,multiculturalism, and postmodern ridicule of traditional culture.. "Liberty" is a core
value, with a particular emphasis on strengthening the free market, and opposition to high taxes and
government or labor union encroachment on the entrepreneur.[1]
In recent decades, historians argue that the conservative tradition has played a major role
in American politics and culture since the American Revolution. However they have stressed that an
organized conservative movement has played a key role in politics only since the 1950s. The recent
movement is based in the Republican Party, but during the era of segregation, before 1965,
many Southern Democrats were also conservative. Southern Congressmen were a key part of
a Conservative Coalition that largely blocked liberal labor legislation in Congress from 1937 to 1963,
though they tended to be liberal and vote with the rest of the Democratic Party on other economic
issues.[2] Southern Democrats fended off the more conservative Republican Party (GOP) by arguing

that only they could defend segregation because the Republican Party nationally was committed to
integration. That argument collapsed when Congress banned segregation in 1964. This provided an
opportunity for Republicans to appeal to conservative Southerners on the basis that the GOP was
the more conservative party on a wide range of social and economic issues, as well as being
hawkish on foreign policy when the antiwar forces gained strength in the Democratic party. Southern
white conservatives moved from the Democratic Party to the GOP at the presidential level in the
1960s, and at the state and local level after 1990. [3][4][5]
The history of American conservatism has been marked by tensions and competing
ideologies. Fiscal conservatives and libertarians favor small government, low taxes, limited
regulation, and free enterprise. Social conservatives see traditional social values as threatened
by secularism; they tend to support school prayer and the Second Amendment rights of private
citizens to own firearms and tooppose abortion and oppose same-sex marriage.[6][7][8][9]
[10]
Neoconservatives want to expand American ideals throughout the world.
[11]
Paleoconservatives advocate restrictions on immigration, non-interventionist foreign policy, and
stand in opposition to multiculturalism.[12] Nationwide most factions (except some libertarians) support
a unilateral foreign policy, and a strong military. The conservative movement of the 1950s attempted
to bring together these divergent strands, stressing the need for unity to prevent the spread of
"godless communism."[13]
William F. Buckley Jr., in the first issue of his magazine National Review in 1955, explained the
standards of his magazine and helped make explicit the beliefs of American conservatives: [14]
Among our convictions:
It is the job of centralized government (in peacetime) to protect its citizens lives, liberty and property.
All other activities of government tend to diminish freedom and hamper progress. The growth of
government (the dominant social feature of this century) must be fought relentlessly. In this great
social conflict of the era, we are, without reservations, on the libertarian side. The profound crisis of
our era is, in essence, the conflict between the Social Engineers, who seek to adjust mankind to
conform with scientific utopias, and the disciples of Truth, who defend the organic moral order. We
believe that truth is neither arrived at nor illuminated by monitoring election results, binding though
these are for other purposes, but by other means, including a study of human experience. On this
point we are, without reservations, on the conservative side.
The meaning of "conservatism" in America has little in common with the way the word is used
elsewhere. As Ribuffo (2011) notes, "what Americans now call conservatism much of the world
callsliberalism or neoliberalism."[15] Similarly, Gross et al. (2011) reject the view that conservatism can
be defined in terms of a xed or stable essence or an immutable category of belief or practice.
Instead, they recommend a historical view of the concept that focuses on how particular meanings
come to be defined as conservative within a given sociohistorical milieu," both by self-identified
conservatives and by their political opponents. In this conception, conservatism is best understood
as a collective identity that evolves in the course of struggles and collaborations over political
meaning.[16]

Democracy
Democracy is "a system of government in which all the people of a state or polity ... are involved in
making decisions about its affairs, typically by voting to elect representatives to a parliament or
similar assembly," as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary.[1] Democracy is further defined as (a:)
"government by the people; especially : rule of the majority (b:) " a government in which the supreme
power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of
representation usually involving periodically held free elections." [2] According to political
scientist Larry Diamond, it consists of four key elements: "1. A political system for choosing and
replacing the government through free and fair elections. 2. The active participation of the people, as
citizens, in politics and civic life. 3. Protection of the human rights of all citizens. 4. A rule of law, in
which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens".[3]
The term originates from the Greek (dmokrata) "rule of the people",[4] which was found
from (dmos) "people" and (krtos) "power" or "rule", in the 5th century BC to denote
the political systemsthen existing in Greek city-states, notably Athens; the term is an antonym to
(aristokrata) "rule of an elite". While theoretically these definitions are in opposition, in
practice the distinction has been blurred historically.[5] The political system of Classical Athens, for
example, granted democratic citizenship to an elite class of free men and excluded slaves and
women from political participation. In virtually all democratic governments throughout ancient and
modern history, democratic citizenship consisted of an elite class until full enfranchisement was won
for all adult citizens in most modern democracies through the suffrage movements of the 19th and
20th centuries. The English word dates to the 16th century, from the older Middle French and Middle
Latin equivalents.
Democracy contrasts with forms of government where power is either held by an individual, as in
an absolute monarchy, or where power is held by a small number of individuals, as in an oligarchy.
Nevertheless, these oppositions, inherited from Greek philosophy,[6] are now ambiguous because
contemporary governments have mixed democratic, oligarchic, and monarchic elements.Karl
Popper defined democracy in contrast to dictatorshipor tyranny, thus focusing on opportunities for
the people to control their leaders and to oust them without the need for a revolution.[7]
Several variants of democracy exist, but there are two basic forms, both of which concern how the
whole body of all eligible citizens executes its will. One form of democracy is direct democracy, in
which all eligible citizens have direct and active participation in the political decision making. In most
modern democracies, the whole body of eligible citizens remain the sovereign power but political
power is exercised indirectly through elected representatives; this is called a representative
democracy. An analogous system, that fuses elements of democracy with sharia law, has been
termed islamocracy.[8]

direct democracy
Direct democracy (also known as pure democracy)[1] is a form of democracy in which
people decide (e.g. vote on, form consensus on) policy initiatives directly.

government
A government is the system by which a state or community is controlled.[1] In the Commonwealth of
Nations, the word government is also used more narrowly to refer to the collective group of
people that exercisesexecutive authority in a state.[2][3][4] This usage is analogous to what is called an
"administration" inAmerican English. Furthermore, especially in American English, the concepts
of the state and the governmentmay be used synonymously to refer to the person or group of people
exercising authority over a politically organized territory.[5][6] Finally, government is also sometimes
used in English as a synonym for governance.
In the case of its broad associative definition, government normally consists
of legislators, administrators, andarbitrators. Government is the means by which state policy is
enforced, as well as the mechanism for determining the policy of the state. A form of government, or
form of state governance, refers to the set of political systems and institutions that make up the
organisation of a specific government.
Government of any kind currently affects every human activity in many important ways. For this
reason, political scientists generally argue that government should not be studied by itself; but
should be studied along
withanthropology, economics, environmentalism, history,philosophy, science, and sociology.

indirect democracy
Democracies are sometimes divided into direct and indirect (also known as representative
democracy). The latter are the most common.
In indirect, or representative democracy, citizens elect representatives to make laws on their behalf.
[1]

This is what most modern countries have today.

In many representative democracies (Canada, the USA, Britain, etc.), representatives are most
commonly chosen inelections where a winning candidate has to win more votes than any other
candidate. That does not mean that it must be a majority of the votes cast. In theory other methods,
such as sortition (more closely aligned with direct democracy), could be used instead. Also,
representatives sometimes hold the power to select other representatives,presidents, or other
officers of government (indirect representation).
In a democracy the ultimate power to decide significant electoral system reforms lies with the
people. The key question that democrats will tend to ask of any proposed change in electoral law or
the voting mechanism is: Will it actually increase the capacity of the electorate to get rid of
unsatisfactory rulers and replace them with others? Democrats regard that basic capacity as the

best protection against governmental incompetence and abuse of power, however if individuals do
not express their ideas on what they think is right than we cannot call it a direct democracy but
indirect

Liberal

Liberalism, is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. The
former principle is stressed in classical liberalism while the latter is more evident in social
liberalism.[1]

Classical liberalism, a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the

individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social,

or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human
endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.
Conservative liberalism, a variant of liberalism, combining liberal values and policies

with conservative stances, or, more simply, representing the right-wing of the liberal
movement
Economic liberalism, the ideological belief in organizing the economy on individualist

lines, such that the greatest possible number of economic decisions are made by private
individuals and not by collective institutions.
Social liberalism, the belief that liberalism should include social justice and that the
legitimate role of the state includes addressing issues such as unemployment, health care,
education, and the expansion of civil rights
An adherent of a Liberal party
Liberal democracy, a form of government based on limited majority rule
Liberal Democratic Party, a common name for political parties around the world
Liberalism (international relations), a theory of international relations
European liberalism

Libertarian
Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophythat upholds liberty as its principal
objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political
freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgment. [1][2]
Libertarians generally share a skepticism of authority; however, they diverge on the scope of their
opposition to existing political and economic systems. Various schoolsof libertarian thought offer a
range of views regarding the legitimate functions of state and private power, often calling to restrict
or even to wholly dissolve coercive social institutions. Rather than embodying a singular, rigid

systematic theory or ideology, libertarianism has been applied as an umbrella term to a wide range
of sometimes discordant political ideas through modern history.
Although some present-day libertarians advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private
propertyrights,[3] such as in land, infrastructure and natural resources, others, notably libertarian
socialists,[4]seek to abolish capitalism and private ownership of the means of production in favor of
their commonor cooperative ownership and management.[5][6] While minarchists think that a minimal
centralized government is necessary, anarchists propose to completely eliminate the state.[7][8]
The term libertarianism originally referred to a philosophical belief in free will but later became
associated with anti-state socialism and Enlightenment-influenced[9][10] political movements critical of
institutional authority believed to serve forms of social domination and injustice. While it has
generally retained its earlier political usage as a synonym for either social or individualist
anarchism through much of the world, in the United States it has since come to describe procapitalist economic liberalismmore so than radical, anti-capitalist egalitarianism. In the Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy, libertarianism is defined as the moral view that agents initially fully own
themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things.[11] As
individualist opponents of social liberalism embraced the label and distanced themselves from the
word liberal, American writers, political parties and think tanks adopted the word libertarian to
describe advocacy of capitalist free market economics and a night-watchman state.

majority rule
Majority rule is a decision rule that selects alternatives which have a majority, that is, more
than half the votes. It is the binary decision rule used most often in influential decision-making
bodies, including the legislatures ofdemocratic nations. Some scholars have recommended
against the use of majority rule, at least under certain circumstances, due to an ostensible
trade-off between the benefits of majority rule and other values important to a democratic
society. Most famously, it has been argued that majority rule might lead to a "tyranny of the
majority," so the use of supermajoritarian rules and constitutional limits on government power
has been recommended to mitigate these effects. Recently some voting theorists have
argued that majority rule is the rule that best protects minorities.

Moderate
In politics and religion, a moderate is an individual who is notextreme, partisan, nor radical.[1] In
recent years, the termpolitical moderates has gained traction as a buzzword.
The existence of the ideal moderate is disputed because of a lack of a moderate political ideology.
Aristotle favoured conciliatory politics dominated by the centre rather than the extremes of great
wealth and poverty or the special interests of oligarchs and tyrants. [2]

Monarchy
A monarchy is a form of government in which sovereigntyis actually or nominally embodied in one
or several individual(s) reigning until death or abdication. They are called the monarchs.[1] Forms of
monarchy differ widely based on the level of legal autonomy the monarch holds in governance, the
method of selection of the monarch, and any predetermined limits on the length of their tenure.
When the monarch has no or few legal restraints in state and political matters, it is called
an absolute monarchyand is a form of autocracy. Cases in which the monarch's discretion is formally
limited (most common today) are called constitutional monarchies. In hereditary monarchies, the
office is passed through inheritance within a family group, whereas elective monarchies use some
system of voting. Each of these has variations: in some elected monarchies only those of certain
pedigrees are eligible, whereas many hereditary monarchies impose requirements regarding the
religion, age, gender, mental capacity, and other factors. Occasionally this might create a situation of
rival claimants whose legitimacy is subject to effective election. Finally, there have been cases where
the term of a monarchs reign is either fixed in years or continues until certain goals are achieved: an
invasion being repulsed, for instance. Thus there are widely divergent structures and traditions
defining monarchy.

Richard I of England being anointed during his coronation inWestminster Abbey, from a 13th-century chronicle.

Monarchy was the most common form of government until the 19th century, but it is no longer
prevalent. Where it exists, it is now usually a constitutional monarchy, in which the monarch retains a
unique legal and ceremonial role, but exercises limited or no official political power: under the written
or unwritten constitution, others have governing authority. Currently, 44 sovereign nations in the
world have monarchs acting as heads of state, 16 of which are Commonwealth realms that
recognise Queen Elizabeth II as their head of state. All European monarchies are constitutional
ones, with the exception of theVatican City, but sovereigns in the smaller states exercise greater
political influence than in the larger. The monarchs of Cambodia, Japan, and Malaysia "reign, but do
not rule" although there is considerable variation in the degree of authority they wield. Although they
reign under constitutions, the monarchs of Brunei, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi
Arabiaand Swaziland appear to continue to exercise more political influence than any other single
source of authority in their nations, either by constitutional mandate or by tradition.

natural law
Natural law, or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis; ius naturale), is a philosophy of law that is
supposedly determined by nature, and so is universal.[1] Classically, natural law refers to the use of
reason to analyze human nature both social and personal and deduce binding rules of moral
behavior from it. Natural law is often contrasted with the positive law of a given political
community, society, or state.[2] In legal theory, on the other hand, the interpretation of positive law
requires some reference to natural law. On this understanding of natural law, natural law can be
invoked to criticize judicial decisions about what the law says but not to criticize the best
interpretation of the law itself. Some juristsand scholars use natural law synonymously with natural
justice ornatural right (Latin ius naturale),[3] while others distinguish between natural law and natural
right.[1]
Although natural law is often conflated with common law, the two are distinct in that natural law is a
view that certain rights or values are inherent in or universally cognizable by virtue of human reason
or human nature, while common law is the legal tradition whereby certain rights or values are legally
cognizable by virtue of judicial recognition or articulation. [4] Natural law theories have, however,
exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law,[5] and have featured
greatly in the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Alberico Gentili, Francisco Surez, Richard
Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, John Locke, Francis
Hutcheson, Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, Emmerich de Vattel, Cesare Beccaria and Francesco Mario
Pagano. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a
component in the United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United
States, as well as in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. Declarationism states
that the founding of the United States is based on Natural law.
Natural Law and consent of the governed (John Locke) are the Foundation of the American
Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. (See "Laws of Nature" First Paragraph
Declaration of Independence[6]) Consent of the Governed, derived from the John Locke's Natural
Law Social Contract, replaced the Old World Governance Doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings.

Oligarchy
Oligarchy (from Greek (oligarkha); from (olgos), meaning "few", and
(arkho), meaning "to rule or to command") [1][2][3] is a form of power structure in
which power effectively rests with a small number of people. These people could be distinguished by
royalty, wealth, family ties, education, corporate, religious or military control. Such states are often
controlled by a few prominent families who typically pass their influence from one generation to the
next, but inheritance is not anecessary condition for the application of this term.

Throughout history, oligarchies have often been tyrannical(relying on public obedience and/or
oppression to exist).Aristotle pioneered the use of the term as a synonym for rule by the rich, [4] for
which another term commonly used today is plutocracy.

personal liberty
The personal liberty laws were laws passed by several U.S. states in the North to counter
the Fugitive Slave Acts of 1793 and 1850. Different laws did this in different ways, including
allowing jury trials for escaped slaves and forbidding state authorities from cooperating in their
capture and return. States with personal liberty laws
included Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan, Maine, New
Hampshire,Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Vermont.

political culture
Political culture is defined by the International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences as the
"set of attitudes, beliefs and sentiments that give order and meaning to a political process and
which provide the underlying assumptions and rules that govern behavior in the political
system". It encompasses both the political ideals and operating norms of a polity. Political
culture is thus the manifestation of the psychological and subjective dimensions of politics. A
political culture is the product of both the history of a political system and the histories of the
members. Thus it is rooted equally in public events and private experience. [1]

political equality

political ideology
This is a list of political ideologies. Many political partiesbase their political action and election
program on anideology. In social studies, a political ideology is a certainethical set of ideals,
principles, doctrines, myths orsymbols of a social movement, institution, class, and or large group
that explains how society should work, and offers some political and cultural blueprint for a certain
social order. A political ideology largely concerns itself with how to allocate power and to what ends it
should be used. Some parties follow a certain ideology very closely, while others may take broad
inspiration from a group of related ideologies without specifically embracing any one of them. The
popularity of an ideology is in part due to the influence of moral entrepreneurs, who sometimes act in
their own interests.
Political ideologies have two dimensions:
1. Goals: How society should be organized.
2. Methods: The most appropriate way to achieve this goal.
An ideology is a collection of ideas. Typically, each ideology contains certain ideas on what it
considers to be the best form of government (e.g. democracy, autocracy, etc.), and the
best economic system (e.g. capitalism,socialism, etc.). Sometimes the same word is used to identify

both an ideology and one of its main ideas. For instance, "socialism" may refer to an economic
system, or it may refer to an ideology which supports that economic system.
Ideologies also identify themselves by their position on thepolitical spectrum (such as the left,
the centre or the right), though this is very often controversial. Finally, ideologies can be
distinguished from political strategies (e.g.populism) and from single issues that a party may be built
around (e.g. opposition to European integration or thelegalization of marijuana).
The following list attempts to divide the ideologies found in practical political life into a number of
groups; each group contains ideologies that are related to each other. The headers refer to names of
the best-known ideologies in each group. The names of the headers do not necessarily imply some
hierarchical order or that one ideology evolved out of the other. They are merely noting the fact that
the ideologies in question are practically, historically and ideologically related to each other. Note
that one ideology can belong to several groups, and there is sometimes considerable overlap
between related ideologies. Also, keep in mind that the meaning of a political label can differ
between countries and that parties often subscribe to a combination of ideologies.
The list is strictly alphabetical. Thus, placing one ideology before another does not imply that the first
is more important or popular than the second.

Politics
Politics (from Greek: politikos, definition "of, for, or relating to citizens") is the practice and
theory of influencing other people. More narrowly, it refers to achieving and exercising positions
of governance organized control over a human community, particularly astate. Furthermore,
politics is the study or practice of the distribution of power and resources within a given community
(a usually hierarchically organized population) as well as the interrelationship(s) between
communities.
A variety of methods are employed in politics, which include promoting or forcing one's own political
views among people, negotiation with other political subjects, making laws, and exercising force,
including warfareagainst adversaries. Politics is exercised on a wide range of social levels,
from clans and tribes of traditional societies, through modern local governments, companiesand
institutions up to sovereign states, to the international level.
It is very often said that politics is about power.[1] A political system is a framework which defines
acceptable political methods within a given society. History of political thoughtcan be traced back to
early antiquity, with seminal works such as Plato's Republic, Aristotle's Politics and the works
of Confucius.
Formal Politics refers to the operation of a constitutional system of government and publicly defined
institutions and procedures.[1] Political parties, public policy or discussions about war and foreign
affairs would fall under the category of Formal Politics.[1] Many people view formal politics as
something outside of themselves, but that can still affect their daily lives.[1]

Informal Politics is understood as forming alliances, exercising power and protecting and advancing
particular ideas or goals. Generally, this includes anything affecting one's daily life, such as the way
an office or household is managed, or how one person or group exercises influence over another.
[1]
Informal Politics is typically understood as everyday politics, hence the idea that "politics is
everywhere".[1]

popular consent
Popular consent means people should be able to participate directly
in the governing of their own societies
popular sovereignty
Popular sovereignty or the sovereignty of the people is the principle that the authority of the
government is created and sustained by the consent of its people, through their elected
representatives (Rule by the People), who are the source of all political power. It is closely
associated with social contract philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and JeanJacques Rousseau. Popular sovereignty expresses a concept and does not necessarily reflect or
describe a political reality.[a]It is usually contrasted with the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, and
with individual sovereignty. The people have the final say in government decisions. Benjamin
Franklin expressed the concept when he wrote, "In free governments, the rulers are the servants
and the people their superiors and sovereigns". [1]
Americans founded their Revolution and government on popular sovereignty, but the term was also
used in the 1850s to describe a highly controversial approach to slavery in the territories as
propounded by senatorStephen A. Douglas. It meant that local residents of a territory would be the
ones to decide if slavery would be permitted, and it led to bloody warfare in Bleeding Kansasas
violent proponents and enemies of slavery flooded Kansas territory in order to decide the elections.
An earlier development of popular sovereignty arose from philosopher Francisco Suarez and
became the basis forLatin American independence. Popular sovereignty also can be described as
the voice of the people.
In Scandinavia it serves as a the basis for many countriesconstitution as opposed to the principle of
"separation of powers".[2]

Republic
A republic (from Latin: res publica) is a form of government or country [1] in which power resides in
elected individuals representing the citizen body [2][3] and government leaders exercise power
according to the rule of law. In modern times, the definition of a republic is commonly limited to a
government which excludes amonarch.[3][4] Currently, 147 of the world's 206 sovereign states use the
word "republic" as part of their official names.

Both modern and ancient republics vary widely in their ideology and composition. In the classical
and medievalperiod of Europe, many states were fashioned on theRoman Republic, which referred
to the governance of the city of Rome, between it having kings and emperors. The Italian medieval
and Renaissance political tradition today referred to as "civic humanism", is sometimes considered
to derive directly from Roman republicans such as Sallustand Tacitus. However, Greek-influenced
Roman authors, such as Polybius[5] and Cicero, sometimes also used the term as a translation for
the Greek politeia which could mean regime generally, but could also be applied to certain specific
types of regime which did not exactly correspond to that of the Roman Republic. Republics were not
equated with classical democracies such as Athens, but had a democratic aspect.
Republics became more common in the Western world starting in the early 19th century, eventually
displacing absolute monarchy as the most common form of government. In modern republics the
executive is legitimized both by a constitution and by popular suffrage. Montesquieu included
bothdemocracies, where all the people have a share in rule, and aristocracies or oligarchies, where
only some of the people rule, as republican forms of government. [6]
Most often a republic is a sovereign state, but there are also sub-sovereign state entities that are
referred to as republics, or which have governments that are described as 'republican' in nature. For
instance, Article IV of the United States Constitution "guarantee[s] to every State in this Union a
Republican form of Government". [7] Similarly, the Soviet Union was constitutionally described as a
"federal multinational state", composed of 15 republics, two of which Ukraine and Belarus had
their own seats at the United Nations.

social conservative
Social conservatism is a group of political ideologies centred around preserving traditional
beliefs, attitudes and philosophy, in the face of social progressivism. The aims of social
conservatism vary from organisation to organisation, and from country to country. Thus, there
are really no policies or positions that could be considered universal among social
conservatives. There are, however, a number of general principles to which at least a majority
of social conservatives adhere.

Statist
In political science, statism is the belief that the state should control either economic or social
policy, or both, to some degree.[1] Statism is effectively the opposite of anarchism,[1] and an
individual who supports the existence of the state is a statist. Statism can take many forms
from minarchism tototalitarianism. Minarchists prefer a minimal or night-watchman state to
protect people from aggression,theft, breach of contract, and fraud with military, police,
and courts.[2] Some may also include fire departments, prisons, and other functions.[2] Welfare
state adepts and other such options make up more statist territory of the scale of statism.[3]
[4]
Totalitarians prefer a maximum or all-encompassing state. [5][6]

Totalitarianism
Totalitarianism is a political system in which the stateholds total control over the society and seeks
to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible. [1]

The concept of totalitarianism was first developed in the 1920s by the Weimar German jurist, and
later Nazi academic, Carl Schmitt and Italian fascists. Schmitt used the term, Totalstaat in his
influential work on the legal basis of an all-powerful state, The Concept of the Political(1927).[2] The
concept became prominent in Western anti-communist political discourse during the Cold War era, in
order to highlight perceived similarities between Nazi Germany and other Fascist states on the one
hand, andSoviet Communist Party states on the other.[3][4][5][6][7]
Other movements and governments have also been described as totalitarian. The leader of the
historic Spanish reactionary conservative movement called theSpanish Confederation of the
Autonomous Right declared his intention to "give Spain a true unity, a new spirit, a totalitarian
polity..." and went on to say "Democracy is not an end but a means to the conquest of the new state.
When the time comes, either parliament submits or we will eliminate it."[8]

Anti Federalist
Anti-Federalism refers to a movement that opposed the creation of a stronger U.S. federal
government and which later opposed the ratification of the Constitution of 1788. The previous
constitution, called the Articles of Confederation, gave state governments more authority. Led
by Patrick Henry of Virginia, Anti-Federalists worried, among other things, that the position of
president, then a novelty, might evolve into a monarchy.

Articles of Confederation
The Articles of Confederation, formally the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, was
an agreement among all thirteen original states in the United States of America that served as its
first constitution.[1] Its drafting by a committee appointed by the Second Continental Congress began
on July 12, 1776, and an approved version was sent to the states for ratification in late 1777. The
formal ratification by all thirteen states was completed in early 1781.
Even when not yet ratified, the Articles provided a system for the Continental Congress to direct
the American Revolutionary War, conduct diplomacy with Europe and deal with territorial issues and
Native American relations. Nevertheless, the weakness of the government created by the Articles
became a matter of concern for keynationalists. On March 4, 1789, the general government under
the Articles was replaced with the federal government under the United States Constitution.[2][3] The
new Constitution provided for a much stronger federal government with a chief executive (the
president), courts, and taxing powers.

Bill of Rights
The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first tenamendments to the United States
Constitution. Proposed to assuage the fears of Anti-Federalists who had opposed Constitutional
ratification, these amendments guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government's
power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public.
Originally the amendments applied only to the federal government, however, most were

subsequently applied to the government of each state by way of the Fourteenth Amendment,
through a process known as incorporation.
On June 8, 1789 Representative James Madisonintroduced a series of thirty-nine amendments to
the constitution in the House of Representatives. Among his recommendations Madison proposed
opening up the Constitution and inserting specific rights limiting the power of Congress in Article
One, Section 9. Seven of these limitations would become part of the ten ratified Bill of Rights
amendments. Ultimately, on September 25, 1789,Congress approved twelve articles of amendment
to the Constitution and submitted them to the states forratification. Contrary to Madison's original
proposal that the articles be incorporated into the main body of the Constitution, they were proposed
as "supplemental" additions to it. On December 15, 1791, Articles ThreeTwelve, having been
ratified by the required number of states, became Amendments OneTen of the Constitution.
On May 7, 1992, after an unprecedented period of202 years, 225 days, Article Two crossed the
Constitutional threshold for ratification and became theTwenty-seventh Amendment. As a
result, Article Onealone remains unratified and still pending before the states.
The Bill of Rights enumerates freedoms not explicitly indicated in the main body of the Constitution,
such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, a free press, and free assembly; the right to keep
and bear arms; freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, security in personal effects, and
freedom from warrants issued without probable cause; indictment by a grand jury for anycapital or
"infamous crime"; guarantee of a speedy, public trial with an impartial jury; and prohibition of double
jeopardy. In addition, the Bill of Rights reserves for the people any rights not specifically mentioned
in the Constitution and reserves all powers not specifically granted to the federal government to the
people or the States. The Bill was influenced by George Mason's 1776 Virginia Declaration of
Rights, the English Bill of Rights 1689, and earlier English political documents such as Magna
Carta (1215).
The Bill of Rights had little judicial impact for the first 150 years of its existence, but was the basis for
many Supreme Court decisions of the 20th and 21st centuries. One of the first fourteen copies of the
Bill of Rights is on public display at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.

checks and balances

The separation of powers, often imprecisely used interchangeably with the trias
politica principle,[1] is a model for the governance of a state (or who controls the state). The
model was first developed inancient Greece. Under this model, the state is divided into
branches, each with separate and independent powers and areas of responsibility so that the
powers of one branch are not in conflict with the powers associated with the other branches.
The typical division of branches is into a legislature, anexecutive, and a judiciary. It can be
contrasted with the fusion of powers in a parliamentary systemwhere the executive and
legislature (and sometimes parts of the judiciary) are unified.

committees of Correspondence
The committees of correspondence were shadow governments organized by the Patriot leaders

of the Thirteen Colonies on the eve of the American Revolution. They coordinated responses to
Britain and shared their plans; by 1773 they had emerged as shadow governments, superseding the
colonial legislature and royal officials. The Maryland Committee of Correspondence was instrumental
in setting up the First Continental Congress, which met in Philadelphia. These served an important
role in the Revolution, by disseminating the colonial interpretation of British actions between the
colonies and to foreign governments. The committees of correspondence rallied opposition on
common causes and established plans for collective action, and so the group of committees was the
beginning of what later became a formal political union among the colonies.
A total of about 7,000 to 8,000 Patriots served on these committees at the colonial and local levels,
comprising most of the leadership in their communitiesthe Loyalists were excluded. The
committees became the leaders of the American resistance to British actions, and largely
determined the war effort at the state and local level. When Congress decided to boycott British
products, the colonial and local Committees took charge, examining merchant records and
publishing the names of merchants who attempted to defy the boycott by importing British goods.
The Committees promoted patriotism and home manufacturing, advising Americans to avoid
luxuries, and lead a more simple life. The Committees gradually extended their power over many
aspects of American public life. They set up espionage networks to identify disloyal elements,
displaced the royal officials, and helped topple the entire Imperial system in each colony. In late 1774
and early 1775, they supervised the elections of provincial conventions, which took over the actual
operation of colonial government. [1]

Confederation
A confederation (also known as confederacy or league) is a union of political units for common
action in relation to other units.[1] Usually created by treaty but often later adopting a
common constitution, confederations tend to be established for dealing with critical issues (such
asdefense, foreign affairs, or a common currency), with thecentral government being required to
provide support for all members.
The nature of the relationship among the states constituting a confederation varies considerably.
Likewise, the relationship between the member states, the central government, and the distribution
of powers among them is highly variable. Some looser confederations are similar
tointergovernmental organizations and even may permitsecession from the confederation. Other
confederations with stricter rules may resemble federations. A unitary state or federation
may decentralize powers to regional or local entities in a confederal form.
In a non-political context, confederation is used to describe a type of organization which consolidates
authority from other autonomous (or semi-autonomous) bodies. Examples include sports
confederations or confederations of pan-European trades unions.
In Canada, the word confederation has an additional, unrelated meaning.[2] "Confederation" refers to
the process of (or the event of) establishing or joining the Canadian federal state. [2]

In the context of the history of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, a confederacy may refer to a
semi-permanent political and military alliance consisting of multiple nations (or "tribes", "bands", or
"villages") which maintained their separate leadership. One of the most well-known is the Iroquois
Confederacy, but there were many others during different eras and locations across North America;
these include the Wabanaki Confederacy, Western Confederacy, Powhatan Confederacy, Seven
Nations of Canada, Pontiac's Confederacy, Illinois Confederation, Tecumseh's Confederacy, Great
Sioux Nation, Blackfoot Confederacy, Iron Confederacy and Council of Three Fires.

Constitution
The United States Constitution is the supreme law of theUnited States of America.
[1]
The Constitution, originally comprising seven articles, delineates the national frame of government.
Its first three articles entrench the doctrine of the separation of powers, whereby the federal
government is divided into three branches: the legislative, consisting of the bicameral Congress;
the executive, consisting of the President; and the judicial, consisting of the Supreme Court and
other federal courts. Articles Four,Five and Six entrench concepts of federalism, describing the rights
and responsibilities of state governments and of the states in relationship to the federal
government. Article Seven establishes the procedure subsequently used by the
thirteen States to ratify it.
Since the Constitution came into force in 1789, it has beenamended twenty-seven times.[2] In
general, the first ten amendments, known collectively as the Bill of Rights, offer specific protections
of individual liberty and justice and place restrictions on the powers of government. [3][4] The majority of
the seventeen later amendments expand individual civil rights. Others address issues related to
federal authority or modify government processes and procedures. Amendments to the United
States Constitution, unlike ones made to many constitutions world-wide, are appended to the end of
the document. At seven articles and twenty-seven amendments, it is the shortest written constitution
in force.[5] All five pages of the original U.S. Constitution are written on parchment.[6]
The Constitution is interpreted, supplemented, and implemented by a large body of constitutional
law. The Constitution of the United States is the first constitution of its kind, and has influenced the
constitutions of other nations.

Declaration of Independence
The Declaration of Independence is the statement adopted by the Continental Congress meeting
atPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania on July 4, 1776, which announced that the thirteen American colonies,
[2]
then at war with Great Britain, regarded themselves as thirteen newly independent sovereign
states, and no longer a part of the British Empire. Instead they formed a new nationthe United
States of America. John Adams was a leader in pushing for independence, which was unanimously
approved on July 2. Acommittee of five had already drafted the formal declaration, to be ready when

Congress voted on independence. The term "Declaration of Independence" is not used in the
document itself.
Adams persuaded the committee to select Thomas Jefferson to compose the original draft of the
document,[3] which Congress would edit to produce the final version. The Declaration was ultimately
a formal explanation of why Congress had voted on July 2 todeclare independence from Great
Britain, more than a year after the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War. The national
birthday, Independence Day, is celebrated on July 4, although Adams wanted July 2.
After ratifying the text on July 4, Congress issued the Declaration of Independence in several forms.
It was initially published as the printed Dunlap broadside that was widely distributed and read to the
public. The source copy used for this printing has been lost, and may have been a copy in Thomas
Jefferson's hand.[4] Jefferson's original draft, complete with changes made by John Adams
and Benjamin Franklin, and Jefferson's notes of changes made by Congress, are preserved at the
Library of Congress. The best known version of the Declaration, a signed copy that is popularly
regarded as the official document, is displayed at the National Archives in Washington, D.C. This
engrossed copy was ordered by Congress on July 19, and signed primarily on August 2. [5][6]
The sources and interpretation of the Declaration have been the subject of much scholarly inquiry.
The Declaration justified the independence of the United States by listing colonial grievances
against King George III, and by asserting certain natural and legal rights, including a right of
revolution. Having served its original purpose in announcing independence, references to the text of
the Declaration were few for the next four score years. Abraham Lincoln made it the centerpiece of
his rhetoric (as in theGettysburg Address of 1863), and his policies. Since then, it has become a
well-known statement onhuman rights, particularly its second sentence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.
This has been called "one of the best-known sentences in the English language", [7] containing "the
most potent and consequential words in American history". [8] The passage came to represent a moral
standard to which the United States should strive. This view was notably promoted by Abraham
Lincoln, who considered the Declaration to be the foundation of his political philosophy, and argued
that the Declaration is a statement of principles through which the United States Constitution should
be interpreted.[9]
It provided inspiration to numerous national declarations of independence throughout the world.
Historian David Armitage, after examining the influence of the American "Declaration" on over 100
other declarations of independence, says:
The American Revolution was the first outbreak of the contagion of sovereignty that has swept the
world in the centuries since 1776. Its influence spread first to the Low Countries and then to the
Caribbean, Spanish America, the Balkans, West Africa, and Central Europe in the decades up to
1848.... Declarations of independence were among the primary symptoms of this contagion of
sovereignty.[10]

enumerated powers
The enumerated powers are a list of items found in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution that
set forth the authority of Congress.[1] In summary, Congress may exercise the powers that the
Constitution grants it, subject to the individual rights listed in the Bill of Rights. Moreover, the
Constitution expresses various other limitations on Congress, such as the one expressed by
the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Historically, Congress and the Supreme Court have broadly interpreted the enumerated powers,
especially by deriving many implied powers from them.[2] The enumerated powers listed in Article
One include both exclusive federal powers, as well as concurrent powers that are shared with the
states, and all of those powers are to be contrasted with reserved powers that only the states
possess.[3][4]

federal system
Federalism is a political concept in which agroup of members are bound together by covenant
(Latin: foedus, covenant) with a governing representative head. The term "federalism" is also used to
describe a system of government in which sovereignty isconstitutionally divided between a central
governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces). Federalism is a
system based upondemocratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between
national and provincial/state governments, creating what is often called a federation. The
term federalist describes several political beliefs around the world. Also, it may refer to the concept
of parties; its members or supporters called themselves Federalists.[1]
In a federal system where sovereignty is divided between a central governing authority and
constituent political units, power is also divided. The central governing authority has certain exclusive
federal powers, the constituent political units have certain states' rights, and those two levels of
government share certain concurrent powers.

The Federalist Powers

The Federalist (later known as The Federalist Papers) is a collection of 85 articles and essays
written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay promoting theratification of the United
States Constitution. Seventy-seven were published serially in The Independent Journal and The
New York Packet between October 1787 and August 1788. A compilation of these and eight others,
called The Federalist; or, The New Constitution, was published in two volumes in 1788 by J. and
A. McLean.[1] The collection's original title wasThe Federalist; the title The Federalist Papers did not
emerge until the 20th century.

Though the authors of The Federalist Papers foremost wished to influence the vote in favor of
ratifying the Constitution, inFederalist No. 1 they explicitly set that debate in broader political terms:
It has been frequently remarked, that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country,
by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really
capable or not, of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are
forever destined to depend, for their political constitutions, on accident and force. [2]
There are many highlights among the essays of The Federalist. Federalist No. 10, in which Madison
discusses the means of preventing rule by majority faction and advocates a large, commercial
republic, is generally regarded as the most important of the 85 articles from a philosophical
perspective; it is complemented by Federalist No. 14, in which Madison takes the measure of the
United States, declares it appropriate for an extended republic, and concludes with a memorable
defense of the constitutional and political creativity of the Federal Convention. [3] In Federalist No. 84,
Hamilton makes the case that there is no need to amend the Constitution by adding a Bill of Rights,
insisting that the various provisions in the proposed Constitution protecting liberty amount to a "bill of
rights". Federalist No. 78, also written by Hamilton, lays the groundwork for the doctrine of judicial
review by federal courts of federal legislation or executive acts. Federalist No. 70 presents
Hamilton's case for a one-man chief executive. In Federalist No. 39, Madison presents the clearest
exposition of what has come to be called "Federalism". In Federalist No. 51, Madison distills
arguments for checks and balances in an essay often quoted for its justification of government as
"the greatest of all reflections on human nature."
According to historian Richard B. Morris, they are an "incomparable exposition of the Constitution, a
classic in political science unsurpassed in both breadth and depth by the product of any later
American writer."[4]

Federalism
Federalism is a political concept in which agroup of members are bound together by covenant
(Latin: foedus, covenant) with a governing representative head. The term "federalism" is also used to
describe a system of government in which sovereignty isconstitutionally divided between a central
governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces). Federalism is a
system based upondemocratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between
national and provincial/state governments, creating what is often called a federation. The
term federalist describes several political beliefs around the world. Also, it may refer to the concept
of parties; its members or supporters called themselves Federalists.[1]
In a federal system where sovereignty is divided between a central governing authority and
constituent political units, power is also divided. The central governing authority has certain exclusive
federal powers, the constituent political units have certain states' rights, and those two levels of
government share certain concurrent powers.

First Continental Congress

The First Continental Congress was a meeting of delegates from twelve of the thirteen colonies
that met on September 5 to October 26, 1774 at Carpenters' Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
early in the American Revolution. It was called in response to "The passage of the Coercive Acts"
(also known as Intolerable Acts by the Colonial Americans) by the British Parliament. The Intolerable
Acts had punished Massachusetts for theBoston Tea Party.
The Congress was attended by 56 delegates appointed by the legislatures of twelve of the thirteen
colonies. Georgia declined to send delegates because they were hoping for British assistance
with Native Americanproblems on its frontier and did not want to upset the British. [1]
The Congress met briefly to consider options, including an economic boycott of British trade; rights
and grievances; and petitioned King George III for redress of those grievances.
The Congress also called for another Continental Congress in the event that their petition was
unsuccessful in halting enforcement of the Intolerable Acts. Their appeal to the Crown had no effect,
and so the Second Continental Congress was convened the following year to organize the defense
of the colonies at the onset of the American Revolutionary War. The delegates also urged each
colony to set up and train its own militia.

Full faith and credit clause

Article IV, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, known as the "Full Faith and Credit
Clause", addresses the duties that states within the United States have to respect the "public
acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." According to the Supreme Court,
there is a difference between the credit owed to laws (i.e. legislative measures and common
law) as compared to the credit owed to judgments.[1] Judgments are generally entitled to
greater respect than laws, in other states.[2] At present, it is widely agreed that this Clause of
the Constitution has little impact on a court's choice of lawdecision,[3] although this Clause of
the Constitution was once interpreted differently.[4]

Great Compromise
The Connecticut Compromise (also known as the Great Compromise of
1787 or Sherman's Compromise) was an agreement that large and small states reached
during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 that in part defined the legislative structure and
representation that each state would have under the United States Constitution. It retained
the bicameral legislature as proposed byRoger Sherman, along with proportional
representation in the lower house, but required the upper house to be weighted equally
between the states. Each state would have two representatives in the upper house.

implied powers
Implied powers, in the United States, are those powers authorized by a document (from the
Constitution) that, while not stated, seem to be implied by powers expressly stated. When George
Washington asked Alexander Hamilton to defend the constitutionality of the First Bank of the United
States against the protests[1] of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Attorney General Edmund

Randolph, Hamilton produced what has now become the classic statement for implied powers.
[2]
Hamilton argued that the sovereign duties of a government implied the right to use means
adequate to its ends. Although the United States government was sovereign only as to certain
objects, it was impossible to define all the means which it should use, because it was impossible for
the founders to anticipate all future exigencies. Hamilton noted that the "general welfare clause" and
the "necessary and proper clause" gave elasticity to the constitution. Hamilton won the argument
with Washington, who signed his Bank Bill into law.
Later, directly borrowing from Hamilton, Chief Justice John Marshall invoked the implied powers of
government in the court decision of McCulloch v. Maryland. This was used to justify the denial of the
right of a state to tax a bank, the Second Bank of the United States, using the idea to argue the
constitutionality of the United States Congress creating it in 1816.
In the case of the United States government, implied powers are the powers exercised by Congress
which are not explicitly given by the Constitution itself but necessary and proper to execute the
powers.

Mercantilism
Mercantilism was an economic theory and practice, dominant in Europe from the 16th to the 18th
century,[1]that promoted governmental regulation of a nation's economy for the purpose of
augmenting state power at the expense of rival national powers. It is the economic counterpart of
political absolutism.[2] Mercantilism includes a national economic policy aimed at
accumulatingmonetary reserves through a positive balance of trade, especially of finished goods.
Historically, such policies frequently led to war and also motivated colonial expansion. Mercantilist
theory varies in sophistication from one writer to another and has evolved over time. Hightariffs,
especially on manufactured goods, are an almost universal feature of mercantilist policy. Other
policies have included:

creating overseas colonies;

forbidding colonies to trade with other nations;

monopolizing markets with staple ports;
banning the export of gold and silver, even for payments;
forbidding trade to be carried in foreign ships;
subsidies on exports;
promoting manufacturing through research or direct subsidies;
limiting wages;
maximizing the use of domestic resources; and
restricting domestic consumption through non-tariff barriers to trade.

Mercantilism in its simplest form is bullionism, but mercantilist writers have emphasized the
circulation of money and reject hoarding. Their emphasis on monetary metals accords with current

ideas regarding the money supply, such as the stimulative effect of agrowing money
supply. Specie concerns have since been rendered moot by fiat money andfloating exchange rates.
In time, the heavy emphasis on money was supplanted by industrial policy, accompanied by a shift
in focus from the capacity to carry on wars to promoting general prosperity. Mature neomercantilist
theory recommends selective high tariffs for "infant" industries or to promote the mutual growth of
countries through national industrial specialization[citation needed].
The term "mercantile system" was used by its foremost critic, Adam Smith,[3] but "mercantilism" had
been used earlier by Mirabeau.
While many nations applied the theory, one exemplar was France, economically the most important
state in Europe at the time. King Louis XIV followed the guidance of Jean Baptiste Colbert, his
controller general of finances (166283). It was determined that the state should rule in the
economic realm as it did in the diplomatic, and that the interests of the state as identified by the king
were superior to those of merchants and everyone else. The goal of mercantilist economic policies
was to build up the state, especially in an age of incessant warfare, and the state should look for
ways to strengthen the economy and weaken foreign adversaries. [4]

necessary and proper clause

The Necessary and Proper Clause, also known as theElastic Clause, the Basket Clause,
the Coefficient Clause, and the Sweeping Clause,[1] is a provision inArticle One of the United
States Constitution, located at section 8, clause 18.
The Necessary and Proper Clause is as follows:
The Congress shall have Power ... To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for
carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the
Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

New Jersey Plan

The New Jersey Plan (also widely known as the Small State Plan or the Paterson Plan) was
a proposal for the structure of the United States Government presented by William
Paterson at theConstitutional Convention on June 15, 1787.[1] The plan was created in
response to the Virginia Plan, which called for two houses of Congress, both elected
with apportionment according to population.[2]The less populous states were adamantly
opposed to giving most of the control of the national government to the more populous states,
and so proposed an alternative plan that would have kept the one-vote-per-state
representation under one legislative body from the Articles of Confederation. The New Jersey
Plan was opposed by James Madison and Edmund Randolph (the proponents of the Virginia
Plan).

Second Continental Congress

The Second Continental Congress was a convention of delegates from the Thirteen Colonies that

started meeting in the summer of 1775, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, soon after warfare in
the American Revolutionary War had begun. It succeeded the First Continental Congress, which met
between September 5, 1774 and October 26, 1774, also in Philadelphia. The second Congress
managed the colonial war effort, and moved incrementally towards independence, adopting
the United States Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776. By raising armies, directing strategy,
appointing diplomats, and making formal treaties, the Congress acted as the de facto national
government of what became the United States.[1]
When the Second Continental Congress came together on May 10, 1775 it was, in effect, a
reconvening of the First Continental Congress. Many of the same 56 delegates who attended the
first meeting were in attendance at the second, and the delegates appointed the
same president (Peyton Randolph) and secretary (Charles Thomson).[2] Notable new arrivals
includedBenjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania and John Hancock of Massachusetts. Within two weeks,
Randolph was summoned back to Virginia to preside over the House of Burgesses; he was replaced
in the Virginia delegation byThomas Jefferson, who arrived several weeks later. Henry
Middleton was elected as president to replace Randolph, but he declined. Hancock was elected
president on May 24.[3]
Delegates from twelve of the Thirteen Colonies were present when the Second Continental
Congress convened. Georgia had not participated in the First Continental Congress and did not
initially send delegates to the Second Continental Congress. On May 13, 1775, Lyman Hall was
admitted as a delegate from the Parish of St. John's in the Colony of Georgia, not as a delegate from
the colony itself.[4] On July 4, 1775, revolutionary Georgians held a Provincial Congress to decide
how to respond to the American Revolution, and that congress decided on July 8 to send delegates
to the Continental Congress. They arrived on July 20. [5]

Separation of powers
The separation of powers, often imprecisely used interchangeably with the trias
politica principle,[1] is a model for the governance of a state (or who controls the state). The
model was first developed inancient Greece. Under this model, the state is divided into
branches, each with separate and independent powers and areas of responsibility so that the
powers of one branch are not in conflict with the powers associated with the other branches.
The typical division of branches is into a legislature, anexecutive, and a judiciary. It can be
contrasted with the fusion of powers in a parliamentary systemwhere the executive and
legislature (and sometimes parts of the judiciary) are unified.

Stamp Act Congress

The Stamp Act Congress, or First Congress of the American Colonies, was a meeting held
between October 7 and 25, 1765 in New York City, consisting of representatives from some of
the British colonies in North America; it was the first gathering of elected representatives from
several of the American colonies to devise a unified protest against new British
taxation.Parliament had passed the Stamp Act, which required the use of specially stamped paper
for virtually all business in the colonies, and was coming into effect November 1.

The Congress was organized in response to a circular letter distributed by the colonial legislature of
the Province of Massachusetts Bay, and consisted of delegates from nine of the eighteen British
colonies in North America. All nine of the attending delegations were from the Thirteen Colonies that
eventually formed the United States of America. Although sentiment was strong in some of the other
colonies to participate in the Congress, a number of royal governors took steps to prevent the
colonial legislatures from meeting to select delegates.
The Congress met in the building now known as Federal Hall, and was held at a time of widespread
protests in the colonies, some of which were violent, against the Stamp Act's implementation. The
delegates discussed and united against the act, issuing a Declaration of Rights and Grievances in
which they claimed that Parliament did not have the right to impose the tax because it did not include
any representation from the colonies. Members of six of the nine delegations signed petitions
addressed to Parliament and King George III objecting to the Act's provisions.
The extra-legal nature of the Congress caused alarm in Britain, but any discussion of the congress's
propriety were overtaken by economic protests from British merchants whose business with the
colonies suffered as a consequence of the protests and their associated non-importation of British
products. These economic issues prompted the British Parliament to repeal the Stamp Act, but it
passed the Declaratory Act the same day, to express its opinion on the basic constitutional issues
raised by the colonists; it stated that Parliament could make laws binding the American colonies "in
all cases whatsoever."[1]

Supremacy clause
The Supremacy Clause is the provision in Article Six,Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that
establishes the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and treaties as "the supreme law of the
land." It provides that these are the highest form of law in the United States legal system, and
mandates that all state judges must followfederal law when a conflict arises between federal law and
either a state constitution or state law of any state.
The supremacy of federal law over state law only applies ifCongress is acting in pursuance of its
constitutionallyauthorized powers.

Three fifths Compromise

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise reached between delegates
from southern statesand those from northern states during the 1787 United
States Constitutional Convention. The debate was over whether, and if so, how, slaves would
be counted when determining a state's total population for legislative representation and
taxing purposes. The issue was important, as this population number would then be used to
determine the number of seats that the state would have in the United States House of
Representatives for the next ten years. The effect was to give the southern states a third more
seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes than if slaves had been ignored (but fewer
than if counts of slaves and free persons had been lumped together), allowing the slaveholder
interests to largely dominate the government of the United States until 1865. [1] The
compromise was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman.

Virginia Plan
The Virginia Plan (also known as the Randolph Plan, after its sponsor, or the Large-State
Plan) was a proposal by Virginia delegates for a bicameral legislative branch.[1]The plan was
drafted by James Madison while he waited for a quorum to assemble at the Constitutional
Conventionof 1787.[2][3] The Virginia Plan was notable for its role in setting the overall agenda
for debate in the convention and, in particular, for setting forth the idea of population-weighted
representation in the proposed national legislature.

Article One
Article One of the United States Constitution establishes thelegislative branch of the federal
government, the United States Congress. The Congress is a bicameral legislature consisting
of a House of Representatives and a Senate.

Article One, Section Eight

Section 8: Powers of Congress[edit]
Enumerated powers[edit]

Congress's "power of the purse" authorizes taxing citizens, spending money, and printing currency.

Newly naturalized citizen, Albert Einstein received his certificate of United States citizenship from Judge Phillip
Forman.

Main article: Enumerated powers

Congress's legislative powers are enumerated in Section Eight:
The Congress shall have power

To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the

common defence[note 1] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and
Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the

Indian Tribes;
To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject

of Bankruptciesthroughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of

Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current coin of the United

States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors

and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Feloniescommitted on the high Seas, and Offenses

against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures

on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer

Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress

Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of

them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States
respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to
the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding

ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress,
become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all
Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for
the Erection of Forts,Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the
foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the
United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Many powers of Congress have been interpreted broadly. Most notably, the Taxing and Spending,
Interstate Commerce, and Necessary and Proper Clauses have been deemed to grant expansive
powers to Congress.
Congress may lay and collect taxes for the "common defense" or "general welfare" of the United
States. The U.S. Supreme Court has not often defined "general welfare," leaving the political
question to Congress. In United States v. Butler (1936), the Court for the first time construed the
clause. The dispute centered on a tax collected from processors of agricultural products such as
meat; the funds raised by the tax were not paid into the general funds of the treasury, but were
rather specially earmarked for farmers. The Court struck down the tax, ruling that the general welfare
language in the Taxing and Spending Clause related only to "matters of national, as distinguished
from local, welfare". Congress continues to make expansive use of the Taxing and Spending Clause;
for instance, thesocial security program is authorized under the Taxing and Spending Clause.
Congress has the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States. In 1871, when
decidingKnox v. Lee, the Court ruled that this clause permitted Congress to emit bills and make them
legal tender in satisfaction of debts. Whenever Congress borrows money, it is obligated to repay the
sum as stipulated in the original agreement. However, such agreements are only "binding on the
conscience of the sovereign", as the doctrine of sovereign immunity prevents a creditor from suing in
court if the government reneges its commitment.[59]

Commerce Clause[edit]

Chief Justice John Marshallestablished a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

Main article: Commerce Clause

The Congress shall have Power [...] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the
several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
The Supreme Court has seldom restrained the use of thecommerce clause for widely varying
purposes. The first important decision related to the commerce clause wasGibbons v. Ogden,
decided by a unanimous Court in 1824. The case involved conflicting federal and state
laws: Thomas Gibbons had a federal permit to navigate steamboats in theHudson River, while the
other, Aaron Ogden, had a monopoly to do the same granted by the state of New York. Ogden
contended that "commerce" included only buying and selling of goods and not their transportation.
Chief Justice John Marshall rejected this notion. Marshall suggested that "commerce" included
navigation of goods, and that it "must have been contemplated" by the Framers. Marshall added that
Congress's power over commerce "is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and
acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution".
The expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause was restrained during the late nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries, when a laissez-faire attitude dominated the Court. In United States v. E. C.
Knight Company (1895), the Supreme Court limited the newly enacted Sherman Antitrust Act, which
had sought to break up the monopolies dominating the nation's economy. The Court ruled that
Congress could not regulate the manufacture of goods, even if they were later shipped to other
states. Chief Justice Melville Fuller wrote, "commerce succeeds to manufacture, and is not a part of
it."
The U.S. Supreme Court sometimes ruled New Deal programs unconstitutional because they
stretched the meaning of the commerce clause. In Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, (1935)
the Court unanimously struck down industrial codes regulating the slaughter of poultry, declaring that
Congress could not regulate commerce relating to the poultry, which had "come to a permanent rest

within the State." As Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes put it, "so far as the poultry here in
question is concerned, the flow of interstate commerce has ceased." Judicial rulings against
attempted use of Congress's Commerce Clause powers continued during the 1930s.
It was only in 1937 that the Supreme Court gave up the laissez-faire doctrine as it decided a
landmark case, National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Company. The legislation
in question, the National Labor Relations Act, prevented employers from engaging in "unfair labor
practices" such as firing workers for joining unions. The Court ruled to sustain the Act's provisions.
The Court, returning to the theories propounded by John Marshall, ruled that Congress could pass
laws regulating actions that even indirectly influenced interstate commerce. Further decisions
expanded the Congress's powers under the commerce clause. This dramatic change in the Court's
thinking was influenced by the threat of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Court Packing scheme.
In the 1990s, the Court acted to restrain Congress's exercise of its power to regulate commerce.
InUnited States v. Lopez, the Court found that Congress could not exercise "Police power" reserved
to the States by use of the Commerce Clause.
In contrast to United States v. Lopez , the powers defined in the Commerce Clause have been
elastically re-interpreted to cover non-commercial activity not just between but within the states. In
2005, the Supreme Court controversially ruled in Gonzales v. Raich, that the Commerce Clause
granted Congress the authority to regulate cannabis plants grown, processed, and consumed within
the state on private property. The court reclassified the plant as a commodity even though it was not
sold or exchanged in any transaction.

Other powers of Congress[edit]

Congress authorizes defense spending such as the purchase of the USS Bon Homme Richard.

Congress may establish uniform laws relating to naturalizationand bankruptcy. It may also coin
money, regulate the value of American or foreign currency and punish counterfeiters. Congress may
fix the standards of weights and measures. Furthermore, Congress may establish post offices and
post roads (the roads, however, need not be exclusively for the conveyance of mail). Congress may
promote the progress of science and useful arts by granting copyrights and patents of limited
duration. Section eight, clause eight of Article One, known as the Copyright Clause, is the only
instance of the word "right" used in the original constitution (though the word does appear in several
Amendments).[60] Though perpetual copyrights and patents are prohibited, the Supreme Court has
ruled in Eldred v. Ashcroft (2003) that repeated extensions to the term of copyright do not constitute

perpetual copyright; also note that this is the only power granted where the means to accomplish its
stated purpose is specifically provided for. Courts inferior to the Supreme Court may be established
by Congress.
Congress has several powers related to war and the armed forces. Under the War Powers Clause,
only Congress may declare war, but in several cases it has, without declaring war, granted the
President the authority to engage in military conflicts. Five wars have been declared in United States'
history: the War of 1812, the MexicanAmerican War, the SpanishAmerican War, World War
I andWorld War II. Some historians argue that the legal doctrines and legislation passed during the
operations against Pancho Villa constitute a sixth declaration of war. Congress may grant letters of
marque and reprisal. Congress may establish and support the armed forces, but no appropriation
made for the support of the army may be used for more than two years. This provision was inserted
because the Framers feared the establishment of a standing army, beyond civilian control, during
peacetime. Congress may regulate or call forth the state militias, but the states retain the authority to
appoint officers and train personnel. Congress also has exclusive power to make rules and
regulations governing the land and naval forces. Although the executive branch and the Pentagon
have asserted an ever-increasing measure of involvement in this process, the U.S. Supreme Court
has often reaffirmed Congress's exclusive hold on this power (e.g. Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137
(1953)). Congress used this power twice soon after World War II with the enactment of two statutes:
the Uniform Code of Military Justice to improve the quality and fairness of courts martial and military
justice, and theFederal Tort Claims Act which among other rights had allowed military service
persons to sue for damages until the U.S. Supreme Court repealed that section of the statute in a
divisive series of cases, known collectively as the Feres Doctrine.
Congress has the exclusive right to legislate "in all cases whatsoever" for the nation's capital,
theDistrict of Columbia. Congress chooses to devolve some of such authority to the
elected mayor andcouncil of District of Columbia. Nevertheless, Congress remains free to enact any
legislation for the District so long as constitutionally permissible, to overturn any legislation by the
city government, and technically to revoke the city government at any time. Congress may also
exercise such jurisdiction over land purchased from the states for the erection of forts and other
buildings.

Necessary and Proper clause[edit]

Main article: Necessary and Proper Clause
The Congress shall have Power [...] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for
carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the
Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Finally, Congress has the power to do whatever is "necessary and proper" to carry out its
enumerated powers and, crucially, all others vested in it. This has been interpreted to authorize
criminal prosecution of those whose actions have a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce
in Wickard v. Filburn ; however, Thomas Jefferson, in the Kentucky Resolutions, supported by James
Madison, maintained that a penal power could not be inferred from a power to regulate, and that the

only penal powers were for treason, counterfeiting, piracy and felony on the high seas, and offenses
against the law of nations.
The necessary and proper clause has been interpreted extremely broadly, thereby giving Congress
wide latitude in legislation. The first landmark case involving the clause was McCulloch v.
Maryland(1819), which involved the establishment of a national bank. Alexander Hamilton, in
advocating the creation of the bank, argued that there was "a more or less direct" relationship
between the bank and "the powers of collecting taxes, borrowing money, regulating trade between
the states, and raising and maintaining fleets and navies". Thomas Jefferson countered that
Congress's powers "can all be carried into execution without a national bank. A bank therefore is not
necessary, and consequently not authorized by this phrase". Chief Justice John Marshall agreed
with the former interpretation. Marshall wrote that a Constitution listing all of Congress's powers
"would partake of a prolixity of a legal code and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind".
Since the Constitution could not possibly enumerate the "minor ingredients" of the powers of
Congress, Marshall "deduced" that Congress had the authority to establish a bank from the "great
outlines" of the general welfare, commerce and other clauses. Under this doctrine of the necessary
and proper clause, Congress has sweepingly broad powers (known as implied powers) not explicitly
enumerated in the Constitution. However, the Congress cannot enact laws solely on the implied
powers, any action must be necessary and proper in the execution of the enumerated powers.

Power to Declare War

Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the United States Constitution, sometimes referred to as the War
Powers Clause, vests in the Congress the power to declare war, in the following wording:
[The Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal,
and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
A number of wars have been declared under the United States Constitution, although there is
some controversy as to the exact number, as the Constitution does not specify the form of such
a declaration.

Article Two
Article Two of the United States Constitution creates theexecutive branch of the government,
consisting of thePresident, the Vice President, and other executive officers and staffers
appointed by the President, including the Cabinet. Pursuant to Article Two, the executive
power of the federal government is vested in the President.

Article Three
Article Three of the United States Constitution establishes thejudicial branch of the federal
government. The judicial branch comprises the Supreme Court of the United States and lower
courts as created by Congress.

Article Four
Article Four of the United States Constitution outlines the relationship between each state
and the others, as well as between the several States and the federal government.

Article Five
Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution may
be altered. Altering the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment or amendments and
subsequent ratification.[1]
Amendments may be adopted and sent to the states for ratification by either:

Two-thirds (supermajority) of both the Senate and the House of Representatives of

the United States Congress;

OR

By a national convention assembled at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds

(at present 34) of the states.

To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must be ratified by either (as determined by
Congress):

The request of legislatures of three-fourths (at present 38) of the states;

OR

State ratifying conventions in three-fourths (at present 38) of the states.

.

Article Six
Article Six of the United States Constitution establishes thelaws and treaties of the United
States made in accordance with it as the supreme law of the land, forbids a religious test as a
requirement for holding a governmental position and holds the United States under the
Constitution responsible for debts incurred by the United States under the Articles of
Confederation

Article Seven
Article Seven of the United States Constitution sets the number of
state ratifications necessary in order for the Constitution to take effect and prescribes the
method through which the states may ratify it.

Baron v. Baltimore
Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833), is aUnited States Supreme Court case in

which the Court established a precedent that the United States Bill of Rights could not be
applied to state governments.
John Barron, who co-owned a profitable wharf in theBaltimore harbor, sued the mayor of
Baltimore for damages, claiming that when the city had diverted the flow of streams while
engaging in street construction, it had created mounds of sand and earth near his wharf
making the water too shallow for most vessels. The trial court awarded Barron damages of
$4,500, but the appellate court reversed the ruling.

bill of attainder
A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of pains and
penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and
punishing them without a trial. As with attainder resulting from the normal judicial process, the effect
of such a bill is to nullify the targeted person's civil rights, most notably the right to own property (and
thus pass it on to heirs), the right to a title of nobility, and, in at least the original usage, the right to
life itself. Bills of attainder were passed in England between about 1300 and 1800 and resulted in the
executions of a number of notable historical figures.
The use of these bills by Parliament eventually fell into disfavour due to the obvious potential for
abuse and the violation of several legal principles, most importantly the separation of powers, the
right to due process, and the precept that a law should address a particular form of behaviour rather
than a specific individual or group. For these reasons, bills of attainder are expressly banned by the
United States Constitution of 1789 as well as by the constitutions of all 50 US states.

block grant
in a fiscal federal form of government, a block grant is a large sum of money granted by the
national government to a regional government with only general provisions as to the way it is to be
spent, in contrast to a categorical grant, which has more strict and specific provisions on the way it is
to be spent.
An advantage of block grants is that they allow regional governments to experiment with different
ways of spending money with the same goal in mind. Disadvantages are that it is very difficult to
compare the results of such spending and reach a conclusion and that regional governments might
be able to use the money as if they collected it through their own taxation systems to spend it,
without any restrictions from above. Also, the formula can be manipulated for partisan advantage,
and favoritism occurs more easily than with categorical grants.

categorical grants
Categorical grants are grants, issued by the United States Congress, which may be spent only for
narrowly defined purposes.

Categorical grants are the main source of federal aid to state and local government, can be used
only for specific purposes and for helping education or categories of state and local spending.
Categorical grants are distributed either on a formula basis or a project basis. For project grants,
states compete for funding; the federal government selects specific projects based on merit. Formula
grants, on the other hand, are distributed based on a standardized formula set by Congress.
During the development of the Interstate Highway System, congressional grants provided roughly
90% of the funding. Categorical grants may be spent only for narrowly defined purposes and 33% of
categorical grants are considered to be formula grants. Examples of categorical grants include Head
Start, the Food Stamp Program, and Medicaid.
This type of grant differs from block grants in that block grants are issued in support of general
governmental functions such as education or law enforcement. State and local recipients have more
disecretion in determining how best to use the money.

concurrent powers
Concurrent powers are powers in nations with a federal system of government that are shared by
both the federal government and each constituent political unit (such as a state or province). These
powers may be exercised simultaneously within the same territory, in relation to the same body of
citizens, and regarding the same subject-matter.[1] Concurrent powers are contrasted with states'
rights (not possessed by the federal government) and with exclusive federal powers (possession by
the states is forbidden or requires federal permission). [1]
Federal law is supreme, and therefore it may preempt a state or provincial law in case of conflict.
Concurrent powers can therefore be divided into two kinds: those not generally subject to federal
preemption (like the power to tax private citizens); and, other concurrent powers. [2]
In the United States, examples of the concurrent powers enjoyed by both the federal and state
governments are: the power to tax, build roads, establish bankruptcy laws, and to create lower
courts.

cooperative federalism
Cooperative federalism (1930s-1970s) is a concept of federalism in which national, state,
and local governments interact cooperatively and collectively to solve common problems,
rather than making policies separately but more or less equally (such as the dual
federalism of the 19th century United States) or clashing over a policy in a system dominated
by the national government.

Dillons Rule
Dillons Rule is the cornerstone of American municipal law. Under Dillon's Rule, a municipal
government has authority to act only when :

(1) the power is granted in the express words of the statute, private act, or charter creating the
municipal corporation;
(2) the power is necessarily or fairly implied in, or incident to the powers expressly granted; or
(3) the power is one that is neither expressly granted nor fairly implied from the express grants of
power, but is otherwise implied as essential to the declared objects and purposes of the corporation.
The Dillon rule is used in interpreting state law when there is a question of whether or not a local
government has a certain power. Judge Forest Dillon, the chief justice of the Iowa Supreme Court
expounded this famous rule, which was quickly adopted by state supreme courts around the nation.

Dred Scott v. Sanford

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), was alandmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in
which the Court held that African Americans, whether enslaved or free, could not be American
citizens and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court,[2][3] and that the federal government
had no power to regulate slavery in thefederal territories acquired after the creation of the United
States. Dred Scott, an enslaved African American man who had been taken by his owners to free
states and territories, attempted to sue for his freedom. In a 72 decision written by Chief
Justice Roger B. Taney, the Court denied Scott's request. For only the second time in its history, the
Supreme Court ruled an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional. [4]
Although Taney hoped that his ruling would finally settle the slavery question, the decision
immediately spurred vehement dissent from anti-slavery elements in the North,
especially Republicans. Many contemporary lawyers, and most modern legal scholars, consider the
ruling regarding slavery in the territories to be dictum, not binding precedent. The decision proved to
be an indirect catalyst for the American Civil War. It was functionally superseded by the Civil Rights
Act of 1866 and by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which gave African
Americans full citizenship.
It is universally denounced by scholars. Bernard Schwartz says it, "stands first in any list of the worst
Supreme Court decisions Chief Justice C.E. Hughes called it the Court's greatest self-inflicted
wound."[5] Junius P. Rodriguez says it is "universally condemned as the U.S. Supreme Court's worst
decision."[6] Konig et al. say it was "unquestionably, our court's worst decision ever." [7][8][3]

Dual federalism
Dual federalism, also referred to as divided sovereignty, is a political arrangement in which
power is divided between the federal and state governments in clearly defined terms, with
state governments exercising those powers accorded to them without interference from the
federal government. Dual federalism is defined in contrast to cooperative federalism, in which
federal and state governments collaborate on policy. Dual and cooperative federalism are
also known as 'layer cake' and 'marble cake' federalism, respectively, due to the distinct
layers of layer cake and the more muddled appearance of marble cake.

Enumerated powers
The enumerated powers are a list of items found in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution that
set forth the authority of Congress.[1] In summary, Congress may exercise the powers that the
Constitution grants it, subject to the individual rights listed in the Bill of Rights. Moreover, the
Constitution expresses various other limitations on Congress, such as the one expressed by
the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Historically, Congress and the Supreme Court have broadly interpreted the enumerated powers,
especially by deriving many implied powers from them.[2] The enumerated powers listed in Article
One include both exclusive federal powers, as well as concurrent powers that are shared with the
states, and all of those powers are to be contrasted with reserved powers that only the states
possess.[3][4]

ex post facto law

An ex post facto law (Latin for "from after the action" or "after the facts") is a law that retroactively
changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that
existed, before the enactment of the law. In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal
when committed; it may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in
when it was committed; it may change the punishment prescribed for a crime, as by adding new
penalties or extending sentences; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make conviction for
a crime likelier than it would have been when the deed was committed. Conversely, a form of ex
post facto law commonly called an amnesty law may decriminalize certain acts. A pardon has a
similar effect, in a specific case instead of a class of cases. Other legal changes may alleviate
possible punishments (for example by replacing the death sentence with lifelong imprisonment)
retroactively. Such legal changes are also known by the Latin term in mitius.
A law may have an ex post facto effect without being technically ex post facto. For example, when a
previous law is repealed or otherwise nullified, it is no longer applicable to situations to which it
previously was, even if such situations arose before the law was voided. The principle of prohibiting
the continued application of such laws is called nullum crimen, nulla poena sine praevia lege
poenali, especially in European Continental systems. This is related to the principle of legality.
Some common-law jurisdictions do not permit retroactive criminal legislation, though
new precedentgenerally applies to events that occurred before the judicial decision. Ex post
facto laws are expressly forbidden by the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3.
In some nations that follow the Westminster system of government, such as the United Kingdom, ex
post facto laws are technically possible, because the doctrine of parliamentary
supremacy allows Parliament to pass any law it wishes. In a nation with an entrenched bill of
rights or a written constitution, ex post facto legislation may be prohibited.

extradition clause
The Extradition clause or Interstate rendition clause[1]of the United States
Constitution refers to Article IV,Section 2, Clause 2, which provides for the extradition of a
criminal back to the state where he or she has committed a crime.

federal system
Federalism is a political concept in which agroup of members are bound together by covenant
(Latin: foedus, covenant) with a governing representative head. The term "federalism" is also used to
describe a system of government in which sovereignty isconstitutionally divided between a central
governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces). Federalism is a
system based upondemocratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between
national and provincial/state governments, creating what is often called a federation. The
term federalist describes several political beliefs around the world. Also, it may refer to the concept
of parties; its members or supporters called themselves Federalists.[1]
In a federal system where sovereignty is divided between a central governing authority and
constituent political units, power is also divided. The central governing authority has certain exclusive
federal powers, the constituent political units have certain states' rights, and those two levels of
government share certain concurrent powers.

full faith and credit clause

Federalism is a political concept in which agroup of members are bound together by covenant
(Latin: foedus, covenant) with a governing representative head. The term "federalism" is also used to
describe a system of government in which sovereignty isconstitutionally divided between a central
governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces). Federalism is a
system based upondemocratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between
national and provincial/state governments, creating what is often called a federation. The
term federalist describes several political beliefs around the world. Also, it may refer to the concept
of parties; its members or supporters called themselves Federalists.[1]
In a federal system where sovereignty is divided between a central governing authority and
constituent political units, power is also divided. The central governing authority has certain exclusive
federal powers, the constituent political units have certain states' rights, and those two levels of
government share certain concurrent powers.
Article IV, Section 1:
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial
proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the
manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
[5]

Gibbons v. Ogden
Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824),[1] was a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court
of the United Statesheld that the power to regulate interstate commerce, granted
to Congress by the Commerce Clause of theUnited States Constitution, encompassed the
power to regulate navigation.[2] The case was argued by some of America's most admired and
capable attorneys at the time. Exiled Irish patriot Thomas Addis Emmet andThomas J.
Oakley argued for Ogden, while William Wirtand Daniel Webster argued for Gibbons.

Implied powers
mplied powers, in the United States, are those powers authorized by a document (from the
Constitution) that, while not stated, seem to be implied by powers expressly stated. When George
Washington asked Alexander Hamilton to defend the constitutionality of the First Bank of the United
States against the protests[1] of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Attorney General Edmund
Randolph, Hamilton produced what has now become the classic statement for implied powers.
[2]
Hamilton argued that the sovereign duties of a government implied the right to use means
adequate to its ends. Although the United States government was sovereign only as to certain
objects, it was impossible to define all the means which it should use, because it was impossible for
the founders to anticipate all future exigencies. Hamilton noted that the "general welfare clause" and
the "necessary and proper clause" gave elasticity to the constitution. Hamilton won the argument
with Washington, who signed his Bank Bill into law.
Later, directly borrowing from Hamilton, Chief Justice John Marshall invoked the implied powers of
government in the court decision of McCulloch v. Maryland. This was used to justify the denial of the
right of a state to tax a bank, the Second Bank of the United States, using the idea to argue the
constitutionality of the United States Congress creating it in 1816.
In the case of the United States government, implied powers are the powers exercised by Congress
which are not explicitly given by the Constitution itself but necessary and proper to execute the
powers.

Interstate compacts
In the United States of America, an interstate compact is an agreement between two or
more states.Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution provides that "no state shall enter
into an agreement or compact with another state" without the consent of Congress. Consent can be
obtained in one of three ways. First, there can be a model compact and Congress can grant
automatic approval for any state wishing to join it, such as the Driver License Compact. Second,
states can submit a compact to congress prior to entering into the compact. Third, states can agree
to a compact then submit it to Congress for approval, which, if it does so, causes it to come into
effect. Frequently, these agreements create a new governmental agency which is responsible for
administering or improving some shared resource such as a seaport or public

transportation infrastructure. In some cases, a compact serves simply as a coordination mechanism

between independent authorities in the member states.
Such compacts are distinct from Uniform Acts, which are model statutes produced by nongovernmental bodies of legal experts to be passed by state legislatures independently.

McCulloch v. Maryland
McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819), was alandmark decision by the Supreme Court of the
United States. The state of Maryland had attempted to impede operation of a branch of the Second
Bank of the United States by imposing a tax on all notes of banks not chartered in Maryland. Though
the law, by its language, was generally applicable to all banks not chartered in Maryland, the Second
Bank of the United States was the only out-of-state bank then existing in Maryland, and the law was
recognized in the court's opinion as having specifically targeted the Bank of the United States. The
Court invoked the Necessary and Proper Clause of theConstitution, which allowed the Federal
government to pass laws not expressly provided for in the Constitution's list of express powers,
provided those laws are in useful furtherance of the express powers of Congress under the
Constitution.
This case established two important principles in constitutional law. First, the Constitution grants to
Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution's express powers, in order to create a
functional national government. Second, state action may not impede valid constitutional exercises
of power by the Federal government.

New Deal
The New Deal was a series of domestic programs enacted in the United States between
1933 and 1938, and a few that came later. They included both laws passed by Congress as
well as presidential executive orders during the first term (193337) of President Franklin D.
Roosevelt. The programs were in response to the Great Depression, and focused on what
historians refer to as the "3 Rs": Relief, Recovery, and Reform. That is Relief for the
unemployed and poor; Recovery of the economy to normal levels; and Reform of the financial
system to prevent a repeat depression.[1]

New Federalism
New Federalism is a political philosophy of devolution, or the transfer of certain powers from
the United States federal government back to the states. The primary objective of New Federalism,
unlike that of the eighteenth-century political philosophy of Federalism, is the restoration to the
states of some of the autonomy and power which they lost to the federal government as a
consequence of PresidentFranklin Roosevelt's New Deal.
As a policy theme, New Federalism typically involves the federal government providing block
grants to the states to resolve a social issue. The federal government then monitors outcomes but
provides broad discretion to the states for how the programs are implemented. Advocates of this
approach sometimes cite a quotation from a dissent by Louis Brandeis in New State Ice Co. v.
Liebmann:

It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if
its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments
without risk to the rest of the country.
From 1937 to 1995, the Supreme Court of the United States did not void a single Act of
Congress for exceeding Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the United States
Constitution, instead holding that anything that could conceivably have even a slight impact on
commerce was subject to federal regulation. It was thus seen as a (narrow) victory for
federalism when the Rehnquist Court reined in federal regulatory power in United States v.
Lopez (1995) and United States v. Morrison(2000).
The Supreme Court wavered, however, in Gonzales v. Raich (2005), holding that the federal
government could outlaw the use of marijuana for medical purposes under the Commerce
Clauseeven if the marijuana was never bought or sold, and never crossed state lines. How
broad a view of state autonomy the Court will take in future decisions remains unclear.
(See Gonzales v. Oregon)
Justice O'Connor, dissenting in Gonzalez (transcript), began her opinion by citing United States
v. Lopez, which she followed with a federalist reference to Justice Louis Brandeis's dissenting
opinion inNew State Ice Co. v. Liebmann.

nullification
Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to
nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemedunconstitutional. The theory of
nullification has never been legally upheld by federal courts. [1]
The theory of nullification is based on a view that the States formed the Union by an agreement (or
"compact") among the States, and that as creators of the federal government, the States have the
final authority to determine the limits of the power of that government. Under this, the compact
theory, the States and not thefederal courts are the ultimate interpreters of the extent of the federal
government's power. Under this theory, the States therefore may reject, or nullify, federal laws that
the States believe are beyond the federal government's constitutional powers. The related idea
of interposition is a theory that a state has the right and the duty to "interpose" itself when the federal
government enacts laws that the state believes to be unconstitutional. Thomas Jeffersonand James
Madison set forth the theories of nullification and interposition in the Kentucky and Virginia
Resolutionsin 1798.
Courts at the state and federal level, including the U.S. Supreme Court, repeatedly have rejected the
theory of nullification.[2] The courts have decided that under theSupremacy Clause of the
Constitution, federal law is superior to state law, and that under Article III of the Constitution, the
federal judiciary has the final power to interpret the Constitution. Therefore, the power to make final
decisions about the constitutionality of federal laws lies with the federal courts, not the states, and
the states do not have the power to nullify federal laws.

Between 1798 and the beginning of the Civil War in 1861, several states threatened or attempted
nullification of various federal laws. None of these efforts were legally upheld. The Kentucky and
Virginia Resolutions were rejected by the other states. The Supreme Court rejected nullification
attempts in a series of decisions in the 19th century, including Ableman v. Booth, which rejected
Wisconsin's attempt to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act. The Civil War ended most nullification efforts.
In the 1950s, southern states attempted to use nullification and interposition to prevent integration of
their schools. These attempts failed when the Supreme Court again rejected nullification in Cooper
v. Aaron, explicitly holding that the states may not nullify federal law.

Preemption
In the law of the United States, federal preemption is the invalidation of a U.S. state law that
conflicts with Federal law.

privileges and immunities clause

The Privileges and Immunities Clause (U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1,
also known as the Comity Clause) prevents a state from treating citizens of other states in a
discriminatory manner. Additionally, a right of interstate travel may plausibly be inferred from
the clause

Programmatic requests
Reserved powers
In comparative federalism and comparative constitutionalism reserved powers or residual
powers are those powers which are not "enumerated" (written down, assigned). In
various federal anddecentralized political systems, certain subjects are assigned to either the central
(or federal) government or the regional (or state or provincial) government; however it is not possible
to list all possible subjects that might be legislated on for all time. Therefore, the framers of major
constitutional documents tend to assign all other subjects that may arise after the document is
enacted to one of the two orders of government. This is considered a major power in its own right.
In Canada, for example, the reserved powers lie with the federal government; in the United States,
the reserved powers lie with the constituent states. [1]
Reserved powers are distinguished from concurrent powers (which are shared by the federal and
constituent governments). Reserved powers are also distinguished from exclusively delegated
powers, such as the exclusive federal powers in the United States.

Seventeenth Amendment
The Seventh Amendment (Amendment VII) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of
Rights. This amendment codifies the right to a jury trial in certain civilcases, and inhibits courts from
overturning a jury'sfindings of fact.
An early version of the Seventh Amendment was introduced in Congress in 1789 by James
Madison, along with the other amendments, in response to Anti-Federalistobjections to the new
Constitution. Congress proposed a revised version of the Seventh Amendment to the states on
September 28, 1789, and by December 15, 1791, the necessary three-quarters of the states
had ratified it. Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson announced the adoption of the amendment on
March 1, 1792.
The Seventh Amendment is generally considered one of the more straightforward amendments of
the Bill of Rights. While the Seventh Amendment's provision for jury trials in civil cases has never
been incorporated (i.e., applied to the states) almost every state voluntarily complies with this
requirement. The prohibition of overturning a jury's findings of fact applies to federal cases, state
cases involving federal law, and to review of state cases by federal courts. [1] United States v.
Wonson (1812) established the "historical test", which interpreted the amendment as relying on
English common law to determine whether a jury trial was necessary in a civil suit. The amendment
thus does not guarantee trial by jury in cases under maritime law, in lawsuits against the government
itself, and for many parts of patent claims. In all other cases, the jury can be waived by consent of
the parties.
The amendment additionally guarantees a minimum of six members for a jury in a civil trial. The
amendment's twenty dollar threshold has not been the subject of much scholarly or judicial writing;
that threshold remains applicable despite the inflation that has occurred since the 18th century.

Sixteenth Amendment
The Sixteenth Amendment (Amendment XVI) to theUnited States Constitution allows the
Congress to levy anincome tax without apportioning it among the states or basing it on
the United States Census. This amendment exempted income taxes from the constitutional
requirements regarding direct taxes, after income taxes on rents, dividends, and interest were
ruled to be direct taxes in the court case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895). The
amendment was adopted on February 3, 1913.

Tenth Amendment
The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of
the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] It expresses the principle
of federalism, which undergirds the entire plan of the original Constitution, by stating that
the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution. All
remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people. In drafting this amendment, its
framers had two purposes in mind: first, as a necessary rule of construction; and second, as a
reaffirmation of the nature of the federal system.[2]

Unitary system
A unitary state is a state governed as one single power in which the central governmentis ultimately
supreme and any administrative divisions (subnational units) exercise only powers that their
central government chooses to delegate. The majority[citation needed]of states in the world have a unitary
system of government.
Unitary states are contrasted with federal states (federations) and confederal states (confederation):

In a unitary state, subnational units are created and abolished, and their powers may be
broadened and narrowed, by the central government. Althoughpolitical power in unitary states
may be delegated through devolution to local government by statute, the central government
remains supreme; it may abrogate the acts of devolved governments or curtail their powers.

The United Kingdom is an example of a unitary state. Scotland, Wales, and Northern

Ireland have a degree of autonomous devolved power, but such devolved power is
delegated by theParliament of the United Kingdom which may enact laws unilaterally
altering or abolishing devolution.
Many unitary states have no such areas having any degree of autonomy.
Subnational areas can not decide any of their own laws. Some examples of such countries
are Sweden, Norway[1] andIreland.
In federal states, by contrast, states or other subnational units share sovereignty with the

central government, and the states constituting the federation have an existence and power
functions that cannot be unilaterally changed by the central government. In some cases, it is the
federal government that has only those powers expressly delegated to it.

The United States is an example of a federal state. Under the U.S. Constitution,
power is shared between the Federal government of the United States and the U.S. states,
with the tenth amendment explicitly denoted as "The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people." Many federal states also have unitary lower levels of
government; while the United States is federal, the states themselves are unitary
under Dillon's Rule counties andmunicipalities have only the authority granted to them by
the state governments under theirstate constitution or by legislative acts. For example, in the
U.S. State of Connecticut, county government was abolished in 1960.
Devolution (like federation) may be symmetrical, with all subnational units having the same powers
and status, or asymmetric, with regions varying in their powers and status.