# data[].attributes.body
The Anti Millionaire amendment was a failed amendment which was proposed by 2/3 on congress, but never ratified. This amendment would have taken away any amount over one million dollars that any U.S. citizen had. This failed amendment was created to pay debt that the country had. Many people opposed this amendment because it would take away the money that people earned themselves. Failing to ratify this amendment demonstrates the stability of our government because it shows that you can't pass any amendment that easily, as shown in this example. This also demonstrates stability because since 3/4 of states did not want to ratify the amendment, it wasn't added because it didn't satisfy the majority of people's opinions.

# data[].attributes.body
A man named Ernesto Miranda was arrested for robbery and interrogated for two hours, eventually admitting to rape and signing a statement that said "I do hereby swear that I make this statement voluntarily and of my own free will, with no threats, coercion, or promises of immunity, and with full knowledge of my legal rights, understanding any statement I make may be used against me". The problem was, Miranda was never told by the police officers of his rights during his two hour interrogation. After this case, the government created Miranda Rights, which are when the police inform you of your fifth and sixth amendment rights during the arresting procedure. This keeps our government dynamic because before people were not being informed of their rights, and we changed/added Miranda Rights so the people could have these rights.

# data[].attributes.headline
Separation of Powers and Check & Balances: Bush Vetoes Bill Banning Torture

# data[].attributes.subject
Separation of Powers and Check & Balances: Bush Vetoes Bill Banning Torture

# data[].attributes.body
In March of 2008, President Bush used his executive power to check a bill Congress passed. The bill was to ban the CIA from using harsh interrogation methods to get information from suspected terrorists. Bush was against this, and since he had the power to veto a bill (as stated in the constitution), he checked the legislative branch to prevent the bill from passing. This keeps the government stable because without the checks and balances that the branches can use on each other, Bush couldn't have vetoed the law and many changing laws would be passed all the time. This case represents the stable nature of the constitution, because if Congress passed the bill and the constitution didn't have checks and balances, the bill would be easily passed and laws would be changing all the time. With checks and balances applied in this case, it has proven the government to remain stable.

# data[].attributes.body
In 2010, the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (Arizona SB 1070) ,a strict state law against illegal immigration, was established in Arizona. The federal law for illegal immigration was that all aliens over the age of 14 who have remained in the United States and failed to register are charged with a federal misdemeanor. The Arizona SB 1070 makes the federal law for this in Arizona even stricter, changing the charge from a federal misdemeanor to state misdemeanor. The act also required state enforcement officers to determine an immigrant's status during a lawful stop, detention or arrest and forced state enforcement officers to not enforce federal laws and enforce state laws. It also requires penalties to be enforced on those helping to hide or transport the immigrant(s). These strict immigration laws in Arizona compared to the federal laws were not acceptable to the Supreme Court, and with the Supreme Court overruling the state laws with federal laws, the Supreme court upheld the part of the act which requires the police to determine an immigrant's status during a stop, detention or arrest. Congress upholding part of the act is a great example of stable federalism because since the Federal Laws overrule State Laws, the federal government has the power to remove/alter state laws.

# data[].attributes.body
The D.C. Voting Rights amendment, which was a failed amendment, was created and proposed by Congress to take repeal the 23rd amendment. This would have taken away The District of Columbia (Washington D.C.)'s right to vote in the presidential election. Many people thought this failed amendment would have been good, because D.C. is not an actual state. Supporters argue that this amendment would have been bad, because everyone living in the United States should have the right to vote. By not ratifying this amendment, it kept our government stable because the people who have a say in our election for president would have changed; and it prevented popular sovereignty from changing.

# data[].attributes.headline
Limited Government: Police Need Warrant to Search Cell Phones

# data[].attributes.subject
Limited Government: Police Need Warrant to Search Cell Phones

# data[].attributes.body
On June 25th, 2014 The Supreme Court ruled that "police may not search the cellphones of criminal suspects upon arrest without a warrant", after a number of cases regarding cell phone searching (without warrants) in criminal cases. The supporters of this decision's point of view was that no matter whether private information was in a cell phone or in a house, it does not make the information any less worthy of being protected with our rights. This prevents the government from being able to search through our cell phones without a warrant while not being able to search our briefcases or houses without a warrant (for what often times are the same information). This keeps the government stable because it enforces and protects our rights to not be searched without a warrant, and stops the government's powers from expanding.

# data[].attributes.headline
Separation of Powers and Checks & Balances: War Powers Resolution

# data[].attributes.subject
Separation of Powers and Checks & Balances: War Powers Resolution

# data[].attributes.body
Before 1973, the Executive branch (specifically the president), was able to commit the United States to an armed conflict without approval of Congress. In 1973, it was ruled that Congress was able to check the President's power to do this, after Congress overrid a presidential veto of the War Powers Resolution. The War Powers Resolution gives Congress more power in declaring armed conflicts, making the President lawfully notify Congress within 48 hours of committing to armed conflicts. This changed the separation of powers between those two branches by balancing the power to declare armed conflict within Congress and the President. Overall, it created a new check for Congress to enforce on the President. This law is an example of the dynamic nature of the constitution, because it created a new check for congress to impose on the executive branch. It shows how the separation of powers has remained dynamic over time, because it changed the power of committing the United States to armed conflict from the president to both the President and Congress.

# data[].attributes.body
The Supremacy Clause states that Federal laws always rule over State laws. In this case, it was not true when Colorado officially made recreational use of marijuana for adults that are 21 and older legal. This conflicts with the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, and normally this would expected to not work out for the state because federal laws overrule. Even so, the federal government has bended federalism to permissive federalism, so people in the states who are legally using marijuana might not get arrested. This shows dynamism in the government because even though The Supremacy Clause states that the federal government's laws always overrule state laws, the federal government has allowed these laws to pass permissively.

# data[].attributes.body
After America went into World War 1, Congress made an act in 1917 that made it illegal to try and make soldiers disobedient or disloyal and destruct the draft. The act conflicted with the first amendment, which protects freedom of speech for the people. For example, in a case called Schenck vs. United States, Schenck had been arrested for violating the Espionage Act, but he fought against it because he argued that it violated his freedom of speech. Schenck lost, because the Espionage Act changed the federal governments rights to arrest people who were using their formally lawful freedom of speech. This shows dynamism in the Government because originally the government did not have the right to arrest someone who was using their first amendment rights.

# data[].attributes.body
The 19th amendment was ratified in 1920. It was a very significant change for popular sovereignty in the United States. The 19th amendment allowed women to vote, after a long time-frame (70 years) of Women's Suffrage. Originally, men were the only ones allowed to vote because women and men weren't considered equal in voting rights (and mostly everything else). The 19th amendment made it so women could have the same rights of choosing who gets to lead our country, and it changed the picture of Popular Sovereignty in the Constitution. From just being men who were considered the people, the amendment kept our government dynamic by allowing popular sovereignty to both men and women. Both genders could now have an affect on the government and their representatives.