# data[].attributes.body
In 1816, a Virginian landholder's land passed down to a British subject and then Virginia gave part of that land to another man, claiming that the land could not go to a British subject. But under the Jay Treaty, the original British subject was entitled to the property. The supreme court agreed with this treaty, but Virginia refused the supreme court's ruling. Virginia felt that as a state it held the same amount of power as the federal government. The justice at the time Justice Story affirmed that under the constitution the federal government had more power in order to ensure a more unified legal system among the state. Additionally, the mandate was filled for the supremacy clause.  In terms of federalism, this case represents a landmark because it was the first time the Supremacy clause was used in a Supreme Court Case. We still use the Supremacy clause in our government today, therefore Martin v. Hunter's Lesse shows how federalism is occasionally constant under the Constitution.

# data[].attributes.headline
Popular sovereignty: The Electoral College and the 2016 Election 

# data[].attributes.subject
Popular sovereignty: The Electoral College and the 2016 Election 

# data[].attributes.body
America uses a system of delegates to decide on our nation's leader. These delegates each represent a state( with at least 3 delegates per state) and are meant to vote on the citizens behalf after every election. The way a candidate wins the presidency is by winning the majority vote of enough states to reach 270 electors overall. The electoral college goes off a "winner-takes-all" system. This means that if one person gets the majority amount of votes from a state, they get every single delegate from that state no matter how many votes their opponents had. In an Electoral College, the popular vote is overruled by the amount of delegates reached by a candidate.This can be troubling for election like 2016's, with the president-elect facing the rare occasion where the winner of the presidency lacks the support of the popular vote. Though this concept causes a lot of controversy every election season, it is important to look at how it is a constant in popular sovereignty. As America grows, the way we elect our president has never been changed and therefore is the best example of political stability within popular sovereignty.

# data[].attributes.body
The 23rd Amendment was ratified in the early 1960's. This amendment gave D.C. electors in the presidential election. The only state that rejected the 23rd Amendment's ratification was Arkansas. Additionally, only one other state ratified it after it was approved was Alabama, and several other states chose not to take any action on the proposed amendment. With the District of Columbia's new electors it now had the ability to vote in the presidential election. Because of this expansion in electors, the idea of popular sovereignty was looked at from a modern perspective. The legislature considered the needs and powers that Washington D.C. had and why that many people should have been guaranteed voting rights.

# data[].attributes.headline
Checks and balances: Executive Order 11246 (Equal Employment Opportunity) 

# data[].attributes.subject
Checks and balances: Executive Order 11246 (Equal Employment Opportunity) 

# data[].attributes.body
During the Civil Rights movement in 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed an executive order that prohibits discriminatory hiring on the basis of sex race or "national origin" for federal contractors and federally–assisted construction contractors and subcontractors. Additionally, this executive order created an affirmative action plan for federal contractors to follow through with preventing discrimination in the workplace and equal opportunities for often discriminated against members of the workforce. Johnson's executive order is a clear example of how the constitution creates political stability through checks and balances. I say this because an executive order is a way to bypass congress and give some decision making on topics such as the Equal Employment Opportunity to the President.

# data[].attributes.headline
Checks and Balances: The death of Antonin Scalia 

# data[].attributes.subject
Checks and Balances: The death of Antonin Scalia 

# data[].attributes.body
With the death of justice Scalia, there was an open position on the Supreme court. And with all supreme court vacancies, it is the president's job to appoint a new member. Though, for a mostly republican senate, this meant that they might have had to consider a democratic justice. So, President Obama would be tasked with not only finding someone who would be able to justly interpret the Constitution, he would have also have to find someone who could appeal the the right-wing senate. Barack Obama ended up appointing Judge Merrick B. Garland, a former Harvard graduate and Clinton appointee. Seen as a safer pick by the media, Garland was not even considered by the Senate. What the senate did, was refuse to even hold a hearing for Judge Garland. Some consider this a congessional abuse of power, others see the Senate's decision to not even discuss Garland as an exercise of their right to check the executive branch. This why I chose this issue to represent dynamism with checks and balances. The ability to debate (or not) and nominate a Supreme Court Justice is the Senate's Constitution-given power to balance out the Executive Branch. Though, with this newer decision to not even hold a hearing for an appointee, congress has now chosen to not exercise their power, which is a current interpretation of checks and balance from the motionless senate.

# data[].attributes.body
In December 2015 after the San Bernardino shooting, the FBI was trying to access Syed Farook's phone. The phone was an iPhone, and had the ability to disable the phone after 10 unsuccessful password attempts. What the FBI wanted was a key from Apple to be able to access Farook's phone. Apple declined their offer, arguing that if one key was created for the FBI, that the same key could be used by millions of others. This case was taken to court, because the FBI desperately wanted the ability to use this key to stop terrorist attacks, and Apple wanted to protect the safety of its users. What ended up occurring was the The Justice Department decided to withdraw legal action because they had been able to receive help from a third party. Therefore, this issue is a great example of dynamic limited government. Because Apple was not forced by the Supreme Court to create a key to unlock iPhones, the idea was kept that Apple users the the right to privacy within their phones. And since cell phones are a newer piece of technology, this is a great example of limitations on the government (in this case the FBI) interpreted to fit the ideas of today.

# data[].attributes.headline
Federalism: the No Child Left Behind Act 

# data[].attributes.subject
Federalism: the No Child Left Behind Act 

# data[].attributes.body
Created during the Bush administration in 2002, it was an update of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and passed with bipartisan support. This act was created because of growing concern that America was falling behind other countries when it came to the education system. To add onto this, this act was created to boost the learning abilities of certain groups of students such as poorer students, those who aren't native English speakers or those who generally fall behind their peers when learning. Though states did not have to comply with the new act, if they did not they risked loosing federal Title I money. States are required to do several things under this act, including testing students grades 3-8 in math, reporting results of these tests to the federal level and bringing all children up to a set proficiency bar (no state did this by 2015). This act is a great example of dynamism in federalism because it shifted some power onto the federal government in order to raise education standards in school. The concept of federalism was reinterpreted by the No Child Left Behind Act to fit the nations current demands of American students.

# data[].attributes.headline
Limited Government: United States v. Lopez

# data[].attributes.subject
Limited Government: United States v. Lopez

# data[].attributes.body
In 1995 Alfonso Lopez Jr. was a high school senior who knowingly brought a gun and bullets to school and was convicted for this reason. At the time, Lopez could have been arrested under the the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. This act basically said that under the Commerce Clause in the Constitution, that the federal government had the ability to regulate commerce between states ( in this case, guns in schools).Also, the buying and selling of illegal commerce was seen by congress as interfering with commerce between states. Therefore, until this ruling having a gun in school got you arrested. The court eventually overturned Lopez's conviction, simply because Congress's defense of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was incorrect and the act was then ruled unconstitutional. It was ruled this because the power provided by the Commerce Clause did not extend to the buying and selling of guns. United States v. Lopez is a great example of stable limited government because the Supreme Court ruled that Congress did not have the power to regulate commerce in this instance.

# data[].attributes.body
This side of the board will show how the Constitution has remained stable politically over the years to follow what the founding fathers decided for America.

# data[].attributes.body
This side of the board will show how the Constitution has let been reinterpreted over the years to fit with the changing times.