# data[].attributes.headline
Bonus: Flag Desecration Amendment (failed amendment)

# data[].attributes.subject
Bonus: Flag Desecration Amendment (failed amendment)

# data[].attributes.body
This failed amendment was not proposed with ⅔ of congressional votes. It was brought up in Congress multiple times between 1995 and 2006. If passed, it would have prevented all burning and destruction of the American flag. An argument for passing the amendment would be that it is offensive and unpatriotic, promoting the hatred of America. This very controversial amendment, was not very favorable in Congress because of its violation of the first amendment to the Constitution. The first amendment gives all people the right to freedom of religion, assembly, petition, press, and speech. Associated with the freedom of speech is the freedom of expression. Congress decided overall that if people wish to burn the flag, they may do as they wish. While many will not immediately and willingly burn the flag, if they so desire, constitutionally they have the right. This is an example of stability because the Constitution proved this amendment to be unconstitutional, and the freedom of expression ruled and continued to grant people the freedom to do as they wish. They did not override the Constitution, they simply made an amendment fail, so the system remained stable with the first amendment.

# data[].attributes.body
Ratified in 1951, this amendment limits the president to a maximum of two terms. It also states that “no person who has already held office or acted as the president for more than two years of a term shall be elected president more than once.” This amendment also limits the maximum time a person may be president to ten years. Before this time, George Washington was unwilling to serve a third term though many advocated to elect him. He thought that being elected more than twice gave one person too much power in government, and to prevent a monarchy, the founding fathers wanted limited government. Thomas Jefferson said, We don’t want to have a “president for life”. He thought that this would undermine our democratic government. With the intent of our founding fathers in mind, Congress passed the amendment. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the only president to serve over two terms. In fact, he served four terms for the Democratic party, which brought much controversy from people. To make sure nobody could do that again, they ratified the 22nd amendment. This amendment relates to dynamism by changing the maximum term limit allowed for a president to serve. Limited government is used to prevent one person in government, specifically the president, from having too much power in office.

# data[].attributes.headline
Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances: Youngstown v. Sawyer

# data[].attributes.subject
Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances: Youngstown v. Sawyer

# data[].attributes.body
The Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company v. Sawyer was also referred to as the Steel Seizure Case. The steel production company was operating around the time of the Korean War. President Truman was under pressure to do more to win the war for the United States. Truman decided to take over the entire industry of making steel. He told the steel company that whatever material they produced would be used for ammunition in the war. The industry took Truman to court because they thought that he was abusing his Presidential power as commander in chief of the army. The court ruled 6-3 that the President’s actions were unconstitutional. Congress did not authorize the President’s action. Since this specific instance would need a vote of congressional approval, the President would not allowed to act alone. Nowhere in the constitution did it authorize the President to seize property in times of war without approval of congress. This case relates to separation of powers because the precedent was set that the President did not have authority to take over an industry for war usage, and must have congressional approval. For checks and balances, Congress must check on the president to allow his actions to proceed in wartime. This ruling demonstrates political stability by reaffirming that Congress needs to approve an activity like this, and upholds the constitution that did not authorize the President to take such action.

# data[].attributes.body
This 1961 case strengthened the fourth amendment against unreasonable search and seizures. Cleveland police suspected that Dollree Mapp could be a suspect for a bombing and without a warrant, she refused to let the police in. In a couple of hours, the police came back and forced their way into her house without a legal warrant. The police then obtained evidence in her home. At the trial the evidence of pornography pictures that the police obtained was used against her. She was convicted of possessing pornography. She appealed this lower court decision by going to the Supreme Court. Since the evidence was obtained without a warrant, she argued that this violated the fourth amendment which required a warrant for searching or seizing property. Because the evidence was unconstitutionally obtained by government officials, it was not allowed to be used in her trial. This set the precedent for the future that all evidence to be used in court must be obtained if searching a person’s private property, by a warrant. This case shows that nobody is above the fourth amendment, even the government can not illegally obtain evidence, so this is a case illustrating limited government. Additionally, this case kept the constitution’s words, and upheld the need for a warrant, providing a stable system, as it had hundreds of years before.

# data[].attributes.headline
Popular Sovereignty: Ludlow Amendment (failed amendment)

# data[].attributes.subject
Popular Sovereignty: Ludlow Amendment (failed amendment)

# data[].attributes.body
This amendment if passed, would have required a popular vote to decide when to go to war. Brought up in 1978, this amendment did not get proposed by ⅔ of Congress, and therefore, could not get ratified. If passed, this amendment would have dramatic effects on the country as a whole. If every time the government was thinking of going to war, the citizens would vote and possibly get the country in a lot of trouble in international relations. Not only would this take away the legislative right to declare war, but this would give the people more popular sovereignty. This decision of Congress not to propose the amendment probably saved many soldiers from going to war, even if the commander in chief of all armed forces, the president, did not want to do so. The Constitution intended for the legislative branch to formally declare, war,  and since this amendment would go against the constitution and give people much more popular sovereignty, it was not ratified by Congress.

# data[].attributes.body
In 2010, during Obama’s first term as President, Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare. This provided health insurance for those who are previously uninsured. It requires people to have health insurance and requires that insurance companies can not deny someone coverage based on a preexisting condition. The employers and citizens both contribute to the cost of health insurance for many who cannot afford it. The Constitution, Article 1 Section 8, says that Congress has the power to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying” out the functions of government. Now, health care has been adapted in the minds of officials to fit the category of a law that is necessary for carrying out the functions of government. Also, affordable care fits under the 14th amendment, which guarantees all people equal protection under the law.  Most people can now get health care even if they are not wealthy enough, giving them equality. This relates to dynamism by having the words of the original Constitution interpreted by people to support a new cause.

# data[].attributes.body
This case focused on southern states, specifically Alabama officials, not following the Brown v. Board decision. As we know, the Brown v. Board case allowed the Browns to attend a primarily white school, and this set the precedent that from then on, schools would be desegregated. This precedent was set nationally, and many states, specifically southern ones, did not agree with the ruling. They did not want to enforce the ruling in their states, so they went to court. In a unanimous ruling, the court said that all states must follow the precedent from the Brown v. Board case. They said only the federal courts can decide when a law has been violated. This case questioned who had the authority to declare something constitutional and who must enforce rulings, the federal or state governments. This relates to federalism by having both the state and federal government follow the rules, and though they disputed on how to enforce laws, they eventually had people work together to enforce them the same way. This case was not successful in overturning the previous case because the government was stable enough to uphold the decisions that were made.

# data[].attributes.headline
Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances: Dred Scott v. Sandford

# data[].attributes.subject
Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances: Dred Scott v. Sandford

# data[].attributes.body
In 1857, the Supreme Court ruled that any person of African descent was not American and could not sue in federal court. Also, they ruled that the rights of slave owners were protected by the fifth amendment since slaves were considered property. This case all started in 1833, when John Emerson purchased the slave, Dred Scott. The slave owner moved to a free territory and took Scott, and he then decided to sue for his freedom. Not only did the court rule that people of African descent could not sue in a federal case, but ruled that Congress lacked power to ban slavery in the U.S. territories. This court case set the precedent for a short time after this, that congress, the legislative branch, could not make laws banning slavery. Although a controversial case, this demonstrates separation of powers by showing that the legislative branch does not have the authority to ban slavery, and the checks and balances occurs by the judicial branch declaring any action Congress may take to ban slavery as unconstitutional. This also demonstrates dynamism by showing how, with one ruling of the court, Congress could not persist on banning slavery yet.

# data[].attributes.body
This case was brought to the Supreme Court in 2005. This case questioned whether it was okay for the federal government to use eminent domain, stated in the fifth amendment, to transfer land from one private owner to the government to further economic development. New London, Connecticut wanted to take the property of Kelo to help the community develop economically, but Kelo argued that the federal government could take the property if it was for the public good. In a 5-4 ruling of the Supreme Court, they decided that the federal government was not overreaching its powers, and the fifth amendment to the constitution supported this claim. This court case relates to federalism and dynamism by showing an instance where the courts gave the central government the power to a different principle of eminent domain, which changed the way that people’s private property could be used from then on. The precedent was set that courts could use tax revenue for economic development to justify the “public use” requirement for eminent domain. This does not change the words of the amendment, but simply changes our understanding of where the amendment can be applied. This gave the central government more power in terms of taking property to strengthen the community.

# data[].attributes.body
The 26th amendment was passed in the March of 1971. This amendment lowered the voting age from an age of 21 to 18, which it remains to this day. Like many previous amendments about expanding the popular sovereignty of voters, this allowed many more people to vote, and elect their representatives. Before this historical event in 1971, the amendments about voting included the 15th amendment, allowing all men above the age of 21, the 19th amendment, allowing people of all genders to vote, and the 24th amendment, which eliminated poll tax. Over the years, the right to vote has been broadened, giving more citizens the opportunity to exercise their right to vote. The debate over lowering the voting age to 18 began during World War II and the Vietnam War. Men between the ages of 18 and 20 were unable to vote in elections, yet were able to serve in the military to defend their country. To many, this was unacceptable. In the 1970 court case of Oregon v. Mitchell, the court was divided, but ruled that the federal government had the right to regulate the federal voting age, but for state and local elections, they could not. Then, in 1971, Congress passed the 26th amendment, and most of the states were in favor, and ratified it. This event of passing the 26th amendment allowed the government to change with the issues that arose in that time period, and gave people above 18 years old more freedom to have a say in government, which is popular sovereignty.

# data[].attributes.body
Here are some events that have occurred after 1800 that show how the Constitution has created a dynamic government that is able to adapt and change.

# data[].attributes.body
Here are some events that have occurred after 1800 that show how the Constitution has created a stable government that is able to prevent change from happening too quickly.