# data[].attributes.body
guarantees certain personal liberties and privileges to everyone

# data[].attributes.body
everyone in the government must follow the same rules from average person to the president

# data[].attributes.body
each branch has certain controls over the other branches

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Published: Nov 9, 2016 12:38 p.m. ET By CHRIS EDELSON

One of the many extraordinary things about the presidential campaign that just ended was Donald Trump's disdain for the rule of law, the idea that everyone is accountable to the law and no person, not even the president, can set aside the law or subordinate it to a political agenda.

Trump promised to bring back torture and order the killing of terrorists' family members , at one point declaring that the military would have to carry out his orders even if they recognized it would mean violating criminal law. He threatened to turn federal law enforcement into a mechanism for settling political scores . He suggested that he would unilaterally decide when to order the use of military force , in defiance of the constitutional requirement that Congress approve military action unless the United States faces a sudden attack that leaves no time for legislative authorization. He presented himself as a "strong man" who would " deport more than 10 million people currently living in the United States, bar Muslims...from entering the country, shut down mosques, and perhaps set up a national database to track Muslims."

Even members of Trump's own party recognized that Trump's rhetoric suggested his presidency could threaten the rule of law. However, Republican leaders in Congress said that they would act as a check on Trump's power in office. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell noted that a President Trump would have legal advisers and " others who point out that there's certain things you can and can't do ." Senator John McCain argued that the American system of constitutional democracy is designed to ensure no one has unlimited power, observing that " We have a Congress. We have the Supreme Court ."

In theory, McCain is correct. The Constitution does create a system of checks and balances designed to prevent a concentration of power in the hands of any one person or branch of government. Congress has significant powers available to it, especially when it comes to national security-including the power to declare war, ratify treaties, regulate trade with foreign countries, define violations of international law, and raise and support armies and navies. On paper, presidents have very little room to act unilaterally in the name of national security, at least outside of the emergency context.

But these constitut ional safeguards are not self-executing. They depend on members of each branch of government holding the other branches accountable and setting limits on power .

Congress is best positioned to act as a check on presidential national security power, in large part because of its own constitutional sources of power in this area. In practice, however, Congress has often abdicated its constitutional responsibility to set limits on presidential power, passively deferring to presidents who push past constitutional boundaries. This is a pattern that has applied without regard to party. Congress controlled has acquiesced to assertions of power by both Republican and Democratic presidents, from Harry Truman's decision to unilaterally go to war in Korea to Ronald Reagan's unilateral action in Libya and Bill Clin ton's decision to order airstrikes in Bosnia .

Recent history ought to make us question whether Sen. McCain and other Republicans and Congress will, in fact, set meaningful limits on President Trump's power. Consider the Obama administration. Republican critics assailed President Barack Obama as a dictator and sought to rein in his domestic actions, including the president's decision to defer deportation of certain undocumented immigrants. But on the national security side, they were often deferential. If Republicans allowed a Democratic president such broad discretion, it seems possible they would take a similar approach when it comes to a Trump administration. Yet there are some hopeful precedents. For example, in 2013 members of Congress successfully forced President Obama to seek legislative approval before ordering military action against the Assad regime in Syria .

When members of Congress have the will to act, the Constitution provides them with the tools necessary to ensure presidents do not exercise unchecked plenary power. The question that remains to be answered is whether Republican members of Congress will decide to play their constitutional role when it comes to setting limits on President Trump's national security power.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Checks & Balances Reading - Mr. Testa's Site

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Published: Nov 9, 2016 12:38 p.m. ET By CHRIS EDELSON One of the many extraordinary things about the presidential campaign that just ended was Donald Trump's disdain for the rule of law, the idea that everyone is accountable to the law and no person, not even the president, can set aside the law or subordinate it to a political agenda.

# data[].attributes.body
The government is divided into three branches: executive, judicial, and legislative

# data[].attributes.body
a system of government in which the states and national government share powers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How does cake symbolize federalism? The two different cakes show two different types of federalism. The marble (swirly) cake signifies cooperative federalism, where the powers are not divided, but are shared by all levels of government. The layer cake represents duel federalism. The different layers symbolize the distinct, different powers the states' government and the national government have.

# data[].attributes.body
a government in which the people vote for their political representatives

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In chapter two of the novel City of Rhetoric: Revitalizing the Public Sphere in Metropolitan America, David Fleming claims that in the postmodern era republicanism and liberalism no longer work as forms of political life, and instead political life must now be centered around the commonplac e. According to Fleming "Both republicanism and liberalism were tied to systems of exclusion, enslavement, and violence and based on models of 'publicity' that are no longer acceptable: republicanism, with its subordination of the individual to the community; liberalism, with its dream of an 'unencumbered self' whose rights are set over against the community" (30). The essence of Fleming's argument is that both republicanism and liberalism are flawed because they both have deeply embedded histories of inequality and hate. To replace these outdated systems of political life, Fleming proposes the creation of commonplaces which are grounded, unitary, and official.

A crucial aspect of Fleming's thesis is the role that a citizen plays in political life and what actually defines citizenship in America. The most common way to teach citizenship in America, at least according to the 1994 document National Standards for Civics and Government, is by saying that "The identity of an American citizen is defined by shared political values and principles rather than by ethnicity, race, religion, class, language, gender, or national origin" (Fleming 20). Fleming, on the contrary, disputes this popular claim because historically race and gender did have an impact citizenship in the United States up until the middle of the Twentieth Century. Additionally, even today in order to become a United States citizen a person needs to have some proficiency in the english language. In fact, the actual questions asked on the citizenship test have nothing to do with so called American values and principles. Furthermore, he argues that by disillusioning oneself into believing that gender, race, or class have nothing to do with citizenship, is way of preferring the white, cisgender, heterosexual, christian male.

Fleming counters the "typical" view of citizenship by providing his own theory on citizenship, in which everyone has a place to share their own ideas without being considered any more or less then anyone else. In Fleming's view "Still prominent in our social imaginary are literal places where we come together, as citizens, to manage the world we hold in common: middle grounds-accessible, open, attractive- where we all belong but are not under the threat of assimilation, where we retain our freedom and equality but still connect, where we oppose, contend, and argue but still share, where we are human without denying the humanity of others" (34). Essentially, Fleming is saying that acknowledging differences as something that is okay and important is key to creating political spaces that actually work in a postmodern society. The commonplace that Fleming describes here differs from previous forms citizenship in that it provides for a political space in which anyone can express their views, while at the same time still be able to maintain their freedom and equality.

David Fleming's argument that political life today should be centered on the commonplace, rather than around old school theories such as republicanism and liberalism, is important because it demonstrates how current political ecology has failed to foster an environment that cultivates equality and individualism. Fleming makes a similar argument in the next chapter when he explores what is the ideal sized political setting. The purpose of Fleming's book is clearly to explore how place affects citizenship and the consequences of not having a proper political atmosphere in place.Ultimately, what is at stake here is a political life in America in which all citizens can have an active and productive role. If the political ecology in America is not adapted to fit a postmodern society than this political environment is lost.
Works Cited
"Classical Liberalism." http://www.buzzle.com/articles/what-does-classical-liberalism-mean.html . Cartoon.

FLAMA. "Americans Try U.S. Citizenship Test." 14 Nov. 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZtvQtMy064

Fleming, David. City of Rhetoric: Revitalizing the Public Sphere in Metropolitan America. State University of New York Press, 2009.

"Republicanism." , YouTube, 18 Mar. 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xv-aQ2wo6u0&t=4s.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Reading Analysis One: The Placelessness of Political Theory

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In chapter two of the novel City of Rhetoric: Revitalizing the Public Sphere in Metropolitan America, David Fleming claims that in the postmodern era republicanism and liberalism no longer work as forms of political life, and instead political life must now be centered around the commonplace.

# data[].attributes.body
a government in the which the people rule