# data[].attributes.headline
Checks and Balances/ Separation of power: Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer

# data[].attributes.subject
Checks and Balances/ Separation of power: Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer

# data[].attributes.body
President Truman gave the power to Sawyer to control the country's steel mills. He did this to avoid strikes of the steelworkers. People go mad so it got brought to court. The question was did Truman over step his boundaries? The court decided that Truman did not have the power to control the steel mills. This shows stability because the president used power that he did not have. If the court decided to side with Truman then it would also grant him power to those.

# data[].attributes.body
New York gave a man (Ogden) a permit to do business on on all of the state's rivers. Since permits were expensive for out of state competitors Ogden had no competition. One day his old business partner, Gibbons, came and said he had a permit to sail through New York waters from the federal government. Ogden was very mad and so was Gibbons, so they took it to court. Gibbons won because Federal government, they argued that the Constitution gave them power to do that. This shows that federal government won over state government, this shows federalism at its best

# data[].attributes.headline
Limited government: Schenck v. United States

# data[].attributes.subject
Limited government: Schenck v. United States

# data[].attributes.body
Back in 1919 when the government was getting soldiers through the raft many people were really upset. A man named Charles Schenck sent over 20, 000 pamphlets to American citizens, protesting the draft. Two years earlier a law was passed that stated if anyone spoke against war then it had to be inline with the United States. This was set in place to protect the citizens. So once the government heard that this man was giving out pamphlets they arrested him. The man went to court and the court ruled in favor of the government and said that Schenck's pamphlets was putting the United States in immediate threat. This shows that the government could overrule

# data[].attributes.headline
Popular Sovereignty: Equalality of  rights under law failed amendment

# data[].attributes.subject
Popular Sovereignty: Equalality of  rights under law failed amendment

# data[].attributes.body
In 1972 an amendment went up for ratification but failed. The amendment was for equal rights no matter race or sex. The amendment went up for ratification and it´s 7 year expiration was extended to 10 years. Finally after 10 years the amendment expired ratified. Today we have the 19th amendment that gave women to vote but this amendment not only includes voting rights but it also includes equal wages and equal treatment.

# data[].attributes.body
This side of the padlet is about Constitutional Stability. The Constitution also has stability. This helps to make sure the Constitution is not changing too fast. This is important because if anything changed super quickly then it would be chaos. Constitutional Stability is basically the effect of the dynamism. If things can change in the Constitution then there has to be a limit for how fast things can change.

# data[].attributes.body
In the court case Roe V. Wade Jane Roe was single and pregnant. So she went to get an abortion and because of Texas law if she had been raped then it would have been legal to get an abortion. She ended up lying that she was raped but there was no proof so the doctor would not preform the procedure. She then tried to get an illegal abortion but the clinic was caught before she could get the surgery. Then Roe went to lawyers. In the end the Supreme Court decided that Texas' law was unconstitutional. This shows federalism because the federal government told the state government of Texas that they needed to change their state laws.

# data[].attributes.headline
Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances: USA V. Alverez

# data[].attributes.subject
Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances: USA V. Alverez

# data[].attributes.body
Separation of powers is similar to limited government in that power is separated so one branch does not out rule the other. In the USA V. Alverez is a case about people using military benefits when they do not deserve them. At first the legislative branch said it should be punishable to people who misuse military advantages. The Judicial branch said it was against the first amendment because people have the right to say they are apart of the military. Then the Executive branch proposed a data base for military verification. This shows the branches using their different powers to help solve a problem. They also all work together to make sure everything works easily.

# data[].attributes.body
Limited government restricts different offices of government so that the government doesn't turn into unitary government. The 22nd amendment states that a president can only serve two terms. This limits how much a president can do. Also if someone isn't happy with the ruling then the man/ women in office can only be there for a maximum of 8 years. Prior to this presidents would serve for years on end. Once Franklin Roosevelt died the people of America decided that maybe a president serving for a long time wasn't such a good idea.

# data[].attributes.body
The Constitution has something called constitutional dynamism. This basically keeps the constitution up to date. an example of problems changing is the third amendment. The amendment protects citizens from housing soldiers during peace time. In 2016 this is not really a problem but back when the Constitution was being made it was a big problem.

# data[].attributes.body
popular sovereignty is power to the people an excellent example is the 17th amendment. The 17th amendment states that citizens have the right directly elect their senators . This gives the people power to decide their officials. They are also electing their representatives in congress. Prior to this amendment the state legislator chose the state senator.