# data[].attributes.body
Use the link below and find further evidence to explain why the difficulty amendning the US constitution causes deadlock.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What would the Senate look like today without the 17th Amendment? - National Constitution Center

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's the 105th anniversary of the 17th Amendment, leading us to consider what today's U.S. Senate would look like if its members weren't directly elected by voters.

# data[].attributes.headline
3. Electoral College Means the winner of the popular vote is denied the presidency 

# data[].attributes.subject
3. Electoral College Means the winner of the popular vote is denied the presidency 

# data[].attributes.body
- Why is the electoral college unproportional?
- Give examples of where the popular vote and the electoral college have not matched up.

# data[].attributes.headline
2. Mid Term Congressional Elections: 9/11 Victims Bill 

# data[].attributes.subject
2. Mid Term Congressional Elections: 9/11 Victims Bill 

# data[].attributes.body
- What is the 9/11 victims bill?
-  How did Congress veto the 9/11 victims Bill?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
WASHINGTON - Congress on Wednesday voted overwhelmingly to override a veto by President Obama for the first time, passing into law a bill that would allow the families of those killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to sue Saudi Arabia for any role in the plot.

Democrats in large numbers joined with Republicans to deliver a remarkable rebuke to the president. The 97-to-1 vote in the Senate and the 348-to-77 vote in the House displayed the enduring power of the Sept. 11 families in Washington and the diminishing influence here of the Saudi government.

The new law, enacted over the fierce objections of the White House, immediately alters the legal landscape. American courts could seize Saudi assets to pay for any judgment obtained by the Sept. 11 families, while Saudi officials have warned they might need to sell off hundreds of billions of dollars in holdings in the United States to avoid such an outcome.

The override comes at an already freighted moment in America's relations with the kingdom. The Saudi government has vigorously denied that it had any part in the Sept. 11 attacks, and the commission investigating the plot found "no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded" Al Qaeda, the terror group that carried out the attacks. But the commission left open the possibility that some Saudi officials may have played roles.

Mr. Obama angrily denounced the outcome, saying lawmakers had been swayed to cast a political vote for legislation that set a "dangerous precedent" with implications they did not understand and never debated.

"I think it was a mistake, and I understand why it happened," Mr. Obama said at a CNN town hall-style meeting with military personnel in Fort Lee, Va. "It's an example of why sometimes, you have to do what's hard, and frankly, I wish Congress here had done what's hard. I didn't expect it, because if you're perceived as voting against 9/11 families right before an election, not surprisingly, that's a hard vote for people to take. But it would have been the right thing to do."

There were swift complications. Within hours of their vote, nearly 30 senators signed a letter expressing some reservations about the potential consequences of the law, including the prospect that the United States could face lawsuits in foreign courts "as a result of important military or intelligence activities."

The White House and some lawmakers were already plotting how they could weaken the law in the near future, although there was general pessimism on Wednesday that Congress would agree to any changes. "You got to find consensus," said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, after the vote. "Then you need a vehicle."

It is unclear whether the Saudis will make good on warnings that the kingdom could unload hundreds of billions of dollars worth of assets inside the United States, and some economists have said that such a sell-off would do far more damage to Saudi Arabia's economy than America's.

But legal experts say there is cause for concern in Riyadh.

The law allows families of the Sept. 11 victims to alter lawsuits already underway - or file new suits - to directly sue Saudi Arabia and to demand documents and other evidence. It amends a 1976 law that grants foreign countries broad immunity from American lawsuits. Now nations can be sued in federal court if they are found to have played any role in terrorist attacks that killed Americans on United States soil.

"From there, the ball goes squarely into the Obama administration's court," said Stephen I. Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law.

As Mr. Vladeck noted, a little-discussed provision of the bill allows the attorney general to intervene in the lawsuits and get a judge to stay any settlement as long as there are continuing discussions with the Saudis about a possible resolution.

The provision was added earlier this year to soften the legislation - preserving the executive branch's purview over foreign policy while still giving family members a path to sue.

But the prospects of such discussions ever beginning are uncertain. The Saudi government has long denied any role in the Sept. 11 plot, and any negotiation with the United States could be viewed as acknowledging culpability.

At the same time, lawyers for the families will no doubt push for judges to carefully scrutinize any attempt by the attorney general to delay court proceedings.

"The families would of course expect that in the event the provision is invoked, that the courts exercise their inherent authority to assure good faith negotiations are in fact taking place and that the courts not simply rubber stamp executive branch requests for delay in resolution of their claims," said Allan Gerson, who is part of a team representing many of the Sept. 11 families.

Mr. Gerson filed a lawsuit against Libya on behalf of families of the victims of Pan Am Flight 103, which was brought down by a bomb as it flew over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988.

In recent days, Mr. Obama, Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter and Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, all wrote letters to Congress warning of the dangers of overriding the veto.

John O. Brennan, the C.I.A. director, released his own statement saying, "Any legislation that affects sovereign immunity should take into account the associated risks to our national security."

Yet even most of Mr. Obama's strongest allies on Capitol Hill turned against him.

"This is a decision I do not take lightly," said Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, one of the legislation's authors. "This bill is near and dear to my heart as a New Yorker, because it would allow the victims of 9/11 to pursue some small measure of justice, finally giving them a legal avenue to pursue foreign sponsors of the terrorist attack that took from them the lives of their loved ones."

Only one senator, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, sided with the president.

The bill succeeded not with significant congressional debate or intense pressure from voters, but rather through the sheer will of the victims' families, who seized on the 15th anniversary of the attack and an election year to lean on members of Congress. That effort was aided by lawmakers' waning patience with the kingdom in recent years.

The override also represents a White House miscalculation about Capitol Hill, where it was slow to pressure members and see the cracks in its firewall against the bill.

The Senate voted unanimously in May to pass the bill and send it to the House, but many lawmakers and White House officials believed the chamber would never take up the legislation.

Then this month, Speaker Paul D. Ryan, who had encountered families of the Sept. 11 victims at a fund-raiser on Long Island, decided to put the bill on a fast track. The House voted overwhelmingly in favor, sending it to Mr. Obama's desk.

Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, gave voice to the unusual ambivalence that many members of Congress have expressed since they passed the bill.

"I do want to say I don't think the Senate nor House has functioned in an appropriate manner as it relates to a very important piece of legislation," said Mr. Corker, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "I have tremendous concerns about the sovereign immunity procedures that would be set in place by the countries as a result of this vote." Still, it was a vote he cast.

Correction:

An article on Thursday about the Congressional override of a bill allowing families of those killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to sue Saudi Arabia for any role in the plot referred incorrectly in some editions to the attack on Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988, which prompted lawsuits against Libya. The flight was brought down by a bomb as it flew over Lockerbie, Scotland; it was not shot down.

A version of this article appears in print on , on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Congress Allows Saudis to be Sued Over 9/11 Attacks. Order Reprints | Today's Paper | Subscribe

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Congress Votes to Override Obama Veto on 9/11 Victims Bill

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WASHINGTON - Congress on Wednesday voted overwhelmingly to override a veto by President Obama for the first time, passing into law a bill that would allow the families of those killed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to sue Saudi Arabia for any role in the plot.

# data[].attributes.headline
1. Checks and balances (Partial Government Shutdown) 

# data[].attributes.subject
1. Checks and balances (Partial Government Shutdown) 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
US President Obama and Congressional leaders have failed to break a budget deadlock that has led to a partial government shutdown.

Mr Obama held White House talks with Republican House Speaker John Boehner and Senate leader Mitch McConnell as well as their Democratic counterparts.

Mr Boehner left the talks complaining the Democrats "will not negotiate".

Mr Obama said he would not set a precedent where "an extremist wing" of a party holds a government to ransom.

He told CNBC ahead of the meeting that he was "prepared to negotiate on anything" over the budget once Congress passes "a clean piece of legislation that reopens the government".

The US government closed non-essential operations on Tuesday after Congress failed to strike a deal on a new budget.

The shutdown has left more than 700,000 employees on unpaid leave and closed national parks, tourist sites, government websites, office buildings, and more.

However, as one budget crisis raged in Washington DC, another one - potentially more dangerous - looms in the coming weeks.

On 17 October, the US government will run out of cash to pay its bills unless the debt ceiling is raised.

'Locked in tight'

Mr Boehner emerged from Wednesday evening's talks at the White House, saying it had been a "polite conversation" but yielded nothing. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell called the talks "unproductive".

"All we're asking for here is a discussion and fairness for the American people under Obamacare,'' Mr Boehner told reporters.

All the signs are that neither side is preparing to blink, quite yet. But while the president is staring hard and straight ahead, the Republicans' eyes are beginning to water, and they are glancing at the ground.

House Minority Leader, Democrat Nancy Pelosi, who also attended the meeting, accused the Republicans of "moving the goalposts" on the budget deal.

Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said his party were "locked in tight on Obamacare'' and neither the president nor Democrats in Congress would accept changes to the law as the price for a deal on reopening the government.

The Republicans who control the House of Representatives have demanded concessions from Mr Obama and his fellow Democrats in return for funding the government's continued operation and for raising the debt ceiling.

Chiefly, the Republicans demand the repeal, delay or defunding of a healthcare reform law - dubbed Obamacare - passed by the Democrats in 2010.

Major portions of that law, which was subsequently validated by the US Supreme Court and was a major issue in the 2012 presidential election, took effect on Tuesday.

Analysts say Mr Boehner could end the current government showdown by allowing the House to vote on a "clean" budget bill that does not alter the health law, because that could pass with a coalition of Democrats and moderate Republicans.

But doing so would risk his standing with the most conservative elements of his caucus.

Earlier on Wednesday, Mr Obama met the heads of some of Wall Street's biggest banks - including JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America - to discuss the debt ceiling and other economic issues.

The bankers are members of the Financial Services Forum, a lobby group which has, along with 250 other businesses, sent a letter to Congress urging it to raise the debt limit by 17 October.

Following the meeting, Mr Obama told CNBC "it's important for them to recognise that this is going to have a profound impact on our economy and their bottom lines".

He said he was "exasperated" by events "because this is entirely unnecessary".

But he said bowing to the demands of any one faction set a dangerous precedent.

"If we get in the habit where a few folks, an extremist wing of one party... are allowed to extort concessions based on a threat of undermining the full faith and credit of the United States, then any president that comes after me... will find themselves unable to govern effectively," he said.

"And that is not something that I'm going to allow to happen."

Department of State will be able to operate for limited time

Department of Defense will continue military operations

Department of Education will still distribute $22bn (£13.6bn) to public schools, but staffing is expected to be severely hit

Department of Energy - 12,700 staff expected to be sent home, with 1,113 remaining to oversee nuclear arsenal

Department of Health and Human Services expected to send home more than half of staff

The Federal Reserve, Department of Homeland Security, and Department of Justice will see little or no disruption

US Postal Services continue as normal

Smithsonian institutions, museums, zoos and many national parks closed

US shutdown in 60 seconds Who will be affected Q&A: 2013 US budget brawl

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
US President Obama and Congressional leaders have failed to break a budget deadlock that has led to a partial government shutdown. Mr Obama held White House talks with Republican House Speaker John Boehner and Senate leader Mitch McConnell as well as their Democratic counterparts. Mr Boehner left the talks complaining the Democrats "will not negotiate".

# data[].attributes.headline
2. Mid Term Congressional Elections 2014 (Obama)

# data[].attributes.subject
2. Mid Term Congressional Elections 2014 (Obama)

# data[].attributes.body
- What was the result of the mid term elections 2014?
- What consequenct could this have had for Obama?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Mr Obama's opponents also expanded their majority in the House of Representatives, giving them complete control in Congress.

Although the President was not on the ballot, he was a driving force in his party's defeat and 54 per cent of voters said they disapproved of the job he was doing, according to a CNN exit poll.

Mr Obama watched the Republican victory unfold from his private residence at the White House but did not offer any immediate public reaction.

However, he did call several Republicans to offer congratulations and announced he would meet with leaders from both parties at the White House on Friday in an attempt at post-election reconciliation.

Mitch McConnell, the Republican senator who will lead his party's new majority, also struck a bipartisan note as he claimed victory in his homestate of Kentucky.

"I don't expect the president to wake up tomorrow and see the world in a different way than he did before. And he knows I won't either," said Mr McConnell after winning a comfortable seven-point re-election victory in Kentucky."[But] we do have an obligation to work together on issues where we can agree."

However, few believe that the election will usher in a new era of cooperation, especially as both parties gear up for an all-out battle for the White House in 2016.

In the coming weeks, Mr Obama is expected to announce plans to allow millions of illegal immigrants to begin a path towards American citizenship. Republicans are furious at the prospect, calling it an "illegal amnesty" that runs contrary to the US constitution.

Republicans are expected to use their control of Congress to pass a bill that Mr Obama will be forced to veto. "Under Mitch McConnell's leadership we will send the President bill after bill, until he wearies of it," said Rand Paul, a Republican senator and potential 2016 contender.

Democrats had long-expected to lose seats in the Senate but their position deteriorated rapidly in the final days of the race.

Colorado, once thought a relatively secure Democrat seat, fell quickly to the Republicans. North Carolina, where Democrats had been ahead in the final days before the election, also went red despite tens of millions of dollars spent trying to save it.

In Virginia, a state Mr Obama won in both 2008 and 2012, the Democrat senator survived by only a few thousand votes and a recount looked possible.

Democrat losses extended to governor's races across the country. Pat Quinn, Illinois's Democrat governor, was defeated handily even though Mr Obama had campaigned for him.

Republicans also won the governor's race in Maryland, a deeply Democrat state where Mr Obama had also campaigned in an effort to turn out black voters.

Scott Walker, the Republican governor of Wisconsin who is expected to run for president in 2016, also survived a spirited Democrat effort to unseat him.

In one of the few conciliations of the night for the White House, Democrats narrowly held on to their Senate seat in New Hampshire.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
US midterm elections 2014: Republican Senate victory dooms Obama to lame duck status

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Mr Obama's opponents also expanded their majority in the House of Representatives, giving them complete control in Congress. Although the President was not on the ballot, he was a driving force in his party's defeat and 54 per cent of voters said they disapproved of the job he was doing, according to a CNN exit poll.

# data[].attributes.headline
1. How Can Checks and Balances Cause Deadlock? (Under Obama) 

# data[].attributes.subject
1. How Can Checks and Balances Cause Deadlock? (Under Obama) 

# data[].attributes.body
- What has happened in this instance with the Supreme Court and the President?
- Why  has this caused deadlock?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Barack Obama has criticised a "heartbreaking" supreme court decision that will block legal recognition of 4 million long-stay immigrants, but insisted it was only a question of time before there was lasting reform.

Reacting to a tied supreme court ruling that effectively upholds lower-court opposition to his plan, the president said he would continue to instruct law enforcement officials not to prioritise the deportation of undocumented people who had lived in the US for more than five years.
Will Obama's immigration setback turn short-term pain into long-term gain?
But he acknowledged that successful Republican opposition through the courts would now make it hard for such families to seek the clearer legal status that his executive action had been intended to provide.

"Today's decision is frustrating for those who seek to grow our economy, bring rationality to our immigration system and allow people to come out of the shadows and lift this perpetual cloud from them," he said a hastily arranged statement to reporters at the White House.

"It is heartbreaking for the millions of immigrants who made their lives here, who raised families here, who hoped for the opportunity to work, pay taxes, serve in our military, and more fully contribute to this country in an open way."

Instead Obama seized on the case - one that is exacerbated by congressional refusal to ratify his supreme court replacement for the recently deceased justice Antonin Scalia - as an example of what was at stake in November's general election.

"Sooner or later immigration reform will get done," he said. "Congress will not be able to ignore America forever. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when."

Hillary Clinton also reacted quickly to the 4-4 split among remaining supreme court justices, citing it as an example of "just how high the stakes are in this election".

"In addition to throwing millions of families across our country into a state of uncertainty, this decision reminds us how much damage Senate Republicans are doing by refusing to consider President Obama's nominee to fill the vacancy on the supreme court," she said.

But Republicans heralded the split decision as a victory for the checks and balances in the constitution.

"The supreme court's decision that keeps in place the fifth circuit ruling is a win for the American people and especially American workers," said Chuck Grassley, the judiciary committee chairman.

"It underscores the rule of law and the system of government set up by the founding fathers. I agree that our immigration system must be revamped, but circumventing Congress and attempting to rewrite the immigration laws simply because you don't get your way is unlawful and contrary to the checks and balances so carefully crafted in the constitution."

When it came, the court's much-anticipated view on the immigration case was so succinct it was presented as single line of text: "The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court."

The opinion represents a significant blow to Obama during his final months in office. It allows Republicans to claim victory in their argument that he overreached presidential powers and failed to protect America's borders.

And it comes in an election year in which immigration has proven a bitterly divisive issue in the battle to succeed him.

The court had heard arguments in April over whether to revive Obama's plan to spare roughly 4 million undocumented immigrants - those who have lived illegally in the US at least since 2010, have no criminal record and have children who are US citizens or lawful permanent residents - from mass deportations that would rip many families apart.

The president took the unilateral action after House Republicans thwarted bipartisan legislation providing a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants that was passed by the Senate in 2013.

But his executive action was challenged by 26 states, all of which are led by Republican governors (California, which has a significant immigrant population but is led by a Democratic governor, did not join). They argued that Obama had overreached and does not have the power to effectively change immigration law.

A federal judge in Texas ruled in their favour and the fifth US circuit court of appeals upheld that decision last November.

The supreme court's 90-minute hearing in April considered the argument over the recent expansion of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (Daca) and the creation of Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (Dapa).

It noted the importance of a two-word phrase the administration used to describe the status of immigrants under the programmes: lawful presence. The states argued that it gives the immigrants more rights than federal law allows.

The hearing also illustrated the current 4-4 split between conservative and liberal justices on the court. Sonia Sotomayor and other liberals grilled Scott Keller, the solicitor general of Texas, while the conservative justices challenged the US solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, acting for the government.

Keller asserted that Dapa is an unprecedented unlawful assertion of executive power and one of the biggest changes in immigration policy in American history. Sotomayor fiercely disputed this.

The states also raised concerns that deferred action opens the way for immigrants to gain authorisation to work, eligibility for benefits and obtain driver's licences with the financial burden that would entail in a state such as Texas.

Verrilli asserted the president's authority to set priorities for immigration enforcement. But Justice Anthony Kennedy questioned whether the president can defer deportations for millions of people without congressional authorisation, saying "that is a legislative task, not an executive task".

He added: "It's as if the president is defining the policy and the Congress is executing it. That's just upside down."

The case has political purchase in an election year in which the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald Trump, has pledged to round up and deport all 11 million undocumented immigrants, described Mexican immigrants as "rapists" and promised to build a wall along the border.

Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, said recently: "I strongly believe that these executive actions that are rooted in law and precedent will be upheld, but the fate of these policies, and of the millions of people who were impacted by them, will be in the hands of the next president.

"If Donald Trump is that president, he has pledged to eliminate Daca and Dapa on day one. He has said he will create a 'deportation force' to round up 11 million people. He will tear apart families, separate parents and children, rip young people out of school and workers from their jobs. He has even said he will undermine that most fundamental American value - that if you are born here, no matter who your parents are or where they came from, you are an American."

Trump responded with a statement claiming the court ruling had blocked "one of the most unconstitutional actions ever undertaken by a president".

He added: "The executive amnesty from President Obama wiped away the immigration rules written by Congress, giving work permits and entitlement benefits to people illegally in the country. This split decision also makes clear what is at stake in November. The election, and the Supreme Court appointments that come with it will decide whether or not we have a border and, hence, a country."
Topics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Obama's sweeping immigration reforms blocked in 4-4 supreme court deadlock

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Barack Obama has criticised a "heartbreaking" supreme court decision that will block legal recognition of 4 million long-stay immigrants, but insisted it was only a question of time before there was lasting reform.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rb7CvxwTd0

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How the Electoral College Works, and Why We Have One

# data[].attributes.headline
a) The Different elements of the constitution that can cause deadlock are as follows (If you want to remind yourself of how these different systems work watch the clips below): 

# data[].attributes.subject
a) The Different elements of the constitution that can cause deadlock are as follows (If you want to remind yourself of how these different systems work watch the clips below): 

# data[].attributes.body
1. Checks and balances (see notes from last lesson)  - 2. Congress Mid Term Elections (see clip below) 3. Electoral College  System  (see clip b) 4.  Amending the Constitution (see notes and textbook)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Congressional Elections: Crash Course Government and Politics #6

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This week Craig Benzine talks about the importance of elections. But he isn't going to focus on presidential elections, but instead those of the strongest part of our government: congressional elections. Craig will talk about the frequency of elections in the Senate and House, typical characteristics of a candidate, and the motivating factors our congresspeople follow to get re-elected.