# data[].attributes.body
This case was over the  Sherman Booth. Prior to his arrest, Booth petitioned a local court judge for the release of Joshua Glover, a runaway slave. Glover was being held in federal custody in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Though the federal authorities did not accept the judge's order, a mob eventually freed Glover. Booth was charged with helping the escape of a runaway slave in violation of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. Booth then successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of Wisconsin for his release, through a writ of habeas corpus. Booth was then convicted in the United States District Court for the District of Wisconsin and detained again. Booth again petitioned the Supreme Court of Wisconsin for his release, alleging that the Fugitive Slave Act (a law written to enforce Article 4, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, which required the return of runaway slaves) was unconstitutional and that the Federal District Court lacked jurisdiction. Booth was again released by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The United States appealed to the Supreme Court. In an opinion authored by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the Court asserted the supremacy of federal courts on issues of federal law. The Court dismissed Wisconsin's claim of judicial power, since "it certainly has not been conferred on them by the United States; and it is equally clear it was not in the power of the State to confer it." Chief Justice Taney relied on the Constitution in that it is "the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby." While the state courts of Wisconsin certainly did have authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to cases where the prisoner was held by the state of Wisconsin, the authority did not extend to prisoners held by the federal government.

# data[].attributes.headline
Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances: President Obama Vetoes Keystone Pipeline

# data[].attributes.subject
Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances: President Obama Vetoes Keystone Pipeline

# data[].attributes.body
An example of checks and balances is in lawmaking, as presented in Article I Section 7 Part II of the Constitution. This portion of of the Constitution explains that when a bill is passed by both houses of Congress, it goes to the president for approval, where he can either sign it or veto it. This allows the president and executive branch to 'check' on the legislative branch so that they don't pass unreasonable laws. This check and balance came into play on  January 29, 2015 when Congress passed a bill approving the construction of the Keystone Pipeline XL. The bill was sent to Obama who then vetoed it because he claimed it would be harmful to the environment. This displays how the constitution created a government that remains stable by preventing changes from occurring too quickly because it allowed the president to veto a environmentally harmful bill.

# data[].attributes.headline
Popular Sovereignty: D.C Voting Rights Amendment Struck Down

# data[].attributes.subject
Popular Sovereignty: D.C Voting Rights Amendment Struck Down

# data[].attributes.body
This Amendment would have repealed the 23rd Amendment (gives Washington D.C 3 electoral votes but no representation in Congress) of the Constitution. Instead, it would give D.C the same representation as any other state, due to their population. This Amendment, proposed in 1978, was not ratified by 3/4 of the states because people believed a city, D.C, should not receive equal representation as states. So, the 23rd Amendment and popular sovereignty were sustained.

# data[].attributes.body
The Patriot Act was passed on October 26, 2001, following the terrorist attacks from the previous month (9/11). Attempting to prevent future terrorist attacks,  Congress allowed the federal government to participate in cyber surveillance of its citizens. This was implemented through the Patriot Act which (in Section 215), allowed the National Security Agency (NSA) to gather phone metadata in large quantities. Dynamism in our government was displayed through this act as it changed (increased) the government's power in terms of cyber surveillance.

# data[].attributes.body
On this side of the board I will examine how the Constitution has created a government that remains stable by preventing changes from occurring too quickly.

# data[].attributes.headline
Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances: U.S v. Alvarez

# data[].attributes.subject
Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances: U.S v. Alvarez

# data[].attributes.body
In 2007, Xavier Alvarez (link is external), an elected member of a water district board in California, identified himself at a public meeting as a retired U.S. Marine who had been wounded in combat many times and had received the Congressional Medal of Honor. The statements made turned out to be false. After FBI agents obtained a tape recording of the meeting, federal prosecutors charged Alvarez with two counts of violating the Stolen Valor Act (an act prohibiting false military claims). Alvarez's lawyer argued that the Stolen Valor Act was invalid under the First Amendment and, therefore, the case should be dismissed. However, the trial court rejected this argument. Alvarez was tried and convicted in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. He was then sentenced to probation for three years and ordered to pay a $5,000 fine. Alvarez was the first person convicted under the Stolen Valor Act. Alvarez appealed the First Amendment issue, claiming that the Stolen Valor law violated the First Amendment and, therefore, his conviction was unlawful. A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed with Alvarez and reversed his conviction, declaring the Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional in a vote of 2-to-1.

The government appealed the case to the Supreme Court of the United States, which agreed to hear it. After the Court agreed to hear the case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, ruling in a different case, declared the Stolen Valor Act constitutional in a vote of 2-to-1.

# data[].attributes.body
The 19th Amendment was ratified in 1990. Prior to its ratification,  the 15th Amendment had been ratified, allowing men of all races (over 21) to vote. While this expanded  popular sovereignty to an extent (only expanded for those able to pay poll tax), it still left a large population of the nation voiceless in elections, women. The 19th Amendment was the result of a women's suffrage movement as it finally allowed all citizens of any gender (over 21) to vote. The amendment kept our government dynamic by expanding popular sovereignty from all races to all genders.

# data[].attributes.body
The 22nd Amendment was ratified in 1951.  It was proposed two years after Franklin D. Roosevelt left office (proposed in 1947). Roosevelt's presidency was particularly divergent from most as he served a high of 4 terms (16 years). This rose red flags for Americans because it demonstrated that there was no limit to how long a president could retain power. A president who could hold office for an extensive amount of time struck similarities with a dictatorship, so the 22nd Amendment was passed to prevent such from happening. This Amendment limited the maximum amount of terms a president could have to two. As a result, the government remained stable by limiting the power of the President.

# data[].attributes.body
This case found the racial segregation of students and schools, unconstitutional. Prior to this case, school segregation laws varied from state to state. In 1954, the year the Supreme Court issued its ruling on the case, 17 states plus the District of Columbia mandated their public schools to be racially segregated. Additional states allowed (did not require) communities to segregate based on race. Since segregation laws were not reserved to the Federal government, states in favor of segregation claimed the 10th Amendment gave every state the right to their own segregation laws. However, Oliver Brown, father of Linda Brown, sued the state of Kansas on the grounds that African-American schools were not equal to Caucasian schools and violated the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause (guaranteed all citizens equal protection under the law). This shows dynamism of the Constitution as it relates Federalism because what started out as a state by state decision became a decision made by a branch of the Federal government. This branch is the Judicial Branch and its Supreme Court.

# data[].attributes.body
On this side of the board I will examine how the Constitution has created a dynamic government that has the ability change with the times.