# data[].attributes.headline
Checks and Balances : Obama's attempted selection of aSupreme Court Justice

# data[].attributes.subject
Checks and Balances : Obama's attempted selection of aSupreme Court Justice

# data[].attributes.body
In February of 2016, associate justice Antonin Scalia died, and the following month President Barrack Obama nominated D.C. circuit judge Merrick Garland. The mostly Republican Senate argued that the next president should appoint a justice. Usually the acceptance of a Supreme Court justice takes an average of 67 days, so it makes sense that the Senate would want to wait for the next president to nominate someone, even if they weren't being bias. They are still holding off on giving Garland a hearing, and since Donald Trump won the presidential victory, it is unlikely that Merrick Garland will become a justice. The power that the senate has over deciding if the executive nominated candidate deserves to be in the Supreme Court is a good check that creates a well balanced government. This refusal to accept Obama's recommended candidate shows constitutional stability, because the Senate wants to take it's time and be careful about this very important decision, and not change anything too quickly.

# data[].attributes.body
You may know about this case already, but in 2016 the FBI requested for Apple to write a program to get into a man named Syed Farook. Syed Farook was a San Bernardino shooter, and the FBI believe that there is evidence on the phone. Apple refused to create such a program on the grounds that if they created a program to hack this one Iphone, then they could be asked to use the program in countless other cases and would put Apple users at a risk. This seems totally justified to me, and the judges must have thought so as well, because Apple was never forced to write a program to hack the password on their phones. This case shows constitutional stability because the power of the FBI (executive branch) didn't change, it stayed limited to what it was before to keep a majority of Apple users safe

# data[].attributes.headline
Federalism: District of Columbia voting rights

# data[].attributes.subject
Federalism: District of Columbia voting rights

# data[].attributes.body
The District of Columbia voting rights, or D.C. voting rights was a proposed amendment that would have given D.C. a spot in the congress, and full representation in the electoral college, as well as full participation in amending the constitution. They wanted these rights because they didn't have state rights, or the powers that states had. This is because D. C. is the capitol of the United States and are fully run by national government, are restricted to the national laws. Though it seemed like a good idea, it was only ratified by 16 states before it expired on August 22, 1985. This was just too much change in the constitution too fast for it to be passed. D. C. did get some of these rights because of the 23rd amendment, so it worked out in the end. This is an example of constitutional stability where the change wouldn't have been terrible, but it was too much to happen at one time. This is Federalism because this involves the powers that D.C. doesn't have but states do because D.C. is ruled by just the national government without the local government safety barriers that states have.

# data[].attributes.body
As we all know, only the congress has the power to declare war, but in 1938 an amendment was proposed that would've changed that. The Ludlow amendment would have made the declaration of war something that America voted for, meaning that we would vote on whether we wanted to declare war or not. The reason for this amendment's proposal was because, at the time, World War ll was a looming possibility. The Nazi's were beginning to take over a large part of Europe, and there was a raise in request for this amendment. The forerunner of this idea was of course Congressman Ludlow himself. This was an arguably bad idea, and thankfully it was never passed, but it did remind us that we didn't want our popular sovereignty powers to get out of hand. This relates to constitutional stability because we refrained from making this an amendment, which would have drastically changed our constitutional dynamics, and not necessarily for the better.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
America First Committee | History Lessons

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Social Media in Promoting Democratization and Human Rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Seventy-four years ago this week, members of the House of Representatives voted on the Ludlow Amendment, which would have changed the constitution to require a national referendum before allowing Congress to declare war. The amendment went down in defeat, but it captures a particular moment in U.S.

# data[].attributes.body
The passage of Proposition 215 in 1996 was considered a remarkable victory for medical Marijuana. It declared the use of medicinal Marijuana allowed if physicians suggest it. This allowed California to become one of the 14 states that have legalized the use medicinal Marijuana. This proposition goes against the national government's laws about how you are allowed to use Marijuana. The reason that Proposition 215 was necessary is because at the time that the Federal government cracked down on drugs, they classified Marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug meaning that it has no medicinal value. That means that Marijuana was classified as more dangerous than cocaine. Ever since that ruling was set, there have been advocates attempting to lower Marijuana's danger level. Proposition 215 shows constitutional dynamism because it allowed California to change for what they believe is the better.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Why Should Rental Property Owners Refuse

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Legal. Very Legal....  CA prop.215 compliant

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is not intended to rub in the face of any authoritative figures or organizations. It is to show people outside of California how medical documents and recs should properly be displayed if you are a medical patient/grower in compliance with prop.215

# data[].attributes.body
The 27th amendment prevents people in the congress from raising their salaries until their next term, preventing them from overpaying themselves. This was introduced into the congress in 1789 by James Madison and was sent to the states to be ratified, yet it didn't become ratified until May 7th, 1992. It was proposed because of fear that congress would abuse the power to change their salaries, and ratified to ensure that. This checks the Legislative branch preventing them from basically paying themselves, restoring balance to the  three branches of government. The 27th amendment shows constitutional dynamism by changing the amount of power that the legislative branch has over itself to balance our government, changing our constitution for the better because we needed to.

# data[].attributes.body
The 17th amendment was Passed by Congress on May 13, 1912, and it was ratified April 8, 1913. the 17th amendment modified Article I, section 3, of the Constitution by allowing voters to cast direct votes for U.S. Senators. Before this, Senators were chosen by state legislatures. Prior to the 17th amendment, the senate was known as the millionaires club. This was because at the time, state legislatures were notoriously corrupt, and the path to the Senate involved Senators bribing their way in. This shows constitutional dynamism because the 17th amendment changed the way that we chose Senators for the better

# data[].attributes.body
The framers of the constitution discussed having a term limit set, but declined to include one. George Washington set an unofficial term limit when he declined from continuing a third term, and all successive presidents followed his lead. That is until Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945) ran for a third and fourth term. In 1947 both houses passed the 22nd amendment to ensure that no president could serve longer than 2 terms again. It was ratified in 1951. This shows constitutional dynamism because the government changed the power of the president to decide how many terms he could run for.

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

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