# data[].attributes.headline
Federalism: Obama's Overtime Pay Mandate

# data[].attributes.subject
Federalism: Obama's Overtime Pay Mandate

# data[].attributes.body
Recently, President Obama attempted to enforce a new policy that would allow more overtime for white-collared workers. Many states did not support this new policy, claiming that it would increase government spending in their states by over $100 million per state. 21 states, including Texas and Oklahoma, came together and sued the Obama Administration, and eventually the policy was blocked. This is an example of Constitutional stability pertaining to federalism because the states were able to overturn a decision by the federal government.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
LAS VEGAS (AP) - A coalition of 21 states, including Kentucky is suing the U.S. Department of Labor over a new rule that would make more higher-earning workers eligible for overtime pay.

Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt filed the lawsuit in Texas on Tuesday, urging the court to block implementation before the regulation takes effect on Dec. 1.

On March 13, 2014, President Obama ordered the Department of Labor to revise the Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime exemption for executive, administrative, and professional employees - the so-called "white collar" exemption - to account for the federal minimum wage. On May 23, 2016, the Department of Labor issued the final new overtime rule. It doubles the salary-level threshold for employees to be exempt from overtime, regardless of whether if they perform executive, administrative, or professional duties. After December 1, 2016, all employees are entitled to overtime if they earn less than $913 a week - including state and local government employees.

Laxalt said the rule would burden private and public sectors and represents inappropriate federal overreach.

Governor Matt Bevin released a statement regarding Kentucky's participation in the lawsuit, saying, "This new Obama Administration rule is another example of the federal government's never-ending attempt to encroach upon the rights of individual states. This is a direct violation the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The result of this unfunded mandate by the federal government would be to force many private sector employers to lay off workers. This is not acceptable. Once again, the Obama administration is attempting to require compliance with non-legally binding edicts that should instead be decided at the state and local level. We stand united with these 21 other states in saying enough already."

Officials from the labor department didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.

Other plaintiffs include Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin.

Copyright 2016 The Associated Press.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
21 US states, including KY, sue to block expansion of overtime pay law - ABC 36 News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
LAS VEGAS (AP) - A coalition of 21 states, including Kentucky is suing the U.S. Department of Labor over a new rule that would make more higher-earning workers eligible for overtime pay. Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt filed the lawsuit in Texas on Tuesday, urging the court to block implementation before the regulation takes effect on Dec.

# data[].attributes.headline
Popular Sovereignty: The Ludlow Amendment

# data[].attributes.subject
Popular Sovereignty: The Ludlow Amendment

# data[].attributes.body
The Ludlow Amendment was proposed several times from 1935-1940, but was not approved by Congress. This amendment would have made it necessary to have a public vote before Congress could declare war on another country, except in cases where America had been attacked first. The idea behind this amendment was that ordinary Americans, who would often be called upon to fight in wars, should have a say in their country's involvement in wars. The rejection of this amendment shows Constitutional Stability pertaining to popular sovereignty because Congress prevented a big change involving popular sovereignty from being made to the Constitution.

# data[].attributes.body
On this side, I will examine how the government created by the Constitution remains stable by preventing certain rash or foolish changes.

# data[].attributes.body
In late 2012, Colorado passed Amendment 64 to their state Constitution. The amendment legalized the recreational use of marijuana for anybody over the age of 21 in the state. However, federal law states that recreational use of marijuana is illegal nationwide. Although federal law makes it illegal, the federal Government agreed not to take legal action against anybody who uses the drug in Colorado. This shows Constitutional dynamism pertaining to the principal of federalism because it shows that, although the Supremacy Clause states that federal law is the supreme law, the state of Colorado was able to create a law that contradicted federal law.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Emancipation Proclamation ("All About That Bass" Parody) - @MrBettsClass

# data[].attributes.headline
Separation of Powers: The Emancipation Proclamation

# data[].attributes.subject
Separation of Powers: The Emancipation Proclamation

# data[].attributes.body
The Constitution created three branches of government, each with specific powers. The Legislative Branch is supposed to create laws, the Judicial Branch is supposed to decide if laws are Constitutional, and the Executive Branch is supposed to enforce laws. However, in 1863, President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, an executive order that was intended to legally free more than 3 million slaves in the southern states. According to the Constitution, the only branch that could create a law to free slaves is the Legislative Branch, or Congress. However, Congress had no say in the Emancipation Proclamation. The order was entirely created by the president, who is part of the Executive Branch. This shows Constitutional dynamism because Lincoln was able to make all slaves legally free without any approval from Congress, creating an enormous change to the concept of separation of powers, and giving the Executive Branch more power than they are given in the Constitution.

# data[].attributes.headline
Checks and Balances: United States v. Nixon

# data[].attributes.subject
Checks and Balances: United States v. Nixon

# data[].attributes.body
In 1944, in the midst of the Watergate scandal, President Richard Nixon refused to release important tape recordings in his possession. He claimed that he had 'executive privilege," meaning that his conversations were meant to be private, and he could not be forced to hand over the tapes. In the end, the Supreme Court decided that the president should not have the power of executive privilege, and Nixon resigned from the office sixteen days later. This shows Constitutional stability pertaining to checks and balances because it shows how the Supreme Court was able to successfully limit the President's power.

# data[].attributes.headline
Limited Government: Korematsu v. United States

# data[].attributes.subject
Limited Government: Korematsu v. United States

# data[].attributes.body
In 1944, while World War II was going on, President Roosevelt issued an executive order that gave the military the power to ban thousands of Japanese Americans from areas that were deemed critical to domestic security. In defiance of the order, Fred Korematsu, a Japanese American, refused to leave his home. He was convicted and had to go to court to appeal. In the end, the conviction was upheld. The court claimed that "pressing public necessity may sometimes justify restrictions." This showed Constitutional dynamism because the Government's limits were reduced, since they were able to discriminate against race as long as it was necessary for the public.

# data[].attributes.body
The 15th amendment gave all men the right to vote. However, many state governments established poll taxes to prevent poor African American men from voting. The 24th amendment outlawed the use of poll taxes in elections, limiting the Government's power to decide who gets to vote. This shows Constitutional stability pertaining to limited government because it shows that the Government attempted to find a loophole that gave itself more power, but its powers were eventually limited and stopped from expanding.

# data[].attributes.body
The 19th amendment was ratified in  1920. This amendment gave women the right to vote in American elections. The 15th amendment had originally given women the right to vote, but not women. Women's rights advocates fought for 70 years to get this amendment ratified. This amendment shows that the Constitution is dynamic because it shows that the Constitutional principal of popular sovereignty was able to expand to include women.

# data[].attributes.body
On this side, I will examine the many different ways in which the Constitution created a dynamic government that can change with the times