DOCSLIB.ORG

The Courts, Congress, and the Politics of Federal Jurisdiction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Courts, Congress, and the Politics of Federal Jurisdiction THE COURTS, CONGRESS, AND THE POLITICS OF FEDERAL JURISDICTION DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Brett W. Curry, B.A., M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 2005 Dissertation Committee: Approved By: Professor Lawrence Baum, Adviser Professor Elliot Slotnick _________________________________ Professor Herbert Weisberg Adviser Political Science Graduate Program Copyright by Brett William Curry 2005 ABSTRACT Although the institutional relationship between the federal courts and Congress has been the subject of substantial empirical research, scholars know relatively little about the specific role that jurisdiction plays in structuring that relationship. Most prior scholarship on the courts and Congress has focused on ways in which Congress has attempted to use its influence over court structure and judicial personnel to impact the federal courts. However, Congress’s ability to expand or limit the types of cases eligible for federal court review has received much less attention. By analyzing congressional efforts to limit federal jurisdiction in two major areas of law, this dissertation sheds new light on jurisdiction’s role in the relationship between these governmental branches and, more generally, the degree of autonomy from congressional oversight that the federal judiciary possesses. The dissertation’s assessment of this jurisdictional activity begins with a technical area of federal statutory jurisdiction known as diversity jurisdiction. There, in a combination of qualitative and quantitative analyses, I examine the ii impact that judicial outcomes, court caseloads, and group involvement have played in motivating congressional attempts to limit diversity jurisdiction’s scope. I conclude that, while administrative caseload factors have accounted for much of Congress’s jurisdictional activity in this area of statutory law, dissatisfaction with federal court outcomes has also contributed to Congress’s jurisdictional activity in a more limited way. The dissertation then moves to an analysis of congressional attempts to curtail federal jurisdiction over certain areas of constitutional law. Again, by combining quantitative approaches with systematic qualitative analyses, I assess the impact of judicial outcomes, public opinion, Congress’s ideological preferences, and several related factors on the intensity with which legislators have sought to excise certain constitutional claims from the purview of the federal courts since the 1950s. The results obtained from these analyses generally indicate that the tenor of federal judicial outcomes, the preferences of the general public, and the likelihood of judicial reversal all relate to the intensity with which members of Congress pursue this jurisdiction- or court-stripping legislation. Taken together, the dissertation’s results suggest that jurisdictional politics may be more critical to the relationship between the federal courts and Congress than most scholars have realized. At a minimum, they intimate that iii separation-of-powers models of the courts and Congress cannot be complete without an acknowledgement of jurisdiction’s potential importance to the relationship between these two institutions. iv Dedicated to my family, for their tireless love and support v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank my adviser, Larry Baum, for his steadfast support, encouragement, and guidance throughout the development of this project. Words cannot begin to express my appreciation for his dedication, his patience, and his professional example. I thank Elliot Slotnick for his thoughtful comments and suggestions on various stages of the dissertation—and for making me a star. Finally, Herb Weisberg’s judicious perspective was especially useful in grounding the dissertation in the realities of legislative politics. I am grateful to Jan Box-Steffensmeier for early methodological guidance on the dissertation, as well as later suggestions from Corwin Smidt and Brandon Bartels. I further wish to thank the Graduate School for awarding me a University Fellowship which, along with two PEGS Grants from the Department of Political Science, hastened the completion of this dissertation. Finally, I am grateful to my family and friends for the support they have provided throughout my graduate career. vi VITA February 13, 1978………………………..Born, St. Joseph, Missouri 2000………………………………………B.A., Summa Cum Laude, Political Science and History, University of Missouri-Columbia 2003………………………………………M.A., Political Science, The Ohio State University 2000-2001………………………………...University Fellow, The Ohio State University 2001-2004………………………………...Graduate Teaching and Research Associate, The Ohio State University 2004-2005………………………………...University Fellow, The Ohio State University PUBLICATIONS 1. Brett W. Curry. 2005. “Nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court.” In Encyclopedia of the United States Congress, ed. Robert Dewhirst. New York: Facts on File, Inc. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Political Science vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract…………………………………………………………….................ii Dedication…………………………………………………………………….v Acknowledgments…………………………………………………………...vi Vita…………………………………………………………………………. vii List of Tables………………………………………………………………. xii List of Figures……………………………………………………………… xiv Chapters: 1. Federal Jurisdiction in the American System……………………....….1 Introduction……………………………………………………............1 Federal Jurisdiction in the American System…………………............3 An Introduction to Federal Jurisdiction……………………….4 An Historical Overview of Federal Jurisdiction………………8 The Other Side of Federal Jurisdiction………………………16 Plan of the Dissertation………………………………………19 2. Congressional Oversight and the Federal Courts………………….... 22 Introduction………………………………………………………… 22 Congress and the Courts……………………………………………...26 Composition-Based Prospective Control…………………... ..27 Composition-Based Retrospective Control………………… ..37 Case-Based Prospective Control…………………………… ..38 Case-Based Retrospective Control………………………….. 39 Federal Jurisdiction and Case-Based Oversight of the Federal Courts……………………………………….. ..41 Summarizing Congressional Control of the Courts………………......47 viii 3. A Theoretical Model of Court-Congress Jurisdictional Interaction.....50 Introduction………………………………………………………… ..50 Legislator Goals and Jurisdictional Change……………………….....51 Jurisdictional Change and Electoral Politics……………….. ..53 Jurisdictional Change and Good Public Policy…………….. ..57 Institutional Dynamics and Jurisdictional Change…………………...61 External Groups and Interests……………………………… ..62 Institutional Maintenance………………………………….....64 Congress’s Attention to Judicial Outcomes………………... ..66 Applications to the Politics of Federal Jurisdiction…..…………….. 68 External Groups and Interests……………………………… ..69 Institutional Maintenance………………………………….....73 Congress’s Attention to Judicial Outcomes………………... 76 Conclusion…………………………………………………………... 81 4. The Case of Diversity Jurisdiction…………………………………. 85 Introduction………………………………………………………… . 85 Background to Diversity Jurisdiction……………………………….. 87 Rationales for Federal Diversity Jurisdiction……………… . 87 A Brief Historical Overview of Diversity Jurisdiction, 1789-1875………………………………………97 Potential Catalysts for Limiting Diversity Jurisdiction……..100 Narrative History of Federal Diversity Jurisdiction………………... 106 Postwar Politics of Diversity Jurisdiction: The Primacy of Judicial Outcomes………………………… 106 The Triumph of Judicial Administration…………………....118 Diversity Turns a Corner…………………………………....121 5. Analyzing the Politics of Federal Diversity Jurisdiction…………....124 Introduction………………………………………………………… 124 Three Case Studies of Diversity Jurisdiction………………………. 125 Echoes of the 1800s: Norris and the Progressives….126 Traditional Politics vs. Professional Judicial Administration: A New View Emerges……………………………………....138 The Triumph of Outside Interests and Administration Over Judicial Outcomes……………………………………. 146 Post-Mortem………………………………………………...154 ix Quantitative Analysis of Diversity Jurisdiction……………………. 155 Operationalization of Key Variables………………………..157 Remaining Issues…………………………………………....167 Models and Results………………………………………………… 171 Diversity Jurisdiction Pre- and Post- 1950s………………... 179 Conclusion…………………………………………………………..182 6. The Case of “Court-Stripping” Proposals………………………….. 184 Introduction………………………………………………………… 184 An Introduction to Jurisdiction-Stripping………………………….. 191 Jurisdiction-Stripping Defined……………………………... 194 The History of Jurisdiction-Stripping, 1789-1953…………. 198 An Overview of the Jurisdiction-Stripping Movement Since the Warren Court…………………………………….. 201 The Constitutionality of Jurisdiction-Stripping……………. 203 Toward a System-Level Understanding of Jurisdiction-Stripping….210 Potential Catalysts for Limiting the Supreme Court’s Appellate Jurisdiction……………………………………….213 Potential Catalysts for Limiting the Jurisdiction of Inferior Federal Courts……………………………………... 218 Variable Operationalizations and Hypotheses……………... 223 Capturing the Dependent Variable…………………………. 229 Data and Methods………………………………………….. 236 Results……………………………………………………………… 244 Limiting the Supreme Court’s Appellate Jurisdiction……....244 Limiting the Jurisdiction of Inferior Federal Courts……….. 249 Individual Members and the Pursuit of Jurisdiction-Stripping…….. 255 Data and Methods………………………………………….. 256 Variables and Hypotheses………………………………….. 257 Results……………………………………………………… 264 Conclusion…………………………………………………………. 267 7. A Comparative
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Alabama Legislative Black Caucus V. Alabama, ___ F.Supp.3D ___, 2013 WL 3976626 (M.D
    No. _________ ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- ALABAMA LEGISLATIVE BLACK CAUCUS et al., Appellants, v. THE STATE OF ALABAMA et al., Appellees. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Appeal From The United States District Court For The Middle District Of Alabama --------------------------------- --------------------------------- JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT --------------------------------- --------------------------------- EDWARD STILL JAMES U. BLACKSHER 130 Wildwood Parkway Counsel of Record Suite 108 PMB 304 P.O. Box 636 Birmingham, AL 35209 Birmingham, AL 35201 E-mail: [email protected] 205-591-7238 Fax: 866-845-4395 PAMELA S. KARLAN E-mail: 559 Nathan Abbott Way [email protected] Stanford, CA 94305 E-mail: [email protected] U.W. CLEMON WHITE ARNOLD & DOWD P. C . 2025 Third Avenue North, Suite 500 Birmingham, AL 35203 E-mail: [email protected] ================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i QUESTION PRESENTED Whether a state violates the requirement of one person, one vote by enacting a state legislative redis- tricting plan that results in large and unnecessary population deviations for local legislative delegations that exercise general governing authority over coun- ties. ii PARTIES The following were parties in the Court below: Plaintiffs in Civil Action No. 2:12-CV-691: Alabama Legislative Black Caucus Bobby Singleton Alabama Association of Black County Officials Fred Armstead George Bowman Rhondel Rhone Albert F. Turner, Jr. Jiles Williams, Jr. Plaintiffs in consolidated Civil Action No. 2:12-CV-1081: Demetrius Newton Alabama Democratic Conference Framon Weaver, Sr. Stacey Stallworth Rosa Toussaint Lynn Pettway Defendants in Civil Action No. 2:12-CV-691: State of Alabama Jim Bennett, Alabama Secretary of State Defendants in consolidated Civil Action No.
    [Show full text]
  • An Ambitious New Plan Offers Delta Water and Economic Hope for the San Joaquin Valley
    August 12, 2020 Western Edition Volume 2, Number 30 An ambitious new plan offers Delta water and economic hope for the San Joaquin valley The San Joaquin Valley is bracing for the economic impacts to come from implementing the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act over the next 20 years. Without changes, the regulation could lead to more than a million acres of fallowing and as much as $7 billion in lost revenues every year, with the worst financial impacts rippling down to California’s most disadvantaged communities, according to a report released earlier this year. With this reality, a coalition has emerged around a complex and ambitious approach to bring water to the valley, one that could head off the A new plan takes a different approach to Delta water flows. (Photo of the Sacramento Delta, courtesy of the Department of Water worst effects of SGMA for farmers, the Resources) environment and communities. “We've already started,” said Scott Hamilton, an agricultural economist who works as a consultant for the coalition known as the Water Blueprint for the San Joaquin Valley. “But it’s a process that's going to take quite a bit of time and is fairly difficult.” During a Fresno State seminar series on water infrastructure on Tuesday, Hamilton outlined a sweeping new approach that would pull excess flows from the Delta through a fish-friendly alternative to pumping, then funnel that water through new extensions to existing canals and store it using strategic groundwater recharge projects. “None of it is cheap,” warned Hamilton. “We are now looking at around a $9-billion program for the valley.” 1 He acknowledged the success of the plan hinges on one critical leap of faith: gaining approval from environmental and social justice groups to pull more water from the Delta.
    [Show full text]
  • 142000 IOP.Indd
    NOVEMBER 2004 New Poll Released Director’s Search Begins Justice Scalia Visits the Forum Nader Visits the Forum Skirting Tradition Released Campaign 2004 Comes to Harvard Hundreds of students attend a Debate Watch in the JFK Jr. Forum Welcome to the Institute of Politics at Harvard University P HIL S HARP , I NTERIM D IRECTOR I was thrilled to return to the Institute of Politics for the fall 2004 semes- ter while a new long-term director is recruited. As a former IOP Director (1995-1998), I jumped at the chance to return to such a special place at an important time. This summer, IOP Director Dan Glickman, Harvard students, and IOP staff went into high gear to mobilize, inspire, and engage young people in politics and the electoral process. • We hosted events for political powerbrokers during the Democratic and Republican National Conventions. • We are working to ensure all Harvard voices are heard at the polls through our dynamic and effective H-VOTE campus vote pro- gram, as well as coordinating the voter education and mobilization activities of nearly 20 other schools across America, part of our National Campaign for Political and Civic Engagement. • Our Resident Fellows this semester are an impressive group. They bring experiences from media, to managing campaigns, to the Middle East. See inside for more information on our exciting fellows. • A survey we conducted with The Chronicle of Higher Education found that most of America’s college campuses are politically active, but 33% of schools fail to meet federal requirements facili- tating voter registration opportunities for students.
    [Show full text]
  • Entire Issue (PDF 792KB)
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 116 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 166 WASHINGTON, MONDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2020 No. 173 House of Representatives The House was not in session today. Its next meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 6, 2020, at 9 a.m. Senate MONDAY, OCTOBER 5, 2020 The Senate met at 4:30 p.m. and was to the Senate from the President pro Utah, the senior Senator for Wisconsin, called to order by the Honorable ROGER tempore (Mr. GRASSLEY). and the junior Senator for North Caro- F. WICKER, a Senator from the State of The senior assistant legislative clerk lina, who are currently working from Mississippi. read the following letter: home. The standard cliche would say f U.S. SENATE, that these past few days have provided PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE, a stark reminder of the dangers of this PRAYER Washington, DC, October 5, 2020. terrible virus, but the truth is that our To the Senate: Nation did not need any such reminder. The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, of- Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, fered the following prayer. More than 209,000 of our fellow citi- of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby zens have lost their lives. Millions have Let us pray. appoint the Honorable ROGER F. WICKER, a Mighty God, You are our dwelling Senator from the State of Mississippi, to per- battled illness or had their lives dis- place and underneath are Your ever- form the duties of the Chair.
    [Show full text]
  • International Law at Home: Enforcing Treaties in U.S. Courts
    Article International Law at Home: Enforcing Treaties in U.S. Courts Oona A. Hathawayt, Sabria McElroytt & Sara Aronchick Solowtft I. IN TR O DU CTIO N ................................................................................................................................ 5 1 II. THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AT HOME....................................................................56 A . Foundingto W orld War II..............................................................................................57 1. Contract ......................................... ......... 60 2. Property and Inheritance ...................................... 60 3. Detention and Habeas Corpus ................................... 61 4. Right to "Carry on Trade ...................................... 62 B . W orld W ar II to M edellin............................................................................................. 63 1. The Presumption in FavorofEnforcement Weakens....................................... 63 2. The Bricker Backlash .............................................. 68 C. After Medellin ................................................... 70 1. A PresumptionAgainst PrivateRights ofAction..............................................71 2. An End to the Carve-Outfor Private Law ........................... 73 Ill. How INTERNATIONAL LAW COMES HOME................................................................................76 A. Indirect Enforcement .............................................. 77 1. Implementing Legislation ...........................
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Retraction of Federal Court Jurisdiction to Protect the Reserved Powers of the States: the Helms Prayer Bill and a Return to First Principles
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Villanova University School of Law: Digital Repository Volume 27 Issue 5 Article 7 1982 Congressional Retraction of Federal Court Jurisdiction to Protect the Reserved Powers of the States: The Helms Prayer Bill and a Return to First Principles James McClellan Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Courts Commons Recommended Citation James McClellan, Congressional Retraction of Federal Court Jurisdiction to Protect the Reserved Powers of the States: The Helms Prayer Bill and a Return to First Principles, 27 Vill. L. Rev. 1019 (1982). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr/vol27/iss5/7 This Symposia is brought to you for free and open access by Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Villanova Law Review by an authorized editor of Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. McClellan: Congressional Retraction of Federal Court Jurisdiction to Protect 1981-82] CONGRESSIONAL RETRACTION OF FEDERAL COURT JURISDICTION TO PROTECT THE RESERVED POWERS OF THE STATES: THE HELMS PRAYER BILL AND A RETURN TO FIRST PRINCIPLES JAMES MCCLELLAN t S INCE THE EARLIEST DAYS OF THE WARREN COURT, countless bills have been introduced in Congress which would deny the federal courts jurisdiction over a great variety of subjects ranging from busing to abortion.' The exceptions clause of article III of the Constitution provides Congress with the authority to enact such bills. 2 While none of these proposed bills has been enacted into law, it is noteworthy that two have passed at least one house of Congress, and that both of these have sought to deny all federal courts, including the Supreme Court, jurisdiction over certain cases arising under the fourteenth amendment.
    [Show full text]
  • ("DSCC") Files This Complaint Seeking an Immediate Investigation by the 7
    COMPLAINT BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION CBHMISSIOAl INTRODUCTXON - 1 The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee ("DSCC") 7-_. J _j. c files this complaint seeking an immediate investigation by the 7 c; a > Federal Election Commission into the illegal spending A* practices of the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee (WRSCIt). As the public record shows, and an investigation will confirm, the NRSC and a series of ostensibly nonprofit, nonpartisan groups have undertaken a significant and sustained effort to funnel "soft money101 into federal elections in violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended or "the Act"), 2 U.S.C. 5s 431 et seq., and the Federal Election Commission (peFECt)Regulations, 11 C.F.R. 85 100.1 & sea. 'The term "aoft money" as ueed in this Complaint means funds,that would not be lawful for use in connection with any federal election (e.g., corporate or labor organization treasury funds, contributions in excess of the relevant contribution limit for federal elections). THE FACTS IN TBIS CABE On November 24, 1992, the state of Georgia held a unique runoff election for the office of United States Senator. Georgia law provided for a runoff if no candidate in the regularly scheduled November 3 general election received in excess of 50 percent of the vote. The 1992 runoff in Georg a was a hotly contested race between the Democratic incumbent Wyche Fowler, and his Republican opponent, Paul Coverdell. The Republicans presented this election as a %ust-win81 election. Exhibit 1. The Republicans were so intent on victory that Senator Dole announced he was willing to give up his seat on the Senate Agriculture Committee for Coverdell, if necessary.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Federalisms Randy E
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2007 Three Federalisms Randy E. Barnett Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/fwps_papers/23 This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/fwps_papers THREE FEDERALISMS RANDY E. BARNETT* ABSTRACT: Debates over the importance of “federalism” are often obscured by the fact that there are not one, but three distinct versions of constitutional federalism that have arisen since the Founding: Enumerated Powers Federalism in the Founding era, Fundamental Rights Federalism in the Reconstruction era, and Affirmative State Sovereignty Federalism in the post-New Deal era. In this very short essay, my objective is to reduce confusion about federalism by defining and identifying the origin of each of these different conceptions of federalism. I also suggest that, while Fundamental Rights Federalism significantly qualified Enumerated Powers Federalism, it was not until the New Deal’s expansion of federal power that Enumerated Powers Federalism was eviscerated altogether. To preserve some semblance of state discretionary power in the post-New Deal era, the Rehnquist Court developed an ahistorical Affirmative State Sovereignty Federalism that was both under- and over-inclusive of the role of federalism that is warranted by the original meaning of the Constitution as amended. In my remarks this morning, I want to explain how there are, not one, but three distinct versions of federalism that have developed since the Founding.
    [Show full text]
  • History SS Federalism Today Complex Project
    Item Name: Federalism Today Item Type: Complex Project Subject and/or U.S. Government/Civics, Grade 11-12 Course: CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.11-12.1 Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources… CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.11-12.9 Compare and contrast treatments of the same topic in several primary and secondary sources… Common Core CCSS.ELA-Literacy.WHST.11-12.1 Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content…. Standards: CCSS.ELA-Literacy.WHST.11-12.7 Conduct short as well as more sustained research projects to answer a question… CCSS.ELA-Literacy.WHST.11-12.8 Gather relevant information from multiple authoritative print and digital sources… Published by Summit Public Schools (some modifications Developer/Source: made.) Administration: Curriculum-embedded Length of time for response: Multiple weeks Item Features: Method of scoring: Analytic Rubric Opportunity for student collaboration: Once a week Opportunity for teacher feedback and revision: Daily Collection of performance assessment items compiled by Overview This learning module will prepare you to write an argument over which level of government, federal or state, should have the authority and power when making and executing laws on controversial issues. You will research an issue of your choice, write an argument in support of your position, and then present it to a panel of judges. Standards AP Standards: APS.SOC.9-12.I Constitutional Underpinnings of United States Government APS.SOC.9-12.I.D - Federalism Objective: Understand the implication(s)
    [Show full text]
  • Mike Pompeo - Sourcewatch
    10/22/2020 Mike Pompeo - SourceWatch Mike Pompeo Michael Richard Pompeo was nominated for U.S. Secretary of State by President Donald Trump on March 13, 2018, after Trump fired former Exxon executive Rex Tillerson. Previously, Pompeo was the director of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and former Representative of Kansas's 4th Congressional District, where the global headquarters of Koch Industries is located. While serving as a Congressman, the Huffington Post described the Tea Party Republican as "the Koch brothers' point man in the House."[1] Koch Industries and its employees Follow the money in the Koch wiki was Pompeo's largest contributor in each of his campaigns. (http://www.kochexposed.org). Pompeo was tapped by President Donald Trump to be the Director of the CIA on November 18, 2016. He was confirmed by the Senate 66-32 on January 23, 2017 and sworn in that night.[2] Pompeo's first company, Thayer, was an investment company funded in part by Koch Venture Capital. Pompeo’s second company, Sentry, was tied to a Brazilian division of Koch Industries. Pompeo’s financial history and ties to the billionaire Koch brothers have not been fully publicly vetted because he has only faced one significant but limited electoral challenge. Born in 1963, Pompeo grew up in Orange County, California, heavily influenced by Ayn Rand. He was recommended for the U.S. Military Academy by his Mike Pompeo Congressman, “B-1 Bob” Dornan. In 1986, Pompeo studied mechanical engineering and graduated first in his class at West Point. He served five years on active duty, the minimum required by military academies, primarily in Germany, earning the rank of Captain.
    [Show full text]
  • Federalism in the Constitution
    Federalism in the Constitution As you read each paragraph, answer the questions in the margin. The United States is one country—but it’s also a bunch of states. You When creating the Constitution, what could almost say it’s a group of states that are, well, united. When we things did we need our central created the Articles of Confederation, each state already had its own government to be able to do? government and court system, so the new Americans weren’t exactly running amok. But if the new United States was going to be able to deal with other nations, it needed one government that would speak for the entire country. It also needed one central government to do things like declare war on other countries, keep a military, and negotiate treaties with other countries. There also needed to be federal courts where citizens from different states could resolve their disputes. So, the Founders created the Constitution to do those things. Define federalism. The United States Constitution created a central government known as the federal government. The federal government deals with issues that affect the entire country. Each state also has its own state government that only handles the affairs of that state. This division of power between a central government and state governments is called federalism. The federal government gets all of its power from the Create a Venn Diagram, with labels, that shows Constitution. These federal powers are listed in the the relationship between the federal powers, Constitution. In order to keep the federal government from reserve powers, and concurrent powers.
    [Show full text]
  • Stories/2017/5 /24/1665544/-KS-Congressman- Accuses-Town-Hall-Attendees-Of-Being- Unamerican-Attendees-Respond)
    KS Congressman accuses town hall attendees of ... https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/5/24/1665... TMSERVO433 (/BLOGS/CHRIS-REEVES) Blog (/blogs/Chris-Reeves) Stream (/user/Chris Reeves/stream) Groups (/user/Chris Reeves/favblogs) Following (/user/Chris Reeves/favus KS Congressman accuses town hall attendees of being UnAmerican. Attendees respond. (/stories/2017/5 /24/1665544/-KS-Congressman- accuses-town-hall-attendees-of-being- UnAmerican-Attendees-respond) 517 Comments (517 New) 598 8955 (https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=http%3A%2F (http://www.dailykos.com %2Fwww.dailykos.com%2Fstory%2F2017%2F5%2F24%2F1665544%2F-KS-Congressman-accuses- /story/2017/5 town-hall-attendees-of-being-UnAmerican-Attendees-respond& /24/1665544 text=KS+Congressman+accuses+town+hall+attendees+of+being+UnAmerican.+Attendees+respond.) By Chris Reeves /-KS-Congressman- (/user accuses-town-hall- /Chris%20Reeves) attendees-of-being- UnAmerican-Attendees- 2017/05/24 · 08:11 respond#comments) attribution: Rep. Roger Marshall, Facebook RSS (/user Kansas Congressman Roger Marshall took to American Family Radio on May 12, 2017, /Chris to explain that most of the problems in his town halls were caused by people who Reeves/rss.xml) were “paid protestors” and were UnAmerican (https://afr.net/afr-talk/washington- watch/2017/may/cong-roger-marshall-jennifer-carroll-travis-weber/?p=7). Marhall’s assessment boiled down to this quote: “We still salute the flag. We still pray REBLOGGED BY when we get the chance. We pray before ball games. And Wamego was the exception.” Kansas & Missouri The implication that Wamego residents are in some ways bad people didn’t sit well Kossacks (/blogs /Kansas%20Missouri%20Kossackswith) attendees (http://cjonline.com/opinion/letters-editor/2017-05-21/letter- us-representative-marshall-disrespected-constituents-town).
    [Show full text]