"Pork"

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to find an example of pork barrel spending by Congress. You need to provide a brief description of who (member of Congress) and where (the state), what (the project) , and how much (your tax dollars). I need something contemporary though and not something from 1976 (that means 20011/12 if you aren't sure). It needs to be original too; you can not post something one of your classmates has previously responded with.If you can link us to the site great.Otherwise just copy the website address in your response.If the info comes from a periodical, then cite it for us.

EXAMPLE Representative Rosa L. DeLauro (D - Connecticut) has recently been named October's "Pooper of the Month" (Oops sorry that should be "Porker of the Month".) At a time when our nation is swaddled with almost $15 trillion in debt she has proposed the Diaper Investment and Aid to Promote Economic Recovery Act aka D.I.A.P.E.R. This legislation would make grants available to help those struggling in the US with among other things buying diapers. I am not a big fan of tax dollars being spent on cleaning up this mess. Something wreaks of this whole idea. This D.I.A.P.E.R. bill is flush with pork as well as other stuff that is hard to digest. It is a crappy legislation! Stop this unnecessary spending before anymore such D.I.A.P.E.R. rash decisions are made!

This is an assignment not extra credit. Credit given to the first 68 original entries and is due by the start of class on Nov. 4th.
Happy hunting for "pork".
Mr. Thompson

Budget Hero

You think "How hard can it be to balance the budget?" "I am a smart kid in APL/G". Then YOU fix the US budget. Play the game, balance the budget and then forward it on to your Congressman or better yet YOU run for Congress. Your assignment is try your hand at Budget Hero, post your comments, I will give you credit for your efforts. Must have assignment completed before you get your Test 1 essays back.

DT

Debt clock

Eddie This post is for you

Foreign held US Debt

In case you were wondering!

We have a debt ceiling?

This link explains our government does have a limit to its debt. Or is there a limit????

Mr. Thompson

How a Bill Becomes Law

In case our little discussion in class of the lawmaking process has whetted an unquenchable thirst for more info on this topic, here is a link to provide you indepth info on all of the steps involved in this messy business.Enjoy and feel free to post any thoughts or comments.

Mr. Thompson

Legislation Links

Click on the following link to access the US House of Reps website. On the right side, you can access under legislative activity all kinds of info about legslation that has been introduced and where it is in the legislative process. This is all public knowledge as we as constitutents have a right to know what our elected representatives have been working on as well as how they have voted on bills that may be important to us.

You can access the same types of info if visiting the US Senate website.

Feel free to comment on your favorite piece of legislation you discovered Congress to be working on.

Mr. Thompson

Congressional Salaries, Benefits and Pensions.

Click the link above to see updated info (compared to your text) about how much our elected officials in Congress are compensated for their efforts.

Mr. Thompson

Guest Blogger: Ashley Sadauskis

The unit about Congress was introduced today. We were shown a map of the congressional districts in Minnesota and various other states across the United States. The topic of gerrymandering was introduced. Based on the definition by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, gerrymandering is “to divide (a territorial unit) into election districts to give one political party an electoral majority in a large number of districts while concentrating the voting strength of the opposition in as few districts as possible”. It began with Elbridge Gerry who was the governor of Massachusetts from 1810 to 1812. The state legislature in charge of making these districts, which can help to benefit their party. This brings up the debate of whether this is ethical or not. I believe that this is unethical and should not be allowed. It allows one political party to have a largely unfair advantage against the other party. One of the main values in the United States is equality for all, but this clearly goes against that belief. Both of the parties should have an equal advantage over one another. The election should be fair and not set up for one party to win. Also, the congressional districts can be drawn in outrageous manners. I think that it is unbelievable that a party would make it so obvious that they are trying to overrule the other party. One example is the congressional district map of Chicago that was shown during class. The line was so thin on one side of the districts that it was almost split into two different ones. That is a case that has been brought to the extreme and should not be allowed. I think that gerrymandering should be illegal. If it became illegal, there should be a system that would watch for signs of it and there would be punishment for the people who were involved.Overall, I can understand how state legislatures would want to gerrymander but I believe that they are taking advantage of their authority when they do this.

Guest Blogger: Rahul Mukherjee

After discussing the possibilities for a 28th amendment, I looked at a few on the internet and found a very interesting proposed amendment called the "Liberty Amendment" which ties really well with what we have been discussing in class as the main purpose of the constitution and as an aside on the economy. The liberty amendment describes that the individual liberty, freedom and sovereignty of the people will be restored in a representative republican form of government by clarifying the original spirit and intent of the Constitution. The Liberty Amendment will give back to the Constitution its full force and effect in limiting the powers and activities of the Federal Government and restoring those powers reserved to the States and to the people. When I read this, I saw the connections between the republican form of government and the effect of a limited government but what really surprised me was that the main part of this amendment is towards future economic policies towards eliminating the national debt. In brief, its sections describe..

Section 1. The Government of the United States shall not engage in any business, professional, commercial, financial or industrial enterprise except as specified in the Constitution.
Section 2. The constitution or laws of any State, or the laws of the United States shall not be subject to the terms of any foreign or domestic agreement which would abrogate this amendment.
Section 3. The activities of the United States Government which violate the intent and purpose of this amendment shall, within a period of three years from the date of the ratification of this amendment, be liquidated and the properties and facilities affected shall be sold.
Section 4. Three years after the ratification of this amendment the sixteenth article of amendments to the Constitution of the United States shall stand repealed and thereafter Congress shall not levy taxes on personal incomes, estates, and/or gifts. The Liberty Amendment will renew personal freedom – the ability of individuals to exercise their God-given rights with a minimum of dependence on, and interference from, the Federal Government. It will restore to ourselves and to future generations the advantages which we inherited from our forefathers – advantages which made us the most fortunate people on earth.


After reading the sections, I had a disagreeable notion to what it is proposing as I cannot clearly remember any business, professional, commercial, or financial that is specifically stated in the constitution. What really got me was section 2 as it describes the terms of the foreign or domestic agreement because before the framers wrote the constitution, the main problem they wanted to amend in the Articles of Confederation was the weak national government and its lack of ability to raise enough money to support itself and according to this amendment, it's infringing the businesses and foreign trade which, in my opinion, is contradictory to what the founders had in mind. While reading Section 4, I was reminded of the only amendment that was ever repealed (18th) in order to introduce the 26th to get rid of Prohibition and I found that this Liberty amendment, if ratified, would repeal the 16th amendment on Congress not levying personal income tax, property tax...Another interesting proposition made by this amendment is its ability to liquidate all businesses to substantially reduce the national debt and it states that the annual budget spending by the government could be reduced by more than fifty percent by terminating federal competition with free enterprise and interference in the economy. Apparently, this would help the economy start again but would give our natural rights (Locke) back to use, but what I really thought was, did we not help create the government for our protections of our life, liberty, and the pursuit of happyness? And after reading the proposed economic policy, I thought about what would happen after the economy was stable, how would it expand? What would the economic plan look like to raise revenue? Comments are welcome.

Guest Blogger: Alyssa Alward

28th amendment?


We have now learned about the 27 amendments. The next subject of discussion would be are we due for another amendment to be passed? 1992 was the last time an amendment was passed. Some feel that our country is fine how it is and are not in need for new amendment. Why fix what isn’t broken, is a phrase commonly thrown out when talking about the creation of another amendment. However, I feel there is something that is broken. The United States prides itself with being the country where everyone is equal and has the same opportunities as everyone else. No matter how hard people would like to believe that’s true. It’s not. There is one specific group of people who do not have the same rights as everyone else. This group would be the gays and lesbians. Marriage laws are not the same for people of this group, and that is wrong. Marriage laws are determined by the state. Some states such as New York, Vermont, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and a few others do give out marriage license to homosexuals. However, that is not enough. I don’t believe that it is just for a gay couple to get married in the state of New York and be recognized as a married couple, but if they move to another state, all those rights are lost. I truly believe that a 28th amendment is much needed. It should regard marriage. It should state that equality will be among every couple wishing to be married and it should be made soon.

Guest Blogger: Morgan McBride

In the past few days, we have been studying about Orwell and his essay about the English language. He offers some very interesting insights into what and what not to do when using English whether it is in a paper or used orally. As a quick overview, Orwell sums up his thoughts nicely into a list of rules which include: don’t use symbolic language, don’t use long words when you can use short ones, cut unnecessary words out, don’t use passive, but rather active, don’t use jargon words if you know an English equivalent, and break these rules before saying something outrageous. A couple thoughts came to my mind when I was reading this text. The first being that the author himself breaks these rules constantly throughout his essay, he even admits to breaking the rules on page 537. My question when I read this was why the author would break the rules at all. Was he following his last rule so he would not sound barbarous? The only answer I could really come up with was that it would probably be pretty hard to explain himself if he didn’t use metaphors/similes or if he did not use some extensive and complex sentences. His audience is also one of higher English knowledge so using colorful language and strong diction was probably to sound credible to his fellow English users. The Constitution, on the other hand, is a document meant for the common people to understand. There is to be no question as to what the Constitution is trying to state. In order to do this, the writers had to choose simple words (as directed by Orwell), but be very specific in order to leave no wiggle room for misinterpretations. I think the Constitution is a great example of the rules Orwell describes in his essay. The Constitution is meant to be clear. In order to be clear figurative language, excessive words, and useless jargon must be left out. To conclude, Orwell’s rules obviously have a great purpose and are maybe good to use for specific situations when one needs to be clearly understood.

Guest Blogger: Jacob Brewer

Rhetoric by definition is persuasive and effective writing or speaking so it seems obvious why we would be learning how to spot it and use it ourselves. Without it we are left with an essay that even if it can get the point across will not make anyone feel much connection or a sense to get up and do something if the essay or speech may call for it. Schemes and tropes give life to an essay; which can provide a more specific tone or a clearly unique style that can make all the difference when trying to connect to the reader. Imagine how vastly different John F. Kennedy’s inaugural speech would have felt had he left out even half of the rhetorical devices in the speech. Part of the reason he was such a popular president was his ability to really inspire confidence in the people through his powerful speeches such as the address. Rhetoric has been in politics since the first presidential debates and it can easily be seen right now, as the candidates have been participating in public televised debates. We may not have a full “tool box” to be able to pick apart all of the candidates arguments but these debates are still a good example to practice spotting the techniques we do know. As students, we may not be able to inspire a nation with our words but maybe if we take the time to really learn and apply these rhetorical techniques, that college application essay, AP test, or letter to the local newspaper editor will be that much more effective and get us to the places we want to be.

Guest Blogger: Adrianne Curtis

Tropes and Schemes in Politics
While studying tropes and schemes, we have been examining how they are used in the Constitution, as well as John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address. Looking more into politics, it is noted that these techniques are not just limited to these two writings. While looking at president Obama’s inauguration speech, it can be noted that he uses many of these techniques. In one of his quotes, “on this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord,” president Obama uses the technique of asyndeton. By using this rhetorical scheme, it shows power, which is something people want in a leader. Also, in another one of Obama’s statements, “for us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life. For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth. For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn,” the use of anaphora is prominent. By using this technique, it emphasizes the fight for freedom that the settlers of our nation have had, which also establishes pathos in his speech. By using these techniques, Obama’s purpose of getting the people of the nation to believe in a better future through his leadership is less difficult to believe. In my opinion, the use of rhetorical devices in political writings and speeches helps create dominance in the leader, as well as intelligence. By using these techniques, it helps the people better see what their leader has in store for the nation in a way that flows better and helps portray the main points of the speech or writings in a better way.

Guest Blogger: Laurence Kuisle

According to Rousseau all states will die. However, a states life can be prolonged if it has a strong constitution. America may be a young country, but I believe it will survive because of the meticulous effort and thought that went into the constitution. The constitution, as we have learned so far, is comprised of 7 articles. I am going to keep my description brief of the articles themselves due to space constraints. The First 3 articles address the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, respectively. In each of these articles he addresses the individual privileges and powers each has. These articles were made around one of the key principles of the separation of power. Of these three branches Rousseau directly addressed what he felt the purposes of the executive and legislative bodies are, stating that the executive power is the brain and the legislative power is the heart. I believe that Rousseau was spot on with this analogy because he nails the fact the government can function without the brain, albeit it will be a little problematic. Conversely, however, the body of the government dies if it has only executive power with no legislators. Article four of the constitution addresses the powers that the states and the federal government have. Article 5 is about the amendments of the constitution, article 6 addresses the supremacy clause, and finally article seven ratifies the constitution. So what is it that I find good about our constitution? Well first off I believe that the constitutions greatest success was in dividing the power of the leader’s, this makes it so those who enter this “contract” have fewer liberties taken from them. The sacrifice of one’s own interest, or freedom’s, to be in a “social contract” was a key belief of both Hobbes and Locke. Secondly the Fifth Amendment though a lot shorter than many of the other amendments is probably the most important, I believe. This is because this allows the constitution to be a “living” document that can be changed when the need arises. This when coupled with the elastic clause, which states that there is no way to list all the possible and potential powers of congress, means that the constitution will be prepared to adapt and change to meet nearly any circumstance. According to Rousseau giving a state the best possible constitution will allow the state to live longer, by that logic a constitution that because the U.S. constitution can change indefinitely than the U.S. itself can live indefinitely.

Guest Blogger: Kristi Taraba

While reading and analyzing Goldsmith’s essay, I found a lot of his points very interesting and relevant to America as it is today. Goldsmith’s main point was prejudice, which I believe is a very prevalent issue in America today. Not only do we as Americans judge others, outside of our country, but we even judge those within our own country. I thought it was very creative of Goldsmith to say that “we are now become so much Englishmen, Frenchmen, Dutchmen, Spaniards, or Germans, that we are not longer citizens of the world; so much as the natives of one particular spot.” I think this is very true, we as Americans have a view of the world as if America is all there is. To put it simply, we have become a very selfish country according to Goldsmith; only thinking about what is good for America, and not what is good for the world as a whole. This ties back to Goldsmith’s original point of prejudices because sometimes Americans view other nations as inferior to them, therefore judging the abilities of those countries. We think so highly of ourselves because that is what was the “norm” for so long and now we are stuck in our own paradigm and we do not want that paradigm to change. Goldsmith gives an example of how we judge others, he says, “when one of the gentlemen, cocking his hat, and assuming such an air of importance....” Just these few words let the reader know that everybody judges somebody at some point. Goldsmith didn’t know this man that he talks about, but because of the way he acted, Goldsmith assumed that those were characteristics of somebody who was very egotistical. I think Goldsmith brought out a lot of good ideas with this essay, ideas that can even be powerful to Americans today.

Guest Blogger: Lekha Somashekar

During the past week, for couple days we have been preparing for a debate assuming, we were at Continental Convention in Philadelphia. The class was split into three groups, for three states: Virginia, New Hampshire, and Connecticut. The groups had to each rebuttal, and give a presentation to the other groups, to support their own group/state. One of the points that was discussed was about slavery. There were many compromises discussed during the debate. However, the most controversial was the Three-Fifths Compromise, which was an agreement to count Three-Fifths of state’s slaves in apportion to Representatives, Presidential Electors, and direct taxes. This controversy arose, when the question about slavery arose at the Convention: How should the slaves be counted in determining representation in Congress. The Southerners were feeling happy to have their slaves counted toward their representation in House of Representatives. Northerners favored a 4:3 ratio of slaves to free persons, and Southerners favored 2:1 or 4:1 ratio. Eventually, James Madison suggested of a compromise consisting of 5:3 ratio of slaves to free persons. The Articles of Confederation required unanimous agreement, for the Three-Fifths Compromise, so proposal did not succeed. It is interesting, that a liberal Northern delegate named James Wilson was the one who proposed the Three-Fifths Compromise, as a way to gain Southern support for the new framework of government. As Northern states grew rapidly than Southern states, Southern representation had fallen to 42 percent. So, Three-Fifths Compromise did not work, as South anticipated.
During our debate, each group had to incorporate usage of rhetorical devices that we have learned. Some of the rhetorical devices we learned this week were: argumentum ad verecundiam – which means transfer of authority, argumentum ad hominem- means name-calling, argumentum ad populum – means catch-phrases, argumentum ad infinitum – means argument that goes on forever, and argumentum ad nausea – which is argument you are sick of. I think these rhetorical devices are very useful when communicating with others. Learning new words helps us increase our knowledge on language skills. The intention of rhetorical devices is to persuade, give emphasis to what we are arguing to. Rhetorical devices make presentations easier to remember, and can make listeners more pleasurable when listening to it.

Guest Blogger: Leyla Budimlic

The Articles of Confederation the class has learned, was an established government dominated by the United States. This government had a legislature with one house, and each state had one vote. The Congress had many problems including that it had few powers besides having an army and a navy. The Articles of Confederation ties in with The Constitutional Convention where framers tried to propose their ideas about a better type of government for the United States. The Constitutional Confederation was composed of three different ideas which were the New Jersey Plan, the Virginia Plan, and the Connecticut Compromise. The New Jersey Plan called for equal representation of each state in Congress regardless of the state’s population. The Virginia Plan called for representation of each state in Congress to that state’s population. The Connecticut Compromise was a combination of the two. All of these proposals and ideas for the Constitution and Government have to do with how the Constitution contradicts the Declaration of Independence because the Constitution is silent on equality. The selection of the Connecticut Compromise and the written document of the Declaration of Independence opened many new doors for America. The three-fifths compromise let slaves be counted for levying taxes and for representation. The Slave-Trade Compromise said that Congress couldn’t act on the slave trade for at least twenty years. This is why we have Government class, to learn about how our history of Government came to how it is today.

Guest Blogger: Alladin Budimlic

In Thomas Paine’s Common Sense the main idea of the entire writing is to stand up against injustice. This idea is also used in the Declaration of Independence and the main reason of the American Revolution. Paine writes that “Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to TAX) but to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER,” The thing that came out to me the most was the capitalization of the words tax, bind, and all cases whatsoever. This use of capitalizing these words gives them meaning. This meaning is anger and Paine uses pathos to get his point across. Throughout the section of reading he lists abuses that Britain has done to the colonialists. Though the Declaration and Common Sense both list grievances Thomas Jefferson uses the king as his main point by using the anaphora of He has, but Paine tends to use she or Britain and not single out the king. He last topic in Common Sense that got my attention was the ending where Paine writes “if a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it, and to bind me in all cases whatsoever to his absolute will, am I to suffer it?” This quote reminds me of the Socratic seminar that we did as a class a few weeks ago that discussed the question, is violence justifiable? During these seminars I noticed that many people believed that only in self defense can person use violence. In Common Sense Paine agrees with this idea because he states that if the war was an offensive war where we had no just cause to fight it then he sees it as murder, but if the war was to regain the god given rights that everyman should have then he supported it.

Guest Blogger: Alex Skrukrud

Writers use a variety of rhetorical and persuasive devices to establish their point. Rhetorical techniques are used by authors to convey a listener or reader a meaning with the goal of persuading him or her towards considering a topic from a different perspective. Examples of these techniques are metaphors, ironies, and compare/contrast. In Rhetoric, speakers use Ethos, Pathos, and Logos to help persuade the audience. Ethos, which is the appeal to character, Logos, which is the logic of the argument, and Pathos, the emotional appeal, are used along with many persuasive devices to help the speaker persuade the reader/listener to see both sides of the argument. The structure that one should use for an argument is the Aristotelian triangle, which describes the interaction among subject, speaker, and audience. Writer should consider this triangle when they prepare to write. They should get their subject and then know the audience that they are writing for. That goes the same for a speaker. They should consider what the topic is they are speaking about and who the audience is that they will be telling the speech to. Along with this structure, the writer and speaker should consider the language that they should use to suite the audience. Someone giving a speech about world hunger should not talk as though they are talking to children, and someone giving a speech for elementary school students should not use sophisticated words that they will not understand. Machiavelli, in the Prince used sophisticated language and a good structure to get his point across. Most likely the point would have been different if he had written it so that toddlers could read it. He made sure that he knew his audience, a prince, and he had a clear subject to write about. Writers and speakers should consider their audience and should follow a clear subject to persuade people to their ideas, along with using rhetorical and persuasive devices.

Guest Blogger: Omar Mohamed

In the allegory, Plato sees people as forms of prisoners chained in a cave, unable to turn their heads. All they can see is the wall of the cave. Behind them burns a fire. Between the fire and the prisoners there is a parapet, along which the guards can walk. The guards, who are behind the prisoners, hold up people shapes that cast shadows on the wall of the cave. The prisoners are unable to see these shadows, basically the real objects that pass behind them. What the prisoners see are the shadows and castings that they cannot see. This made understand that the people who are outside and are trying to get these people out of this cave, they are like the paradigm pioneers who are thinking outside the world around them this making them outside the cave. I have notice that in our present day that many people in our society are going about doing the opposite in which they are very uncertain about showing the others the way of the light instead of going and putting them down. It like the guy who is on top of the cave is not wanting people to be with him thus making things difficult for people who are trying to make a difference and what change. In the end what I took away from this reading that Plato was saying get people out of this cave but in our present society I don’t think people are trying to get out of this cave.

Guest Blogger: Spencer Johnson

The role and importance of political cartoons in modern society

What is the role of political cartoons in today’s government? Are they merely for entertainment purposes only or do they serve a larger purpose by breaking down sometimes complex political issues into simple though biased cartoons through which the general public can get a general idea of the issue at hand. Political cartoons have always had an important role in the split-party system by helping the opposing parties spread propaganda and get their viewpoints across, but in today’s society, political cartoons may be taking on a larger role. As said in the introduction of our government textbook, political apathy among today’s young is among the highest levels that it has ever been. Many young people have little to no interest in government and politics and the wide range of media access that they have control over allows them to escape ever having to read an article pertaining to a political issue or viewing a debate between politicians. I for one don’t enjoy watching debates or reading political articles, but if I see an illustrated cartoon, no matter what its subject, I am likely to look over it just to see what it is about. If I find a political cartoon that I don’t understand or that I particularly enjoy, I am a lot more likely to maybe look up the issue at hand to see the side not portrayed by the cartoon or to get a better understanding of what the cartoon is communicating. So, as I stated before, are political cartoons becoming a more important part of a media society in breaking down and drawing attention to important issues or are they still just a form of entertainment for politically savvy people? Also, if political cartoons are not being used to communicate about important issues, do you think that they could evolve into the role by using vivid illustrations on common websites to draw peoples’ attentions to maybe further researching the meaning or issue behind the political cartoon?

Gerrymandering Anyone?

Check out these 10 districts identified by "Zombie" as the 10 "most unique" in the country. We can't say they have been gerrymandered because that is illegal to do.

Comments are welcome!

Mr. T.

Some context in case you were wondering

The link will give you an overview of how each amendment to the US Constitution came to be. Check out how long it took the 27th Amendment to be ratified! Who knew!!!

Mr. Thompson

Amending our State Constitution

This link has the process explained to amend our state constitution and it is very different than the process to amend the US Constitution. It then goes on to enumerate the proposed amendments and whether they were approved or rejected. Why so many amendments to the MN Constitution (dozens) as compared to our US Constitutional Amendments (only 27).




Mr. Thompson

George Will Article

Check out the article written by Pulitzer Prize winning writer George Will. A very appropriate article to peruse as a follow up to our study of the Constitution and a preview of what we will be learning about as we study the Executive Branch.

A must read for all 2012 voters!
Mr. Thompson

Review for APL/G Test

APL/G Test Review
The Critical Period: From Revolution to Constitution and beyond

50 Multiple Choice/Matching Questions
One 25 point essay Choose 1 of 2 options

Road to Revolution
Salutary Neglect
Events leading up to revolution
Declaration of Independence

Articles of Confederation
Description of the plan (what did gov’t look like and what could gov’t do/not do)
Powers given
Powers denied
Unicameral
Representation
Shay’s Rebellion
US Constitution
Constitutional Convention
Federalists
Anti-Federalists
Framers
Compromise
New Jersey Plan
Virginia Plan
Connecticut Compromise
Bicameral
Representation

3/5’s Compromise
Commerce and Slave Trade Compromise
Electoral College

Preamble – 6 Goals
Articles – 7 parts and what they contain
Amendments – 27 , know the concepts
Bill of Rights
Amendment process
Article V
6 Principles of the Constitution
Separation of Powers Checks and Balances Judicial Review
Limited Govt Popular Sovereignty Federalism
Clauses
Necessary and Proper Clause
Elastic Clause – Implied powers
Full Faith and Credit Clause
Supremacy Clause
Enumerated/Expressed Powers, Concurrent Powers, Reserved Powers
Federalist Papers
Federalist 10
Federalist 51

Mr. Thompson