File: example/flyMe.html

Recommend this page to a friend!
  Classes of Mehdi Safavy   FlyMe   example/flyMe.html   Download  
File: example/flyMe.html
Role: Example script
Content type: text/plain
Description: Sample output
Class: FlyMe
Scroll page when clicking an anchor link
Author: By
Last change: Namespace problem fix

we have a problem to use this plugin on multi section page's that we
don't like change all you can use your specified dom to
only effect on it.
Date: 9 years ago
Size: 196,210 bytes


Class file image Download
<script src=""></script> <script src="../src/flyMe.min.js"></script> <script> $(function(){ $('body').flyAll(); }); </script> <body><div id="content"> <div style="height:40px;background:#F1F1F1;text-align:center;padding-top:10px"> <h2 style="color:#4485F3;margin:0">Click on every bookmark that automatically colored by red,to fly to it's destination</h2> </div> <p><b>Article One</b> of the <a href="/wiki/United_States_Constitution" title="United States Constitution">United States Constitution</a> establishes the <a href="/wiki/Legislature" title="Legislature">legislative branch</a> of the <a href="/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States" title="Federal government of the United States">federal government</a>, the <a href="/wiki/United_States_Congress" title="United States Congress">United States Congress</a>. The Congress is a <a href="/wiki/Bicameralism" title="Bicameralism">bicameral</a> legislature consisting of a <a href="/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives" title="United States House of Representatives">House of Representatives</a> and a <a href="/wiki/United_States_Senate" title="United States Senate">Senate</a>.</p> <p></p> <div id="toc" class="toc"> <div id="toctitle"> <h2>Contents</h2> <ul> <li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1"><a href="#Section_1_Legislative_power_vested_in_Congress"><span class="tocnumber">1</span> <span class="toctext">Section 1: Legislative power vested in Congress</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-2"><a n a me="Section_2_House_of_Representatives" href="#Section_2_House_of_Representatives"><span class="tocnumber">2</span> <span class="toctext">Section 2: House of Representatives Wooo</span></a> <ul> <li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-3"><a href="#Clause_1_Composition_and_election_of_Members"><span class="tocnumber">2.1</span> <span class="toctext">Clause 1: Composition and election of Members</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-4"><a href="#Clause_2_Qualifications_of_Members"><span class="tocnumber">2.2</span> <span class="toctext">Clause 2: Qualifications of Members</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-5"><a href="#Clause_3_Apportionment_of_Representatives_and_taxes"><span class="tocnumber">2.3</span> <span class="toctext">Clause 3: Apportionment of Representatives and taxes</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-6"><a href="#Clause_4_Vacancies"><span class="tocnumber">2.4</span> <span class="toctext">Clause 4: Vacancies</span></a></li> </ul> </li> <li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-8"><a href="#Section_3_Senate"><span class="tocnumber">3</span> <span class="toctext">Section 3: Senate</span></a> <ul> <li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-11"><a href="#Clause_3_Qualifications_of_Senators"><span class="tocnumber">3.3</span> <span class="toctext">Clause 3: Qualifications of Senators</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-13"><a href="#Clause_5_President_pro_tempore_and_other_officers"><span class="tocnumber">3.5</span> <span class="toctext">Clause 5: President pro tempore and other officers</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-14"><a href="#Clause_6_Trial_of_Impeachments"><span class="tocnumber">3.6</span> <span class="toctext">Clause 6: Trial of Impeachments</span></a></li> </ul> </li> <li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-16"><a href="#Section_4_Congressional_elections"><span class="tocnumber">4</span> <span class="toctext">Section 4: Congressional elections</span></a> <ul> <li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-17"><a href="#Clause_1_Time.2C_place.2C_and_manner_of_holding"><span class="tocnumber">4.1</span> <span class="toctext">Clause 1: Time, place, and manner of holding</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-18"><a href="#Clause_2_Sessions_of_Congress"><span class="tocnumber">4.2</span> <span class="toctext">Clause 2: Sessions of Congress</span></a></li> </ul> </li> <li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-19"><a href="#Section_5_Procedure"><span class="tocnumber">5</span> <span class="toctext">Section 5: Procedure</span></a> <ul> <li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-20"><a href="#Clause_1_Qualifications_of_Members"><span class="tocnumber">5.1</span> <span class="toctext">Clause 1: Qualifications of Members</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-21"><a href="#Clause_2_Rules"><span class="tocnumber">5.2</span> <span class="toctext">Clause 2: Rules</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-22"><a href="#Clause_3_Record_of_proceedings"><span class="tocnumber">5.3</span> <span class="toctext">Clause 3: Record of proceedings</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-23"><a href="#Clause_4_Adjournment"><span class="tocnumber">5.4</span> <span class="toctext">Clause 4: Adjournment</span></a></li> </ul> </li> <li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-24"><a href="#Section_6_Compensation2C_privileges2C_and_restrictions_on_holding_civil_office"><span class="tocnumber">6</span> <span class="toctext">Section 6: Compensation, privileges, and restrictions on holding civil office</span></a> <ul> <li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-25"><a href="#Clause_1_Compensation_and_legal_protection"><span class="tocnumber">6.1</span> <span class="toctext">Clause 1: Compensation and legal protection</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-26"><a href="#Clause_2_Independence_from_the_executive"><span class="tocnumber">6.2</span> <span class="toctext">Clause 2: Independence from the executive</span></a></li> </ul> </li> <li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-27"><a href="#Section_7_Bills"><span class="tocnumber">7</span> <span class="toctext">Section 7: Bills</span></a> <ul> <li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-28"><a href="#Clause_1_Bills_of_revenue"><span class="tocnumber">7.1</span> <span class="toctext">Clause 1: Bills of revenue</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-29"><a href="#Clause_2_From_bills_to_law"><span class="tocnumber">7.2</span> <span class="toctext">Clause 2: From bills to law</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-30"><a href="#Clause_3_Presidential_veto"><span class="tocnumber">7.3</span> <span class="toctext">Clause 3: Presidential veto</span></a></li> </ul> </li> <li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-31"><a href="#Section_8_Powers_of_Congress"><span class="tocnumber">8</span> <span class="toctext">Section 8: Powers of Congress</span></a> <ul> <li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-32"><a href="#Enumerated_powers"><span class="tocnumber">8.1</span> <span class="toctext">Enumerated powers</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-33"><a href="#Commerce_Clause"><span class="tocnumber">8.2</span> <span class="toctext">Commerce Clause</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-34"><a href="#Other_powers_of_Congress"><span class="tocnumber">8.3</span> <span class="toctext">Other powers of Congress</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-35"><a href="#Necessary_and_Proper_clause"><span class="tocnumber">8.4</span> <span class="toctext">Necessary and Proper clause</span></a></li> </ul> </li> <li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-36"><a href="#Section_9_Limits_on_Congress"><span class="tocnumber">9</span> <span class="toctext">Section 9: Limits on Congress</span></a> <ul> <li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-37"><a href="#Slave_trade"><span class="tocnumber">9.1</span> <span class="toctext">Slave trade</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-38"><a href="#Civil_and_legal_protections"><span class="tocnumber">9.2</span> <span class="toctext">Civil and legal protections</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-39"><a href="#Apportionment_of_direct_taxes"><span class="tocnumber">9.3</span> <span class="toctext">Apportionment of direct taxes</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-40"><a href="#Titles_of_nobility"><span class="tocnumber">9.4</span> <span class="toctext">Titles of nobility</span></a></li> </ul> </li> <li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-41"><a href="#Section_10_Limits_on_the_States"><span class="tocnumber">10</span> <span class="toctext">Section 10: Limits on the States</span></a> <ul> <li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-42"><a href="#Clause_1_Contracts_Clause"><span class="tocnumber">10.1</span> <span class="toctext">Clause 1: Contracts Clause</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-43"><a href="#Clause_2_Import-Export_Clause"><span class="tocnumber">10.2</span> <span class="toctext">Clause 2: Import-Export Clause</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-44"><a href="#Clause_3_Compact_Clause"><span class="tocnumber">10.3</span> <span class="toctext">Clause 3: Compact Clause</span></a></li> </ul> </li> <li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-45"><a href="#Notes"><span class="tocnumber">11</span> <span class="toctext">Notes</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-46"><a href="#References"><span class="tocnumber">12</span> <span class="toctext">References</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-47"><a href="#Further_reading"><span class="tocnumber">13</span> <span class="toctext">Further reading</span></a></li> <li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-48"><a href="#External_links"><span class="tocnumber">14</span> <span class="toctext">External links</span></a></li> </ul> </div> <p></p> <h2><span class="mw-headline" id="Section_1_Legislative_power_vested_in_Congress"><span id="Section_1"></span>Section 1: Legislative power vested in Congress</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=1" title="Edit section: Section 1: Legislative power vested in Congress">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h2> <div class="thumb tright"> <div class="thumbcaption"> <div class="magnify"><a href="/wiki/File:C-SPAN_112th_Congress_Roll_Call.jpg" class="internal" title="Enlarge"></a></div> Opening of the <a href="/wiki/112th_United_States_Congress" title="112th United States Congress">112th Congress</a>, House of Representatives chamber, January 5, 2011</div> </div> </div> <blockquote class="templatequote"> <p>All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a <a href="/wiki/United_States_Senate" title="United States Senate">Senate</a> and <a href="/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives" title="United States House of Representatives">House of Representatives</a>.</p> </blockquote> <p>Section 1 is a <a href="/wiki/Vesting_clauses" title="Vesting clauses" class="mw-redirect">vesting clause</a>, granting all the federal government's legislative authority to Congress. Similar vesting clauses are found in Articles II and III, which grant "the <a href="/wiki/Executive_(government)" title="Executive (government)">executive power</a>" to the President and "the <a href="/wiki/Judiciary" title="Judiciary">judicial power</a>" to the federal judiciary. In legal proceedings, the working definition of "herein" connotes specificity and exclusivity. The Vesting Clauses thus establishes the principle of <a href="/wiki/Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Separation of powers under the United States Constitution">separation of powers</a> by specifically giving to each branch of the federal government only those powers it can exercise and no others.<sup id="cite_ref-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-1"><span>[</span>1<span>]</span></a></sup> This means that no branch may exercise powers that properly belong to another (e.g., since the legislative power is only vested in Congress, the executive and judiciary may not enact laws).<sup id="cite_ref-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-2"><span>[</span>2<span>]</span></a></sup></p> <p>The language "herein granted" in Article I's vesting clause has been interpreted to mean that the powers Congress are to exercise are <i>exclusively</i> those specifically provided for in Article I.<sup id="cite_ref-3" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-3"><span>[</span>3<span>]</span></a></sup> The clause "herein granted" was further defined and elaborated by the tenth amendment. Thus, this congressional clause is contrasted by the general vesting of the executive and judicial powers in Articles II and III in the branches of government those articles govern, which has been interpreted to mean that those branches enjoy "residual" or "implied" powers beyond those specifically mentioned, as contrasted with the Congress, which is vested with those legislative powers "herein granted;"<sup id="cite_ref-4" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-4"><span>[</span>4<span>]</span></a></sup> however, there is substantial contemporary disagreement about the precise extent of the powers conferred by the general vesting clauses.</p> <p>As a corollary to the fact that Congress, and only Congress, is vested with the legislative power, Congress (in theory) cannot delegate legislative authority to other branches of government (e.g., the Executive Branch), a rule known as the <a href="/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine" title="Nondelegation doctrine">nondelegation doctrine</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-5" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-5"><span>[</span>5<span>]</span></a></sup> However, the Supreme Court has ruled that Congress does have latitude to delegate regulatory powers to executive agencies as long as it provides an "intelligible principle" which governs the agency's exercise of the delegated regulatory authority.<sup id="cite_ref-6" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-6"><span>[</span>6<span>]</span></a></sup> In practice, the Supreme Court has only invalidated four statutes on non-delegation grounds in its history, three of which were invalidated in the mid-1930s. The fourth, the <a href="/wiki/Line_Item_Veto_Act_of_1996" title="Line Item Veto Act of 1996">Line Item Veto Act of 1996</a>, was invalidated in 1998.<sup id="cite_ref-7" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-7"><span>[</span>7<span>]</span></a></sup> The nondelegation doctrine is primarily used now as a way of interpreting a congressional delegation of authority narrowly,<sup id="cite_ref-8" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-8"><span>[</span>8<span>]</span></a></sup> in that the courts presume Congress intended only to delegate that which it certainly could have, unless it clearly demonstrates it intended to "test the waters" of what the courts would allow it to do.<sup id="cite_ref-9" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-9"><span>[</span>9<span>]</span></a></sup></p> <p>Although not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, Congress has also long asserted the power to investigate and the power to compel cooperation with an investigation.<sup id="cite_ref-10" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-10"><span>[</span>10<span>]</span></a></sup> The Supreme Court has affirmed these powers as an implication of Congress's power to legislate.<sup id="cite_ref-11" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-11"><span>[</span>11<span>]</span></a></sup> Since the power to investigate is an aspect of Congress's power to legislate, it is as broad as Congress's powers to legislate.<sup id="cite_ref-investigate_12-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-investigate-12"><span>[</span>12<span>]</span></a></sup> However, it is also <i>limited</i> to inquiries that are "in aid of the legislative function;"<sup id="cite_ref-13" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-13"><span>[</span>13<span>]</span></a></sup> Congress may not "expose for the sake of exposure."<sup id="cite_ref-14" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-14"><span>[</span>14<span>]</span></a></sup> It is uncontroversial that a proper subject of Congress's investigation power is the operations of the federal government, but Congress's ability to compel the submission of documents or testimony from the President or his subordinates is often-discussed and sometimes controversial (see <a href="/wiki/Executive_privilege" title="Executive privilege">executive privilege</a>), although not often litigated. As a practical matter, the limitation of Congress's ability to investigate only for a proper purpose ("in aid of" its legislative powers) functions as a limit on Congress's ability to investigate the private affairs of individual citizens; matters that simply demand action by another branch of government, without implicating an issue of public policy necessitating legislation by Congress, must be left to those branches due to the doctrine of separation of powers.<sup id="cite_ref-15" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-15"><span>[</span>15<span>]</span></a></sup> The courts are highly deferential to Congress's exercise of its investigation powers, however. Congress has the power to investigate that which it could regulate,<sup id="cite_ref-investigate_12-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-investigate-12"><span>[</span>12<span>]</span></a></sup> and the courts have interpreted Congress's regulatory powers broadly since the <a href="/wiki/Great_Depression" title="Great Depression">Great Depression</a>.</p> <p>Additionally, the courts will not inquire into whether Congress has an improper motive for an investigation (i.e., using a legitimate legislative purpose as a cover for "expos[ing] for the sake of exposure"), focusing only on whether the matter is within Congress's power to regulate and, thus, investigate.<sup id="cite_ref-16" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-16"><span>[</span>16<span>]</span></a></sup> Persons called before a congressional investigatory committee are entitled to the constitutional guarantees of individual rights, such as those in the <a href="/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights" title="United States Bill of Rights">Bill of Rights</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-17" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-17"><span>[</span>17<span>]</span></a></sup> Congress can punish those who do not cooperate with an investigation via holding violators in <a href="/wiki/Contempt_of_Congress" title="Contempt of Congress">contempt of Congress</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-18" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-18"><span>[</span>18<span>]</span></a></sup></p> <h2><span class="mw-headline" id="Section_2_House_of_Representatives"><span id="Section_2"></span>Section 2: House of Representatives</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=2" title="Edit section: Section 2: House of Representatives">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h2> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Clause_1_Composition_and_election_of_Members"><span id="Section_2.2C_Clause_1"></span>Clause 1: Composition and election of Members</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=3" title="Edit section: Clause 1: Composition and election of Members">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3> <blockquote class="templatequote"> <p>The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.</p> </blockquote> <p>Section Two provides for the election of the House of Representatives every second year. Since Representatives are to be "chosen... by the People," State Governors are not allowed to appoint temporary replacements when vacancies occur in a state's delegation to the House of Representatives; instead, the Governor of the state is required by <a href="Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Article One of the United States Constitution">clause 4</a> to issue a <a href="/wiki/Writ_of_election" title="Writ of election">writ of election</a> calling a special election to fill the vacancy.</p> <p>At the time of its creation, the Constitution did not explicitly give citizens an inherent right to vote.<sup id="cite_ref-19" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-19"><span>[</span>19<span>]</span></a></sup> Rather, it provided that those qualified to vote in elections for the largest chamber of a state's legislature may vote in Congressional (House of Representatives) elections. Since the <a href="/wiki/American_Civil_War" title="American Civil War">Civil War</a>, several constitutional amendments have been enacted that have curbed the states' broad powers to set voter qualification standards. Though never enforced, clause 2 of the <a href="/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_ConstitutionApportionment_of_representation_in_House_of_Representatives" title="Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution">Fourteenth Amendment</a> provides that <i>when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.</i> The <a href="/wiki/Fifteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution">Fifteenth Amendment</a> prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The <a href="/wiki/Nineteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution">Nineteenth Amendment</a> prohibits the denial of the right to vote based on sex. The <a href="/wiki/Twenty-fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution">Twenty-fourth Amendment</a> prohibits the revocation of voting rights due to the non-payment of a <a href="/wiki/Poll_tax" title="Poll tax" class="mw-redirect">poll tax</a>. The <a href="/wiki/Twenty-sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution">Twenty-sixth Amendment</a> prohibits the denial of the right of US citizens, eighteen years of age or older, to vote on account of age.</p> <p>Moreover, since the Supreme Court has recognized voting as a fundamental right,<sup id="cite_ref-20" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-20"><span>[</span>20<span>]</span></a></sup> the <a href="/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause" title="Equal Protection Clause">Equal Protection Clause</a> places very tight limitations (albeit with uncertain limits) on the states' ability to define voter qualifications; it is fair to say that qualifications beyond citizenship, residency, and age are usually questionable.<sup id="cite_ref-21" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-21"><span>[</span>21<span>]</span></a></sup></p> <p>In the 1960s, the Supreme Court started to view voting as a fundamental right covered by the <a href="/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause" title="Equal Protection Clause">Equal Protection Clause</a> of the Fourteenth Amendment.<sup id="cite_ref-Briffault_22-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Briffault-22"><span>[</span>22<span>]</span></a></sup> In a dissenting opinion of a 1964 Supreme Court case involving <a href="/wiki/Reapportionment" title="Reapportionment" class="mw-redirect">reapportionment</a> in the <a href="/wiki/Alabama" title="Alabama">Alabama</a> state legislature, Associate Justice <a href="/wiki/John_Marshall_Harlan_II" title="John Marshall Harlan II">John Marshall Harlan II</a> included <i>Minor</i> in a list of past decisions about voting and apportionment which were no longer being followed.<sup id="cite_ref-23" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-23"><span>[</span>23<span>]</span></a></sup></p> <p>Since <a href="/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution Section_2.2C_Clause_3_Apportionment" title="Article One of the United States Constitution">clause 3</a> provides that Members of the House of Representatives are apportioned state-by-state and that each state is guaranteed at least one Representative, exact population equality between all districts is not guaranteed and, in fact, is currently impossible, because while the size of the House of Representatives is fixed at 435, several states had less than 1/435 of the national population at the time of the last reapportionment in 2000.<sup id="cite_ref-24" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-24"><span>[</span>24<span>]</span></a></sup> However, the Supreme Court has interpreted the provision of Clause One that Representatives shall be elected "by the People" to mean that, in those states with more than one member of the House of Representatives, each congressional election district within the state must have nearly identical populations.<sup id="cite_ref-wesberry_25-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-wesberry-25"><span>[</span>25<span>]</span></a></sup></p> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Clause_2_Qualifications_of_Members"><span id="Section_2.2C_Clause_2"></span>Clause 2: Qualifications of Members</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=4" title="Edit section: Clause 2: Qualifications of Members">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3> <blockquote class="templatequote"> <p>No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.</p> </blockquote> <p>The Constitution provides three requirements for Representatives: A Representative must be at least 25 years old, must be an inhabitant of the state in which he or she is elected, and must have been a <a href="/wiki/Citizen_of_the_United_States" title="Citizen of the United States" class="mw-redirect">citizen of the United States</a> for the previous seven years. There is no requirement that a Representative reside within the district in which he or she represents; although this is usually the case, there have been occasional exceptions.<sup id="cite_ref-26" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-26"><span>[</span>26<span>]</span></a></sup></p> <p>The Supreme Court has interpreted the Qualifications Clause as an <i>exclusive</i> list of qualifications that cannot be supplemented by a house of Congress exercising its <a href="/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution Section_5_Procedure" title="Article One of the United States Constitution">Section 5</a> authority to "judge...the...qualifications of its own members"<sup id="cite_ref-mccormack_27-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-mccormack-27"><span>[</span>27<span>]</span></a></sup> or by a state in its exercise of its <a href="/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution Clause_1_Time.2C_place.2C_and_manner_of_holding" title="Article One of the United States Constitution">Section 4</a> authority to prescribe the "times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives." The Supreme Court, as well as other <a href="/wiki/United_States_federal_courts" title="United States federal courts" class="mw-redirect">federal courts</a>, have repeatedly barred states from additional restrictions, such as imposing <a href="/wiki/Term_limit" title="Term limit">term limits</a> on members of Congress, allowing members of Congress to be subject to <a href="/wiki/Recall_election" title="Recall election">recall elections</a>, or requiring that Representatives live in the congressional district in which they represent.<sup id="cite_ref-28" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-28"><span>[</span>28<span>]</span></a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-thornton_29-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-thornton-29"><span>[</span>29<span>]</span></a></sup></p> <p>However, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that certain <a href="/wiki/Ballot_access" title="Ballot access">ballot access</a> requirements, such as filing fees and submitting a certain number of valid petition signatures do not constitute additional qualifications and thus few Constitutional restrictions exist as to how harsh ballot access laws can be.</p> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Clause_3_Apportionment_of_Representatives_and_taxes"><span id="Section_2.2C_Clause_3"></span>Clause 3: Apportionment of Representatives and taxes</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=5" title="Edit section: Clause 3: Apportionment of Representatives and taxes">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3> <blockquote class="templatequote"> <p>Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse [<i><a href="/wiki/Sic" title="Sic">sic</a></i>] three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.</p> </blockquote> <p>After much debate, the framers of the Constitution decided to make population the basis of apportioning the seats in the House of Representatives and the tax liability among the states. To facilitate this, the Constitution mandates that a <a href="/wiki/United_States_Census" title="United States Census">census</a> be conducted every ten years to determine the population of each state and of the nation as a whole and establishes a rule for who shall be counted or excluded from the count. As the new form of government most certainly become operational prior to the completion of a national census, the Constitution also provides for a temporary apportionment of seats in the mean time.</p> <p>Originally, the population of each state and of the nation as a whole was ascertained by adding to the whole number of free Persons, three-fifths the number of all other Persons (i.e., <a href="/wiki/Slave" title="Slave" class="mw-redirect">slaves</a> , but excluding non-taxed <a href="/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States" title="Native Americans in the United States">Native Americans</a>. This Constitutional rule, known as the <a href="/wiki/Three-fifths_compromise" title="Three-fifths compromise" class="mw-redirect">three-fifths compromise</a>, was a compromise between Southern and Northern states in which three-fifths of the population of slaves would be counted for <a href="/wiki/Enumeration" title="Enumeration">enumeration</a> purposes and for the apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives and of taxes among the states. It was, according to <a href="/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States" title="Supreme Court of the United States">Supreme Court</a> <a href="/wiki/Associate_Justice_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States" title="Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States">Justice</a> <a href="/wiki/Joseph_Story" title="Joseph Story">Joseph Story</a> (writing in <a href="/wiki/Commentaries_on_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States" title="Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States">1833</a>), "a matter of compromise and concession, confessedly unequal in its operation, but a necessary sacrifice to that spirit of conciliation, which was indispensable to the union of states having a great diversity of interests, and physical condition, and political institutions".<sup id="cite_ref-30" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-30"><span>[</span>30<span>]</span></a></sup></p> <p>Following the completion of each census, Congress is empowered to use the aggregate population in all the states (according to the prevailing Constitutional rule for determining population) to determine the relative population of each state to the population of the whole, and, based on its calculations, to establish the appropriate size of the House<sup id="cite_ref-prigg_31-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-prigg-31"><span>[</span>31<span>]</span></a></sup> and to allocate a particular number of representatives to each state according to its share of the national population.</p> <p>Since enactment of the <a href="/wiki/Reapportionment_Act_of_1929" title="Reapportionment Act of 1929">Reapportionment Act of 1929</a>, a constant 435 House seats have been apportioned among the states according to each census, and determining the size of the House is not presently part of the apportionment process. With one exception, the apportionment of 1842, the House of Representatives had been enlarged by various degrees from sixty-five members in 1788 to 435 members by 1913. The determination of size was made based on the aggregate national population, so long as the size of the House did not exceed 1 member for every 30,000 of the country's total population<sup id="cite_ref-32" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-32"><span>[</span>32<span>]</span></a></sup> nor the size of any state's delegation exceed 1 for every 30,000 of that state's population.<sup id="cite_ref-33" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-33"><span>[</span>33<span>]</span></a></sup> With the size of the House still fixed at 435, the current ratio, as of the <a href="/wiki/2010_United_States_Census" title="2010 United States Census">2010 Census</a>, is around 1 Representative: 700,000 Citizens.<sup id="cite_ref-34" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-34"><span>[</span>34<span>]</span></a></sup></p> <p>Although the first sentence in this clause originally concerned apportionment of both House seats and taxes among the several states, the Fourteenth Amendment sentence that replaced it in 1868 mentioned only the apportionment of House seats. Even so, the constraint placed upon Congress' taxation power remained, as the restriction was reiterated in Article 1 Section 9 Clause 4. The amount of <a href="/wiki/Direct_taxes" title="Direct taxes" class="mw-redirect">direct taxes</a> that could be collected by the federal government from the people in any State would still be tied directly to that state's share of the national population.</p> <p>Due to this restriction, application of the <a href="/wiki/Income_tax" title="Income tax">income tax</a> to income derived from real estate and specifically income in the form of dividends from personal property ownership such as stock shares was found to be unconstitutional because it was not apportioned among the states;<sup id="cite_ref-35" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-35"><span>[</span>35<span>]</span></a></sup> that is to say, there was no guarantee that a State with 10% of the country's population paid 10% of those income taxes collected, because Congress had not fixed an amount of money to be raised and apportioned it between the States according to their respective shares of the national population. To permit the levying of such an income tax, Congress proposed and the states ratified the <a href="/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution">Sixteenth Amendment</a>, which removed the restriction by specifically providing that Congress could levy a tax on income "from whatever source derived" without it being apportioned among the States or otherwise based on a State's share of the national population.</p> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Clause_4_Vacancies"><span id="Section_2.2C_Clause_4"></span>Clause 4: Vacancies</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=6" title="Edit section: Clause 4: Vacancies">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3> <blockquote class="templatequote"> <p>When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.</p> </blockquote> <p>Section two, Clause four, provides that when vacancies occur in the House of Representatives, it is not the job of the House of Representatives to arrange for a replacement, but the job of the State whose vacant seat is up for refilling. Moreover, the State Governor may not appoint a temporary replacement, but must instead arrange for a special election to fill the vacancy. The original qualifications and procedures for holding that election are still valid.</p> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Clause_5_Speaker_and_other_officers.3B_Impeachment"><span id="Section_2.2C_Clause_5"></span>Clause 5: Speaker and other officers; Impeachment</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=7" title="Edit section: Clause 5: Speaker and other officers; Impeachment">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3> <blockquote class="templatequote"> <p>The House of Representatives shall chuse [<i><a href="/wiki/Sic" title="Sic">sic</a></i>] their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.</p> </blockquote> <p>Section Two further provides that the House of Representatives may choose its <a href="/wiki/Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives" title="Speaker of the United States House of Representatives">Speaker</a> and its other officers. Though the Constitution does not mandate it, every Speaker has been a member of the House of Representatives.<sup id="cite_ref-speaker_36-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-speaker-36"><span>[</span>36<span>]</span></a></sup> The Speaker rarely presides over routine House sessions, choosing instead to deputize a junior member to accomplish the task.</p> <p>Finally, Section Two grants to the House of Representatives the sole power of <a href="/wiki/Impeachment" title="Impeachment">impeachment</a>. Although the Supreme Court has not had an occasion to interpret this specific provision, the Court has suggested that the grant to the House of the "<i>sole</i>" power of impeachment makes the House the exclusive interpreter of what constitutes an impeachable offense.<sup id="cite_ref-37" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-37"><span>[</span>37<span>]</span></a></sup> Impeachments are tried in the Senate (as discussed below).</p> <h2><span class="mw-headline" id="Section_3_Senate"><span id="Section_3"></span>Section 3: Senate</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=8" title="Edit section: Section 3: Senate">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h2> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Clause_1_Composition.3B_Election_of_Senators"><span id="Section_3.2C_Clause_1"></span>Clause 1: Composition; Election of Senators</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=9" title="Edit section: Clause 1: Composition; Election of Senators">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3> <div class="thumb tright"> <div class="thumbcaption"> <div class="magnify"><a href="/wiki/File:Standard_oil_octopus_loc_color.jpg" class="internal" title="Enlarge"></a></div> <a href="/wiki/Gilded_Age" title="Gilded Age">Gilded Age</a> monopolies could no longer control the U.S. Senate (left) by corrupting state legislatures (right).</div> </div> </div> <blockquote class="templatequote"> <p>The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.</p> </blockquote> <p>Section Three provides that each state is entitled to two Senators chosen for a term of six years. The <a href="/wiki/State_legislature_(United_States)" title="State legislature (United States)">state legislatures</a> originally chose the means of choosing the Senators. This provision has been superseded in 1913 by the <a href="/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution">Seventeenth Amendment</a>, which provides for the direct election of Senators by the respective states' voters.</p> <p>Generally, <a href="/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Article Five of the United States Constitution">Article Five</a> requires that a proposal to amend the Constitution garner a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Congress, and then be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures. Section Three of Article I is one of a handful of clauses on which Article Five places special restrictions to be amended; in this case, Article Five provides that "no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." Thus, no individual state may have its representation in the Senate adjusted without its consent unless all other states have an identical change. That is to say, an amendment that changed this clause to provide that all states would get only one Senator (or three Senators, or any other number) could be ratified through the normal process, but an amendment that provided for some basis of representation other than strict numerical equality (for example, population, wealth, or land area) would require the assent of every state.</p> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Clause_2_Classification_of_Senators.3B_Vacancies"><span id="Section_3.2C_Clause_2"></span>Clause 2: Classification of Senators; Vacancies</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=10" title="Edit section: Clause 2: Classification of Senators; Vacancies">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3> <blockquote class="templatequote"> <p>Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.</p> </blockquote> <p>After the first group of Senators was elected to the <a href="/wiki/1st_United_States_Congress" title="1st United States Congress">First Congress</a> (1789–1791), the Senators were divided into <a href="/wiki/Classes_of_United_States_Senators" title="Classes of United States Senators">three "classes"</a> as nearly equal in size as possible, as required by this section. This was done in May 1789 <a href="/wiki/Sortition" title="Sortition">by lot</a>. Those Senators grouped in the first class had their term expire after only two years; those Senators in the second class had their term expire after only four years, instead of six. After this, all Senators from those States have been elected to six-year terms, and as new States have joined the Union, their Senate seats have been assigned to one of the three classes, maintaining each grouping as nearly equal in size as possible. In this way, election is staggered; approximately one-third of the Senate is up for re-election every two years, but the entire body is never up for re-election in the same year (as contrasted with the House, where its entire membership is up for re-election every 2 years).</p> <p>As originally established, Senators were elected by the Legislature of the State they represented in the Senate. If a senator died, resigned, or was expelled, the legislature of the state would appoint a replacement to serve out the remainder of the senator's term. If the State Legislature was not in session, its Governor could appoint a temporary replacement to serve until the legislature could elect a permanent replacement. This was superseded by the <a href="/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution">Seventeenth Amendment</a>, which provided for the Popular Election of Senators, instead of their appointment by the State Legislature. In a nod to the less populist nature of the Senate, the Amendment tracks the vacancy procedures for the House of Representatives in requiring that the Governor call a special election to fill the vacancy, but (unlike in the House) it vests in the State Legislature the authority to allow the Governor to appoint a temporary replacement until the special election is held. Note, however, that under the original Constitution, the Governors of the states were expressly allowed by the Constitution to make temporary appointments. The current system, under the Seventeenth Amendment, allows Governors to appoint a replacement only if their state legislature has previously decided to allow the Governor to do so; otherwise, the seat must remain vacant until the special election is held to fill the seat, as in the case of a vacancy in the House.</p> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Clause_3_Qualifications_of_Senators"><span id="Section_3.2C_Clause_3"></span>Clause 3: Qualifications of Senators</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=11" title="Edit section: Clause 3: Qualifications of Senators">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3> <blockquote class="templatequote"> <p>No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.</p> </blockquote> <p>A Senator must be at least 30 years of age, must have been a citizen of the United States for at least nine years before being elected, and must reside in the State he or she will represent at the time of the election. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Qualifications Clause as an exclusive list of qualifications that cannot be supplemented by a House of Congress exercising its <a href="/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_ConstitutionSection_5_Procedure" title="Article One of the United States Constitution">Section. 5.</a> authority to "Judge... the... Qualifications of its own Members,"<sup id="cite_ref-mccormack_27-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-mccormack-27"><span>[</span>27<span>]</span></a></sup> or by a state in its exercise of its <a href="/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution Clause_1_Time.2C_place.2C_and_manner_of_holding" title="Article One of the United States Constitution">Section. 4.</a> authority to prescribe the "Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives,..."<sup id="cite_ref-thornton_29-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-thornton-29"><span>[</span>29<span>]</span></a></sup></p> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Clause_4_Vice_President_as_President_of_Senate.3B_Voting_power"><span id="Section_3.2C_Clause_4"></span>Clause 4: Vice President as President of Senate; Voting power</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=12" title="Edit section: Clause 4: Vice President as President of Senate; Voting power">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3> <blockquote class="templatequote"> <p>The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.</p> </blockquote> <p>Section Three provides that the <a href="/wiki/Vice_President_of_the_United_States" title="Vice President of the United States">Vice President</a> is the <a href="/wiki/President_of_the_United_States_Senate" title="President of the United States Senate" class="mw-redirect">President of the Senate</a>. In modern times, the Vice President usually <a href="/wiki/Presiding_Officer_of_the_United_States_Senate" title="Presiding Officer of the United States Senate">presides over the Senate</a> only when a tie in the voting is anticipated. (The following section provides for the <a href="/wiki/President_pro_tempore_of_the_United_States_Senate" title="President pro tempore of the United States Senate">President pro tempore of the Senate</a>, a Senator elected to the post by the Senate, to preside in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall <a href="/wiki/Acting_President_of_the_United_States" title="Acting President of the United States">exercise the Office of the President of the United States</a>, but like the Vice President the President pro tempore, traditionally the longest-serving member of the majority party, rarely actually presides over the chamber; typically the President pro tempore deputizes junior Senators of the majority party to act as presiding officers). As a non-member of the assembly, the Vice President has only a <a href="/wiki/Casting_vote" title="Casting vote">"casting" (tie-breaking)</a> vote. This is contrasted with the Speaker of the House, who has always been chosen from the Members of the House of Representatives,<sup id="cite_ref-speaker_36-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-speaker-36"><span>[</span>36<span>]</span></a></sup> and as a member of the House is entitled to participate in debate vote on all measures, not just when ties occur, although customarily the speaker votes only rarely, and often to make <i>or</i> break a tie.</p> <p>The tie-breaking vote has been cast 243 times by 35 different Vice Presidents.</p> <div class="hatnote">Further information: <a href="/wiki/List_of_tie-breaking_votes_cast_by_Vice_Presidents_of_the_United_States" title="List of tie-breaking votes cast by Vice Presidents of the United States">List of tie-breaking votes cast by Vice Presidents of the United States</a></div> <div class="thumb tright"> <div class="thumbcaption"> <div class="magnify"><a href="/wiki/File:Leahy2009.jpg" class="internal" title="Enlarge"></a></div> Democratic Senator <a href="/wiki/Patrick_Leahy" title="Patrick Leahy">Patrick Leahy</a> of Vermont, current <a href="/wiki/President_pro_tempore_of_the_United_States_Senate" title="President pro tempore of the United States Senate">President pro tempore of the United States Senate</a></div> </div> </div> <blockquote class="templatequote"> <p>The Senate shall chuse [<i><a href="/wiki/Sic" title="Sic">sic</a></i>] their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of the President of the United States.</p> </blockquote> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Clause_5_President_pro_tempore_and_other_officers"><span id="Section_3.2C_Clause_5"></span>Clause 5: President pro tempore and other officers</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=13" title="Edit section: Clause 5: President pro tempore and other officers">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3> <p>The Senate may elect a <a href="/wiki/President_pro_tempore_of_the_United_States_Senate" title="President pro tempore of the United States Senate">President pro tempore</a> to act in the Vice President's absence. Although the Constitutional text seems to suggest to the contrary, the Senate's practice has been to elect a full-time President pro tempore at the beginning of each Congress, as opposed to making it a temporary office only existing during the Vice President's absence. As is true of the Speaker of the House,<sup id="cite_ref-speaker_36-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-speaker-36"><span>[</span>36<span>]</span></a></sup> the Constitution does not require that the President pro tempore be a senator, but by convention, a senator is always chosen; since World War II, the senior member of the majority party has filled this position.<sup id="cite_ref-38" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-38"><span>[</span>38<span>]</span></a></sup> The President pro tempore, as a member of the Senate, is free to make or break a tie vote like the Speaker of the House, but in the event that the possibility of a tie vote is anticipated the Vice President is routinely on hand to ensure that the Executive Branch's policy preference prevails.</p> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Clause_6_Trial_of_Impeachments"><span id="Section_3.2C_Clause_6"></span>Clause 6: Trial of Impeachments</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=14" title="Edit section: Clause 6: Trial of Impeachments">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3> <div class="thumb tright"> <div class="thumbcaption"> <div class="magnify"><a href="/wiki/File:Senate_in_session.jpg" class="internal" title="Enlarge"></a></div> The <a href="/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton" title="Impeachment of Bill Clinton">impeachment trial of President Clinton</a> in 1999, <a href="/wiki/William_H._Rehnquist" title="William H. Rehnquist" class="mw-redirect">Chief Justice William Rehnquist</a> presiding.</div> </div> </div> <blockquote class="templatequote"> <p>The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.</p> </blockquote> <p>The Senate is granted the sole power to try impeachments, just as the <a href="/wiki/House_of_Lords" title="House of Lords">House of Lords</a> could try impeachments in <a href="/wiki/Kingdom_of_Great_Britain" title="Kingdom of Great Britain">Great Britain</a>. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution's provision that the Senate has the "sole" power to try impeachments to mean that the Senate has exclusive and unreviewable authority to determine what constitutes an adequate impeachment trial.<sup id="cite_ref-39" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-39"><span>[</span>39<span>]</span></a></sup> The senators must sit on oath or affirmation, unlike the lords who voted upon their honor. The <a href="/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_the_United_States" title="Chief Justice of the United States">Chief Justice</a> presides whenever the President of the United States is tried, to avoid the Vice President exercising his duties as President of the Senate and presiding over the trial of the President of the United States. Although this was probably originally intended to avoid a situation where the Vice President was presiding over a debate that could ultimately result in his promotion to the presidency (were the President convicted and removed from office), it also prevents a possibly more likely contemporary scenario, where a President accused of some offense is being tried by the Senate presided over by a Vice President who may well be sympathetic to the President, reducing the independence of the Senate's consideration of the delicate question of whether to remove a sitting chief executive. On the other hand, nothing prevents the curious circumstance of a Vice President presiding over his <i>own</i> impeachment trial as President of the Senate, should he be impeached (although this has never happened).</p> <p>A two-thirds supermajority of those Senators present is required to convict, although given the obvious importance of impeachment proceedings, there are generally few absent members. In addition, requiring a two-thirds majority of those members present has the net effect of making a present member's decision not to cast a vote either way the same as a vote against conviction.<sup id="cite_ref-40" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-40"><span>[</span>40<span>]</span></a></sup> This is as contrasted with typical practice, where a proposition passes, or not, based on whether it receives the appropriate majority of however many votes were <i>cast</i>, irrespective of how many members were present but chose not to vote.<sup id="cite_ref-41" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-41"><span>[</span>41<span>]</span></a></sup> However, much as impeachment trials generally have few members absent, the importance of impeachment trials is unlikely to produce many abstentions (i.e., non-votes) by present members.</p> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Clause_7_Judgment_in_cases_of_impeachment.3B_Punishment_on_conviction"><span id="Section_3.2C_Clause_7"></span>Clause 7: Judgment in cases of impeachment; Punishment on conviction</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=15" title="Edit section: Clause 7: Judgment in cases of impeachment; Punishment on conviction">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3> <blockquote class="templatequote"> <p>Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.</p> </blockquote> <p>If any officer is convicted on impeachment, he or she is immediately removed from office, and may be barred from holding any public office in the future. No other punishments may be inflicted pursuant to the impeachment proceeding, but the convicted party remains liable to trial and punishment in the courts for civil and criminal charges.<sup id="cite_ref-42" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-42"><span>[</span>42<span>]</span></a></sup></p> <h2><span class="mw-headline" id="Section_4_Congressional_elections"><span id="Section_4"></span>Section 4: Congressional elections</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=16" title="Edit section: Section 4: Congressional elections">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span><a href="#Section_6_Compensation2C_privileges2C_and_restrictions_on_holding_civil_office"> Skip to section 6</a></h2> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Clause_1_Time.2C_place.2C_and_manner_of_holding"><span id="Section_4.2C_Clause_1"></span>Clause 1: Time, place, and manner of holding</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=17" title="Edit section: Clause 1: Time, place, and manner of holding">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3> <blockquote class="templatequote"> <p>The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing [<i><a href="/wiki/Sic" title="Sic">sic</a></i>] Senators.</p> </blockquote> <p>This clause generally commits to the States the authority to determine the "times, places and manner of holding elections," which includes the preliminary stages of the election process (such as a primary election), while reserving to Congress the authority to preempt State regulations with uniform national rules.<sup id="cite_ref-43" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-43"><span>[</span>43<span>]</span></a></sup> Congress has exercised this authority to determine a <a href="/wiki/Election_Day_(United_States)" title="Election Day (United States)">uniform date</a> for federal elections: the Tuesday following the first Monday in November.<sup id="cite_ref-44" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-44"><span>[</span>44<span>]</span></a></sup></p> <p>Because Congress has not enacted any on-point regulations, States still retain the authority to regulate the dates on which other aspects of the election process are held (registration, primary elections, etc.) and where elections will be held. As for regulating the "manner" of elections, the Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean "matters like notices, registration, supervision of voting, protection of voters, prevention of fraud and corrupt practices, counting of votes, duties of inspectors and canvassers, and making and publication of election returns."<sup id="cite_ref-45" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-45"><span>[</span>45<span>]</span></a></sup> The Supreme Court has held that States may <i>not</i> exercise their power to determine the "manner" of holding elections to impose term limits on their congressional delegation.<sup id="cite_ref-thornton_29-2" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-thornton-29"><span>[</span>29<span>]</span></a></sup></p> <p>One of the most significant ways that States regulate the "manner" of elections is their power to draw election districts. Although in theory Congress could draw the district map for each State,<sup id="cite_ref-46" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-46"><span>[</span>46<span>]</span></a></sup> it has not exercised this level of oversight. Congress has, however, required the States to conform to certain practices when drawing districts. States are currently required to use a single-member district scheme, whereby the State is divided into as many election districts for Representatives in the House of Representatives as the size of its representation in that body (that is to say, Representatives cannot be elected at-large from the whole State unless the State has only one Representative in the House, nor can districts elect more than 1 Representative).<sup id="cite_ref-47" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-47"><span>[</span>47<span>]</span></a></sup></p> <p>Congress once imposed additional requirements that districts be composed of contiguous territory, be "compact," and have equal populations within each State.<sup id="cite_ref-48" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-48"><span>[</span>48<span>]</span></a></sup> Congress has allowed those requirements to lapse,<sup id="cite_ref-49" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-49"><span>[</span>49<span>]</span></a></sup> but the Supreme Court has re-imposed the population requirement on the States under the Equal Protection Clause<sup id="cite_ref-wesberry_25-1" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-wesberry-25"><span>[</span>25<span>]</span></a></sup> and is suspicious of districts that do not meet the other "traditional" districting criteria of compactness and contiguity.<sup id="cite_ref-50" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-50"><span>[</span>50<span>]</span></a></sup></p> <p>The restriction on Congress's inability to "make or alter" regulations pertaining to the places of choosing Senators is largely an anachronism. When State Legislatures selected Senators, if Congress had been able to prescribe the place for choosing Senators, it could have in effect told each State where its state capital must be located. This would have been offensive to the concept of each State being <a href="/wiki/SovereigntySovereignty_and_federalism" title="Sovereignty">sovereign</a> over its own internal affairs. Now that Senators are popularly elected, it is largely a moot point.</p> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Clause_2_Sessions_of_Congress"><span id="Section_4.2C_Clause_2"></span>Clause 2: Sessions of Congress</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=18" title="Edit section: Clause 2: Sessions of Congress">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3> <blockquote class="templatequote"> <p>The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.</p> </blockquote> <p>Clause 2 requires that Congress must assemble at least once each year. This was designed to force Congress to make itself available at least once in a year to provide the legislative action the country needed in the face of the transportation and communication challenges present in the 18th century. In modern practice, Congress is in session virtually year-round.</p> <p>Originally, the Constitution provided that the annual meeting was to be on the first Monday in December unless otherwise provided by law. The government under the Articles of Confederation had determined, as a transitional measure to the new constitution, that the date for "commencing proceedings" under the U.S. Constitution would be March 4, 1789.<sup id="cite_ref-51" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-51"><span>[</span>51<span>]</span></a></sup> Since the first term of the original federal officials began on this date and ended 2, 4, or 6 years later, this became the date on which new federal officials took office in subsequent years. This meant that, every other year, although a new Congress was elected in November, it did not come into office until the following March, with a "<a href="/wiki/Lame_duck_(politics)" title="Lame duck (politics)">lame duck</a>" Congress convening in the interim. As modern communications and travel made it less necessary to wait 4 months from Election Day to the swearing-in of the elected officials, it became increasingly cumbersome to elect officials in November but wait until March for them to take office. Congress eventually proposed that elected officials take office in January, instead of March; since this required cutting short (by a couple of months) the terms of the elected federal officials at the time of the proposal, Congress proposed the <a href="/wiki/Twentieth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution">Twentieth Amendment</a>, which established the present dates for when federal officials take office. While the Constitution always granted Congress the authority to meet on a different day without the need to pass an amendment, § 2 of the Twentieth Amendment "tidied up" the constitutional text by paralleling the original provision requiring that the Congress meet at least once a year in December, and changing it to January 3 (unless changed by law). Although the original Constitution allowed Congress to change its annual meeting date by statute, this change eliminated any reference to a requirement in the Constitution that a lame duck Congress meet in the period between the election of a new Congress and its taking office.</p> <h2><span class="mw-headline" id="Section_5_Procedure"><span id="Section_5"></span>Section 5: Procedure</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=19" title="Edit section: Section 5: Procedure">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h2> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Clause_1_Qualifications_of_Members"><span id="Section_5.2C_Clause_1"></span>Clause 1: Qualifications of Members</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=20" title="Edit section: Clause 1: Qualifications of Members">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3> <blockquote class="templatequote"> <p>Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.</p> </blockquote> <p>Section Five states that a majority of each House constitutes a <a href="/wiki/Quorum" title="Quorum">quorum</a> to do business; a smaller number may <a href="/wiki/Adjournment" title="Adjournment">adjourn</a> the House or <a href="/wiki/Call_of_the_house" title="Call of the house">compel</a> the attendance of absent members. In practice, the quorum requirement is all but ignored. A quorum is assumed to be present unless a quorum call, requested by a member, proves otherwise. Rarely do members ask for quorum calls to demonstrate the absence of a quorum; more often, they use the quorum call as a delaying tactic.</p> <p>Sometimes, unqualified individuals have been admitted to Congress. For instance, the Senate once admitted <a href="/wiki/John_Eaton_(politician)" title="John Eaton (politician)">John Henry Eaton</a>, a twenty-eight-year-old, in 1818 (the admission was inadvertent, as Eaton's birth date was unclear at the time). In 1934, a twenty-nine-year-old, <a href="/wiki/Rush_D._Holt_Sr." title="Rush D. Holt Sr." class="mw-redirect">Rush Holt</a>, was elected to the Senate; he agreed to wait six months, until his thirtieth birthday, to take the oath. The Senate ruled in that case that the age requirement applied as of the date of the taking of the oath, not the date of election.</p> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Clause_2_Rules"><span id="Section_5.2C_Clause_2"></span>Clause 2: Rules</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=21" title="Edit section: Clause 2: Rules">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3> <blockquote class="templatequote"> <p>Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.</p> </blockquote> <p>Each House can determine its own Rules (assuming a quorum is present), and may punish any of its members. A two-thirds vote is necessary to expel a member. Section 5, Clause 2 does not provide specific guidance to each House regarding when and how each House may change its rules, leaving details to the respective chambers.</p> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Clause_3_Record_of_proceedings"><span id="Section_5.2C_Clause_3"></span>Clause 3: Record of proceedings</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=22" title="Edit section: Clause 3: Record of proceedings">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3> <blockquote class="templatequote"> <p>Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the Journal.</p> </blockquote> <p>Each House must keep and publish a Journal, though it may choose to keep any part of the Journal secret. The decisions of the House—not the words spoken during debates—are recorded in the Journal; if one-fifth of those present (assuming a quorum is present) request it, the votes of the members on a particular question must also be entered.</p> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Clause_4_Adjournment"><span id="Section_5.2C_Clause_4"></span>Clause 4: Adjournment</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=23" title="Edit section: Clause 4: Adjournment">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3> <blockquote class="templatequote"> <p>Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.</p> </blockquote> <p>Neither House may adjourn, without the consent of the other, for more than three days. Often, a House will hold <a href="/wiki/Pro_formUnited_States" title="Pro forma"><i>pro forma</i> sessions</a> every three days; such sessions are merely held to fulfill the constitutional requirement, and not to conduct business. Furthermore, neither House may meet in any place other than that designated for both Houses (<a href="/wiki/United_States_Capitol" title="United States Capitol">the Capitol</a>), without the consent of the other House.</p> <h2><span class="mw-headline" id="Section_6_Compensation2C_privileges2C_and_restrictions_on_holding_civil_office"><span id="Section_6"></span>Section 6: Compensation, privileges, and restrictions on holding civil office</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=24" title="Edit section: Section 6: Compensation, privileges, and restrictions on holding civil office">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h2> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Clause_1_Compensation_and_legal_protection"><span id="Section_6.2C_Clause_1"></span>Clause 1: Compensation and legal protection</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=25" title="Edit section: Clause 1: Compensation and legal protection">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3> <div class="hatnote relarticle mainarticle">Main article: <a href="/wiki/Speech_or_Debate_Clause" title="Speech or Debate Clause">Speech or Debate Clause</a></div> <blockquote class="templatequote"> <p>The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.</p> </blockquote> <p>Senators and Representatives set their own compensation. Under the <a href="/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Twenty-seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution">Twenty-seventh Amendment</a>, any change in their compensation will not take effect until after the next congressional election.</p> <p>Members of both Houses have certain privileges, <a href="/wiki/Parliamentary_privilege" title="Parliamentary privilege">based on those enjoyed by the members of the British Parliament</a>. Members attending, going to or returning from either House are privileged from arrest, except for <a href="/wiki/Treason" title="Treason">treason</a>, <a href="/wiki/Felony" title="Felony">felony</a> or <a href="/wiki/Breach_of_the_peace" title="Breach of the peace">breach of the peace</a>. One may not sue a Senator or Representative for slander occurring during Congressional debate, nor may speech by a member of Congress during a Congressional session be the basis for criminal prosecution. The latter was affirmed when <a href="/wiki/Mike_Gravel" title="Mike Gravel">Mike Gravel</a> published over 4,000 pages of the <a href="/wiki/Pentagon_Papers" title="Pentagon Papers">Pentagon Papers</a> in the <a href="/wiki/Congressional_Record" title="Congressional Record">Congressional Record</a>, which might have otherwise been a criminal offense. This clause has also been interpreted in <i><a href="/wiki/Gravel_v._United_States" title="Gravel v. United States">Gravel v. United States</a></i>, 408 U.S. 606 (1972) to provide protection to aides and staff of sitting members of Congress, so long as their activities relate to legislative matters.</p> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Clause_2_Independence_from_the_executive"><span id="Section_6.2C_Clause_2"></span>Clause 2: Independence from the executive</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=26" title="Edit section: Clause 2: Independence from the executive">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3> <div class="hatnote relarticle mainarticle">Main article: <a href="/wiki/Ineligibility_Clause" title="Ineligibility Clause">Ineligibility Clause</a></div> <div class="hatnote boilerplate seealso">See also: <a href="/wiki/Saxbe_fix" title="Saxbe fix">Saxbe fix</a></div> <blockquote class="templatequote"> <p>No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.</p> </blockquote> <p>Senators and Representatives may not simultaneously serve in Congress and hold a position in the executive branch. This restriction is meant to protect legislative independence by preventing the president from using <a href="/wiki/Patronage" title="Patronage">patronage</a> to buy votes in Congress. It is a major difference from the political system in the British Parliament, where cabinet ministers are required to be members of parliament.</p> <p>Furthermore, Senators and Representatives cannot resign to take newly created or higher-paying political positions; rather, they must wait until the conclusion of the term for which they were elected. If Congress increases the salary of a particular officer, it may later reduce that salary to permit an individual to resign from Congress and take that position (known as the <a href="/wiki/Saxbe_fix" title="Saxbe fix">Saxbe fix</a>). The effects of the clause were discussed in 1937, when Senator <a href="/wiki/Hugo_Black" title="Hugo Black">Hugo Black</a> was appointed an <a href="/wiki/Associate_Justice_of_the_Supreme_Court" title="Associate Justice of the Supreme Court" class="mw-redirect">Associate Justice of the Supreme Court</a> with some time left in his Senate term. Just prior to the appointment, Congress had increased the pension available to Justices retiring at the age of seventy. It was therefore suggested by some that the office's emolument had been increased during Black's Senatorial term, and that therefore Black could not take office as a Justice. The response, however, was that Black was fifty-one years old, and would not receive the increased pension until at least 19 years later, long after his Senate term had expired.</p> <h2><span class="mw-headline" id="Section_7_Bills"><span id="Section_7"></span>Section 7: Bills</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=27" title="Edit section: Section 7: Bills">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h2> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Clause_1_Bills_of_revenue"><span id="Section_7.2C_Clause_1"></span>Clause 1: Bills of revenue</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=28" title="Edit section: Clause 1: Bills of revenue">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3> <div class="hatnote relarticle mainarticle">Main article: <a href="/wiki/Origination_Clause" title="Origination Clause">Bills of Revenue</a></div> <blockquote class="templatequote"> <p>All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.</p> </blockquote> <p>This establishes the method for making <a href="/wiki/Act_of_Congress" title="Act of Congress">Acts of Congress</a> that involve taxation. Accordingly, any bill may originate in either House of Congress, except for a revenue bill, which may originate only in the House of Representatives. In practice, the Senate sometimes circumvents this requirement by substituting the text of a revenue bill previously passed by the House with a substitute text.<sup id="cite_ref-The_Hill-Rushing-2008-10-01_52-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-The_Hill-Rushing-2008-10-01-52"><span>[</span>52<span>]</span></a></sup><sup id="cite_ref-Providence_Journal-Mullign-2008-10-02_53-0" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-Providence_Journal-Mullign-2008-10-02-53"><span>[</span>53<span>]</span></a></sup> Either House may amend any bill, including revenue and appropriation bills.</p> <p>This clause of the U.S. Constitution stemmed from an English parliamentary practice that all money bills must have their <a href="/wiki/First_reading" title="First reading" class="mw-redirect">first reading</a> in the <a href="/wiki/House_of_Commons_of_Great_Britain" title="House of Commons of Great Britain">House of Commons</a>. This practice was intended to ensure that the <a href="/wiki/Power_of_the_purse" title="Power of the purse">power of the purse</a> is possessed by the legislative body most responsive to the people, although the English practice was modified in America by allowing the Senate to amend these bills. The clause was part of the <a href="/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise" title="Connecticut Compromise">Great Compromise</a> between small and large states; the large states were unhappy with the lopsided power of small states in the Senate, and so the clause theoretically offsets the unrepresentative nature of the Senate, and compensates the large states for allowing equal voting rights to Senators from small states.<sup id="cite_ref-54" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-54"><span>[</span>54<span>]</span></a></sup></p> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Clause_2_From_bills_to_law"><span id="Section_7.2C_Clause_2"></span>Clause 2: From bills to law</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=29" title="Edit section: Clause 2: From bills to law">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3> <blockquote class="templatequote"> <p>Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.</p> </blockquote> <p>This clause is known as the <a href="/wiki/Presentment_Clause" title="Presentment Clause">Presentment Clause</a>. Before a bill becomes law, it must be presented to the President, who has ten days (excluding Sundays) to act upon it. If the President signs the bill, it becomes law. If he disapproves of the bill, he must return it to the House in which it originated together with his objections. This procedure has become known as the <a href="/wiki/Veto" title="Veto">veto</a>, although that particular word does not appear in the text of Article One. The bill does not then become law unless both Houses, by two-thirds votes, override the veto. If the President neither signs nor returns the bill within the ten-day limit, the bill becomes law, unless the Congress has adjourned in the meantime, thereby preventing the President from returning the bill to the House in which it originated. In the latter case, the President, by taking no action on the bill towards the end of a session, exercises a "<a href="/wiki/Pocket_veto" title="Pocket veto">pocket veto</a>", which Congress may not override. In the former case, where the President allows a bill to become law unsigned, there is no common name for the practice, but recent scholarship has termed it a "default enactment."<sup id="cite_ref-55" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-55"><span>[</span>55<span>]</span></a></sup></p> <p>What exactly constitutes an adjournment for the purposes of the pocket veto has been unclear. In the <i><a href="/wiki/Pocket_Veto_Case" title="Pocket Veto Case">Pocket Veto Case</a></i> (1929), the Supreme Court held that "the determinative question in reference to an 'adjournment' is not whether it is a final adjournment of Congress or an interim adjournment, such as an adjournment of the first session, but whether it is one that 'prevents' the President from returning the bill to the House in which it originated within the time allowed." Since neither House of Congress was in session, the President could not return the bill to one of them, thereby permitting the use of the pocket veto. In <i><a href="/wiki/Wright_v._United_States" title="Wright v. United States">Wright v. United States</a></i> (1938), however, the Court ruled that adjournments of one House only did not constitute an adjournment of Congress required for a pocket veto. In such cases, the Secretary or Clerk of the House in question was ruled competent to receive the bill.</p> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Clause_3_Presidential_veto"><span id="Section_7.2C_Clause_3"></span>Clause 3: Presidential veto</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=30" title="Edit section: Clause 3: Presidential veto">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3> <blockquote class="templatequote"> <p>Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.</p> </blockquote> <p>In 1996, Congress passed the <a href="/wiki/Line_Item_Veto_Act_of_1996" title="Line Item Veto Act of 1996">Line Item Veto Act</a>, which permitted the President, at the time of the signing of the bill, to rescind certain expenditures. The Congress could disapprove the cancellation and reinstate the funds. The President could veto the disapproval, but the Congress, by a two-thirds vote in each House, could override the veto. In the case <i><a href="/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York" title="Clinton v. City of New York">Clinton v. City of New York</a></i>, the Supreme Court found the Line Item Veto Act unconstitutional because it violated the Presentment clause. First, the procedure delegated legislative powers to the President, thereby violating the nondelegation doctrine. Second, the procedure violated the terms of Section Seven, which state, "if he approve [the bill] he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it." Thus, the President may sign the bill, veto it, or do nothing, but he may not amend the bill and then sign it.</p> <p>Every bill, order, resolution, or vote that must be passed by both Houses, except on a question of adjournment, must be presented to the President before becoming law. However, to propose a constitutional amendment, two-thirds of both Houses may submit it to the states for the ratification, without any consideration by the President, as prescribed in <a href="/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Article Five of the United States Constitution">Article V</a>.</p> <p>Some Presidents have made very extensive use of the veto, while others have not used it at all. <a href="/wiki/Grover_Cleveland" title="Grover Cleveland">Grover Cleveland</a>, for instance, vetoed over four hundred bills during his first term in office; Congress overrode only two of those vetoes. Meanwhile, seven Presidents have never used the veto power. There have been 2,560 vetoes, including <a href="/wiki/Pocket_veto" title="Pocket veto">pocket vetoes</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-56" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-56"><span>[</span>56<span>]</span></a></sup></p> <h2><span class="mw-headline" id="Section_8_Powers_of_Congress"><span id="Section_8"></span>Section 8: Powers of Congress</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=31" title="Edit section: Section 8: Powers of Congress">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h2> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Enumerated_powers">Enumerated powers</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=32" title="Edit section: Enumerated powers">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3> <div class="thumb tright"> <div class="thumbcaption"> <div class="magnify"><a href="/wiki/File:USCurrency_Federal_Reserve.jpg" class="internal" title="Enlarge"></a></div> Congress's "power of the purse" authorizes taxing citizens, spending money, and printing currency.</div> </div> </div> <div class="thumb tright"> <div class="thumbcaption"> <div class="magnify"><a href="/wiki/File:Albert_Einstein_citizenship_NYWTS.jpg" class="internal" title="Enlarge"></a></div> Newly-naturalized citizen, <a href="/wiki/Albert_Einstein" title="Albert Einstein">Albert Einstein</a> received his certificate of United States citizenship from Judge <a href="/wiki/Phillip_Forman" title="Phillip Forman">Phillip Forman</a>.</div> </div> </div> <div class="hatnote relarticle mainarticle">Main article: <a href="/wiki/Enumerated_powers" title="Enumerated powers">Enumerated powers</a></div> <p>Congress's legislative powers are enumerated in Section Eight:</p> <blockquote class="templatequote"> <p>The Congress shall have power To <a href="/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause" title="Taxing and Spending Clause">lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence</a><sup id="cite_ref-57" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-57"><span>[</span>note 1<span>]</span></a></sup> <a href="/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause" title="Taxing and Spending Clause">and general Welfare</a> of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;</p> <p>To <a href="/wiki/United_States_public_debt" title="United States public debt" class="mw-redirect">borrow Money on the credit of the United States</a>;</p> <p>To <a href="/wiki/Commerce_Clause" title="Commerce Clause">regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes</a>;</p> <p>To establish a <a href="/wiki/United_States_nationality_law" title="United States nationality law">uniform Rule of Naturalization</a>, and uniform Laws on the subject of <a href="/wiki/Bankruptcy_in_the_United_States" title="Bankruptcy in the United States">Bankruptcies</a> throughout the United States;</p> <p>To <a href="/wiki/United_States_Mint" title="United States Mint">coin Money</a>, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the <a href="/wiki/National_Institute_of_Standards_and_Technology" title="National Institute of Standards and Technology">Standard of Weights and Measures</a>;</p> <p>To provide for the Punishment of <a href="/wiki/Counterfeiting" title="Counterfeiting" class="mw-redirect">counterfeiting</a> the Securities and current coin of the United States;</p> <p>To establish <a href="/wiki/United_States_Postal_Service" title="United States Postal Service">Post Offices</a> and <a href="/wiki/Post_roads" title="Post roads" class="mw-redirect">post Roads</a>;</p> <p>To <a href="/wiki/Copyright_Clause" title="Copyright Clause">promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries</a>;</p> <p>To constitute <a href="/wiki/United_States_federal_courts" title="United States federal courts" class="mw-redirect">Tribunals inferior</a> to the <a href="/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States" title="Supreme Court of the United States">supreme Court</a>;</p> <p>To define and punish <a href="/wiki/Piracy" title="Piracy">Piracies</a> and <a href="/wiki/Felony" title="Felony">Felonies</a> committed on the <a href="/wiki/International_waters" title="International waters">high Seas</a>, and Offenses against the <a href="/wiki/Public_international_law" title="Public international law">Law of Nations</a>;</p> <p>To <a href="/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_United_States" title="Declaration of war by the United States">declare War</a>, grant <a href="/wiki/Letter_of_marque" title="Letter of marque">Letters of Marque and Reprisal</a>, and make <a href="/wiki/Prize_court" title="Prize court">Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water</a>;</p> <p>To raise and support <a href="/wiki/United_States_Army" title="United States Army">Armies</a>, but no <a href="/wiki/Appropriations_bill_(United_States)" title="Appropriations bill (United States)">Appropriation</a> of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;</p> <p>To provide and maintain a <a href="/wiki/United_States_Navy" title="United States Navy">Navy</a>;</p> <p>To make Rules for the Government and <a href="/wiki/Uniform_Code_of_Military_Justice" title="Uniform Code of Military Justice">Regulation of the land and naval Forces</a>;</p> <p>To provide for calling forth the Militia to <a href="/wiki/Insurrection_Act" title="Insurrection Act">execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions</a>;</p> <p>To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;</p> <p>To exercise <a href="/wiki/District_of_Columbia_home_rule" title="District of Columbia home rule">exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever</a>, over such <a href="/wiki/Federal_district" title="Federal district">District</a> (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of <a href="/wiki/Fort" title="Fort" class="mw-redirect">Forts</a>, <a href="/wiki/Magazine_(artillery)" title="Magazine (artillery)">Magazines</a>, <a href="/wiki/Arsenal" title="Arsenal">Arsenals</a>, <a href="/wiki/Shipyard" title="Shipyard">dock-Yards</a>, and other needful Buildings;—And</p> <p>To make all Laws which shall be <a href="/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clause" title="Necessary and Proper Clause">necessary and proper</a> for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.</p> </blockquote> <p>Many powers of Congress have been interpreted broadly. Most notably, the Taxing and Spending, Interstate Commerce, and Necessary and Proper Clauses have been deemed to grant expansive powers to Congress.</p> <p>Congress may lay and collect taxes for the "common defense" or "general welfare" of the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court has not often defined "general welfare," leaving the <a href="/wiki/Political_question" title="Political question">political question</a> to Congress. In <i><a href="/wiki/United_States_v._Butler" title="United States v. Butler">United States v. Butler</a></i> (1936), the Court for the first time construed the clause. The dispute centered on a tax collected from processors of agricultural products such as meat; the funds raised by the tax were not paid into the general funds of the treasury, but were rather specially earmarked for farmers. The Court struck down the tax, ruling that the general welfare language in the Taxing and Spending Clause related only to "matters of national, as distinguished from local, welfare". Congress continues to make expansive use of the <a href="/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause" title="Taxing and Spending Clause">Taxing and Spending Clause</a>; for instance, the <a href="/wiki/Social_security" title="Social security">social security</a> program is authorized under the Taxing and Spending Clause.</p> <p>Congress has the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States. In 1871, when deciding <i><a href="/wiki/Knox_v._Lee" title="Knox v. Lee">Knox v. Lee</a>,</i> the Court ruled that this clause permitted Congress to emit bills and make them legal tender in satisfaction of debts. Whenever Congress borrows money, it is obligated to repay the sum as stipulated in the original agreement. However, such agreements are only "binding on the conscience of the sovereign", as the doctrine of <a href="/wiki/Sovereign_immunity" title="Sovereign immunity">sovereign immunity</a> prevents a creditor from suing in court if the government reneges its commitment.<sup id="cite_ref-58" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-58"><span>[</span>57<span>]</span></a></sup></p> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Commerce_Clause">Commerce Clause</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=33" title="Edit section: Commerce Clause">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3> <div class="thumb tright"> <div class="thumbcaption"> <div class="magnify"><a href="/wiki/File:JohnMarshall.jpg" class="internal" title="Enlarge"></a></div> Chief Justice <a href="/wiki/John_Marshall" title="John Marshall">John Marshall</a> established a broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause.</div> </div> </div> <div class="hatnote relarticle mainarticle">Main article: <a href="/wiki/Commerce_Clause" title="Commerce Clause">Commerce Clause</a></div> <blockquote class="templatequote"> <p>The Congress shall have Power [...] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;</p> </blockquote> <p>The Supreme Court has seldom restrained the use of the <i><a href="/wiki/Commerce_clause" title="Commerce clause" class="mw-redirect">commerce clause</a></i> for widely varying purposes. The first important decision related to the commerce clause was <i><a href="/wiki/Gibbons_v._Ogden" title="Gibbons v. Ogden">Gibbons v. Ogden</a></i>, decided by a unanimous Court in 1824. The case involved conflicting federal and state laws: <a href="/w/index.php?title=Thomas_Gibbons_(politician)&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1" class="new" title="Thomas Gibbons (politician) (page does not exist)">Thomas Gibbons</a> had a federal permit to navigate steamboats in the <a href="/wiki/Hudson_River" title="Hudson River">Hudson River</a>, while the other, <a href="/wiki/Aaron_Ogden" title="Aaron Ogden">Aaron Ogden</a>, had a monopoly to do the same granted by the state of New York. Ogden contended that "commerce" included only buying and selling of goods and not their transportation. Chief Justice <a href="/wiki/John_Marshall" title="John Marshall">John Marshall</a> rejected this notion. Marshall suggested that "commerce" included navigation of goods, and that it "must have been contemplated" by the Framers. Marshall added that Congress's power over commerce "is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution".</p> <p>The expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause was restrained during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when a <i><a href="/wiki/Laissez-faire" title="Laissez-faire">laissez-faire</a></i> attitude dominated the Court. In <i><a href="/wiki/United_States_v._E._C._Knight_Company" title="United States v. E. C. Knight Company" class="mw-redirect">United States v. E. C. Knight Company</a></i> (1895), the Supreme Court limited the newly enacted <a href="/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act" title="Sherman Antitrust Act">Sherman Antitrust Act</a>, which had sought to break up the monopolies dominating the nation's economy. The Court ruled that Congress could not regulate the manufacture of goods, even if they were later shipped to other states. Chief Justice Melville Fuller wrote, "commerce succeeds to manufacture, and is not a part of it."</p> <p>The U.S. Supreme Court sometimes ruled <a href="/wiki/New_Deal" title="New Deal">New Deal</a> programs unconstitutional because they stretched the meaning of the commerce clause. In <i><a href="/wiki/Schechter_Poultry_Corp._v._United_States" title="Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States">Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States</a>,</i> (1935) the Court unanimously struck down industrial codes regulating the slaughter of poultry, declaring that Congress could not regulate commerce relating to the poultry, which had "come to a permanent rest within the State." As Chief Justice <a href="/wiki/Charles_Evans_Hughes" title="Charles Evans Hughes">Charles Evans Hughes</a> put it, "so far as the poultry here in question is concerned, the flow of interstate commerce has ceased." Judicial rulings against attempted use of Congress's Commerce Clause powers continued during the 1930s.</p> <p>It was only in 1937 that the Supreme Court gave up the <i><a href="/wiki/Laissez-faire" title="Laissez-faire">laissez-faire</a></i> doctrine as it decided a landmark case, <i><a href="/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Board_v._Jones_%26_Laughlin_Steel_Company" title="National Labor Relations Board v. Jones &amp; Laughlin Steel Company" class="mw-redirect">National Labor Relations Board v. Jones &amp; Laughlin Steel Company</a>.</i> The legislation in question, the <a href="/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Act" title="National Labor Relations Act">National Labor Relations Act</a>, prevented employers from engaging in "<a href="/wiki/Unfair_labor_practice" title="Unfair labor practice">unfair labor practices</a>" such as firing workers for joining <a href="/wiki/Labor_union" title="Labor union" class="mw-redirect">unions</a>. The Court ruled to sustain the Act's provisions. The Court, returning to the theories propounded by John Marshall, ruled that Congress could pass laws regulating actions that even indirectly influenced interstate commerce. Further decisions expanded the Congress's powers under the commerce clause. This dramatic change in the Court's thinking was influenced by the threat of President <a href="/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt" title="Franklin D. Roosevelt">Franklin D. Roosevelt</a>'s <a href="/wiki/Judiciary_Reorganization_Bill_of_1937" title="Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937" class="mw-redirect">Court Packing</a> scheme.</p> <p>In the 1990s, the Court acted to restrain Congress's exercise of its power to regulate commerce. In <i><a href="/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez" title="United States v. Lopez">United States v. Lopez</a></i>, the Court found that Congress could not exercise "<a href="/wiki/Police_power_(United_States_constitutional_law)" title="Police power (United States constitutional law)">Police power</a>" reserved to the States by use of the Commerce Clause.</p> <p>In contrast to <i>United States v. Lopez</i> , the powers defined in the Commerce Clause have been elastically re-interpreted to cover non-commercial activity not just between but within the states. In 2005, the Supreme Court controversially ruled in <i><a href="/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich" title="Gonzales v. Raich">Gonzales v. Raich</a>,</i> that the Commerce Clause granted Congress the authority to regulate <i><a href="/wiki/Cannabis_(drug)" title="Cannabis (drug)">cannabis</a></i> plants grown, processed, and consumed within the state on private property. The court reclassified the plant as a commodity even though it was not sold or exchanged in any transaction.</p> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Other_powers_of_Congress">Other powers of Congress</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=34" title="Edit section: Other powers of Congress">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3> <div class="thumb tright"> <div class="thumbcaption"> <div class="magnify"><a href="/wiki/File:19641102_USS_CVA-31_(h97344).jpg" class="internal" title="Enlarge"></a></div> Congress authorizes defense spending such as the purchase of the <a href="/wiki/USS_Bon_Homme_Richard_(CV-31)" title="USS Bon Homme Richard (CV-31)">USS <i>Bon Homme Richard</i></a>.</div> </div> </div> <p>Congress may establish uniform laws relating to <a href="/wiki/Naturalization" title="Naturalization">naturalization</a> and <a href="/wiki/Bankruptcy" title="Bankruptcy">bankruptcy</a>. It may also coin money, regulate the value of American or foreign currency and punish counterfeiters. Congress may fix the standards of weights and measures. Furthermore, Congress may establish <a href="/wiki/Postal_Clause" title="Postal Clause">post offices and post roads</a> (the roads, however, need not be exclusively for the conveyance of mail). Congress may promote the progress of science and useful arts by granting <a href="/wiki/United_States_copyright_law" title="United States copyright law" class="mw-redirect">copyrights</a> and <a href="/wiki/United_States_patent_law" title="United States patent law">patents</a> of limited duration. Section eight, clause eight of Article One, known as the <a href="/wiki/Copyright_Clause" title="Copyright Clause">Copyright Clause</a>, is the only instance of the word "right" used in the original constitution (though the word does appear in several Amendments).<sup id="cite_ref-59" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-59"><span>[</span>58<span>]</span></a></sup> Though perpetual copyrights and patents are prohibited, the Supreme Court has ruled in <i><a href="/wiki/Eldred_v._Ashcroft" title="Eldred v. Ashcroft">Eldred v. Ashcroft</a></i> (2003) that repeated extensions to the term of copyright do not constitute perpetual copyright; also note that this is the only power granted where the means to accomplish its stated purpose is specifically provided for. Courts inferior to the Supreme Court may be established by Congress.</p> <p>Congress has several powers related to war and the armed forces. Under the <a href="/wiki/War_Powers_Clause" title="War Powers Clause">War Powers Clause</a>, only Congress may declare war, but in several cases it has, without declaring war, granted the President the authority to engage in military conflicts. Five wars have been declared in United States' history: the <a href="/wiki/War_of_1812" title="War of 1812">War of 1812</a>, the <a href="/wiki/Mexican-American_War" title="Mexican-American War" class="mw-redirect">Mexican-American War</a>, the <a href="/wiki/Spanish-American_War" title="Spanish-American War" class="mw-redirect">Spanish-American War</a>, <a href="/wiki/World_War_I" title="World War I">World War I</a> and <a href="/wiki/World_War_II" title="World War II">World War II</a>. Some historians argue that the legal doctrines and legislation passed during the operations against <a href="/wiki/Pancho_Villa" title="Pancho Villa">Pancho Villa</a> constitute a sixth declaration of war. Congress may grant <a href="/wiki/Letter_of_marque" title="Letter of marque">letters of marque</a> and <a href="/wiki/Reprisal" title="Reprisal">reprisal</a>. Congress may establish and support the armed forces, but no appropriation made for the support of the army may be used for more than two years. This provision was inserted because the Framers feared the establishment of a standing army, beyond civilian control, during peacetime. Congress may regulate or call forth the state militias, but the states retain the authority to appoint officers and train personnel. Congress also has exclusive power to make rules and regulations governing the land and naval forces. Although the executive branch and the Pentagon have asserted an ever-increasing measure of involvement in this process, the U.S. Supreme Court has often reaffirmed Congress's exclusive hold on this power (e.g. Burns v. Wilson, 346 U.S. 137 (1953)). Congress used this power twice soon after World War II with the enactment of two statutes: the <a href="/wiki/Uniform_Code_of_Military_Justice" title="Uniform Code of Military Justice">Uniform Code of Military Justice</a> to improve the quality and fairness of courts martial and military justice, and the <a href="/wiki/Federal_Tort_Claims_Act" title="Federal Tort Claims Act">Federal Tort Claims Act</a> which among other rights had allowed military service persons to sue for damages until the U.S. Supreme Court repealed that section of the statute in a divisive series of cases, known collectively as the <a href="/wiki/Feres_v._United_States" title="Feres v. United States">Feres Doctrine</a>.</p> <p>Congress has the exclusive right to legislate "in all cases whatsoever" for the nation's capital, the <a href="/wiki/Washington,_D.C." title="Washington, D.C.">District of Columbia</a>. Congress chooses to devolve some of such authority to the elected <a href="/wiki/Mayor_of_Washington,_D.C." title="Mayor of Washington, D.C." class="mw-redirect">mayor</a> and <a href="/wiki/Council_of_the_District_of_Columbia" title="Council of the District of Columbia">council</a> of District of Columbia. Nevertheless, Congress remains free to enact any legislation for the District so long as constitutionally permissible, to overturn any legislation by the city government, and technically to revoke the city government at any time. Congress may also exercise such jurisdiction over land purchased from the states for the erection of forts and other buildings.</p> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Necessary_and_Proper_clause">Necessary and Proper clause</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=35" title="Edit section: Necessary and Proper clause">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3> <div class="hatnote relarticle mainarticle">Main article: <a href="/wiki/Necessary_and_Proper_Clause" title="Necessary and Proper Clause">Necessary and Proper Clause</a></div> <blockquote class="templatequote"> <p>The Congress shall have Power [...] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.</p> </blockquote> <p>Finally, Congress has the power to do whatever is "necessary and proper" to carry out its enumerated powers and, crucially, all others vested in it. This has been interpreted to authorize criminal prosecution of those whose actions have a "substantial effect" on interstate commerce in <i>Wickard v. Filburn</i>&nbsp;; however, <a href="/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson" title="Thomas Jefferson">Thomas Jefferson</a>, in the <a href="/wiki/Kentucky_Resolutions" title="Kentucky Resolutions" class="mw-redirect">Kentucky Resolutions</a>, supported by <a href="/wiki/James_Madison" title="James Madison">James Madison</a>, maintained that a penal power could not be inferred from a power to regulate, and that the only penal powers were for <a href="/wiki/Treason" title="Treason">treason</a>, <a href="/wiki/Counterfeiting" title="Counterfeiting" class="mw-redirect">counterfeiting</a>, <a href="/wiki/Piracy" title="Piracy">piracy</a> and <a href="/wiki/Felony" title="Felony">felony</a> on the <a href="/wiki/High_seas" title="High seas" class="mw-redirect">high seas</a>, and offenses against the <a href="/wiki/Law_of_nations" title="Law of nations" class="mw-redirect">law of nations</a>.</p> <p>The necessary and proper clause has been interpreted extremely broadly, thereby giving Congress wide latitude in legislation. The first landmark case involving the clause was <i><a href="/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland" title="McCulloch v. Maryland">McCulloch v. Maryland</a></i> (1819), which involved the establishment of a <a href="/wiki/Second_Bank_of_the_United_States" title="Second Bank of the United States">national bank</a>. <a href="/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton" title="Alexander Hamilton">Alexander Hamilton</a>, in advocating the creation of the bank, argued that there was "a more or less direct" relationship between the bank and "the powers of collecting taxes, borrowing money, regulating trade between the states, and raising and maintaining fleets and navies". <a href="/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson" title="Thomas Jefferson">Thomas Jefferson</a> countered that Congress's powers "can all be carried into execution without a national bank. A bank therefore is not necessary, and consequently not authorized by this phrase". Chief Justice John Marshall agreed with the former interpretation. Marshall wrote that a Constitution listing <i>all</i> of Congress's powers "would partake of a prolixity of a legal code and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind". Since the Constitution could not possibly enumerate the "minor ingredients" of the powers of Congress, Marshall "deduced" that Congress had the authority to establish a bank from the "great outlines" of the general welfare, commerce and other clauses. Under this doctrine of the necessary and proper clause, Congress has sweepingly broad powers (known as <a href="/wiki/Implied_powers" title="Implied powers">implied powers</a>) not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. However, the Congress cannot enact laws solely on the implied powers, any action must be necessary and proper in the execution of the enumerated powers.</p> <h2><span class="mw-headline" id="Section_9_Limits_on_Congress"><span id="Section_9"></span>Section 9: Limits on Congress</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=36" title="Edit section: Section 9: Limits on Congress">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h2> <p>The ninth section of Article One places limits on Congress' powers:</p> <blockquote class="templatequote"> <p>The Migration or <a href="/wiki/Slave_trade" title="Slave trade" class="mw-redirect">Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit</a>, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.</p> <p>The Privilege of the Writ of <i><a href="/wiki/Habeas_Corpus" title="Habeas Corpus" class="mw-redirect">Habeas Corpus</a></i> shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.</p> <p>No <a href="/wiki/Bill_of_Attainder" title="Bill of Attainder" class="mw-redirect">Bill of Attainder</a> or <a href="/wiki/Ex_post_facto_lawUnited_States" title="Ex post facto law">ex post facto Law</a> shall be passed.</p> <p>No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.</p> <p>No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.</p> <p>No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.</p> <p>No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.</p> <p>No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.</p> </blockquote> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Slave_trade">Slave trade</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=37" title="Edit section: Slave trade">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3> <div class="thumb tright"> <div class="thumbcaption"> <div class="magnify"><a href="/wiki/File:Africa_and_the_American_Flag.jpg" class="internal" title="Enlarge"></a></div> U.S. brig <i><a href="/wiki/USS_Perry_(1843)" title="USS Perry (1843)">Perry</a></i> confronting the slave ship <i>Martha</i> off <a href="/wiki/Ambriz" title="Ambriz">Ambriz</a> on June 6, 1850</div> </div> </div> <p>The first clause in this section prevents Congress from passing any law that would restrict the <a href="/wiki/Slave_trade" title="Slave trade" class="mw-redirect">importation of slaves</a> into the United States prior to 1808. Congress could however, levy a <i><a href="/wiki/Per_capita" title="Per capita">Per capita</a></i> duty of up to ten dollars for each slave imported into the country. This clause was further <a href="/wiki/Entrenched_clauseUnited_States" title="Entrenched clause">entrenched</a> into the Constitution by <a href="/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Article Five of the United States Constitution">Article V</a>, where it is explicitly shielded from constitutional amendment prior to 1808. On January 1, 1808, the first day it was permitted to do so, Congress approved legislation <a href="/wiki/Act_Prohibiting_Importation_of_Slaves" title="Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves">prohibiting the importation of slaves</a> into the United States.</p> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Civil_and_legal_protections">Civil and legal protections</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=38" title="Edit section: Civil and legal protections">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3> <p>A writ of <i><a href="/wiki/Habeas_corpus" title="Habeas corpus">habeas corpus</a></i> is a legal action against unlawful detainment that commands a law enforcement agency or other body that has a person in custody to have a court inquire into the legality of the detention. The court may order the person released if the reason for detention is deemed insufficient or unjustifiable. The Constitution further provides that the privilege of the writ of <i>habeas corpus</i> may not be suspended "unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it". In <i><a href="/wiki/Ex_parte_Milligan" title="Ex parte Milligan">Ex parte Milligan</a></i> (1866), the Supreme Court ruled that the suspension of <i>habeas corpus</i> in a time of war was lawful, but military tribunals did not apply to citizens in states that had upheld the authority of the Constitution and where civilian courts were still operating.</p> <p>A <a href="/wiki/Bill_of_attainder" title="Bill of attainder">bill of attainder</a> is a law by which a person is immediately convicted without trial. An <i><a href="/wiki/Ex_post_facto" title="Ex post facto" class="mw-redirect">ex post facto</a></i> law is a law which applies retroactively, punishing someone for an act that was only made criminal after it was done. The <i>ex post facto</i> clause does not apply to civil matters.<sup id="cite_ref-60" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-60"><span>[</span>59<span>]</span></a></sup></p> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Apportionment_of_direct_taxes">Apportionment of direct taxes</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=39" title="Edit section: Apportionment of direct taxes">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3> <p>Section Nine reiterates the provision from <a h re f="#Section_2_House_of_Representatives" name="Section_2_House_of_Representatives">Section Two</a> that <a href="/wiki/Direct_taxes" title="Direct taxes" class="mw-redirect">direct taxes</a> must be apportioned by state populations. This clause was also explicitly shielded from constitutional amendment prior to 1808 by <a href="/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Article Five of the United States Constitution">Article V</a>. In 1913, the <a href="/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution">16th Amendment</a> exempted <a href="/wiki/Income_tax" title="Income tax">income taxes</a> from this clause. Furthermore, no tax may be imposed on exports from any state. Congress may not, by revenue or commerce legislation, give preference to ports of one state over those of another; neither may it require ships from one state to pay duties in another. All funds belonging to the Treasury may not be withdrawn except according to law. Modern practice is that Congress annually passes a number of <a href="/wiki/Appropriations_bill_(United_States)" title="Appropriations bill (United States)">appropriations bills</a> authorizing the expenditure of public money. The Constitution requires that a regular statement of such expenditures be published.</p> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Titles_of_nobility">Titles of nobility</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=40" title="Edit section: Titles of nobility">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3> <p>The <a href="/wiki/Title_of_Nobility_Clause" title="Title of Nobility Clause">Title of Nobility Clause</a> prohibits Congress from granting any <a href="/wiki/Nobility" title="Nobility">title of nobility</a>. In addition, it specifies that no civil officer may accept, without the consent of Congress, any gift, payment, office or title from a foreign ruler or state. However, a U.S. citizen may receive foreign office before or after their period of public service.</p> <h2><span class="mw-headline" id="Section_10_Limits_on_the_States"><span id="Section_10"></span>Section 10: Limits on the States</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=41" title="Edit section: Section 10: Limits on the States">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h2> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Clause_1_Contracts_Clause"><span id="Section_10.2C_Clause_1"></span>Clause 1: Contracts Clause</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=42" title="Edit section: Clause 1: Contracts Clause">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3> <div class="hatnote relarticle mainarticle">Main article: <a href="/wiki/Contract_Clause" title="Contract Clause">Contract Clause</a></div> <blockquote class="templatequote"> <p>No State shall enter into any <a href="/wiki/Treaty" title="Treaty">Treaty</a>, <a href="/wiki/Military_alliance" title="Military alliance" class="mw-redirect">Alliance</a>, or <a href="/wiki/Confederation" title="Confederation">Confederation</a>; grant <a href="/wiki/Letter_of_marque" title="Letter of marque">Letters of Marque and Reprisal</a>; coin <a href="/wiki/Money" title="Money">Money</a>; emit Bills of <a href="/wiki/Credit_(finance)" title="Credit (finance)">Credit</a>; make any Thing but <a href="/wiki/Gold" title="Gold">gold</a> and <a href="/wiki/Silver" title="Silver">silver</a> <a href="/wiki/Coin" title="Coin">Coin</a> a <a href="/wiki/Legal_tender" title="Legal tender">Tender</a> in Payment of <a href="/wiki/Debt" title="Debt">Debts</a>; pass any <a href="/wiki/Bill_of_Attainder" title="Bill of Attainder" class="mw-redirect">Bill of Attainder</a>, ex post facto Law, or <a href="/wiki/Contract_Clause" title="Contract Clause">Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts</a>, or grant any Title of <a href="/wiki/Nobility" title="Nobility">Nobility</a>.</p> </blockquote> <p>States may not exercise certain powers reserved for the federal government: they may not enter into treaties, alliances or confederations, grant letters of marque or reprisal, coin money or issue bills of credit (such as currency). Furthermore, no state may make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts, which expressly forbids any state government (but not the federal government<sup id="cite_ref-61" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-61"><span>[</span>60<span>]</span></a></sup>) from "making a tender" (i.e., authorizing something that may be offered in payment<sup id="cite_ref-62" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-62"><span>[</span>61<span>]</span></a></sup>) of any type or form of <a href="/wiki/Money" title="Money">money</a> to meet any financial obligation,<sup id="cite_ref-63" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-63"><span>[</span>62<span>]</span></a></sup> unless that form of money is coins made of gold or silver (or a medium of exchange backed by and redeemable in gold or silver coins, as noted in <i>Farmers &amp; Merchants Bank v. Federal Reserve Bank</i><sup id="cite_ref-64" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-64"><span>[</span>63<span>]</span></a></sup>). Much of this clause is devoted to preventing the States from using or creating any currency other than that created by Congress. In Federalist no. 44, Madison explains that "... it may be observed that the same reasons which shew the necessity of denying to the States the power of regulating coin, prove with equal force that they ought not to be at liberty to substitute a paper medium in the place of coin. Had every State a right to regulate the value of its coin, there might be as many different currencies as States; and thus the intercourse among them would be impeded."<sup id="cite_ref-65" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-65"><span>[</span>64<span>]</span></a></sup> Moreover, the states may not pass bills of attainder, <i>ex post facto</i> laws, impair the obligation of contracts or grant titles of nobility.</p> <p>The <a href="/wiki/Contract_Clause" title="Contract Clause">Contract Clause</a> was the subject of much contentious litigation in the 19th century. It was first interpreted by the Supreme Court in 1810, when <i><a href="/wiki/Fletcher_v._Peck" title="Fletcher v. Peck">Fletcher v. Peck</a></i> was decided. The case involved the <a href="/wiki/Yazoo_land_scandal" title="Yazoo land scandal">Yazoo land scandal</a>, in which the <a href="/wiki/Georgia_(U.S._state)" title="Georgia (U.S. state)">Georgia</a> legislature authorized the sale of land to speculators at low prices. The bribery involved in the passage of the authorizing legislation was so blatant that a Georgia mob attempted to lynch the corrupt members of the legislature. Following elections, the legislature passed a law that rescinded the contracts granted by the corrupt legislators. The validity of the annulment of the sale was questioned in the Supreme Court. In writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice John Marshall asked, "What is a contract?" His answer was: "a compact between two or more parties." Marshall argued that the sale of land by the Georgia legislature, though fraught with corruption, was a valid "contract". He added that the state had no right to annul the purchase of the land, since doing so would impair the obligations of contract.</p> <p>The definition of a contract propounded by Chief Justice Marshall was not as simple as it may seem. In 1819, the Court considered whether a corporate charter could be construed as a contract. The case of <i><a href="/wiki/Trustees_of_Dartmouth_College_v._Woodward" title="Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward" class="mw-redirect">Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward</a></i> involved <a href="/wiki/Dartmouth_College" title="Dartmouth College">Dartmouth College</a>, which had been established under a Royal Charter granted by King <a href="/wiki/George_III_of_the_United_Kingdom" title="George III of the United Kingdom">George III</a>. The Charter created a board of twelve trustees for the governance of the College. In 1815, however, <a href="/wiki/New_Hampshire" title="New Hampshire">New Hampshire</a> passed a law increasing the board's membership to twenty-one with the aim that public control could be exercised over the College. The Court, including Marshall, ruled that New Hampshire could not amend the charter, which was ruled to be a contract since it conferred "vested rights" on the trustees.</p> <p>The Marshall Court determined another dispute in <i><a href="/wiki/Sturges_v._Crowninshield" title="Sturges v. Crowninshield">Sturges v. Crowninshield</a></i>. The case involved a debt that was contracted in early 1811. Later in that year, the state of New York passed a bankruptcy law, under which the debt was later discharged. The Supreme Court ruled that a retroactively applied state bankruptcy law impaired the obligation to pay the debt, and therefore violated the Constitution. In <i><a href="/wiki/Ogden_v._Saunders" title="Ogden v. Saunders">Ogden v. Saunders</a></i> (1827), however, the court decided that state bankruptcy laws <i>could</i> apply to debts contracted after the passage of the law. State legislation on the issue of bankruptcy and debtor relief has not been much of an issue since the adoption of a comprehensive <a href="/wiki/Bankruptcy_in_the_United_States" title="Bankruptcy in the United States">federal bankruptcy law</a> in 1898.</p> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Clause_2_Import-Export_Clause"><span id="Section_10.2C_Clause_2"></span>Clause 2: Import-Export Clause</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=43" title="Edit section: Clause 2: Import-Export Clause">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h3> <blockquote class="templatequote"> <p>No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's [<i><a href="/wiki/Sic" title="Sic">sic</a></i>] inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.</p> </blockquote> <p>Still more powers are prohibited of the states. States may not, without the consent of Congress, tax imports or exports except for the fulfillment of state inspection laws (which may be revised by Congress). The net revenue of the tax is paid not to the state, but to the federal Treasury.</p> <h3><span class="mw-headline" id="Clause_3_Compact_Clause"><span id="Section_10.2C_Clause_3"></span>Clause 3: Compact Clause 2</span><a href="#cite_note-35">[35]</a></h3> <blockquote class="templatequote"> <p>No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in <a href="/wiki/Peacetime" title="Peacetime">time of Peace</a>, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in <a href="/wiki/War" title="War">War</a>, unless actually <a href="/wiki/Invasion" title="Invasion">invaded</a>, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.</p> </blockquote> <p>Under the Compact Clause, states may not, without the consent of Congress, keep troops or armies during times of peace. They may not enter into alliances nor compacts with foreign states, nor engage in war unless invaded. States may, however, organize and arm a militia. Currently the <a href="/wiki/United_States_National_Guard" title="United States National Guard" class="mw-redirect">National Guard</a> and <a href="/wiki/State_Defense_Forces" title="State Defense Forces" class="mw-redirect">State Militias</a> with federal oversight fulfill this function.</p> <p>The idea of allowing Congress to have say over agreements between states traces back to the numerous controversies that arose between various colonies. Eventually compromises would be created between the two colonies and these compromises would be submitted to <a href="/wiki/The_Crown" title="The Crown">the Crown</a> for approval. After the <a href="/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War" title="American Revolutionary War">American Revolutionary War</a>, the <a href="/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation" title="Articles of Confederation">Articles of Confederation</a> allowed states to appeal to Congress to settle disputes between the states over boundaries or "any cause whatever". The Articles of Confederation also required Congressional approval for "any treaty or alliance" in which a state was one of the parties.</p> <p>There have been a number of <a href="/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States" title="Supreme Court of the United States">Supreme Court</a> cases concerning what constitutes valid congressional consent to an <a href="/wiki/Interstate_compact" title="Interstate compact">interstate compact</a>. In <i><a href="/wiki/Virginia_v._Tennessee" title="Virginia v. Tennessee">Virginia v. Tennessee</a></i>, 148 <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="">503</a> (1893), the Court found that some agreements among states stand even when lacking the explicit consent of Congress. According to the Court, the Compact Clause requires congressional consent only if the agreement among the states is "directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States".<sup id="cite_ref-66" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-66"><span>[</span>65<span>]</span></a></sup> The congressional consent issue is at the center of the current debate over the constitutionality of the not yet <a href="/wiki/Coming_into_force" title="Coming into force">effective</a> <a href="/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact" title="National Popular Vote Interstate Compact">National Popular Vote Interstate Compact</a> entered into by several states plus the <a href="/wiki/District_of_Columbia" title="District of Columbia" class="mw-redirect">District of Columbia</a>.<sup id="cite_ref-67" class="reference"><a href="#cite_note-67"><span>[</span>66<span>]</span></a></sup></p> <h2><span class="mw-headline" id="Notes">Notes</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=45" title="Edit section: Notes">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h2> <div class="reflist" style="list-style-type: decimal;"> <ol class="references"> <li id="cite_note-57"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-57"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">In the hand-written engrossed copy of the Constitution maintained in the National Archives, the British spelling "defence" is used in Article One, Section 8 (<i>See</i> the <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="">National Archives transcription</a> and <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="">the Archives' image of the engrossed document</a>. Webpages retrieved on 24 October 2009.)</span></li> </ol> </div> <h2><span class="mw-headline" id="References">References</span><span class="mw-editsection"><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">[</span><a href="/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&amp;action=edit&amp;section=46" title="Edit section: References">edit</a><span class="mw-editsection-bracket">]</span></span></h2> <div class="reflist references-column-width" style="-moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;"> <ol class="references"> <li id="cite_note-1"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-1"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i>See Atkins v. United States</i>, 556 F.2d 1028, 1062 (Ct. Cl. 1977) ("The purpose of the [Vesting C]lause is to locate the central source of legislative authority in Congress, rather than the Executive or the Judiciary."), <i>abrogated on other grounds by <a href="/wiki/INS_v._Chadha" title="INS v. Chadha" class="mw-redirect">INS v. Chadha</a></i>, 462 U.S. 919 (1983).</span></li> <li id="cite_note-2"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-2"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">See <i><a href="/w/index.php?title=J.W._Hampton,_Jr.,_%26_Co._v._United_States&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1" class="new" title="J.W. Hampton, Jr., &amp; Co. v. United States (page does not exist)" >J.W. Hampton, Jr., &amp; Co. v. United States</a></i>, 276 U.S. 394, 406 (1928) ("Our Federal Constitution... divide[s] the governmental power into three branches. The first is the legislative, the second is the executive, and the third is the judicial, and the rule is that in the actual administration of the government Congress... should exercise the legislative power, the President... the executive power, and the courts or the judiciary the judicial power....")</span></li> <li id="cite_note-3"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-3"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">See <i><a href="/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez" title="United States v. Lopez">United States v. Lopez</a></i>, 514 U.S. 549, 592 (1995) ("[Certain] comments of Hamilton and others about federal power reflected the well-known truth that the new Government would have only the limited and enumerated powers found in the Constitution.... Even before the passage of the <a href="/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution">Tenth Amendment</a>, it was apparent that Congress would possess only those powers 'herein granted' by the rest of the Constitution.").</span></li> <li id="cite_note-4"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-4"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">Compare id. with <i><a href="/wiki/Myers_v._United_States" title="Myers v. United States">Myers v. United States</a></i>, 272 U.S. 52, 128 (1926) ("The difference between the grant of legislative power under article 1 to Congress which is limited to powers therein enumerated, and the more general grant of the executive power to the President under article 2 is significant. The fact that the executive power is given in general terms strengthened by specific terms where emphasis is appropriate, and limited by direct expressions where limitation is needed, and that no express limit is placed on the power of removal by the executive is a convincing indication that none was intended"), and <i><a href="/wiki/Kansas_v._Colorado" title="Kansas v. Colorado">Kansas v. Colorado</a></i>, 206 U.S. 46, 82 (1907) ("[I]n article 3, which treats of the judicial department,—and this is important for our present consideration,... § 1 reads that ‘the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court....’ By this is granted the entire judicial power of the nation.... There may be, of course, limitations on that grant of power, but, if there are any, they must be expressed; for otherwise the general grant would vest in the courts all the judicial power which the new nation was capable of exercising.").</span></li> <li id="cite_note-5"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-5"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">See <i><a href="/w/index.php?title=Touby_v._United_States&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1" class="new" title="Touby v. United States (page does not exist)">Touby v. United States</a></i>, 500 U.S. 160, 165 (1991) ("From th[e language of this section of the Constitution] the Court has derived the nondelegation doctrine: that Congress may not constitutionally delegate its legislative power to another branch of Government.").</span></li> <li id="cite_note-6"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-6"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">See <i>J.W. Hampton, Jr., &amp; Co.</i>, 276 U.S. at 409 ("If Congress shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to [administer a statutory scheme] is directed to conform, such legislative action is not a forbidden delegation of legislative power.").</span></li> <li id="cite_note-7"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-7"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/wiki/Whitman_v._American_Trucking_Associations,_Inc." title="Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc.">Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass'ns</a></i>, 531 U.S. 457, 474 (2001) ("In the history of the Court we have found the requisite 'intelligible principle' lacking in only two statutes...." (citing <i><a href="/wiki/Panama_Refining_Co._v._Ryan" title="Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan">Pan. Ref. Co. v. Ryan</a></i>, 293 U.S. 388 (1935), and <i><a href="/wiki/A.L.A._Schechter_Poultry_Corp._v._United_States" title="A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States" class="mw-redirect">A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States</a></i>, 295 U.S. 495 (1935))); <i><a href="/wiki/Carter_v._Carter_Coal_Co." title="Carter v. Carter Coal Co.">Carter v. Carter Coal Co.</a></i>, 298 U.S. 238 (1936) (statute which allowed a majority of coal producers to determine legally-binding labor practices unconstitutional for delegating to private parties the ability to impose legally-binding regulations on competing firms). <i><a href="/wiki/Clinton_v._City_of_New_York" title="Clinton v. City of New York">Clinton v. City of New York</a></i>, 524 U.S. 417 (1998) (Invalidated the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 on the grounds that Congress cannot delegate part of its constitutional budget-making authority to the President and was a violation of the Article 1, Section 7 Presentment Clause.)</span></li> <li id="cite_note-8"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-8"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">See <i><a href="/wiki/Mistretta_v._United_States" title="Mistretta v. United States">Mistretta v. United States</a></i>, 488 U.S. 361, 373 n.7 (1989) (nondelegation doctrine takes the form of "giving narrow constructions to statutory delegations that might otherwise be thought to be unconstitutional").</span></li> <li id="cite_note-9"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-9"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i>UAW v. Occupational Health &amp; Safety Admin.</i>, 938 F.2d 1310, 1317 (D.C. Cir. 1991) ("In effect [the nondelegation doctrine as a principle of statutory interpretation is used by the courts to] require a clear statement by Congress that it intended to test the constitutional waters."); cf. <i><a href="/w/index.php?title=Edward_J._DeBartolo_Corp._v._Fla._Gulf_Coast_Bldg._%26_Constr._Trades_Council&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1" class="new" title="Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Fla. Gulf Coast Bldg. &amp; Constr. Trades Council (page does not exist)">Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Fla. Gulf Coast Bldg. &amp; Constr. Trades Council</a></i>, 485 U.S. 568, 575 (1988) ("[W]here an otherwise acceptable construction of a statute would raise serious constitutional problems, the Court will construe the statute to avoid such problems unless such construction is plainly contrary to the intent of Congress.... This approach not only reflects the prudential concern that constitutional issues not be needlessly confronted, but also recognizes that Congress, like this Court, is bound by and swears an oath to uphold the Constitution. The courts will therefore not lightly assume that Congress intended to infringe constitutionally protected liberties or usurp power constitutionally forbidden it." (citing <i><a href="/w/index.php?title=NLRB_v._Catholic_Bishop&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1" class="new" title="NLRB v. Catholic Bishop (page does not exist)">NLRB v. Catholic Bishop</a></i>, 440 U.S. 490, 499–501, 504 (1979), and <i><a href="/w/index.php?title=Grenada_County_Supervisors_v._Brogden&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1" class="new" title="Grenada County Supervisors v. Brogden (page does not exist)">Grenada County Supervisors v. Brogden</a></i>, 112 U.S. 261 (1884))); <i><a href="/wiki/United_States_v._Bass" title="United States v. Bass" class="mw-redirect">United States v. Bass</a></i>, 404 U.S. 336, 349 (1971) ("[U]nless Congress conveys its purpose clearly, it will not be deemed to have significantly changed the federal-state balance.").</span></li> <li id="cite_note-10"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-10"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/wiki/Barenblatt_v._United_States" title="Barenblatt v. United States">Barenblatt v. United States</a></i>, 360 U.S. 109, 111 (1959) ("The power of inquiry has been employed by Congress throughout our history, over the whole range of the national interests concerning which Congress might legislate or decide upon due investigation not to legislate; it has similarly been utilized in determining what to appropriate from the national purse, or whether to appropriate."); e.g., 3 <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">Annals of Congress</span> 490–94 (1792) (House committee appointed to investigate the defeat of Gen. St. Clair by Indians empowered to "call for such persons, papers, and records, as may be necessary to assist their inquiries.").</span></li> <li id="cite_note-11"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-11"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">See <i><a href="/wiki/McGrain_v._Daugherty" title="McGrain v. Daugherty">McGrain v. Daugherty</a></i>, 273 U.S. 135, 174–75 (1927) ("[T]he power of inquiry-with process to enforce it-is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative function. It was so regarded and employed in American Legislatures before the Constitution was framed and ratified.... A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change; and where the legislative body does not itself possess the requisite information-which not infrequently is true-recourse must be had to others who do possess it. Experience has taught that mere requests for such information often are unavailing, and also that information which is volunteered is not always accurate or complete; so some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed. All this was true before and when the Constitution was framed and adopted. In that period the power of inquiry, with enforcing process, was regarded and employed as a necessary and appropriate attribute of the power to legislate-indeed, was treated as inhering in it. Thus there is ample warrant for thinking... that the constitutional provisions which commit the legislative function to the two houses are intended to include this attribute to the end that the function may be effectively exercised.").</span></li> <li id="cite_note-investigate-12"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-investigate_12-0"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up to: </span><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-investigate_12-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">See <i><a href="/wiki/Watkins_v._United_States" title="Watkins v. United States">Watkins v. United States</a></i>, 354 U.S. 178, 187 (1957) ("The power of the Congress to conduct investigations is inherent in the legislative process. That power is broad. It encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes. It includes surveys of defects in our social, economic or political system for the purpose of enabling the Congress to remedy them. It comprehends probes into departments of the Federal Government to expose corruption, inefficiency or waste."); <i>Barenblatt</i>, 360 U.S. at 111 ("The scope of the power of inquiry... is as penetrating and far-reaching as the potential power to enact and appropriate under the Constitution.").</span></li> <li id="cite_note-13"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-13"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/wiki/Kilbourn_v._Thompson" title="Kilbourn v. Thompson">Kilbourn v. Thompson</a></i>, 103 U.S. 168, 189 (1881).</span></li> <li id="cite_note-14"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-14"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i>Watkins</i>, 354 U.S. at 200.</span></li> <li id="cite_note-15"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-15"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">See <i>McGrain</i>, 273 U.S. at 170 ("[N]either house of Congress possesses a ‘general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen’;... the power actually possessed is limited to inquiries relating to matters of which the particular house ‘has jurisdiction’ and in respect of which it rightfully may take other action; [and] if the inquiry relates to ‘a matter wherein relief or redress could be had only by a judicial proceeding’ it is not within the range of this power, but must be left to the courts, conformably to the constitutional separation of governmental powers...." (quoting <i>Kilbourne</i>, 103 U.S. at 193)); see also <i>Sinclair v. United States</i>, 279 U.S. 263, 295 (1929) ("Congress is without authority to compel disclosures for the purpose of aiding the prosecution of pending suits...."), overruled on other grounds by <i>United States v. Gaudin</i>, 515 U.S. 506 (1995).</span></li> <li id="cite_note-16"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-16"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i>Barenblatt</i>, 360 U.S. at 132 ("So long as Congress acts in pursuance of its constitutional power, the Judiciary lacks authority to intervene on the basis of the motives which spurred the exercise of that power.").</span></li> <li id="cite_note-17"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-17"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i>Id.</i> at 112 ("[T]he Congress, in common with all branches of the Government, must exercise its powers subject to the limitations placed by the Constitution on governmental action,... [including] the relevant limitations of the Bill of Rights.").</span></li> <li id="cite_note-18"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-18"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i>McGrain</i>, 273 U.S. at 180 (upholding Senate's power to imprison an individual who did not cooperate with a valid investigation); <i><a href="/w/index.php?title=Marshall_v._Gordon&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1" class="new" title="Marshall v. Gordon (page does not exist)">Marshall v. Gordon</a></i>, 243 U.S. 521, 542 (1917) ("[T]he right to prevent acts which in and of themselves inherently obstruct or prevent the discharge of legislative duty or the refusal to do that which there is inherent legislative power to compel in order that legislative functions may be performed" is why Congress must be allowed to hold individuals in contempt.).</span></li> <li id="cite_note-19"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-19"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/wiki/Minor_v._Happersett" title="Minor v. Happersett">Minor v. Happersett</a></i>, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 178 (1875) ("[T]he Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one....").</span></li> <li id="cite_note-20"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-20"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">See <i><a href="/wiki/Reynolds_v._Sims" title="Reynolds v. Sims">Reynolds v. Sims</a></i>, 377 U.S. 533, 561–62 (1964) ("Undoubtedly, the right of suffrage is a fundamental matter in a free and democratic society."); <i>Yick Wo v. Hopkins</i>, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886) ("[Voting] is regarded as a fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights.").</span></li> <li id="cite_note-21"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-21"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">See '<a href="/wiki/Kramer_v._Union_School_District" title="Kramer v. Union School District" class="mw-redirect">Kramer v. Union Free Sch. Dist. No. 15</a><i>, 395 U.S. 621, 626–27 (1969) ("No less rigid an examination [than close scrutiny] is applicable to statutes denying the franchise to</i> citizens <i>who are otherwise qualified by</i> residence <i>and</i> age<i>. Statutes granting the franchise to residents on a selective basis always pose the danger of denying some citizens any effective voice in the governmental affairs which substantially affect their lives.") (emphasis added).</i></span></li> <li id="cite_note-Briffault-22"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-Briffault_22-0"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><span class="citation journal">Briffault, Richard (2002). "The Contested Right to Vote". <i>Michigan Law Review</i> <b>100</b>: 1521–1522.</span><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&amp;;rft.atitle=The+Contested+Right+to+Vote&amp;;rft.aulast=Briffault%2C+Richard&amp;;rft.genre=article&amp;rft.jtitle=Michigan+Law+Review&amp;rft.pages=1521-1522&amp;rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&amp;rft.volume=100" class="Z3988"><span style="display:none;">&nbsp;</span></span> <span style="display:none;font-size:100%" class="error citation-comment"><code style="color:inherit; border:inherit; padding:inherit;">|accessdate=</code> requires <code style="color:inherit; border:inherit; padding:inherit;">|url=</code> (<a href="/wiki/Help:CS1_errors#accessdate_missing_url" title="Help:CS1 errors">help</a>)</span></span></li> <li id="cite_note-23"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-23"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/wiki/Reynolds_v._Sims" title="Reynolds v. Sims">Reynolds v. Sims</a></i>, 377 <a href="/wiki/United_States_Reports" title="United States Reports">U.S.</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="">533, 612</a> (1964).</span></li> <li id="cite_note-24"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-24"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">At the time of the last reapportionment in 2000, the United States' population was 281,421,906; 1/435th of that is roughly 647,000. Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, and Alaska all had smaller populations.</span></li> <li id="cite_note-wesberry-25"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-wesberry_25-0"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up to: </span><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-wesberry_25-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/wiki/Wesberry_v._Sanders" title="Wesberry v. Sanders">Wesberry v. Sanders</a></i>, 376 U.S. 1, 7–9, 14 (1964) ("[C]onstrued in its historical context, the command... that Representatives be chosen ‘by the People of the several States' means that as nearly as is practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's.... The history of the Constitution... reveals that those who framed the Constitution meant that... it was population which was to be the basis of the House of Representatives.... It would defeat the principle solemnly embodied in the Great Compromise-equal representation in the House for equal numbers of people-for us to hold that, within the States, legislatures may draw the lines of congressional districts in such a way as to give some voters a greater voice in choosing a Congressman than others."); e.g., <i><a href="/w/index.php?title=White_v._Weiser&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1" class="new" title="White v. Weiser (page does not exist)">White v. Weiser</a></i>, 412 U.S. 783 (1973) (striking down Texas districting plan with a population deviation between the largest and smallest district of 4.13% of the population of an "ideal" district); see <i><a href="/w/index.php?title=Kirkpatrick_v._Preisler&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1" class="new" title="Kirkpatrick v. Preisler (page does not exist)">Kirkpatrick v. Preisler</a></i>, 394 U.S. 526, 530–31 (1969) (“[T]he State [must] make a good-faith effort to achieve precise mathematical equality. Unless population variances among congressional districts are shown to have resulted despite such effort, the State must justify each variance, no matter how small.... We can see no nonarbitrary way to pick a cutoff point at which population variances suddenly become de minimis.... Equal representation for equal numbers of people is a principle designed to prevent debasement of voting power and diminution of access to elected representatives. Toleration of even small deviations detracts from these purposes."); see also <i><a href="/wiki/Karcher_v._Daggett" title="Karcher v. Daggett">Karcher v. Daggett</a></i>, 462 U.S. 725 (1983) (invalidating a New Jersey congressional districting plan where the deviation between the largest and smallest districts was less than the Census's margin of error, when the state could offer no acceptable explanation for the differences); <i><a href="/wiki/Vieth_v._Jubelirer" title="Vieth v. Jubelirer">Vieth v. Pennsylvania</a></i>, 195 F. Supp. 2d 672 (M.D. Pa. 2002) (total deviation of 19 people from largest to smallest district (646,380 to 646,361) struck down since alternatives with smaller deviations were available); <i>Hastert v. State Bd. of Elections</i>, 777 F. Supp. 634 (N.D. Ill. 1991) (court selected districting plan where 18 of 20 districts contained 571,530 people and the other two had 571,531).</span></li> <li id="cite_note-26"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-26"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">E.g., 17 <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">Annals of Cong.</span> 870–902, 904–20, 927–47, 949–50, 1059–61, 1231–33, 1234–38 (1807) (House seated William McCreery despite him not satisfying Maryland law requiring Representatives to reside in their district).</span></li> <li id="cite_note-mccormack-27"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-mccormack_27-0"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up to: </span><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-mccormack_27-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">See <i><a href="/wiki/Powell_v._McCormack" title="Powell v. McCormack">Powell v. McCormack</a></i>, 395 U.S. 486, 550 (1969) (invalidating House's decision not to seat a Member accused of misuse of funds) ("[I]n judging the qualifications of its members Congress is limited to the standing qualifications prescribed in the Constitution.").</span></li> <li id="cite_note-28"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-28"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">See <i>Exon v. Tiemann</i>, 279 F. Supp. 609, 613 (D. Neb. 1968) ("There being no such requirement in the Constitution itself, a state cannot require that a Representative live in the District from which he was nominated."); <i>State ex rel. Chavez v. Evans</i>, 446 P.2d 445, 448 (N.M. 1968) ("[The New Mexico statute,] by requiring that each candidate for representative in Congress be a resident of and a qualified elector of the district in which he seeks office, adds additional qualifications to becoming a candidate for that office.... [W]e must hold the provisions of the Federal Constitution prevail and that this statute unconstitutionally adds additional qualifications."); <i>Hellman v. Collier</i>, 141 A.2d 908, 912 (Md. 1958) (same); cf. <i><a href="/wiki/U.S._Term_Limits,_Inc._v._Thornton" title="U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton">U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton</a></i>, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) (state may not impose term limits on its congressional delegation).</span></li> <li id="cite_note-thornton-29"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-thornton_29-0"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up to: </span><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-thornton_29-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-thornton_29-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">See <i>U.S. Term Limits, Inc.</i>, 514 U.S. at 783 (invalidating provision in the Arkansas Constitution imposing term limits on the State's congressional delegation) ("Allowing individual States to adopt their own qualifications for congressional service[, such as term limitations,] would be inconsistent with the Framers' vision of a uniform National Legislature representing the people of the United States. If the qualifications set forth in the text of the Constitution are to be changed, that text must be amended."); see also <i><a href="/wiki/Cook_v._Gralike" title="Cook v. Gralike">Cook v. Gralike</a></i>, 531 U.S. 510 (2001) (invaliding a Missouri constitutional term providing for labels printed on the election ballot next to the names of candidates who had not pledged to support term limits).</span></li> <li id="cite_note-30"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-30"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><span id="Volume_2.2C_Article_1.2C_Section_2.2C_Clause_3.2C_Document_22" class="citation web"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="">"Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 2:§§ 630--35, 641--47, 673--80"</a>. <i>The Founder's Constitution</i>. The University of Chicago Press. 2000. p.&nbsp;§677.</span><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&amp;;rft.atitle=Joseph+Story%2C+Commentaries+on+the+Constitution+2%3A%C2%A7%C2%A7+630--35%2C+641--47%2C+673--80&amp;;rft.genre=article&amp;;rft.jtitle=The+Founder%27s+Constitution&amp;rft.pages=%C2%A7677&amp;;rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal" class="Z3988"><span style="display:none;">&nbsp;</span></span></span></li> <li id="cite_note-prigg-31"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-prigg_31-0"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">Cf. <i><a href="/wiki/Prigg_v._Pennsylvania" title="Prigg v. Pennsylvania">Prigg v. Pennsylvania</a></i>, 41 U.S. (16 Pet.) 539, 619 (1842) (dictum) ("[Congress] has, on various occasions, exercised powers which were necessary and proper as means to carry into effect rights expressly given, and duties expressly enjoined thereby. The end being required, it has been deemed a just and necessary implication, that the means to accomplish it are given also; or, in other words, that the power flows as a necessary means to accomplish the end. Thus, for example, although the constitution has declared, that representatives shall be apportioned among the states according to their respective federal numbers; and for this purpose, it has expressly authorized congress, by law, to provide for an enumeration of the population every ten years; yet the power to apportion representatives, after this enumeration is made, is nowhere found among the express powers given to congress, but it has always been acted upon, as irresistibly flowing from the duty positively enjoined by the constitution.").</span></li> <li id="cite_note-32"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-32"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">See <i>Whelan v. Cuomo</i>, 415 F. Supp. 251, 256 (E.D.N.Y. 1976) ("The historical record of the Constitutional Convention supports several conclusions[,]... [including that] Congress was given considerable flexibility in determining the actual number of representatives so long as the total did not exceed one representative for every 30,000 inhabitants.").</span></li> <li id="cite_note-33"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-33"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">See 3 <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">Annals of Cong.</span> 539 (1792) (President Washington's veto of apportionment legislation that would not have exceeded a <i>national</i> average of 1 for every 30,000 inhabitants, but did exceed that ratio for some <i>states</i>); see also <i><a href="/w/index.php?title=U.S._Dep%27t_of_Commerce_v._Montana&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1" class="new" title="U.S. Dep't of Commerce v. Montana (page does not exist)">U.S. Dep't of Commerce v. Montana</a> (Montana II)</i>, 503 U.S. 442, 449–50 (Congress's response to Washington's veto was enacting legislation providing for 1 representative per 33,000 of the national population, which avoided exceeding 1 per 30,000 in those states).</span></li> <li id="cite_note-34"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-34"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">The <i>United States Code</i> only indirectly provides for a House with 435 members. After each decennial census, the President must submit to Congress a statement "showing the whole number of Persons in each State" and, based on this population figure, the number of Representatives the State would have received in the 83rd Congress (1951–53). 2 U.S.C. § 2a(a) (2006). Each State then receives as many representatives in the House as the President's report provides, until the next decennial census. <i>Id.</i> § 2a(b). The size of the House of Representatives in the 83rd Congress was 435. Thus, the <i><a href="/wiki/United_States_Code" title="United States Code">United States Code</a></i> currently does not expressly use the number "435," but instead ties the current size of the House to the "then existing number of Representatives" in the 83rd Congress, which was fixed at 435 by legislation that is now omitted from the <i>United States Code</i>. Compare 2 U.S.C. § 2 (1926) ("[A]fter the third day of March, nineteen hundred and thirteen, the House of Representatives shall be composed of four hundred and thirty-five members.") with 2 U.S.C. § 2 (1934) (section omitted). It has been omitted from every subsequent edition of the <i>United States Code</i>, through the present edition (2012).</span></li> <li id="cite_note-35"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-35"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/wiki/Pollock_v._Farmers%27_Loan_%26_Trust_Co." title="Pollock v. Farmers' Loan &amp; Trust Co.">Pollock v. Farmers' Loan &amp; Trust Co.</a></i>, 157 U.S. 429, modified on reh'g, 158 U.S. 601 (1895), superseded by <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">U.S. Const.</span> <a href="/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" title="Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution">amend. XVI</a>, as recognized in <i><a href="/w/index.php?title=Brushaber_v._Union_Pac._R.R.&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1" class="new" title="Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R. (page does not exist)">Brushaber v. Union Pac. R.R.</a></i>, 240 U.S. 1 (1916), and overruled on other grounds by <i><a href="/wiki/South_Carolina_v._Baker" title="South Carolina v. Baker">South Carolina v. Baker</a></i>, 485 U.S. 505 (1988).</span></li> <li id="cite_note-speaker-36"><span class="mw-cite-backlink">^ <a href="#cite_ref-speaker_36-0"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up to: </span><sup><i><b>a</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-speaker_36-1"><sup><i><b>b</b></i></sup></a> <a href="#cite_ref-speaker_36-2"><sup><i><b>c</b></i></sup></a></span> <span class="reference-text">Cf. 1 <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">Asher C. Hinds, Hinds' Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States</span> § 187, at 113 (1907) ("The Speaker is always a Member of the House....").</span></li> <li id="cite_note-37"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-37"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">Cf. <i><a href="/wiki/Nixon_v._United_States" title="Nixon v. United States">Nixon v. United States</a></i>, 506 U.S. 224 (1993) (construing the Senate's "sole power" to "try all impeachments" to mean that the Senate's impeachment procedures are left to its discretion and concluding generally that Congress's impeachment powers are outside judicial review).</span></li> <li id="cite_note-38"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-38"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">Senate Historical Office, President Pro Tempore, <a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href=""></a>.</span></li> <li id="cite_note-39"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-39"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">See <i>Nixon</i>, 506 U.S. at 230–31, 233–36 (holding that the Senate's sole power to try impeachments made its judgment conclusive as to what constituted an adequate impeachment trial) ("We think that the word 'sole' is of considerable significance. Indeed, the word 'sole' appears only one other time in the Constitution-with respect to the House of Representatives' "<i>sole</i> Power of Impeachment." The commonsense meaning of the word 'sole' is that the Senate alone shall have authority to determine whether an individual should be acquitted or convicted. The dictionary definition bears this out.... The history and contemporary understanding of the impeachment provisions support our reading of the constitutional language.... [T]he Judiciary, and the Supreme Court in particular, were not chosen to have any role in impeachments.... [J]udicial review would be inconsistent with the Framers' insistence that our system be one of checks and balances.... Judicial involvement in impeachment proceedings, even if only for purposes of judicial review, is counterintuitive because it would eviscerate the 'important constitutional check' placed on the Judiciary by the Framers. [It would be an improper reading of the Constitution to] place final reviewing authority with respect to impeachments in the hands of the same body that the impeachment process is meant to regulate.... In addition to the textual commitment argument,... the lack of finality and the difficulty of fashioning relief counsel against justiciability.... [O]pening the door of judicial review to the procedures used by the Senate in trying impeachments would 'expose the political life of the country to months, or perhaps years, of chaos.'" (citations omitted)).</span></li> <li id="cite_note-40"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-40"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">Floyd M. Riddick &amp; Alan S. Frumin, Riddick's Senate Procedure, S. Doc. No.</span> 101‒28, at 879 (1992) ("The vote required to convict an impeached official is two-thirds of the Senators present, and in effect a vote of 'present' [(i.e., an abstention)] is a vote against conviction." (citing 132 <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">Cong. Rec.</span> 29,872 (1986) (in proceedings against Judge Harry E. Claiborne, vote in favor of conviction of 46–17, with 35 abstentions, insufficient to convict))).</span></li> <li id="cite_note-41"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-41"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">See id. at 912 ("The Senate operates under 'a majority rule' to transact business—a majority of the <i>Senators voting</i>, a quorum being present—with the exceptions set forth in the Constitution and the rules of the Senate. There is no rule providing for consideration of business by a majority vote, but precedents of the Senate have been uniform in that respect." (emphasis added)).</span></li> <li id="cite_note-42"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-42"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">Cf. <i>Ritter v. United States</i>, 84 Ct. Cl. 293, 300 (1936) ("While the Senate in one sense acts as a court on the trial of an impeachment, it is essentially a political body and in its actions is influenced by the views of its members on the public welfare."); <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">Staff of H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 93d Cong., Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment</span> 24 (Comm. Print 1974) ("The purpose of impeachment is not personal punishment; its function is primarily to maintain constitutional government." (citation omitted)), reprinted in 3 <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">Lewis Deschler, Deschler's Precedents of the United States House of Representatives, H.R. Doc. No.</span> 94‒661 ch. 14, app. at 2269 (1977).</span></li> <li id="cite_note-43"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-43"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">See <i><a href="/w/index.php?title=Foster_v._Love&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1" class="new" title="Foster v. Love (page does not exist)">Foster v. Love</a></i>, 522 U.S. 67, 69, 71 n.2 (1997) ("The [Elections] Clause is a default provision; it invests the States with responsibility for the mechanics of congressional elections, but only so far as Congress declines to preempt state legislative choices. Thus it is well settled that the Elections Clause grants Congress 'the power to override state regulations' by establishing uniform rules for federal elections, binding on the States. '[T]he regulations made by Congress are paramount to those made by the State legislature; and if they conflict therewith, the latter, so far as the conflict extends, ceases to be operative.' The Clause gives Congress 'comprehensive' authority to regulate the details of elections, including the power to impose 'the numerous requirements as to procedure and safeguards which experience shows are necessary in order to enforce the fundamental right involved.' Congressional authority extends not only to general elections, but also to any 'primary election which involves a necessary step in the choice of candidates for election as representatives in Congress.') (citations omitted); <i>United States v. Manning</i>, 215 F. Supp. 272, 284 (W.D. La. 1963) ("‘[T]he manner of holding elections'... must be read as referring to the entire electoral process, from the first step of registering to the last step, the State's promulgation of honest returns.").</span></li> <li id="cite_note-44"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-44"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="/wiki/Title_2_of_the_United_States_Code" title="Title 2 of the United States Code">2 U.S.C.</a>&nbsp;<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="">§&nbsp;7</a> (2006) (prescribing "Tuesday next after the 1st Monday in November" as the date for electing Representatives); id. § 1 (elections for Senators to be held on same date as elections for Representatives); see also <a href="/wiki/Title_3_of_the_United_States_Code" title="Title 3 of the United States Code">3 U.S.C.</a>&nbsp;<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="">§&nbsp;1</a> (2006) (prescribing "Tuesday next after the first Monday in November" as the date for electing presidential Electors).</span></li> <li id="cite_note-45"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-45"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i><a href="/wiki/Cook_v._Gralike" title="Cook v. Gralike">Cook v. Gralike</a></i>, 531 U.S. 510, 523–24 (2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).</span></li> <li id="cite_note-46"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-46"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">See <i><a href="/wiki/Vieth_v._Jubelirer" title="Vieth v. Jubelirer">Vieth v. Jubelirer</a></i>, 541 U.S. 267, 275 (2004) (plurality opinion) ("Article I, § 4, while leaving in state legislatures the initial power to draw districts for federal elections, permitted Congress to 'make or alter' those districts if it wished.").</span></li> <li id="cite_note-47"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-47"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="/wiki/Title_2_of_the_United_States_Code" title="Title 2 of the United States Code">2 U.S.C.</a>&nbsp;<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="">§&nbsp;2c</a> (2006).</span></li> <li id="cite_note-48"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-48"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="/wiki/Title_2_of_the_United_States_Code" title="Title 2 of the United States Code">2 U.S.C.</a>&nbsp;<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="">§&nbsp;3</a> (1934) ("In each State entitled under this apportionment to more than one Representative,... [such Representatives] shall be elected by districts composed of a contiguous and compact territory, and containing as nearly as practicable an equal number of inhabitants.").</span></li> <li id="cite_note-49"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-49"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">See <i><a href="/w/index.php?title=Wood_v._Broom&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1" class="new" title="Wood v. Broom (page does not exist)">Wood v. Broom</a></i>, 287 U.S. 1 (1932).</span></li> <li id="cite_note-50"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-50"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">See, e.g., <i><a href="/wiki/Shaw_v._Reno" title="Shaw v. Reno">Shaw v. Reno</a></i>, 509 U.S. 630, 642 (1993) ("[L]egislation that is so extremely irregular on its face that it rationally can be viewed only as an effort to segregate the races for purposes of voting, without regard for traditional districting principles and without sufficiently compelling justification," is subject to strict scrutiny.).</span></li> <li id="cite_note-51"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-51"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">See 34 <span class="smallcaps" style="font-variant:small-caps;">Library of Cong., Journals of the Continental Congress</span>, 1774–1789, at 523 (Roscoe R. Hill ed., 1937).</span></li> <li id="cite_note-The_Hill-Rushing-2008-10-01-52"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-The_Hill-Rushing-2008-10-01_52-0"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><span class="citation web">Rushing, J. Taylor (2008-10-01). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="">"Senate easily passes bailout"</a>. "The Senate's action was a dramatic and rare move that circumvented a constitutional requirement that tax legislation must originate in the House"</span><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&amp;;rft.aufirst=J.+Taylor&amp;rft.aulast=Rushing&amp;;rft.btitle=Senate+easily+passes+bailout&amp;;rft.genre=book&amp;;rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook" class="Z3988"><span style="display:none;">&nbsp;</span></span></span></li> <li id="cite_note-Providence_Journal-Mullign-2008-10-02-53"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-Providence_Journal-Mullign-2008-10-02_53-0"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><span class="citation news">Mulligan, John E. (2008-10-02). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="">"Kennedy's unintended role in history"</a>. <i>The Providence Journal</i>. <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="">Archived</a> from the original on 3 October 2008<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved 2008-10-02</span>. "Once the Senate added those provisions to the rescue bill, it qualified as a tax bill, which the upper chamber is constitutionally prohibited from originating. To get around the Constitution, the leaders turned to the time-honored stratagem of finding a live but dormant House bill — [Patrick] Kennedy's mental-health parity bill — to use as a shell."</span><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&amp;;rft.atitle=Kennedy%27s+unintended+role+in+history&amp;rft.aufirst=John+E.&amp;rft.aulast=Mulligan&amp;;;rft.genre=article&amp;;rft.jtitle=The+Providence+Journal&amp;rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal" class="Z3988"><span style="display:none;">&nbsp;</span></span></span></li> <li id="cite_note-54"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-54"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">Jensen, Erik and Monaghan, Henry. <i><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href=";printsec=frontcover&amp;source=gbs_ge_summary_r&amp;cad=0v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false">The Taxing Power: a Reference Guide to the United States Constitution</a></i>. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 170 (2005).. <a href="/wiki/Special:BookSources/031331229X" class="internal mw-magiclink-isbn">ISBN 0-313-31229-X</a></span></li> <li id="cite_note-55"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-55"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">See Ross Wilson, A Third Way: The Presidential Non-Signing Statement, <a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href=""></a></span></li> <li id="cite_note-56"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-56"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><span class="citation web"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="">"U.S. Senate: Reference Home &gt; Statistics &amp; Lists &gt; Vetoes by President George W. Bush"</a>. <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="">Archived</a> from the original on 30 August 2008<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved 2008-09-06</span>.</span><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&amp;;rft.btitle=U.S.+Senate%3A+Reference+Home+%26gt%3B+Statistics+%26amp%3B+Lists+%26gt%3B+Vetoes+by+President+George+W.+Bush&amp;rft.genre=book&amp;;;rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook" class="Z3988"><span style="display:none;">&nbsp;</span></span></span></li> <li id="cite_note-58"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-58"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">See <i>e.g.</i> Perry v. United States, <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="">294 U.S. 330 (1935).</a></span></li> <li id="cite_note-59"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-59"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="/wiki/Michael_Novak" title="Michael Novak">Novak, Michael</a> (1996). The fire of invention, the fuel of interest: On intellectual property. Washington D.C.: The American Enterprise Institute Press.</span></li> <li id="cite_note-60"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-60"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a href="/wiki/Calder_v._Bull" title="Calder v. Bull">Calder v. Bull</a>, 3 U.S. 386, 399-400 (1798).</span></li> <li id="cite_note-61"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-61"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="">Juilliard v. Greenman</a>, 110 U.S. 421, 446 (1884).</span></li> <li id="cite_note-62"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-62"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="">Definition of <b>tender</b> as noun, in Merriam-Webster</a>. Retrieved January 23, 2011.</span></li> <li id="cite_note-63"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-63"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><i>"Any"</i> financial obligation would <i>de facto</i> include financial obligations owed either <i>by</i> or <i>to</i> the state; see <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href=";t=1295805841">definition of <i>"any"</i> as noun (5), in Merriam-Webster</a></span></li> <li id="cite_note-64"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-64"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text">262 U.S. 649, 659 (1923). See also <i><a href="/w/index.php?title=Gwin_v._Breedlove&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1" class="new" title="Gwin v. Breedlove (page does not exist)">Gwin v. Breedlove</a>,</i> 43 U.S. (2 How.) 29, 38 (1844); and <i><a href="/w/index.php?title=Griffin_v._Thompson&amp;action=edit&amp;redlink=1" class="new" title="Griffin v. Thompson (page does not exist)">Griffin v. Thompson</a>,</i> 43 U.S. (2 How.) 244 (1844).</span></li> <li id="cite_note-65"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-65"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="">Madison, James <i>Federalist Papers No. 44</i></a></span></li> <li id="cite_note-66"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-66"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><span class="citation book"><a href="/wiki/Lawrence_Tribe" title="Lawrence Tribe" class="mw-redirect">Tribe, Lawrence</a> (2000). <i>American Constitutional Law</i>. West Publishing Company. pp.&nbsp;649–51. <a href="/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number" title="International Standard Book Number">ISBN</a>&nbsp;<a href="/wiki/Special:BookSources/1-56662-714-1" title="Special:BookSources/1-56662-714-1">1-56662-714-1</a>.</span><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&amp;;rft.aufirst=Lawrence&amp;rft.aulast=Tribe&amp;;rft.btitle=American+Constitutional+Law&amp;;rft.genre=book&amp;rft.isbn=1-56662-714-1&amp;rft.pages=649-51&amp;;rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook" class="Z3988"><span style="display:none;">&nbsp;</span></span></span></li> <li id="cite_note-67"><span class="mw-cite-backlink"><b><a href="#cite_ref-67"><span class="cite-accessibility-label">Jump up </span>^</a></b></span> <span class="reference-text"><span class="citation journal">Brody, Michael (February 17, 2013). <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href=";context=lpb">"Circumventing the Electoral College: Why the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Survives Constitutional Scrutiny Under the Compact Clause"</a>. <i>Legislation and Policy Brief</i> (Washington College of Law Journals &amp; Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law) <b>5</b> (1): 40ff<span class="reference-accessdate">. Retrieved September 11, 2014</span>.</span><span title="ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&amp;;rft.atitle=Circumventing+the+Electoral+College%3A+Why+the+National+Popular+Vote+Interstate+Compact+Survives+Constitutional+Scrutiny+Under+the+Compact+Clause&amp;;rft.aufirst=Michael&amp;rft.aulast=Brody&amp;;rft.genre=article&amp;;rft.issue=1&amp;rft.jtitle=Legislation+and+Policy+Brief&amp;rft.pages=40ff&amp;;rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&amp;rft.volume=5" class="Z3988"><span style="display:none;">&nbsp;</span></span></span></li> </ol> </div> </div> </body>