Divyanshu67/squad_v2 huggingface dataset:
Madonna_(entertainer)

Various music journalists, critical theorists, and authors have deemed Madonna the most influential female recording artist of all time. Author Carol Clerk wrote that "during her career, Madonna has transcended the term 'pop star' to become a global cultural icon." Rolling Stone of Spain wrote that "She became the first viral Master of Pop in history, years before the Internet was massively used. Madonna was everywhere; in the almighty music television channels, 'radio formulas', magazine covers and even in bookshops. A pop dialectic, never seen since The Beatles's reign, which allowed her to keep on the edge of tendency and commerciality." Laura Barcella in her book Madonna and Me: Women Writers on the Queen of Pop (2012) wrote that "really, Madonna changed everything the musical landscape, the '80s look du jour, and most significantly, what a mainstream female pop star could (and couldn't) say, do, or accomplish in the public eye." William Langley from The Daily Telegraph felt that "Madonna has changed the world's social history, has done more things as more different people than anyone else is ever likely to." Alan McGee from The Guardian felt that Madonna is a post-modern art, the likes of which we will never see again. He further asserted that Madonna and Michael Jackson invented the terms Queen and King of Pop.

Question: Who is the most influential recording artist of all time?
Answer: Madonna

Question: Who wrote the book, Madonna and Me?
Answer: Laura Barcella

Question: Who said that Madonna changed the world social history?
Answer: William Langley from The Daily Telegraph

Question: Who said that Madonna is like post-moderm art?
Answer: Alan McGee from The Guardian
Madonna_(entertainer)

According to Tony Sclafani from MSNBC, "It's worth noting that before Madonna, most music mega-stars were guy rockers; after her, almost all would be female singers ... When The Beatles hit America, they changed the paradigm of performer from solo act to band. Madonna changed it back—with an emphasis on the female." Howard Kramer, curatorial director of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum, asserted that "Madonna and the career she carved out for herself made possible virtually every other female pop singer to follow ... She certainly raised the standards of all of them ... She redefined what the parameters were for female performers." According to Fouz-Hernández, subsequent female singers such as Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Kylie Minogue, the Spice Girls, Destiny's Child, Jennifer Lopez, and Pink were like her "daughters in the very direct sense that they grew up listening to and admiring Madonna, and decided they wanted to be like her." Time magazine included her in the list of the "25 Most Powerful Women of the Past Century", where she became one of only two singers to be included, alongside Aretha Franklin. She also topped VH1's lists of "100 Greatest Women in Music" and "50 Greatest Women of the Video Era".

Question: Who changed the dynamics of the singers back to mostly female?
Answer: Madonna

Question: Who is the director of the curator of Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum?
Answer: Howard Kramer

Question: A lot of modern pop artist grew up listening to whom?
Answer: Madonna,

Question: Who included Madonna as the most powerful woman of the century?
Answer: Time magazine

Question: Who is the other woman who earned the title?
Answer: Aretha Franklin
Madonna_(entertainer)

Madonna's use of sexual imagery has benefited her career and catalyzed public discourse on sexuality and feminism. As Roger Chapman documents in Culture Wars: An Encyclopedia of Issues, Viewpoints, and Voices, Volume 1 (2010), she has drawn frequent condemnation from religious organizations, social conservatives and parental watchdog groups for her use of explicit, sexual imagery and lyrics, religious symbolism, and otherwise "irreverent" behavior in her live performances. The Times wrote that she had "started a revolution amongst women in music ... Her attitudes and opinions on sex, nudity, style and sexuality forced the public to sit up and take notice." Professor John Fiske noted that the sense of empowerment that Madonna offers is inextricably connected with the pleasure of exerting some control over the meanings of self, of sexuality, and of one's social relations. In Doing Gender in Media, Art and Culture (2009), the authors noted that Madonna, as a female celebrity, performer, and pop icon, is able to unsettle standing feminist reflections and debates. According to lesbian feminist Sheila Jeffreys, Madonna represents woman's occupancy of what Monique Wittig calls the category of sex, as powerful, and appears to gleefully embrace the performance of the sexual corvée allotted to women. Professor Sut Jhally has referred to Madonna as "an almost sacred feminist icon."

Question: Madonna used what to benefit her career?
Answer: sexual imagery

Question: Who started a revolution in music with women?
Answer: Madonna

Question: Who wrote that Madonna is an almost scared feminist icon?
Answer: Professor Sut Jhally

Question: Who is regarded as a feminist during her time?
Answer: Madonna
Madonna_(entertainer)

Madonna has received acclaim as a role model for businesswomen in her industry, "achieving the kind of financial control that women had long fought for within the industry", and generating over $1.2 billion in sales within the first decade of her career. Professor Colin Barrow from Cranfield School of Management described Madonna as "America's smartest businesswoman ... who has moved to the top of her industry and stayed there by constantly reinventing herself." London Business School academics called her a "dynamic entrepreneur" worth copying; they identified her vision of success, her understanding of the music industry, her ability to recognize her own performance limits (and thus bring in help), her willingness to work hard and her ability to adapt as the keys to her commercial success. Morton wrote that "Madonna is opportunistic, manipulative, and ruthless—somebody who won't stop until she gets what she wants—and that's something you can get at the expense of maybe losing your close ones. But that hardly mattered to her." Hazel Blackmore and Rafael Fernández de Castro in the book ¿Qué es Estados Unidos? from the Fondo de Cultura Económica, noted: "Madonna has been undoubtedly the most important woman in the history of popular music and a great businesswoman in herself; creating fashion, breaking taboos and provoking controversies."

Question: Who is an acclaim role model business woman?
Answer: Madonna

Question: Madonna generated how much in sales in the first 10 years of her career?
Answer: $1.2 billion in

Question: Who called Madonna a dynamic entrepreneur?
Answer: London Business School academics

Question: Who wrote that Madonna is opportunistic, manipulative and ruthless?
Answer: Morton
Madonna_(entertainer)

Madonna has sold more than 300 million records worldwide. The Guinness World Records acknowledged her as the best-selling female recording artist and the fourth best-selling act of all time, behind The Beatles, Elvis Presley, and Michael Jackson. According to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), she is the best-selling female rock artist of the 20th century and the second top-selling female albums artist in the United States, with 64.5 million certified albums. Madonna is the most certified artist of all time in United Kingdom, with 45 awards from the British Phonographic Industry (BPI) as of April 2013. Billboard named Madonna as the top touring female artist of all time. She is also the highest grossing solo touring artist, with over $1.31 billion in concert gross, starting from the Blond Ambition World Tour; she first crossed a billion gross with The MDNA Tour. Overall, Madonna ranks third on all-time top-grossing Billboard Boxscore list, with just The Rolling Stones ($1.84 billion) and U2 ($1.67 billion) ahead of her. Madonna has been honored with 20 MTV Video Music Awards—the most for any artist—including the lifetime achievement Video Vanguard Award in 1986.

Question: Madonna sold how many albums worldwide?
Answer: 300 million records

Question: Who is the best selling female rock artist in the 20th century?
Answer: Madonna

Question: Who named Madonna as the top female touring artist of all time?
Answer: Billboard

Question: How much did Madonna make in all her concerts together?
Answer: $1.31 billion

Question: How many MTV video music awards does Madonna have?
Answer: 20
Madonna_(entertainer)

Madonna holds the record for the most number-ones on all combined Billboard charts, including twelve number-one songs on the Billboard Hot 100 and eight number-one albums on the Billboard 200. With 45 songs topping the Hot Dance Club Songs chart, Madonna became the artist with the most number-one songs on an active Billboard chart, pulling ahead of George Strait with 44 number-one songs on the Hot Country Songs chart. She has also scored 38 top-ten singles on the Hot 100, more than any other artist in history. In 2008, Billboard magazine ranked her at number two, behind The Beatles, on the Billboard Hot 100 All-Time Top Artists, making her the most successful solo artist in the history of American singles chart.

Question: Who holds the record for the most number 1 hits?
Answer: Madonna

Question: How many songs does Madonna have on the Hot Dance Club Songs Chart?
Answer: 45

Question: Who has the most number one songs in an active BiIlboard chart?
Answer: Madonna

Question: How many top 10 singles on the Hot 100 does Madonna have?
Answer: 38

Question: Who is the most successful solo artist in the history of American singles chart?
Answer: Madonna
Law_of_the_United_States

The law of the United States comprises many levels of codified and uncodified forms of law, of which the most important is the United States Constitution, the foundation of the federal government of the United States. The Constitution sets out the boundaries of federal law, which consists of acts of Congress, treaties ratified by the Senate, regulations promulgated by the executive branch, and case law originating from the federal judiciary. The United States Code is the official compilation and codification of general and permanent federal statutory law.

Question: What is the foundation of the United States federal government?
Answer: United States Constitution

Question: In the Unites States what sets out the boundaries of federal law?
Answer: The Constitution

Question: What is defined as the official codification of federal statutory law?
Answer: The United States Code

Question: What is compromised of many levels of codified and uncodified forms of law?
Answer: law of the United States

Question: The constitution set boundaries for case law that originates from where?
Answer: federal judiciary

Question: What is the foundation of the U.S. federal government?
Answer: the United States Constitution

Question: What sets out the boundries of federal law?
Answer: The Constitution

Question: What two forms of law make up the laws of the United States?
Answer: codified and uncodified

Question: What is th eofficial compilation of federal statutory law called?
Answer: The United States Code

Question: What different kinds of law make up the laws of the United States?
Answer: codified and uncodified

Question: What is the most important document in the US, setting the boundries for all other laws?
Answer: the United States Constitution

Question: What branch of gevernment is responsible for ratifing treaties?
Answer: Senate

Question: With branch of government deals with new regulations?
Answer: the executive branch

Question: Who's responsibility is case law?
Answer: the federal judiciary

Question: What is the least important form of law in the US?

Question: What is the foundation of the US Constitution?

Question: The acts of Congress creates boundaries for what kind of law?

Question: What type of law does the executive branch create?

Question: Laws that are only general are called what?
Law_of_the_United_States

Federal law and treaties, so long as they are in accordance with the Constitution, preempt conflicting state and territorial laws in the 50 U.S. states and in the territories. However, the scope of federal preemption is limited because the scope of federal power is not universal. In the dual-sovereign system of American federalism (actually tripartite because of the presence of Indian reservations), states are the plenary sovereigns, each with their own constitution, while the federal sovereign possesses only the limited supreme authority enumerated in the Constitution. Indeed, states may grant their citizens broader rights than the federal Constitution as long as they do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights. Thus, most U.S. law (especially the actual "living law" of contract, tort, property, criminal, and family law experienced by the majority of citizens on a day-to-day basis) consists primarily of state law, which can and does vary greatly from one state to the next.

Question: What comes before state and territorial laws in the 50 U.S states?
Answer: Federal law and treaties

Question: Federal sovereign only possess authority if it is stated in what?
Answer: the Constitution

Question: States may grant their citizens border rights as long as they do not infringe on what?
Answer: federal constitutional rights

Question: Most U.S law, the kind of law we live everyday, consists of what kind of law?
Answer: state law

Question: Does every state have the same laws?
Answer: vary greatly from one state to the next.

Question: Federal law overrides what laws?
Answer: conflicting state and territorial laws

Question: The scope of federal power is not what?
Answer: universal

Question: What type of system is American Federalism?
Answer: dual-sovereign system

Question: American Federalism can also be considered tripartite because of the presence of what?
Answer: Indian reservations

Question: States can grant their people broader rights than those granted in what document?
Answer: the federal Constitution

Question: Is there anything that trumps state law?
Answer: Federal law and treaties

Question: How many state make up the United States?
Answer: 50

Question: Can states grant rights to citizens that are not defined by the constitution?
Answer: as long as they do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights

Question: What is day-to-day, operational law considered?
Answer: "living law"

Question: What is living law mostly made up of?
Answer: state law

Question: State and territorial laws preempt what kind of laws and treaties?

Question: The scope of what is considered universal?

Question: What type of government system do Indian reservations have?

Question: States may grant citizens fewer what?

Question: What are examples of family law?
Law_of_the_United_States

Notably, a statute does not disappear automatically merely because it has been found unconstitutional; it must be deleted by a subsequent statute. Many federal and state statutes have remained on the books for decades after they were ruled to be unconstitutional. However, under the principle of stare decisis, no sensible lower court will enforce an unconstitutional statute, and any court that does so will be reversed by the Supreme Court. Conversely, any court that refuses to enforce a constitutional statute (where such constitutionality has been expressly established in prior cases) will risk reversal by the Supreme Court.

Question: In order for a unconstitutional statue to disappear, it has to be deleted by?  
Answer: a subsequent statute

Question: What has remained on the books after they were ruled unconstitutional? 
Answer: federal and state statutes

Question: What principle  states no lower court will enforce an unconstitutional statue? 
Answer: stare decisis

Question: Who can reverse an unconstitutional court ruling?
Answer: the Supreme Court

Question: What must happen to a statute for it to become unconstitutional?
Answer: it must be deleted

Question: What can delete a statute and make it unconstitutional?
Answer: a subsequent statute

Question: Some federal and state statutes remain on the books for how long after they are ruled unconstitutional?
Answer: decades

Question: What decisis states that no lower court will enforce an unconstitutional statute?
Answer: the principle of stare decisis

Question: Any court that enforces an unconstitutional statute will be overturned by what court?
Answer: the Supreme Court

Question: If a statute is unconstitutional, how is it removed?
Answer: deleted by a subsequent statute

Question: What happens when an unconstitutional statute remains on the books?
Answer: no sensible lower court will enforce

Question: What would happen if a lower court tried to enforce an unconstitutional statute?
Answer: reversed by the Supreme Court

Question: What would happen if a lower court refused to uphold a constitutional law?
Answer: risk reversal by the Supreme Court

Question: What must happen before the Supreme Court will reverse a decision by a lower court refusing to uphold a constitutional law?
Answer: constitutionality has been expressly established in prior cases

Question: A statute is automatically removed when it is found to be what?

Question: How long does it take for the principle of stare decisis to come into affect?

Question: What is the name of the principle that demands that unconstitutional laws must be removed via subsequent rulings?

Question: What kind of court can reverse unconstitutional enforcements by the Supreme Court?

Question: What court created the principle of stare decisis?
Law_of_the_United_States

Notably, the most broadly influential innovation of 20th-century American tort law was the rule of strict liability for defective products, which originated with judicial glosses on the law of warranty. In 1963, Roger J. Traynor of the Supreme Court of California threw away legal fictions based on warranties and imposed strict liability for defective products as a matter of public policy in the landmark case of Greenman v. Yuba Power Products. The American Law Institute subsequently adopted a slightly different version of the Greenman rule in Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which was published in 1964 and was very influential throughout the United States. Outside the U.S., the rule was adopted by the European Economic Community in the Product Liability Directive of July 1985 by Australia in July 1992 and by Japan in June 1994.

Question: The rule of liability for defective products originated from what law?
Answer: law of warranty

Question: In what case did the supreme court of California, throw away warranties and strictly impose liability for defective products?
Answer: Greenman v. Yuba Power Products

Question: What was most influential American 20th century tort law?
Answer: rule of strict liability for defective products

Question: What year was the case Greenman v. Yuba Power products?
Answer: 1963

Question: What is one of the most influential changes to tort law?
Answer: rule of strict liability for defective products

Question: Who was at the forefront of the fight to change the laws on defective products?
Answer: Roger J. Traynor

Question: What case was fundamental in the fight to change warranty laws?
Answer: Greenman v. Yuba Power Products

Question: When was the Greenman rule in Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts published?
Answer: 1964

Question: When was the Restatement (Second) of Torts beginning to be adopted outside of the United States?
Answer: 1985

Question: What case occurred in 1994?

Question: What section of the Product Liability Directive discusses warranties?

Question: What minor rule went on the books on the 20th c?

Question: Who is the head of the American Law Institute?

Question: When did Traynor publish the Restatement (Second) of Torts?
Law_of_the_United_States

Tort law covers the entire imaginable spectrum of wrongs which humans can inflict upon each other, and of course, partially overlaps with wrongs also punishable by criminal law. Although the American Law Institute has attempted to standardize tort law through the development of several versions of the Restatement of Torts, many states have chosen to adopt only certain sections of the Restatements and to reject others. Thus, because of its immense size and diversity, American tort law cannot be easily summarized.

Question: What law covers wrongs which humans can inflict upon each other?
Answer: Tort law

Question: Why can American tort law not be easily summarized?
Answer: because of its immense size and diversity

Question: While attempting to standardize tort law, multiple versions of tort law have come about, what are there versions called?
Answer: Restatement of Torts

Question: What covers crimes of human against human?
Answer: Tort law

Question: What does tort law overlap with?
Answer: wrongs also punishable by criminal law

Question: What is attempting to standardize the tort law system?
Answer: Restatement of Torts

Question: What is the Restatement of Torts not successfull as a whole yet?
Answer: many states have chosen to adopt only certain sections

Question: Why is tort law hard to standardize?
Answer: immense size and diversity

Question: What does tort not overlap with?

Question: What tried to standardize criminal law?

Question: What allows American tort law to be summarized easily?

Question: The American Law Institute unstandardized what?

Question: States have adopted all of what?
Law_of_the_United_States

However, it is important to understand that despite the presence of reception statutes, much of contemporary American common law has diverged significantly from English common law. The reason is that although the courts of the various Commonwealth nations are often influenced by each other's rulings, American courts rarely follow post-Revolution Commonwealth rulings unless there is no American ruling on point, the facts and law at issue are nearly identical, and the reasoning is strongly persuasive.

Question: A lot of American common law diverged from where?
Answer: English common law

Question: When would American courts follow post-revolution commonwealth rulings?
Answer: there is no American ruling on point

Question: Courts in commonwealth nations are often influenced by what?
Answer: by each other's rulings

Question: Most modern American common law came from what kind of law?
Answer: English common law

Question: Couts of commonwealth nations are often influenced by who's rulings?
Answer: each other's

Question: What rulings do American courts rarely follow?
Answer: post-Revolution Commonwealth rulings

Question: What is one reason American courts may follow a post Revolutionary Commonwealth ruling under what circumstances?
Answer: there is no American ruling on point

Question: How close is current American law to English law?
Answer: diverged significantly

Question: What differs about American and English law?
Answer: American courts rarely follow post-Revolution Commonwealth rulings

Question: When would American law be more likely to follow English law?
Answer: no American ruling on point

Question: How close do the issues have to be in order for an English law to be used?
Answer: nearly identical

Question: Much of American common law is similar to what?

Question: Commonwealth nations tend to not be influenced by what?

Question: What kind of reasoning is required to follow the American ruling?

Question: When do Americans follow pre-Revolution Commonwealth rulings?

Question: What is English common law very similar to?
Law_of_the_United_States

The actual substance of English law was formally "received" into the United States in several ways. First, all U.S. states except Louisiana have enacted "reception statutes" which generally state that the common law of England (particularly judge-made law) is the law of the state to the extent that it is not repugnant to domestic law or indigenous conditions. Some reception statutes impose a specific cutoff date for reception, such as the date of a colony's founding, while others are deliberately vague. Thus, contemporary U.S. courts often cite pre-Revolution cases when discussing the evolution of an ancient judge-made common law principle into its modern form, such as the heightened duty of care traditionally imposed upon common carriers.

Question: Reception statues are generally the same as what law?
Answer: the common law of England

Question: Who sites pre-revolution cases when discussion evolution of judge-made law? 
Answer: contemporary U.S. courts

Question: Which US State did not  enact reception statues? 
Answer: Louisiana

Question: What is the only state to not enact reception statutes?
Answer: Louisiana

Question: What do reception statutes state is the law of the state?
Answer: common law of England

Question: Some reception statutes impose what?
Answer: a specific cutoff date

Question: Modern courts often cite which period in history cases when discussing changes in law?
Answer: pre-Revolution

Question: What are reception statutes?
Answer: the common law of England (particularly judge-made law) is the law of the state

Question: When are reception statutes invaild?
Answer: repugnant to domestic law or indigenous conditions

Question: Where did the bulk of the US's starting laws come from?
Answer: English law

Question: Which is the only stste without reception statutes?
Answer: Louisiana

Question: What kind of case would a contemporary lawyer discuss when talking about an ancient judge-made common law principle?
Answer: pre-Revolution

Question: What is the only US state to have a reception statute?

Question: What form of English law has been considered repugnant to the US?

Question: What specific date did Louisiana chose as a cutoff date?

Question: What cases have contemporary courts thrown out?

Question: Lowered duty of care is placed on what?
Law_of_the_United_States

Early on, American courts, even after the Revolution, often did cite contemporary English cases. This was because appellate decisions from many American courts were not regularly reported until the mid-19th century; lawyers and judges, as creatures of habit, used English legal materials to fill the gap. But citations to English decisions gradually disappeared during the 19th century as American courts developed their own principles to resolve the legal problems of the American people. The number of published volumes of American reports soared from eighteen in 1810 to over 8,000 by 1910. By 1879 one of the delegates to the California constitutional convention was already complaining: "Now, when we require them to state the reasons for a decision, we do not mean they shall write a hundred pages of detail. We [do] not mean that they shall include the small cases, and impose on the country all this fine judicial literature, for the Lord knows we have got enough of that already."

Question: early on American courts cited what cases?
Answer: contemporary English

Question: What century were apellate decisions regularly reported?
Answer: 19th century

Question: When did cotations to English decisions gradually disappear?
Answer: 19th century

Question: How many published reports of American volumes existed in 1810?
Answer: eighteen

Question: How many published reports of American volumes existed in 1910?
Answer: over 8,000

Question: When did Americans really begin to establish their own laws independent of the English?
Answer: mid-19th century

Question: How many published volumes of American reports were released in 1810?
Answer: eighteen

Question: By 1910, how many volumes of American reports were there?
Answer: 8,000

Question: What did the lawmakers think of the increase in reports?
Answer: By 1879 one of the delegates to the California constitutional convention was already complaining

Question: What were the lawmakers beginning to drown in?
Answer: judicial literature

Question: Whose cases did English courts cite early on?

Question: When did decisions from English courts begin to be reported?

Question: How many published volumes of American reports were there in 1879?

Question: Where was the delegate who praised the American judicial literature from?

Question: How many English law volumes were there in 1810?
Law_of_the_United_States

Federal law originates with the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to enact statutes for certain limited purposes like regulating interstate commerce. The United States Code is the official compilation and codification of the general and permanent federal statutes. Many statutes give executive branch agencies the power to create regulations, which are published in the Federal Register and codified into the Code of Federal Regulations. Regulations generally also carry the force of law under the Chevron doctrine. Many lawsuits turn on the meaning of a federal statute or regulation, and judicial interpretations of such meaning carry legal force under the principle of stare decisis.

Question: What does federal law come from?
Answer: the Constitution

Question: What gives Congress limited power to enact statutes?
Answer: the Constitution

Question: What do you call the official compilation and codification of federal statutes?
Answer: The United States Code

Question: Where are regulations published?
Answer: in the Federal Register

Question: Where are regulations codified into?
Answer: Code of Federal Regulations

Question: Where does federal law begin?
Answer: the Constitution

Question: Who has the power and right to enact statutes for interstate dealings?
Answer: Congress

Question: What is the compilation and codification of all federal statutes?
Answer: The United States Code

Question: Who do the statutes give the power of creating regulations?
Answer: executive branch agencies

Question: Where are the regulations from executive branch agencies found?
Answer: the Code of Federal Regulations

Question: What does the Constitution stem from?

Question: What is an example of something Congress cannot regulate?

Question: What branch creates the Chevron doctrine?

Question: The Chevron doctrine compiles and codifies what?

Question: What is the Federal Register published in?
Law_of_the_United_States

During the 18th and 19th centuries, federal law traditionally focused on areas where there was an express grant of power to the federal government in the federal Constitution, like the military, money, foreign relations (especially international treaties), tariffs, intellectual property (specifically patents and copyrights), and mail. Since the start of the 20th century, broad interpretations of the Commerce and Spending Clauses of the Constitution have enabled federal law to expand into areas like aviation, telecommunications, railroads, pharmaceuticals, antitrust, and trademarks. In some areas, like aviation and railroads, the federal government has developed a comprehensive scheme that preempts virtually all state law, while in others, like family law, a relatively small number of federal statutes (generally covering interstate and international situations) interacts with a much larger body of state law. In areas like antitrust, trademark, and employment law, there are powerful laws at both the federal and state levels that coexist with each other. In a handful of areas like insurance, Congress has enacted laws expressly refusing to regulate them as long as the states have laws regulating them (see, e.g., the McCarran-Ferguson Act).

Question: What areas of the Constitution deal with issuses such as aviation, railroads, and trademarks?
Answer: Commerce and Spending Clauses

Question: In areas of law such as insurance, there are laws refusing to regulate them as long as states have laws doing what?
Answer: regulating them

Question: What type of property are trademarks and copyrights?
Answer: intellectual property

Question: What governs things such as military, money, foreign relations, etc.?
Answer: federal law

Question: What enabled federal law to begin expanding into other areas such as avaition, telecommunications, railroads, etc.?
Answer: Commerce and Spending Clauses of the Constitution

Question: When did the Commerce and Spending Clauses of the Constitution allow federal power to begin expanding?
Answer: start of the 20th century

Question: What is a law enacted by Congress that states that it refuses to regulate some industries as long as the states have regulations in place already?
Answer: McCarran-Ferguson Act

Question: What happens when both the federal and state governments have regulations that overlap?
Answer: coexist with each other

Question: What areas of law were generally ignored in the 18th and 19th centuries?

Question: When did federal law lose jurisdiction over aviation?

Question: Federal law on antitrust preempts what?

Question: What was the name of the act that allowed for broader interpretations in the 20th century?

Question: Employment laws has only what kind of law instead of federal?
Law_of_the_United_States

After the President signs a bill into law (or Congress enacts it over his veto), it is delivered to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) where it is assigned a law number, and prepared for publication as a slip law. Public laws, but not private laws, are also given legal statutory citation by the OFR. At the end of each session of Congress, the slip laws are compiled into bound volumes called the United States Statutes at Large, and they are known as session laws. The Statutes at Large present a chronological arrangement of the laws in the exact order that they have been enacted.

Question: Who signs a bill into a law?
Answer: the President

Question: Where does a bill go after it is signed?
Answer: Office of the Federal Register (OFR) of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)

Question: What is a new law given at the OFR of the NARA?
Answer: a law number

Question: After being given a law number, a new law is prepared for publication as what?
Answer: a slip law

Question: What kind of laws are not given statutory citation by the OFR?
Answer: private laws

Question: Where does a bill go once the President signs it into effect?
Answer: delivered to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA)

Question: What happens after a bill is delivered to the OFR?
Answer: assigned a law number

Question: After a bill is assigned a number, what is it made ready for?
Answer: publication as a slip law

Question: Once the slip laws are placed into the United States Statutes at Large, what are they called?
Answer: session laws

Question: What is the United States Statutes at Large?
Answer: a chronological arrangement of the laws in the exact order that they have been enacted

Question: What does Congress sign into law?

Question: What organization gives private laws legal statutory citations?

Question: Bound volumes of bills are called what?

Question: What type of laws does the NARA grant statutory citations to?

Question: Who signs a bill after it is delivered to the OFR?
Law_of_the_United_States

Congress often enacts statutes that grant broad rulemaking authority to federal agencies. Often, Congress is simply too gridlocked to draft detailed statutes that explain how the agency should react to every possible situation, or Congress believes the agency's technical specialists are best equipped to deal with particular fact situations as they arise. Therefore, federal agencies are authorized to promulgate regulations. Under the principle of Chevron deference, regulations normally carry the force of law as long as they are based on a reasonable interpretation of the relevant statutes.

Question: What does congress often grant to give rulemaking authority to federal agencies?
Answer: statutes

Question: Federal agencies are authorized to make what public?
Answer: regulations

Question: Regulations normally carry the force of what?
Answer: law

Question: Regualtions carry force of law when based on reasonable interpretation of what?
Answer: relevant statutes

Question: What power is granted to federal agencies by Congress?
Answer: broad rulemaking authority

Question: Why does Congress give generalized powers to federal agencies?
Answer: too gridlocked to draft detailed statutes that explain how the agency should react to every possible situation

Question: What gives regulations imposed by federal agencies the right to enforce their regulations?
Answer: the principle of Chevron

Question: What does the Principle of Chevron provide for?
Answer: regulations normally carry the force of law as long as they are based on a reasonable interpretation of the relevant statutes

Question: What do federal agencies enact for rulemaking purposes?

Question: Gridlock allows Congress to draft what?

Question: What does Congress believe hampers an agency's ability to deal with situations?

Question: Congress's state of gridlock is referred to as what principle?

Question: The Chevron deference prevents regulations from interpreting what?
Law_of_the_United_States

The difficult question is whether federal judicial power extends to formulating binding precedent through strict adherence to the rule of stare decisis. This is where the act of deciding a case becomes a limited form of lawmaking in itself, in that an appellate court's rulings will thereby bind itself and lower courts in future cases (and therefore also impliedly binds all persons within the court's jurisdiction). Prior to a major change to federal court rules in 2007, about one-fifth of federal appellate cases were published and thereby became binding precedents, while the rest were unpublished and bound only the parties to each case.

Question: What is used to determine whether federal judicial power extends to formulating binding precedent?
Answer: stare decisis

Question: What is stare decisis?
Answer: the act of deciding a case becomes a limited form of lawmaking in itself

Question: Why is stare decisis a limited form of lawmaking?
Answer: an appellate court's rulings will thereby bind itself and lower courts in future cases

Question: Who else does stare decisis affect?
Answer: impliedly binds all persons within the court's jurisdiction

Question: Formulating judicial power is done by following what rule?

Question: What fraction of federal appellate cases were published in 2007?

Question: When did federal appellate cases begin to be published?

Question: What do decisions made by lower courts bind?

Question: Who are unaffected by stare decisis?
Law_of_the_United_States

As federal judge Alex Kozinski has pointed out, binding precedent as we know it today simply did not exist at the time the Constitution was framed. Judicial decisions were not consistently, accurately, and faithfully reported on both sides of the Atlantic (reporters often simply rewrote or failed to publish decisions which they disliked), and the United Kingdom lacked a coherent court hierarchy prior to the end of the 19th century. Furthermore, English judges in the eighteenth century subscribed to now-obsolete natural law theories of law, by which law was believed to have an existence independent of what individual judges said. Judges saw themselves as merely declaring the law which had always theoretically existed, and not as making the law. Therefore, a judge could reject another judge's opinion as simply an incorrect statement of the law, in the way that scientists regularly reject each other's conclusions as incorrect statements of the laws of science.

Question: Who has noted that binding precedent did not exist when the Constitution was written?
Answer: federal judge Alex Kozinski

Question: Why were decisions not reported or recoded correctly?
Answer: reporters often simply rewrote or failed to publish decisions which they disliked

Question: What are the natural theories of law that that the English judges in the eighteenth century used?
Answer: law was believed to have an existence independent of what individual judges said

Question: Why could one judge reject another judges opinion?
Answer: saw themselves as merely declaring the law which had always theoretically existed, and not as making the law

Question: Why would one judge reject another's opinion?
Answer: incorrect statement of the law

Question: What began at the time the Constitution was framed?

Question: What was the name of the judge who believed he was declaring a pre-existing law?

Question: When did the natural law theory fall out of fashion?

Question: Reporters were not allowed to prevent publication based on what?

Question: What did the the UK courts in the end of the 19th century?
Law_of_the_United_States

Unlike the situation with the states, there is no plenary reception statute at the federal level that continued the common law and thereby granted federal courts the power to formulate legal precedent like their English predecessors. Federal courts are solely creatures of the federal Constitution and the federal Judiciary Acts. However, it is universally accepted that the Founding Fathers of the United States, by vesting "judicial power" into the Supreme Court and the inferior federal courts in Article Three of the United States Constitution, thereby vested in them the implied judicial power of common law courts to formulate persuasive precedent; this power was widely accepted, understood, and recognized by the Founding Fathers at the time the Constitution was ratified. Several legal scholars have argued that the federal judicial power to decide "cases or controversies" necessarily includes the power to decide the precedential effect of those cases and controversies.

Question: How did the federal agencies differ from their English counter-parts?
Answer: no plenary reception statute at the federal level that continued the common law

Question: What did the missing plenary reception do?
Answer: granted federal courts the power to formulate legal precedent

Question: Where do the federal courts fall?
Answer: the federal Judiciary Acts

Question: Where is judicial power found in the original Constitution?
Answer: Article Three

Question: What does Article Three give federal agencies?
Answer: implied judicial power of common law courts to formulate persuasive precedent

Question: Federal courts are outside of the jurisdiction of what federal acts?

Question: What power did the Founding Fathers remove in Article Three?

Question: Who did the Supreme Court grant judicial power to?

Question: Where is the plenary reception statute found in the Constitution?

Question: When did scholars begin to argue that judicial power includes precedential effect?
Law_of_the_United_States

In turn, according to Kozinski's analysis, the contemporary rule of binding precedent became possible in the U.S. in the nineteenth century only after the creation of a clear court hierarchy (under the Judiciary Acts), and the beginning of regular verbatim publication of U.S. appellate decisions by West Publishing. The rule gradually developed, case-by-case, as an extension of the judiciary's public policy of effective judicial administration (that is, in order to efficiently exercise the judicial power). The rule of precedent is generally justified today as a matter of public policy, first, as a matter of fundamental fairness, and second, because in the absence of case law, it would be completely unworkable for every minor issue in every legal case to be briefed, argued, and decided from first principles (such as relevant statutes, constitutional provisions, and underlying public policies), which in turn would create hopeless inefficiency, instability, and unpredictability, and thereby undermine the rule of law.

Question: When did binding precedent become possible in the United States?
Answer: nineteenth century

Question: What made binding precedent a possibility?
Answer: creation of a clear court hierarchy (under the Judiciary Acts), and the beginning of regular verbatim publication of U.S. appellate decisions by West Publishing

Question: What can invalidate the rule of law?
Answer: hopeless inefficiency, instability, and unpredictability

Question: Why was the rule of precedent allowed?
Answer: in the absence of case law, it would be completely unworkable for every minor issue in every legal case to be briefed, argued, and decided

Question: How is a court hierarchy established?
Answer: the Judiciary Acts

Question: What did Kozinski make possible?

Question: When was West Publishing created?

Question: What company published the Judiciary Acts?

Question: What public policy has been ruled as an undermining of the rule of law?

Question: What is the name of the writer of the rule of binding precedent?
Law_of_the_United_States

Under the doctrine of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938), there is no general federal common law. Although federal courts can create federal common law in the form of case law, such law must be linked one way or another to the interpretation of a particular federal constitutional provision, statute, or regulation (which in turn was enacted as part of the Constitution or after). Federal courts lack the plenary power possessed by state courts to simply make up law, which the latter are able to do in the absence of constitutional or statutory provisions replacing the common law. Only in a few narrow limited areas, like maritime law, has the Constitution expressly authorized the continuation of English common law at the federal level (meaning that in those areas federal courts can continue to make law as they see fit, subject to the limitations of stare decisis).

Question: What states that there is no general federal common law?
Answer: the doctrine of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins

Question: When was the doctrine of Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins put into effect?
Answer: 1938

Question: Why can't federal courts just make up law?
Answer: lack the plenary power possessed by state courts

Question: When are states allowed to use plenary power?
Answer: absence of constitutional or statutory provisions replacing the common law

Question: Who won Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins?

Question: When was the Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins rescinded?

Question: What type of power do Federal courts have that state courts do not?

Question: What is an example of a law that is not an extension of English common law?

Question: Maritime law is not subject to what limitation?
Law_of_the_United_States

The other major implication of the Erie doctrine is that federal courts cannot dictate the content of state law when there is no federal issue (and thus no federal supremacy issue) in a case. When hearing claims under state law pursuant to diversity jurisdiction, federal trial courts must apply the statutory and decisional law of the state in which they sit, as if they were a court of that state, even if they believe that the relevant state law is irrational or just bad public policy. And under Erie, deference is one-way only: state courts are not bound by federal interpretations of state law.

Question: What is a major implication of the Erie doctrine?
Answer: federal courts cannot dictate the content of state law when there is no federal issue

Question: What are states not bound by?
Answer: federal interpretations of state law

Question: What states that deference is one way only?
Answer: Erie doctrine

Question: What does it mean when Erie states that deference is one way only?
Answer: state courts are not bound by federal interpretations of state law

Question: The Erie doctrine allows federal courts to intercede even when there is no what?

Question: What doctrine states that state courts are bound by federal interpretations?

Question: When can federal trial courts ignore state law?

Question: What must federal trial courts apply when the state law is not pursuant?

Question: The Erie doctrine states that federal courts can do what?