Source: https://howlingpixel.com/i-en/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 16:42:14+00:00

Document:
The Abrogation doctrine is a constitutional law doctrine expounding when and how the Congress may waive a state's sovereign immunity and subject it to lawsuits to which the state has not consented (i.e., to "abrogate" their immunity to such suits).
In Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) the Supreme Court ruled that the Congress's authority, under Article One of the United States Constitution, could not be used to abrogate state sovereign immunity. However, the Congress can authorize lawsuits seeking monetary damages against individual U.S. states when it acts pursuant to powers delegated to it by amendments subsequent to the Eleventh Amendment. This is most frequently done pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which explicitly allows the Congress to enforce its guarantees on the states and thus overrides states' Eleventh Amendment immunity.
The doctrine was first announced by the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision written by then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist, Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, 427 U.S. 445 (1976). Bitzer "continued the line of reasoning that Rehnquist had acknowledged in Fry v. United States ... that cases involving Congress’ authority under Section 5 present different problems than cases involving the Congress’s Commerce Clause authority." The doctrine has since developed a number of nuances and limitations. In particular, later cases explained that the Court would not infer Congressional intent to abrogate sovereign immunity, but would only uphold abrogations where the Congress has "unequivocally express[ed] its intention to abrogate the Eleventh Amendment bar to suits against states in federal court." In order to do this, the Congress must "mak[e] its intention unmistakably clear in the language of the statute." Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234 (1985).
Another limitation that the courts have read into Congressional power to abrogate is the "congruence and proportionality" test, first discussed in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997). Because the Fourteenth Amendment allows Congress to take "appropriate" action to enforce rights, the Court has determined that such action must be congruent and proportional to the deprivation of the right that the Congress is seeking to remedy. An example of a case where an act of the Congress failed the Boerne test is Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000). An example where an act passed the Boerne test is Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721 (2003).
In the United States Congress, an appropriations bill is legislation to appropriate federal funds to specific federal government departments, agencies and programs. The money provides funding for operations, personnel, equipment and activities. Regular appropriations bills are passed annually, with the funding they provide covering one fiscal year. The fiscal year is the accounting period of the federal government, which runs from October 1 to September 30 of the following year. Appropriations bills are under the jurisdiction of the United States House Committee on Appropriations and the United States Senate Committee on Appropriations. Both Committees have twelve matching subcommittees, each tasked with working on one of the twelve annual regular appropriations bills.
There are three types of appropriations bills: regular appropriations bills, continuing resolutions, and supplemental appropriations bills. Regular appropriations bills are the twelve standard bills that cover the funding for the federal government for one fiscal year and that are supposed to be enacted into law by October 1. If Congress has not enacted the regular appropriations bills by the time, it may pass a continuing resolution, which generally continues the pre-existing appropriations at the same levels as the previous fiscal year (or with minor modifications) for a set amount of time. If Congress fails to pass an appropriation bill or a continuing resolution, or if the President vetoes a passed bill, it may result in a government shutdown. The third type of appropriations bills are supplemental appropriations bills, which add additional funding above and beyond what was originally appropriated at the beginning of the fiscal year. Supplemental appropriations bills can be used for things like disaster relief.
Appropriations bills are one part of a larger United States budget and spending process. They are preceded in that process by the president's budget proposal, congressional budget resolutions, and the 302(b) allocation. Article I, section 9, clause 7 of the U.S. Constitution states that "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law..." This is what gives Congress the power to make these appropriations. The President, however, still has the power to veto appropriations bills. However, the President does not have line-item veto authority so that he must either sign the entire bill into law or veto it.
Bills of credit are documents similar to banknotes issued by a government that represent a government's indebtedness to the holder. They are typically designed to circulate as currency or currency substitutes. Bills of credit are mentioned in Article One, Section 10, Clause One (also known as the Contract Clause) of the United States Constitution, where their issuance by state governments is prohibited.
Cognitive Madisonianism is the idea that divided government is better than one in which a single party controls both the executive and legislative branches. A relatively large percentage of the populace of the USA [over 20%] supposedly voted a split ticket because of this belief between 1992-1996, according to "Split-Ticket Voting: The Effects of Cognitive Madisonianism" by Lewis-Beck and Nadeau.In the USA, Cognitive Madisonianism is in keeping with Article One of the United States Constitution, and the principle of separation of powers under the United States Constitution. It comes about from a belief that James Madison, and the other Founding Fathers of the United States, intended power within the institutions of government (executive, legislature and the judiciary) to be separate and act as checks and balances against each other. Voters might vote in this way because they do not want any of the above institutions to exercise too much power individually, as this might lead to tyranny. Voting due to Cognitive Madisonianism has potential to create weak government and negatively impact on the administration of the country, because it creates split ticket voting, which in turn can create legislative gridlock.
listing and summary of statutes which are automatically engaged upon the US declaring war.
For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War." However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a "declaration of war" nor does the Constitution itself use this term. In the courts, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in Doe v. Bush, said: "[T]he text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war." in effect saying an authorization suffices for declaration and what some may view as a formal Congressional "Declaration of War" was not required by the Constitution.
The last time the United States formally declared war, using specific terminology, on any nation was in 1942, when war was declared against Axis-allied Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania, because President Franklin Roosevelt thought it was improper to engage in hostilities against a country without a formal declaration of war. Since then, every American president has used military force without a declaration of war.This article will use the term "formal declaration of war" to mean Congressional legislation that uses the phrase "declaration of war" in the title. Elsewhere, this article will use the terms "authorized by Congress," "funded by Congress" or "undeclared war" to describe other such conflicts.
Electoral reform in Washington, D.C.
Electoral reform in Washington, D.C. refers to efforts to change the voting laws in the formerly square-shaped district that by Article One of the United States Constitution must not exceed a size of ten miles square (260.14 km²).
One of the most contentious electoral reform issues in this district is the proposed granting of District of Columbia vote in the United States House of Representatives.
Another question is whether DC will join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact and assign its three electoral votes to the ticket winning the national popular vote.
The enumerated powers (also called expressed powers, explicit powers or delegated powers) of the United States Congress are listed in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. In summary, Congress may exercise the powers that the Constitution grants it, subject to the individual rights listed in the Bill of Rights. Moreover, the Constitution expresses various other limitations on Congress, such as the one expressed by the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Historically, Congress and the Supreme Court have broadly interpreted the enumerated powers, especially by deriving many implied powers from them. The enumerated powers listed in Article One include both exclusive federal powers, as well as concurrent powers that are shared with the states, and all of those powers are to be contrasted with reserved powers that only the states possess.
The Government of the District of Columbia operates under Article One of the United States Constitution and the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, which devolves certain powers of the United States Congress to the Mayor and thirteen-member Council. However, Congress retains the right to review and overturn laws created by the council and intervene in local affairs. The District Government is within the Legislative branch of Federal government, which makes the government a Federal agency.
The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, also known as the Snyder Act, was proposed by Representative Homer P. Snyder (R) of New York and granted full U.S. citizenship to the indigenous peoples of the United States, called "Indians" in this Act. While the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution defines as citizens any persons born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction, the amendment had been interpreted to not apply to Native people. The act was signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on June 2, 1924. It was enacted partially in recognition of the thousands of Indians who served in the armed forces during the First World War.
Knox v. Lee, 79 U.S. (12 Wall.) 457 (1871), was an important case for its time where the Supreme Court of the United States overruled Hepburn v. Griswold. In Knox v. Lee, the Court held that making paper money legal tender through the Legal Tender Act did not conflict with Article One of the United States Constitution.
Mrs. Lee was a loyal citizen of the United States whose flock of sheep was sold by the Confederate army, as the Confederates considered Mrs. Lee an 'alien enemy'. Mr. Knox purchased the sheep from the Confederate army, and Mrs. Lee brought suit for trespass and conversion. The Court instructed the jury that whatever amount they awarded could be paid with legal tender notes of the United States. Mr. Knox appealed, as he contended that this instruction was equivalent to telling the jury to add a premium for the discount of paper currency relative to specie.
The case of Parker v. Davis was resolved in the same decision where Davis wished to compel specific performance requiring Parker to convey a lot to Davis in return for payment of money. The Court decreed that Davis should pay money into the Court and Parker was to execute a deed to Davis. Davis paid United States notes, but Parker refused to execute a deed, claiming that he was entitled to receive coin.
Article One of the United States Constitution gives the Senate the power to "determine the elections, returns, and qualifications" of its own members. As a result, the Senate has been asked to review the election of one of its members many times.
This list only includes federal officials convicted of certain select corruption crimes.
For a more complete list see: List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes and List of federal political scandals in the United States.
Dozens of high-level United States federal officials have been convicted of public corruption offenses for conduct while in office. These officials have been convicted under two types of statutes. The first type are also applicable to corrupt state and local officials: the mail and wire fraud statutes (enacted 1872), including the honest services fraud provision, the Hobbs Act (enacted 1934), the Travel Act (enacted 1961), and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) (enacted 1970). In addition, federal officials are subject to the federal bribery, graft, and conflict-of-interest crimes contained in Title 18, Chapter 11 of the United States Code, 18 U.S.C. §§ 201–227, which do not apply to state and local officials. Most notably, § 201(b) prohibits the receipt of bribes, and § 201(c) prohibits the receipt of unlawful gratuities, by federal public officials. Lesser used statutes include conspiracy to defraud the United States (enacted 1867) and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) (enacted 1977).Where the defendant is a member of the United States Congress, the Speech or Debate Clause of Article One of the United States Constitution—providing that: "[F]or any Speech or Debate in either House, [Senators or Representatives] shall not be questioned in any other Place"—limits the acts which may be charged and the evidence that may be introduced.
The following are historical lists of the youngest members of the United States Congress, in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. These members would be the equivalent to the "Baby of the House" in the parliaments of Commonwealth countries; the U.S. Congress does not confer a similar title upon its youngest members.
Youngest U.S. congressmen tend to be older than the youngest MPs in Commonwealth countries. This is partly so because minimum ages are written into Article One of the United States Constitution, which bars persons under the age of 25 from serving in the House and persons under the age of 30 from serving in the Senate. Additionally, in the political culture of the United States, many young politicians prefer to gain experience in local and state offices before running for Congress. Although the vast majority of members of Congress had such experience before arriving in Washington, D.C., the number of those who did not has increased recently.In the 115th Congress, which began on January 3, 2017, the youngest member of the United States House of Representatives is Elise Stefanik (R-New York 21), who was born on (1984-07-02) July 2, 1984 and first elected in 2014.
On November 6, 2018, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Abby Finkenauer (D-IA) won their general election campaigns and respectively became the youngest and second-youngest congresswomen ever elected. On taking office, they became the youngest two members of the 116th United States Congress; Ocasio-Cortez also became the youngest congresswoman in United States history.
Josh Hawley is the youngest sitting senator of the 116th United States Congress at age 39. He replaced Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton, who at 41 was the youngest senator of the 115th Congress.The average age of Senators is now higher than in the past. In the 19th century, several state legislatures elected Senators in their late twenties despite the Constitutional minimum age of 30, such as Henry Clay, who was sworn into office at age 29.
A signing statement is a written pronouncement issued by the President of the United States upon the signing of a bill into law. They are usually printed along with the bill in United States Code Congressional and Administrative News (USCCAN). The statements begin with wording such as "This bill, which I have signed today" and continue with a brief description of the bill and often several paragraphs of political commentary.During the administration of President George W. Bush, there was a controversy over the President's use of signing statements, which critics charged was unusually extensive and modified the meaning of statutes. The practice predates the Bush administration, however, and was also used by the succeeding Obama administration. In July 2006, a task force of the American Bar Association stated that the use of signing statements to modify the meaning of duly enacted laws serves to "undermine the rule of law and our constitutional system of separation of powers".
A Calendar of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, to which shall be referred public bills and public resolutions raising revenue, involving a tax or charge on the people, directly or indirectly making appropriations of money or property or requiring such appropriations to be made, authorizing payments out of appropriations already made, releasing any liability to the United States for money or property, or referring a claim to the Court of Claims.
The majority of modern bills that are reported will contain provisions for public expenditures of funds. Therefore, more bills reported by House committees are placed on the Union calendar and committed to the Committee of the Whole than are placed on other calendars.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 201
 § 201