Loading...
Congress Bills and Resolutions
Quiz by Josh Mahato
Customize this quiz to suit your class
Instantly translate to 100+ languages
Tag the questions with any skills you have. Your dashboard will track each student's mastery of each skill.
Give this quiz to my class
Democratic Constitution in South Africa Struggle against Apartheid • Apartheid was the name of a system of racial discrimination unique to South Africa. • This system was particularly oppressive for the blacks. → They were forbidden from living in white areas. • Since 1950, the blacks, coloured and Indians fought against the apartheid system. • The African National Congress (ANC) was the umbrella organisation that led the struggle against the policies of segregation. • In 1964, Nelson Mandela and seven other leaders were sentenced to life imprisonment in 1964 for daring to oppose the apartheid regime in his country. Towards a New Constitution • As protests and struggles against apartheid had increased, the white regime changed its policies. • After 28 years of imprisonment, Nelson Mandela released from jail. • At the midnight of 26 April 1994, democracy was adopted as a form of government in South Africa. • After two years, a constitution came out which gave to its citizens the most extensive rights available in any country. Why do we need a Constitution? • A constitution is necessary because: → It generates a degree of trust and coordination that is necessary for different kind of people to live together. → It specifies how the government will be constituted, who will have power to take which decisions. → It lays down limits on the powers of the government and tells us what the rights of the citizens are. → It expresses the aspirations of the people about creating a good society. Making of the Indian Constitution • In 1928, Motilal Nehru and eight other Congress leaders drafted a constitution for India. • In 1931, the resolution at the Karachi session of the Indian National Congress dwelt on how independent India’s constitution should look like. • Factors contributed to the making of our Constitution. → Ideals of French Revolution → The practice of parliamentary democracy in Britain → The Bill of Rights in the US → The socialist revolution in Russia The Constituent Assembly • In July 1946, Elections to the Constituent Assembly were held. → The drafting of the document called the constitution was done Constituent Assembly. → Dr. Rajendra Prasad was the Chairman of the Constituent Assembly. → In December 1946, the first meeting was held. • After the country was divided into India and Pakistan, the Constituent Assembly also got divided. • The Assembly adopted the Constitution on 26 November 1949 but it came into effect on 26 January 1950. • To mark this day we celebrate January 26 as Republic Day every year. • The Constituent Assembly worked in a systematic, open and consensual manner. → First some basic principles were decided and agreed upon. → Then a Drafting Committee chaired by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar prepared a draft constitution for discussion. → More than two thousand amendments were considered. Philosophy of the Constitution • The Constitution begins with a short statement of its basic values which is called the Preamble to the constitution. The preamble focuses on: → Justice, social, economic and political. → Liberty of thoughts, expression, belief, faith and worship. → Equality of status and of opportunity. → Fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the nation.Between 1775 and 1782 (the years of the American Revolution) a smallpox epidemic spread across North America. By 1782, the disease had reached the villages of the Mandans and Hidatsas. The death rate was very high. The Dakotas attacked the weakened Mandan villages including On-a-slant village (today the villiage is in Fort Lincoln State Park) and Double Ditch village. By 1790, the survivors (of both disease and war) left the Heart River area and moved north to establish villages near Painted Woods Creek and at the mouth of the Knife River. The Mandans who had once occupied six large villages now lived in two small villages. There were only two remaining Hidatsa villages and another village where both Mandans and Hidatsas lived. The populations of the two tribes had been reduced by 75 percent. The Mandans and Hidatsas also suffered cultural losses because of the smallpox outbreaks. The Mandan villages had always shared some common cultural traits, but each village had a slightly different language. As the survivors were forced to move together for security, the differences disappeared. There were similar cultural losses for the Hidatsas. The Arikaras who lived farther south along the Missouri River also experienced the smallpox epidemic. By 1790, the Arikaras had been reduced from a large population living in 32 villages to a group that occupied two villages. Only 500 men of military age remained of the 4,000 Arikara warriors who had protected their villages in previous decades. In 1801, smallpox struck the people of the northern Great Plains again. This time, the epidemic killed fewer people. It is possible that the survivors of the 1782 epidemic were still immune to the virus this time. In 1830, the Army identified smallpox as a dangerous disease at Indian agencies on the lower Missouri River (in modern-day Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska). The Secretary of War, L. G. Randolph, authorized Indian agents to hire doctors to vaccinate American Indians living at the agencies. However, these agents were not ordered to vaccinate Indians. Many mothers feared the vaccine. They had seen many babies become sick because doctors did not use sterile procedures (which were unknown at the time). Sometimes vaccine was not effective and the children became sick anyway. For a variety of reasons, the Army’s vaccination campaign did little to stop smallpox epidemics among the Indians of the frontier. Indian agents on the frontier were concerned about smallpox. Non-Indian settlers were approaching the lands where the tribes lived. Disease was spreading and the agents begged the Office of Indian Affairs (part of the War Department) to provide vaccine for Indians. Finally, in 1832, Congress passed the Indian Vaccination Act. The bill appropriated $12,000 to purchase vaccine and hire doctors to vaccinate Indians. Exactly which tribes would be vaccinated was not specified in the bill. Secretary of War Lewis Cass, who administered the program, decided that the vaccination program would be extended to tribes that were friendly to the United States, those with important economic roles, and those tribes (Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole) that were being forced out of southern states to relocation sites in the West. Cass specifically excluded the Mandans, Hidatsas, and Arikaras (along with other tribes living farther up the river) from the vaccination program. Cass believed the fur trade on the Upper Missouri River was no longer economically important. He also stated that the treaties that all three tribes signed in 1825 identified them as hostile towards the U. S. and its citizens. (See Document 1.) Other tribes, including the Teton Sioux (Lakotas) did not have such statements in their treaties. Cass excluded the Upper Missouri tribes from vaccination because he considered them to be far removed (both geographically and socially) from “civilized man.” Legislative Structure: Congress -- two houses: Senate (2 senators from each state, 6 year terms, must be at least 30 years old and have been a citizen for at least nine years) -- Constitution originally allowed state legislatures to choose the two senators but now elected by popular vote House of Representatives (number based on population of state, determined every ten years in a census -- number now set at 435; 2 year terms, must be at least 25 years old and have been a citizen for 7 years) Legislative Powers: Makes the laws -- any senator or representative can propose a bill -- if majority in one house favors it, bill goes to other house for debate -- if approved by both -- goes to the president to be signed into law -- President can veto any proposed law but can then be overruled if there is a two thirds majority in both houses favoring the law Elastic Clause -- can make all laws “necessary and proper” to carry out its other powers Only the House of Representatives can propose new taxes Only Congress can decide on how to spend the money raised through taxes Power to raise (pay for) an army and navy To declare war Approves treaties and executive appointments -- Senate How was the debate over how the president should be chosen resolved? The Electoral College System -- made up of electors who cast votes to elect the president and vice-president every four years Each state has as many electors in the Electoral College as the number of senators and reps it sends to Congress. The votes cast by electors are called electoral votes. Delegates left the method of choosing electors up to each state. Before 1820, state legislatures chose electors in most states. Today, people choose their state’s electors when they vote in presidential elections. The electors then cast their ballots for president and vice-president on a date chosen by Congress. Today must win at least 270 of the 538 total electoral votesJohn Adams the first Vice President and second President of the United States James Armistead black slave who served in the colonial army as a spy General Edward Braddock commander of all British forces in North America during the French and Indian War Nathan Hale "I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country." Patrick Henry Virginian who said, "Give me liberty, or give me death!" New York City our nation's first capital Battle of Bunker Hill the first major battle in the War for Independence judicial the branch of government that interprets the law executive the branch of government that enforces the law legislative the branch of government that makes the law Articles of Confederation the first plan of government that the United States had agreed upon Bill of Rights lists the rights or freedoms the Constitution gives to Americans; written in the form of ten amendments Constitution of the U.S. plan of government our country still follows today Declaration of Independence document written by Jefferson declaring the independence of the colonies from England First Amendment gives Americans the following freedoms: religion, speech, press, and assembly Treaty of Paris document signed by England giving up the American colonies and making them officially free and independent Inauguration Day The day the President takes his oath of office Valley Forge Washington's army spent the harsh winter of 1777-1778 Second Continental Congress The decision to organize the Continental Army was made at the ??? in 1775. constitutional republic The form of government in which the people and their elected representatives are limited by a constitution patriots Those who wanted America to be free from Britain's control“There’s No Such Thing as Sound Science” by By Christie Aschwanden was a lead science writer for FiveThirtyEight. FiveThirtyEight, Science, Dec. 6, 2017 Science is being turned against itself. For decades, its twin ideals of transparency and rigor have been weaponized by those who disagree with results produced by the scientific method. Under the Trump administration, that fight has ramped up again. In a move ostensibly meant to reduce conflicts of interest, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has removed a number of scientists from advisory panels and replaced some of them with representatives from industries that the agency regulates. Like many in the Trump administration, Pruitt has also cast doubt on the reliability of climate science. For instance, in an interview with CNBC, Pruitt said that “measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do.” Similarly, Trump’s pick to head NASA, an agency that oversees a large portion the nation’s climate research, has insisted that research into human influence on climate lacks certainty, and he falsely claimed that “global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago.” Kathleen Hartnett White, Trump’s nominee to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a Senate hearing last month that she thinks we “need to have more precise explanations of the human role and the natural role” in climate change. The same entreaties crop up again and again: We need to root out conflicts. We need more precise evidence. What makes these arguments so powerful is that they sound quite similar to the points raised by proponents of a very different call for change that’s coming from within science. This other movement strives to produce more robust, reproducible findings. Despite having dissimilar goals, the two forces espouse principles that look surprisingly alike: Science needs to be transparent. Results and methods should be openly shared so that outside researchers can independently reproduce and validate them. The methods used to collect and analyze data should be rigorous and clear, and conclusions must be supported by evidence. These are the arguments underlying an “open science” reform movement that was created, in part, as a response to a “reproducibility crisis” that has struck some fields of science.1 But they’re also used as talking points by politicians who are working to make it more difficult for the EPA and other federal agencies to use science in their regulatory decision-making, under the guise of basing policy on “sound science.” Science’s virtues are being wielded against it. What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. “Our criticisms are founded in a confidence in science,” said Steven Goodman, co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford and a proponent of open science. “That’s a fundamental difference — we’re critiquing science to make it better. Others are critiquing it to devalue the approach itself.” Calls to base public policy on “sound science” seem unassailable if you don’t know the term’s history. The phrase was adopted by the tobacco industry in the 1990s to counteract mounting evidence linking secondhand smoke to cancer. A 1992 Environmental Protection Agency report identified secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen, and Philip Morris responded by launching an initiative to promote what it called “sound science.” In an internal memo, Philip Morris vice president of corporate affairs Ellen Merlo wrote that the program was designed to “discredit the EPA report,” “prevent states and cities, as well as businesses from passing smoking bans” and “proactively” pass legislation to help their cause. The sound science tactic exploits a fundamental feature of the scientific process: Science does not produce absolute certainty. Contrary to how it’s sometimes represented to the public, science is not a magic wand that turns everything it touches to truth. Instead, it’s a process of uncertainty reduction, much like a game of 20 Questions. Any given study can rarely answer more than one question at a time, and each study usually raises a bunch of new questions in the process of answering old ones. “Science is a process rather than an answer,” said psychologist Alison Ledgerwood of the University of California, Davis. Every answer is provisional and subject to change in the face of new evidence. It’s not entirely correct to say that “this study proves this fact,” Ledgerwood said. “We should be talking instead about how science increases or decreases our confidence in something.” The tobacco industry’s brilliant tactic was to turn this baked-in uncertainty against the scientific enterprise itself. While insisting that they merely wanted to ensure that public policy was based on sound science, tobacco companies defined the term in a way that ensured that no science could ever be sound enough. The only sound science was certain science, which is an impossible standard to achieve. “Doubt is our product,” wrote one employee of the Brown & Williamson tobacco company in a 1969 internal memo. The note went on to say that doubt “is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’” and “establishing a controversy.” These strategies for undermining inconvenient science were so effective that they’ve served as a sort of playbook for industry interests ever since, said Stanford University science historian Robert Proctor. The sound science push is no longer just Philip Morris sowing doubt about the links between cigarettes and cancer. It’s also a 1998 action plan by the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron and Exxon Mobil to “install uncertainty” about the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. It’s industry-funded groups’ late-1990s effort to question the science the EPA was using to set fine-particle-pollution air-quality standards that the industry didn’t want. And then there was the more recent effort by Dow Chemical to insist on more scientific certainty before banning a pesticide that the EPA’s scientists had deemed risky to children. Now comes a move by the Trump administration’s EPA to repeal a 2015 rule on wetlands protection by disregarding particular studies. (To name just a few examples.) Doubt merchants aren’t pushing for knowledge, they’re practicing what Proctor has dubbed “agnogenesis” — the intentional manufacture of ignorance. This ignorance isn’t simply the absence of knowing something; it’s a lack of comprehension deliberately created by agents who don’t want you to know, Proctor said.2 In the hands of doubt-makers, transparency becomes a rhetorical move. “It’s really difficult as a scientist or policy maker to make a stand against transparency and openness, because well, who would be against it?” said Karen Levy, researcher on information science at Cornell University. But at the same time, “you can couch everything in the language of transparency and it becomes a powerful weapon.” For instance, when the EPA was preparing to set new limits on particulate pollution in the 1990s, industry groups pushed back against the research and demanded access to primary data (including records that researchers had promised participants would remain confidential) and a reanalysis of the evidence. Their calls succeeded and a new analysis was performed. The reanalysis essentially confirmed the original conclusions, but the process of conducting it delayed the implementation of regulations and cost researchers time and money. Delay is a time-tested strategy. “Gridlock is the greatest friend a global warming skeptic has,” said Marc Morano, a prominent critic of global warming research and the executive director of ClimateDepot.com, in the documentary “Merchants of Doubt” (based on the book by the same name). Morano’s site is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which has received funding from the oil and gas industry. “We’re the negative force. We’re just trying to stop stuff.” Some of these ploys are getting a fresh boost from Congress. The Data Quality Act (also known as the Information Quality Act) was reportedly written by an industry lobbyist and quietly passed as part of an appropriations bill in 2000. The rule mandates that federal agencies ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information” that they disseminate, though it does little to define what these terms mean. The law also provides a mechanism for citizens and groups to challenge information that they deem inaccurate, including science that they disagree with. “It was passed in this very quiet way with no explicit debate about it — that should tell you a lot about the real goals,” Levy said. But what’s most telling about the Data Quality Act is how it’s been used, Levy said. A 2004 Washington Post analysis found that in the 20 months following its implementation, the act was repeatedly used by industry groups to push back against proposed regulations and bog down the decision-making process. Instead of deploying transparency as a fundamental principle that applies to all science, these interests have used transparency as a weapon to attack very particular findings that they would like to eradicate. Now Congress is considering another way to legislate how science is used. The Honest Act, a bill sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas,3 is another example of what Levy calls a “Trojan horse” law that uses the language of transparency as a cover to achieve other political goals. Smith’s legislation would severely limit the kind of evidence the EPA could use for decision-making. Only studies whose raw data and computer codes were publicly available would be allowed for consideration. That might sound perfectly reasonable, and in many cases it is, Goodman said. But sometimes there are good reasons why researchers can’t conform to these rules, like when the data contains confidential or sensitive medical information.4 Critics, which include more than a dozen scientific organizations, argue that, in practice, the rules would prevent many studies from being considered in EPA reviews.5 It might seem like an easy task to sort good science from bad, but in reality it’s not so simple. “There’s a misplaced idea that we can definitively distinguish the good from the not-good science, but it’s all a matter of degree,” said Brian Nosek, executive director of the Center for Open Science. “There is no perfect study.” Requiring regulators to wait until they have (nonexistent) perfect evidence is essentially “a way of saying, ‘We don’t want to use evidence for our decision-making,’” Nosek said. Most scientific controversies aren’t about science at all, and once the sides are drawn, more data is unlikely to bring opponents into agreement. Michael Carolan, who researches the sociology of technology and scientific knowledge at Colorado State University, wrote in a 2008 paper about why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies. “While these controversies may appear on the surface to rest on disputed questions of fact, beneath often reside differing positions of value; values that can give shape to differing understandings of what ‘the facts’ are.” What’s needed in these cases isn’t more or better science, but mechanisms to bring those hidden values to the forefront of the discussion so that they can be debated transparently. “As long as we continue down this unabashedly naive road about what science is, and what it is capable of doing, we will continue to fail to reach any sort of meaningful consensus on these matters,” Carolan writes. The dispute over tobacco was never about the science of cigarettes’ link to cancer. It was about whether companies have the right to sell dangerous products and, if so, what obligations they have to the consumers who purchased them. Similarly, the debate over climate change isn’t about whether our planet is heating, but about how much responsibility each country and person bears for stopping it. While researching her book “Merchants of Doubt,” science historian Naomi Oreskes found that some of the same people who were defending the tobacco industry as scientific experts were also receiving industry money to deny the role of human activity in global warming. What these issues had in common, she realized, was that they all involved the need for government action. “None of this is about the science. All of this is a political debate about the role of government,” she said in the documentary. These controversies are really about values, not scientific facts, and acknowledging that would allow us to have more truthful and productive debates. What would that look like in practice? Instead of cherry-picking evidence to support a particular view (and insisting that the science points to a desired action), the various sides could lay out the values they are using to assess the evidence. For instance, in Europe, many decisions are guided by the precautionary principle — a system that values caution in the face of uncertainty and says that when the risks are unclear, it should be up to industries to show that their products and processes are not harmful, rather than requiring the government to prove that they are harmful before they can be regulated. By contrast, U.S. agencies tend to wait for strong evidence of harm before issuing regulations. Both approaches have critics, but the difference between them comes down to priorities: Is it better to exercise caution at the risk of burdening companies and perhaps the economy, or is it more important to avoid potential economic downsides even if it means that sometimes a harmful product or industrial process goes unregulated? In other words, under what circumstances do we agree to act on a risk? How certain do we need to be that the risk is real, and how many people would need to be at risk, and how costly is it to reduce that risk? Those are moral questions, not scientific ones, and openly discussing and identifying these kinds of judgment calls would lead to a more honest debate. Science matters, and we need to do it as rigorously as possible. But science can’t tell us how risky is too risky to allow products like cigarettes or potentially harmful pesticides to be sold — those are value judgements that only humans can make.How can amendments to the Constitution be proposed? Congress may propose an amendment by a vote of at least two-thirds of each house of Congress. A national convention called by Congress at the request of at least two thirds of the state legislatures may propose an amendment. How can an amendment be ratified as part of the Constitution? An amendment may be approved by the legislatures in at least three-fourths of the states. An amendment may be ratified by special conventions in at least three-fourths of the states. Once an amendment is approved, it becomes part of the Constitution. How many amendments have been made to the Constitution? What were the first ten called? Why were so many approved right away? Only 27 have been approved. The first 10 amendments were added almost immediately after the Constitution was ratified. Called the Bill of Rights, these 10 amendments primarily guarantee specific rights to citizens. These amendments were demanded by many Americans in exchange for their support of the Constitution. CongressCongress dominance in the first three general elections