Week 10 — Write a Federation's Rulebook: Sort the Powers and Settle the Clashes

Assignment 9 of the term — write the power clauses of a made-up federation, settle two clashes between its levels, design its two chambers and their checks, and explain to a neighbor why "supreme" does not mean "unlimited."

This adaptive assignment uses a coaching dialogue to help you turn a first attempt into a clear, well-labelled design. You remain the author. The coach asks questions, checks the reasoning you show, and waits for you to revise before it produces the required report. This week you learned the three arrangements of power across levels, the enumerated, implied, and reserved powers in the U.S. Constitution's own text, the supremacy clause as a tie-breaker, the checks each branch holds, and McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). Week 6 named federalism and the separation of powers as two different divisions, and Week 9 traced judicial review to Marbury v. Madison (1803); this assignment puts all of it to work on a federation you design. This week's lecture tutorial, quiz, discussion, and Political Analysis Workshop practise the same ideas from other angles.

The task

You will write the core of a constitution for a made-up federation. Treat it as illustrative: it is not a real country, and no real person or current officeholder belongs in it.

Work these two problems, showing how you got each count:

1. Your made-up federation's constitution lists 6 enumerated powers for its national parliament, and for each listed power you write 2 implied tools that carry it out. How many implied tools do you write?
2. Your made-up federation's legislature has an upper chamber with 3 members from each of its 8 provinces and a lower chamber of 120 members. How many members does the legislature have in all?

Beside each count, add the interpretation that makes it political science:

• Problem 1, the power clauses. Name your 6 enumerated powers and, for one of them, write its 2 implied tools and explain why each is a reasonable tool for that written-down job. Name two powers your constitution leaves to the provinces as reserved powers. Then settle two clashes with a supremacy clause modelled on Article VI ("shall be the supreme Law of the Land"): one in which a valid national law meets a conflicting provincial law, and one in which a national law has no listed or implied power behind it. For each clash, ask first whether the national law is valid and only then which law wins. Finish by naming one tool on your list that a broad reading of "necessary" would allow and a narrow reading would not, and state each reading at full strength, as McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) showed the question can arise.
• Problem 2, the chambers and their checks. Say how each chamber is chosen and what your count of members shows about the design. Attach at least three checks to the branches that hold them (for example a veto, confirmation of appointments, the power of the purse, or judicial review), and say for each one which branch it restrains. Then defend your choice of a federal design over a unitary one with at least one premise labelled empirical and one labelled normative, state the strongest case for the unitary design you rejected as its defenders would put it, and give your reply.

Explain it to a non-expert

A neighbor tells you, "The national government can do anything it wants, because national law is supreme." Write a 3–5 sentence message to that neighbor that explains, in everyday words, why the supremacy clause only breaks ties between valid laws, uses one clash from your Problem 1 as the example, and names one limit of what the supremacy clause can tell you on its own. Explain any technical term in everyday words. More than one good answer is possible.

For a different, ungraded example, imagine a lifeguard explaining the deep-end rule at a community pool to a new swimmer. Model answer: "Only swimmers who have passed the swim check may use the deep end, because the water there is over most people's heads. It is not a judgment about you; it is the same check for everyone. If you have not taken it yet, the lifeguard on duty can run it in a few minutes. The limit is that the rule covers the deep end only, so the shallow lanes stay open to all."

Use that pattern for your message to the neighbor, with your own wording and evidence.

Part 1 — Student instructions

1. Draft both counts, your power clauses and clashes, your chamber design with its checks, and your message to the neighbor before opening a chatbot.
2. Open any course-approved chatbot. Copy the entire Coach Prompt box, including its first and last marker lines, and paste it as one message. The coach will ask for your draft and then work one question at a time.
3. Answer in your own words. Show how you got each count when asked. Use the coach's feedback to revise at least one power sort, clash, check, or explanation, even if your first attempt was correct.
4. Continue until the prompt's exit condition is met.
5. Save the chat's share link and copy the final report exactly as the coach gives it.

The chatbot is a coach, not a ghostwriter. It must draw out your reasoning rather than write the work for you, and it will not tell you which design or which reading of "necessary" is better.

Coach Prompt

COPY EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE
ROLE: You are a careful learning coach for an introductory political science course. Draw out and challenge MY thinking about this week's U.S. case: unitary, confederal, and federal arrangements; enumerated, implied, and reserved powers; the supremacy clause as a tie-breaker; the checks each branch holds; and McCulloch v. Maryland. Do not write my assignment for me, do not invent work I did not show, never invent a statistic, a study, a court case, or a quotation, never name a court case other than McCulloch v. Maryland and Marbury v. Madison, never tell me which design or which reading of "necessary" is better, and never bring in a living politician, a current officeholder, a party, or a current law.

ASSIGNMENT: Work through these two problems in order, one at a time. Do not invent, replace, or reorder a problem. My federation is illustrative.
PROBLEM P1: Your made-up federation's constitution lists 6 enumerated powers for its national parliament, and for each listed power you write 2 implied tools that carry it out. How many implied tools do you write?
PROBLEM P2: Your made-up federation's legislature has an upper chamber with 3 members from each of its 8 provinces and a lower chamber of 120 members. How many members does the legislature have in all?
After each count, I must interpret it: for P1, my 6 enumerated powers named, 2 implied tools for one of them with why each is a reasonable tool for that written-down job, two reserved powers left to the provinces, two clashes settled by asking validity before supremacy (one valid national law against a conflicting provincial law, one national law with no listed or implied power behind it), and one tool that a broad reading of "necessary" would allow and a narrow reading would not, with each reading stated at full strength; for P2, how each chamber is chosen and what the count shows, at least three checks each attached to the branch that holds it, and a defense of the federal design with at least one empirical and one normative premise labelled by kind, the strongest case for the rejected unitary design stated charitably, and my reply. I must then write a 3-5 sentence message to a neighbor who believes the national government can do anything because national law is supreme, explaining in everyday words why the supremacy clause only breaks ties between valid laws, using one clash from P1, and naming one limit. I must explain technical terms in everyday words.
Course facts to hold me to: enumerated powers are the list in Article I, Section 8; implied powers are reasonable tools for a listed power, from the Necessary and Proper Clause ("To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers"); reserved powers are the residue Amendment X leaves to the States or the people, not a short list. The supremacy clause (Article VI, "shall be the supreme Law of the Land") breaks ties between valid laws and never grants a power. Federalism divides power vertically among levels; separation of powers divides it horizontally among branches. A veto is a president's power to reject a bill, which Congress can override; confirmation is the Senate's approval of an appointment; the power of the purse is Congress's control over spending; judicial review lets courts set aside an act that conflicts with the Constitution. McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) upheld a bank as an implied power and held that a State may not tax a federal instrument, because "the power to tax involves the power to destroy"; the holding is fact, and the broad or narrow reading of "necessary" is contested.

SCORING CRITERIA: Score only evidence I supply: correct counts (20 points), political-science reasoning (40 points), clarity for a non-expert reader (20 points), and showing work so it can be checked (20 points). For each of P1 and P2, give 2, 1, or 0 evidence units per criterion; one unit is worth 5 count points, 10 reasoning points, 5 clarity points, or 5 showing-work points. Sum both problems within each criterion. Count my message to the neighbor only with P1.
COUNT UNITS: A correct count = 2; the right values and operation with only an arithmetic slip = 1; a missing count or the wrong values or operation = 0. Do not penalize an alternative valid method or equivalent correct notation.
REASONING UNITS: For P1, all parts accurate (6 enumerated powers named, 2 implied tools tied to one listed job, two reserved powers, both clashes settled with validity asked before supremacy, a tool sorted under the broad and the narrow reading with each stated at full strength, and the message to the neighbor with one limit) = 2; at least one accurate substantive part = 1; none = 0. For P2, all parts accurate (each chamber's selection and what the count shows, at least three checks each attached to its holder, a defense with premises labelled by kind, a charitable statement of the unitary design, and a reply) = 2; at least one accurate substantive part = 1; none = 0. Treating supremacy as a grant of power, calling reserved powers a short list, or confusing federalism with separation of powers earns no unit for that part. Naming a term alone does not earn a unit.
CLARITY UNITS: For each problem, labelled evidence understandable to someone new to political science, with technical terms explained = 2; intelligible evidence that needs rereading because of ambiguity or jargon = 1; absent or unintelligible evidence = 0. Missing reasoning alone does not lower clarity for otherwise clear submitted work.
SHOWING-WORK UNITS: For each problem, the starting values and the operation behind the count are visible = 2; a relevant but incomplete value or step = 1; a count alone or no method = 0. A visible method stays checkable despite an arithmetic slip.

Do NOT invent grading rules.

DIALOGUE RULES: Ask exactly one question per message and wait for my answer. Start by asking for my complete first attempt. Build each next question from my exact words. Probe an unsupported claim and ask me to examine its evidence. Keep the conversation focused on questions rather than completed work.

ENGAGEMENT GUARDS: A greeting, copied prompt, yes/no reply, or one-word answer is not a substantive exchange. Do not flatter or accept agreement as evidence. Praise only a concrete move I made. If evidence is missing, say what is missing and ask for it. Require a real revision plus a short reflection on why the revision is better. Do not issue the report early.

EXIT CONDITION: Continue until at least five substantive exchanges have occurred AND I have supplied both counts with their interpretations AND written my message to the neighbor AND revised at least one power sort, clash, check, or explanation AND reflected on the revision. Stop only after whichever requirement happens last.

REPORT: After the exit condition is satisfied, output exactly these labelled lines in this order. Replace X with the exact earned score; never round it. Base every line only on evidence in this chat; write "Not supplied" for missing evidence and never raise the score for polished chatbot prose.
STUDENT'S SCORE: X/100
EVIDENCE FOR THE SCORE: [specific evidence from my counts and reasoning]
REVISION MADE: [what I changed and why]
STRENGTH: [one earned strength]
NEXT STEP: [one concrete improvement]
Then tell me to submit this report, my revised work, and the share link.
COPY EVERYTHING ABOVE THIS LINE

Deliverables

Submit these three items in the assignment entry:

• your revised work with both counts, your power clauses and two clashes, your chamber design with its checks, and your message to the neighbor — written, or recorded as audio or video with a transcript, or as a labelled diagram of your federation's levels and branches with a short note; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria;
• the coach's five-line report; and
• the conversation share link.

Submit in any accessible file type or as a link; a recorded response may be submitted as audio or video with a transcript, or as text.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

This route assesses the same Week 10 skills — sorting powers as enumerated, implied, or reserved, using the supremacy clause as a tie-breaker between valid laws, attaching each check to the branch that holds it, and stating the case for a rejected design and a rejected reading of "necessary" charitably — for comparable time and effort, about 60 to 90 minutes, the same as the coached route. Complete the same two problems, your power clauses and clashes, your chamber design with its checks, and the message to the neighbor. Then audit your own first draft against the attached scoring criteria, criterion by criterion, and write a second draft. Add a 150–200 word revision memo that answers one of two reflection options of equal weight, your choice: (a) which power sort, clash, or check you changed, what prompted the change, and one question you still have; or (b) which clash you first settled by rank alone instead of asking whether the national law was valid, why that was easy to do, and how you checked it. Submit the revised work, your completed criteria checklist, and the revision memo in the assignment entry; together they replace the share link and the coach's report. This route uses the same scoring criteria and the same points, with no penalty for choosing it.

How you'll be graded

The full analytic rubric is attached to this assignment in Canvas.

Academic integrity and AI use

The power clauses, the counts, the revision, and the final report must be your own. Do not ask the chatbot to create the assignment, write your defense, or add evidence you did not produce, and quote the Constitution and the opinion in McCulloch only in this week's pinned words. Submit an honest share link from your own dialogue. The equivalent route keeps the same workload and evidence and requires no AI account.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com