← Introduction to Political Science outline

Week 10 · Chapter

Chapter 10 — American Government & Politics: the U.S. Case

Introduction to Political Science Free sample edition

The module's primary reading · ~40–50 minutes · Objective 6 (explain American government and political participation — federalism, separation of powers, and the U.S. Constitution as one case of the survey's concepts; parties, elections, and voting systems and their effects; public opinion, polling, political behavior, and the media — reading election and polling data for what it documents and what it does not settle), Objective 4 (compare regime types and constitutional structures — direct and representative, electoral and liberal democracy; authoritarian and totalitarian rule; democratization and backsliding; what constitutions do; the rule of law, separation of powers, and checks and balances), Objective 5 (analyze political institutions — legislatures, executives, and judiciaries — including the parliamentary, presidential, and semi-presidential designs, government formation and removal, judicial review and judicial independence, and the counter-majoritarian debate) · Read it first this week; the lecture, the slides, the tutorial, the quiz, and the workshop all build on it.

In plain language

This week reads one country's rulebook, the United States Constitution of 1787, starting with levels: how power is split between a national government and the States, which is called federalism (dividing power between levels of government). The second question is about sources: where national power comes from. There are enumerated powers (the powers written down), implied powers (the tools for doing a written-down job), and reserved powers (what is left to the States or the people). You will read one famous court case that tested those sources and one famous phrase that is not in the Constitution at all. You will not be told whether federalism is good or bad; you will be shown how to weigh the strongest case on each side.

Why you already care about this

Picture a national association of community food banks with local chapters across the country, including one in your town. The national board writes the rules every chapter must follow, such as how donations are logged and how food safety is checked. Your chapter sets its own pickup hours, picks its own volunteers, and decides where to park the delivery van. Nobody in your chapter voted on which level decides what. A founding charter settled it years ago.

Now imagine a clash. The national board says every chapter must open on weekend mornings, and your chapter says weekend hours are its own business. Who wins? You would open the charter and look for two things: did the charter give the national board this job, and if it did, does the national rule beat the local one? Those are the two questions this chapter teaches you to ask of a real constitution.

The American founders faced this problem more than once. Their first rulebook, the Articles of Confederation of 1781, kept final authority with the member States, and the Constitution signed in 1787 redrew the line. This week is one unit inside a survey of political science, not a switch to an American Government course. The United States is a well-documented example of ideas you already own: a written constitution, a presidential system, and a division of power between levels. This chapter shows you how one constitution divides power, and what happened when the division was tested.

By the end of this chapter you will be able to:

tell a unitary, a confederal, and a federal arrangement apart, and say why the Articles of Confederation are the cautionary case;
sort a power as enumerated, implied, or reserved, using the Constitution's own words;
use the supremacy clause correctly, as a tie-breaker between valid laws and never as a source of power;
attach each check and balance to the real branch that holds it, and state the House and Senate design facts;
rebuild the two answers in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) and explain why the meaning of "necessary" is contested;
catch the "wall of separation" misquotation and say where the phrase really comes from.

Carry this line with you: first ask whether the power exists — not who wins.

Where we are

Already covered: Weeks 1 to 4 gave you the empirical/normative sort and the ideas people argue over. Weeks 5 and 6 sorted regimes and constitutions, and Week 7 wired legislatures to executives. Week 8 added the three-layer read, and Week 9 traced judicial review to Marbury v. Madison (1803).
This week: federalism among the three arrangements of power, enumerated, implied, and reserved powers, the supremacy clause, the checks attached to the real branches, McCulloch v. Maryland, and the Danbury letter.
How they connect: Week 6 named two ways to divide power, separation of powers and federalism; this week you see both at work in one real constitution.
Where we're going next: Week 11 opens a new unit on participation, with parties, elections, and the rules that turn votes into seats.

Week 6 gave you the two divisions this chapter leans on. Separation of powers splits power horizontally, among branches. Federalism splits it vertically, among levels of government. Week 6 also read Article V's two-thirds and three-fourths thresholds, and from the Senate's 100 members it worked out that there are 100 ÷ 2 = 50 States. Week 8 gave you the three-layer read: the design layer is what the rules say, the practice layer is what actually happens, and the verdict layer is what ought to happen. Week 9 gave you Marbury and the memory hook that Marbury is about power, meaning who decides. This week adds its partner case, which is about scope.

1. Arrange power across levels: unitary, confederal, federal

Think about a pizza chain. In one chain, headquarters writes every rule, and each store manager follows orders and can be overruled on anything. In a second arrangement, a group of independent pizzerias forms a buying club. The club orders flour in bulk, but each pizzeria can quit, and the club cannot tell any owner how to run a kitchen. In a third, a written agreement gives headquarters some jobs, such as the brand and the recipes, and gives the stores other jobs, such as hiring and hours, and neither side can take the other's jobs away.

You will find governments sorted the same three ways.

A unitary system is an arrangement of power in which ultimate authority sits with the central government, and any local governments hold only the powers the center chooses to hand them.
A confederal system is an arrangement of power in which ultimate authority sits with the member units, and the central body holds only the powers the units lend it.
Federalism, the third arrangement, divides authority between levels in the constitution itself, so neither level can abolish the other.

The United States tried the middle arrangement first. The Articles of Confederation were the first American framework of government, in force from 1781 to 1789, a confederal design that the Constitution signed in 1787 replaced. This course treats them as the cautionary case: a center that holds only what the units lend it may find it has too little to act on its own.

Worked example — the dates. The Articles were in force from 1781 to 1789, so the confederal design lasted 1789 − 1781 = 8 years. The Constitution was signed in 1787, so it came 1787 − 1781 = 6 years after the Articles took effect. In words: the country lived under a confederal design for eight years, and the replacement was drafted and signed before those years ran out.

The United States chose federalism. That choice is a design fact you can check against the text, so it sits on the design layer.

Misconception check. Students often think federalism and separation of powers are the same thing, because both are about dividing power. That is tempting, and Week 6 named them side by side. But they divide power in two different directions. Federalism divides power vertically, among levels: the nation and the States. Separation of powers divides it horizontally, among branches: Congress, the President, and the courts. A country can have one without the other.

Memory hook: levels are vertical; branches are horizontal.

2. Find the source: enumerated, implied, and reserved powers

Imagine you are hired at a bike shop with a job description that says "repair bikes and sell parts." Nobody wrote "buy a tire lever," but you cannot repair a flat without one, so buying it is a reasonable tool for a written-down job. And nobody gave you the job of setting the owner's vacation schedule, so that stays with the owner. That is the logic of the Constitution's three kinds of power.

Enumerated powers are the powers the U.S. Constitution lists for Congress in Article I, Section 8, such as the powers to tax, borrow, regulate commerce, coin money, and declare war.
Implied powers are powers the Constitution does not list but that serve as reasonable tools for carrying out a listed power, drawn from the Necessary and Proper Clause.
The Necessary and Proper Clause is the last clause of Article I, Section 8, which lets Congress make the laws needed for carrying the listed powers into execution. Its pinned words are "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers".
Reserved powers are the powers Amendment X leaves to the States or the people because the Constitution neither delegated them to the national government nor prohibited them to the States.

Amendment X reads, in full: "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."

Worked example — reading the three sources by date and kind. The Constitution was signed in 1787, and Amendment X was ratified with the rest of the Bill of Rights in 1791. So Amendment X was ratified 1791 − 1787 = 4 years after the signing. Now sort each source by where it lives in the text. Enumerated: Article I, Section 8's list. Implied: the Necessary and Proper Clause at the end of that list. Reserved: Amendment X. All three statements are empirical, on the design layer, because you can check each against the text.

In practice (your tools). You can check every quotation in this section yourself. Open the National Archives page titled "The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription," use your browser's find command (Ctrl+F on Windows, Command+F on a Mac), and search necessary and proper. Then open the National Archives page titled "The Bill of Rights: A Transcription" and search not delegated. Copy the words as the page prints them, capital letters included.

Misconception check. Students often think the reserved powers are a short list, like the enumerated ones. That is tempting, because "reserved" sounds like a set of named items. But Amendment X names no items at all. Reserved powers are the residue: everything not delegated to the national government and not prohibited to the States. The list is in Article I, Section 8; the leftovers have no list.

Memory hook: enumerated is written down; implied is a reasonable tool for a written-down job; reserved is what is left over.

3. Break a tie with the supremacy clause

Back at the bike shop, suppose the owner's rulebook says "close at 6," and your manager posts a sign saying "close at 8." Which rule wins? The owner's, because the owner outranks the manager. But suppose the manager's sign is about something the owner never had the right to decide, like what the staff wear on their days off. Then the owner's rank does not help, because there was never a valid owner's rule to begin with.

The supremacy clause is the part of Article VI that makes the Constitution and the laws made under it the supreme law of the land, so a valid national law prevails over a conflicting State law. Its pinned words are "shall be the supreme Law of the Land".

Worked example — what the clause does and does not do. Read Article VI's phrase and ask two questions. Does it settle a conflict between two laws? Yes. Does it give Congress a new power to make laws? No. Kind and layer: the statement "Article VI makes the Constitution and laws made in pursuance of it the supreme Law of the Land" is empirical, on the design layer. In words: the clause is a tie-breaker between valid laws at different levels, and it never grants a power.

Misconception check. Students often think supremacy means the federal government always wins. That is tempting, because "supreme" sounds like "always on top." But only a valid federal law is supreme. A federal law needs a grant of power behind it, enumerated or implied, before it can beat anything. A federal law with no grant behind it has nothing to be supreme with.

Memory hook: supremacy breaks ties; it does not make powers.

4. Attach the checks to the real branches

A school's student government might have a president, a senate, and a judicial board. The senate passes rules, the president can refuse to sign them, and the judicial board can say a rule breaks the charter. Each body has its own job, and each has a hand in stopping the others. The U.S. Constitution builds the same kind of machine at full size.

You start with the text. Article I, Section 1 vests "All legislative Powers herein granted" in a Congress. Article II, Section 1 vests "The executive Power" in a President. Article III, Section 1 vests "The judicial Power of the United States" in "one supreme Court". Three articles, three powers, three places.

Now you read the design facts, stated plainly because they are well documented. The House of Representatives has 435 members, apportioned by population, on two-year terms. The Senate has 100 members, two per State, on six-year terms. A caveat worth knowing: the two-per-State rule is the Constitution's own text in Article I, Section 3, while the 435 figure is set by ordinary law, not by the Constitution.

Then you attach the checks, each to the branch that holds it.

A veto is a president's power to reject a bill passed by Congress, which Congress can then override.
Confirmation is the Senate's approval of a president's appointment, without which the appointee cannot take the office.
The power of the purse is Congress's control over government spending, which lets the legislature check the other branches by granting or withholding money.
Judicial review, which Week 9 traced to Marbury v. Madison (1803), lets the courts set aside an act that conflicts with the Constitution.

Worked example — the chamber arithmetic. The House has 435 members and the Senate 100, so Congress has 435 + 100 = 535 members. The Senate's two per State means 100 ÷ 2 = 50 States. A six-year Senate term spans 6 ÷ 2 = 3 two-year House terms. In words: every senator faces the voters once for every three times a House member does. Whether that pacing is wise is a verdict-layer question; the arithmetic is the design layer.

Misconception check. Students often think separation of powers means each branch works alone and never touches another branch's job. That is tempting, because "separation" sounds like walls. But the checks deliberately give each branch a hand in the others' work: the President shapes lawmaking with the veto, the Senate shapes the executive branch through confirmation, and Congress shapes everything through the purse. Separated powers with shared checks is the design.

Memory hook: separate jobs, shared brakes.

5. Rebuild McCulloch v. Maryland: implied powers and supremacy

Here is where the division was tested. Congress had chartered a bank, and Maryland taxed it. The case reached the Supreme Court as McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), and it asked two questions. You can rebuild both from the opinion's own words.

Worked example — the two questions. You read each question, then the Court's words, then the result.

Can Congress charter a bank when no clause of Article I, Section 8 names one? Search the list: the word does not appear as a power. The Court held a bank constitutional as a means to enumerated ends. In its words: "Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional." Result: yes, an implied power.
Can a State tax a federal instrument? The Court held it could not, because "the power to tax involves the power to destroy". Result: no, federal supremacy over a valid federal law.

Tally the answers: 1 yes + 1 no = 2 questions. Now place the case in time. McCulloch came 1819 − 1803 = 16 years after Marbury and 1819 − 1787 = 32 years after the signing.

Notice how the two answers use your tools from this chapter in order. The first answer finds the power: implied, from the Necessary and Proper Clause. Only then does the second answer use the supremacy clause, because now there is a valid federal law for Maryland's tax to clash with. A small honesty note on sources: the opinion page also prints the lawyers' arguments, and one of them words the taxing line differently, so this course quotes only the Court's own sentence.

The holding is fact. What "necessary" ought to mean is a contested interpretive question, and both sides deserve their strongest case.

A broad reading is an interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause in which a law counts as necessary when it is a reasonable, appropriate means to a listed end. Proponents argue that a government given large jobs, such as taxing, borrowing, and defending a country, must be free to choose its tools, because no list written in 1787 could name every tool a later century would need.
A narrow reading is an interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause in which a law counts as necessary only when the listed power could not be carried out without it. Proponents argue that if "necessary" means merely useful, the list stops limiting anything, and Amendment X's promise of reserved powers loses its force.

Kind and layer: "The Court held that Maryland could not tax the bank" is empirical, on the practice layer, a fact about what a court did. "'Necessary' ought to be read narrowly" is normative, on the verdict layer, and neither the text nor the holding settles it.

Misconception check. Students often blend McCulloch and Marbury, because both are early Supreme Court cases with one-word names you hear together. But they settled different kinds of question. Marbury is about power: who decides what the Constitution means, through judicial review. McCulloch is about scope: how far national power reaches, through implied powers and supremacy. When you need the case that upheld implied powers, you cite McCulloch, never Marbury.

Memory hook: Marbury is who decides; McCulloch is how far.

6. Catch the phrase that is not there: the Danbury letter

Have you ever heard a line "from the Constitution" in a debate or a movie and never checked it? Many people would bet that the phrase "separation of church and state" is in the text. It is a good habit to bet only after you search.

Amendment I's religion clauses read: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Search the whole transcript, and the phrase "wall of separation between Church & State" is not there.

The wall of separation is Thomas Jefferson's phrase for keeping church and state apart, from his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, which does not appear in the Constitution's text. The letter is a reply to the Association, dated January 1802, and the Library of Congress documents it.

Worked example — the Danbury dates. Jefferson's letter is dated 1802, which is 1802 − 1787 = 15 years after the signing and 1802 − 1791 = 11 years after Amendment I was ratified. In words: the phrase came from one man's letter, fifteen years after the Constitution was signed, and it is not part of the text that was ratified.

A limitation to keep in mind: finding where a phrase comes from does not settle what Amendment I means. People who read the religion clauses differently may still cite the letter, or reject it, as evidence of what the clauses were meant to do. That is an interpretive argument. Your job here is narrower and checkable: put the words in the right document.

In practice (your tools). Open the National Archives page titled "The Bill of Rights: A Transcription" and use your browser's find command to search wall. You will find no match. Then open the Library of Congress Information Bulletin page on Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists and search wall of separation. Chatbots often hand students this phrase as constitutional text, so this two-search check is worth doing every time.

Misconception check. Students often think the Constitution says "wall of separation." That is tempting, because the phrase is famous and often quoted in arguments about Amendment I. But it is Jefferson's phrase from a letter dated 1802, not the Constitution's text. When you quote it, attribute it to the letter.

Memory hook: the wall is in a letter, not in the law.

7. Sort a made-up federation's clauses: Arvenna

Now you put every tool from this chapter to work on an invented country. Arvenna is made up for this course, and every clause in it is illustrative. Its constitution lists the federal powers, ends the list with a necessary-and-proper clause, and reserves everything else to its provinces.

Worked example — the Arvenna sort. For each clause, ask: is it written down, a tool for something written down, or left over?

Clause 4 lets the federal parliament levy taxes. Written down. Enumerated.
Clause 4 lets it run a national postal service. Written down. Enumerated.
A federal law builds sorting centers to move the mail. Not written down, but a reasonable tool for the postal job. Implied.
A federal law creates an agency to collect the taxes. Not written down, but a tool for the taxing job. Implied.
The provinces set their own school calendars. Not delegated and not prohibited. Reserved.
The provinces license their own barbers. Not delegated and not prohibited. Reserved.

Tally the sort: 2 enumerated + 2 implied + 2 reserved = 6 clauses.

Worked example — the two conflicts. Now run the supremacy test, and ask the validity question first.

A provincial fee on federal post offices clashes with valid federal postal law. Is the federal law valid? Yes, it rests on the postal power. So the federal law wins under Arvenna's supremacy clause.
A federal law sets every province's school calendar. Is it valid? No listed power covers it, and it serves no listed end, so it is not valid, and supremacy does not save it.

Tally the conflicts: 1 federal win + 1 invalid federal law = 2 conflicts. In words: the order of questions matters. Validity comes first, and supremacy only breaks a tie between valid laws.

Notice that Arvenna's sort echoes McCulloch. Clause 3's sorting centers are Arvenna's version of the bank, and the provincial fee is Arvenna's version of Maryland's tax.

Misconception check. Students often run the supremacy test first and stop there: the federal law conflicts with a provincial law, so the federal law wins. That is tempting, because it is fast. But it skips the step that decides the school-calendar case. A federal law with no power behind it is not valid, and an invalid law cannot be supreme. Ask "does the power exist?" before "who wins?"

Memory hook: first ask whether the power exists — not who wins.

8. Weigh federalism: strength or weakness?

Think back to the food bank association. Some members like that each chapter sets its own hours, because a chapter in a farm town and a chapter downtown face different needs. Others wish every chapter followed one schedule, because a family that moves should not lose its pickup day. Both sides are describing the same design. They disagree about whether it is good.

That is this week's open question. Is federalism a strength or a weakness? Here is each side at full strength, for you to weigh.

Proponents argue that federalism lets the States test policies the way a lab tests ideas, so the country can learn from a policy that works in one State before trying it everywhere. They add that it keeps many decisions close to the people they affect, and that it adds a second, vertical check on central power on top of the horizontal checks among the branches.
Critics respond that federalism makes a person's rights and services depend on where they live, which is hard to square with equal citizenship. They add that it slows answers to problems that cross State lines, and that the same freedom to differ can be used to resist national protections for people who most need them.

Now you step back for the callback. The United States is one well-documented example of the survey's concepts: a written, entrenched, judicially enforced constitution; a presidential system; a federal system. It is not a case outside them. Everything you learned in Weeks 5 to 9 applies here, and this case will help you read the comparative weeks ahead.

Pause and think, choosing one of these two:

(a) State the strongest case for the side of the federalism debate you find less convincing, as its best defender would state it.
(b) Think of an organization you belong to that has a national level and a local level. Name one decision that sits at each level, and say whether you think the split is drawn in the right place.

Misconception check. Students often think the facts settle the federalism debate. That is tempting, because it is easy to point to a difference between two States and call it proof. But "rules differ from State to State" is an empirical claim on the practice layer, while "rules ought to be the same everywhere" is a normative claim on the verdict layer. The first can be checked; the second has to be argued from values. Both sides accept the same facts and weigh them differently.

Memory hook: same facts, different weights.

Key terms

unitary system — An arrangement of power in which ultimate authority sits with the central government, and any local governments hold only the powers the center chooses to hand them. (first used: 1. Arrange power across levels: unitary, confederal, federal)
confederal system — An arrangement of power in which ultimate authority sits with the member units, and the central body holds only the powers the units lend it. (first used: 1. Arrange power across levels: unitary, confederal, federal)
Articles of Confederation — The first American framework of government, in force from 1781 to 1789, a confederal design that the Constitution signed in 1787 replaced. (first used: 1. Arrange power across levels: unitary, confederal, federal)
enumerated powers — The powers the U.S. Constitution lists for Congress in Article I, Section 8, such as the powers to tax, borrow, regulate commerce, coin money, and declare war. (first used: 2. Find the source: enumerated, implied, and reserved powers)
implied powers — Powers the Constitution does not list but that serve as reasonable tools for carrying out a listed power, drawn from the Necessary and Proper Clause. (first used: 2. Find the source: enumerated, implied, and reserved powers)
Necessary and Proper Clause — The last clause of Article I, Section 8, which lets Congress make the laws needed for carrying the listed powers into execution. (first used: 2. Find the source: enumerated, implied, and reserved powers)
reserved powers — The powers Amendment X leaves to the States or the people because the Constitution neither delegated them to the national government nor prohibited them to the States. (first used: 2. Find the source: enumerated, implied, and reserved powers)
supremacy clause — The part of Article VI that makes the Constitution and the laws made under it the supreme law of the land, so a valid national law prevails over a conflicting State law. (first used: 3. Break a tie with the supremacy clause)
veto — A president's power to reject a bill passed by Congress, which Congress can then override. (first used: 4. Attach the checks to the real branches)
confirmation — The Senate's approval of a president's appointment, without which the appointee cannot take the office. (first used: 4. Attach the checks to the real branches)
power of the purse — Congress's control over government spending, which lets the legislature check the other branches by granting or withholding money. (first used: 4. Attach the checks to the real branches)
broad reading — An interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause in which a law counts as necessary when it is a reasonable, appropriate means to a listed end. (first used: 5. Rebuild McCulloch v. Maryland: implied powers and supremacy)
narrow reading — An interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause in which a law counts as necessary only when the listed power could not be carried out without it. (first used: 5. Rebuild McCulloch v. Maryland: implied powers and supremacy)
wall of separation — Thomas Jefferson's phrase for keeping church and state apart, from his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, which does not appear in the Constitution's text. (first used: 6. Catch the phrase that is not there: the Danbury letter)

Summary

Unitary puts final authority at the center, confederal puts it in the units, and federalism divides it in the constitution.
The Articles of Confederation (1781 to 1789) are the cautionary confederal case.
Federalism is vertical, among levels; separation of powers is horizontal, among branches.
Enumerated is written down; implied is a tool for a written-down job; reserved is what is left over.
The supremacy clause breaks ties between valid laws and never grants a power.
The House has 435 members on two-year terms; the Senate has 100, two per State, on six-year terms.
The veto, confirmation, the purse, and judicial review give each branch a hand in the others' work.
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) upheld a bank as an implied power and barred a State from taxing it.
"Wall of separation" is from Jefferson's 1802 letter, not the Constitution.
Whether federalism is a strength or a weakness is a verdict-layer question, and the verdict is yours.

Check your understanding

Work these before looking at the answers — they are ungraded, and the answers (with reasoning) are at the bottom of the page.

A made-up island federation's constitution lets the national assembly print currency. Sort these three: (a) the assembly prints banknotes; (b) the assembly builds a printing plant to make them; (c) the islands issue fishing licenses, which no clause mentions or forbids.
A made-up federation's upper house has 24 members, three from each province, on eight-year terms, and its lower house sits for four-year terms. How many provinces are there, and how many lower-house terms fit in one upper-house term? Show the steps.
In the same made-up federation, a regional law on river fishing conflicts with a national law on river fishing, but no clause of the constitution gives the nation any power over fishing or any end that fishing rules serve. Which law wins, and why?
Sort each statement by kind (empirical or normative) and layer (design, practice, or verdict): (a) "The constitution gives each province three senators." (b) "In the last session, the upper house blocked most budget bills." (c) "Bigger provinces ought to get more senators."

Answers (worked reasoning — read after attempting)

(a) is enumerated, because printing currency is written down in the list. (b) is implied, because a printing plant is a reasonable tool for the written-down job of printing currency. (c) is reserved, because licensing fishing is neither delegated to the nation nor prohibited to the islands, so it is left over.
There are 8 provinces and 2 lower-house terms per upper-house term. With three members per province, 24 ÷ 3 = 8 provinces. An eight-year term spans 8 ÷ 4 = 2 four-year terms.
The regional law stands. Ask the validity question first: the national law has no enumerated power behind it and serves no listed end, so it is not valid. An invalid law cannot be supreme, so the supremacy clause has nothing to break a tie with. This is the trap of reading supremacy as "the nation always wins."
(a) is empirical, on the design layer, because you can check it against the constitution's text. (b) is empirical, on the practice layer, because it describes what actually happened, and you would check it against the record of the session. (c) is normative, on the verdict layer, because it says what ought to be and has to be argued from values.

Next up in this module: the Readings & Resources page, the lecture tutorial, the practice set, and the quiz. Next week, the plurality rule and proportional representation show how the voting system turns votes into seats.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com