Week 10 Political Analysis Workshop: Where Does the Power Come From?

Introduction to Political Science Free sample edition

Part 1 — The Big Picture

This week you read how one constitution divides power between levels: enumerated powers written in a list, implied powers that serve as reasonable tools for a listed job, reserved powers left over for the States or the people, and a supremacy clause that breaks ties between valid laws without granting any power. In this workshop you read the primary texts the way a political scientist does: the Necessary and Proper Clause, Article VI, Amendment X, Amendment I's religion clauses, and two sentences from the opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819). Then you put those texts to work on a case file of eight laws in a made-up federation, asking of each one whether a power exists before asking which level wins. Finally, you map one commentator's argument about federalism, label each premise as empirical or normative, state the strongest objection fairly, and check a chatbot's version of the same analysis for misquotations, invented cases and statistics, misattributions, and a preference passed off as a fact.

Time budget: Plan for about 90 minutes.

Part 2 — The Task

Guiding question: What do the Constitution's power clauses and the opinion in McCulloch v. Maryland say about where national power comes from and when a national law wins, and how do eight laws in a made-up federation sort when you ask first whether a power exists?

Workshop data: a case file of eight laws in Kestria, a made-up federation (illustrative)

Source: An illustrative case file constructed for this workshop: eight laws passed in Kestria, a made-up federation whose constitution lists the national powers, ends the list with a necessary-and-proper clause, and reserves the rest to its provinces, plus one commentator's argument about Kestria. No real country, person, or law is described in the case file. The Constitution fragments are quoted from the National Archives transcriptions and the McCulloch fragments from the Legal Information Institute's opinion page.

Rows: 8 rows of data, one per Kestria law (Table 2 in Part 4 lists all 8 plus a tally row, with blank columns for your answers; Table 1, the close-reading table, has 6 rows)
Columns: case number; Kestria law; level that passed it; source of power; valid or not; which law wins a clash
Kestria's listed national powers: 5: levy taxes, run a postal service, keep an army, issue currency, and regulate trade between provinces, followed by a necessary-and-proper clause
Argument premises: 4 premises in the commentator's argument about Kestria (Table 3)

Part 3 — Materials & Procedure

Tools and materials

Authoritative archives and data sources (the National Archives, the Avalon Project, Project Gutenberg, the Legal Information Institute, un.org, the House of Commons Library, Pew Research Center, Freedom House, V-Dem, the World Bank, Our World in Data) plus a spreadsheet for the seat-allocation and margin-of-error arithmetic, and one approved chatbot used as an analysis partner whose political-science slips the student catches
A document or notebook for your written answers

Ways of working

primary-text-analysis
read-the-data
argument-map-and-steel-man

Procedure

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) to search for necessary and proper and then for supreme Law, and check the Article I, Section 8 and Article VI rows of Table 1 against the transcript. Tool: Authoritative archives and data sources (the National Archives, the Avalon Project, Project Gutenberg, the Legal Information Institute, un.org, the House of Commons Library, Pew Research Center, Freedom House, V-Dem, the World Bank, Our World in Data) plus a spreadsheet for the seat-allocation and margin-of-error arithmetic, and one approved chatbot used as an analysis partner whose political-science slips the student catches. Check: Both fragments in Table 1 match the transcript, capital letters included.
Open the National Archives page titled The Bill of Rights: A Transcription. Search for not delegated and for establishment, and check the Amendment X and Amendment I rows of Table 1. Then search the same page for the word wall and note what you find. Tool: Authoritative archives and data sources (the National Archives, the Avalon Project, Project Gutenberg, the Legal Information Institute, un.org, the House of Commons Library, Pew Research Center, Freedom House, V-Dem, the World Bank, Our World in Data) plus a spreadsheet for the seat-allocation and margin-of-error arithmetic, and one approved chatbot used as an analysis partner whose political-science slips the student catches. Check: The two amendment fragments match the transcript, and the search for wall finds no match.
Open the Legal Information Institute's page for McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819). Search for Let the end be legitimate and for power to tax, and check the two McCulloch rows of Table 1. Then complete Table 1's sourcing columns: who wrote or adopted each text and when, and whether it is a rule that sets up power or a court's reasoning about a rule. Tool: Authoritative archives and data sources (the National Archives, the Avalon Project, Project Gutenberg, the Legal Information Institute, un.org, the House of Commons Library, Pew Research Center, Freedom House, V-Dem, the World Bank, Our World in Data) plus a spreadsheet for the seat-allocation and margin-of-error arithmetic, and one approved chatbot used as an analysis partner whose political-science slips the student catches. Check: Both McCulloch fragments match the opinion page, and every sourcing cell in Table 1 is filled.
Read the eight Kestria laws in Table 2. For each, write the source of power behind it (enumerated, implied, reserved, or none), whether the law is valid, and, for the two clash rows, which law wins. Ask whether a power exists before you ask which level wins. Tool: Authoritative archives and data sources (the National Archives, the Avalon Project, Project Gutenberg, the Legal Information Institute, un.org, the House of Commons Library, Pew Research Center, Freedom House, V-Dem, the World Bank, Our World in Data) plus a spreadsheet for the seat-allocation and margin-of-error arithmetic, and one approved chatbot used as an analysis partner whose political-science slips the student catches. Check: Every row has a source of power and a validity answer, and both clash rows name a winner that follows from the validity answer.
Open a blank spreadsheet. In row 1 type the headers Case, Law, and Source in columns A, B, and C. In rows 2 to 9 copy each case number and a short name for each law from Table 2, then type your source of power in column C. In E2 to E5 type enumerated, implied, reserved, and none. In F2 type =COUNTIF($C$2:$C$9,E2) and copy it down to F5. In F6 type =SUM(F2:F5). Tool: Authoritative archives and data sources (the National Archives, the Avalon Project, Project Gutenberg, the Legal Information Institute, un.org, the House of Commons Library, Pew Research Center, Freedom House, V-Dem, the World Bank, Our World in Data) plus a spreadsheet for the seat-allocation and margin-of-error arithmetic, and one approved chatbot used as an analysis partner whose political-science slips the student catches. Check: F6 shows 8, one for each law in the case file, and F2 to F5 match your hand tally in Table 2.
Read the commentator's argument in Table 3. In the Kind column, label each of the four premises empirical or normative. Then name one assumption the argument needs, state the strongest objection as its own defenders would put it, and write a two-sentence reply. Tool: Authoritative archives and data sources (the National Archives, the Avalon Project, Project Gutenberg, the Legal Information Institute, un.org, the House of Commons Library, Pew Research Center, Freedom House, V-Dem, the World Bank, Our World in Data) plus a spreadsheet for the seat-allocation and margin-of-error arithmetic, and one approved chatbot used as an analysis partner whose political-science slips the student catches. Check: Table 3 has no blank cells, and the objection is written in a form its defenders would accept as fair.
Paste your completed tables into one approved chatbot, then paste the prompt from Part 6 below them. Record each of its answers in Table 4 and check every one against the transcripts, the opinion page, and your own tables. Tool: Authoritative archives and data sources (the National Archives, the Avalon Project, Project Gutenberg, the Legal Information Institute, un.org, the House of Commons Library, Pew Research Center, Freedom House, V-Dem, the World Bank, Our World in Data) plus a spreadsheet for the seat-allocation and margin-of-error arithmetic, and one approved chatbot used as an analysis partner whose political-science slips the student catches. Check: Table 4 has one row for each of the chatbot's answers, with each marked as checked against a source.

Fallback route

When to use it: Use this route if no spreadsheet is available or the National Archives or Legal Information Institute page cannot be reached.

Work the same steps by hand. Table 1 already prints the Constitution and McCulloch fragments exactly as the pinned sources give them, so complete the sourcing columns from them. Tally the sources of power by making a mark beside enumerated, implied, reserved, or none for each of the eight laws, count the empirical and normative labels in Table 3 by hand, and write each count so it can be checked. Complete every table, answer every analysis question, do the critique step, and submit the same items for equal credit.

This route earns the same credit as the primary route.

Part 4 — The Scaffold

Table 1 holds the primary texts you are analyzing; source each one and read it closely before you use it on any case.

Student scaffold table 1
Text	What the source says	Who wrote or adopted it, and when	What kind of text it is (a rule that sets up power, or a court's reasoning about a rule)	Which source of power or which limit it concerns
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8 (the last clause)	To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers
U.S. Constitution, Article VI	shall be the supreme Law of the Land
U.S. Constitution, Amendment X	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.
U.S. Constitution, Amendment I (religion clauses)	Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
McCulloch v. Maryland, opinion of the Court (the bank)	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.
McCulloch v. Maryland, opinion of the Court (the tax)	the power to tax involves the power to destroy

Table 2 is the case file of eight laws in Kestria, a made-up federation; find the source of power behind each law before you decide whether it is valid or which law wins.

Student scaffold table 2
Case	Kestria law (illustrative)	Level that passed it
1	The national parliament passes a law levying an income tax.	National
2	The national parliament builds training bases for the national army.	National
3	A provincial assembly sets the school calendar for its own schools.	Provincial
4	The national parliament creates a mint to make the national coins.	National
5	The national parliament sets rules for shipping goods from one province to another.	National
6	A provincial assembly licenses the hairdressers who work in that province.	Provincial
7	Clash: a national postal law forbids any province to charge fees on post offices, and Larn province charges such a fee.	National against provincial
8	Clash: a national law sets the marriage age in every province, and Dorr province's own law sets a different age.	National against provincial
Tally	Count each source of power

Table 3 maps one commentator's argument about Kestria so you can label every premise by its kind and test it fairly.

Student scaffold table 3
Part of the argument	What the commentator says (illustrative)	Kind (empirical or normative)
Thesis	Kestria should give up federalism and become a unitary state.	Normative
Premise 1	Kestria's provinces set different marriage ages and school calendars.
Premise 2	Two provinces passed conflicting rules on river fishing in the same year.
Premise 3	Every citizen of a country ought to live under the same rules wherever they move.
Premise 4	Uniform rules are worth more than the chance for provinces to try different policies.
One assumption the argument needs
Strongest objection, stated as its defenders would
Your reply

Table 4 is your critique log; it records what the chatbot said and what the sources or your tables show instead.

Student scaffold table 4
Chatbot answer	What it said	What the source or your tables show	Correction
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Part 5 — Analysis Questions

Report how many of the eight Kestria laws rest on an enumerated power, an implied power, a reserved power, and no power, and show the spreadsheet formula or hand count you used. Then report how many of the eight were passed by the national parliament, and how many of those are valid.
Look at case 4, the national mint. Which listed power does it serve, and how does the Court's reasoning about the bank in McCulloch v. Maryland apply to it? Use the words of the McCulloch fragment in Table 1 where they help.
Explain why the national law wins case 7 but not case 8, even though both are clashes between a national law and a provincial law. Say what the supremacy clause does in each case and what it cannot do.
Using Table 3, name the premise that carries the argument's value judgment, name one assumption the argument needs, and state the strongest objection as its defenders would put it before you reply. Say whether the objection draws on testing policies, keeping decisions near the people, or a second, vertical check on central power.
Name two limits of this analysis, such as that the case file is illustrative, that sorting a law's source of power says nothing about whether the law is wise, or that a constitution's text may not show how a federation works in practice, and say how each limit affects what you can conclude.
Choose one and answer it in 3–4 sentences: (a) Which Kestria law would you most want to see in practice before judging the federal design, and what evidence would you want? (b) Should a court in Kestria read necessary broadly or narrowly, and what is the strongest case against your choice?

Part 6 — AI-Critique Moment

Choose one equal-credit critique route. Route A: ask an approved AI tool to critique your completed work, then check its response against your own evidence. Route B is the no-AI equivalent printed below.

Approved tools: Claude, Gemini, ChatGPT, Grok, Microsoft Copilot.

Prompt to paste:

I've pasted my completed workshop tables above. I am sorting eight laws in Kestria, a made-up federation (an illustrative case file, not a real country). Please do seven things. First, quote exactly what the Court said in McCulloch v. Maryland about a State's power to tax a federal bank. Second, name the Supreme Court case that first established implied powers, and say what it held. Third, tell me how many of the world's countries are federations and what share of federations later became unitary. Fourth, quote the clause of the U.S. Constitution that creates the wall of separation between church and state, and say who wrote it. Fifth, sort each of the eight Kestria laws as enumerated, implied, reserved, or none, and say which law wins each clash. Sixth, tell me whether Kestria should stay federal, and whether necessary should be read broadly or narrowly. Seventh, label each of the four premises in Table 3 as empirical or normative.

Test the response for these likely failures:

Chatbots often quote the line from memory as "the power to tax is the power to destroy", a popular rewording that is not the opinion's sentence, or they quote the lawyers' argument printed on the same page instead of the Court.
Chatbots often credit implied powers to Marbury v. Madison, or invent a case with a confident citation said to have settled the Kestria-style clash.
Chatbots often supply a count of federations in the world or a share of federations that became unitary, with no source or with a vague claim that studies show it.
Chatbots often say that Amendment I creates the wall of separation, or credit the phrase to the Constitution's framers as a clause.
Chatbots often declare that federalism is better or worse, or that the broad reading of necessary is the correct one, as if the case file proved it.
Chatbots often say the national law wins case 8 because national law is supreme, skipping the question of whether any power supports it.
Chatbots often label premise 3, that every citizen ought to live under the same rules, as empirical, or call the whole argument correct as if it were a fact.

In 3–5 sentences, say what the chatbot got right, quote at least two sentences it got wrong, and correct each one with evidence from the transcripts, the opinion page, your tables, or this week's definitions.

Equivalent route (no AI required)

No AI account is required for this workshop. This route assesses the same objectives, 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) and 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), takes comparable effort of about the same 90 minutes, uses the same rubric, and earns the same credit. Instead of the chatbot, critique this flawed analysis, printed here in full: "In McCulloch v. Maryland the Court said that 'the power to tax is the power to destroy,' and it was Marbury v. Madison that first established implied powers. Most of the world's countries are federations, and studies show that federations usually become unitary in the end. Amendment I creates a wall of separation between church and state, a phrase the framers wrote into the clause. In case 8, the national marriage law wins because national law is supreme, so Dorr province must give way. Premise 3, that every citizen ought to live under the same rules, is a fact anyone can check, and so Kestria should plainly become a unitary state, and the broad reading of necessary is the correct one." Mark every error you can find, quote at least two, and correct each one in 3–5 sentences with evidence from the pinned texts, your tables, or this week's definitions. Submit the marked-up analysis and your correction in place of the chatbot report and share link.

Part 7 — What to Submit

All four completed scaffold tables
Written answers to all six analysis questions
The chatbot critique report with its share link, or the equivalent route's marked-up flawed analysis

Deliverable:

A short Political Analysis Workshop report on one case file of laws in a made-up federation: four completed tables (the Constitution and McCulloch fragments sourced and close-read, the eight Kestria laws sorted by source of power with their validity and clash results and tally, the commentator's argument mapped with every premise labelled, and a critique log), written answers to six analysis questions, and a critique of a chatbot's version of the same analysis, or, on the equivalent route, a marked-up correction of the printed flawed analysis. 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. Choose how you show it: written answers, a recorded explanation with a transcript, or a labelled diagram of Kestria's levels and powers with short notes; every form is graded by the same scoring criteria.

Rubric

The rubric below shows how each submitted part is evaluated; bands are full, partial, or none.

Workshop evaluation criteria
Criterion	Full	Partial	None
Sourcing and close reading of the pinned texts	The four Constitution fragments and the two McCulloch fragments are copied letter for letter, who wrote or adopted each and when is recorded, each text is sorted as a rule or a court's reasoning, and each is tied to the source of power or limit it concerns, with the empty search for wall noted.	The texts are copied with a small slip, or the sourcing columns are incomplete, or the source of power is named without a reason.	The texts are missing, paraphrased as if quoted, or given words their authors did not write.
Sorting the case file by source of power	All eight laws have a source of power and a validity answer that fit the case file, both clashes are settled by asking validity before supremacy, and the tally is computed from the case file with the method shown.	Most laws are sorted well, but one or two sources do not fit, a clash is settled by rank alone, or the tally is given without a method.	No sources of power are recorded, or every clash is settled by rank alone.
The argument map and the strongest objection	Every premise in Table 3 is labelled correctly; an assumption is named without being treated as a flaw; the strongest objection is stated fairly and tied to the case for federalism before a reply is given.	One premise is mislabelled, or the assumption is missing, or the objection is weakened or left untied to the federalism debate before it is answered.	The premises are unlabelled, or no objection is stated.
Critique and correction	The chatbot critique report or the marked-up flawed analysis quotes at least two errors and corrects each with evidence from the pinned texts, the tables, or this week's definitions; both routes earn this band equally.	The chatbot critique report or the marked-up flawed analysis names an error but corrects it without evidence, or corrects only one; both routes earn this band equally.	No chatbot critique report or marked-up flawed analysis is submitted, or the output is pasted without any check; both routes are scored the same way.
Limits and reflection	Two real limits are named with their effect on the conclusion, and the chosen reflection option is answered with a reason.	One limit is named, or the reflection gives no reason.	No limit or reflection is given.

Quality Gate

The Constitution and McCulloch fragments are copied letter for letter from the pinned sources, and no other words are put in the Court's mouth.
Every count in your tables comes from your own formula or hand count of the case file, never from memory or a chatbot.
Every clash in Table 2 is settled by asking whether the national law is valid before asking which law wins.
Every premise in Table 3 is labelled empirical or normative, and the objection is stated as its own defenders would put it.
No court case, statistic, study, or source is invented anywhere in the submission, and the wall of separation phrase is credited to Jefferson's 1802 letter, not to the Constitution.
No design or reading of necessary is declared correct as if the case file settled it; the analysis sorts the laws and hands the verdict back to the reader.
The critique quotes the chatbot or the flawed analysis and corrects at least two errors with evidence.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com